Symbolon theologikon, or, A collection of polemicall discourses wherein the Church of England, in its worst as well as more flourishing condition, is defended in many material points, against the attempts of the papists on one hand, and the fanaticks on the other : together with some additional pieces addressed to the promotion of practical religion and daily devotion / by Jer. Taylor ...

Symbolon theologikon, or, A collection of polemicall discourses wherein the Church of England, in its worst as well as more flourishing condition, is defended in many material points, against the attempts of the papists on one hand, and the fanaticks on the other : together with some additional pieces addressed to the promotion of practical religion and daily devotion / by Jer. Taylor ...

Table of contents

Title page

§

§

To the Right Honourable and truly Noble CHRISTOPHER Lord HATTON, Baron HATTON of KIRBY, Privy Councellor and Comptroller of the Houshold to his late Majesty, and Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath.

THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume.

The Apologie for Liturgie.

Episcopacy Asserted.

A Discourse of the Real Presence.

The Disswasive from Popery.

The First Part.

The Second Part of the Disswasive.

Lib. I. Sect.

Lib. II. Sect.

The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance.

A Discourse in Vindication of Gods Attributes of Goodness and Justice in the matter of Original Sin, against the Calvinists way of understanding it.

The Liberty of Prophesying.

The Discourse of Confirmation.

A Discourse of Friendship.

[1]

THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY.

Title page

TO HIS MOST SACRED MAJESTY.

Hierocl. in Pythag. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. An APOLOGY for Authorized and Set Forms of LITVRGY.

[2]

Title page

TO THE Truly Worthy, and Most Accomplisht Sir CHRISTOPHER HATTON, Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH.

OF THE SACRED ORDER and OFFICES OF EPISCOPACY, BY Divine Institution, Apostolical Tradition, and Catholick practice, &c.

SECT. I. Christ did institute a Government in his Church.

SECT. II. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ.

SECT. III. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors in the Apostolate.

SECT. IV. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops.

SECT. V. And Office.

SECT. VI. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters.

SECT. VII. Giving to Apostles a power to do some Offices perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not.

SECT. VIII. And Confirmation.

SECT. IX. And Superiority of Jurisdiction.

SECT. X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship, according to the general Tenent of Antiquity.

SECT. XI. And particularly of S. Peter.

SECT. XII. And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority.

SECT. XIII. In pursuance of the Divine Institution, the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches.

SECT. XIV. S. Timothy at Ephesus.

SECT. XV. S. Titus at Crete.

SECT. XVI. S. Mark at Alexandria.

SECT. XVII. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome.

SECT. XVIII. S. Polycarp at Smyrna, and divers others.

SECT. XIX. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance. Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed.

SECT. XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority.

SECT. XXI. Not lessened by the assistance and Counsel of Presbyters.

SECT. XXII. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom.

SECT. XXIII. Who first distinguished Names used before in common.

SECT. XXIV. Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer.

SECT. XXV. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church.

SECT. XXVI. And Doctor.

SECT. XXVII. And Pontifex.

SECT. XXVIII. And these were a distinct Order from the rest.

SECT. XXIX. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree.

SECT. XXX. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick.

SECT. XXXI. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands.

SECT. XXXII. For Bishops had a power distinct, and Superiour to that of Presbyters. As of Ordination.

SECT. XXXIII. And Confirmation.

SECT. XXXIV. And Jurisdiction. Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power.

SECT. XXXV. Requiring Vniversal Obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity.

SECT. XXXVI. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Spiritual causes of the Laity.

SECT. XXXVII. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license.

SECT. XXXVIII. Reserving Church-goods to Episcopal dispensation.

SECT. XXXIX. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess, or to travel without leave of the Bishop.

SECT. XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased.

SECT. XLI. Bishops only did Vote in Councils, and neither Presbyters nor People.

SECT. XLII. And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks.

SECT. XLIII. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes.

SECT. XLIV. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired.

SECT. XLV. So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary.

SECT. XLVI. For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop.

SECT. XLVII. And Hereticks.

SECT. XLVIII. And Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great Honour.

SECT. XLIX. And trusted with Affairs of Secular interest.

SECT. L. And therefore were inforced to delegate the power and put others in substitution.

SECT. LI. But they were ever Clergy-men, for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church.

[3]

Title page

To the Right Reverend Dr. WARNER L. B. R.

A DISCOURSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST In the Holy Sacrament.

SECT. I. State of the Question.

SECT. II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture.

SECT. III. Of the sixth Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel.

SECT. IV. Of the Words of Institution.

SECT. V.

SECT. VI. Est corpus meum.

SECT. VII. Considerations of the Manner and Circumstances and Annexes of the Institution.

SECT. VIII. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture.

SECT. IX. Arguments from other Scriptures, proving Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual, not Natural.

SECT. X. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against sense.

SECT. XI. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason.

SECT. XII. Transubstantiation was not the Doctrine of the Primitive Church.

SECT. XIII. Of Adoration of the Sacrament.

[4]

Title page

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY To the People of IRELAND. PART I. The INTRODVCTION.

CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Roman Church in the Controverted Articles, is neither Catholick, Apostolick, nor Primitive.

SECT. I.

SECT. II.

SECT. III.

SECT. IV.

SECT. V.

SECT. II. Of PVRGATORY.

SECT. III. Of Transubstantiation.

SECT. IV. Of the Half-Communion.

SECT. V. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown Tongue.

SECT. VI. Of the Worship of Images.

SECT. VII. Of Picturing God the Father, and the Holy Trinity.

[5]

Title page

TO The Right Honourable and Noblest Lord, RICHARD Earl of Carbery, &c.

THE PREFACE To the Right Reverend and Religious FATHERS, BRIAN Lord Bishop of SARVM, AND JOHN Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER, And to the most Reverend and Religious Clergy of ENGLAND, my dear Brethren.

VNVM NECESSARIVM. OR, The DOCTRINE and PRACTICE OF REPENTANCE.

CHAP. I. The Foundation, and Necessity of Repentance.

SECT. I. Of the indispensable Necessity of Repentance in remedy to the unavoidable transgressing the Covenant of Works.

SECT. II. Of the possibility or impossibility of keeping the Precepts of the Gospel.

SECT. III. How Repentance and the Precept of Perfection Evangelical can stand together.

SECT. IV. The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practice.

Matter for Meditation out of Scripture, according to the former Doctrine.

The Old Covenant, or the Covenant of Works.

The New Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace.

The PRAYER.

CHAP. II. Of the Nature and Definition of Repentance; And what parts of duty are signified by it in Holy Scriptures.

SECT. I.

SECT. II. Of Repentance in general; or Conversion.

SECT. III. Descriptions of Repentance taken from the Holy Scriptures.

The indispensable necessity of a good life, represented in the following Scriptures.

A Penitential Psalm, collected out of the Psalms and Prophets.

S. Paul's Prayers for a holy life.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

A Penitential Prayer.

I.

II.

III.

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.

SECT. I.

SECT. II. Of the difference of sins, and their measures.

SECT. III. That all sins are punishable as God please, even with the pains of Hell.

SECT. IV. The former doctrine reduc'd to practice.

SECT. V.

SECT. VI. What repentance is necessary for the smaller or more Venial sins.

A Psalm to be frequently used in our Repentance for our daily Sins.

The PRAYER.

1

II.

III.

CHAP. IV. Of Actual, single Sins, and what Repentance is proper to them.

SECT. I.

SECT. II. Whether every single act of these Sins puts a man out of Gods favour?

SECT. III. What Repentance is necessary for single acts of Sin.

A Prayer to be said in the days of Repentance for the commission of any great Crime.

1

II.

III.

CHAP. V. Of Habitual Sins, and their manner of Eradication or Cure, and their proper Instruments of Pardon.

SECT. I. The State of the Question.

SECT. II. 1. Every man is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it.

SECT. III. A sinful habit hath in it proper evils, and a proper guiltiness of its own, besides all that which came directly by the single actions.

1. Of the Natural capacity of sinful habits.

2. Of the moral capacity of sinful Habits.

3. Of the relative capacity of sinful Habits, in reference to God

SECT. IV. Sinful habits do require a distinct manner of Repentance, and have no promise to be pardon'd but by the introduction of the contrary.

SECT. V. Consideration of the objections against the former Doctrine.

SECT. VI. The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practice.

Meditations and Prayers to be used in all the foregoing cases.

A PSALM.

A Prayer for a Sinner returning after a long impiety.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

A Prayer for an old person returning after a wicked life.

1

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

Ejaculations and short Prayers to be used by Dying or Sick Penitents after a wicked life.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

CHAP. IV. Of Concupiscence, and Original Sin, and whether or no, or how far we are bound to repent of it.

SECT. I.

SECT. II. Consideration of the Objections against the former Doctrine.

SECT. III. How God punishes the Fathers sin upon the Children.

SECT. IV. Of the Causes of the Vniversal wickedness of Mankind.

SECT. V. Of liberty of Election remaining after Adams fall.

SECT. VI. The Practical Question.

SECT. VII. Advices relating to the matter of Original Sin.

SECT. VIII. Rules and Measures of Deportment when a curse doth descend upon Children for their Parents fault, or when it is feared.

Prayers and Meditations.

The PRAYER.

1

II.

A Prayer to be said by a Matron in behalf of her Husband and Family, that a blessing may descend upon their posterity.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TO The Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN WARNER, D.D. and late Lord Bishop of Rochester.

CHAP. VII. A further EXPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Original Sin.

SECT. I. Of the Fall of Adam, and the Effects of it upon Him and Vs.

SECT. II. Adam's Sin is in us no more than an imputed Sin, and how it is so.

SECT. III. The Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers was, that Free-will remained in Vs after the Fall.

SECT. IV. Adam's Sin is not imputed to us to our Damnation.

SECT. V. The Doctrine of Antiquity in this whole matter. The summe of all is this.

SECT. VI. An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original sin; according to Scripture and Reason.

The Article is this. Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk]

CHAP. VIII. Of Sins of Infirmity.

SECT. I.

SECT. II.

SECT. III.

SECT. IV.

SECT. V. How far an Vnregenerate man may go in the ways of Piety and Religion.

SECT. VI. The Character of the Regenerate Estate, or Person.

SECT. VII. What are properly and truly sins of Infirmity, and how far they can consist with the Regenerate Estate.

SECT. VIII. Practical Advices to be added to the foregoing Considerations.

The PRAYER.

I.

II.

CHAP. IX. Of the Effect of Repentance, viz. Remission of Sins.

SECT. I.

SECT. II. Of Pardon of Sins committed after Baptism.

SECT. III. Of the Difficulty of obtaining Pardon: The Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church in this Article.

SECT. IV. Of the Sin against the Holy Ghost; and in what sence it is or may be Vnpardonable.

SECT. V.

SECT. VI. The former Doctrines reduc'd to Practice.

The PRAYER.

I.

II.

CHAP. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance, or, The fruits of Repentance.

SECT. I.

SECT. II. Of Contrition or godly Sorrow.

SECT. III. Of the Natures and Difference of Attrition and Contrition.

SECT. IV. Of Confession.

SECT. V. Attrition, or the imperfect Repentance, though with Absolution, is not sufficient.

SECT. VI. Of Penances, or Satisfactions.

Sorrow and Mourning.

Corporal Afflictions.

Prayers.

Alms.

Forgiving Injuries.

Restitution.

SECT. VII. The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practice.

SECT. VIII.

SECT. IX.

The PRAYER.

1

II.

III.

[6]

Title page

TO THE Right Honourable and Religious Lady, THE LADY CHRISTIAN, Countesse Dowager of DEVONSHIRE.

DEVS JVSTIFICATVS, OR, A VINDICATION OF THE Glory of the DIVINE ATTRIBUTES, In the Question of ORIGINAL SIN.

An ANSWER to a LETTER Written by the R. R. The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: Concerning the Chapter of ORIGINAL SIN, IN THE VNVM NECESSARIVM.

THE Bishop of ROCHESTER'S Letter TO Dr. TAYLOR, WITH AN Account of the particulars there given in Charge.

[7]

Title page

To the Right Honourable Christopher Lord Hatton, Baron HATTON of Kirby, Comptroller of His Majestie's Houshold, and one of His Majestie's most Honourable Privie Council.

ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΕΚΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ, Or, A DISCOURSE OF THE Liberty of Prophesying, With its just Limits and Temper.

SECT. I. Of the nature of Faith, and that its duty is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed.

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.

SECT. III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture, in Questions not simply necessary, not literally determined.

SECT. IV. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture.

SECT. V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture, or determine Questions.

SECT. VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councils Ecclesiastical to the same purpose.

SECT. VII. Of the Fallibility of the Pope, and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture, and resolving Questions.

SECT. VIII. Of the disability of Fathers, or Writers Ecclesiastical, to determine our Questions with certainty and truth.

SECT. IX. Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be Judge of Controversies, and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit.

SECT. X. Of the authority of Reason, and that it proceeding upon best grounds is the best Judge.

SECT. XI. Of some causes of Errour in the exercise of Reason which are inculpate in themselves.

SECT. XII. Of the Innocency of Errour in Opinion in a pious person.

SECT. XIII. Of the Deportment to be used towards persons Disagreeing, and the reasons why they are not to be punished with Death, &c.

SECT. XIV. Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons Disagreeing, and when Persecution first came in.

SECT. XV. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing Opinions.

SECT. XVI. Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to severall Religions.

SECT. XVII. Of Compliance with Disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general.

SECT. XVIII. A particular consideration of the Opinions of the Anabaptists.

SECT. XIX. That there may be no Toleration of Doctrines inconsistent with Piety or the Publick good.

SECT. XX. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome is tolerable.

SECT. XXI. Of the Duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion.

SECT. XXII. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different Perswasions; and how far they may doe it.

[8]

Title page

To His Grace, JAMES DUKE OF ORMONDE, Lord Lieutenant General, And General Governour of His Majestie's Kingdom OF IRELAND, ONE OF THE Lords of His Majestie's most Honourable Privy Councils of His Majestie's Kingdoms OF England, Scotland and Ireland, &c. And Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter.

A DISCOURSE OF CONFIRMATION. THE INTRODVCTION.

SECT. I. Of the Divine Original, Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation.

SECT. II. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery.

SECT. III. The Holy Rite of Imposition of Hands for the giving the Holy Spirit, or Confirmation, was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Church.

SECT. IV. The BISHOPS were always, and the only Ministers of Confirmation.

SECT. V. The whole Procedure or Ritual of Confirmation is by Prayer and Imposition of Hands.

SECT. VI. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy Reception and due Ministery of Confirmation.

SECT. VII. Of Preparation to Confirmation, and the Circumstances of Receiving it.

A DISCOURSE OF The NATVRE, OFFICES and MEASVRES OF FRIENDSHIP. WITH Rules of conducting it. In a Letter to the most Ingenious and Excellent Mrs. KATHARINE PHILIPS.

POSTSCRIPT.

TWO LETTERS TO PERSONS Changed in their RELIGION. The First to a Gentlewoman Seduced to the Church of Rome. The other to a Person Returning to the Church of England. Volo Solidum Perenne.

THE FIRST LETTER.

THE SECOND LETTER: Written to a Person newly Converted to the CHURCH of ENGLAND.

THREE LETTERS WRITTEN TO A GENTLEMAN That was tempted to the Communion of the ROMISH CHURCH.

The First Letter.

THE SECOND LETTER.

THE THIRD LETTER.

THE TABLE.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

W

Y

Z

ERRATA.

Books Printed and Reprinted for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Amen-corner.

§

[Page]

[Page]

ΣΥΜΒΟΛΟΝ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΝ: OR A COLLECTION OF Polemicall Discourses, Wherein the CHURCH of ENGLAND.

IN ITS WORST As well as more Flourishing Condition, is defended in many material Points, against the Attempts of the PAPISTS on one hand, and the FANATICKS on the other.

TOGETHER WITH Some Additional Pieces addressed to the Promotion of Practical Religion and Daily Devotion.

By JER. TAYLOR, Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First, and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.

The Third Edition Enlarged.

LONDON, Printed by R. Norton for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent Majesty, at the Angel in Amen-Corner, M. DC. LXXIV.

§

[Page]

NON MAGNA LOQVIMVR▪ SED VIVIMVS NIHIL OPINIONIS GRATIA. OMNIA CONSCENTIAE FACIAM

§

[Page]

ECCLESIA ANGLICANA

ΣΥΜΒΟΛΟΝ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΝ

DUX MEA IN TENEBRAS ET GAUDIUM IN MAEROREM VT PELLICANA IN DESERTO

Proprio vos sanguine pasco.

PROTEGE

PASCE

Nunquam CHRISTO Charior quam sub Cruce gemen [...] Ecclesia.

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

To the Right Honourable and truly Noble CHRISTOPHER Lord HATTON, Baron HATTON of KIRBY, Privy Councellor and Comptroller of the Houshold to his late Majesty, and Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath.

[Page]

[Page]

MY LORD,

WHEN we make Books and publish them, and by Dedications implore the Patronage of some worthy person, I find by experience that we cannot acquire that end which is pretended to by such addresses: For neither friendship nor power, interest, or favour, can give those defences to a Book, which it needs: Because the evil fortune of Books comes from causes discernible indeed, but irremediable; and the breath of the people is like the voice of an exterminating Angel, not so killing but so secret; but that's not all; it is also as contingent as the smiles of an Infant, or the fall of a Die, which is determined by every part of motion which can be in any part of the hand or arm. For when I consider that the infinite variety of understandings is greater than that of faces, not only because the lines that make our faces are finite, but the things that integrate and actuate the Vnderstanding are not; but also because every man hath a face, but every man hath not Vnderstanding; and men with their understandings or with their no understandings give their sentence upon Books, not only before they understand all, not only before they read all, but before they read three Pages, receiving their information from humour or [Page] interest, from chance or mistake, from him that reads in malice, or from him that reads after dinner; I find it necessary that he that writes should secure himself and his own reputation by all the ways of prudence and religion; that God who takes care of fame as certainly as of lives may do that which is best in this instance; for no other Patron can defend him that writes from him that reads, and understands either too much or too little: And therefore, my Lord, I could not chuse you to be the Patron of my Book, upon hopes you can by greatness or interest secure it against the stings of insects and imperfect creatures; nothing but Domitian's style can make them harmless; but I can from your wisdom and your learning, the great reputation you have abroad, and the honour you have at home, hope that for the relation-sake some will be civil to it, at least until they read it, and then I give them leave to do what they please, for I am secure enough in all this; because my writings are not intended as a stratagem for noises; I intend to do not only what is good, but what is best; and therefore I am not troubled at any event, so I may but justly hope that God is glorified in the ministration: But he that seeks any thing but Gods service, shall have such a reward as will do him no good.

But finding nothing reasonable in the expectation that the Dedication should defend the Book, and that the gate should be a fortification to the house, I have sometimes believed that most men intend it to other purposes than this, and that because they design or hope to themselves (at least at second hand) an artificial immortality, they would also adopt their Patron or their friend into a participation of it; doing as the Caesars did, who taking a partner to the Empire, did not divide the honour or the power but the ministration: But in this also I find that this address to your Lordship must be destitute of any material event, not only because you have secur'd to your self a great name in all the registers of Honour by your skill and love to all things that are excellent, but because of all men in the world I am the unfittest to speak those great things of your Lordship which your worthiness must challenge of all that know you. For though I was wooed to love and honour you by the beauties of your vertue, and the sweetness of your disposition, by your worthy imployments at Court, and your being so beloved in your Country, by the value your friends put upon you, and the regard that strangers paid to you, by your zeal for the Church, and your [Page] busie care in the promoting all worthy learnings, by your Religion and your Nobleness; yet when I once came into a conversation with these excellencies, I found from your Lordship not only the example of so many vertues, but the expressions of so many favours and kindnesses to my person, that I became too much interested to look upon you with indifferency, and too much convinced of your worthiness to speak of it temperately; and therefore I resolve to keep where I am, and to love and enjoy what I am so unfit to publish and express.

But My Lord, give me leave to account to you concerning the present Collection; and I shall no otherwise trouble your Lordship than I do almost every day when my good fortune allows me the comfort and advantages of your Conversation. The former Impressions of these Books being spent, and the world being willing enough to receive more of them, it was thought fit to draw into one Volume all these lesser Books which at several times were made publick, and which by some collateral improvements they were to receive now from me might do some more advantages to one another, and better struggle with such prejudices with which any of them hath been at any time troubled. For though I have great reason to adore the goodness of GOD in giving that success to my labours, that I am also obliged to the kindness of men for their friendly acceptance of them; yet when a persecution did arise against the Church of England, and that I intended to make a defensative for my Brethren and my self, by pleading for a liberty to our Consciences to persevere in that profession which was warranted by all the laws of GOD and our Superiours, some men were angry and would not be safe that way, because I had made the roof of the Sanctuary so wide that more might be sheltered under it 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 give very great assistances to Episcopal Government, and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical; and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy, and weighs more than all that can be said against it; Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences; and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect, so the fallibility of it is also of use to another; but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general, but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular; and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume, because they differ not at all in the design, nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister.

I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume; it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume; excepting only some Books of devotion, which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use. As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life, and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness, and would assure his salvation by all means; I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume, that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred [Page] from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister; which I humbly suppose to be done, I am sure I intended to have done in that Book.

And now, my Lord, I humbly desire, that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest, and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick, nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed, yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you, though this signification is too little for it, yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind; but more especially of,

My Lord,

Your Lordships most affectionate Servant, JER. TAYLOR.

THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume.

[Page]

[Page]

The Apologie for Liturgie.

THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy.

Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful. Page 2

2. Whether are better in publick, Set Forms injoyned by Authority, or Set Forms composed by private Preachers. Sect. 51. pag. 13

Episcopacy Asserted.

Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church. pag. 45

2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46

3. With a power of joyning others, and appointing Successors. 47

4. This Succession is made by Bishops. 48

§. For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person, ibid.

5. and Office. 49

6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters. 50

7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not; 51

§. as of Ordination, ibid.

8. and Confirmation, 52

9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction. 55

10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity,

11. and particularly of S. Peter. 61

12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority. 63

13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches, as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem. 65

14. S. Timothy at Ephesus. 67

15. S. Titus at Crete. 70

16. S. Mark at Alexandria. 73

17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome. 74

18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna, and divers others. 75

19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance; of the same authority with many other points generally believed. 76

20. And was an office of Power and great Authority. 77

21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters. ibid.

22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom. 84

23. Who first distinguished names used before in common. 85

24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer. 89

25. Calling the Bishop, and him only, the Pastor of the Church, 91

26. and Doctor, 92

27. and Pontifex. ibid.

28. And these were a distinct order from the rest. 94

29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree. 96

30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick;

31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands. 97

32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters. As of Ordination, 101

33. and Confirmation, 108

34. and Jurisdiction. Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power. 111

35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity. 113

36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes. 115

37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license. 125

38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation. 129

39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese, or to travel without leave of the Bishop. 129

40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased. 130

[Page] 41. Bishops only did vote in Council, and neither Presbyters nor People. 133

42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks. 138

43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes. 139

44. And was aided by Presbyters, but not impaired. 144

45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary. 148

46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop. 149

47. And Hereticks. 150

48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour. 152

49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest. 157

50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power, and put others in substitution. 163

51. But they were ever Clergie-men, for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church. 164

A Discourse of the Real Presence.

Sect. 1. THE state of the Question. 181

2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture. 186

3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel. 188

4. Of the words of Institution. 198

5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution. 201

6. Of these words, Hoc est corpus meum. 208

7. Considerations of the manner, circumstances and annexes of the Institution. 213

8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture. 217

9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture, proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual, not Natural. 219

10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense. 223

11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason. 230

12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church. 249

13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament. 267

The Disswasive from Popery.

The First Part.

THE Introduction. 285

Chap. I. The doctrine of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholick, Apostolick, nor Primitive. 286

Sect. 1. That our Religion is, but that their Religion is not such, is proved in general, first, from their challenging power of making new Articles, and secondly, from the practice of their Indices Expurgatory, with some instances of their Innovating. 286

2. They Innovate in pretending power to make new Articles. 290

3. They did Innovate in their doctrine of Indulgences. 291

4. In their doctrine and practice about Purgatory. 294

5. In their doctrine of Transubstantiation. 297

6. They Innovate in their doctrine of the Half-Communion. 30 [...]

7. In that they suffer not their publick Prayers to be in a language vulgarly understood. 303

8. In requiring the adoration of Images. 305

9. In picturing God the Father and the Bl. Trinity. 307

10. In arrogating to the Pope an universal Bishoprick. 308

11. A Miscellany of many other doctrines and practices wherein that Church has Innovated.

Chap. II. They maintain Doctrines and Practices in opposition to us, that are direct impieties, and certainly destroy good life. 312

Sect. 1. Such is their doctrine of Repentance. 312

2. And Confession. 315

3. Of Penances and Satisfactions. 316

4, 5. Their doctrine about Pardon and Indulgences, Contrition and Satisfaction. 318

6. Satisfaction and habitual sins, distinction of Mortal and Venial sins, by which they contract their Repentance and their Sins, and mistake in cases of Conscience. 322

7. Their teaching now of late, that a probable opinion, for which the authority of one Doctor is sufficient, may in practice be safely followed. 324

8. That Prayers are accepted by God ex opere operato. 327

9. Such is their practice of Invocating dead Saints as Deliverers. 329

10. And of Exorcising possessed persons. 333

11. Sacramentals, such as Holy-water, Paschal-wax, Agnus Dei, &c. 336

12. The worship of Images is Idolatry, and to worship the Host. 337

13. The Summ and Conclusion of the whole Chapter. 337

Chap. III. Their Docrines are such as destroy Christian Society in general, and Monarchy in particular. 340

Sect. 1. As equivocation, mental reservation taught and defended by them, &c. 340

Their teaching that faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, dispensing with Oaths, Dissolving the bonds of duty. 341

They teach, the Pope has power to dispense with all the Laws of God, and to dissolve contracts.

2. Their Exemption of the Clergie from the secular authority, as to their Estates and Persons, even in matters of Theft, Murder and Treason, &c. and the divine right of the seal of Confession. 343

3. By subjecting all Christian Kings to the Pope, who can, as they teach, depose and excommunicate Kings, and that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Kings.

The Second Part of the Disswasive.

THe Introduction, containing an answer to the Fourth Appendix of J. S. his Sure-footing. 351

Lib. I. Sect.

1. Of the Church, that the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their Faith. Of Councils and their authority; the Canon Law, and the great contrariety in it. Of the Pope, of the notes of the Church. 381

2. Of the sufficiency of H. Scripture to Salvation, which is the foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion: The sufficiency of Scripture proved by Tradition. 405

3. Of Traditions and those doctrines and practices that most need the help of that Topick, as of the Trinity, Paedo-Baptism, Baptism by Hereticks, and the Lords day. 420

4. There is nothing of necessity to be believed, which the Apostolical Churches did not believe. 436

5. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confession of the Church new Articles of Faith, and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholick doctrine. 446

First, They do it, and pretend to a power of doing it.

Secondly, That it agrees with their interest so to do. 452

6. They use indirect ways to bring their new Articles into credit: e. g. the device of Indices Expurgatorii. 454

First, That the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge Catholick Authors.

Secondly, That they purged the very Indices of the Father's works.

Thirdly, They did purge the Writings of the Fathers too.

7. While they enlarge the Faith they destroy Charity. 459

8. The insecurity of the Roman Religion. 466

9. That the Church of Rome does teach for doctrines the commandments of men. 471

10. Of the Seal of Confession, the First Instance. 473

11. The Second Instance is the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences as a Commandment of God. 477

First, For which there is no ground in holy Scripture. 479

Secondly, Nor in Ecclesiastical Tradition either of the Latin or Greek Church. 491

Lib. II. Sect.

1. Of Indulgences and Pilgrimages. 495

2. Of Purgatory. The testimonies of Roffensis, Polyd. Virgil, &c. Alphonsus à Castro are vindicated. 500

It is proved that Purgatory is not a consequent to the doctrine of Prayer for the dead. 501

The Fathers made Prayers for those whom they believed not to be in Purgatory. 502

And such Prayers are in the Roman Missal. 505. The Greek and Latin Fathers teach, that no Soul enters Heaven till the day of Judgment. The doctrine of Purgatory was no Article in S. Austin's time. 506. It was not owned by the Greek Fathers. 510. It is directly contrary to the ancient Fathers of the Latin Church. 512

3. Of Transubstantiation, wherein the authorities out of Scotus, Odo Cameracensis, Roffensis, Biel, Alph. à Castro, Pet. Lombard, Durandus, Justine Martyr, Eusebius, S. Augustine are justified from the exceptions of the Adversaries. And it is proved that the Council of Laterane did not determine the Article of Transubstantiation, but brake up abruptly, without making any Canons at all. 516

4. Of the Half-Communion. 528

Of the Decree of the Council of Constance. 528. The authority of S. Ambrose, 530. and S. Cyprian. 531

5. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown tongue. 532

S. Basils authority, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Aquinas, Lyra.

6. Of the Worship of Images. 535

1o. The Quotations vindicated. 536. of S. Cyril, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Austin, Council of Eliberis, Nicene II. Francfort.

First, The Council of Francfort condemned the Nicene II. 540

Secondly, They commanded that it should not be called a General Council. ibid.

Thirdly, The acts of it are in the Capitular [Page] of the Emperor, written in the time of the Synod. 541

Of Tertullian. 541. Clemens Alexandrinus. 542. Origen. 543.

2o. The Quotations alledged by them answered, as of S. Basil, S. Athanasius. 544. S. Chrysostom. 545.

3o. The truth confirmed. 545

First, Image-worship came from Simon Magus; ibid.

Secondly, Heathens spake against it; 546

Thirdly, Christians did abominate it; ibid.

Fourthly, The Heathens never charged the Christians with it; ibid.

Fifthly, The Primitive Fathers never taught those distinctions that the Papists use to discern lawful Idolatry from Heathen Idolatry; 547

Sixthly, The Second Commandment is against it; ibid.

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 [Page] 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 conf [...]ss the obligation; 780

2o. he may in his will delight in goodness, and desire it earnestly; 781

3o. he may not only desire to do natural or moral good things, but even spiritual; 784

4o. he may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake; 785

5o. he may leave some sins not only for temporal interest, but out of fear of God, and regard to his Law; ibid.

6o. he may, besides abstinence from evil, do many good things; 786

7o he may have received the Spirit of God, and yet be in a state of distance from God. ibid.

[Page] 6. The character of the unregenerate state or person. n. 42.787

7. What are properly and truly sins of infirmity, and how far they can consist with the regenerate estate. 789

8. Practical advices to be added to the foregoing considerations. 795. n. 65.

Chap. IX. Of the effect of Repentance, viz. remission of Sins. 800

Sect. 1. There is no sin but with Repentance may be pardoned. ibid.

2. Of pardon of sins committed after baptism. 802

3. Of the difficulty of obtaining pardon. The doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church in this Article. 803

4. Of the sin against the H. Ghost, and in what sence it may be unpardonable. 808

5. What sin is spoken of by our Lord, Matth. 12.32. and that final impenitence is not it. 810

6. The former doctrines reduced to practice. 815

Chap. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance, or the fruits of Repentance. 820

Sect. 1. What the fruits of Repentance are in general. ibid.

2. Of Contrition or godly sorrow, the reasons, measures and constitution of it. 821

3. Of the nature and differences of Attrition and Contrition. 828

4. Of Confession. 830

1o. Confession is necessary to Repentance. ibid.

2o. It is due only to God. 831

3o. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial absolution used in their Liturgies. n. 54.838

4o. The judicial absolution of a Priest does effect no material change in the Penitent as to giving of pardon. 841. n. 60

5. Attrition or imperfect Repentance, though with absolution is not sufficient. 842

6. Of Penance or satisfactions, 844. 1o. sorrow and mourning, 2o. Corporal austerities, 3o. Prayers, 847. 4o. Alms, 848. 5o. forgiving injuries, 6o restitution. 849

7. The former doctrine reduced to practice. 850

8. The practice of Confession. 854

9. The practice of Penances and corporal austerities. 858

A Discourse in Vindication of Gods Attributes of Goodness and Justice in the matter of Original Sin, against the Calvinists way of understanding it.

1o. THe truth of the Article, with the errors and mistakes about it. 869

2o. Arguments to prove the truth. 872

3o. Objections answered. 881

4o. An Explication of Rom. 5.12. ad 19. 887

§

An Answer to the Bishop of Rochesters First Letter, written concerning the Sixth Chapter of Original Sin in the Discourse of Repentance. 895

§

The Bishop of Rochesters Second Letter upon the same subject. 907

§

An Answer to the Second Letter from the Bishop of Rochester. 909

The Liberty of Prophesying.

EPist. Dedicatory.

Introduction.

Sect. 1. Of the nature of Faith, and that the duty of it is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed. 941

2. Of Heresie, its nature and measures. That it is to be accounted according to the stricter capacity of the Christian Faith, and not in opinions speculative, nor ever to pious persons. 947

3. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary nor literally determined. 965

4. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture. 971

5. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine questions. 976

6. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Councils Ecclesiastical to expound Scripture or determine questions. 984

7. Of the fallibility of the Pope, and the uncertainty of his expounding Scripture and resolving Questions. 995

8. How unable the Fathers or Writers Ecclesiastical are to determine our questions with certainty and truth. 1007

9. How incompetent the Church in its diffusive capacity is to be Judge of controversies, and [Page] how impertinent that pretence of the Spirit is. 1011

10. Of the authority of reason, and that it proceeding on the best grounds is the best Judge. 1013

11. Of some causes of error in the exercise of reason, which are in themselves inculpable. 1016

12. How innocent error of mere opinion is in a pious person. 1022

13. Of the deportment to be used toward persons disagreeing, and reasons why they are not to be punished with death. 1025

14. Of the practice of Christian Churches toward persons disagreeing, and when persecution first came in use. 1031

15. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions. 1034

16. Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions. 1036

17. Of complying with disagreeing persons, or weak Consciences in general. 1038

18. A particular instance in the opinion of the Anabaptists, to shew that there is so much reason on both sides of the Question, that a pious person mistaking may be innocent in his error. 1040

1o. The arguments usually alledged for baptizing Infants. n. 3. ad 12.1041, 1042

2o. How much the Anabaptists have to say in opposition to those arguments, and to justifie their own tenent. n. 12. ad 34.1043. ad 1051

3o. A reply to the arguments of the Anabaptists (by the Author since the first Edition) wherein the lawfulness of the Churches practice is established. n. 34. ad fin. Sect. 1051. ad 1068

19. That there ought not to be any toleration of doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publick good. 1069

20. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome may be tolerated. 1070

21. Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion. 1076

22. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions, and how far they may do it. 1077

The Discourse of Confirmation.

INtroduction.

Sect. 1. Of the Divine Original, Warranty and Institution of the Rite of Confirmation. 3

2. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery. 12

3. That Confirmation, which by laying on of Hands gives the H. Spirit, was actually continued and practised by all succeeding Ages of the Primitive Church. 15

4. The Bishops were always and are still the only Ministers of Confirmation. 18

5. The whole procedure of Confirmation is by prayer and laying on of Hands. 22

6. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy reception and due ministery of Confirmation. 24

7. Of preparation to Confirmation, and the circumstances of receiving it. 28

A Discourse of Friendship.

1. HOw far a perfect Friendship is authorized by the principles of Christianity. 35

2. What are the requisites of Friendship. 38

3. What are the lawful expressions and acts of Friendship. 42

4. Whether a Friend may be dearer than a Husband or Wife. 47

5. What are the duties of Friendship. 49

6. Ten Rules to be observed in the conduct of Friendship. 50

§

Five Letters about change of Religion. 53

§

THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY.

[Page]

[Page]

WHEN Judges were instead of Kings, and Hophni and Phinehas were among the Priests, every man did what was right in his own eyes, but few did what was pleasing in the eyes of the Lord; and the event was this, God put on his fierce anger against them, and stirr'd up and arm'd the Enemies of their Country and Religion, and they prevail'd very far, against the expectation and confidence of them who thought the goodness of their cause would have born out the iniquity of their persons, and that the impiety of their adversaries would have disabled them even from being made Gods scourges and instruments of punishing his own people: The sadness of the event proved the vanity of their hopes; for that which was the instrument of their worship, the determination of their religious addresses, the place where God did meet his people, from which the Priests spake to God, and God gave his Oracles, that they dishonourably and miserably lost: The Ark of the Lord was taken, the impious Priests (who made the Sacrifice of the Lord to become an abomination to the people) were slain with the sword of the Philistines, old Eli lost his life, and the wife of Phinehas died with sorrow, and the miscarriages of childbirth, crying out, That the Glory was departed from Israel, because the Ark of God was taken.

2. In these things we also have been but too like the sons of Israel; for when we sinned as greatly, we also have groaned under as great and sad a calamity. For we have not only felt the evils of an intestine War, but God hath smitten us in our spirit, and laid the scene of his judgments especially in Religion; he hath snuffed our lamp so near, that it is almost extinguished, and the sacred fire was put into a hole of the Earth, even then when we were forced to light those Tapers that stood upon our Altars, that by this sad truth better than by the old ceremony we might prove our succession to those holy [Page] men who were constrained to sing Hymns to Christ in dark places and retirements.

3. But I delight not to observe the correspondencies of such sad accidents, which as they may happen upon diverse causes, or may be forc'd violently by the strength of fancy, or driven on by jealousie▪ and the too fond op [...]nings of troubled hearts and afflicted spirits; so they do but help to vex the offending part, and relieve the afflicted but with a phantastick and groundless comfort: I will therefore deny leave to my own affections to ease themselves by complaining of others: I shall only crave leave that I may remember Jerusalem, and call to mind the pleasures of the Temple, the order of her Services, the beauty of her Buildings, the sweetness of her Songs, the decency of her Ministrations, the assiduity and Oeconomy of her Priests and Levites, the daily Sacrifice, and that eternal fire of Devotion that went not out by day nor by night; these were the pleasures of our peace, and there is a remanent felicity in the very memory of those spiritual delights which we then enjoyed as antepasts of Heaven, and consignations to an immortality of joys. And it may be so again when it shall please God who hath the hearts of all Princes in his hand, and turneth them as the rivers of waters; and when men will consider the invaluable loss that is consequent, and the danger of sin that is appendant to the destroying such forms of discipline and devotion in which God was purely worshipped, and the Church was edified, and the people instructed to great degrees of piety, knowledge, and devotion.

4. And such is the Liturgy of the Church of England. I shall not need to enumerate the advantages of Liturgy in general, though it be certain that some Liturgie or other is most necessary in publick addresses, that so we may imitate the perpetual practice of all setled Churches since Christianity, or ever since Moses's Law or the Jewish Church came to have a setled foot, and any rest in the land of Canaan. [2.] That we may follow the example, and obey the precept of our blessed Saviour, who appointed a set form of devotion (and certainly they that profess enmity against all Liturgy can in no sence obey the precept given by him who gave command, When ye pray, say, Our Father.) [3.] That all that come may know the condition of publick Communion, their Religion, and manner of address to God Almighty. [4.] That the truth of the proposition, the piety of the desires, and the honesty of the petitions, the simplicity of our purposes, and the justice of our designs may be secured before-hand, because Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin (and it is impossible that we should pray to God in the extempore prayers of the Priest, by any Faith, but unreasonable, unwarranted, insecure and implicit.) [5.] That there may be union of hearts, and spirits, and tongues. [6.] That there may be a publick symbol of Communion in our prayers, which are the best instruments of endearing us to God, and to one another; [...]. Private prayer not assisted with the concord and unity of a publick spirit is weaker and less effectual, saith S. Basil. [7.] That the Ministers less learned may have provisions of devotions made for them. [8.] That the more learned may have no occasion of ostentation ministred to them, lest their best actions, their prayers, be turned into sin. [9.] That extravagant levities, and secret impieties be prevented. [10.] That the offices Ecclesiastical may the better secure the Articles of [Page] Religion. [11.] That they may edifie the people by being repositories of holy and necessary truths ready form'd out of their needs, and described in their Books of daily use; for that was one of the advices of the Apostle,Colos. 3. t eaching and admonishing one another in Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. [12.] That men by the intervening of authority may be engaged to certain devotions. [13.] That not only the duty, but the very form of its ministration may be honoured by the countenance of authority, and not be exposed to contempt by reason of the insufficiency of its external warrant. [14.] That the assignation of such offices, and appropriating them to the ministery of certain persons may be a cancel to secure the inclosures of the Clerical orders from the usurpings and invasions of pretending and unhallowed spirits. [15.] That indetermination of the office may not introduce indifferency, nor indifferency lead in a freer liberty, or liberty degenerate into licentiousness, or licentiousness into folly, and vanity; and these come sometime attended with secular designs, lest these be cursed with the immission of a peevish spirit upon our Priests, and that spirit be a teacher of lies, and these lies become the basis of impious theoremes, which are certainly attended with ungodly lives; and then either Atheism or Antichristianism may come, according as shall happen in the conjunction of time and other circumstances; for this would be a sad climax, a ladder upon which are no Angels ascending or descending, because the degrees lead to darkness and misery.

5. But that which is of special concernment is this, that the Liturgy of the Church of England hath advantages so many and so considerable as not only to raise it self above the devotions of other Churches, but to endear the affections of good people to be in love with Liturgy in general.

6. For to the Churches of the Roman Communion we can say that ours is reformed, to the reformed Churches we can say that ours is orderly and decent; for we were freed from the impositions and lasting errors of a tyrannical spirit, and yet from the extravagancies of a popular spirit too: our reformation was done without tumult, and yet we saw it necessary to reform; we were zealous to cast away the old errors, but our zeal was balanced with consideration and the results of authority: Not like women or children when they are affrighted with fire in their clothes; we shak'd off the coal indeed, but not our garments lest we should have exposed our Churches to that nakedness which the excellent men of our sister Churches complained to be among themselves.

7. And indeed it is no small advantage to our Liturgy, that it was the offspring of all that authority which was to prescribe in matters of Religion. The King and the Priest, which are the Antistites Religionis, and the preservers of both the Tables joyn'd in this work, and the people as it was represented in Parliament were advised withal, in authorizing the form after much deliberation; for the Rule, Quod spectat ad omnes ab omnibus tractari debet,was here observed with strictness, and then as it had the advantages of discourse, so also of authorities, its reason from one and its sanction from the other, that it might be both reasonable and sacred and free, not only from the indiscretions, but (which is very considerable) from the scandal of popularity.

[Page]8. And in this I cannot but observe the great wisdom and mercy of God in directing the contrivers of the Liturgy with the spirit of zeal and prudence, to allay the furies and heats of the first affrightment. For when men are in danger of burning, so they leap from the flames, they consider not whither but whence: and the first reflexions of a crooked tree are not to straightness, but to a contrary incurvation, yet it pleased the Spirit of God so to temper and direct their spirits, that in the first Liturgy of King Edward they did rather retain something that needed further consideration, than reject any thing that was certainly pious and holy; and in the second Liturgy, that they might also throughly reform, they did rather cast out something that might with good profit have remained, than not satisfie the world of their zeal to reform, of their charity in declining every thing that was offensive, and the clearness of their light in discerning every semblance of error or suspicion in the Roman Church.

9. The truth is, although they fram'd the Liturgy with the greatest consideration that could be, by all the united wisdom of this Church and State, yet as if Prophetically to avoid their being charg'd in after ages with a crepusculum of Religion, a dark, twilight, imperfect Reformation, they joyn'd to their own Star all the shining tapers of the other reformed Churches, calling for the advice of the most eminently learned and zealous Reformers in other Kingdoms, that the light of all together might shew them a clear path to walk in. And this their care produced some change; for upon the consultation the first form of King Edwards Service-book was approved with the exception of a very few clauses, which upon that occasion were review'd and expung'd, till it came to that second form and modest beauty it was in the Edition of MDLII, and which Gilbertus a German approved of as a transcript of the ancient and primitive forms.

10. It was necessary for them to stay some-where. Christendom was not only reformed, but divided too, and every division would to all ages have called for some alteration, or else have disliked it publickly; and since all that cast off the Roman yoke, thought they had title enough to be called Reformed, it was hard to have pleased all the private interests and peevishness of men that called themselves friends, and therefore that only in which the Church of Rome had prevaricated against the word of God, or innovated against Apostolical tradition, all that was par'd away. But at last she fix'd, and strove no further to please the people, who never could be satisfied.

11. The Painter that exposed his work to the censure of the common passengers, resolving to mend it as long as any man could find fault, at last had brought the eyes to the ears and the ears to the neck, and for his excuse subscrib'd, Hanc populus fecit. But his [Hanc ego] that which he made by the rules of art, and the advice of men skill'd in the same mystery was the better piece. The Church of England should have par'd away all the Canon of the Communion, if she had mended her piece at the prescription of the Zuinglians; and all her office of Baptism, if she had mended by the rules of the Anabaptists, and kept up Altars still by the example of the Lutherans, and not have retain'd decency by the good will of the Calvinists; and now another new light [Page] is sprung up, she should have no Liturgy at all, but the worship of God be left to the managing of chance, and indeliberation, and a petulant fancy.

12. It began early to discover its inconvenience; for when certain zealous persons fled to Frankford to avoid the funeral piles kindled by the Roman Bishops in Queen Maries time, as if they had not enemies enough abroad they fell soul with one another, and the quarrel was about the Common-Prayer-Book, and some of them made their appeal to the judgment of Mr. Calvin, whom they prepossessed with strange representments, and troubled phantasms concerning it, and yet the worst he said upon the provocation of those prejudices was that even its vanities were tolerable. Tolerabiles ineptias was the unhandsome Epithete he gave to some things which he was forc'd to dislike by his over-earnest complying with the Brethren of Frankford

13. Well! upon this the wisdom of this Church and State saw it necessary to fix where with advice she had begun, and with counsel she had once mended. And to have altered in things inconsiderable upon a new design or sullen mislike, had been extreme levity, and apt to have made the men contemptible, their authority slighted, and the thing ridiculous, especially before adversaries, that watch'd all opportunity and appearances to have disgraced the Reformation. Here therefore it became a Law, was established by an Act of Parliament, was made solemn by an appendant penalty, against all that on either hand did prevaricate a sanction of so long and so prudent consideration.

14. But the Common-Prayer-Book had the fate of S. Paul, for when it had scap'd the storms of the Roman Sea, yet a viper sprung out of Queen Maries sires, which at Frankford first leap'd upon the hand of the Church, but since that time it hath gnawn the bowels of its own Mother, and given it self life by the death of its Parent and Nurse.

15. For as for the Adversaries from the Roman party, they were so convinc'd by the piety and innocence of the Common-Prayer-Book, that they could accuse it of no deformity, but of imperfection, of a want of some things which they judged convenient, because the error had a wrinkle on it and the face of antiquity. And therefore for ten or eleven years they came to our Churches, joyn'd in our devotions, and communicated without scruple, till a temporal interest of the Church of Rome rent the Schism wider, and made it gape like the jaws of the grave.

And let me say, it adds no small degree to my confidence and opinion of the English Common-Prayer-Book, that amongst the numerous Armies sent from the Roman Seminaries, (who were curious enough to enquire, able enough to find out, and wanted no anger to have made them charge home any error in our Liturgy, if the matter had not been unblameable, and the composition excellent) there was never any impiety or Heresie charg'd upon the Liturgy of the Church; (for I reckon not the calumnies of Harding, for they were only in general, calling it [Darkness, &c.] from which aspersion it was worthily vindicated by M. Deering.) The truth of it is, the Compilers took that course which was sufficient to have secur'd it against the malice of a Spanish Inquisitor, or the scrutiny of a more inquisitive Presbytery, for they put, nothing [Page] of controversie into their prayers, nothing that was then matter of question; only because they could not prophesie, they put in some things which since then have been called to question, by persons whose interest was highly concerned to find fault with something. But that also hath been the fate of the Penmen of holy Scripture, some of which could prophesie, and yet could not prevent this. But I do not remember that any man was ever put to it to justifie the Common-Prayer against any positive, publick, and professed charge by a Roman Adversary: Nay, it is transmitted to us by the testimony of persons greater than all exceptions, that Paulus Quartus in his private entercourses and Letters to Queen Elizabeth did offer to confirm the English Common-Prayer-Book,Tortura T [...]rti, p. 142. if she would acknowledge his Primacy and authority, and the Reformation derivative from him. And this lenity was pursued by his Successor Pius Quartus, Camb. Annal. A. D. 1560. with an [omnia de nobis tibi polliceare] he assured her she should have any thing from him, not only things pertaining to her soul, but what might conduce to the establishment and confirmation of her Royal Dignity; amongst which, that the Liturgy new established by her authority should not be rescinded by the Popes power, was not the least considerable.

16. And possibly this hath cast a cloud upon it in the eyes of such persons who never will keep charity or so much as civility but with those with whom they have made a league offensive and defensive against all the world. This hath made it to be suspected of too much compliance with that Church, and her Offices of devotion, and that it is a very Cento composed out of the Mass-Book, Pontifical, Breviaries, Manuals, and Portuises of the Roman Church.

17. I cannot say but many of our Prayers are also in the Roman Offices. But so they are also in the Scripture, so also is the Lords Prayer, and if they were not, yet the allegation is very inartificial, and the charge peevish and unreasonable, unless there were nothing good in the Roman Books, or that it were unlawful to pray a good prayer which they had once stain'd with red letters. The Objection hath not sence enough to procure an answer upon its own stock, but by reflection from a direct truth, which uses to be like light manifesting it self and discovering darkness.

18. It was first perfected in King Edward the Sixths time, but it was by and by impugned through the obstinate and dissembling malice of many: They are the words of M. Fox in his Book of Martyrs. Then it was reviewed and published with so much approbation, that it was accounted the work of God; but yet not long after there were some persons qui divisionis occasionem arripiebant (saith Alesius) vocabula & pene syllabas expendendo, they tried it by points and syllables, and weighed every word, and sought occasions to quarrel, which being observed by Archbishop Cranmer, he caused it to be translated into Latin and sent it to Bucer, requiring his judgment of it, who returned this answer, That although there are in it some things quae rapi possunt ab inquietis ad materiam contentionis, which by peevish men may be cavill'd at, yet there was nothing in it but what was taken out of the Scriptures, or agreeable to it, if rightly understood; that is, if handled and read by wise and good men. The zeal which Archbishop Grindal, Bishop Ridly, Dr. Taylor, and other the holy Martyrs and Confessors in [Page] Queen Maries time expressed for this excellent Liturgy before and at the time of their death, defending it by their disputations, adorning it by their practice, and sealing it with their bloods, are arguments which ought to recommend it to all the sons of the Church of England for ever, infinitely to be valued beyond all the little whispers and murmurs of argument pretended against it: and when it came out of the flame, and was purified in the Martyrs sires▪ it became a vessel of honour, and used in the house of God in all the days of that long peace which was the effect of Gods blessing, and the reward (as we humbly hope) of an holy Religion; and when it was laid aside in the days of Queen Mary, it was [to the great decay of the due honour of God, and discomfort to the Professors of the truth of Christs Religion] they are the words of Queen Elizabeth, and her grave and wise Parliament.

19. Archbishop Cranmer in his purgation, A. D. 1553. made an offer if the Queen would give him leave, to prove All that is contained in the Common-Prayer-Book, to be conformable to that order which our blessed Saviour Christ did both observe and command to be observed. And a little after he offers to joyn issue upon this point, That the Order of the Church of England, set out by authority of the innocent and godly Prince Edward the Sixth, in his high Court of Parliament, is the same that was used in the Church fifteen hundred years past.

20. And I shall go near to make his words good. For, very much of our Liturgy is the very words of Scriptures. The Psalms and Lessons, and all the Hymns save one, are nothing else but Scripture, and owe nothing to the Roman Breviaries for their production or authority. So that the matter of them is out of question holy and true; As for the form, none ever misliked it but they that will admit no form, for all admit this that admit any. But that these should be parts of Liturgy needs not to be a question, when we remember that Hezekiah and the Princes made it a Law to their Church to sing praises to the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the Seer, and that Christ himself did so and his Apostles after the manner of the Jews in the Feast of Passeover,2 Chron. 29. sung their Hymns and portions of the great Allelujah in the words of David and Asaph the Seer too, and that there was a song in Heaven made up of the words of Moses and David, and Jeremy the Seer,Apoc. 15. Exod. 15. Psal. 145. Jer. 1 [...].6, 7▪ and that the Apostles and the Church of God always chose to do so, according to the commandment of the Apostle, that we sing Psalms and Hymns to God. I know not where we can have better than the Psalms of David and Asaph, and these were ready at hand for the use of the Church, insomuch that in the Christian Synaxes, particularly in the Churches of Corinth S. Paul observed that every man had a Psalm, it was then the common devotion, and Liturgy of all the faithful, and so for ever; and the Fathers of the fourth Council of Toledo justifie the practice of the Church in recitation of the Psalms and Hymns by the example of Christ and his Apostles, who after Supper sung a Psalm: and the Church did also make Hymns of her own, in the honour of Christ, and sung them: Such as was the [Te Deum] made by S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, and they stood her in great stead, not only as acts of direct worship to Christ, but as Conservators of the Articles of Christs Divinity, of which the Fathers made use against the Heretick Artemon, as appears in Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 28. Eccles. Hist.

[Page]21. That reading the Scripture was part of the Liturgy of the Apostolical ages, we find it in the tenth Canon of the Apostles, in Albinus Flaccus, Rabanus Maurus, and in the Liturgy attributed to S. James. Deinde leguntur fusissime oracula sacra veteris Testamenti & Prophetarum, & Filii Dei Incarnatio demonstratur, Passio, Resurrectio ex mortuis, ascensus in Coelum, secundus item adventus ejus cum gloria. Atque id fit singulis diebus, &c.

22. So that since thus far the matter of our devotions is warranted by Gods Spirit, and the form by the precedents of Scripture too, and the ages Apostolical, above half of the English Liturgy is as Divine as Scripture it self, and the choice of it for practice is no less than Apostolical.

23. Of the same consideration is the Lords Prayer, commanded by our blessed Saviour in two Evangelists; the Introit is the Psal. 95. and the Responsories of Morning and Evening Prayer, ejaculations taken from the words of David and Hezekiah; the Decalogue recited in the Communion is the ten words of Moses, and without peradventure was not taken into the Office in imitation of the Roman; for although it was done upon great reason, and considering the great ignorance of the people they were to inform, yet I think it was never in any Church Office before, but in Manuals and Catechisms only: yet they are made Liturgick by the suffrages at the end of every Commandment, and need no other warrant from antiquity but the 20. Chapter of Exodus. There are not many parts beside, and they which are, derive themselves from an elder house than the Roman Offices; The Gloria Patri was composed by the Nicene Council, the latter Versicle by S. Jerome, though some eminently learned (and in particular) Baronius is of an opinion that it was much more ancient. It was at first a confession of Faith, and used by a newly baptized Convert and the standers by, and then it came to be a Hymn, and very early annexed to the Antiphones, and afterwards to the Psalms and Hymns, all except that of S. Ambrose beginning with [Te Deum] because that of it self is a great Doxology. It is seven times used in the Greek Office of Baptism, and in the recitation of it the Priest and People stood all up and turned to the East, and this custom ever continued in the Church, and is still retained in the Church of England in conformity to the ancient and Primitive custom, save only that in the Litany we kneel, which is a more humble posture but not so ancient, the Litanies having usually been said walking, not kneeling or standing. But in this the variety is an ornament to the Churches garment. S. Gregory added this Doxology to the Responsory at the beginning of Prayer, after, O Lord make hast to help us; That was the last, and yet above a thousand years old, and much elder than the body of Popery. And as for the latter part of the Doxology. I am clearly of opinion, that though it might by S. Hierome be brought into the Latin Church, yet it was in the Greek Church before him, witness that most ancient Hymn or Doxology, [...]. However, as to the matter of the Doxology; it is no other than the Confession of the three most blessed persons of the Trinity which Christ commanded, and which with greatest solemnity we declare in Baptism; and certainly we can no ways better, or more solemnly and ritually give glory to the Holy Trinity, than by being baptized into the profession and service of it. The Trisagion was taught to the Greek Church by Angels; but certain it is, it sprang not from a Roman fountain; and that the Canon of our Communion is the same with the old Canon of the Church many hundred [Page] years before Popery had invaded the simplicity of Christian Religion, is evident, if we compare the particulars recited by De Spir. Sanct. c. 27. S. Basil, D [...] celebratione Missarum c. cu [...] Mat [...]h. Innocentius, his Epistle to John Archbishop of Lyons, In gemma anum l. 1 c 86. Honorius the Priest, De D [...]vin. Offic. Alcuinus, and Super Act. 20 Vna autem Sabba. hi. Walafridus Strabo, and if we will, we may add the Liturgy said to be S. James's, and the Constitution of L. 8. c. 17. S. Clement, (for whoever was the author of these, certainly they were ancient) Radulphus Tongrensis and the later Ritualists, Cassander, Pamelius, Hittorpius, Jacobus Goar and the rest.

24. And that we may be yet more particular, the very Prayer for Christs Catholick Church, in the Office of Communion, beside that it is nothing but a plain execution of an Apostolical precept, set down in the Preface of the Prayer, it was also used in all times, and in all Liturgies of the ancient Church. And we find this attested by Mystagog. Catechis. 5. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Deinde postquam confectum est illud spirituale sacrificium — obsecramus Deum pro communi Ecclesiarum pace, pro tranquillitate mundi, pro Regibus, &c. To the same purpose also there is a testimony in S. Chrysostome, which because it serves not only here, but also to other uses, it will not be amiss here to note it:H [...]m. 6. in 1 Epist. ad Tim. Quid autem sibi vult [primum omnium?] In obsequio scil. quotidiano, perpetuoque divinae religionis ritu. Atque id noverunt fideles quomodo diebus singulis mane & vespere orationes fundantur ad Dominum, quomodo pro omni mundo & Regibus, & omnibus qui in sublimitate positi sunt, obsecrationes in Ecclesia fiant. Sed forte quis dixerit, pro omnibus, quod ait, tantum fideles intelligi voluisse. At id verum non esse quae sequuntur, ostendunt. Denique ait, pro Regibus, neque enim tunc Reges Deum colebant. It is evident by this, that the custom of the Church was not only in the celebration of the holy Communion, but in all her other Offices to say this Prayer, not only for Christs Catholick Church, but for all the world.

25. And that the charity of the Church might not be misconstrued, he produces his warrant. S. Paul not only expresly commands us to pray for all men, but adds by way of instance, for Kings, who then were unchristian, and heathen in all the world. But this form of Prayer is almost word for word in S. Ambrose. Haec regula Ecclesiastica est tradita à Magistro gentium qua utuntur Sacerdotes nostri, In Comment. ut pro omnibus supplicent — deprecantes pro Regibus — orantes pro iis quibus sublimis potestas credita est, ut in justitia & veritate gubernent — postulantes pro iis qui in necessitate varia sunt, ut eruti & liberati Deum collaudent incolumitatis Authorem. So far goes our form of Prayer. But S. Ambrose adds, Referentes quoque gratiarum actiones — And so it was with us in the first Service-books of King Edward, and the Preface to the Prayer engages us to a thanksgiving; but I know not how it was stoln out, the Preface still remaining, to chide their unwariness that took down that part of the building, and yet left the gate standing. But if the Reader please to be satisfied concerning this Prayer, which indeed is the longest in our Service-book, and of greatest consideration, he may see it taken up from the universal custom of the Church, and almost in all the words of the old Liturgies, if he will observe the Liturgies themselves of S. Basil, S, Chrysostome, and the concurrent testimonies of Apologeta. 14 Tertullian, Ep. 59. ad Paulin. S. Austin, Ep. 1. Celestine, De dogmat. Eccles. cap. 30. Gennadius, L. 1. de vocat. g [...]nt. c. 4. Prosper, and In Commen [...]. Theophylact.

26. I shall not need to make any excuses for the Churches reading those portions of Scripture which we call Epistles and Gospels before the Communion. They are Scriptures of the choicest, and most profitable transaction. And let me observe this thing, That they are not only declarations of all the mysteries of our redemption, and rules of good life, but this choice is of the greatest compliance [Page] with the necessities of the Christian Church that can be imagined. For if we deny to the people a liberty of reading Scriptures, may they not complain as Isaac did against the inhabitants of the land, that the Philistines had spoiled his well, and the fountains of living water; If a free use to all of them, and of all Scriptures were permitted, should not the Church her self have more cause to complain of the infinite licentiousness and looseness of interpretations, and of the commencement of ten thousand errors, which would certainly be consequent to such permission? Reason and Religion will chide us in the first, reason and experience in the latter. And can the wit of man conceive a better temper and expedient, than that such Scriptures only or principally should be laid before them all in daily Offices, which contain in them all the mysteries of our redemption, and all the rules of good life? which two things are done by the Gospels, and Epistles respectively: the first being a Record of the life and death of our blessed Saviour; the latter, instructions for the edification of the Church, in pious and Christian conversation; and all this was done with so much choice, that as obscure places are avoided by design, as much as could be, so the very assignation of them to certain festivals, the appropriation of them to solemn and particular days does entertain the understandings of the people with notions proper to the mystery, and distinct from impertinent and vexatious questions. And were this design made something more minute, and applicable to the various necessities of times, and such choice Scriptures permitted indifferently, which might be matter of necessity and great edification, the people of the Church would have no reason to complain that the fountains of our Saviour were stopp'd from them, nor the Rulers of the Church, that the mysteriousness of Scripture were abused by the petulancy of the people to consequents harsh, impious, and unreasonable in despight of government, in exauctoration of the power of superiours, or for the commencement of Schisms and Heresies. The Church with great wisdom hath first held this torch out, and though for great reasons intervening and hindering, it cannot be reduced to practice, yet the Church hath shewn her desire to avoid the evil that is on both hands, and she hath shewn the way also, if it could have been insisted in. But however, this choice of the more remarkable portions of Scripture is so reasonable and proportionable to the nature of the thing, that because the Gospels and Epistles bear their several shares of the design, (the Gospel representing the foundation, and prime necessities of Christianity, and the mysterious parts of our Redemption, the summ, the faith, and the hopes of Christianity) therefore it is attested by a ceremony of standing up, it being a part of the confession of faith: but the Epistles containing superstructures upon that foundation, are read with religious care, but not made formal or solemn by any other circumstance. The matter contains in it sufficient of reason and of proportion, but nothing of necessity, except it be by accident, and as authority does intervene by way of sanction.

27. But that this reading of Epistles and Gospels before the Communion was one of the earliest customs of the Church, I find it affirmed by Rabanus Maurus. Institut. Cleric. [...]. 1. c. 32. Sed enim initio mos iste cantandi non erat, qui nunc in Ecclesia ante sacrificium celebratur: Sed tamen epistolae Pauli recitabantur & sanctum Evangelium. The custom of reading S. Paul's Epistles, and the holy Gospel before the Sacrament was from the beginning. Some other portions of Scripture were read upon emergent occasions instead of the Epistle, which still [Page] retain the name of Epistle, but it is so seldom, that it happens upon two Sundays only in the year, upon Trinity Sunday, and the 25. Sunday after; upon Saints days it happens oftner, because the story requires a particular rememoration, and therefore is very often taken out of the Acts of the Apostles, but being in substitution only of the ordinary portion of the Epistle of S. Paul, or other the Apostles, it keeps the name of the first design, though the change be upon good reason, and much propriety.

28. There remains 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. 1 Tim. 2. 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.Epist. 59. ad Paulin. q. 5. 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 [Page] 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, De instit. Cleric. lib. 1. c. 32. 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, ⁴ deprecations, and ⁵ prayers, and ⁶ intercessions, and ⁷ giving of thanks, will warrant and commend, as so many parts of duty, all the portions of the English Liturgy.

[Page]34. If it were worth the pains, it were very easie to enumerate the Authors, and especially the occasions and time when the most minute passages▪ such I mean as are known by distinct appellatives, came into the Church, that so it may appear, our Liturgy is as ancient and primitive in every part, as it is pious and unblameable, and long before the Church got such a beam in one of her eyes, which was endeavoured to be cast out at the Reformation. But it will not be amiss to observe that very many of them were inserted as Antidotes, and deleteries to the worst of Heresies, as I have discours'd already, and such was that clause [through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the holy Spirit ever one God] and some other phrases parallel were put in, in defiance of the Macedonians, and all the species of the Antitrinitarians, and used by S. Ambrose in Millain, S. Austin in Africa, and Idacius Clarus in Spain; and in imitation of so pious precedents, the Church of England hath inserted divers clauses into her Offices.

35. There was a great instance in the administration of the blessed Sacrament. For upon the change of certain clauses in the Liturgy upon the instance of Martin Bucer, instead of [the bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for you preserve your body and soul unto everlasting life] was substituted this [take and eat this in remembrance, &c.] and it was done lest the people accustomed to the opinion of Transubstantiation and the appendant practices, should retain the same doctrine upon intimation of the first clause. But in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign, when certain persons of the Zuinglian opinion would have abused the Church with Sacramentary doctrine, and pretended the Church of England had declared for it in the second clause of 1552; the wisdom of the Church thought it expedient to joyn both the clauses; the first lest the Church should be suspected to be of the Sacramentary opinion, the latter lest she should be mistaken as a Patroness of Transubstantiation. And both these with so much temper and sweetness, that by her care she rather prevented all mistakes, than by any positive declaration in her prayers, engaged her self upon either side; that she might pray to God without strife and contention with her brethren. For the Church of England had never known how to follow the names of men, but to call Christ only her Lord and Master.

36. But from the inserting of these and the like clauses which hath been done in all ages, according to several opportunities and necessities, I shall observe this advantage which is in many, but is also very signally in the English Liturgy, we are thereby enabled and advantaged in the meditation of those mysteries, de quibus festivatur in sacris (as the Casuists love to speak) which upon solemn days we are bound to meditate and make to be the matter and occasion of our address to God; for the offices are so ordered that the most indifferent and careless cannot but be reminded of the mystery in every Anniversary, which if they be summ'd up will make an excellent Creed, (and then let any man consider what a rare advantage it will be to the belief of such propositions when the very design of the Holy-day teaches the hard handed Artizan the name and meaning of an Article) and yet the most forward and religious cannot be abused with any semblances of superstition. The life and death of the Saints which is very precious in the eyes of God, is so remembred by his humble and afflicted handmaid the Church of England, that by giving him thanks and praise, God may be honoured, the Church instructed by the proposition of their example, and we give testimony of the honour and love we owe and pay unto Religion by the pious veneration and esteem of those holy and beatified persons.

[Page]37. Certain it is, that there is no part of Religion, as it is a distinct vertue, and is to be exercised by interiour acts and forms of worship, but is in the offices of the Church of England. For if the Soul desires to be humbled she hath provided forms of Confession to God before his Church; if she will rejoyce and give God thanks for particular blessings, there are forms of thanksgiving described and added by the Kings authority upon the Conference at Hampton-Court, which are all the publick, solemn, and foreseen occasions for which by Law and order provision could be made: if she will commend to God the publick and private necessities of the Church, and single persons, the whole body of Collects and devotions supplies that abundantly: if her devotion be high and pregnant, and prepared to fervency and importunity of congress with God, the Litanies are an admirable pattern of devotion, full of circumstances proportionable for a quick and an earnest spirit; when the revolution of the Anniversary calls on us to perform our duty of special meditation, and thankfulness to God for the glorious benefits of Christs Incarnation, Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension (blessings which do as well deserve a day of thanksgiving as any other temporal advantage, though it be the pleasure of a victory) then we have the offices of Christmass, the Annunciation, Easter and Ascension: if we delight to remember those holy persons, whose bodies rest in the bed of peace, and whose souls are deposited in the hands of Christ, till the day of restitution of all things, we may by the Collects and days of Anniversary festivity not only remember, but also imitate them too in our lives, if we will make that use of the proportions of Scripture allotted for the festival which the Church intends; to which if we add the advantages of the whole Psalter which is an intire body of devotion by it self, and hath in it forms to exercise all graces by way of internal act and spiritual intention, there is not any ghostly advantage which the most religious can either need or fancy, but the English Liturgy in its entire constitution will furnish us withal. And certainly it was a very great wisdom, and a very prudent and religious Constitution so to order that part of the Liturgy, which the ancients called the Lectionarium, that the Psalter should be read over twelve times in the year, the Old Testament once, and the New Testament thrice, beside the Epistles and Gospels, which renew with a more frequent repetition such choice places as represent the entire body of faith and good life. There is a defalcation of some few Chapters from the entire body in the order, but that also was part of the wisdom of the Church not to expose to publick ears and common judgments, some of the secret rites of Moses's Law, or the more mysterious prophecies of the New Testament, whose sence and meaning the event will declare, if we by mistaken and anticipated interpretations do not obstruct our own capacities, and hinder us from believing the true events, because they answer not those expectations with which our own mistakes have prepared our understandings: as it hapned to the Jews in the case of Antiochus, and to the Christians in the person of Antichrist.

38. Well! thus as it was framed in the body of its first Constitution and second alteration, those excellent men whom God chose as instruments of his honour and service in the Reformation, to whom also he did shew what great things they were to suffer for his Names sake, approved of it with high testimony, promoted it by their own use and zeal, and at last sealed it with their blood.

[Page]39. That they had a great opinion of the piety and unblameable composure of the Common-Prayer-Book, appears ¹ in the challenge made in its behalf by the Archbishop Cranmer, to defend it against all the world of Enemies; ² by the daily using it in time of persecution and imprisonment (for so did Bishop Ridley, and Dr. Taylor, who also recommended it to his wife for a legacy:) ³ by their preaching in behalf of it (as many did:) ⁴ by Hulliers hugging it in his flames with a posture of great love and forwardness of entertainment, ⁵ besides the direct testimony which the most eminent learned amongst the Queen Mary Martyrs have given of it. Amongst which that of the learned Rector of Hadley, Dr. Rowland Taylor, is most considerable: his words are these in a Letter of his to a friend; ‘[But there was after that by the most innocent King Edward (for whom God be praised everlastingly) the whole Church Service with great deliberation,Acts and Monuments, pag. 1385. pag. 1608, 1565. pag. 1840. pag. 1844. & alibi. and the advice of the best learned men of the Realm, and authorized by the whole Parliament, and received and published gladly by the whole Realm: Which Book was never reformed but once, and yet by that one reformation it was so fully perfected according to the rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf, that no Christian conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained. I mean of that Book reformed.]’

40. I desire the words may be considered and confronted against some other words lately published, which charge these holy and learned men but with a half-fac'd light, a darkness in the confines of Egypt, and the suburbs of Goshen. And because there is no such thing proved of these blessed Men, and Martyrs, and that it is easie to say such words of any man that is not fully of our mind, I suppose the advantage and the out-weighing authority will lie on our part in behalf of the Common-Prayer-Book, especially since this man and divers others died with it and for it according as it hapned by the circumstance of their Charges and Articles, upon which they died; for so it was in the cases of John Rough, John Philpot, Cutbert Simson, Pag. 1848, 1649, 1840. and seven others burnt in Smithfield, upon whom it was charged in their Indictments, that they used, allowed, preached for, and maintained respectively the Service-book of King Edward. To which Articles they answered affirmatively, and confessed them to be true in every part, and died accordingly.

41. I shall press this argument to issue in the words of S. Ambrose cited to the like purpose by Vincentius Lirinensis. Contra haeres c. 7. Librum sacerdotalem quis nostrum resignare audeat, signatum à Confessoribus, & multorum jam martyrio consecratum? Quomodo fidem eorum possumus denegare, quorum victoriam praedicamus? Who shall dare to violate this Priestly book, which so many Confessors have consigned, and so many Martyrs have hallowed with their blood? How shall we call them Martyrs, if we deny their faith, how shall we celebrate their victory, if we dislike their cause? If we believe them to be crown'd, why shall we deny but that they strove lawfully? So that if they dying in attestation of this Book were Martyrs, why do we condemn the Book for which they died? If we will not call them Martyrs, it is clear we have chang'd our Religion since then. And then it would be considered whether we are fallen? For the Reformers in King Edwards time died for it, in Q. Elizabeths time they avowed it under the protection of an excellent Princess, but in that sad interval of Q. Maries reign it suffered persecution, and if it shall do so again, it is but an unhandsome compliance for Reformers to be unlike their Brethren, and to be like their Enemies, to do as do the Papists, and only to speak great words against them; and it [Page] will be sad for a zealous Protestant to live in an age that should disavow King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths Religion and manner of worshipping God, and in an age that shall do as did Queen Maries Bishops, persecute the Book of Common-Prayer, and the Religion contained in it. God help the poor Protestants in such times: But let it do its worst, if God please to give his grace, the worst that can come is but a Crown, and that was never denied to Martyrs.

42. In the mean time I can but with joy and Eucharist consider with what advantages and blessings the pious Protestant is entertained and blessed, and arm'd against all his needs by the constant and Religious usage of the Common-Prayer-Book. For besides the direct advantages of the Prayers and devotions, some whereof are already instanc'd, (and the experience of holy persons will furnish them with more) there are also forms of solemn benediction and absolution in the Offices, and if they be not highly considerable, there is nothing sacred in the Evangelical Ministery, but all is a vast plain, and the Altars themselves are made of unhallowed turf.

43. Concerning Benediction (of which there are four more solemn forms in the whole Office, two in the Canon of the Communion, one in Confirmation, one in the Office of Marriage) I shall give this short account, that without all question the less is blessed of the greater, and it being an issue spiritual, is rather to be verified in spiritual relation, than in natural or political. And therefore if there be any such thing as regeneration by the Ministery of the word, and begetting in Christ, and Fathers and Sons after the common faith (as the expressions of the Apostle make us to believe) certain it is, the blessings of Religion do descend most properly from our spiritual Fathers, and with most plentiful emanation. And this hath been the Religion of all the world, to derive very much of their blessings by the Priests particular and signal ministration; Melchisedech blessed Abraham, Isaac blessed Jacob, and Moses and Aaron blessed the people. So that here is benediction from a Prince, from a Father, from the Aaronical Priest, from Melchisedech, of whose order is the Christian, in whose Law it is a sanction, that in great needs especially, the Elders of the Church be sent for, and let them pray over him that is distressed. That is the great remedy for the great necessity. And it was ever much valued in the Church, insomuch that Nectarius would by no means take investiture of his Patriarchal Sea, until he had obtained the benediction of Diodorus the Bishop of Cilicia: Eudoxia the Empress brought her son Theodosius to S. Chrysostome for his blessing, and S. Austin and all his company received it of Innocentius Bishop of Carthage; It was so solemn in all marriages, that the marrying of persons was called Benediction. So it was in the fourth Council of Carthage, Sponsus & sponsa cum benedicendi sunt à Sacerdote, &c. benedicendi, for married. — And in all Church Offices it was so solemn, that by a Decree of the Council of Agatho, A. D. 380. it was decreed, ante benedictionem Sacerdotis populus egredi non praesumat. By the way only, here is [...] for two parts of the English Liturgy. For the benediction in the Office of marriage by the authority of the Council of Carthage, and for concluding the Office of Communion with the Priests or Bishops benediction by warrant of the Council of Agatho, which Decrees having been derived into the practice of the universal Church for very many ages, is in no hand to be undervalued, lest we become like Esau, and we miss it when we most need it. For my own particular, I shall still press on to receive the benediction of holy Church, till at last I shall hear a Venite benedicti, and that I be reckoned [Page] amongst those blessed Souls who come to God by the ministeries of his own appointment, and will not venture upon that neglect, against which the piety and wisdom of all Religions in the world infinitely do prescribe.

44. Now the advantages of confidence which I have upon the forms of benedicton in the Common-Prayer-Book are therefore considerable, because God himself prescribed a set form of blessing the people, appointing it to be done not in the Priests extempore, but in an established form of words:Num. 6.23 and because, as the authority of a prescript form is from God, so that this form may be also highly warranted, the solemn blessing at the end of the Communion, is in the very words of S. Paul.

45. For the forms of Absolution in the Liturgy, though I shall not enter into consideration of the Question concerning the quality of the Priests power which is certainly a very great ministery, yet I shall observe the rare temper, and proportion which the Church of England uses in commensurating the forms of Absolution to the degrees of preparation and necessity. At the beginning of the Morning and Evening Prayer after a general Confession usually recited before the devotion is high and pregnant, (whose parts like fire enkindle one another) there is a form of Absolution in general, declarative and by way of proposition. In the Office of the Communion, because there are more acts of piety and repentance previous and presupposed, there the Churches form of Absolution is optative and by way of intercession. But in the Visitation of the sick, when it is supposed and enjoyned that the penitent shall disburthen himself of all the clamorous loads upon his conscience, the Church prescribes a medicinal form by way of delegate authority, that the parts of justification may answer to the parts of good life. For as the penitent proceeds so does the Church: pardon and repentance being terms of relation, they grow up together till they be complete; this the Church with greatest wisdom supposes to be at the end of our life; (grace by that time having all its growth that it will have here) and therefore then also the pardon of sins is of another nature than it ever was before, it being now more actual and complete, whereas before it was in fieri in the beginnings and smaller increases, and upon more accidents apt to be made imperfect and revocable. So that the Church of England in these manners of dispensing the power of the Keys does cut off all disputings and impertinent wranglings, whether the Priests power were Judicial or declarative; for possibly it is both, and it is optative too, and something else yet, for it is an emanation from all the parts of his Ministery, and he never absolves, but he preaches or prays or administers a Sacrament; for this power of remission is a transcendent, passing through all the parts of the Priestly Offices; For the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are the promises and the threatnings of the Scripture, and the prayers of the Church, and the Word and the Sacraments, and all these are to be dispensed by the Priest, and these keys are committed to his Ministery, and by the operation of them all he opens and shuts Heaven gates ministerially; and therefore S. Paul calls it verbum reconciliationis, and says it is dispensed by Ministers, as by Embassadors or Delegates: and therefore it is an excellent temper of the Church, so to prescribe her forms of Absolution, as to shew them to be results of the whole Priestly Office, of Preaching, of dispensing Sacraments, of spiritual Cure, and authoritative Deprecation. And the benefit which pious and well disposed persons receive by these publick Ministeries, as it lies ready formed in our blessed Saviours promise [erit solutum in coelis] so men will then truly understand [Page] when they are taught to value every instrument of grace or comfort by the exigence of a present need, as in a sadness of spirit, in an unquiet conscience, in the arrest of death.

46. I shall not need to procure advantages to the reputation of the Common-Prayer, by considering the imperfections of whatsoever hath been offered in its stead: but yet Directory. a ¹ form of worship, composed to the dishonour of the Reformation, accusing it of darkness, and intolerable inconvenience: ² a direction without a rule: ³ a rule without restraint: ⁴ a prescription leaving an indifferency to a possibility of licentiousness: ⁵ an office without any injunction of external acts of worship, not prescribing so much as kneeling: ⁶ an office that only once names reverence, but forbids it in the ordinary instance, and enjoyns it in no particular: ⁷ an office that leaves the form of ministration of Sacraments so indifferently, that if there be any form of words essential, the Sacrament is in much danger to become invalid, for want of provision of due forms of Ministration: ⁸ an office that complies with no precedent of Scripture, nor of any ancient Church: ⁹ that must of necessity either want authority, or it must prefer novelty before antiquity: ¹⁰ that accuses all the Primitive Church of indiscretion at the least: ¹¹ that may be abused by the indiscretion, or ignorance, or malice of any man that uses it: ¹² into which, Heresie or blasphemy may creep without possibility of prevention: ¹³ that hath no external forms to entertain the fancy of the more common spirits: ¹⁴ nor any allurement to perswade and entice its adversaries: ¹⁵ nor any means of adunation and uniformity amongst its confidents: ¹⁶ an office that still permits children, in many cases of necessity to be unbaptized, making no provision for them in sudden cases: ¹⁷ that will not suffer them to be confirmed at all, (ut utroque Sacramento renascantur, as S. Cyprians phrase is, that they may be advantaged by a double rite:) ¹⁸ that joyns in marriage as Cacus did his Oxen, in rude, inform and unhallowed yokes: ¹⁹ that will not do piety to the dead, nor comfort to the living, by solemn and honorary offices of funeral: ²⁰ that hath no forms of blessing the people any more ²¹ than described forms of blessing God, which are just none at all: ²² an office that never thinks of absolving penitents, or exercising the power of the Keys, after the custom and rites of Priests: ²³ a Liturgy that recites no Creed, no Confession of Faith, so not declaring either to Angels or men, according to what Religion they worship God; but entertaining, though indeed without a symbol, Arrians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Manichees, or any other Sect, for ought there appears to the contrary: ²⁴ that consigns no publick Canon of Communion, but leaves that as casual and phantastick as any of the lesser offices: ²⁵ an office that takes no more care than chance does, for the reading the holy Scriptures: ²⁶ that never commemorates a departed Saint: ²⁷ that hath no Communion with the Church Triumphant, any more than with the other parts of the Militant: ²⁸ that never thanks God for the redemption of the world by the Nativity, and Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our blessed Saviour Jesus, but condemns the memorial even of the Scripture Saints, and the memorial of the miraculous blessings of redemption of mankind by Christ himself, with the same accusation it condemns the Legends and portentous stories of the most suspected part of the Roman Calendar▪ ²⁹ an office that out of zeal against Judaism condemns all distinction of days, unless they themselves distinguish them: that leaves no signature of piety upon the Lords day, and yet the Compilers do enjoyn it to a Judaical [Page] superstitition: ³⁰ an office that does by implication undervalue the Lords Prayer, for it never injoyns it, and does but once permit it: ³¹ an office that is new without authority, and never made up into a sanction by an Act of Parliament: an order or Directory of devotion that hath all these ingredients and capacities (and such a one there is in the world) I suppose is no equal match to contest with and be put in balance against the Liturgy of the Church of England, which was with so great deliberation compiled out of Scriptures, the most of it, all the rest agreeing with Scriptures, and drawn from the Liturgies of the ancient Church, and made by men famous in their generations, whose reputation and glory of Martyrdom hath made it immodest for the best of men now to compare themselves with them: and after its composition considered by advices from abroad, and so trimm'd and adorn'd that no excrescency did remain; the Rubricks of which Book was writ in the blood of many of the Compilers, which hath had a testimony from Gods blessing in the daily use of it, accompanying it with the peace of an age, established and confirmed by six Acts of Parliament directly and collaterally, and is of so admirable a composure, that the most industrious wits of its Enemies could never find out an objection of value enough to make a doubt, or scarce a scruple in a wise spirit. But that I shall not need to set a night-piece by so excellent a beauty, to set it off the better, its own excellencies are Orators prevalent enough, that it shall not need any advantages accidental.

47. And yet this excellent Book hath had the fate to be cut in pieces with a pen-knife, and thrown into the fire, but it is not consumed; at first it was sown in tears and is now watered with tears, yet never was any holy thing drowned and extinguished with tears. It began with the Martyrdom of the Compilers, and the Church hath been vexed ever since by angry spirits, and she was forced to defend it with much trouble and unquietness: but it is to be hop'd that all these storms are sent but to increase the zeal and confidence of the pious sons of the Church of England. Indeed the greatest danger that ever the Common-Prayer-Book had, was the indifferency and indevotion of them that used it but as a common blessing; and they who thought it fit for the meanest of the Clergy to read prayers; and for themselves only to preach, though they might innocently intend it, yet did not in that action consult the honour of our Liturgy; except where charity or necessity did interpose. But when excellent things go away, and then look back upon us, as our blessed Saviour did upon S. Peter, we are more mov'd than by the nearer embraces of a full and an actual possession. I pray God it may prove so in our case, and that we may not be too willing to be discouraged; at least that we may not cease to love and to desire what is not publickly permitted to our practice and profession.

JER. TAYLOR.

§

[Page]

[Page]

AN APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY: AGAINST THE PRETENCE OF THE SPIRIT.

1. For ex tempore PRAYER, AND

2. Forms of Private composition.

By JER. TAYLOR, D. D. and Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First.

The third Edition Enlarged.

The Compilers of the Common-Prayer Book of the Church of England (as it now is) were

Doctor CRANMER, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.

Doctor GOODRICK, Bishop of Ely.

Doctor SKIP, Bishop of Hereford.

Doctor THIRLBY, Bishop of Westminster.

Doctor DAY, Bishop of Chichester.

Doctor HOLBECK, Bishop of Lincoln.

Doctor RIDLEY, Bishop of Rochester.

Doctor TAYLOR, Dean of Lincoln.

Doctor HEYNES, Dean of Exeter.

Doctor REDMAN, Dean of Westminster.

Doctor COX, K. Edwards Almoner.

Doctor Mr. Robinson, Arch-Deac. of Leicester.

Mense Maio 1549. Anno Regni Edwardi Sexti tertio.

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent MAJESTY, M DC LXXIII.

TO HIS MOST SACRED MAJESTY.

[Page]

[Page]

IT is now two years, since part of these ensuing Papers, like the publick issue of the people, imperfect and undressed, were exposed, without a Parent to protect them, or any hand to nourish them. But since your Most Sacred Majesty was pleased graciously to look upon them, they are grown into a Tract, and have an ambition (like the Gourd of Jonas) to dwell in the eye of the Sun from whence they received life and increment. And although because some violence hath been done to the profession of the doctrine of this Treatise, it may seem to be verbum in tempore non suo, and like the offering Cypress to a Conqueror, or Palms to a broken Army, yet I hope I shall the less need an Apologie, because it is certain, he does really dis-serve no just and Noble interest, that serves that of the Spirit, and Religion. And because the sufferings of a KING and a Confessor are the great demonstration to all the world that Truth is as Dear to your MAJESTY as the Jewels of your Diadem, and that your Conscience is tender as a pricked eye, I shall pretend this only to alleviate the inconvenience of an unseasonable address, that I present your MAJESTY with a humble persecuted truth, of the same constitution with that condition whereby you are become most Dear to God, as having upon you the characterism of the Sons of God, bearing in your Sacred Person the marks of the Lord Jesus, who is your Elder Brother, the King of Sufferings, and the Prince of the Catholick Church. But I consider that Kings, and their Great Councils, and Rulers Ecclesiastical [Page] have a special obligation for the defence of Liturgies, because they having the greatest Offices, have the greatest needs of auxiliaries from Heaven, which are best procured by the publick Spirit, the Spirit of Government and Supplication. And since the first, the best, and most solemn Liturgies and Set forms of Prayer were made by the best and greatest Princes, by Moses, by David, and the Son of David; Your MAJESTY may be pleased to observe such a proportion of circumstances in my laying this (Apology for Liturgy) at Your feet, that possibly I may the easier obtain a pardon for my great boldness; which if I shall hope for, in all other contingencies I shall represent my self a person indifferent whether I live or die, so I may by either, serve God, and Gods Church, and Gods Vicegerent, in the capacity of,

Great Sir,

Your Majesties most humble, and most obedient Subject and Servant, JER. TAYLOR.

Hierocl. in Pythag.

[...].

An APOLOGY for Authorized and Set Forms of LITVRGY.

[Page]

I Have read over this Book which the Assembly of Divines is pleased to call, [The Directory for Prayer.] I confess I came to it with much expectation, and was in some measure confident, I should have found it an exact and unblameable model of Devotion, free from all those Objections which men of their own perswasion had obtruded against the Publick Liturgie of the Church of England; or at least, it should have been composed with so much artifice and fineness, that it might have been to all the world, an argument of their learning and excellency of spirit, if not of the goodness and integrity of their Religion and purposes. I shall give no other character of the whole, but that the publick disrelish which I find amongst Persons of great piety, of all qualities, not only of great, but even of ordinary understandings, is to me some argument that it lies so open to the objections even of common spirits, that the Compilers of it did intend more to prevail by the success of their Armies, than the strength of reason, and the proper grounds of perswasion, which yet most wise and good Men believe to be the more Christian way of the two. But because the judgment I made of it from an argument so extrinsecal to the nature of the thing, could not reasonably enable me to satisfie those many Persons who in their behalf desired me to consider it, I resolv'd to look upon it nearer, and to take its account from something that was ingredient to its Constitution, that I might be able both to exhort and convince the Gainsayers, who refuse to hold fast [...], that faithful word which they had been taught by their Mother the Church of England.

Sect. 2. I SHALL decline to speak of the efficient cause of this Directory, and not quarrel at it, that it was composed against the Laws both of England and all Christendom. If the thing were good and pious, and did not directly or accidentally invade the rights of a just Superiour, I would learn to submit to the imposition, and never quarrel at the incompetency of his authority that ingaged me to do pious and holy things. And it may be when I am a little more used to it, I shall not wonder at a Synod, in which not one Bishop sits (in the capacity of a Bishop) though I am most certain this is the first example in England since it was first Christened. But for the present it seems something hard to digest it, because I know so well that all Assemblies of the Church have admitted Priests to consultation and dispute, but never to authority and decision, till the Pope enlarging the phylacteries of the Archimandrites, and Abbots, did sometime by way of priviledge and dispensation give to some of them decisive voices in publick Councils; but this was one of the things in which he did innovate and invade against the publick resolutions of Christendom, though he durst not do it often, and yet when he did it, it was in very small and inconsiderable numbers.

[Page] Sect. 3. I SAID I would not meddle with the Efficient, and I cannot meddle with the Final cause, nor guess at any other ends and purposes of theirs than at what they publickly profess, which is the abolition and destruction of the Book of Common Prayer; which great change, because they are pleased to call Reformation, I am content in charity to believe they think it so, and that they have Zelum Dei, but whether secundum scientiam, according to knowledge or no, must be judg'd by them who consider the matter, and the form.

Sect. 4. BUT because the matter is of so great variety and minute Consideration, every part whereof would require as much scrutiny as I purpose to bestow upon the whole, I have for the present chosen to consider only the form of it; concerning which, I shall give my judgment without any sharpness or bitterness of spirit, for I am resolved not to be angry with any men of another perswasion, as knowing that I differ just as much from them as they do from me.

Sect. 5. THE Directory takes away that Form of Prayer which by the a [...]hority and consent of all the obliging power of the Kingdom, hath been used and enjoyned ever since the Reformation. But this was done by men of differing spirits, and of disagreeing interests; Some of them consented to it, that they might take away all set forms of prayer, and give way to every mans spirit; the other, that they might take away this Form, and give way and countenance to their own. The first, is an enemy to all deliberation. The Second, to all authority. They will have no man to deliberate, These would have none but themselves. The former are unwise and rash; the latter are pleased with themselves, and are full of opinion. They must be considered apart, for they have rent the Question in pieces, and with the fragment in his hand, every man hath run his own way.

question 1 Sect. 6. FIRST, of them that deny all set forms, though in the subject matter they were confessed innocent and blameless.

Sect. 7. AND here I consider that the true state of the Question is only this, Whether it is better to pray to God with Consideration, or without? Whether is the wiser Man of the two, he who thinks and deliberates what to say, or he that utters his mind as fast as it comes? whether is the better man, he who out of reverence to God is most careful and curious that he offend not in his tongue, and therefore he himself deliberates, and takes the best guides he can; or he who out of the confidence of his own abilities, or other exterior assistances, [...];Isocrat. in Panathen. speaks what ever comes uppermost.

Sect. 8. AND here I wave the advice and counsel of a very wise man, no less than Solomon, Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God, Eccles. 5.2. for God is in Heaven and thou upon Earth, therefore let thy words be few. The consideration of the vast distance between God and us, Heaven and Earth, should create such apprehensions in us, that the very best and choicest of our offertories are not acceptable but by Gods gracious vouchsafing and condescension: and therefore since we are so much indebted to God for accepting our best, it is not safe ventured to present him with a dough-baked sacrifice, and put him off with that which in nature and humane consideration, is absolutely the worst; for such is all the crude and imperfect utterance of our more imperfect conceptions; Hoc non probo in philosopho, cujus oratio sicut vita debet esse composita, said Seneca, A wise mans speech should be like his life and actions; composed, studied, and considered. And if ever inconsideration be the cause of sin, and vanity; it is in our words, and therefore is with greatest care to be avoided in our prayers, we being most of all concerned that God may have no quarrel against them, for folly, or impiety.

Sect. 9. BUT abstracting from the reason, let us consider who keeps the precept best, He that deliberates, or he that considers not when he speaks? What man in the world is hasty to offer any thing unto God, if he be not, who prays ex tempore? And then add to it but the weight of Solomons reason, and let any man answer me if he thinks it can well stand, with that reverence we owe to the immense, the infinite and to the eternal God, the God of wisdom, to offer him a sacrifice, which we durst not present [Page] to a Prince or a prudent Governour in re [...]eriâ, such as our prayers ought to be.

Sect. 10. AND that this may not be dasht with a pretence it is carnal reasoning, I desire it may be remembred, that it is the argument God himself uses against lame, maimed and imperfect sacrifices, Go and offer this to thy Prince, see if he will accept it; implying, that the best person is to have the best present; and what the Prince will slight as truly unworthy of him, much more is it unfit for God. For God accepts not of any thing, we give or do, as if he were bettered by it; for therefore its estimate is not taken by its relation or natural complacency to him, for in it self it is to him as nothing: but God accepts it by its proportion and commensuration to us. That which we call our best, and is truly so in humane estimate, that pleases God, for it declares that if we had better, we would give it him. But to reserve the best, says too plainly, that we think any thing is good enough for him. As therefore God in the Law would not be served by that which was imperfect in genere naturae: so neither now, nor ever, will that please him which is imperfect in genere morum, or materiâ intellectuali, when we can give a better.

Sect. 11. AND therefore the wisest Nations, and the most sober Persons prepared their Verses and Prayers in set forms, with as much religion as they dressed their sacrifices, and observ'd the rites of Festivals and Burials. Amongst the Romans it belong'd to the care of the Priests, to worship in prescrib'd and determin'd words. Alex. ab Alex. l. 2. c. 14. In omni precatione qui vota effundit Sacerdos, Vestam & Janum aliosque Deos praescriptis verbis & composito carmine advocare solet. The Greeks did so too,Idem, l. 4 c 17. receiving their prayers by dictate word for word. Itaque sua carmina suaeque praecationes singulis diis institutae sunt; quas plerunque nequid praeposterè dicatur, aliquis ex praescripto praeire & ad verbum referre solebat. Their hymns and prayers were ordained peculiar to every God, which, lest any thing should be said preposterously, were usually pronounced word for word after the Priest, and out of written Copies; and the Magi among the Persians were as considerate in their devotions;ibid. Magos & Persas primo semper diluculo canere Diis hymnos & laudes, meditato & solenni precationis carmine, The Persians sang hymns to their Gods by the morning twilight in a premeditate, solemn and metrical form of prayer, saith the same Author. For since in all the actions and discourses of men, that which is the least considered is likely to be the worst, and is certainly of the greatest disreputation, it were a strange cheapness of opinion, towards God and Religion, to be the most incurious of what we say to him, and in our religious offices, It is strange that every thing should be considered but our Prayers. It is spoken by E [...]apius to the honour of Proaeres [...]us's Scholars, that when the Proconsul asked their judgments in a question of Philosophy,In vita Pro [...] res [...]i. they were [...], they with much consideration and care gave in answer those words of Aristides, that they were not of the number of those that used to vomit out answers, but of those that considered every word they were to speak. Nihil enim ordinatum est quod praecipitatur & properat, said Seneca, Nothing can be regular and orderly, that is hasty and precipitate; and therefore unless Religion be the most imprudent, trifling, and inconsiderable thing, and that the Work of the Lord is done well enough, when it is done negligently, or that the sanctuary hath the greatest beauty, when it hath the least order, it will concern us highly to think our prayers and religious offices are actions fit for wise men, and therefore to be done as the actions of wise men use to be, that is, deliberately, prudently, and with greatest consideration.

Sect. 12. WELL then in the nature of the thing ex tempore forms have much the worse of it. But it is pretended that there is such a thing as the gift of prayer, a praying with the spirit; Et nescit tard [...] molimina Spiritus sancti gratia, Gods Spirit (if he pleases) can do his work as well in an instant, as in long premeditation. And to this purpose are pretended those places of Scripture which speak of assistance of Gods spirit in our prayers, Zech. 12.10. And I will pour upon the house of David, and the inhabitants of Hierusalem the spirit of grace and supplication. But especially Rom. 8.26. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered, &c. From whence the Conclusion that is inferred is in the words of S. Paul, that we must pray with the Spirit, therefore not with set forms, therefore ex tempore.

[Page] Sect. 13. THE Collection is somewhat wild, for there is great independency in the several parts; and much more is in the Conclusion than was virtually in the premises. But such as it is, the Authors of it, I suppose, will own it. And therefore we will examine the main design of it, and then consider the particular means of its perswasion quoted in the Objection.

Sect. 14. IT is one of the Priviledges of the Gospel, and the benefit of Christs ascension, that the Holy Ghost is given unto the Church, and is become to us the fountain of gifts and graces. But these gifts and graces are improvements and helps of our natural faculties, of our art and industry, not extraordinary, miraculous, and immediate infusions of habits and gifts. That without Gods spirit we cannot pray aright, that our infirmities need his help, that we know not what to ask of our selves is most true: and if ever any Heretick was more confident of his own naturals, or did evermore undervalue Gods grace, than the Pelagian did, yet he denies not this; but what then? therefore without study, without art, without premeditation, without learning, the Spirit gives the gift of prayer, and is it his grace that without any natural or artificial help makes us pray ex tempore? no such thing: the Objection proves nothing of this.

Sect. 15. HERE therefore we will joyn issue, whether the gifts and helps of the Spirit be immediate infusions of the faculties and powers and perfect abilities? Or that he doth assist us only by his aids external, and internal, in the use of such means which God and nature hath given to man to ennoble his soul, better his faculties, and to improve his understanding? ** That the aids of the Holy Ghost are only assistances to us, in the use of natural and artificial means, I will undertake to prove, and from thence it will evidently follow, that labour, and hard study, and premeditation, will soonest purchase the gift of prayer, and ascertain us of the assistance of the Spirit, and therefore set Forms of Prayer studied and considered of, are in a true and proper sence, and without Enthusiasm, the fruits of the Spirit.

Sect. 16. FIRST, Gods Spirit did assist the Apostles by ways extraordinary, and fit for the first institution of Christianity: but doth assist us now by the expresses of those first assistances which he gave to them immediately.

Sect. 17. THUS the Holy Ghost brought to their Memory all things which Jesus spake and did, and by that means we come to know all that the Spirit knew to be necessary for us, the Holy Ghost being Author of our knowledge, by being the fountain of the Revelation, and we are therefore [...], taught by God, because the Spirit of God revealed the Articles of our Religion that they might be known to all ages of the Church; and this is testified by S. Paul, He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, &c. for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, &c. This was the effect of Christ's ascension, when he gave gifts unto men, that is, when he sent the Spirit, the verification of the promise of the Father. The effect of this immission of the Holy Ghost was to fill all things, and that for ever; to build up the Church of God, until the day of consummation; so that the Holy Ghost abides with the Church for ever, by transmitting those revelations, which he taught the Apostles, to all Christians in succession. Now as the Holy Ghost taught the Apostles, and by them still teaches us what to believe; so it is certain he taught the Apostles how, and what to pray; and because it is certain that all the rules concerning our duty in prayer, and all those graces which we are to pray for are transmitted to us by Derivation from the Apostles, whom the Holy Ghost did teach even to that very purpose also, that they should teach us; it follows evidently that the gift of prayer is a gift of the Holy Ghost, and yet to verifie this Proposition we need no other immediate inspiration or extraordinary assistance, than that we derive from the Holy Ghost by the conveyance of the Apostolical Sermons and Writings.

Sect. 18. THE reason is the same in Faith and Prayer; and if there were any difference in the acquisition, or reception, faith certainly needs a more immediate infusion, as being of greatest necessity, and yet a grace to which we least cooperate, it being the first of graces, and less of the will in it, than any other. But yet the Holy [Page] Ghost is the Author of our faith, and we believe with the Spirit, (it is S. Pauls expression) and yet our belief comes by hearing, and reading the holy Scriptures, and their interpretations. Now reconcile these two together, Faith comes by hearing, Ephes. 2.8. 1 Cor. 12.9. and yet is the gift of the Spirit, and it says that the gifts of the Spirit are not extasies, and immediate infusions of habits, but helps from God, to enable us upon the use of the means of his own appointment, to believe, to speak, to understand, to prophesie, and to pray.

Sect. 19. BUT whosoever shall look for any other gifts of the Spirit besides the parts of nature helped by industry and Gods blessing upon it, and the revelations, or the supplies of matter in holy Scripture, will be very far to seek, having neither reason, promise, nor experience of his side. For why should the spirit of prayer be any other than as the gift and spirit of faith (as S. Paul calls it) acquired by humane means, using divine aids? that is, by our endeavours in hearing, reading,2 Cor. 4.13. catechizing, desires to obey, and all this blessed and promoted by God, this produces faith. Nay, it is true of us what Christ told his Apostles, sine me nihil potestis facere: not nihil magnum aut difficile, but omninò nihil, as S. Austin observes. Without me ye can do nothing, and yet we were not capable of a Law, or of reward, or punishment, if neither with him, nor without him, we were able to do any thing. And therefore although in the midst of all our co-operation we may say to God in the words of the Prophet, Domine omnia opera operatus es in nobis, O Lord thou hast wrought all our works in us, yet they are opera nostra still; God works, and we work; First is the [...], Gods grace is brought to us, he helps and gives us abilities, and then expects our duty. And if the spirit of prayer be of greater consequence than all the works God hath wrought in us besides, and hath the promise of a special prerogative, let the first be proved, and the second be shown in any good Record, and then I will confess the difference.

Sect. 20. THE Parallel of this Argument, I the rather urge, because I find praying in the Holy Ghost joyned with graces which are as much Gods gifts and productions of the spirit as any thing in the world, and yet which the Apostle presses upon us as duties, and things put into our power to be improved by our industry, and those are faith, (in which I before instanced) and charity. But ye (beloved) building up your selves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, [...]. Jud. v. 1.20▪ keep your selves in the love of God. All of the same consideration, Faith, and Prayer, and Charity, all gifts of the Spirit, and yet build up your selves in faith, and keep your selves in love, and therefore by a parity of reason, improve your selves in the spirit of Prayer, that is, God by his Spirit having supplied us with matter, let our industry and co-operations per modum naturae, improve these gifts, and build upon this foundation.

Sect. 21. THUS the Spirit of God is called the Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of counsel, the Spirit of grace, the Spirit of meekness, the Spirit of wisdom. And without doubt he is the fountain of all these to us all, and that for ever, and yet it cannot reasonably be supposed, but that we must stir up the graces of God in us, co-operate with his assistances, study in order to counsel, labour and consider in order to wisdom, give all diligence to make our calling and election sure in order to our adoption, in which we are sealed by the Spirit. Now these instances are of gifts, as well as graces, and since the days of wonder and need of miracles is expired, there is no more reason to expect inspiration of gifts, than of graces, without our endeavours. It concerns the Church rather to have these secured than those, and yet the Spirit of God puts it upon the condition of our co-operation, for according to the Proverb of the old Moralists, Deus habet sinum facilem non perfor [...]tum, Gods bosom is apt and easie to the emission of graces and assistances, but it is not loose and ungirt; something must be done on our part, we must improve the talents, and swell the bank; for if either we lay them up in a napkin, or spend them, suppress the Spirit, or extinguish it, we shall dearly account for it.

Sect. 22. IN the mean time, if we may lose the gifts by our own fault, we may purchase them by our diligence: if we may lessen them by our incuriousness, we may increase them by study: if we may quench the spirit, then also we may re-enkindle it: all which are evident probation that the Holy Ghost gives us assistances to improve our natural powers, and to promote our acquisite, and his aids are not inspirations [Page] of the habit, or infusions of a perfect gift, but a subliming of what God gave us in the stock of nature and art, to make it in a sufficient order to an end supernatural and divine.

1 Tim. 4.14. Sect. 23. THE same doctrine we are taught by S. Pauls exhortation to Timothy, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. 2 Tim. 1.6. And again, stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying on of my h [...]nds. If there be any gifts of the Holy Ghost, and spiritual influences, dispensed without our co-operation, and by inspiration of the intire power, it is in ordination, and the persons so ordained are most likely to receive the gift of prayer, if any such thing be for the edification of the Church, they being the men appointed to intercede, and to stand between God and the people, and yet this gift of God even in those times when they were dispensed with miracle, and assistances extraordinary, were given as all things now are given, by the means also of our endeavour, and was capable of improvement by industry, and of defailance by neglect, and therefore much rather is it so now in the days of ordinary ministration and common assistances.

Sect. 24. AND indeed this argument, beside the efficacy of its perswasion, must needs conclude against the Men to whom these adversaria are addressed, because ‘So as that hereby they become not slothful and negligent in stirring up the gifts of Christ in them. But that each one by meditation, by taking heed, &c. may be careful to furnish his heart and tongue with further or other materials, &c.’ Preface to the Directory. themselves call upon their Disciples, to exercise the gift of prayer, and offer it to consideration, that such exercising it, is the way to better it; and if natural endowments and artificial endeavours are the way to purchase new degrees of it, it were not amiss they did consider a little before they begin; and did improve their first and smallest capacities before they ventured any thing in publick by way of address to Almighty God. For the first beginnings are certainly as improvable as the next degrees, and it is certain they have more need of it, as being more imperfect and rude. Therefore when ever Gods Spirit hath given us any capacities, or assistances, any documents, motions, desires, or any aids whatsoever, they are therefore given us with a purpose we should by our industry, skill, and labour, improve them, because without such co-operation, the intention is made void, and the work imperfect.

Sect. 25. AND this is exactly the doctrine I plainly gather from the objected words of S. Paul, The Spirit helpeth our infirmities, [...], it is in the Greek, collaborantem adjuvat. It is an ingeminate expression of our labours. And that supposes us to have faculties capable of improvement, and an obligation to labour, and that the effect of having the gift of prayer depends upon the mutual course, that is, upon God blessing our powers and our endeavours. And if this way the Spirit performs his promise sufficiently, and does all that we need, and all that he ties himself to; he that will multiply his hopes farther than what is sufficient, or what is promised, may possibly deceive himself, but never deceive God, and make him multiply and continue miracles to justifie his fancy.

Sect. 26. BETTER it is to follow the Scriptures for our guide, as in all things else, so in this particular, Ephes. 6.17, 18. Take the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit. The word of God is the sword of the spirit; praying in the Spirit is one way of using it, indeed the only way that he here specifies. Praying in the Spirit then being the using of this Sword, and this Sword being the word of God, it follows evidently, that praying in the spirit, is praying in, or according to the word of God, that is, in the directions, rules, and expresses of the Word of God, that is, of the holy Scriptures. For we have many infirmities, and we need the spirit to help; as doubting, coldness, weariness, disrelish of heavenly things, indifferency; and these are enough to interpret the place quoted in the Objection, without tying him to make words for us to no great religious purposes when God hath done that for us in other manner than what we dream of. **

Sect. 27. SO that in effect, praying in the Holy Ghost, or with the spirit, is nothing but prayer for such things, and in such manner which God by his Spirit hath taught us in holy Scripture. Holy Prayers, spiritual songs, so the Apostle calls one part of prayer, viz. Eucharistical or thanksgiving, that is, Prayers or Songs which are spiritual in materiâ. And if they be called spiritual for the Efficient cause too, the Holy Ghost being the Author of them, it comes all to one, for therefore he is the cause and giver of them, because he hath in his word revealed, what things we are to pray for, and there also hath taught us the manner.

[Page] Sect. 28. AND this I plainly prove from the words of S. Paul before quoted,Rom. 8.26. The Spirit helpeth our infirmities, [for we know not what we should pray for as we ought] In this we are infirm, that we know not our own needs, nor our own advantages: when the Holy Ghost hath taught us what to ask, and to ask that as we ought, then he hath healed our infirmities, and our ignorances in the matter and the manner; then we know what to pray for as we ought, then we have the grace of Prayer, and the Spirit of supplication. And therefore in the instance before mentioned concerning spiritual songs, when the Apostle had twice enjoyn'd the use of them in order to Prayer and Preaching, to instruction and to Eucharist, and those to be done by the aid of Christ, and Christ's spirit; What in Eph. 5.18, 19 one place he calls, [being filled with the Spirit:] In the other he calls, [Col. 3.16. the dwelling of the word of Christ in us richly] plainly intimating to us, that when we are mighty in the scriptures, full of the word of Christ, then we are filled with the Spirit, because the Spirit is the great Dictator of them to us, and the Remembrancer, and when by such helps of Scripture we sing Hymns to Gods honour and our mutual comfort, then we sing and give thanks in the spirit. And this is evident, if you consult the places, and compare them.

Sect. 29. AND that this is for this reason called a gift, and grace, or issue of the Spirit, is so evident and notorious, that the speaking of an ordinary revealed truth, is called in Scripture, a speaking by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.8.Vid. Act. 19.21. & 16.7, 8, 9, 10. No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost. For though the world could not acknowledge Jesus for the Lord without a revelation, yet now that we are taught this truth by Scripture, and by the preaching of the Apostles to which they were enabled by the Holy Ghost, we need no revelation or Enthusiasm to confess this truth, which we are taught in our Creeds and Catechisms; and this light sprang first from the immission of a ray from God's Spirit, we must for ever acknowledge him the fountain of our light. Though we cool our thirst at the mouth of the river, yet we owe for our draughts to the springs and fountains from whence the waters first came, though derived to us by the succession of a long current. If the Holy Ghost supplies us with materials and fundamentals for our building, it is then enough to denominate the whole edifice to be of him, although the labour and the workmanship be ours upon another stock. And this is it which the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 2.13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. The Holy Ghost teaches, yet it is upon our co-operation, our study and endeavour; while we compare spiritual things with spiritual, the Holy Ghost is said to teach us, because these spirituals were of his suggestion and revelation.

Sect. 30. FOR it is a rule of the School, and there is much reason in it, Habitus infusi infunduntur per modum acquisitorum, whatsoever is infused into us is in the same manner infused as other things are acquired, that is, step by step, by humane means and co-operation, and grace does not give us new faculties, and create another nature, but meliorates and improves our own. And therefore what the Greeks called [...], habits, the Christians used to call [...] and [...], gifts, because we derive assistances from above to heighten the habits, and facilitate the actions, in order to a more noble and supernatural end. And what S. Paul said in the Resurrection, is also true in this Question, That is not first which is spiritual, but that which natural, and then that which is spiritual. The graces and gifts of the Spirit are postnate, and are additions to art and nature. God directs our counsels, opens our understandings, regulates our will, orders our affections, supplies us with objects and arguments, and opportunities, and revelations in scriptis, and then most when we most imploy our own endeavours, God loving to bless all the means, and instruments of his service, whether they be natural, or acquisite.

Sect. 31. SO that now I demand, Whether, since the expiration of the age of miracles, Gods spirit does not most assist us, when we most endeavour and most use the means? He that says, No, discourages all men from reading the Scriptures, from industry, from meditation, from conference, from humane arts, and sciences, and from whatsoever else God and good Laws, provoke us to by proposition of rewards. But if Yea, (as most certainly God will best crown the best endeavours) then the spirit of prayer is greatest in him, who (supposing the like capacities and opportunities) studies hardest, reads most, practises most religiously, deliberates most prudently; [Page] and then by how much want of means is worse than the use of means, by so much ex tempore prayers are worse than deliberate and studied. Excellent therefore is the Counsel of Saint Peter, 1 Epist. Chap. 4. ver. 11. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God (not lightly then and inconsiderately) If any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, (great reason then to put to all his abilities and faculties to it) and whether of the two does most likely do that, he that takes pains, and considers and discusses, and so approves and practises a form, or he that never considers what he says, till he says it, needs not much deliberation to pass a sentence. Only methinks it is most unreasonable that we should be bound to prepare our selves with due requisites to hear what they shall speak in publick, and that they should not prepare what to speak; as if to speak were of easier or of less consideration, than to hear what is spoken; or if they do prepare what to speak to the people, it were also very fit they prepar'd their prayers, and considered before-hand of the fitness of the offertory they present to God.

Sect. 32. LASTLY, Did not the Pen-men of the Scripture, write the Epistles and Gospels respectively all by the Spirit? Most certainly, holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, saith Saint Peter. And certainly they were moved by a more immediate motion, and a motion nearer to an Enthusiasm, than now adays in the gift and spirit of Prayer. And yet in the midst of those great assistances and motions they did use study,Note: Etiam Veteres Propheta disposuerunt se ad respondendum propheticé. Et vaticinia admoto plectro, aut hausto calice, dederunt. (Gen. 44.5.) Scyphus quem furati estis ipse est in quo Dominus meus bibit, & in quo augurari solet, dixit Oeconomus Josephi. Et efferte psalterium, dixit Eliseus (2 Reg. 3.15.) Dominum interrogat [...]rus. Vid. Eras. Epist. ad Jo. Eckium Ep. l. 20. art, industry, and humane abilities. This is more than probable in the different stiles of the several Books, some being of admirable art, others lower and plain. The words were their own, at least sometimes, not the Holy Ghosts. And if Origen, Saint Hierome, and especially the Greek Fathers, Scholiasts and Grammarians were not deceived by false Copies, but that they truly did observe, sometimes to be impropriety of an expression in the language, sometimes not true Greek, who will think those errors or imperfections in Grammar, were (in respect of the words, I say, precisely) immediate inspirations and dictates of the Holy Ghost, and not rather their own productions of industry and humanity? But clearly some of their words were the words of Aratus, some of Epimenides: some of Menander, some of S. Paul, [This speak I, not the Lord.] Some were the words of Moses, 1 Cor. 7. even all that part of the Levitical Law which concerned divorces, and concerning which our blessed Saviour affirms, that Moses permitted it, because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so: and divers others of the same nature collected and observed to this purpose, by Homil. 16. in Numer. Origen, Lib. 5. cont. Eunom. c. pepenult. S. Basil, Lib. 8. in Lucan. c. 16. S. Ambrose; and particularly, that promise which S. Paul made of calling upon the Corinthians as he passed into Macedonia, which certainly in all reason is to be presumed to have been spoken humanitùs, and not by immediate inspiration and infusion, because Saint Paul was so hindred that he could not be as good as his word, and yet the Holy Ghost could have foreseen it and might better have excused it, if Saint Paul had laid it upon his score; but he did not, and it is reasonable enough to believe there was no cause he should, and yet because the Holy Ghost renewed their memory, improved their understanding, supplied to some their want of humane learning, and so assisted them that they should not commit an error in fact or opinion, neither in the narrative nor dogmatical parts, therefore they writ by the Spirit. Since that we cannot pretend upon any grounds of probability to an inspiration so immediate as theirs, and yet their assistances which they had from the Spirit did not exclude humane arts and industry, but that the ablest Scholar did write the best, much rather is this true in the gifts and assistances we receive, and particularly in the gift of prayer, it is not an ex tempore and an inspired faculty, but the faculties of nature, and the abilities of art and industry are improv'd and ennobled by the supervening assistances of the Spirit. And if these who pray ex tempore, say that the assistance they receive from the Spirit is the inspiration of words and powers without the operations of art and natural abilities & humane industry, then besides that it is more than the Pen-men of Scripture sometime had (because they needed no extraordinary assistances to what they could of themselves do upon the stock of other abilities) besides this, I say, it must follow that such Prayers so inspired, if they were committed to writing, would prove as good Canonical Scripture as any is in Saint Paul's Epistles; the impudence of which pretension is sufficient to prove the extreme vanity of the challenge.

Sect. 33. THE summe is this. Whatsoever this gift is, or this spirit of prayer, it is to be acquired by humane industry, by learning of the Scriptures, by reading, [Page] by conference, and by whatsoever else faculties are improved; and habits enlarged. Gods Spirit hath done his work sufficiently this way, and he loves not either in nature or grace (which are his two great sanctions) to multiply miracles when there is no need.

Sect. 34. AND now let us take a man that pretends he hath the gift of Prayer, and loves to pray ex tempore, I suppose his thoughts go a little before his tongue; I demand then, Whether cannot this man, when it is once come into his head, hold his tongue, and write down what he hath conceived? If his first conceptions were of God, and God's Spirit, then they are so still, even when they are written. Or is the Spirit departed from him, upon the sight of a Pen and Inkhorn? It did use to be otherwise among the old and new Prophets, whether they were Prophets of prediction, or of ordinary ministery. But if his conception may be written, and being written is still a production of the Spirit, then it follows, that set forms of prayer, deliberate, and described, may as well be a praying with the Spirit, as sudden forms and ex tempore out-lets.

Sect. 35. NOW the case being thus put, I would fain know what the difference is between deliberate and ex tempore Prayers, save only that in these there is less consideration and prudence; for that the other are (at least as much as these) the productions of the Spirit, is evident in the very case put in this Argument: and whether to consider and to weigh them be any disadvantage to our devotions, I leave it to all wise men to determine; So that in effect since after the pretended assistance of the Spirit in our prayers we may write them down, consider them, try the spirits, and ponder the matter, the reason and the religion of the address; let the world judge whether this sudden utterance and ex tempore forms be any thing else but a direct resolution not to consider beforehand what we speak. Sic itaque habe, ut istam vim dicendi rapidam aptiorem esse circulanti judices, quàm agenti rem magnam & seriam docentique. They are the words of Seneca, and express what naturally flows from the premises. The pretence of the Spirit, and the gift of prayer is not sufficient to justifie the dishonour they do to Religion, in serving it in the lowest and most indeliberate manner, nor quit such men from unreasonableness and folly who will dare to speak to God in the presence of the people, and in their behalf, without deliberation, or learning, or study. Nothing is a greater disreputation to the prudence of a Discourse, than to say it was a thing made up in haste, that is, without due considering.

Sect. 36. BUT here I consider, and I wish they whom it concerns most, would do so too: that to pretend the Spirit in so unreasonable a manner to so ill purposes, and without reason, or promise, or probability for doing it, is a very great crime, and of dangerous consequence. It was the greatest aggravation of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, [...], that they did falsly pretend and belye the Holy Spirit, which crime besides that it dishonours the Holy Ghost, to make him the President of imperfect and illiterate rites, the Author of confusion, and indeliberate Discourses, and the Parent of such productions, which a wise person would blush to own: it also intitles him to all those Doctrines which either Chance or Design shall expose to the people in such prayers to which they entitle the holy Spirit as the Author and immediate Dictator. So that if they please, he must not only own their follies, but their impieties too; and how great disreputation this is to the Spirit of Wisdom, of Counsel, and of Holiness, I wish they may rather understand by Discourse than by Experiment.

Sect. 37. BUT let us look a little further into the mystery, and see what is meant in Scripture by [praying with the spirit. In what sence the holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Prayer, I have already shewn, viz. by the same reason as he is the Spirit of faith, of prudence, of knowledge, of understanding, and the like, because he gives us assistances for the acquiring of these graces, and furnishes us with revelations by way of object and instruction. But praying with the Spirit hath besides this, other sences also in Scripture. I find in one place, that we then pray with the Spirit, when the Holy Ghost does actually excite us to desires and earnest tendencies, to the obtaining our holy purpose, when he prepares our hearts to pray, when he enkindles our desires, gives us zeal and devotion, charity and fervour, spiritual violence, and holy importunity. This sence is also in the latter part of the objected words of S. Paul, Rom. 8. The Spirit it self maketh Intercession for us with groanings. And indeed this is truly a praying with the [Page] Spirit, but this will do our Reverend Brethren of the Assembly little advantage as to the present Question. For this Spirit is not a Spirit of utterance, not at all clamorous in the ears of the people, but cries aloud in the ears of God with [groans unutterable,] so it follows, and only [He that searcheth the heart, he understandeth the meaning of the Spirit.] This is the Spirit of the Son,Sunt ne mei? sunt ne tui? imò sunt gemitus Ecclesiae, aliquando in [...]e, aliquando in te. August. eodem modo quo S. August. dixit Deo, Conqueror tibi Domine lachrymis Jesu Christi, de quo dictum est, Heb. 5.7. [...]. which God hath sent into our hearts (not into our tongues) whereby we cry, Abba, Father, Gal. 4.6. And this is the great [...] for mental prayer, which is properly and truly praying by the Spirit.

Sect. 38. ANOTHER praying with the Spirit I find in that place of St. Paul, from whence this expression is taken, and commonly used, I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. It is generally supposed that Saint Paul relates here to a special and extraordinary gift of Prayer, which was indulg'd to the Primitive Bishops and Priests, the Apostles and Rulers of Churches, and to some other Persons extraordinarily, of being able to compose Prayers, pious in the matter, prudent in the composure, devout in the forms, expressive in the language; and in short, useful to the Church, and very apt for devotion, and serving to her Religion and necessities. I believe that such a gift there was, and this indulged as other issues of the Spirit to some persons, upon special necessities, by singular dispensation, as the Spirit knew to be most expedient for the present need and the future instruction. This I believe, not because I find sufficient testimony that it was so, or any evidence from the words now alledged, but because it was reasonable it should be so, and agreeable to the other proceedings of the Holy Ghost. For although we account it an easie matter, to make prayers, and we have great reason to give thanks to the Holy Ghost for it, who hath descended so plentifully upon the Church, hath made plentiful revelation of all the publick and private necessities of the world, hath taught us how to pray, given rules for the manner of address, taught us how to distinguish spiritual from carnal things, hath represented the vanity of worldly desires, the unsatisfyingness of earthly possessions, the blessing of being denied our impertinent, secular, and indiscreet requests, and hath done all this at the beginning of Christianity, and hath actually stirred up the Apostles and Apostolical men to make so many excellent Forms of Prayer, which their Successors did in part retain, and in part imitate, till the conjunct wisdom of the Church saw her Offices compleat, regular and sufficient. So that now every man is able to make something of Forms of Prayer, (for which ability they should do well to pay their Eucharist to the Holy Ghost, and not abuse the gift to vanity or schism) yet at the first beginning of Christianity, till the holy Spirit did fill all things, they found no such plenty of Forms of Prayer: and it was accounted a matter of so great consideration to make a Form of Prayer, that it was thought a fit work for a Prophet, or the Founder of an Institution. And therefore the Disciples of John asked of him to teach them how to pray; and the Disciples of Christ did so too. For the Law of Moses had no Rules to instruct the Synagogue how to pray; and but that Moses, and David, and Asaph, and some few of the Prophets more, left forms of Prayer which the Spirit of God inspired them withall upon great necessities, and great mercy to that people, they had not known how to have composed an Office, for the daily service of the Temple, without danger of asking things needless, vain, or impious, such as were the prayers in the Roman Closets, that he was a good man that would not own them.

Et nihil arcano qui roget ore Deos.

—Pulchra Laverna

Da mihi fallere, da justum, sanctúmque videri;

Noctem peccatis & fraudibus objice nubem.

But when the Holy Ghost came down in a full breath, and a mighty wind, he filled the breasts and tongues of men, and furnished the first Christians not only with abilities enough to frame excellent devotions for their present Offices, but also to become precedents for Liturgie to all Ages of the Church, the first being imitated by the second, and the second by the third, till the Church be setled in peace, and the Records transmitted with greater care, and preserved with less hazard, the Church chose such Forms whose Copies we retain at this day.

[Page] Sect. 39. NOW since it was certain that all ages of the Church would look upon the first Fathers in Christ, and Founders of Churches as precedents, or Tutors, and Guides, in all the parts of their Religion, and that prayer with its several parts, and instances, is a great portion of the Religion (the Sacraments themselves being instruments of grace, and effectual in genere orationis) it is very reasonable to think that the Apostolical men had not only the first fruits, but the elder Brothers share, a double portion of the Spirit, because they were not only to serve their own needs, to which a single and an ordinary portion would have been then (as now) abundantly sufficient, but also to serve the necessity of the succession, and to instruct the Church for ever after.

Sect. 40. BUT then, that this assistance was an ability to pray ex tempore, I find it no where affirmed by sufficient authentick Testimony, and if they could have done it, it is very likely they would have been wary, and restrained in the publick use of it. I doubt not but there might then be some sudden necessities of the Church, for which the Church being in her infancy had not as yet provided any publick forms, concerning which cases I may say as Quintilian of an Oratour in the great and sudden needs of the Commonwealth, Quarum si qua non dico cuicunque innocentium civium, De extemporal [...] dicendi facultate. sed amicorum ac propinquorum alicui evenerit, stabítne mutus, & salutarem parentibus vocem, statim, si non succurratur, perituris, moras & secessum & silentium quaeret, dum illa verba fabricentur, & memoriae insidant, & vox ac latus praeparetur? I do not think that they were oratores imparati ad casus, but that an ability of praying on a sudden was indulged to them by a special aid of the Spirit to contest against sudden dangers, and the violence of new accidents, to which also possibly a new inspiration was but for a very little while necessary, even till they understood the mysteries of Christianity, and the revelations of the Spirit, by proportion and analogy to which they were sufficiently instructed to make their sudden prayers when sudden occasions did require.

Sect. 41. THIS I speak by way of concession and probability. For no man can prove thus much as I am willing (relying upon the reasonableness of the Conjecture) to suppose; but that praying with the Spirit in this place, is praying without study, art, or deliberation, is not so much as intimated.

Sect. 42. FOR first, It is here implyed that they did prepare some of those devotions to which they were helped by the Spirit, [...], when you come together each of you (peradventure) hath a Psalm. [...] not [...], not every one makes, but when you meet, every one hath, viz. [already] which supposes they had it prepared against the meeting. For the Spirit could help as well at home in their meditation, as in the publick upon a sudden: and though it is certain, the Holy Spirit loves to bless the publick meetings, the communion of Saints, with special benedictions; yet I suppose my Adversaries are not willing to acknowledge any thing that should do much reputation to the Church, and the publick authoriz'd conventions; at least, not to confine the Spirit to such holy and blessed meetings. They will (I suppose) rather grant the words do probably intimate, they came prepared with a Hymn, and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the thing, but that so also might their other forms of Prayer; the assistance of the Spirit (which is the thing in Question) hinders not, but that they also might have made them by premeditation.

Sect. 43. SECONDLY, In this place, praying with the Spirit signifies no other extraordinary assistance, but that the Spirit help'd them to speak their prayer, in an unknown Tongue, [...], If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit, what then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. Plainly here, praying in the spirit, which is opposed to praying in understanding, is praying in an unknown tongue; where by the way observe, that praying with the spirit, even in the sence of Scripture, is not always most to edification of the people. Not alwayes with understanding. And when these two are separated, St. Paul prefers five words with understanding, before ten thousand in the spirit. For this praying with the spirit was indeed then a gift extraordinary and miraculous, like as prophesying with the spirit, and expired with it. But while it did last, it was the lowest of gifts, inter dona linguarum, [Page] it was but a gift of the tongue, and not to the benefit of the Church directly or immediately.

Sect. 44. THIS also observe in passing by. If Saint Paul did so undervalue the praying with the Spirit, that he preferred edifying the Church a thousand degrees beyond it; I suppose he would have been of the same mind, if the Question had been between praying with the Spirit, and obeying our Superiours, as he was when it was between praying with the Spirit and edification of the Church, because, (if I be not mistaken) it is matter of great concernment towards the edification of the Church, to obey our Superiours, not to innovate in publick forms of worship, especially with the scandal and offence of very wise and learned men, and to the disgrace of the dead Martyrs, who sealed our Liturgie with their blood.

Sect. 45. BUT to return. In this place, praying with the Spirit, beside the assistance given by the Holy Ghost to speak in a strange tongue, is no more than [my spirit praying] that is, it implies my co-operation with the assistance of the Spirit of God, insomuch that the whole action may truly be denominated mine, and is called (of the Spirit) only by reason of that collateral assistance. For so Saint Paul joyns them as terms identical, and expressive one of anothers meaning, as you may please to read, ver. 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 14. I will pray with the spirit, and my spirit truly prayeth. It is the act of our inner man, praying holy and spiritual prayers. But then indeed at that time there was something extraordinary adjoyned, for it was in an unknown Tongue, the practice of which Saint Paul there dislikes. This also will be to none of their purposes. For whether it were ex tempore, or by premeditation is not here expressed; or if it had, yet that assistance extraordinary in prayer, if there was any beside the gift of Tongues, (which is not here, or any where else expressed) is no more transmitted to us, than the speaking Tongues in the Spirit, or prophesying ex tempore and by the Spirit.

Sect. 46. BUT I would add also one experiment which Saint Paul also there adds by way of instance. If praying with the Spirit in this place be praying ex tempore, then so is singing too. For they are expressed in the same place, in the same manner, to the same end, and I know no reason why there should be differing sences put upon them to serve purposes. And now let us have some Church Musick too, though the Organs be pull'd down, and let any the best Psalmist of them all, compose a Hymn in Metrical form (as Antipater Sidonius in Quintilian, and Licinius Archias in Cicero could do in their Verses) and sing it to a new tune with perfect and true musick, and all this ex tempore. For all this the Holy Ghost can do if he pleases; But if it be said that the Corinthian Christians composed their Songs and Hymns according to art and rules of Musick, by study and industry, and that to this they were assisted by the Spirit; and that this together with the devotion of their spirit, was singing with the Spirit: then say I, so composing set forms of Liturgie by skill, and prudence, and humane industry, may be as much praying with the Spirit, as the other is singing with the Spirit: plainly enough. In all the sences of praying with the Spirit, and in all its acceptations in Scripture, to pray or sing with the Spirit, neither of them of necessity implies ex tempore.

Sect. 47. THE sum or Collecta of the premises is this. Praying with the Spirit, is either, First, when the Spirit stirs up our desires to pray, per motionem actualis auxilii: or secondly, when the Spirit teaches us what, or how to pray, telling us the matter, and manner of our prayers. Thirdly, or lastly, dictating the very words of our prayers. There is no other way in the world to pray with the Spirit or in the Holy Ghost, that is pertinent to this Question. And of this last manner the Scripture determines nothing, nor speaks any thing expresly of it, and yet suppose it had, we are certain the Holy Ghost hath supplied us with all these, and yet in set forms of Prayer best of all, I mean, there where a difference can be; For (1) as for the desires, and actual motions or incitements to pray, they are indifferent to one or the other, to set forms, or to ex tempore.

Sect. 48. SECONDLY, But as to the matter or manner of prayer, it is clearly contained in the expresses, and set forms of Scriptures, and there it is supplied to us by the Spirit, for he is the great Dictatour of it.

[Page] Sect. 49. 3. NOW then for the very words. No man can assure me that the words of his ex tempore prayer are the words of the holy Spirit: it is neither reason nor modesty to expect such immediate assistances to so little purpose, he having supplied us with abilities more than enough to express our desires aliundè, otherwise than by immediate dictate; But if we will take David's Psalter or the other Hymns of holy Scripture, or any of the Prayers which are respersed over the Bible, we are sure enough that they are the words of Gods Spirit, mediately or immediately, by way of infusion, or extasie, by vision, or at least by ordinary assistance. And now then, what greater confidence can any man have for the excellency of his prayers, and the probability of their being accepted, than when he prayes his Psalter, or the Lords Prayer, or any other office which he finds consigned in Scripture? When Gods Spirit stirs us up to an actual devotion, and then we use the matter he hath described and taught, and the very words which Christ and Christs Spirit, and the Apostles, and other persons, full of the Holy Ghost did use. If in the world there be any praying with the Spirit (I mean, in vocal prayer) this is it.

Sect. 50. AND thus I have examined the intire and full scope of this first Question, and rifled their Objection, which was the only colour to hide the appearance of its natural deformity at the first sight. The result is this,Quintil. l. 10. c. 7. Scribendum ergo quoties licebit; Si id non dabitur, cogitandum: ab utroque exclusi, debent tamen adniti, ut neque deprehensus orator, neque destitutus esse videatur. ‘In making our Orations and publick Advocations, we must write what we mean to speak, as often as we can; when we cannot, yet we must deliberate, and study; and when the suddenness of the accident prevents both these, we must use all the powers of art and care that we have a present mind, and call in all our first provisions, that we be not destitute of matter and words apt for the imployment.’ This was Quintilian's rule for the matter of prudence, and in secular occasions; but when the instance is in Religion, and especially in our prayers, it will concern us nearer, to be curious and deliberate what we speak in the audience of the eternal God, when our lives and our souls, and the honour of God, and the reputation of Religion are concern'd, and whatsoever is greatest in it self, or dearest to us.

Sect. 51. THE second Question hath in it something more of difficulty; for the Men that own it will give leave that set forms may be used, so you give question 2 leave to them to make them; but if authority shall interpose and prescribe a Liturgie, every word shall breed a quarrel, and if the matter be innocent, yet the very injunction is tyranny, a restraining of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, it leaves the spirit of a Man sterile and unprofitable, it is not for edification of the Church, and is as destitute of comfort, as it is of profit. For God hath not restrained his Spirit to those few that rule the Church in prelation above others, but if he hath given to them the spirit of Government, he hath given to others the spirit of Prayer, and the spirit of Prophecy. Now the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall, for to one is given by the Spirit the word of Wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit. And these and many other gifts are given to several members that they may supply one another, and all joyn to the edification of the body. And therefore that must needs be an imprudent sanction that so determines the offices of the Church, that she cannot be edified by that variety of gifts which the holy Spirit hath given to several men to that purpose, just as if there should be a Canon, that but one Sermon should be preached in all Churches for ever. Besides, it must needs be, that the devotion of the Suppliants must be much retarded by the perpetuity, and unalterable reiteration of the same form; For since our affections will certainly vary and suffer great alteration of degrees, and inclinations, it is easier to frame words apt to comply with our affections than to conform our affections in all varieties to the same words: When the forms are daily changed, it is more probable that every man shall find something proportionable to his fancy, which is the great instrument of Devotion, than to suppose that any one form, should be like Manna fitted to every taste; and therefore in prayers, as the affections must be natural, sweet, and proper, so also should the words expressing the affections, issue forth by way of natural emanation. Sed extemporalis audaciae atque ipsius temeritatis vel praecipua jucunditas est. Nam in ingenio sicut in agro quanquam alia diu serantur, Quintil. dial. de Oratorib. atque 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.

[Page] 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, Quintil. 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 [Page] 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,1 Cor. 14.28. he may compose his own Liturgy, pectus enim est quod disertos facit, & vis mentis. Quintil. 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; *Quale est illud apud Tertul. de privatis Christianorum precibus, non quidem ab alio dictatis, sed à Scripturarum fontibus derivatis. Illuc suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocui; capit [...] [...]udo, quia non erubescimus; denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus pro omnibus Imperatoribus, vitam illi [...] prolixam, imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitus f [...]rtes, senatum fidelem, populum probum, orbem qui [...]tu [...], & quaecunque homini [...] & Casaris vota sunt. 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 weak, and the devotion imperfect, and the affections dry, though in respect of the precise duty on our part, and the acceptation on Gods part, no advantage is got by a liberty of an indifferent, unlimited, and chosen form; and therefore in all cases, the whole duty of prayer is secured by publick forms; yet other circumstantial and accidental advantages, may be obtained by it, and therefore let such persons feast themselves in private with sweet-meats, and less nourishing delicacies, weak stomachs must be cared for, yet they must be confessed to have stronger stomachs, and better health, that can feed upon the wholesome food prepared in the common Refectories.

Sect. 60. SO that publick forms (it is true) cannot be fitted to every mans fancy, and affections, especially in an Age wherein all publick constitutions are protested against; but yet they may be fitted to all necessities, and to every mans duty, and for the pleasing the affections and fancies of men, that may be sometimes convenient, but it is never necessary; and God that suffers driness of affections many times in his dearest servants, and in their greatest troubles, and most excellent Devotions, hath by that sufferance of his, given demonstration that it is not necessary such affections should be complyed withal, for then he would never suffer those sterilities, but himself by a cup of sensible Devotion would water and refresh those drinesses; and if God himself does not, it is not to be expected the Church should.

Sect. 61. AND this also is the case of Scripture, for the many discourses of excellent Orators and Preachers have all those advantages of meeting with the various affections and dispositions of the hearers, and may cause a tear, when all Saint Paul's Epistles would not; and yet certainly there is no comparison between them, but one Chapter of Saint Paul is more excellent and of better use to the substantial part of Religion, than all the Sermons of Saint Chrysostome: and yet there are some circumstances of advantage which humane eloquence may have, which are not observed to be in those other more excellent emanations of the holy Spirit. And [Page] therefore if the Objection should be true, and that conceived forms of Prayer in their great variety might do some accidental advantages to weaker persons, and stronger fancies, and more imperfect judgments, yet this instance of Scripture is a demonstration that set and composed devotions may be better; and this reason does not prove the contrary, because the Sermons in Scripture are infinitely to be preferred before those discourses and orations, which do more comply with the fancies of the people. Nay, we see by experience, that the change of our prayers, or our books, or our company, is so delightful to most persons, that though the change be for the worse, it more complies with their affections than the peremptory and unaltered retaining of the better; but yet this is no good argument to prove that change to be for the better.

Sect. 62. BUT yet if such compliance with fancies and affections were necessary, what are we the nearer if every Minister were permitted to pray his own forms? How can his form comply with the great variety of affections which are amongst his Auditors, any more than the publick forms described by Authority? It may hit casually, and by accident be commensurate to the present fancy of some of his Congregation, with which at that time possibly the publick form would not: This may be thus, and it may be otherwise, and at the same time, in which some feel a gust and relish in his prayer, others might feel a greater sweetness in recitation of the publick forms. This thing is so by chance, so irregular and uncertain, that no wise man, nor no Providence less than Divine can make any provisions for it.

Sect. 63. AND after all, it is nothing but the fantastick and imaginative part that is pleased, which for ought appears, may be disturbed with curiosity, peevishness, pride, spirit of novelty, lightness, and impertinency: and that to satisfie such spirits, and fantastick persons, may be as dangerous and useless to them, as it is troublesome in it self. But then for the matter of edification, that is considerable upon another stock: for now adayes men are never edified, unless they be pleased, and if they mislike the Person, or have taken up a quarrel against any form, or institution, presently they cry out, They are not edified, that is, they are displeased: and the ground of their displeasure is nothing from the thing it self, but from themselves only: they are wanton with their meat, and long for variety, and then they cry out that Manna will not nourish them, but prefer the onions of Egypt before the food of Angels; the way to cure this inconvenience is to alter the men, not to change the institution; for it is very certain that wholsome meat is of it self nutritive, if the body be disposed to its reception and entertainment. But it is not certain that what a sick man fancies out of the weakness of his spirit, the distemper of his appetite, and wildness of his fancy, that it will become to him either good, or good physick. Now in the entertainments of Religion and spiritual repasts, that is wholsome, nutritive, and apt to edifie, which is pious in it self, of advantage to the honour of God, whatsoever is good Doctrine, or good Prayers, especially when it is prepared by a publick hand, and designed for publick use, by all the wisdom of those men, who in all reason are to be supposed to have received from God all those assistances which are effects of the spirit of Government; and therefore it is but weakness of spirit, or strength of passion, impotency in some sence or other, certainly, that first dislikes the publick provisions, and then, say, they are not wholsome.

Sect. 64. FOR I demand concerning the publick Liturgies of a Church, whose constitution is principally of the parts, and choicest extracts of Scripture, Lessons and the Psalms, and some few Hymns and Symbols, made by the most excellent persons in the Primitive Church, and all this in nothing disagreeing from the rules of Liturgie given in Scripture, but that the same things are desired, and the same persons prayed for, and to the same end, and by the same great instrument of address and acceptation [by Jesus Christ] and which gives all the glory that is due to God, and gives nothing of this to a Creature, and hath in it many admirable documents; whether there be any thing wanting in such a Lyturgie towards edification? What is there in prayers that can edifie, that is not in such a Lyturgie so constituted? or what can there be more in the private forms of any Minister, than is in such a publick composition?

[Page] Sect. 65. BY this time, I suppose, the Objection, with all its parts is disbanded so far as it relates to edification, profit, and compliance with the auditors: As for the matter of liberty, and restraint of the spirit, I shall consider that part. In the mean time I shall set down those grounds of Religion and reason upon which publick Liturgie relies, and by the strength of which it is to be justified, against all opposition and pretences.

Sect. 66. 1. THE Church hath a power given to her by the Spirit of God, and a command to describe publick forms of Liturgie. For I consider that the Church is a Family, Jesus Christ is the Master of the Family, the holy Spirit is the great Dispensator of all such graces the family needs, and are, in order to the performance of their Duty; the Apostles, and their Successors, the Rulers of the Church are Stewards of the manifold graces of God, whose office is to provide every mans portion, and to dispence the graces and issues Evangelical by way of Ministry. Who is that faithful and wise Steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler of his Houshold? It was our blessed Saviour's Question, and Saint Paul answered it: Let a man so account of us, 1 Cor. 4.1▪ as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. Now the greatest Ministery of the Gospel is by way of prayer, (most of the graces of the Spirit being obtained by prayer, and such offices which operate by way of impetration, and benediction, and consecration, which are but the several instances of prayer) Prayer, certainly, is the most effectual and mysterious ministery: and therefore since the Holy Ghost hath made the Rulers of the Church, Stewards of the mysteries, they are by vertue of their Stewardship Presidents of Prayer and publick Offices.

Sect. 67. 2. WHICH also is certain, because the Priest is to stand between God and the People, and to represent all their needs to the throne of grace; He is a Prophet and shall pray for thee, said God, concerning Abraham to Abimelech. And therefore the Apostles appointed inferiour Officers in the Church that they might not be hindred in their great work, but we will give our selves to the word of God and to prayer; And therefore in our greatest need, in our sickness, and last scene of our lives, we are directed to send for the Elders of the Church, that they may pray over us; and God hath promised to hear them: and if prayer be of any concernment towards the final condition of our souls, certainly it is to be ordered, guided, and disposed by them who watch for our souls, [...], as they that must give account to God for them.

Sect. 68. 3. NOW, if the Rulers of the Church are Presidents of the rites of Religion, and by consequence of Prayer, either they are to order publick prayers, or private. For private I suppose, most men will be so desirous of their liberty, as to preserve that in private, where they have no concernments but their own, for matter of order or scandal: But for publick, if there be any such thing as Government, and that prayers may be spoiled by disorder, or made ineffectual by confusion, or by any accident may become occasion of a scandal, it is certain that they must be ordered as all other things are in which the publick is certainly concerned, that is, by the Rulers of the Church, who are answerable if there be any miscarriage in the publick. Thus far I suppose there will not be much question with those who allow set forms, but would have themselves be the Composers; They would have the Ministers pray for the people, but the Ministers shall not be prescribed to; the Rulers of the Church shall be the Presidents of religious rites, but then they will be the Rulers, therefore we must proceed farther; and because I will not now enter into the Question who are left by Christ to govern his Church, I will proceed upon such grounds which I hope may be sufficient to determine this Question, and yet decline the other. Therefore

Sect. 69. SINCE the Spirit of God is the Spirit of supplication, they to whom the greatest portion of the Spirit is promised are most competent persons, to pray for the people, and to prescribe forms of prayer. But the promise of the Spirit is made to the Church in general, to her in her united capacity, to the whole Church first, then to particular Churches, then in the lowest seat of the Category to single persons; And we have title to the Promises by being Members of the Church, and in the Communion of Saints; which beside the stylus curiae, the form of all the great Promises, [Page] being in general and comprehensive terms, appears in this, that when any single person is out of this communion, he hath also no title to the promises; which yet he might, if he had any upon his own stock, not derivative from the Church. Now then I infer; if any single persons will have us to believe without possibility of proof (for so it must be) that they pray with the Spirit, (for how shall they be able to prove the Spirit actually to abide in those single persons?) then much rather must we believe it of the Church, which by how much the more general it is, so much the more of the Spirit she is likely to have: and then if there be no errors in the matter, the Church hath the advantage and probability on her side; and if there be an error in matter in either of them, neither of them have the Spirit, or they make not the true use of it. But the publick spirit in all reason is to be trusted before the private when there is a contestation, the Church being prior & potior in promissis, she hath a greater and prior title to the Spirit. And why the Church hath not the spirit of prayer in her compositions as well as any of her children, I desire once for all to be satisfied upon true grounds either of reason or revelation. And if she have, whether she have not as much as any single person? If she have but as much, then there is as much reason in respect of the divine assistance, that the Church should make the forms, as that any single Minister should, and more reason in respect of order and publick influence, and care, and charge of souls: but if she have a greater portion of the Spirit than a single person, that is, if the whole be greater than the part, or the publick better than the private, then it is evident, that the Spirit of the Church in respect of the divine assistance, is chiefly, and in respect of order, is only to be relied upon for publick provisions and forms of prayer.

Sect. 70. BUT now if the Church in her united capacity makes prayers for the people, they cannot be supposed to be other than limited and determined forms; for it is not practicable, or indeed, imaginable, that a Synod of Church Governours (be they who they will, so they be of Christs appointment) should meet in every Church, and pray as every man list; their Counsels are united, and their results are conclusions, and final determinations, which like general propositions are 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 [Page] 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,2 Chron. 29.30. 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 Mat. 5.1. Mat. 6.9. 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,Luke 11.2. [...], when ye pray say, Our Father, [...], when they spake to God, it was fit they should speak in his words,Proar [...]s. ap. Eunapium. in whose Name also their prayers only could be acceptable.

Sect. 77. THIRDLY, For if we must speak this sence, why also are not the very words to be retained? Is there any error or imperfection in the words? Was not Christ Master of his language? And were not his words sufficiently expressive of his sence? Will not the Prayer do well also in our tongues, which as a duty we are obliged to deposite in our hearts, and preserve in our memories, without which it is in all sences useless, whether it be only a pattern, or a repository of matter?

Sect. 78. FOURTHLY, And it is observable, that our blessed Saviour doth not say, Pray that the Name of your heavenly Father may be sanctified, or that your sins may be forgiven, but say, Hallowed be thy name, &c. so that he prescribes this Prayer, not in massa materiae, by in forma verborum, not in a confused heap of matter, but in an exact composure of words, it makes it evident he intended it not only pro regula petendorum, for a direction of what things we are to ask, but also pro forma orationis, for a set form of Prayer. Now it is considerable that no man ever had the fulness of the Spirit, but only the Holy Jesus, and therefore it is also certain, [Page] that no man had the Spirit of prayer like to him, and then, if we pray this prayer devoutly, and with pious and actual intention, do we not pray in the Spirit of Christ, as much as if we prayed any other form of words pretended to be taught us by the Spirit? We are sure that Christ and Christs Spirit taught us this Prayer; they only gather by conjectures and opinions, that in their ex tempore or conceived forms the Spirit of Christ teacheth them. So much then as Certainties are better than uncertainties, and God's Word better than Man's, so much is this set Form, besides the infinite advantages in the matter, better than their ex tempore and conceived Forms, in the form it self. And if ever any Prayer was, or could be, a part of that Doctrine of Faith by which we received the Spirit, Gal. 3.2. it must needs be this Prayer which was the only form our blessed Master taught the Christian Church immediately, was a part of his great and glorious Sermon in the Mount, in which all the needs of the world are sealed up as in a treasure house, and intimated by several petitions as diseases are by their proper and proportioned remedies, and which Christ published as the first emanation of his Spirit, the first perfume of that heavenly anointing which descended on his sacred Head when he went down into the waters of Baptism.

Sect. 79. THIS we are certain of, that there is nothing wanting, nothing superfluous and impertinent, nothing carnal or imperfect in this Prayer, but as it supplies all needs, so it serves all persons, is fitted for all estates, it meets with all accidents, and no necessity can surprize any man, but if God hears him praying that Prayer, he is provided for in that necessity: and yet if any single person paraphrases it, it is not certain but the whole sence of a petition may be altered by the intervention of one improper word, and there can be no security given against this, but qualified and limited, and just in such a proportion as we can be assured of the wisdom and honesty of the person, and the actual assistance of the holy Spirit.

Sect. 80. NOW then I demand whether the Prayer of Manasses be so good a Prayer as the Lords Prayer? or is the Prayer of Judith, or of Tobias, or of Judas Macchabeus, or of the Son of Sirach, is any of these so good? Certainly no man will say they are; and the reason is, because we are not sure they are inspired by the Holy Spirit of God; prudent, and pious, and conformable to Religion they may be, but not penn'd by so excellent a spirit as this Prayer. And what assurance can be given that any Ministers prayer is better than the prayers of the Son of Sirach, who was a very wise, and a very good man, as all the world acknowledges; I know not any one of them that has so large a testimony, or is of so great reputation. But suppose they can make as good prayers, yet surely they are Apocryphal at least, and for the same reason that the Apocryphal prayers are not so excellent as the Lords prayer, by the same reason must the best they can be imagin'd to compose fall short of this excellent pattern by how much they partake of a smaller portion of the Spirit, as a drop of water is less than all the waters under or above the Firmament.

Sect. 81. SECONDLY, I would also willingly know, whether if any man uses the form which Christ taught, supposing he did not tie us to the very prescript words, can there be any hurt in it? Is it imaginable that any Commandment should be broken, or any affront done to the honour of God, or any act of imprudence, or irreligion in it, or any negligence of any insinuation of the Divine pleasure? I cannot yet think of any thing to frame for answer, so much as by way of an Antinomy or Objection. But then supposing Christ did tie us to use this Prayer pro loco & tempore, (according to the nature and obligation of all affirmative precepts) as it is certain he did, in the preceptive words recorded by St. Luke. [When ye pray, say, Our Father] then it is to be considered that a Divine Commandment is broken by its rejection; and therefore, if there were any doubt remaining, whether it be a Command or no; yet since, on one side there is danger of a negligence▪ and a contempt, and that on the other side, the observation and conformity cannot be criminal, or imprudent; it will follow, that the retaining of this Prayer in practice, and suffering it to do all its intentions, and particularly becoming the great [...], or authority for set Forms of prayer, is the safest, most prudent, most Christian understanding of those words of Christ, propounding the Lords Prayer to the Christian Church. And because it is impossible that all particulars should be expressed in any form of prayer, because particulars are not only casual and accidental, but also infinite; Christ, according to that wisdom he [Page] had without measure, fram'd a Prayer, which by a general comprehension should include all particulars, eminently and virtually; so that there should be no defect in it, and yet so short, that the most imperfect memories might retain, and use it.

Sect. 82. AND it is not amiss to observe, that our blessed Saviour first taught this Prayer to be as a remedy, and a reproof of the vain repetition of the Pharisees; and besides, that it was so, à priori, we also in the event, see the excellent spirit and wisdom in the Constitution; for those persons who have laid aside the Lords Prayer, have been noted by common observation, to be very long in their forms, and troublesome, and vain enough in their repetitions, they have laid aside the medicine, and the old wound bleeds afresh, the Pharisees did so of old.

Sect. 83. AND after all this, it is strange imployment, that any man should be put to justifie the wisdom and prudence of any of Christs institutions; as if any of his servants who are wise upon his Stock, instructed by his Wisdom, made knowing by his Revelations, and whose all that is good, is but a weak ray of the glorious light of the Sun of Righteousness, should dare to think that the Derivative should be before the Primitive, the Current above the Fountain; and that we should derive all our excellency from him, and yet have some beyond him, that is, some which he never had, or which he was not pleased to manifest; or that we should have a spirit of Prayer able to make productions beyond his Prayer who received the Spirit without measure. But this is not the first time man hath disputed against God.

Sect. 84. AND now let us consider with sobriety, not only of this excellent Prayer, but of all that are deposited in the primitive records of our Religion. Are not those Prayers and Hymns in holy Scripture, excellent compositions, admirable instruments of devotion, full of piety, rare and incomparable addresses to God? Dare any man with his gift of Prayer pretend, that he can ex tempore, or by study, make better? Who dares pretend that he hath a better spirit than David had? or than the Apostles and Prophets, and other holy persons in Scripture, whose Prayers and Psalms are by Gods Spirit consigned to the use of the Church for ever? Or will it be denied but that they also are excellent Directories and Patterns for prayer? And if Patterns, the nearer we draw to our example, are not the imitations and representments the better? And what then if we took the Samplers themselves? Is there any imperfection in them, and can we mend them, and correct the Magnificat? The very matter of these, and the Author no less than Divine cannot but justifie the Forms, though set, determin'd and prescribed.

Sect. 85. IN a just proportion and commensuration, I argue so concerning the primitive and ancient forms of Church-service, which are composed according to those so excellent Patterns, which if they had remained pure, as in the first institution, or had always been as they had been reformed by the Church of England, they would against all defiance put in for the next place to those forms of Liturgy, which mutatis mutandis, are nothing but the words of Scripture. But I am resolved at this present not to enter into Question concerning the matter of Prayers.

Sect. 86. NEXT, we must enquire what the Apostles did in obedience to the precept of Christ, and what the Church did in imitation of the Apostles. That the Apostles did use the Prayer their Lord taught them, I think need not much be questioned, they could have no other end of their desire, and it had been a strange boldness to ask for a form which they intended not to use, or a strange levity not to do what they intended. But I consider they had a double capacity, they were of the Jewish Religion by education, and now Christians by a new institution; in the first capacity they used those Set forms of Prayer which their Nation used in their devotions. Christ and his Apostles sang a Hymn, part of the great Allelujah which was usually sung at the end of the Paschal Supper, After the Supper they sang a Hymn, Vid. Scalig. d [...] em [...]nd. temp [...]r. de Judeor. magn. Allelujah. sayes the Evangelist. The Jews also used every Sabbath to sing the XCII Psalm, which is therefore intitled, A Song or Psalm for the Sabbath, and they who observed the hours of Prayer, and Vows, according to the rites of the Temple, need not be suspected to have omitted the Jewish forms of prayer. And as they complied with the religious customes of the Nation, worshipping according to the Jewish manner, it is also in reason to be presumed they were Worshippers according to the new Christian institution, and used that form their Lord taught them.

[Page] Sect. 87. NOW, that they tyed themselves to recitation of the very words of Christs Prayer pro loco & tempore, I am therefore easie to believe, because I find they were strict to a scruple in retaining the Sacramental words which Christ spake when he instituted the blessed Sacrament, insomuch that not only three Evangelists, but Saint Paul also not only making a narrative of the institution, but teaching the Corinthians the manner of its celebration, to a tittle he recites the words of Christ. Now the action of the Consecrator is not a theatrical representment of the action of Christ, but a sacred, solemn, and Imò totus Canon consecrationis tam similis est & ferè idem in verbis apud Graecos, Latinos, Arabas, Armenios, Syros, Aegyptios, Aethiopas, ut nisi à communi fonte, qui nisi Apostolorum non est, manare non potuerit. Vnde intelligi datur quia multum erat, ut in Epistolâ, notum illum agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem Universa per orbem servat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatum esse, quod nullâ morum diversitate variatur. S. Aug. ep. 118. Sacramental prayer, in which since the Apostles at first, and the Church ever after did with reverence, and fear, retain the very words, it is not only a probation of the Question in general, in behalf of set forms; but also a high probability that they retained the Lords Prayer, and used it to an [...] in the very form of words.

Sect. 88. AND I the rather make this inference from the preceding argument, because of the cognation one hath with the other; for the Apostles did also in the consecration of the Eucharist, use the Lords Prayer, and that together with the words of institution was the only form of consecration saith Saint Gregory, and Saint Hierome affirms,Greg. l. 7. ep. 63. Hier. lib. contr. Pelag. that the Apostles, by the command of their Lord, used this Eligo in his verbis hoc intelligere, quod omnis, vel penè omnis frequentat Ecclesia, ut precationes accipiamus dictat qu [...]s facimus in celebratione Sacramentorum antequam illud quod est in Domini mensa incipiat benedici; orationes cum benedicitur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur: quam totam orationem, penè omnis Ecclesia Dominicâ oratione concludit. S. Aug. ep. 59. q. 5. ad illud Pauli, Obsecro primum omnium fieri obsecrationes. prayer in the benediction of the Elements.

Sect. 89. BUT besides this, when the Apostles had received great measures of the Spirit, and by their gift of Prayer composed more Forms for the help and comfort of the Church, and contrary to the order in the first Creation, the light which was in the body of the Sun, was now diffused over the face of the new heavens, and the new Earth; it became a precept Evangelical, that we should praise God in Hymns and Psalms, Col. 3.16. and Spiritual Songs, which is so certain, that they were compositions of industry and deliberation, and yet were sung in the Spirit, that he, who denies the last, speaks against Scriptures, he who denies the first, speaks against Reason, and would best confute himself, if in the highest of his pretence of the Spirit, he would venture at some ex tempore Hymns. And of this, we have the express testimony of St. Austin de Hymnis & Psalmis canendis haberi Domini & Apostolorum documenta, & utilia praecepta. Epist. 119. c. 18. And the Church obeyed them, for as an Ancient Author under the name of Di [...]nysius Areopagita relates, the chief of the Clerical, and Ministring Order offer bread upon the altar, Cum Ecclesiastici omnes laudem hymnumque generalem Deo tribuerunt, cum quibus Pontifex sacras preces ritè perficit, &c. They all sing one Hymn to God, and the Bishop prays ritè, according to the ritual or constitution, which in no sence of the Church, or of Grammar, can be understood without a solemn and determined form; [...] says Casaubon is cantare, idem saepiùs dicere, apud Graecos [...]; they were forms of praising God used constantly,In Theophrast. charact. Ap. Euseb. l. 7. c. 24. Et Walast. S [...]abo c. [...]5. de reb Eccles. periodically, and in the daily Offices. And the Fathers of the Councel of Antioch complain against Paulus Samosatenus, Quod Psalmos & cantus qui ad domini nostri Jesu Christi honorem decantari solent tanquam recentiores, & à viris recentioris memoriae editos exploserit. The quarrel was, that he said the Church had used to say Hymns which were made by new men, and not deriv'd from the Ancients; which, if we consider that the Councel of Antioch was in the twelfth year of Galienus the Emperour, 133 years after Christs Ascension, will fairly prove, that the use of prescribed Forms of prayer, Hymns and forms of Worshipping, were very early in the Church; and it is unimaginable it should be otherwise, when we remember the Apostolical precept before mentioned. And if we fancy a higher precedent, than what was manifested upon earth, we may please to see one observ'd to have been made in Heaven; for a set form of Worship, and address to God, was recorded by St. John, and sung in Heaven; and it was composed out of the Songs of Moses, Apoc. 15. (Exod. 15.) of David, (Psal. 145▪) and of Jeremy, Chap. 10.6, 7. which, certainly, is a very good precedent for us to imitate, although but revealed by St. John, by way of vision and extasie, that we may see, [Page] if we would speak with the tongue of Men and Angels, we could not praise God in better Forms, than what are recorded in holy Scripture.

Sect. 90. BUT besides the metrical part, the Apostle hath described other parts of Liturgy in Scripture, whose composition, though it be in determined forms of words, yet not so bound up with numbers, as Hymns: and these Saint Paul calls supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, which are several manners of address distinguished by their subject matter, by their form and manner of address. As appears plainly by [intercessions and giving of thanks] the other are also by all men distinguished, though in the particular assignment they differ, [...]. Hesych. vide S. August. ep. 59. q. 5. in hunc locum: descripsi verba ad Sect. 86▪ but the distinction of the Words implies the distinction of Offices, which together with the [...], the Lectionarium of the Church, the Books of the Apostles, and Prophets spoken of by Justin Martyr, and said to be used in the Christian congregations, are the constituent parts of Liturgy; and the exposition of the words we best learn from the practice of the Church, who in all Ages, of whose publick offices any record is left to us, took their pattern from these places of Scripture, the one for Prose, the other for Verse; and if we take Liturgy into its several parts, or members, we cannot want something to appply to every one of the words of St. Paul in these present allegations.

Sect. 91. FOR the offices of prose we find but small mention of them in the very first time, save only in general terms, and that such there were, and that St. James, St. Mark, St. Peter, and others of the Apostles and Apostolical men made Liturgies, and if these which we have at this day were not theirs, yet they make probation that these Apostles left others, or else they were impudent people that prefixed their names so early, and the Churches were very incurious to swallow such a bole, if no pretension could have been reasonably made for their justification. But concerning Church Hymns we have clearer testimony in particular, both because they were many of them, and because they were dispersed more, soon got by heart, passed also among the people, and were pious arts of the Spirit whereby holy things were instilled into their souls by the help of fancy, and a more easie memory. The first civilizing of people used to be by Poetry, and their Divinity was conveyed by Songs and Verses,Vt quisque de Scripturis sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo [...]anere. Tertul. Apolog. and the Apostle exhorted the Christians, to exhort one another in Psalms and Hymns, for he knew the excellent advantages were likely to accrue to religion by such an insinuation of the mysteries. Thus St. Hilary, and St. Ambrose composed Hymns for the use of the Church, and St. Austin made a Hymn against the Schism of Donatus, which Hymns when they were publickly allowed of, were used in publick Offices; not till then; For Paulus Samosatenus had brought Women into the Church to sing vain and trifling songs, and some Bishops took to themselves too great and incurious a license, and brought Hymns into the Church, whose gravity and piety was not very remarkable; upon occasion of which, the Fathers of the Councel of Laodicea ordained, [...], No Psalms of private composition must be brought into the Church, so Gentian Harvet renders it; Isidore Translates it [Psalmos ab idiotis compositos,] Psalms made by common persons;] Psalms usually sung abroad, so Dionysius Exiguus calls them, [Psalmos Plebeios] but I suppose by the following words is meant, That none but Scripture Psalms shall be read there, for so the Canon addes, [...], nothing to be read in the Church but Books of the Old and New Testament. And this interpretation agrees well enough with the occasion of the Canon which I now mentioned.

Sect. 92. THIS only by the way, the reddition of [...] by Isidore to be Psalms made by common persons, whom the Scripture calls [...], ignorant, or unlearned, is agreeable enough with that of Saint Paul, who intimates, that prayers, and forms of Liturgies are to be composed for them, not by them, they were never thought of to be persons competent to make Forms of Prayers themselves: For S. Paul speaks of such an one as of a person coming into the Church to hear the Prophets pray, and sing, and interpret, and prophesie,1 Cor. 14. and [...], he is reproved of all, and judged of all; and therefore the most unfit person in the world to bring any thing that requires great ability, and great authority, to obtrude it upon the Church, his Rulers, and his Judges. And this [Page] was not unhandsomely intimated by the word sometimes used by the [...] of the Greek Church, calling the publick Liturgie [...], which signifies Prayers, made for the use of the Idiotae, or private persons, as the word is contradistinguished from the Rulers of the Church. [...] signifies contum, and [...], is as much as [...], to live in the condition of a private person, and in the vulgar Greek (sayes Arcudius) [...] & [...] signifie a little man, of a low stature, from which two significations [...] may well enough design a short form of Prayer, made for the use of private persons. And this was reasonable, and part of the Religion even of the Heathen as well as Christians; the presidents of their Religion were to find prayers for the people, and teach them forms of address to their Gods.

Castis cum pueris ignara puella mariti

Disceret unde preces, vatem ni Musa dedisset?

Horat. Ep. l. ep. 1.

Poscit opem chorus, & praesentia numina sentit.

Coelestes implorat equas, docta prece blandus,

Carmine dii superi placantur, carmine Manes.

But this by the way.

Sect. 93. BUT because I am casually fallen upon mention of the Laodicean Council, and that it was very ancient, before the Nicene, and of very great reputation, both in the East, and in the West; it will not be a contemptible addition to the reputation of set forms of Liturgy, that we find them so early in the Church, reduced to a very regular and composed manner. The XVth. Canon suffers none to sing in the Church, but the [...], they that sing by book, and go up into the Pulpit; they were the same persons, and the manner of doing their office, was their appellative, which shews plainly, that the known custom of the Church was for them who were in the [...], in the Pulpit to read their offices, and devotions. They read them [...], that's the word in the Canon. Those things which signifie the greatest, or first Antiquity, are said to be [...], was spoken proverbially, to signifie ancient things: And [...]: So that if these Fathers chose these words as Grammarians, the singers [...], were such as sung ancient Hymns of Primitive antiquity, which also is the more credible, because the persons were noted and distinguished by their imployment, as a thing known by so long an use, till it came to be their appellative. * The 17th. and 18th. Canons command that Lessons and Psalms should be said interchangeably [...], and the same Liturgy (that's the word) or office of prayers to be said always at Nones and Vespers. This shews the manner of executing their office of Psalmists, and Readers, they did not sing or say ex tempore, but they read Prayers and Psalms, and sung them out of a Book; neither were they brought in fresh and new at every meeting, but it was [...], still the same form of prayers, without variation.

Sect. 94. BUT then if we remember how ancient this office was in the Church, and that the [...] & [...], the Readers and Singers were Clerical offices, deputed for publick ministry about prayers and devotions in the Church (for so we are told by Simeon Thessalonicensis in particular concerning the [...], he does dictate the hymns to the singers, and then of the singers there is no question) and that these two offices were so ancient in the Church,Epist. ad Antioch [...]. memorantur etiam in 25. Canon [...] Apostolorum. that they were mentioned by St. Ignatius, who was contemporary with the latter times of the Apostles; We may well believe that set and described forms of Liturgy were as early as the days of the Apostles, and continued in the continuation of those and the like offices in all descending ages. Of the same design and intimation were those known offices in the Greek Church, of the [...] and the [...], which Socrates speaks of as of an office in the Church of Alexandria, [...], &c. Their office was the same with the Reader, they did ex praescripto praeire, & ad verbum referre, the same which ab Alexandro notes to have been done in the religious rites of Heathen Greece, The [Page] first read out of a Book the appointed prayers, and the others rehearsed them after. Now it is unimaginable that constant officers should be appointed to say an office, and no publick office be described.

Sect. 95. I SHALL add but this one thing more, and pass on ad alia. And that is, that I never yet saw any instance, example, or pretence of precedent of any Bishop, Priest, or Lay person that ever prayed ex tempore in the Church, and although in some places, single Bishops, or peradventure, other persons of less Authority did oftentimes bring prayers of their De proprio ingenio] [de pectore] sine monitore] we find once in Tertullian. own into the Church; yet ever they were compositions, and premeditations, and were brought thither, there to be repeated often, and added to the Liturgy; and although the Liturgies, while they were less full than since they have been, were apt to receive the additions of pious and excellent Persons, yet the inconvenience grew so great, by permitting any forms but what were approved by a publick Spirit, that the Church, as She always had forms of publick Prescription, so She resolved to permit no mixture of any thing but what was warranted by an equal power, that the Spirits of the Prophets might be subject to the Prophets, and such Spirits, when they are once tried whether they be of God or no, tryed by a lawful superiour, and a competent Judge, may then venture into the open air. And it were a strange imprudence, choosingly to entertain those inconveniences which our wiser Fore-fathers felt, and declar'd, and remedied. For why should we be in love with that evil, against which they so carefully arm'd their Churches, by the provision and defence of Laws? For this produc'd that Canon of the Councel of Mileuis in Africa, Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur, nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesiâ, nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo. That's the restraint and prohibition; publick Prayers must be such as are publickly appointed and prescribed by our superiors, and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church. The reason follows, Ne fortè aliquid contra fidem, vel per ignorantiam, vel per minus studium sit compositum, lest through ignorance, or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith, [and good manners;] Their reason is good, and they are witnesses of it who hear the variety of Prayers, before and after Sermons, there where the Directory is practised, where (to speak most modestly) not only their private opinions, but also humane interests, and their own personal concernments, and wild fancies, born perhaps not two daies before, are made the objects of the peoples hopes, of their desires, and their prayers, and all in the mean time pretend to the holy Spirit.

Sect. 96. THUS far we are gone. The Church hath (1) power and authority, and (2) command, (3) and ability, or promise of assistances to make publick forms of Liturgy; and (4) the Church always did so; in all descents from Moses to Christ, from Christ to the Apostles, from them all to all descending Ages; for I have instanced till St. Austin's time; and since, there is no Question, the people were [...], as Balsamon sayes of those of the Greek Communion, they used unalterable forms of Prayers, described out of the Books of publick Liturgy; it remains only, that I consider upon what reason and grounds of prudence and religion the Church did so, and whether she did well or no? In order to which, I consider,

Sect. 97. FIRST, Every man hath personal needs of his own, and he that understands his own condition, and hath studied the state of his Soul in order to eternity, his temporal estate in order to justice and charity, and the constitution and necessities of his body in order to health, and his health in order to the service of God, as every wise and good man does, will find that no man can make such provision for his necessities, as he can do for his own, (caeteris paribus) no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of the man, and therefore if he have proportionable abilities, it is allowed to him, and it is necessary for him to represent his own conditions to God, and he can best express his own sence, or at least best sigh forth his own meaning, and if he be a good man, the Spirit will make intercession for him, with those unutterable groans. Besides this, every Family hath needs proper to it in the capacity of a Family, and those are to be represented by the master of the Family; whom men of the other perswasion are apt to confess to be a Priest in his own Family and a King, and Sacrorum omnium potestas sub Regibus esto, they are willing in this sence to acknowledge; and they call upon him to perform Family duties, that is, all the publick devotions of the Family are to be ordered by him.

[Page] Sect. 98. NOW that this is to be done by a set form of words is acknowledged by Didoclavius. Nam licèt in conclavi (Pater Familiâs) verbis exprimere animi affectus pro arbitrio potest, Altare Damascenum. quia Dominus cor intuetur, & affectus, tamen publicè coram totâ familiâ idem absque indecoro non potest. If he prays ex tempore, without a set form of prayer, he may commit many an undecency; a set and described form of prayer is most convenient in a Family that Children and Servants may be enabled to remember, and tacitely recite the prayer together with the Major domo. But I rely not upon this, but proceed upon this consideration.

Sect. 99. AS private Persons and as Families, so also have Churches their special necessities in a distinct capacity, and therefore God hath provided for them Rulers and Feeders, Priests and Presidents of Religion, who are to represent all their needs to God, and to make provisions. Now because the Church cannot all meet in one place, but the harvest being great, it is bound up in several bundles, and divided into many Congregations, for all which the Rulers and Stewards of this great Family are to provide, and yet cannot be present in those particular societies, it is necessary that they should have influence upon them by a general provision, and therefore that they should take care that their common needs should be represented to God, by set forms of Prayer, for they only can be provided by Rulers, and used by their Mininisters and Deputies; such as must be one in the principe, and diffused in the execution; and it is a better expression of their care and duty for the Rulers to provide the bread and bless it, and then give it to them who must minister it in small portions and to particular companies, (for so Christ did) than to leave them who are not in the same degree answerable for the Churches, as the Rulers are to provide their food, and break it, and minister it too. The very Oeconomy of Christs Family requires that the dispensations be made according to every mans capacity. The general Stewards are to divide to every man his portion of work, and to give them their food in due season, and the under-servants are to do that work is appointed them; so Christ appointed it in the Gospel, and so the Church hath practised in all Ages, indè enim per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, S. Cyprian. [...]p. 27. ut Ecclesia supra Episcopos constituatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur, when the Rulers are few (for the Ecclesiastical regiment is not Democratical) and the under offices many, and the companies numerous, for all which those few Rulers are bound to provide, and prayer and offices of devotion are one of the greatest instances of provision, it is impossible there should be any sufficient care taken or caution used by those Rulers in the matter of prayers, but for them to make such prescript forms which may be used by all companies, under their charge; that since they are to represent all the needs of all their people, because they cannot be present by their persons in all Societies, they may be present by their care and provisions, which is then done best when they make prescript Forms of prayer, and provide pious Ministers to dispense it.

Sect. 100. SECONDLY, It is in the very nature of publik prayer that it be made by a publick spirit, and performed by a publick consent. For publick, and private prayer, are certainly two distinct duties; but they are least of all distinguished by the place, but most of all by the spirit that dictates the prayer, and the consent in the recitation; and it is a private prayer which either one man makes, though spoken in publick, as the Laodicean Councel calls [...], private Psalms, or which is not attested by publick consent of minds, and it is a publick prayer, which is made by the publick spirit, and consented to by a general acceptation; and therefore the Lords prayer, though spoke in private, is a publick form, and therefore represented plurally; and the place is very extrinsecal to the nature of Prayer; I will that men pray every where, 1 Tim. 2.8. lifting up pure hands; and retiring into a closet is only advised for the avoiding of hypocrisie, not for the greater excellency of the duty. So that if publick Prayer have advantages beyond private Prayer, or upon its own stock, besides it, the more publick influences it receives, the more excellent it is. And hence I conclude, that set forms of Prayer composed and used by the Church; I mean by the Rulers in conjunction and Union, of Heads, and Councels, and used by the Church; I mean the people in Union, and society of Hearts and Spirits, hath two very great advantages which other Prayers have not.

[Page] Sect. 101. FOR First, it is more truly publick, and hath the benefit of those helps which God (who never is deficient to supply any of our needs) gives to publick persons in order to publick necessities, by which I mean its emanation from a publick, and therefore a more excellent spirit. And secondly, it is the greatest instance of union in the world; for since God hath made faith, hope, and charity, the ligaments of the communion of Saints, and Common Prayer, which not only all the Governours have propounded as most fit, but in which all the people are united, is a great testimony of the same Faith, and a common hope, and mutual charity, because they confess the same God whom they worship, and the same Articles which they recite, and labour towards the same hope, the mighty price of their high calling, and by praying for each other in the same sence and to the same purpose, doing the same to them that I desire they should do for me, do testifie and preserve, and increase their charity; it follows, that common, and described prayers are the most excellent instrument, and act, and ligament of the Communion of Saints, and the great common term of the Church in its degrees of Catholick capacity. And therefore saith S. Ignatius, [...], All meet together, and joyn to Common Prayers, [...], let there be one mind and let there be one prayer. That's the true Communion of Christians.

Sect. 102. AND in pursuance of this, I consider, that if all Christian Churches had one common Liturgy, there were not a greater symbol to testifie, nor a greater instrument to preserve the Catholick Communion; and when ever a Schism was commenc'd, and that they called one another Heretick, they not only forsook to pray with one another, but they also altered their Forms by interposition of new Clauses, Hymns, and Collects, and new Rites and Ceremonies; only those parts that combined kept the same Liturgy; and indeed the same Forms of Prayer were so much the instrument of Union, that it was the only ligament of their Society, (for their Creeds, I reckon as part of their Liturgy, for so they ever were:) so that this may teach us a little to guess, I will not say into how many Churches, but into how many innumerable atoms, and minutes of Churches those Christians must needs be scattered, who alter their Forms according to the number of persons, and the number of their meetings, every company having a new Form of Prayer at every convention. And this consideration will not be vain, if we remember how great a blessing Unity in Churches is, and how hard to be kept, with all the arts in the world; and how every thing is powerful enough for its dissolution. But that a publick Form of Liturgy was the great instrument of Communion in the Primitive Church, appears in this, that the [...], or excommunication, was an exclusion, à communicatione orationis, & conventûs, & omnis sancti commercii, from the participation of the publick meeting and Prayers; and therefore the more united the Prayer is, still it is the greater instrument of Union; the Authority and Consent, the publick Spirit, and common Acceptation, are so many degrees of a more firm and indissoluble Communion.

Sect. 103. THIRDLY, To this I add, that without prescribed Forms, issues of the publick Spirit and Authority, publick Communion cannot be regular and certain, as may appear in one or two plain instances. It is a practise prevailing among those of our Brethren that are zealous for ex tempore, or not enjoyned Prayers, to pray their Sermons over, to reduce their Doctrine into Devotion and Liturgie. I mislike it not for the thing it self, if it were regularly for the manner, and the matter always pious and true. But who shall assure me, when the preacher hath disputed, or rather dogmatically decreed a point of Predestination, or of prescience, of contingency, or of liberty, or any of the most mysterious parts of Divinity, and then prayes his Sermon over, that he then prays with the Spirit? Unless I be sure that he also Preached with the Spirit, I cannot be sure that he Prays with the Spirit, for all he prays ex tempore. Nay, if I hear a Protestant preach in the Morning, and an Anabaptist in the Afternoon, to day a Presbyterian, to morrow an Independant, am I not most sure, that when they have preached contradictories, and all of them pray their Sermons over, that they do not all pray with the Spirit? More than one in this case cannot pray with the Spirit, possibly all may pray against him.

Sect. 104. FOURTHLY, From whence I thus argue in behalf of set Forms of prayer, That in the case above put, how shall I, or any man else, say Amen to [Page] their prayers that preach and pray contradictories? At least, I am much hindred in my devotion. For besides that, it derives our opinions into our devotions, makes every School-point become our Religion, and makes God a party so far as we can, intitling him to our impertinent wranglings; Besides this, I say while we should attend to our addresses towards God, we are to consider whether the point be true, or no, and by that time we have tacitely discoursed it, we are upon another point, which also perhaps is as questionable as the former, and by this time our spirit of devotion, is a little discomposed and something out of countenance, there is so much other imployment for the spirit, the spirit of discerning and judging; All which inconveniences are avoided in set forms of Liturgy. For, we know before hand the conditions of our communion, and to what we are to say, Amen, to which if we like it, we may repair; if not, there is no harm done, your devotion shall not be surprized, nor your communion invaded, as it may be often, in your ex tempore prayers, and unlimited devotions.

Sect. 105. FIFTHLY, and this thing hath another collateral inconvenience which is of great consideration, for upon what confidence can we solicite any Recusants to come to our Church, where we cannot promise them, that the devotions there to be used shall be innocent, nor can we put him into a condition to judge for himself? if he will venture he may, but we can use no argument to make him choose our Churches, though he would quit his own.

Sect. 106. SIXTHLY, So that either the people must have an implicite faith in the Priest, and then may most easily be abused, or if they have not, they cannot joyn in the prayer, it cannot become to them an instrument of communion but by chance, and irregularly; and ex post facto, when the prayer is approv'd of, and after the devotion is spent, for till then they cannot judge, and before they do, they cannot say Amen, and till Amen be said there is no benefit of the prayer, nor no union of hearts and desires, and therefore as yet no communion.

Sect. 107. SEVENTHLY, Publick forms of prayer are great advantages to convey an Article of faith into the most secret retirement of the Spirit, and to establish it with a most firm perswasion, and endear it to us with the greatest affection. For, since our prayers are the greatest instruments and conveyances of blessing and mercy to us, that which mingles with our hopes, which we owe to God, which is sent of an errand to fetch a mercy for us, in all reason will become the dearer to us for all these advantages. And just so is an Article of belief inserted into our devotions, and made a part of prayer, it is extreamly confirmed by that confidence and [...], fulness of perswasion that must exclude all doubting from our prayers, and it insinuates it self into our affection by being mingled with our desires, and we grow bold in it by having offered it to God, and made so often acknowledgment of it to him who is not to be mocked.

Sect. 108. AND, certainly it were a very strange Liturgy in which there were no publick Confession of Faith, for as it were deficient in one act of Gods worship, which is offering the understanding up to God, bringing it in subjection to Christ, and making publick profession of it, it also loses a very great advantage which might accrue to Faith by making it a part of our Liturgick devotions; and this was so apprehended by the Ancients in the Church, our Fathers in Christ, that commonly they used to oppose a Hymn, or a Collect, or a Doxology, in defiance of a new-sprung Heresie. The Fathers of Nice fram'd the Gloria Patri, against the Arians. Saint Austin compos'd a Hymn against the Donatists. Saint Hierome added the [sicut erat in principio] against the Macedonians. Saint Ambrose fram'd the [Te Deum] upon occasion of St. Austins Baptism, but took care to make the Hymn to be of most solemn adoration, and yet of prudent institution and publick Confession, that according to the advice of St. Paul we might sing with grace in our hearts to the Lord, and at the same time teach and admonish one another too: Now this cannot be done but in set forms of prayer; for in new devotions and uncertain forms we may also have an ambulatory faith, and new Articles may be offered before every Sermon, and at every convention; the Church can have no security to the contrary, nor the Article any stable foundation, or advantageous insinuation either into judgment or memory of the persons to be informed or perswaded, but like Abrahams sacrifice, as soon as his [Page] back is turn'd, the birds shall eat it up. Quid quod haec oratio quae sanandis mentibus adhibetur, descendere in nos debet. Remedia non prosunt nisi immorentur. Seneca, l. 5. ep. 40. A cursory Prayer shall have a transient effect; when the hand is off, the impression also is gone.

Sect. 109. EIGHTHLY, Without the description of publick forms of prayer there can be no security given in the matter of our prayers, but we may burn assa foetida for incense, and the Marrow of a mans bones instead of the fat of Rams; and of all things in the world we should be most curious that our prayers be not turned into sin, and yet if they be not prescribed and pre-considered, nothing can secure them antecedently, the people shall go to Church but without confidence that they shall return with a blessing, for they know not whether God shall have a present made of a holy oblation, or else whether the minister will stand in the gap, or make the gap wider? But this I touch'd upon before.

Sect. 110. NINTHLY, They preserve the authority and sacredness of Government, and possibly they are therefore decried that the reputation of authority may decline together. For as God hath made it the great Cancel between the Clergy and the People, that they are deputed to speak to God for them, so is it the great distinction of the persons in that order, that the Rulers shall judge between the Ministers and the People in relation to God, with what addresses they shall come before God, and intercede for the people, for so St. Paul enjoyns, that the spirits of the Prophets should be submitted to the Prophets, viz. to be discern'd and judg'd by them, which thing is not practicable in permissions of every Minister to pray what forms he pleases every day.

Sect. 111. TENTHLY, Publick forms of Liturgy are also the great securities and basis to the religion and piety of the people; for circumstances govern them most, and the very determination of a publick office, and the appointment of that office at certain times, engages their spirits, the first to an habitual; the latter to an actual devotion. It is all that the [...], many men know of their Religion, and they cannot any way know it better, than by those Forms of prayer which publish their faith, and their devotion to God, and all the world, and which by an admirable expedient reduces their faith into practice, and places their Religion in their understanding and affections. And therefore St. Paul when he was to give an account of his Religion, he did it not by a mere recitation of the Articles, but by giving account of his Liturgy, and the manner of his worship. After that way which they call haeresie, so worship I the God of my Fathers. And the best worship is the best religion, and therefore I am not to trust any man to make my manner of worshipping, unless I durst trust him to be the Dictator of my Religion; and a Form of Prayer made by a private man, is also my Religion made by a private man. So that we must say after the manner that G. the Minister of B. shall conceive and speak, so worship I the God of my Fathers, and if that be reasonable or pious, let all the world judge.

Sect. 112. ELEVENTHLY, But when authority shall consider and determine upon a form of Liturgy, and this be used and practised in a Church, there is an admirable conjunction in the Religion, and great co-operation towards the glory of God. The authority of the injunction adds great reputation to the devotion, and takes off the contempt which from the no-authority of single and private persons must be consequent to their conceived prayers; and the publick practice of it, and union of spirits in the devotion satisfies the world in the nature of it, and the Religion of the Church.

Sect. 113. TWELFTHLY, But nothing can answer for the great scandal which all wise persons and all good persons in the world must needs receive when there is no publick testimony consigned, that such a whole Nation, or a Church hath any thing that can be called Religion, and those little umbrages that are, are casual as chance it self, alterable as time; and shall be good when those infinite numbers of men (that are trusted with it) shall please to be honest, or shall have the good luck not to be mistaken.

[Page] Sect. 114. THIRTEENTHLY, I will not now instance in the vain-glory that is appendent to these new made, every-days forms of prayer, and that some have been so vain, like the Orators Quintilian speaks of, ut verbum petant quo incipiant, that they have published their ex tempore faculty upon experiment, and scenical bravery, you shall name the instance, and they shall compose the form: Amongst whom also the gift of the man is more than the devotion of the man; nor will I consider that then this gift is esteemed best, when his prayer is longest; and if he takes a complacency in his gift (as who is not apt to do it?) he will be sure to extend his prayer till a suspicious and scrupulous man would be apt to say, his Prayer pressed hard upon that which our blessed Saviour reprehended in the Pharisees, who thought to be heard for their much babling. I know it was observed by a very wise man, that the vanity of spirit and popular opinion that grows great, and talks loudly of his abilities that can speak ex tempore, may not only be the incentive, but a helper of the faculty, and make a man not only to love it,Quintil. lib. 10. cap. 7. but to be the more able to do it. Addit ad dicendum etiam pudor stimulos, addit & dicendorum expectata laus, mirumque videri potest, quod cum stylus secreto gaudeat, atque omnes arbitros reformidet, extemporalis actio auditorum frequentiâ, ut miles congestu signorum excitatur. Nam (que) & difficiliorem concitationem exprimit, & expolit dicendi necessitas, & secundos impetus auget placendi cupido. Adeò praemium omnia spectant ut eloquentia quo (que) quanquam plurimum habeat in se voluptatis, maximè tamen praesenti fructu laudis, opinionis (que) 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 [Page] 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 restraint. Certainly then, this pretended restraint is no such formidable thing. These men themselves do it by directing all of the matter, and much of the manner, and Christ himself did it, by prescribing both the matter, and the words too.

Sect. 123. SIXTHLY, These restraints (as they are called,) or determinations of the Spirit, are made by the Spirit himself. For I demand, when any Assembly of Divines appoint the matter of prayers to all particular Ministers, as this hath done, is that appointment by the Spirit or no; If no, then for ought appears, this directory not being made by Gods Spirit, may be an enemy to it. But if this appointment be by the Spirit, then the determination and limitation of the Spirit is by the spirit himself, and such indeed is every pious and prudent constitution of the Church in matters spiritual. Such as was that of St. Paul to the Corinthians, when he prescribed orders for publick Prophesying, and Interpretation, and speaking with Tongues. The Spirit of some he so restrained, that he bound them to hold their peace, he permitted but two or three to speak at one meeting, the rest were to keep silence, though possibly six or seven might at that time have the spirit.

[Page] Sect. 124. SEVENTHLY, Is it not a restraint of the spirit to sing a Psalm in Metre by appointment? Clearly, as much as appointing Forms of prayer, or Eucharist; And yet that we see done daily, and no scruple made. Is not this to be partial in judgment, and inconsiderate of what we do?

Sect. 125. EIGHTHLY, And now after all this strife, what harm is there in restraining the spirit in the present sence? What prohibition? What law? What reason or revelation is against it? What inconvenience in the nature of the thing? For, can any man be so weak as to imagine a despite is done to the spirit of grace, when the gifts given to his Church are used regularly, and by order? As if prudence were no gift of Gods spirit, as if helps in Government, and the ordering spiritual matters were none of those graces which Christ when he ascended up on high gave unto men. But this whole matter is wholly a stranger to reason, and never seen in Scripture.

Sect. 126. FOR, Divinity never knew any other vitious restraining the spirit, but either suppressing those holy incitements to vertue and good life, which God's Spirit ministers to us externally, or internally, or else a forbidding by publick authority the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, to speak such truths as God hath commanded, and so taking away the liberty of prophesying. The first is directly vitious in materia speciali: The second is tyrannical and Antichristian. And to it persecution of true Religion is to be reduced. But as for this pretended limiting or restraining the Spirit, viz. by appointing a regular Form of prayer, it is so very a Chimaera, that it hath no footing or foundation upon any ground where a wise man may build his confidence.

Sect. 127. NINTHLY, But lastly, how if the Spirit must be restrained, and that by precept Apostolical? That calls us to a new account. But if it be not true, what means Saint Paul, by saying, The spirits of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets? What greater restraint than subjection? If subjected, then they must be ruled; if ruled, then limited; prescribed unto, and as much under restraint as the spirits of the superiour Prophets shall judge convenient. I suppose by this time this Objection will trouble us no more. But perhaps another will.

Sect. 128. FOR, Why are not the Ministers to be left as well to their liberty in making their Prayers as their Sermons? I answer, the Church may if she will, but whether she doth well or no, let her consider. This I am sure, there is not the same reason, and I fear the experience the world hath already had of it will make demonstration enough of the inconvenience. But however, the differences are many.

Sect. 129. FIRST, Our Prayers offered up by the Minister, are in behalf, and in the name of the People, and therefore great reason they should know beforehand, what is to be presented, that if they like not the message, they may refuse to communicate, especially since people are so divided in their opinions, in their hopes, and in their faiths; it being a duty to refuse communion with those prayers which they think to have in them the matter of sin or doubting. Which reason on the other part ceases. For the Minister being to speak from God to the people, if he speaks what he ought not, God can right himself, however is not a partner of the sin, as in the other case, the people possibly may be.

Sect. 130. SECONDLY, It is more fit a liberty be left in Preaching than Praying, because the address of our discourses and exhortations are to be made according to the understanding and capacity of the audience, their prejudices are to be removed, all advantages to be taken, and they are to be surprized that way they lie most open, [But being crafty I caught you,] saith St. Paul to the Corinthians. And discourses and arguments ad hominem, upon their particular principles and practises may more move them than the most polite and accurate that do not comply and wind about their fancies and affections. St. Paul from the absurd practise of being baptized for the dead, made an excellent Argument to convince the Corinthians of the Resurrection. But this reason also ceases in our prayers. For God understandeth what we say, sure enough, he hath no prejudices to be removed, no infirmities to be wrought upon, and a fine figure of Rhetorick, a pleasant cadence and a curious expression [Page] move not him at all: No other twinings and compliances stir him, but charity, and humility, and zeal, and importunity, which all are things internal and spiritual. It was observed by Pliny, Deos non tam accuratis adorantium precibus, quàm innocentiâ & sanctitate laetari: gratiorémque existimari qui delubris eorum puram castámque mentem, Plin. Panegyr. Trajan. dictum. quàm qui meditatum carmen intulerit. And therefore of necessity there is to be great variety of discourses to the people, and permissions accordingly, but not so to God, with whom a Deus miserere prevails as soon as the great Office of forty hours not long since invented in the Church of Rome, or any other prayers spun out to a length beyond the extension of the office of a Pharisee.

Sect. 131. THIRDLY, I fear it cannot stand with our reverence to God to permit to every spirit a liberty of publick address to him in behalf of the people. Indeed, he that is not fit to pray, is not always fit to preach, but it is more safe to be bold with the people, than with God, if the persons be not so fit. In that there may be indiscretion, but there may be impiety and irreligion in this. The people may better excuse and pardon an indiscretion, or a rudeness, (if any such should happen) than we may venture to offer it to God.

Sect. 132. FOURTHLY, There is a latitude of Theology, much whereof is left to us, so without precise and clear determination, that without breach either of faith or charity men may differ in opinion: and if they may not be permitted to abound in their own sence, they will be apt to complain of tyranny over Consciences, and that Men Lord it over their faith. In prayer this thing is so different, that it is imprudent, and full of inconvenience, to derive such things into our prayers which may with good profit be matter of Sermons. Therefore here a liberty may well enough be granted, when there it may better be denied.

Sect. 133. FIFTHLY, But indeed, If I may freely declare my opinion, I think it were not amiss, if the liberty of making Sermons were something more restrain'd than it is, and that either such persons only were intrusted with the liberty, for whom the Church her self may safely be responsive, that is, to men learned, and pious, and that the other part, the Vulgus Cleri should instruct the People out of the fountains of the Church, and the publick stock, till by so long exercise and discipline in the Schools of the Prophets, they may also be intrusted to minister of their own unto the people. This I am sure was the Practice of the Primitive Church; when preaching was as ably and religiously performed as now it is; but in this, I prescribe nothing. But truly I think the reverend Divines of the Assembly are many of them of my mind in this particular, and that they observe a liberty indulg'd to some Persons to preach, which I think they had rather should hold their peace, and yet think the Church better edified in their silence, than their Sermons.

Sect. 134. SIXTHLY, But yet methinks the Argument objected so far as the ex tempore Men make use of it, if it were turned with the edge the other way, would have more reason in it; and instead of arguing [Why should not the same liberty be allowed to their spirit in praying as in preaching?] it were better to substitute this. If they can pray with the Spirit, why do they not also preach with the Spirit? And it may be there may be in reason or experience something more for preaching and making Orations by the excellency of a mans spirit and learning, than for the other, which in the greatest abilities it may be unfit to venture to God without publick approbation: but for Sermons they may be fortunate and safe if made ex tempore. Quintilian. de extemporal. facult. l. 10. c. 7. Frequenter enim accidit, ut successum extemporalem consequi cura non possit: quem si calor ac spiritus tulit, Deum tunc adfuisse cùm id evenisset, veteres Oratores, ut Cicero dicit, aiebant. Now let them make demonstration of their spirit by making excellent Sermons ex tempore: that it may become an experiment of their other faculty, that after they are tried and approved in this, they may be considered for the other: And if praying with the Spirit be praying ex tempore, why shall not they preach ex tempore too, or else confess they preach without the Spirit, or that they have not the gift of preaching? For to say that the gift of prayer is a gift ex tempore, but the gift of Preaching is with study and deliberation, is to become vain and impertinent. Quis enim discrevit? Who hath made them of a different Consideration? I mean as to this particular, as to their Efficient cause? nor Reason, nor Revelation, nor God, nor Man.

[Page] Sect. 135. TO summe up all. If any man hath a mind to exercise his Gift of prayer, let him set himself to work, and compose Books of Devotion, (we have need of them in the Church of England, so apparent need, that some of the Church of Rome have made it an objection against us) and this his Gift of Prayer will be to edification. But otherwise, I understand it is more fit for ostentation, than any spiritual advantage. For God hears us not the sooner for our ex tempore, long or conceived Prayers, possibly they may become a hinderance, as in the cases before instanced. And I am sure, if the people be intelligent, and can discern, they are hindred in their Devotion; for they dare not say Amen till they have considered, and many such cases will occur in ex tempore, or unlicenced Prayers, that need much considering before we attest them. But if the people be not intelligent, they are apt to swallow all the inconveniences which may multiply in so great a licence: and therefore it were well that the Governours of the Church, who are to answer for their souls, should judge for them, before they say Amen; which judgment cannot be without set Forms of Liturgy. My sentence therefore is, [...], let us be as we are already, few changes are for the better.

Sect. 136. FOR if it be pretended, that in the Liturgy of the Church of England, which was composed with much art and judgment, by a Church that hath as much reason to be confident She hath the Spirit and Gift of Prayer as any single person hath, and each learned man that was at its first composition can as much prove that he had the Spirit, as the Objectors now adays; (and he that boasts most, certainly hath the least:) If, I say, it be pretended that there are many errors and inconveniences both in the Order and in the matter of the Common-Prayer-Book, made by such men with so much industry: how much more, and with how much greater reason may we all dread the inconveniences and disorders of ex tempore and conceived Prayers? Where respectively there is neither conjunction of Heads, nor Premeditation, nor Industry, nor Method, nor Art, nor any of those Things, (or at least not in the same Degree) which were likely to have exempted the Common-prayer-book from errors and disorders. If these things be in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?

Sect. 137. BUT if it be said the ex tempore and conceived Prayers will be secured from error by the Directory, because that chalks them out the matter; I answer, it is not sufficient, because, if when men study both the matter and the words too, they may be (and it is pretended are actually deceived) much more may they, when the matter is left much more at liberty, and the words under no restraint at all. And no man can avoid the pressure and the weight of this, unless the Compilers of the Directory were infallible, and that all their followers are so too, of the certainty of which I am not yet fully satisfied.

Sect. 138. AND after this, I would fain know, what benefit and advantages the Church of England in her united capacity receives by this new device? For the publick it is clear, that whether the Ministers Pray before they Study, or Study before they Pray, there must needs be infinite deformity in the publick Worship, and all the benefits which before were the consequents of Conformity and Unity will be lost, and if they be not valuable, I leave it to all them to consider, who know the inconveniences of Publick disunion, and the Publick disunion that is certainly consequent to them, who do not communicate in any common forms of Worship; and to think that the Directory will bring Conformity, is as if one should say, that all who are under the same Hemisphere are joyned in communi patriâ, and will love like Country-men. For under the Directory there will be as different religions, and as different desires, and as differing forms, as there are several varieties of Men and manners under the one half of Heaven, who yet breath under the same half of the Globe.

Sect. 139. BUT ask again, what benefit can the publick receive by this form, or this no form? For I know not whether to call it. Shall the matter of Prayers be better in all Churches? shall God be better served? shall the Word of God, and the best Patterns of Prayers be always exactly followed? It is well if it be. But there is no security given us by the Directory; for the particulars, and special instances [Page] of the matter are left at every Mans dispose for all that, and we must depend upon the honesty of every particular for it: and if any man proves an Heretick, or a Knave, then he may introduce what impiety he please into the publick forms of Gods Worship: and there is no law made to prevent it, and it must be cured afterward if it can, but before-hand it is not prevented at all by the Directory which trusts every man.

Sect. 140. BUT I observe that all the benefit which is pretended, is, that it will make an able Ministry. Maximus verò studiorum fructus est & praemium quoddam amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas, said an excellent person.Quint. l. 10. c. 7 And it is very true; to be able to speak excellent things, without long considering is an effect of a long industry, and greatest learning: but certainly the greatest enemy in the world to its production: Much learning, and long use of speaking may enable a man to speak upon sudden occasions, but speaking without consideration will never make much learning.Idem ibid. Nec quisquam tantum fidit ingenio ut sibi speret incipienti statim posse contingere, sed sicut in cogitatione praecipimus, ita facilitatem quoque extemporal [...]m à parvis initiis paulatim perducemus ad summam. And to offer that, as a means of getting learning which cannot be done at all as it ought, but after learning is already gotten in a very great degree, is highest mistaking. I confess I am very much from believing the allegation, and so will every man be that considers what kind of men they are that have been most zealous for that way of conceived Prayer. I am sure that very few of the learnedst, very many ignorants, most those who have made least abode in the Schools of the Prophets. And that I may disgrace no mans person, we see Trades-men of the most illiberal arts, and women pretend to it, and do it with as many words, Note: Lucian. Rhetor. praecept. [...]. (and that's the main thing) with as much confidence, and speciousness of spirit as the best amongst them. Sed nec tumultuarii nec fortuiti sermonis contextum mirabor unquam quem jurgantibus etiam mulierculis superfluere video, said Quintilian. And it is but a small portion of learning that will serve a man to make conceived Forms of Prayer,Quint. l. 10.7. which they may have easily upon the stock of other men, or upon their own fancy, or upon any thing in which no learning is required. He that knows not this, knows nothing of the craft that may be in the Preachers trade. But what? Is God better served? I would fain see any authority, or any reason, or any probability for that. I am sure, ignorant men offer him none of the best sacrifices ex tempore, and learned men will be sure to deliberate and know, God is then better served when he is served by a publick, than when by a private Spirit. I cannot imagine what accruements will hence come to the Publick: it may be some advantages may be to the private interests of men. For there are a sort of men whom our Blessed Saviour noted, Who do devour Widows houses, and for a pretence make long Prayers. They make Prayers, and they make them long, by this means they receive double advantages, for they get reputation to their ability, and to their piety. And although the Common-Prayer-Book in the Preface to the Directory be charged with unnecessary length, yet we see that most of these men, they that are most eminent, or would be thought so, make their Prayers longer, and will not lose the benefits which their credit gets, and they, by their credit, for making their Prayers.

Sect. 141. ADDE this, that there is no promise in Scripture that he who prays ex tempore shall be heard the better, or that he shall be assisted at all to such purposes, and therefore to innovate in so high a matter without a warrant to command us, or a promise to warrant us, is no better than vanity in the thing, and presumption in the person. He therefore that considers that this way of Prayer is without all manner of precedent in the Primitive Church, against the example of all famous Churches in all Christendom, in the whole descent of XV Ages, without all command or warrant of Scripture, that it is unreasonable in the nature of the thing, against prudence and the best wisdom of humanity, because it is without Deliberation, that it is innovation in a high degree, without that authority which is truly, and by inherent and Ancient right to command and prescribe to us in external Forms of Worship, that it is much to the disgrace of the first Reformers of our Religion, that it gives encouragement to the Church of Rome to quarrel, with some reason, and more pretence against our Reformation, as being by the Directory confessed to have been done in much blindness; and therefore might erre in the excess as well as in the defect, throwing out too much, as casting off too little, (which is the more likely, because [Page] they wanted no zeal to carry them far enough:) He that considers the universal deformity of publick Worship, and the no means of Union, no Symbol of publick Communion being publickly consigned; that all Heresies may, with the same authority, be brought into our Prayers, and offered to God in the behalf of the people, with the same authority that any truth may, all the particular matter of our Prayers being left to the choice of all men of all perswasions, and then observes that actually there are in many places Heresie, and Blasphemy, and Impertinency, and illiterate Rudenesses put into the Devotion of the most solemn Days, and the most publick Meetings; and then lastly, that there are divers parts of Liturgie for which no provision at all is made in the Directorie; and the very administration of the Sacraments left so loosely, that if there be any thing essential in the Forms of Sacraments, the Sacrament may become ineffectual for want of due Words, and due Administration; I say, he that considers all these things (and many more he may consider) will find that particular men are not fit to be intrusted to offer in Publick with their private Spirit to God, for the people, in such Solemnities, in matters of so great concernment, where the Honour of God, the benefit of the People, the interest of Kingdoms, the being of a Church, the unity of Minds, the conformity of Practice, the truth of Perswasion, and the salvation of Souls are so much concerned as they are in the publick Prayers of a whole National Church. An unlearned man is not to be trusted, and a Wise man dare not trust himself; he that is ignorant cannot, he that is knowing will not.

THE END.

§

§

[Page]

OF THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF EPISCOPACY▪

BY Divine Institution, Apostolical Tradition, and Catholick Practice.

TOGETHER WITH Their Titles of Honour, Secular Imployment, Manner of Election, Delegation of their Power, and other Appendant Questions, Asserted against the Aërians and Acephali, New and Old.

By JER. TAYLOR, D. D. and Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First.

Published by His MAJESTIES Command.

ROM. 13.1.

There is no Power but of God. The Powers that be, are ordained of God.

CONCIL. CHALCED. [...].

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent MAJESTY, M DC LXXIII.

TO THE Truly Worthy, and Most Accomplisht Sir CHRISTOPHER HATTON, Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH.

[Page]

[Page]

SIR,

I AM ingag'd in the defence of a Great Truth, and I would willingly find a shroud to cover my self from danger and calumny; and although the cause both is and ought to be defended by Kings, yet my person must not go thither to Sanctuary, unless it be to pay my devotion, and I have now no other left for my defence, I am robb'd of that which once did bless me, and indeed still does, (but in another manner) and I hope will do more; but those distillations of celestial dews are conveyed in Channels not pervious to an eye of sense, and now adays we seldom look with other, be the object never so beauteous or alluring. You may then think, Sir, I am forc'd upon You; may that beg my pardon and excuse: but I should do an injury to Your Nobleness, if I should only make You a refuge for my need, (pardon this truth) you are also of the fairest choice, not only for Your love of Learning, (for although that be eminent in You, yet it is not your eminence) but for your duty to H. Church, for Your loyalty to his sacred Majesty. These did prompt me with the greatest confidence to hope for Your fair incouragement, and assistance in my pleadings for Episcopacy, in which cause Religion, and Majesty, the King, and the Church are interested as parties of mutual concernment.

There was an odde observation made long ago, and registred in the Law to make it authentick, Laici sunt infensi Clericis. Now the Clergie pray, but fight not, and therefore if not specially protected by the King contra Ecclesiam Malignantium, they are made obnoxious to all the contumelies, and injuries, which an envious multitude will inflict upon them. It was observ'd enough in King Edgars time, Quamvis decreta Pontificum, In Charta Edgar. Regis A. D. 485. apud Hen. Spelman. & verba Sacerdotum inconvulsis ligaminibus velut fundamenta montiurn fixa sunt, tamen plerumque tempestatibus, & turbinibus saecularium rerum Religio S. Matris Ecclesiae maculis reproborum dissipatur, ac rumpitur. Idcirco Decrevimus[Page]Nos, &c. There was a sad example of it in K. John's time. For when he threw the Clergie from his Protection, it is incredible what injuries, what affronts, what robberies, yea what murders were committed upon the Bishops and Priests of H. Church, whom neither the Sacredness of their persons, nor the Laws of God, nor the terrors of Conscience, nor fears of Hell, nor Church-censures, nor the laws of Hospitality could protect from Scorn, from blows, from slaughter. Now there being so near a tye as the necessity of their own preservation in the midst of so apparent danger, it will tye the Bishops hearts, and hands to the King faster than all the tyes of Lay-Allegiance, (all the Political tyes I mean,) all that are not precisely religious, and obligations in the Court of Conscience.

2. But the interest of the Bishops is conjunct with the prosperity of the King, besides the interest of their own security; by the obligation of secular advantages. For they who have their livelihood from the King, and are in expectance of their fortune from him, are more likely to pay a tribute of exacter duty, than others, whose fortunes are not in such immediate dependency on his Majesty. Aeneas Sylvius once gave a merry reason why Clerks advanced the Pope above a Council, viz. because the Pope gave spiritual promotions, but the Councils gave none. It is but the common expectation of gratitude, that a Patron Paramount shall be more assisted by his Beneficiaries in cases of necessity, than by those, who receive nothing from him but the common influences of Government.

3. But the Bishops duty to the King derives it self from a higher fountain. For it is one of the main excellencies in Christianity, that it advances the State, and well-being of Monarchies and bodies Politick. Now then the Fathers of Religion are the Reverend Bishops, whose peculiar office it is to promote the interests of Christianity, are by the nature and essential requisites of their office bound to promote the Honour and Dignity of Kings, whom Christianity would have so much honour'd, as to establish the just subordination of people to their Prince, upon better principles than ever, no less than their precise duty to God, and the hopes of a blissful immortality. Here then is utile, honestum, and necessarium, to tye Bishops in duty to Kings, and a threefold Cord is not easily broken.

In pursuance of these obligations Episcopacy pays three returns of tribute to Monarchy.

[Page] 1. The first is the Duty of their people. For they being by God himself set over souls, judges of the most secret recesses of our Consciences, and the venerable Priests under them, have more power to keep men in their dutious subordination to the Prince, than there is in any secular power, by how much more forcible the impressions of the Conscience are than all the external violence in the world. And this power they have fairly put into act, for there was never any Protestant Bishop yet in Rebellion, unless he turned recreant to his Order, and it is the honour of the Church of England, that all her Children and obedient people are full of indignation against Rebels, be they of any interest or party whatsoever. For here (and for it we thank God and good Princes) Episcopacy hath been preserved in fair priviledges and honour, and God hath blest and honour'd Episcopacy with the conjunction of a loyal people. As if because in the law of Nature the Kingdom and Priesthood were joyned in one person, it were natural and consonant to the first justice, that Kings should defend the rites of the Church, and the Church advance the honour of Kings. And when I consider that the first Bishop that was exauctorated was a Prince too, Prince and Bishop of Geneva, methinks it was an ill Omen, that the cause of the Prince and the Bishop should be in Conjunction ever after.

2. A second return that Episcopacy makes to Royalty is that which is the Duty of all Christians, the paying tributes and impositions. And though all the Kings Liege people do it, yet the issues of their duty and liberality are mightily disproportionate, if we consider their unequal Number and Revenues. And if Clergie-subsidies be estimated according to the smallness of their revenue and paucity of persons, it will not be half so short of the number and weight of Crowns from Lay Dispensation, as it does far exceed in the proportion of the Donative.

3. But the assistance that the Kings of England had in their Councils and affairs of greatest difficulty, from the great ability of Bishops and other the Ministers of the Church, I desire to represent in the words of K. Alvred to Walfsigeus the Bishop, in an Epistle where he deplores the misery of his own age, by comparing it with the former times, when the Bishops were learned, and exercised in publick Councils. Foelicia tum tempora fuerunt inter omnes Angliae populos; Reges Deo, & scriptae ejus voluntati[Page]obsecundârunt in suâ pace, & bellicis expeditionibus, atque regimine domestico domi se semper tutati fuerint, atque etiam foris nobilitatem suam dilataverint. The reason was, as he insinuates before, Sapientes extiterunt in Anglica gente de spirituali gradu, &c. The Bishops were able by their great learning and wisdom to give assistance to the Kings affairs. And they have prosper'd in it; for the most glorious issues of Divine Benison upon this Kingdom were conveyed to us by Bishops hands, I mean the Vnion of the houses of York and Lancaster, by the Counsels of John Speeds Hist. l. 9. c. 19. [...]. 23. p. 716. Bishop Morton, and of England and Scotland by the treaty of I [...]. c. 10. n. 64. p. 747. Bishop Fox, to which if we add two other in Materia religionis, I mean the conversion of the Kingdom from Paganism, by St. Augustin Arch-bishop of Canterbury; and the reformation begun and promoted by Bishops, I think we cannot call to mind four blessings equal to these in any Age or Kingdom, in all which God was pleased by the mediation of Bishops, as he useth to do, to bless the people. And this may not only be expected in reason, but in good Divinity, for amongst the gifts of the spirit which God hath given to his Church, are reckoned Doctors, Teachers, and 1 Cor. 12.28. helps in government. To which may be added this advantage, that the services of Church-men are rewardable upon the Churches stock; no need to disimprove the Royal Banks to pay thanks to Bishops.

But, Sir, I grow troublesome. Let this discourse have what ends it can; the use I make of it, is but to pretend reason for my boldness, and to entitle You to my Book: For I am confident you will own any thing that is but a friends friend to a cause of Loyalty. I have nothing else to plead for your acceptance, but the confidence of your Goodness, and that I am a person capable of your pardon, and of a fair interpretation of my address to you, by being,

SIR,

Your most affectionate Servant, JER. TAYLOR.

§

[Page]

[Page]

The goodly CEDAR of Apostolick & Catholick EPISCOPACY, [...]d with the moderne Shoots & Slips of divided NOVELTIES, in the Church. 16 [...]

Place this Figure at Page 43.

[Page]

[figure]

OF THE SACRED ORDER and OFFICES OF EPISCOPACY, BY Divine Institution, Apostolical Tradition, and Catholick practice, &c.

[Page]

[Page]

IN all those accursed machinations, which the device and artifice of Hell hath invented, for the supplanting of the Church, Inimicus homo, that old superseminator of heresies, and crude mischiefs, hath endeavoured to be curiously compendious, and with Tarquins device, putare summa papaverum. And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs, it was a rul'd case in that Burgundian forge, Qui prior erat dignitate prior trahebatur ad Martyrium. The Priests, but to be sure the Bishops must pay for all, Tolle impios, Polycarpus requiratur. Away with these pedling persecutions, [...]. Lay the axe at the root of the tree. Insomuch that in Rome from Saint Peter and Saint Paul to Saint Sylvester, thirty three Bishops of Rome, in immediate succession, suffered an Honourable, and glorious Martyrdom, unless Maximin [...] jussit Martyrio coronatur. Saint Platina ▪ but that is wholly uncertain. Meltiades be perhaps excepted, whom Eusebius, and Optatus report to have lived all the time of the third Consulship of Constantine and Lucinius. Conteret caput ejus, was the glorious promise, Christ should break the Devils head, and though the Devils active part of the Duel was far less, yet he would venture at that too, even to strike at the heads of the Church, capita vicaria, for the head of all was past his striking now; And this, I say, he offered to do by Martyrdom, but that in stead of breaking, crowned them.

His next onset was by Julian, and occidere Presbyterium, that was his Province. To shut up publick Schools, to force Christians to ignorance, to impoverish and disgrace the Clergie, to make them vile and dishonourable, these are his arts; and he did the Devil more service in this fineness of undermining, than all the open battery of the ten great Rams of persecution. But this would not take. For, that which is without cannot defile a man. So it is in the Church too. Cedunt in bonum, all violences ab extrá.

But therefore besides these he attempted by heresies to rent the Churches bowels all in pieces; but the good Bishops gathered up the scattered pieces and reunited them at Nice, at Constantinople, at Ephesus, at Chalcedon, at Carthage, at Rome, and in every famous place of Christendom, and by Gods goodness, and the Bishops industry Catholick religion was conserved in Unity and integrity. Well; however it is, Antichrist must come at last, and the great Apostasie foretold must be, and this, not without means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity. When ye hear of wars, and rumors of wars, be not afraid (said our Blessed Saviour,) the end is not yet. It is not War that will do this great work of destruction, for then it might have been done long ere now. What then will do it? We shall know when we see it. In the mean time when we shall find a new device, of which indeed the platform was laid, in Aerius and the Acephali, brought to a good possibility of compleating a thing, that whosoever shall hear, his ears shall tingle, an abomination of desolation standing where it ought not, in sacris in holy persons, and places, and offices, it is too probable that this is the preparatory for the Antichrist, and grand Apostasie.

[Page]For if Antichrist shall exalt himself above all that is called God, and in Scripture none but Kings and Priests are such, Dii vocati, Dii facti, I think we have great reason to be suspicious, that he that devests both of their power (and they are, if the King be Christian, in very near conjunction,) does the work of Antichrist for him; especially if the men, whom it most concerns, will but call to mind that the discipline or Government which Christ hath instituted, is that Kingdom by which he governs all Christendom (so themselves have taught us) so that in case it be proved, that Episcopacy is that government, then they (to use their own expressions) throw Christ out of his Kingdom; and then, either they leave the Church without a head, or else put Antichrist in substitution.

We all wish, that our fears in this and all things else, may be vain, that what we fear may not come upon us; but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the fore-runner, and preparatory to the great Apostasie, I have these reasons to shew, at least the probability. First, Because here is a concurse of times; for now after that these times have been called the last times for 1600 years together, our expectation of the Great revelation is very near accomplishing; and what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiastical government, contrary to the faith and practice of Christendom, may portend now in these times, when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed, is worthy of a jealous mans inquiry. Secondly, Episcopacy, if we consider the final cause, was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schism and Heresie. So In 1 ad Titum. S. Hierome, In toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris Electus superponeretur caeteris, VT SCHISMATVM SEMINA TOLLERENTVR. And therefore if unity and division be destructive of each other, then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schism: and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ: for Schism is a division for things either personal or accidental, which are matters most properly the subject of government, and there to be tried, there to receive their first and last breath, except where they are starv'd to death by a desuetude; and Episcopacy is an Unity of person-governing, and ordering persons and things, accidental and substantial: and therefore a direct confronting of Schism, not only in the intention of the author of it, but in the nature of the institution. Now then, although Schisms always will be, and this by divine prediction (which clearly shews the necessity of perpetual Episcopacy, and the intention of its perpetuity, either by Christ himself ordaining it, who made the prophecy, or by the Apostles and Apostolick men at least, who knew the prophecy:) yet to be sure, these divisions and dangers shall be greater about and at the time of the Great Apostasie; for then, were not the hours turned into minutes, an universal ruine should seize all Christendom [No flesh should be saved if those days were not shortened.] Is it not next to an evidence of fact, that this multiplication of Schisms must be removendo prohibens? and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy ordained as the remedy and obex of Schism, either tying their hands behind them, by taking away their coercion, or by putting out their eyes, by denying them cognizance of causes spiritual, or by cutting off their heads, and so destroying their order. How far these will lead us, I leave to be considered. This only; Percute pastores, atque oves dispergentur; and I believe it will be verified at the coming of that wicked one, I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountains as sheep having no shepherd.

I am not new in this conception, I learn'd it of S. Cyprian; Christi adversarius, & Ecclesiae ejus inimicus ad hoc, Epist. 55. ECCLESIAE PRAEPOSITVM suâ infestatione persequitur, ut, Gubernatore sublato, atrocius, atque violentius circa Ecclesiae naufragia grassetur. The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop, that having taken him away, he may without check pride himself in the ruines of the Church; and a little after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops, he says, that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur, their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed.

But be this conjecture vain or not, the thing of it self is of deep consideration, and the Catholick practice of Christendom for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy, that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture, or a clear revelation proved by Miracles, or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolical for themselves, or else hope for no belief against the prescribed possession of so many ages.

But before I begin, methinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possidentis, it is a considerable Question; what will the adversaries stake against it? For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good, they lose the benefit of their [Page] prescribed possession. If it can; I fear they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it, which yet already is their due. It is very unequal; but so it is ever, when Authority is the matter of the Question. Authority never gains by it; for although the cause go on its side, yet it loses costs and dammages; for it must either by fair condescension to gain the adversaries, lose something of it self, or, if it asserts it self to the utmost, it is but that seldom or never happens, for the very questioning of any authority, hoc ipso, makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing.

But huc deventum est. Now we are in we must go over.

SECT. I. Christ did institute a Government in his Church.

FIRST then, that we may build upon a Rock. Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his Authority, according to his Laws, and by the assistance of the blessed Spirit.

1. If this were not true, how shall the Church be governed? For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy, that are so punctual to pitch all upon Scripture ground, will be sure to produce clear Scripture for so main a part of Christianity, as is the Form of the Government of Christs Church. And if for our private actions, and duties Oeconomical, they will pretend a text, I suppose, it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government, insomuch as all Laws intend the publick, and the general directly; the private, and the particular, by consequence only and comprehension within the general.

2. If Christ himself did not take order for a Government, then we must derive it from humane prudence, and emergency of conveniences, and concurse of new circumstances, and then the Government must often be changed, or else time must stand still, and things be ever in the same state and possibility. Both the Consequents are extremely full of inconvenience. For if it be left to humane prudence, then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of souls, or if it be, that such an institution, in such immediate order to eternity, should be dependant upon humane prudence, it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat, that no wise Pilot will be supposed to do. But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiastical (which was the other consequent) in the publick frame I mean, and constitution of it; either the certain infinity of Schisms will arise, or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation, which, in matters of Religion, is good for nothing, but to make men distrust all; and, come the best that can come, there will be so many Church-Governments, as there are humane Prudences. For so (if I be not mis-informed) it is abroad in some Towns that have discharged Episcopacy. Simler. de rep. Helvet. fol. 148. & 172. As Saint Galles in Switzerland, there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common, but a Lay-man is President. But the Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Lay-men, and Ministers are joyned as Assistants only, and Counsellors; but at Schaff-hausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much, but in the Huguenot Churches of France, the Ministers do all.

3. In such cases, where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory (and confessedly of all sides there can be none in Causes and Courts Ecclesiastical) if there be no opinion of Religion, no derivation from a Divine authority, there will be sure to be no obedience, and indeed nothing but a certain publick, calamitous irregularity. For why should they obey? Not for Conscience, for there is no derivation from Divine authority. Not for fear, for they have not the power of the sword.

4. If there be such a thing as the power of the Keys, by Christ concredited to his Church, for the binding and losing Delinquents and Penitents respectively on earth, then there is clearly a Court erected by Christ in his Church; for here is the delegation of Judges, Tu Petrus, vos Apostoli, whatsoever ye shall bind; Here is a compulsory, ligaveritis; Here are the causes of which they take cognizance, quodcunque; viz. in materiâ scandali. For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite [Page] Matth. 16. and Universal, John 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam, in causes which are emergent from Christianity, ut sic, that secular jurisdictions may not be intrenched upon. But of this hereafter. That Christ did in this place erect a Jurisdiction, and establish a government (besides the evidence of fact is generally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers,) affirming, that to Saint Peter the Keys were given, that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and loosing might be communicated. ‘Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae, ut quae solveret in terrâ, soluta essent in coelo; scil. ut quisquis in Ecclesia ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet, seque ab iis correctus averteret, in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem fide atque correctione sanaretur.’ So De doctr. Christ. lib. 1. c. 18. tract. 118. in Johan. vide etiam tract. 124 & tract. 50. in Joh. de Agon. Christ. cap. 30. de bapt. contr. D [...]natist. lib. 3. c. 17. S. Austin. And again, Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparabiliter pertinentibus propter hujus vitae procellosissima gubernaculum ad liganda & solvenda peccata claves regni coelorum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit; Quoniam nec ille solus, sed universa Ecclesia ligat, solvitque peccata. Saint Peter first received the government in the power of binding and loosing. But not he alone but all the Church, to wit, all succession, and ages of the Church. Vniversa Ecclesia, viz. in Pastoribus solis, as De Sacerd. lib. 3. Saint Chrysostom, In Episcopis & Presbyteris, as In 16. Matt. S. Hierome. The whole Church, as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters. The same is affirmed by Lib. de pudicit. Tertullian, Epist. 27. S. Cyprian, Lib. quod Christus est Deus. S. Chrysostom, Lib. 6. de Trinit. S. Hilary, Lib. 3. in Apocal. Luke 12.42. Primasius, and generally by the Fathers of the elder, and Divines of the middle ages.

5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the Son of Man, and commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch, the Disciples asked him, Speakest thou this parable to us, or even to all? And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season? As if he had said, I speak to You, for to whom else should I speak and give caution for the looking to the house in the Masters absence? You are by office and designation my stewards, to feed my servants, to govern my house.

6. In Scripture, and other Writers, to Feed, and to Govern, is all one when the office is either Political,Psal. 78. or Oeconomical, or Ecclesiastical. So he Fed them with a faithful and true heart, and Ruled them prudently with all his power. And Saint Peter joyns [...] and [...] together,1 Pet. 5.2. Acts 20. [...]. So does Saint Paul [...]. Rulers or Overseers in a Flock. Pastors. It is ordinary. [...]. Homer. i. e. [...]. Euripides calls the Governours and Guides of Chariots, [...]. And our blessed Saviour himself is called the Great Shepherd of our souls; and that we may know the intentum of that compellation, it is in conjunction also with [...]. He is therefore our Shepherd, for he is our Bishop, our Ruler, and Overseer. Since then Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church, it is also as certain he hath left Rulers, they being both one in name, in person, in office. But this is of a known truth to all that understand either Laws or Languages: [...], saith In lib. de eo quod deterior potiori insidiatur. Philo, they that feed have the power of Princes and Rulers; the thing is an undoubted truth to most men, but because all are not of a mind, something was necessary for confirmation of it.

SECT. II. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ.

THIS Government was by immediate substitution delegated to the Apostles by Christ himself, in traditione clavium, in spiratione Spiritûs, in missione in Pentecoste. When Christ promised them the Keys, he promised them power to bind and loose; when he breathed on them the Holy Ghost, he gave them that actually, to which by the former promise they were intitled; and in the Octaves of the Passion he gave them the same authority, which he had received from his Father, and they were the faithful and wise stewards whom the Lord made Rulers over his Houshold. Vide Hilarium in hunc locum & pp. communiter. But I shall not labour much upon this. Their founding all the Churches from East to West, and so, by being Fathers, derived their authority from the nature of the thing, their appointing Rulers in every Church, their Synodal Decrees de suffocato & Sanguine, [Page] and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, their excommunications of Hymeneus and Alexander, and the incestuous Corinthian, their commanding and requiring obedience of their people in all things, as Saint Paul did of his subjects of Corinth, and the Hebrews by precept Apostolical, their threatning the Pastoral rod, their calling Synods and publick Assemblies, their ordering Rites and Ceremonies, composing a Symbol as the tessera of Christianity, their publick reprehension of Delinquents, and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their superintendency, and superiority of jurisdiction.

SECT. III. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors in the Apostolate.

THIS Power so delegated was not to expire with their Persons; For when the Great Shepherd had reduced his wandring Sheep into a fold, he would not leave them without guides to govern them, so long as the Wolf might possibly prey upon them, and that is, till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats. And this Christ intimates in that promise, Ero vobiscum (Apostolis) usque ad consummationem seculi. Vobiscum; not with your persons, for they dyed long ago, but vobiscum & vestri similibus, with Apostles to the end of the world. And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetual, Christ gave them a power of ordination, that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary; something ordinary. Whatsoever was extraordinary, as immediate mission, unlimited jurisdiction, and miraculous operations, that was not necessary to the perpetual Regiment of the Church, for then the Church should fail when these priviledges extraordinary did cease. It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetual assistance; not in speaking of tongues, not in doing miracles, whether in materiâ censurae, as delivering to Satan; or, in materiâ misericordiae, as healing sick people; or in re naturali, as in resisting the venome of Vipers, and quenching the violence of flames; in these Christ did not promise perpetual assistance, for then it had been done, and still these signs should have followed them that believe. But we see they do not. It follows then, that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world, and therefore there must remain a power of giving faculty, and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that, in which Christ promised perpetual assistance. For since this perpetual assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons, who in few years were to forsake the world, it must needs be understood of their function, which either it must be succeeded to, or else it was as temporary as their persons. But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate. Now what is this ordinary Office? Most certainly since the extraordinary (as is evident) was only a help for the founding and beginning, the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church. Now in clear evidence of sence, these offices and powers are Preaching, Baptizing, Consecrating, Ordaining, and Governing. For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, unless men could be Christians that were never Christned, nourished up to life without the Eucharist, become Priests without calling of God and ordination, have their sins pardoned without absolution, be members and parts and sons of a Church, whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no Governour. These the Apostles had without all question, and whatsoever they had they had from Christ, and these were eternally necessary, these then were the offices of the Apostolate, which Christ promised to assist for ever, and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy.

SECT. IV. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops.

[Page]

FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of these Offices, and therefore (though in a very limited sence) they may be called successores Apostolorum, to wit, in the power of Baptizing, consecrating the Eucharist, and Preaching (an excellent example whereof, though we have none in Scripture, yet if I mistake him not, we have in Ignatius, calling the Colledge of Presbyters [...], a Combination of Apostles) yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices which are ordinary and perpetual, are in Scripture clearly all one in ordinary ministration, and their names are often used in common to signifie exactly the same ordinary function.

For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name and person.1. The name was borrowed, from the Prophet David in the prediction of the Apostasie of Judas, and Surrogation of Saint Matthias; [...]. His Bishoprick, that is, his Apostolate, let another take. The same word, according to the translation of the seventy, is used by the Prophet Isaiah, in an Evangelical prediction, [...]. I will give thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousness. Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos, saith In cap. 60. Isai. v. 17. Saint Hierom, herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himself calls Princes. And to this issue it is cited by Saint Clement in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians. But this is no way unusual in Scripture, For,

2. Saint James the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle, and yet he was not in the number of the twelve, but he was Bishop of Jerusalem. First, That Saint James was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of Saint Paul: [But other Apostles saw I none, Gal. 1.19. save James the Lords Brother.] Secondly, That he was none of the twelve, appears also because among the twelve Apostles there were but two James's, The son of Alpheus, and James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John. But neither of these was the James whom Saint Paul calls the Lords Brother. And this Saint Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration of all the appearances which Christ made after the Resurrection.1 Cor. 15. First to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to the 500. Brethren, then to James, then to all the Apostles. So that here Saint James is reckoned distinctly from the twelve, and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles, for there were (it seems) more of that dignity than the twelve. But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of Vide Carol. Bovium in constit. Apost. Schol. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Jacobo. & in Galat. 1. Epiphan. hares. 78, 79. Tract. 124. in Johan. Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, and S. Hierom. Thirdly, That Saint James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and therefore called an Apostle, appears by the often commemoration of his presidency, and singular eminency in holy Scripture. Priority of order is mentioned, Gal. 2. even before Saint Peter, who yet was primus Apostolorum, naturâ unus homo, Gratiâ unus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ unus idémque primus Apostolus; (as S. Augustin) yet in his own Diocess Saint James had priority of order before him, vers. 9. And when 1 James, 2 Cephas, and 3 John, &c. First James before Cephas and Saint Peter. Saint James also was President of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at Jerusalem about the Question of Circumcision; as is to be seen Vide pap. Acts 15. to him Saint Paul made his address, Acts 21. to him the Brethren carried him, where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters, there he was alwayes resident, and his seat fixt, and that he lived Bishop of Jerusalem for many years together, is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians. But of this hereafter.

3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians. I have sent unto you Epaphroditus [...],Phil. 2.25. My Compeer and your Apostle.In hunc locum uterque & Theod. in 1 Tim. 3. Gradum Apostolatûs recepit Epaphroditus, saith Primasius, and what that is, we are told by Theodoret, dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo, quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus? Because he also had received the Office of being an Apostle among them, saith Saint Hierom upon the same place; and it is very observable, that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called [Page] [...], Apostles of Jesus Christ, but those other men which were Bishops of Churches, and called Apostles by Scripture, are called [...], Apostles of Churches, or sometime Apostles alone, but never are intitled of Jesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none, but James the Lord Brother, Gal. 1. There S. James the Bishop of Jerusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely. But S. Paul calls himself often the Apostle of Jesus Christ, not of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ. So Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ; but S. James in his Epistle to the Jews of the dispersion, writes not himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ, but [...], James the Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Further yet: S. Paul, although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate, at large calls himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ, yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the Holy Ghost, but by Humane constitution, and imposition of hands;Acts 13.2, 3. in relation to that part of his Office, and his cure of the uncircumcision, he limits his Apostolate to his Diocess, and calls himself, [...], The Apostle of the Gentiles;Rom. 11.13. as Saint Peter for the same reason, and in the same modification is called [...], that is, The Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision. Gal. 2.8. And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians, who clearly was their Bishop (as I shall shew in the sequel) that is, he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocess of Philippi. Paulatim verò tempore procedente, & alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli, sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat, dicens, necessarium autem existimo Epaphroditum, &c. So Saint Jerome. In 1 cap. Gal. In process of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen, were ordained Apostles; and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance, adding also, that by the Apostles themselves Judas and Silas were called Apostles.

4. Thus Titus, and some other with him, who came to Jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence, are called [...], the Apostles of the Churches. 2 Cor. 8.23. Apostles, I say, in the Episcopal sence. They were none of the twelve, they were not of immediate divine mission, but of Apostolick ordination, they were actually Bishops, as I shall shew hereafter. Titus was Bishop of Crete, and Epaphroditus of Philippi, and these were the Apostles, for Titus came with the Corinthian, Epaphroditus with the Collossian liberality. Now these men were not [...], called, Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions. 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches, to wit, whose alms they carried, but simply [...], of the Churches, viz. of their own of which they were Bishops. For if the title of [Apostle] had related to their mission from these Churches, it is unimaginable that there should be no term of relation expressed. 2. It is very clear that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the several Churches, yet Saint Paul, not those Churches sent them, And we have sent with them our Brother, &c. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches, not going from Corinth with the money,Vers. 22. but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatch'd in legation to Jerusalem, [If any inquire of Titus— or the Brethren, they are the Apostles of the Church, Vers. 23. and the glory of Christ.] So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth, not for their being imployed in the transportation of their charity. So that it is plain, that their Apostolate being not relative to the Churches whose benevolence they carried, and they having Churches of their own, as Titus had Crete, Epaphroditus had Philippi, their Apostolate was a fixt residence, and superintendency of their several Churches.

SECT. V. And Office.

BUT in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy is clearer yet.Apocal. 2. For when the holy Spirit had sent seven Letters to the seven Asian Bishops, the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them, which say they are Apostles and are not, and hath found them liars. This Angel of the Church of Ephesus, as Antiquity hath taught us, was at that time [Page] Timothy, or Doroth. Synops. Gaius, the first a Disciple, the other had been an entertainer of the Apostles, and either of them knew them well enough; it could not be that any man should dissemble their persons, and counterfeit himself Saint Paul, or Saint Peter. And if they had, yet little trying was needful to discover their folly in such a case, and whether it was Timothy or Gaius he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory. Besides, the Apostles except Saint John all were then dead, and he known to live in Pa [...]mos, known by the publick attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam. These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles, must dissemble an ordinary function, not an extraordinary person. And indeed by the concurse of story, place, and time, Diotrephes was the Man, Saint John chiefly pointed at. For he seeing that at Ephesus there had been an Episcopal chair plac'd, and Timothy a long while possess'd of it, and Vide Constit. Apost. per Clement. ubi quidam Johannes in Ephes [...] Episc. post Timoth. collocatur. perhaps Gaius after him, if we may trust Dorotheus, and the like in some other Churches, and that Saint John had not constituted Bishops in all other Churches of the lesser Asia, but kept the Jurisdiction to be ministred by himself, would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolical ordination, obtruding himself upon the Church of Ephesus, so becoming [...], a busie man in anothers Diocess. This, and such Impostors as this the Angel of the Church of Ephesus did try, and discover, and convict, and in it he was assisted by Saint John himself, as is intimated in Saint John's third Epistle written to his Gaius [v. 9.] I wrote unto the Church (to wit of Asia) but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preheminence among them receiveth us not.] Clearly this [...] would have been a Bishop. It was a matter of ambition, a quarrel for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him; and this also appears further in that he exercised jurisdiction, and excommunication where he had nothing to do, [v. 10.] He forbids them that would receive the Brethren, and casteth them out of the Church. So that here it is clear, this false Apostolate, was his ambitious seeking of Episcopal preheminence and jurisdiction without lawful ordination. [...], that was his design, He loved to be the first in the Church, esse Apostolum, esse Episcopum, to be an Apostle, or a Bishop.

SECT. VI. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters.

BUT this Office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy, derives its Fountain from a Rock; Christ's own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters. For when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching, Vocavit Discipulos suos, & elegit duodecim ex ipsis quos & Apostolos nominavit, Luke 10. saith Saint Luke. He called his Disciples, and out of them chose twelve, and called them Apostles. That was the first election. Post haec autem designavit Dominus & alios septuaginta duos. That was his second election; the first were called Apostles, the second were not, and yet he sent them by two and two.

We hear but of one Commission granted them, which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over Devils, we hear no more of them in the Gospel, but that their Names were written in Heaven. We are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion, if they can but hold their own. And so we do. For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together, and joyn'd them in Clerical commission by vertue of Christ's first ordination of them, for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded, before we find them doing Clerical offices. Ananias we read baptizing of Saul, Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria, and baptizing his Converts; Others also we find, Presbyters at Jerusalem, especially at the first Councel, for there was Judas sirnamed Justus, Lib. 3. cap. 3. and Silas, and Saint Mark, and John (a Presbyter, not an Apostle, as Eusebius reports him) and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem, these and divers others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72. by Eusebius and Dorotheus.

Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministeries. Apostles and Presbyters, so the Scripture calls them. These were distinct, and not temporary, but succeeded to, and if so, then here is clearly a Divine institution of two Orders, and yet Deacons neither of them. Here let us fix a while.

SECT. VII. Giving to Apostles a power to do some Offices perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not.

[Page]

THEN; It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministery which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church, and therefore to be committed to their Successors, which acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not do.Eccles. hierarch. c. 5. As of Ordination. [...], saith Saint Denis of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy. The Law of God hath reserved the greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order.

First, The Apostles imposed hands in Ordinations, which the 72. did not, the case is known, Acts 6. The Apostles called the Disciples, willing them to chuse seven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poor; They did so, and set them before the twelve Apostles, so they are specified and numbred, vers. 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. They, not the Disciples, not the 72. who were there actually present, and seven of them were then ordained to this Ministery, for they were not now ordained to be [...], but [...], as the In Trullo can. 16. Councel of Constantinople calls them, and that these were the number of the 72. Disciples, Epiphanius bears witness. He sent other 72. to preach [...],Haeres. 20. of which Number were those seven ordained and set over the Widows. And the same is intimated by Saint Chrysostom, if I understand him right,Homil. 14. in Act. 6. [...]. What dignity had these seven here ordained? Of Deacons? No; for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons; and Theophylact more clearly repeating the words of Saint Chrysostom, pro more suo, adds this,In hunc locum [...]. The name and dignity of these seven was no less, but even the dignity of Presbyters, only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithful people. Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact; of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius. But however, it is clear that the 72. were present, for the whole multitude of the Disciples was as yet there resident, they were not yet sent abroad, they were not scattered with persecution till the Martyrdom of Saint Stephen, [but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples] to them about this affair, vers. 2. But yet themselves only did ordain them.

Secondly, An instance parallel to this, is in the imposition of hands upon Saint Paul and Barnabas, in the first ordination that was held at Antioch. Act [...] 13. [Now there were in the Church that were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, and Saul. [...], while these men were ministring, the Holy Ghost said to them, separate me Barnabas and Saul.] They did so, they [fasted, they prayed, they laid their hands on them, and sent them away. So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed into Seleucia.] This is the story, now let us make our best on't. Here then was the ordination and imposition of hands compleat, and that was said to be done by the Holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch. For they sent them away, and yet the next words are, so they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost. So that here was the thing done, and that by the Prophets alone, and that by the command of the Holy Ghost, and said to be his act. Well! but what were these Prophets? They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch, not such as Agabus, Prophetas duplici genere intelligamus, & futura dicentes & scripturas revelantes. S. Ambros. in 1 Cor. 12. and the Daughters of Philip the Evangelist, Prophets of prediction extraordinary, but Prophets of ordinary office and ministration, [...], Prophets and Teachers and Ministers. More than ordinary Ministers, for they were Doctors or Teachers, and that's not all, for they were Prophets too. This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery. We shall see this clear enough in Saint Paul, Ephes. 4. where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors, before Evangelists, next to Apostles, that is, next to such Apostles [...], as Saint Paul [Page] there expresses it, next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission. And these are therefore Apostles too, Apostles secundi ordinis, none of the twelve, but such as Saint James, and Epaphroditus, and Barnabas, and Saint Paul himself. To be sure they were such Prophets as Saint Paul and Barnabas, for they are reckoned in the number by Saint Luke, for here it was that Saint Paul, although he had immediate vocation by Christ, yet he had particular ordination to his Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles. It is evident then what Prophets these were, they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters, and therefore they imposed hands, and they only. And yet to make the business up compleat, Saint Mark was amongst them, but he imposed no hands, he was there as the Deacon and Minister [vers. 5.] but he medled not, Saint Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets, such as Saint Paul himself was, and so did the Holy Ghost too, but neither did Saint Mark who was an Evangelist, and one of the 72. Disciples (as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus) nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters, that were less than Prophets, that is, who were not more than meer Presbyters.

The sum is this: Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, ne gens sit Vnius aetatis, lest it expire in one age: this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixt upon the Apostles and Apostolick men, and not communicated to the 72. Disciples or Presbyters; for the Apostles and Apostolick men did so de facto, and were commanded to do so, and the 72. never did so, therefore this Office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct, and superiour to that of Presbyters, and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession, and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy, as the Church it self.

SECT. VIII. And Confirmation.

SECONDLY, The Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptized people, and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to, and yet not communicated, nor executed by the 72. or any other mere Presbyter. That the Apostles did confirm Baptized people, and others of the inferiour Clergy could not, is beyond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians, Acts 8. For when Saint Philip had converted, and Baptized the Men of Samaria, the Apostles sent Peter and John to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. Saint Philip he was an Evangelist, he was one of the 72. Disciples, S. Cyprian. ad Jubajan. a Presbyter; and appointed to the same ministration that Saint Stephen was about the poor Widdows, yet he could not do this, the Apostles must and did. This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands, was not for a miraculous gift, but an ordinary Grace. For Saint Philip could, and did do miracles enough, but this Grace he could not give, the Grace of consigning or confirmation. The like case is in Acts 12. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus, Saint Paul confirmed them, giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. The Apostles did it; not the twelve only, but Apostolick men, the other Apostles. Saint Paul did it. Saint Philip could not, nor any of the 72. or any other mere Presbyters ever did it, that we find in Holy Scripture.

Yea, but this imposition of hands was for a Miraculous issue, for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost, and spake with tongues and prophesied, which effect because it is ceased, certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired. First. Not for this reason to be sure. For extraordinary effects may be temporary, when the function which they attest may be eternal, and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministery. The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles, and extraordinary conversions of people [ut in exordio, ‘Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus & Spiritûs Sancti gratia, ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci, & praedicantium verbis non esse tardiorem audientium fidem,] as Lib. 3. hist. cap. 37. Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists; yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are [Page]done, or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle.’ The Apostles when they cursed and anathematized a delinquent, he dyed suddenly, as in the case of Ananias and Saphira, whom Saint Peter slew with the word of his Ministery, and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease, it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church. When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner, he was presently delivered over to Satan to be buffeted, that is, to be afflicted with corporal punishments, and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommunicate, yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church, and the power of the Keys is not also gone: So also in the power of confirmation, Vide August▪ tract. 6. in 1 Epist. Johan. which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing, yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith, these miracles at first did confirm the function, and the faith for ever.

Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptized people, was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles, appears from these considerations.

First, Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum, the Holy Ghost in his stead; and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Father; This was pertinent to all Christendom, Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem, so it was in the Prophecy. For the promise is to you and to your Children, [...], and to all them that are afar off,Acts 2.39. even to as many as the Lord shall call. So it was in the first accomplishing. To all. And this for ever, for I will send the Holy Ghost unto you, and he shall abide with you for ever] for it was in subsidium, to supply the comforts of his desired presence, and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again. Now then this promise being to be communicated to all, and that for ever, must either come to us by 1. Extraordinary and miraculous mission, or by 2. an ordinary Ministery. Not the first; for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles. If the second (as it is most certain so) then the main Question is evicted, viz. that something perpetually necessary was in the power of the Apostles, which was not in the power of the inferiour Ministers, nor of any but themselves and their Colleagues, to wit, Ministerium S. Spiritus, or the ordinary office of giving the holy Ghost by imposition of hands. For this promise was performed to the Apostles in Pentecost, to the rest of the faithful after Baptisme, Quod n. nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs impositio tribuit singulis, hoc tunc spiritûs sancti descensio, in credentium populo donavit Vniversis, saith Eusebius Emissenus. Now we find no other way of performing it,Serm. de Pentecost. nor any ordinary conveyance of the Spirit to all people, but this; and we find that the Holy Ghost actually was given this way. Therefore the effect, to wit, the Holy Ghost being to continue for ever, and the promise of universal concernment, this way also of its communication, to wit, by Apostolical imposition of hands, is also perpetuum ministerium, to be succeeded to, and to abide for ever.

Secondly, This Ministery of imposition of hands for confirmation of baptized people is so far from being a temporary Grace, and to determine with the persons of the Apostles, that it is a fundamental point of Christianity, an essential ingredient to its composition, Saint Paul is my Author. [Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection,Heb. 6.2. not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works, faith towards God, the doctrines of Baptism, and of laying on of hands, &c.] Here is imposition of hands reckoned as part of the foundation and a principle of Christianity in Saint Paul's Catechism. Now, imposition of hands is used by Name in Scripture but for two Ministrations. First, For Ordination, and secondly, for this whatsoever it is. Imposition of hands for Ordination does indeed give the Holy Ghost, but not as he is that promise which is called the promise of the Father. For the Holy Ghost for Ordination was given before the Ascension, John 20. But the promises of the Holy Ghost the Comforter, [the Paraclete, I say, not the Ordainer or Fountain of Priestly order, that] was not given till the day of Pentecost; and besides, it was promised to all Christian people, and the other was given only to the Clergy.

* Add to this, that Saint Paul having laid this in the foundation, makes his progress from this to perfection (as he calls it) that is to higher mysteries, and then his discourse is immediately of the Priesthood Evangelical, which is Originally in Christ, ministerially in the Clergy; so that unless we will either confound the terms of his progress, or imagine him to make the Ministery of the Clergy the foundation of [Page] Christ's Priesthood, and not rather contrary, it is clear that by imposition of hands Saint Paul means not ordination, and therefore confirmation, there being no other ordinary ministry of imposition of hands but these two specified in holy Scripture. For, as for benediction in which Christ used the ceremony, and as for healing in which Ananias and the Apostles used it; the first is clearly no Principle or fundamental point of Christianity; and the second is confessedly extraordinary, therefore the argument is still firm upon its first principles.

3. Lastly, The Primitive Church did de facto, and believed themselves to be tyed de jure to use this Rite of Confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism.

Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17.Saint Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius tells a story of a young man whom S. John had converted and committed to a Bishop to be brought up in the Faith of Christendom, Qui (saith S. Clement) eum baptismi Sacramento illuminavit, posteà verò sigillo Domini tanquam perfectâ & tutâ ejus animi custodiâ obsignavit. The Bishop first baptized him, then consigned him. Justin Martyr sayes (speaking pro more Ecclesiae, according to the Custom of the Church) that when the mysteries of Baptism were done,Quaest. 137. ad Orthod. then the faithful are consigned, or confirmed.

Saint Cyprian relates to this story of Saint Philip and the Apostles, and gives this account of the whole affair,Epist. 73. ad Iubajan. ‘Et idcircò quia legitimum & Ecclesiasticum baptismum consequnti fuerant, baptizari eos ultrà non oportebat; Sed tantummodo id quod deerat, id à Petro & Iohanne factum erat, ut oratione pro eis habitâ & manu impositâ invocaretur, & infunderetur super eos Spiritus S. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur, Praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur, ut per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum S. consequantur, & signaculo Dominico confirmentur.’ Saint Peter and Saint Iohn by imposing their hands on the Converts of Samaria, praying over them, and giving them the Holy Ghost, made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptism: and this is to this day done in the Church, for new baptized people are brought to the Bishops, and by imposition of their hands obtain the Holy Ghost.

But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendom, may see it in the decretal Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fabianus, recorded by Eusebius; in the Lib. 6. hist. cap. 33. Epistle written to Iulius and Iulianus Bishops, under the name of Saint Clement, in the In 1. tom. Concil. Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr, Lib. de Baptismo. c. 8. in Tertullian, in Lib. 2. contra lit. Petil. cap. 104. & lib. 15. de Trinit. c. 26. vide etiam S. Hieron. contra Luciferianos. S. Ambros. lib. 2. c. 2. de sacramentis Epist. 3. Euseb. P. & M. ad Episc. Tusciae & Campon Isidor. Hispal de eccles. offic. lib. 2. c. 26. Saint Austin, and in Saint Cyril of Ierusalem, whose whole third Mistagogique Catechism is concerning Confirmation. This only. The Catholicks, whose Christian prudence it was, in all true respects to disadvantage Hereticks, lest their poyson should infect like a Pest, laid it in Novatus's dish as a crime, He was baptized in his bed, and was not confirmed, Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri, therefore he could never receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle. Whence it is evident, that then it was the belief of Christendom, that the Holy Ghost was by no ordinary Ministery given to faithful people after Baptism, but only by Apostolical, or Episcopal consignation and imposition of hands.

What also the faith of Christendom was concerning the Minister of confirmation, and that Bishops only could do it, I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse. Here the scene lies in Scripture, where it is clear that Saint Philip, one of the 72. Disciples, as antiquity reports him, and an Evangelist and a Disciple, as Scripture also expresses him, could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father, and ministerial giving of the Holy Ghost, but the Apostles must go to do it; and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle, and yet this is an ordinary Ministery which de jure ought, and de facto alwayes was continued in the Church. Therefore there must alwayes be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to do it, that is, an office above Presbyters, for in Scripture they could never do it, and this is it which we call Episcopacy.

SECT. IX. And Superiority of Jurisdiction.

[Page]

THIRDLY, The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church, and each Apostle respectively of his several Diocess, when he would fix his Chair; and had superintendency over the Presbyters, and the people, and this by Christ's donation, the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this. Sicut misit me Pater, sic [...] ego mitto vos. John 20.21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, Lib 7. de baptism. Contra Donatist. c. 43. vide etiam S. Cyprian. de Vnit. Eccles. & S. Cyril. in Joh. lib. 12. c. 55. & ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes, said Clarus à Musculâ, the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin. But however it is evident in Scripture, that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy (Presbyters I mean and Deacons) and a superiority of jurisdiction, and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them, for none of the Apostles took this honour, but he that was called of God as was Aaron.

1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis. It was sicut misit me Pater, &c. As my Father sent, so I send. You, my Apostles whom I have chosen. This was not said to Presbyters, for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ, but at their first mission to preach repentance, I say no commission at all, they were not spoken to, they were not present. Now then consider. Suppose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege, another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters, what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops? Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach, but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture. If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City, it is true, but not sufficient, for so they ordained Deacons at Jerusalem, and in all established Churches, and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons, and how can it then for Presbyters? If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us, that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy, and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops; this is true. But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture, and rely upon tradition, which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it, for the same tradition, if that be admitted for good probation, is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters, as will appear in the sequel. 2. Though no use be made of this advantage, yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered, that it can never be proved from Scripture, that Christ made the Apostles Priests first, and then Bishops or Apostles, but only that Christ gave them several commissions, and parts of the Office Apostolical, all which being in one person, cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders. Truth is, if we change the scene of war, and say that the Presbyterate, as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship, is not of Divine institution, the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy. Especially if we consider, that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices, there is no enumeration of Presbyters, but of Apostles there is;Ephes. 4. 1 Cor. 12. and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity, or parts of the Apostolate, and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of, or none distinct from the Apostolate, insomuch as Apostles were Pastors, and Teachers, and Evangelists, and Rulers, and had the gift of Tongues, of Healing, and of Miracles. This thing is of great consideration, and this use I will make of it: That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters, and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate, as the ancient Church alwayes did believe, or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order. If the second be admitted, then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution, but of Apostolical only, as is the Order of Deacons, and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apostolical alone, and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power, as they did Deacons with a less. But if the first be said, then the [Page] commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture, all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance, and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis, yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis, for then they must have made them Apostles, and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither.

I care not which part be chosen, one is certain; but if either of them be true, then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power, it follows, that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction, as affixed to a distinct order, and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical; or if they have jurisdiction, they do derive it à fo [...]te Apostolorum, and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters, because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical. And that I say truth (besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture, by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters, then what I have specified) I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom, not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops (which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship) but that Presbyte [...]s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order, but derivative only from Apostolical preheminence.

2. Let us now see the matter of fact. They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters, for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest, saith the Law. Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter, and a Bishop Would be, that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholick Communion without cause, and without authority, Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius, [...], &c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him, and all that would have been to very little purpose, if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency.

3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination, as Matthias succeeded Judas, who before his new ordination was one of the 72. as Lib. 1. hist. c. 12. & l. 2. c. 9. Eusebius, Haeres. 20. Epiphanius, and De script. Eccles. in M [...]t. vide Irenaeum l. 4. c. 63. Tertul. de praescript. S. Jerom affirm, and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Jesus; S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome, S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. James at Jerusalem, S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea, and divers others of the 72. reckoned by Dorotheus, Eusebius, and others of the Fathers, did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death, which before they did not. Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles, than he had under them, can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge, or Churches. It follows then, since (as will more fully appear anon) Presbyters did succeed the Apostles, that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had. But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to, therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed. When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles, I mean, not as Presbyters, but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops, so they succeeded, and so they prove an evidence of fact, for a superiority of Jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy. *** Now that this superiority of Jurisdiction was not temporary, but to be succeeded in, appears from Reason, and from ocular demonstration, or of the thing done.

1. If superiority of Jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the Regiment of the Church, there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession, since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages, government and superiority of jurisdiction, unity of supremacy, and coercion was more necessary than at first, when extraordinary gifts might supply, what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary Authority.

2. Whatsoever was the Regiment of the Church in the Apostles times, that must be perpetual (not so as to have Vt puta, viduarum collegium, & Diaconorum, & coenobium fidelium, &c. all that which was personal and temporary, but so as to have no other) for that, and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles, and if the Church be not now governed as then, We can shew no Divine authority for our government, which we must contend to do, and do it too, or be call'd usurpers. For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them, or not. If not, then they failed in the founding of the Church, and the Church is built upon a Rock. If they did (as most certainly they did) then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained, or else we must [Page] be governed with an unlawful and unwarranted equality, because not by that which only is of immediate Divine institution; and then it must needs be a fine government, where there is no authority, and where no man is superiour.

3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself, and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation. I mean the seven Angel-presidents of the seven Asian Churches. If these seven Angels were seven Bishops, that is, Prelates or Governours of these seven Churches, in which it is evident and confessed of all sides, there were many Presbyters, then it is certain that a Superiority of Jurisdiction was intended by Christ himself, and given by him, insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church; For Christ writes to these seven Churches, and directs his Epistles to the seven Governours of these Churches, calling them Angels, which it will hardly be supposed he would have done, if the function had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness, they had not else been Angels of light, nor stars held in Christs own right hand.

This is certain, that the function of these Angels (whatsoever it be) is a Divine institution. Let us then see what is meant by these Stars and Angels.Revel. 1.20. [The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches, and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches.]

1. Then it is evident, that although the Epistles were sent with a final intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocess, with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesiis] yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church, for the whole Church is called the Candlestick, and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks, but to the seven Stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches, viz. The lights shining in the Candlesticks. By the Angel therefore is not, cannot be meant the whole Church.

2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governour of the Church, First, Because of the title of eminency, The Angel [...], that is, the Messenger, the Legate, the Apostle of the Church. [...]. For these words, Angel or Apostle, although they signifie Mission or Legation, yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent. As in the examples before specified. [...]. Their Angels. [...]. The Apostles of the Churches. [...]. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus; and divers others. Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them, and of eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent, shews that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively. 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him; as, not to suffer false Apostles; So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, which is clearly a power of cognizance and coercion in causis Clericorum (to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain; as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis, [...].Hebr. 13. The first is the office of Rulers, for they watch for your Souls; And the second, of Apostles and Apostolick men. [...], Judas and Silas confirmed the Brethren; for these men, although they were but of the LXXII at first, yet by this time were made Apostles and [chief men among the Brethren] S. Paul also was joyned in this work, [...],Acts 15. He Went up and down confirming the Churches. And [...]. S. Paul. To confirm the Churches, and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government,1 Cor. 11. these were offices of power and jurisdiction, no less than Episcopal or Apostolical; and besides, the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocess [Thou hast a few names even in Sardis] they were the Bishops people, the Angel had a right to them. And good reason that the people should be his, for their faults are attributed to him, as to the Angel of Pergamus, and divers others, and therefore they are deposited in his custody. He is to be their Ruler and Pastor, and this is called His Ministery. To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira [...], I have known thy Ministery. His office therefore was clerical, it was an Angel-Minister, and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest, even all the whole Church, since he was charged with all.

3. By the Angel is meant a singular person, for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personal delinquency, or suppose personal excellencies. Add to this that the compellation is singular, and of determinate number, so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons, for the seven Churches had but seven stars, and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches. And if [Page] by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars (for so they may if they begin to multiply) then by one star they must mean many stars, and so they may multiply Churches too, for there were as many Churches as stars, and no more Angels than Churches, and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000, as every star into a Constellation, or every Angel into a Legion.

But besides the exigency of the thing it self, these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governours or Bishops of the seven Churches, and their names are commemorated. Unto these seven Churches S. Iohn, saith Arethas, reckoneth [...], an equal number of Angel-Governours, and Oecumenius in his Scholia upon this place,In 1 Apocal. saith the very same words, Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere, eò quòd Angelus nuntius interpretatur, saith S. Ambrose;Ibid. and again, Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis. Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels, that is, in reverence and in subjection to the Bishop of the Church,In 1 Cor. 11. for Bishops are the Angels, as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn. Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae, so S. Austin. Epist. 162. & in Apocal. Lib. 5. c. 24. By the voice of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel. Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches. S. Polycarpe was one to be sure, apud Smyrnam & Episcopus & Martyr, saith Eusebius. He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna;Lib. 4. c. 10. Lib. 4. c. 15. And he had good authority for it, for he reports it out of Polycrates, who a little after was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus, and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it, and out of the Encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it self, and besides these authorities it is attested by Epist. ad Polycarp. S. Ignatius, and De praescrip. Tertullian. S. Timothy was another Angel, to wit, of the Church of Ephesus; to be sure had been, and most likely was still surviving. Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation, and he had been the Angel of Pergamus, Vide Aretha. in 1 Apoc. but before this book was written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint. Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis. Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes, & Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur, Lib. 4. c. 26. saith Eusebius. These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation, for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia, and writ after the Revelation, for he writ a Treatise of it, as saith Eusebius. However, at least some of these were then, and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches, and the Angels S. John speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocess, therefore these, or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters, such whom Christ held in his Right hand, and fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a candlestick, that they might give shine to the whole house.

The Summe of all is this; that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters, or 72 Disciples. To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power, for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable; for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation, and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders, a power of jurisdiction and authority to govern the Church: and this power was not temporary, but successive and perpetual, and was intended as any ordinary office in the Church, so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had, and though the personal mission was not immediate, as of the Apostles it was, yet the commission and institution of the function was all one. But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching, which was a very limited commission. There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairly pretended. But yet farther, these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem solicitudinis, and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical did give them power of administring Sacraments, of Absolving sinners, of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles, of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem ministerii, but the exercise, and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles. So that not by Divine ordination, or immediate commission from Christ, but by derivation from the Apostles (and therefore in minority and subordination to them) the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops, or in conjunction consiliary, and by way of advice, or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church. And all this I doubt not, but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost, as were all other acts of Apostolical ministration, and particularly the institution [Page] of the other order, viz. of Deacons. This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters, and this I shall afterwards confirm by the practice of the Catholick Church, and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturb us, for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution, but the only order that derives immediately from Christ.

For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples. Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis. In Lucae c. 1. Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit, erant tamen duodecim illis inferiores, & postea illorum Discipuli & sectatores. The Apostles are the twelve fountains, and the LXXII are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains. For though Christ also ordained the LXXII, yet they were inferior to the Apostles, and afterwards were their followers and Disciples.

I know no objection to hinder a conclusion; only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the main question, viz. to prove that he, although a Bishop, yet had no Apostolical authority, [...],Epist. ad Philadelph. I do not command this as an Apostle, (for what am I, and what is my Fathers house, that I should compare my self with them) but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor. But this answers it self, if we consider to whom he speaks it. Not to his own Church of Antioch, for there he might command as an Apostle, but to the Philadelphians he might not, they were no part of his Diocess, he was not their Apostle, and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary, in their personal priviledges, and in their universal jurisdiction, therefore he might not command the Philadelphians, being another Bishops charge, but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop, to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious. So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office, this hinders not, and I know nothing else pretended, and that antiquity is clearly on this side is the next business.

For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture; I shall only add two more from Antiquity, and so pass on to tradition Apostolical.

SECT. X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship, according to the general Tenent of Antiquity.

1. THE belief of the Primitive Church is, that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles, and Presbyters of the LXXII, and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate, for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing. For this there is abundant testimony. Some I shall select, enough to give fair evidence of a Catholick tradition.

S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular, Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, Lib. c. 3. & successores eorum usque ad nos — Etenim si recondita mysteria scîssent Apostoli, his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant — quos & successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes. We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches, appointing them their successors, and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew, they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches, and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had.

Tertullian reckons Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolical, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident. Lib. de praescript. c. 36. Apostolical they are from their foundation, and by their succession, for the Apostles did found them, and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still do govern them.

S. Cyprian; Hoc enim vel maximè, Frater, & laboramus & laborare debemus, ut Vnitatem à Domino, Epist. 42. ad Cornelium. & per Apostolos Nobis Successoribus traditam quantùm possumus [Page]obtinere curemus. We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ, and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors. To us Cyprian and Cornelius, for they only were then in view, the one Bishop of Rome, the other of Carthage. And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum; Epist. 69. Nec haec jacto, sed dolens profero, cum te Judicem Dei constituas & Christi, Qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt, qui vos audit, me audit, &c. Christ said to his Apostles, and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church, who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence, He that heareth you heareth me.

Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop, spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin, Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis. cont. Donatist. Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis & ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes. Nos successimus. We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power. He spake it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops, and himself was a Bishop.

The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester, speaking of the honour due to Bishops, expresses it thus, Non oportere quemquam Domini Discipulis, id est, Apostolorum successoribus detrahere. No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord, that is, from the Apostles successors.

Epist. 54.S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervaluing their Bishops, shews the difference of the Catholicks honouring, and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order. Apud nos (saith he) Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, apud eos Episcopus tertius est. Bishops with us [Catholicks] have the place or authority of Apostles, but with them [Montanists] Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist, pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii, S. Hierome, and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss, Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi, ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant; The Apostles are Fathers, instead of whom Bishops do succeed, whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands. So S. Hierome, S. Austin, and Euthymius upon the 44 Psalm aliàs 45.

But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles, which would do very well now also to be considered,De verbis Dom. serm. 24. Si solis Apostolis dixit, qui vos spernit me spernit, spernite nos; si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos, & vocavit nos, & in eorum loco constituit nos, videte ne spernatis nos. It was good counsel not to despise B [...]shops, for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protect [...]d by that saying, He that despiseth you, despiseth me. I said it was good counsel, especially if besides all these, we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony, Potestas anathematizandi ab Apost [...]lis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transit. A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors, even to Bishops.

In Ephes. 4. In 1 Corinth. 12.28.S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul, Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos, Apostoli Episcopi sunt, He hath given Apostles, that is, he hath given some Bishops. That's downright, and this came not by chance from him; he doubles his assertion. Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolis posuit, qui legati Christi sunt, sicut dicit idem Apostolus [pro quo legatione fungimur.] Ipsi sunt Episcopi, firmante istud Petro Apostolo, & dicente inter caetera de Judâ, In vers. 29. ibid. & Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter. And a third time. Numquid omnes Apostoli? verum est; Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus. Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose, when he spake of their ordinary offices; which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius, [...].Biblioth. Phot. n. 254. The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis of Ephesus by S. Paul, and there enthron'd. To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity. S. Basil calls a Bishoprick, [...], and [...]. So Theodoret. An Apostolical presidency. The summe is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church, as S. Clement his scholar,Lib. 4. c. 18. Epist. 1. or some other Primitive man in his name reports of him. Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat, & reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat. He [Peter] said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles, and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples. Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent, for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office, he may see it in Epist. 1. ad Sempron. Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona, in Homil. 26. in Evang. S. Gregory, Orat. 2. de imagin. S. Iohn Damascen, in S. Sextus the first his second decretal Epistle, and most plentifully in Epist. 7. S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Council, in the Epistle of Habetur Can. in Novo distinct. 21. Anacletus de Patriarchis & [Page]Primatibus, &c. In In synod. Hispal. Isidore, and in Lib. 3. c. 15 super Lucam. Venerable Bede. His words are these, Sicut duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul & demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet: sic & 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est, tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus, ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est, utrique Presbyteri, & utrique vocabantur Episcopi, quorum unum scientiae maturitatem, aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat. Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti. As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops; so the 72 of Presbyters, though at first they had names in common. Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters, and their Prelates or Superiours.

SECT. XI. And particularly of S. Peter.

TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter. So S. Cyprian. Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere & observare debemus, Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio, loquitur & dicit Petro, ego tibi dico, Quia tu es Petrus, &c. Epist. 27. ad Lapsos. Inde per temporum & successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, &c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal dignity, he said to Peter, thou art Peter, and on this Rock will I build my Church. Hence comes the order of Bishops, and the constitution or being of the Church, that the Church be founded upon Bishops, &c.

The same also S. Jerome intimates, Non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri. It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul, to obtain the degree of Peter,Epist. 1. so he, while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal office. Pasce oves meas, said Christ to Peter, and feed the flock of God which is amongst you, said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta, saith Theodoret. Lib. 12. thes. cap. 13. Orat. de laud. Basil. S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him; And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia, Et sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam & Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit: ita & Basilius, locum Petri obtinens ejúsque pariter authoritatem libertatémque participans, suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejúsque filium morte mulctavit. As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira, so Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency, for he had the place, liberty, and authority of S. Peter.

Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter, and Gildas sirnamed the wise, Tract. prima die suae ordinat. Biblioth. SS. PP. tom. 5. in Eccles. ord. increpat. saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter. But this thing is of Catholick belief, and of this use. If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal and to be succeded in, and this office Superior to Presbyters, and not only of Divine institution; but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority (as I have proved of the function Apostolical) then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate, have the same institution and authority the Apostles had, as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters, and perhaps more.

For in the Apostolical ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done. Themselves had the whole Priesthood, the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices. Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers, did not in every Ordination give a distinct order, as the Church hath done since the Apostles. For they ordained some to distinct offices, some to particular places, some to one part, some to another part of Clerical imployment, as S. Paul who was an Apostle, yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision, so was Barnabas: S. John, and James, and Cephas to the Circumcision, and there was scarce any publick design or grand imployment, but the Apostolick men had a new ordination to it, a new imposition of hands, as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles. So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were only a giving of particular commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to imploy them in. Nay, sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of Jurisdiction, when the persons ordained had the order before, as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas. Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices, and it is very pertinent to this Question.Acts 13. [Page] For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance; and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorized; for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now, and sometimes more, as to Judas and Silas, and divers others, who therefore were more than meer Presbyters as the word is now used.

* The result is this. The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle, so is a Deacon, a lesser part, so is an Evangelist, so is a Prophet, so is a Doctor, so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government, but these will not be called orders, every one of them will not I am sure, at least not made distinct orders by Christ, for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man, or to distinguish them into so many men, as there are offices, or to unite more or fewer of them. All these, I say, clearly make not distinct orders, and why are not all of them of the same consideration? I would be answered from grounds of Scripture. For there we fix as yet.

* Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men, and scattered their power at first, for there was so much imployment in any one of them, as to require one man for one office; but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men, whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons, and called them two distinct orders. But yet if we speak properly and according to the Exigence of Divine institution, there is Vnum Sacerdotium, one Priesthood appointed by Christ, and that was the commission given by Christ to his Apostles, and to their successors precisely, and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood, and although the power of it is all of Divine institution, as the power to Baptize, to Preach, to Consecrate, to Absolve, to Minister, yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men, so much less to another, that is only of Apostolical ordinance. For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to Absolve, to some only to Consecrate, to some only to Baptize. We see that to Deacons they did so. They had only a power to Baptize and Preach, whether all Evangelists had so much or no, Scripture doth not tell us.

* But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys, or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault, and not to consecrate the Eucharist, (for we see these powers are distinct, and not relative and of necessarie conjunction, no more than Baptizing and Consecrating) whether or no had those men who have only a power of Absolving or Consecrating respectively, whether (I say,) have they the order of a Presbyter? If yea, then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon, for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter, and what is he then by his other power? But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter, then let any man shew me where it is ordained by Christ, or indeed by the Apostles, that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers, and that these were called Presbyters. I only leave this to be considered.

* But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ, and we also find a necessitie, that all that power should be succeeded in, and that all that power should be united in one order, for he that hath the highest, viz. a power of Ordination, must needs have all the other, else he cannot give them to any else, but a power of Ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetual.

So that we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship, mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it, as now it is in the Church; but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception. And to this Bishops do succeed. For that it is so, I have proved from Scripture, and because [no Scripture is of private interpretation] I have attested it with the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Fathers, calling Episcopacie, the Apostolate, and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular, and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinarie offices in which they were Superiour to the LXXII, the Antecessors of the Presbyterate.

One objection I must clear. For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles, and Successors of the Apostles, as in Ignatius, in Irenaeus, in S. Hierome. I answer.

1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatical resolution or interpretation of Scripture, as the Bishops are in the examples above alledged; but by allusion and participation at the most. For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of Baptizing. Consecrating and Absolving in privato foro, but this [Page] is but part of the Apostolical power, and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters.

2. It is observable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church, but in subordination and derivation from the Bishop, and therefore they are never said to succeed In Cathedris Apostolorum, in the Apostolick Sees.

3. The places which I have specified, and they are all I could ever meet with, are of peculiar answer. For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis, Idem fere habet in Epist. ad Magnes: & Smyrnens. he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests, the Colledge, or combination of Apostles. But here S. Ignatius, as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles, so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God. Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit, Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum coetus. So that although Presbyters grow high, yet they do not overtake the Bishops, or Apostles, who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station. This then will do no hurt.

As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles, but what Presbyters he means, he tells us, even such Presbyters as were also Bishops, such as S. Peter and S. John were, who call themselves Presbyters,Lib. 4. c. 43. his words are these, Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatûs successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt. And a little after, Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia, de quibus & Propheta ait, Et dabo Principes tuos in pace, & Episcopos tuos in Justitiâ. Cap. 44. So that he gives testimony for us, not against us. As for S. Hierome, the third man, he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joyns Presbyters with Bishops, and that's right enough,Epist. 13. for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae, as I have proved he does, then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum. Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos & Apostolicos viros, quorum honorem possidentes, habere nitantur & meritum, those are his words, and enforce not so much as may be safely granted, for reddendo singula singulis, Bishops succeed Apostles, and Presbyters Apostolick men, and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical, and that's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome. I know nothing else to stay me, or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alledged, and the full voice of traditive interpretation.

SECT. XII. And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority.

THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine Institution. In this S. Cyprian is most plentiful. Dominus noster Epist. 27. Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio, dicit Petro, &c. Inde per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur. Cùm hoc itaque Divinâ lege fundatum sit, &c. Our Lord did institute in the Gospel the honour of a Bishop. Hence comes the Ordination of Bishops, and the Church is built upon them, and every action of the Church is to be governed by them, and this is founded upon a Divine law. Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos, i. e. Episcopos, & praepositos Dominus elegit. Our Lord hath chosen Apostles, that is, Epist. 65. ad Rogatian. Bishops and Church-governours. And a little after. Quòd si nos aliquid audere contra Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit, possunt & contra nos audere Diaconi, à quibus fiunt. We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops. The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop.Epist. [...]6. Novatianus in Ecclesiâ non est, nec Episcopus computari potest, qui Evangelicâ & Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ, nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est. If there was both an Evangelical and an Apostolick tradition, for the successive ordination of Bishops by other Bishops, (as S. Cyprian affirms there is, by saying Novatianus contemned it,) then certainly the [Page] same Evangelical power did institute that calling, for the modus of whose election it took such particular order.

S. Ignatius long before him, speaking concerning his absent friend Sotion the Deacon,Epist. ad Magnes. [...]. He wishes for the good mans company, because, by the grace of God, and according to the law of Jesus Christ, he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergie. And a little after. [...]. It is home enough. Ye ought to obey your Bishop, and to contradict him in nothing. It is a fearful thing to contradict him: For whosoever does so, does not mock a visible man, but the invisible, undeceivable God. For this contumely relates not to man but to God. So S. Ignatius, which could not be true, were it a humane constitution and no Divine ordinance. But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians, [...]. He that obeys the Bishop and Clergy, obeys Christ who did constitute and ordain them. This is plain and dogmatical, I would be loth to have two men so famous, so Ancient, and so resolute, speak half so much against us.

Quaest. Vet. & N. Testam. qu. 97.But it is a general resolve, and no private opinion. For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse. Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet, imponens manum Apostolis, ordinavit eos Episcopos. No man is so ignorant but he knows that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches; for before his ascension into Heaven, he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops. But long before him,

Euseb. lib. 4. c. 29. Hegesippus going to Rome, and by the way calling in at Corinth, and divers other Churches discoursed with their several Bishops, and found them Catholick and Holy, and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius. Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus, vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia habebantur, sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit, & Prophetae indicaverunt, Et Dominus Statuit. All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed. All things, therefore both of doctrine and discipline, and therefore the ordinations themselves too. Further yet, and it is worth observing, there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester, that ever writ a decretal Epistle now extant and transmitted to us, but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated, that the order of Bishops did come from God.

Lib. 4. c. 43.S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishops successors to the Apostles, saith that with their order of Bishoprick, they have received charisma veritatis certum, a true, and certain or indeleble character; secundùm placitum Patris, according to the will of God the Father. And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose, In 1 Corint. 12. Ideò quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis, & quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia, singulos Episcopos, singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit. God from whom all good things do come, did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop. And again, Honor igitur, Fratres, & sublimitas Episcopalis, De dignit. Sac [...]rd. cap. 2. nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari; Si Regum fulgori compares, &c. And a little after, Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine, cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit, sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio, praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis. The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable preheminence, and is by God set over the people, and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospel that he should guide them by a Fathers right. And in the close of his discourse, Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur, Petre amas me? — repetitum est à Domino tertiò, Pasce oves meas. Quas oves, & quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & cum illo nos suscepimus omnes. Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed, and in him we (who have pastoral or Episcopal authority) have received the same authority and commission. Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop, and of S. Paul's intimation, that it was by Prophecy, affirm it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost.Homil. 4. Graec. 5. lat. in 1 Tim. cap. In Tit. 1. [...], saith S. Chrysostome, he was ordained by Prophecy, that is, by the holy Ghost. [...], Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution. [...], so Oecumenius. By Divine revelation, saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost, so Theophylact; and indeed so S. Paul to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus, Acts 20. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops: and to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them, and he was a Bishop, and [Page] so were divers others there present; therefore the order it self is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty, since a single person was made Bishop by revelation. I might multiply authorities in this particular, which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy, in Hom. 32. in Johan. Origen, in the Council of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian, in the collection of the Can. 6. Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis: in the Councils of C. 25. Aquisgrane, and Octavum Can. 7. Toledo, and many more. The summe is that which was taught by Epist. 2. S. Sextus, Apostolorum dispositione, ordinante Domino, Episcopi primitùs sunt constituti. The Lord did at first ordain, and the Apostles did so order it, and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution.

These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles, and by consequence to have the same institution, drive all to the same issue, and are sufficient to make faith, that it was the doctrine Primitive, and Catholick that Episcopacy is a Divine institution, which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom, which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost, and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a neve-failing succession, unless where God removes the Candlestick, or which is all one, takes away the star, the Angel of light from it, that it may be invelop'd in darkness, usque ad consummationem saeculi & aperturam tenebrarum. The conclusion of all I subjoyn in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted,Lib. 3. in Lucam c. 15. Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti, Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, and Superiour to them by the law of God.

The second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition. We have seen what Christ did, now we shall see what was done by his Apostles. And since they knew their Masters mind so well, we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practice Apostolical. Apostoli enim, Discipuli veritatis existentes, extra omne mendacium sunt, Lib. 3. cap. 5. non enim communicat mendacium veritati, sicut non communicant tenebrae luci, sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum, saith S. Irenaeus.

SECT. XIII. In pursuance of the Divine Institution, the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches.

FIRST then, the Apostles did presently after the Ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of Jerusalem. For they knew that Jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed, they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue, (Petrus & Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam, saith Lactantius l. 4. inst.) famines and wars, and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs own prediction, which themselves recorded in Scripture. And to say they understood not what they writ, is to make them Enthusiasts, and neither good Doctors nor wise seers. But it is [...] that the holy Spirit, which was promised to lead them into all truth, would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publick affairs, as was so Great desolation, and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church, and to fix it upon its perpetual base. Secondly, The Church of Jerusalem was to be the president and platform for other Churches. [The word of God went forth into all the world, beginning first at Jerusalem,] and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes, that other Churches might see their government from whence they receiv'd their doctrine, that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream. Thirdly, the Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution, and this to be sure they look'd for, and therefore (so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways) they ordained S. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem; there he fixt his chair, there he lived Bishop for 30 years, and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom. If this be proved, we are in a fair way for practice Apostolical.

First, Let us see all that is said of S. James in Scripture, that may concern this affair. Acts 15. We find S. James in the Synod at Jerusalem, not disputing, but giving final determination to that Great Question about Circumcision. [And [Page]when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said, &c.] He first drave the question to an issue, and told them what he believed concerning it, with a [...], we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision, as with our Forefathers who used it. But S. James, when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter, gave sentence and final determination. [...], wherefore I judge or give sentence. So he. The acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative, they disputed, v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative, but S. James his was decisive; which proves him clearly (if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate) that S. James was the President of this Synod, which considering that he was none of the twelve (as I proved formerly) is unimaginable, were it not for the advantage of the place, it being held in Jerusalem, where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus, (as S. Clement calls him) especially in the presence of S. Peter, who was primus Apostolus, and decked with many personal priviledges and prerogatives.

* Add to this, that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle, and to send Judas and Silas, yet because they were of the Presbytery, and Colledge of Jerusalem, S. James his Clergy, they are said, as by way of appropriation to come from S. James, Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus, Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Jacobo, i. e. à Judaeâ, nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Jacobus praefuit. To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent, calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. James, Epist. ad Trall. and in his Epistle to Hero, saying that he did Minister to S. James and the Presbyters of Jerusalem, which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius's time (who was Suppar Apostolorum, only not a contemporary Bishop) here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair, and Jerusalem the seat of S. James, and the Clergy his own, of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius, he was their Ordinary.

* The second evidence of Scripture is [Acts 21. And when we were come to Jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto James, and all the Elders were present.] Why unto James? Why not rather unto the Presbytery, or Colledge of Elders, if James did not eminere, were not the [...], the Praepositus or Bishop of them all?

Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent, see it testified by Antiquity, to which in matter of fact, and Church-story, he that will not give faith upon current testimonies, and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad-man, and may as well disbelieve every thing that he hath not seen himself, and can no way prove that himself was Christned, and to be sure, after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before, and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory, it being impossible to prove it.

Lib. 2. hist. cap. 1 Eusebius reports out of S. Clement. [...]. S. Peter and S. John, although they were honoured of our Lord, yet they would not themselves be, but made James, sirnamed the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem; and the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae, for when S. James was crowned with Martyrdom, and immediately the City destroyed, Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum successione Jacobi judicari. Lib. 3. c. 11. It was concluded for Simeon, because he was the Kinsman of our Lord, as S. James also his Predecessor. The same concerning S. James is also repeated by Eusebius. Judaei ergo cùm Paulus provocâsset ad Caesarem — in Jacobum fratrem Domini cui ab Apostolis sedes Hierosolymitana delata fuit,Lib. 2. c. 22. omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt.

Lib. 7. c. 46. & lib. 8. cap. ult.In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement, the Apostles are brought in speaking thus. De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ, significamus vobis quòd hi sunt; Hierosolymis ordinatus est Jacobus Frater Domini. S. James the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by us [Apostles.] The same is witnessed by Anacletus. Epist. 2. Porrò & Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Jacobus qui Justus dicebatur, & secundum carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater, à Petro, Jacobo, & Johanne, Apostolis, est ordinatus. And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus, with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Jacobum, Epist. decret. Vni [...]. &c. Just as Anacletus before. S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and Peter, James, and Iohn were his Ordainers.

But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chair, who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records.Catech. 4. S. Cyrill of [Page] Jerusalem is the man. Nam de his non mihi solum, sed etiam Apostolis, & Jacobo hujus Ecclesiae olim Episcopo curae fuit, speaking of the question of circumcision, and things sacrificed to Idols, and again, he calls S. Iames, primum hujus parochiae Episcopum, the first Bishop of this Diocess.Catech. 16.

S. Austin also attests this story. Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae, in quâ Petrus sedit, & in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet? Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae In qua Jacobus Sedit,Lib. 2. cont. lit▪ Petil. c. 51. & lib. 2. cont. Crescon. c. 37. & in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet? I must not omit the testimony of S. Ierome, for it will be of great use in the sequel, Iacobus (saith he) post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus, and the same also he repeats out of Hegesippus. Lib. de Script. Eccles. in Jacobo. There are many more testimonies to this purpose, as of Hom. 38. in 1 Cor. 15. & 33. hom. in Act. 15. S. Chrysostome, Haeres. 66. Epiphanius, In Galat. 1▪ S. Ambrose, the Council of Cap. 3.3. Hom. 3. in Act. Constantinople in Trullo. But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher, Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus, ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus. S. James the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himself. If by [Ordinatus] he means [designatus] he agrees with S. Chrysostome: But either of them both will serve the turn for the present. But either in one sence or the other it is true, and attested also by Epiphanius, Et primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs, cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terra primó. S. James had first the Episcopal chair, Haeres. 78. for our Lord first intrusted his earthly throne to him. And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses, to all which if we add what I before observed, that S. Iames is in Scripture called an Apostle, and yet he was none of the twelve, and that in the sence of Scripture and the Catholick Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one, it follows from the premisses, (and of them already there is faith enough made) that S. Iames was by Christs own designation and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem, that is, had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not, and this Apostolate was limited and fixed, as his Successors since have been.

But that this also was not a temporary business, and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the first Apostles, but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church, it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Successor. It is witnessed by Eusebius, Post martyrium Iacobi — traditur Apostolos, &c. habuisse in commune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari; Lib. 3. hist. c. 11 omnesque uno consilio, atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet. The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus, posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est — electione divina Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur, electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini. Lib. 4. cap. 22. S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a divine election; And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem, reckons first Iames, and next Simeon, Qui sub Trajano crucifixus est. Haeres. 66.

SECT. XIV. S. Timothy at Ephesus.

THE next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus. That he was ordain'd by an Apostle appears in Scripture. For S. Paul imposed hands on him, that's certain, Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum, By the laying on of my hands. That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and offices concredited to him. First,2 Tim. 1.6. He was to be 1 Tim. 1.3, resident at Ephesus. And although for the publick necessities of the Church, and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge, yet there he lived and died, as the Church story writes, there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasional. And when it was, his cure was supplied by Tychicus, whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar, as I shall shew hereafter.

2. S. Paul in his Epistles to him, gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment, as is plain; A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c. Thirdly, S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy. Over the people;1 Tim. 3. [...] is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as [...]. Commanding as teaching. Over Presbyters; but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity, the one as Fathers, the other as Brethren. 1 Tim. 5.1. [...] is denied to be used towards either of them: [...], [Page] saith Suidas, a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation. Nay it is more; [...] is castigo, plagam infero, saith Budaeus: so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use, either toward Priest or Deacon, Clergy or Laity, Old or Young. [For a Bishop must be no striker.] But [...], that's given him in commission both to old and young, Presbyters and Catechumens, that is, Require them; postula, provoca. [...]. Synesius. To be provoked to a Duel, to be challenged. And [...]. Chrysostom. Ad precandum vos provoco. [...]. Eurip. Thou makest me, or compellest me to shed tears. Suaviter omnia. That's the way S. Paul takes. Meekly; but yet so as to do his office, to keep all in their several duties, and that is by a [...], command these things, for so he summes up the Bishops duty towards Presbyters, Neophytes, and Widows. Give all these things in charge, Command all to do their duty. Command, 1 Tim. 5.7. but not objurgate. Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret, si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem? So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage. For indeed it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy how he should exercise his Jurisdiction over Presbyters and people,Haeres. 75. if he had had no Jurisdiction and coercive authority at all. Nay, and howsoever Saint Paul forbids Timothy to use [...] which is [...], yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it,2 Tim. 4.2. intimating, upon great occasion. [...]. To be sure [...], if it be but an urging, or an exhortation, is not all, for S. Paul gives him coercive jurisdiction, as well as directive. Over Widows. [...]. Reject the younger widows, viz. à collegio viduarum, ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae. Over Presbyters, for he commands him to have sufficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters, of which if he was not to take cognizance, it was to no purpose to number witnesses. [...]. Receive not a publick accusation [foro externo] against a Priest. Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum, &c. to wit, in causes criminal. That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power to take cognizance in causes criminal; then for his punishing in such cases,1 Tim. 5.20. it follows in the next words, [...]. Reprehend them publickly, that is, disgrace them. For [...] is [...], indecorus. — [...]. Homer Iliad. [...]. So that [...] in S. Paul, is to call them to publick account, that's one part of the jurisdiction. [...], is to examine. Plato Epist. [...], to give an account of ones life. Idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction,

[...]

[...].

Hom. [...]. Iliad.

But the words in S. Paul will clear the business. Let them that sin be publickly shamed, [...], that the rest may fear; A punishment most certainly, something that is [...], Malum in genere poenae. What else should they fear? to sin? Most true. But why upon this reprehension, if not for fear of being punished?

Add to all this, that here is in this Chapter the plain giving of a jurisdiction, an erection of a Judicatory, and is all the way direction for his proceeding in cases criminal, appears most evidently, v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels, that thou observe these things, [...], without prejudging the cause of any man before it comes in open contestation under publick test of witnesses, [...], doing nothing for favour or partiality. Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory than these mandates of S. Paul.

Lastly, to make up his Episcopal function compleat, S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders. [Lay hands suddenly on no man.] Sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat custodiri — Nè facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem — peccat enim si non probat & sic ordinet. Verse 22. Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est. Haec Episcopus custodiens, castum se exhibebit religioni, cujus rei infuturo praemium consequetur. So S. Ambrose upon the place, who is so far from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishops Consistory, that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the Judicature and coercive Jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy.

[Page]Adde to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholick and unquestioned Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have been ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul. Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul, Sed & Lucas (saith he) in actibus Apostolorum plurimos ejus socios memorat, sicut Timothei & Titi, Lib. 3. c. 4. quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus — ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. S. Ambrose affirms that S. Paul having ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him,Praefat. in 1 Tim. to instruct him in his Episcopal Office. Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolam quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare. And that this Epistle was written to instruct S. Timothy for his own person, and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop, is the united concurrent testimony of Cont. haeres. S. Vincentius, Cont: Marcion. l. 5. Tertullian, Hom. 10. in 1 Timoth. S. Chrysostom, In 1 Tim. 6 S. Ambrose, 1 Tim. 4.5. Oecumenius, Haeres 75. Epiphanius, Ad 1 Tim. c. 4. Primasius, and In Pastor. part. 2. c. 11. Acts 11. S. Gregory. As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted, he uses it as an argument against the madness and stupidity of Aerius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one; Docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus & quis Presbyter, quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus, Presbyterum ne objurges, &c. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the general Council of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus; Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Council, [...]. From S. Timothy until now there have been 27 Bishops ordained in Ephesus. Who desires a multitude of testimonies (though enough already have deposed in the cause, besides the evidence of Scripture) may to these add that saying of S. Chrysostom, In Titum & 1 Philip. & in 1 Tim. 3. Biblioth. Photii n. 254. that to Timothy was committed [...]; of Theodoret, calling him Episcopum Asianorum; the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy, (which if it were not writ by S. Paul, yet at least will prove a Primitive record, and very ancient,) the fragment of the Martyrdom of S. Timothy in Photius, De Script. Eccles. S. Hierom, In Praef. 1 Tim. S. Theophylact, De vita & mort. SS. 87, 88. Isidore, and Lib. 2. c. 34 2 Tim. 4.5. Nicephorus.

And now all is well if after all this Timothy do not prove an Evangelist, for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause, and though neither pertinent nor true, yet shall be laid in the balance against all the evidence of Scripture and Catholick Antiquity. But [do the work of an Evangelist] (saith S. Paul) therefore it is clear S. Timothy was no Bishop. No, was not? That's hard. But let us try however.

1. [...], those are the next words, fulfil thy Deaconship. And therefore he was no Bishop? As well this as the other; for if Deaconship do not exclude Episcopacy, why shall his being an Evangelist exclude it? Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist, as well as his being an Evangelist exclude his being a Bishop? Whether is higher, a Bishoprick, or the office of an Evangelist? If a Bishops office be higher, and therefore cannot consist with an Evangelist, then a Bishop cannot be a Priest, and a Priest cannot be a Deacon, and an Evangelist can be neither, for that also is thought to be higher than them both. But if the office of an Evangelist be higher, then as long as they are not disparate, much less destructive of each other, they may have leave to consist in subordination. For as for the pretence that an Evangelist is an office of a moveable imployment, and a Bishoprick of fixt residence, that will be considered by and by.

2. All the former discourse is upon supposition, that the word [...] implies the office of a Deacon, and so it may as well as S. Paul's other phrase implies S. Timothy to be an Evangelist. For if we mark it well, it is [...], do the work, not the office of an Evangelist. And what's that? We may see it in the verses immediately going before, [...]. And if this be the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy perform, viz. to preach, to be instant in season, and out of season, to reprove, to rebuke, to exhort, there is no harm done, a Bishop may, nay he must do all this.

3. Consider what an Evangelist is, and thence take our estimate for the present. 1. He that writes the story of the Gospel is an Evangelist, so the Greek Scholiast calls him. And in this sence indeed S. Timothy was not an Evangelist, but yet if he had, he might have been a Bishop, because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure, and perhaps as sure that he was a Bishop; sure enough; for they are both delivered to us by the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Church, as we shall see hereafter, so far as concerns our Question. But then again; an Apostle might be an Evangelist, S. Matthew was, S. John was, and the Apostolical dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist as Episcopal preheminence, for I have proved these [Page] two names Apostle and Bishop to signifie all one thing. Secondly, S. Ambrose gives another exposition of [Evangelists] Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus. In 4. Ephes. S. Philip was one of the seven, commonly called Deacons, and he was also a Presbyter, and yet an Evangelist, and yet a Presbyter in its proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop, or else why are Presbyters cri'd out against so bitterly in all cases, for non-residence, and yet nothing hinders, but that S. Timothy, as well as S. Philip might have been a Presbyter and an Evangelist together, and then why not a Bishop too, for why should a Deaconship, or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist more than a Bishoprick? Thirdly, Another acceptation of [Evangelist] is also in Eusebius. Sed & alii plurimi per idem tempus Apostolorum Discipuli superstites erant — Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae — animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant — ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent, Lib. 3. hist. c. 37. primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes — Evangelistarum fungebantur officio. They that planted the Gospel first in any Country, they were Evangelists. S. Timothy might b [...] such a one, and yet be a Bishop afterwards. And so were some of this sort of Evangelists. For so Eusebius, Primaque apud eos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes, atque electis quibusque ex ipsis officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes, ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant. So that they first converted the Nation, and then governed the Church, first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops; and so was Austin the Monk that converted England in the time of S. Gregory and Ethelbert, he was first our Evangelist, and afterwards Bishop of Dover. Nay, why may they not in this sence be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time, insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries, as S. Chrysostome in Scythia, Lib. 10. tripart. hist. cap. 5. Theodoret. S. Trophimus, S. Denis, S. Mark, and many more. By the way only, according to all these acceptations of the word [Evangelist] this office does not imply a perpetual motion. Evangelists many of them did travel, but they were never the more Evangelists for that, but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospel, and thence they had their name.

4. The office of an Evangelist was but temporary, and take it in either of the two sences of Eusebius or Oecumenius, which are the only true and genuine, was to expire when Christianity was planted every where, and the office of Episcopacy, if it was at all, was to be succeeded in, and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent, at least, not always. 1 Tim. 6.14. And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him, [to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,] if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules, was to expire long before, is not so easily imagined. For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office, then in no sence, neither in person, nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christ's coming, to wit, to judgment. But if he instructed him in the perpetual office of Episcopacy, then it is easie to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy, to intimate that those his directions were not personal, but for his successors in that charge, to which he had ordained him, viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy.

5. Lastly, After all this stir, there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist. So S. Chrysostom, so Theophylact, so the Greek Scholiast.In Ephes. 4. Now though we have no need to make any use of it, yet if it be true, it makes all this discourse needless, we were safe enough without it; if it be false, then it self we see is needless, for the allegation of S. Timothies being an Evangelist is absolutely impertinent, though it had been true.

But now I proceed.

SECT. XV. S. Titus at Crete.

TITVS was also made a Bishop by the Apostles. S. Paul also was his ordainer. First, Reliqui te Cretae. There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete. Secondly, His work was [...], to set in order things that are wanting, viz. to constitute rites and forms of publick Liturgy, to erect a Consistory for [Page] cognizance of causes criminal, to dedicate houses for prayer by publick destination for divine service, and in a word, by his authority to establish such Discipline and Rituals, as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God. For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectifie, and set things in order, was most certainly by him supposed to be the Judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectifie. 2. The next work is Episcopal too, and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City. Not Presbyters collectively in every City, but distributively [...], City by City, that is Elders in several Cities, one in one City, many in many. For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops. Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account, but here it is plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops.

1. In terms and express words. [To ordain Elders in every City; If any be the husband of one wife, &c. For a Bishop must be blameless.] That is, the Elders that you are to ordain in several cities must be blameless, for else they must not be Bishops. 2. The word [...] cannot hinder this exposition, for S. Peter calls himself [...], and S. John, Presbyter electae Dominae, and Presbyter delectissimo Gaio. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical, and that's as much as Episcopal to be sure. 3. S. Paul adds farther, [a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God. Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler? Tit. 1.] S. Paul's Bishop is Gods steward, and Gods steward is the ruler of his houshold, says our blessed Saviour himself, and therefore not a meer Presbyter, amongst whom indeed there is a parity, but no superintendency of Gods making. 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualifie his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers. A Bishop must be no striker, not given to wine. They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts. [If the Steward of the house will drink and be drunk, and beat his fellow servants, then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers.] The steward of the houshold, this Ruler, must not be [...] nor [...], no more must a Bishop, he must not be given to wine, no striker; Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus, sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat, saith S. Hierome: still then these are the Rulers of the Church, which S. Titus was to ordain,Advers. Jovinian. and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house, for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God, implying that this his charge is to rule the house of God. 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in cities is in order to coercive jurisdiction, because [many unruly and vain talkers were crept in, verse 10.] and they were to be silenced [...], their mouths must be stopped. Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers, which to a single Presbyter, either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant, and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it, for himself had given it singly to S. Titus. For I consider,

Titus alone had coercive Jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders, be they Bishops, be they Presbyters. The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power, or coercive Jurisdiction, for why then was Titus sent? As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained, before his ordaining them, to be sure they had no power at all, they were not Presbyters. If they had a coercive Jurisdiction afterwards, to wit, by their ordination, then Titus had it before in his own person, (for they that were there before his coming had not, as I shewed) and therefore he must also have it still, for he could not lose it by ordaining others, or if he had it not before, how could he give it unto them whom he ordained? For plus juris in alium tranferre nemo potest, quam ipse habet.

Howsoever it be then, to be sure, Titus had it in his own person, and then it follows undeniably, that either this coercive Jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church (which would be either to suppose men impeccable, or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumultuary factions without possibility of relief) or if it was necessary, then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative, but a power to be succeeded to; he might ordain others, he had authority to do it, with the same power he had himself, and therefore since he alone had this coercion in his own person, so should his successors, and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides, nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not, for why then was Titus sent with a new commission, nor those which he was to ordain if they were but meer Presbyters could not have it, no more than the Presbyters that were there [Page] before his coming, it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain, being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers, and with authority to silence them, (as is evident in the first Chapter of that Epistle) these Elders (I say) are verily, and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sence and acceptation of the word.

6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus's coming, had not power to ordain others, that is, had not that power that Titus had. For Titus was sent thither for that purpose, therefore to supply the want of that power. And now, because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church, that is, because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world, and meer Presbyters could not do it, and yet this must be done, not only by Titus himself, but after him, it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had, that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters, that is Bishops, and he means them in the proper sence.

7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained, [...], not [...], or [...]. In populous Cities, not in village Towns; For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns, as is to be seen in the Councils of Cap. 6. Sardis, of Can. 17. Chalcedon, and Epist. 87. ad Episc. Afri [...]. S. Leo, the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not meer Presbyters.

The issue of this discourse is, That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops, himself was a Bishop to be sure, at least. If he had ordained only Presbyters, it would have proved that. But this infers him to be a Metropolitan, forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete, and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him, of his own constitution, and yet of proper Diocesses. However, if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar, it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes, upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter; and at least infers his being a Bishop, if not a great deal more.

Yea; but did not S. Titus ordain no meer Presbyters? yes, most certainly. But so he did Deacons too, and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order. For he that ordains a Bishop, first makes him a Deacon, (and then he obtains [...], a good degree) and then a Presbyter, and then a Bishop. So that these inferior orders are presupposed in the authorizing the Supream, and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops, he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment, insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher.

2. Add to this, that he that ordains Bishops in Cities set there [...], ordinem generativum Patrum, as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy, and therefore most certainly with intention, not that it should be [...], Manus Mortua, but to produce others, and therefore Presbyters and Deacons.

3. S. Paul made no express provision for Villages, and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute, and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages, and that is of such men as had power to ordain, and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased. For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters, as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there, where most certainly many Presbyters before were actually resident, if Presbyters had gone to Villages, they must have left the Cities destitute, or if they staid in Cities, the Villages would have perished, and at last, when these men had died, both one and the other had been made a prey to the wolf, for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first generation.

But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders, and institution,Tit. 3.10. [A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject.] Cognizance of Heretical pravity, and animadversion against the Heretick himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus. For first he is to admonish him, then to reject him upon his pertinacy, from the Catholick communion. Cogere autem illos videtur, qui saepe corripit, saith S. Ambrose, upon the establishing a coactive, or coercive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocess.

But I need not specifie any more particulars, for S. Paul committed to S. Titus [...],Tit. 2.15. all authority and power. The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on his Epistle. Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, [Page]& ideò commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione, id est, ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent, simulque & haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos.

And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete. Lib. 3. c. 4. Sed & Lucas (saith Eusebius) in actibus Apostolorum — Timothei meminit & Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus: alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly,Vbi supra. Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop; and Theodoret calling Titus, Cretensium Episcopum, The Bishop of the Cretians. 1 Tim. 3. And for this reason saith S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus, or Silas, or Clemens, but to Timothy and Titus, [...], because to these he had already committed the government of Churches. But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in De script. Eccles. in Tit [...]. S. Hierome, in In Synops. Dorotheus, in De vita & morte S. Sanct. Isidore, in Lib. 38. c. 10 Vincentius, in Apud Oecum [...]n. in praefat. in Tit. & in 1 Timoth. 3. Theodoret, in In pastor. part. 2. c. 11. S. Gregory, in Praefat. in 1 Tim. & in 2 Tim. 1. Primasius, in In 1 Tim. 1. & in 2 Tim. 1.6. Sedulius, In 1 Tit. Theophylact and Lib. 2. c. 34. Nicephorus. To Which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of In Synopsis Sacr. Script. S. Athanasius, Ad Paulam & Eustoch. S. Jerome, the Syriack translation, Coment. ad Titum. Oecumenius and Ibid. Theophylact, no confident denial can ever break through, or scape conviction.

And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here; for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist, he is not called so in Scripture, and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop, and the nature of his offices, the eminence of his dignity, the superiority of jurisdiction, the cognizance of causes criminal, and the Epistle proclaim him Bishop. But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist, I would fain know who succeeded him? or did all his office expire with his person? If so, then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead? Who shall silence factious Preachers? If not, then still who succeeded him? The Presbyters? How can that be? For if they had more power after his death than before, and governed the Churches which before they did not, then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolical Ordinance, much less is it a divine right, for it is postuate to them both. But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him, how then could they succeed him? There was indeed a dereliction of the authority, but no succession. The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons, not by a Colledge, for so we find in the [...] recorded by Eusebius, that in Gnossus of Crete, Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop, and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna; Sed & Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit, saith Eusebius. But of this enough.Lib. 4. c. 21.

SECT. XVI. S. Mark at Alexandria.

MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed, one that writ the Gospel, and he was a Bishop of Alexandria. In Scripture we find nothing of him, but that he was an Evangelist, and a Deacon, for he was Deacon to S. Paul and Barnabas, when they went to the Gentiles, by ordination and special designment made at Antioch;Acts 12. & Acts 13. [...]. They had John to be their Minister; viz. John whose sirname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their Acts written by S. Luke, which end at S. Pauls first going to Rome; but many other things, their founding of divers Churches, their ordination of Bishops, their journeys, their persecutions, their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded, and relye upon the faith of the Primitive Church. And yet the ordination of S. Mark was within the term of S. Lukes story, for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero's reign, five or six years before the death of S. Paul. Igitur Neronis primo Imperii anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandriam Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit. So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it, in stead [Page] of octavo. Sacerdotium, [...], that is the Bishoprick, for else there were many [...] and Priests in Alexandria besides him, and how then he should be S. Marks successor more than the other Presbyters, is not so soon to be contrived. But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs. Quod post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus, Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Mark. * And Philo the Jew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria, called by the inhabitants, Cultores, and Cultrices, The worshippers, Addit autem adhuc his (saith Eusebius) quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua, vel quae sit supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes, intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers there was an Episcopal dignity which was apex super omnia, a height above all imployments, established at Alexandria; and how soon that was, is soon computed, for Philo lived in our blessed Saviour's time, and was Embassador to the Emperor Caius, and survived S. Mark a little.

Epist. ad Evagr. De Script. Eccles. & in proaem. in Mat.But S. Jerome will strike up this business. A Marco Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque, & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri Aegypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant. And again, Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri, & Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus. The same is witnessed by Lib. 6. Epist. 371. S. Gregory, Lib. 14. c. 39. Nicephorus, and divers others.

Now although the ordination of S. Mark is not specified in the Acts, as innumerable multitudes of things more, and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Peter, nothing of S. James the son of Thaddaeus, nor of Alpheus, but the Martyrdom of one of them, nothing of S. Bartholomew, of S. Thomas, of Simon zelotes, of S. Jude the Apostle, scarce any of their names recorded, yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records, which all Christendom hitherto, so far as we know, hath acknowledged as authentick, and these ordinations cannot possibly go less than Apostolical, being done in the Apostles times, to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited, they seeing and beholding several successions in several Churches before their death, as here at Alexandria, first S. Mark, then Anianus, made Bishop five or six years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul. But yet who it was that ordained S. Mark Bishop of Alexandria (for Bishop he was most certainly) is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Roman Council,In decret. de lib. authent. & apocryph. Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit, & gloriosè consummavit Martyrium. S. Peter sent him into Aegypt to found a Church, and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great imployment, and that could be no less than the ordinary power Apostolical.

SECT. XVII. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome.

BUT in the Church of Rome, the ordination of Bishops by the Apostles, and their successions during the times of the Apostles, is very manifest by a concurrent testimony of old writers. Fundantes igitur, & instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt. Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit. Succedit autem ei Anacletus, post eum tertio loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui & vidit ipsos Apostolos, & contulit cum eis, cum adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum, & traditionem ante oculos haberet. Lib. 3. cap. 3. So S. Irenaeus. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus. Linus vero & Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse. Many more testimonies there are of these mens being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles, as of De praescript. Tertullian, Lib. 2. cont. Parmen. Optatus, Epist. 165. S. Augustin, and De Script. Eccles. S. Hierom. But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish, and be tedious in a thing so evident and known.

SECT. XVIII. S. Polycarp at Smyrna, and divers others.

[Page]

S. JOHN ordained S. Polycarp Bishop at Smyrna — Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Johanne collocatum refert; De praescript. sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit, proinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant. So Tertullian. The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarp was placed there by Saint John, as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordained there by S. Peter; and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops. Polycarpus autem non solum ab Apostolis edoctus — sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus — & testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes, & qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo, &c. The same also is witnessed by S. Jerome, and De script. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 35▪ Eusebius: Quoniam autem valde longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum successiones enumerare, to use S. Irenaeus his expression; It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands, as (a)Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. & l. 3. c. 4. Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens, (b)Origen▪ lib. 10. in 10. Rom. Caius at Thessalonica, (c)S. Ambrose in 4. Coloss▪ Archippus at Colosse, (d)Ignatius Epist. ad Ephes. & Euseb. lib. 3. c▪ 35. Onesimus at Ephesus, (e)Ar [...]tha [...]in 1 Apocal. An [...]ipas at Pergamus, (f)Epist. ad Philip. & Theod▪ ret. ib. & 1 Tim. 3. Epaphroditus at Philippi, (g)Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. apud Gallias. So Ruffin [...] read [...] it. In Galatia, so is intimated in Scripture, and so the Roman Martyrol. Crescens among the Gaules, (h)Ignatiu [...] Epist. ad Antioch. & Euseb. lib. 3. c. 22. Evodias at Antioch, *In Martyrologio Roman. Sosipater at Iconium, Erastus in Macedonia, Trophimus at Arles, Jason at Tarsus, Silas at Corinth, Onesiphorus at Colophon, Quartus at Berytus, Paul the Proconsul at Narbona, besides many more whose names are not recorded in Scripture, as these fore-cited are, so many as Lib. 3. c. 37. Eusebius counts impossible to enumerate; it shall therefore suffice to summe up this digest of their Acts and Ordinations in those general foldings used by the Fathers, saying that the Apostles did ordain Bishops in all Churches, that the succession of Bishops down from the Apostles first Ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholick, and their adversaries, who could not do so, to be Heretical: This also is very evident, and of great consideration in the first Ages while their tradition was clear and evident, and not so be-pudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Hereticks, striving to spoil that which did so much mischief to their causes.

Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem & antecessorem, hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt, &c. Lib. 3. cap 3. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles, nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius. Hâc ordinatione (saith he) & successione, & ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio & veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos; & est plenissima haec ostensio unam & eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, & tradita in veritate. So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination, must of it self be a very certain thing, when the Church made it a main probation of their faith; for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together, and generally received as yet. Now then, since this was a main pillar of their Christianity, viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand, as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair, till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them, this (I say) being their proof, although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved, which in that case was a Divine revelation, yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact, and known almost by evidence of sense, and as verily believed by all, as it was by any one that himself was baptized, both relying upon the report of others. Epist. 42. Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum, & successiones Episcoporum, certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur, saith S. Augustin. The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world, by the successions of Apostles and Bishops.

And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing, no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical, no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles, and so (as S. Paul's phrase is) overthrow the faith of some, even of the Primitive Christians, [Page] that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people?Vbi supra. It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus, Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos, We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches; and of this we are sure enough, if there be any faith in Christians.

SECT. XIX. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance. Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed.

THE summe is this. Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock, yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance, and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is. For, for that in the new Testament we have no precept, and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day, and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues, but yet (however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting, to have shown their Christian liberty) we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday-Festival less than an Apostolical ordinance: and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed.

* Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance, and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried, and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles; and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us, as we do of baptizing infants upon them, if we speak of immediate Divine institution, or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture, and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists, was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination, and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first, as having fairer plea, and clearer evidence in Scripture, than the baptizing of infants, and yet they that deny this, are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks.

* Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity, as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist; for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church, Clergy and Laity, when Christ said [Hoc facite, do this] then why may not every Christian man there represented, do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do? If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church, why then do all communicate? Or what place, or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels, limiting [Hoc facite, id est, benedicite] to the Clergy, and extending [Hoc facite, id est, accipite & manducate] to the Laity? This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church, and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be, by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected.

* To these I add the communion of Women, the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical, that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles, the whole tradition of Scripture it self, the Apostles Creed, the feast of Easter (which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution, must needs prevail as Caput institutionis, it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated.) These and divers others of greater consequence (which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood) relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy (though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance) and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity, which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian, whose Master is truth it self.

SECT. XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority.

[Page]

WHAT their power and eminence was, and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles, appears also by the testimonies before alledged, the expressions whereof run in these high terms. Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino. Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church, Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens, they were both Prefects of the Church, or Prelates, that's the Church-word. Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur, so Titus, he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete. In celsiori gradu collocatus, placed in a higher order or degree, so the Bishop of Alexandria, chosen ex Presbyteris, from amongst the Presbyters. Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis, so Philo of that Bishoprick, The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity. These are its honours. Its offices these. [...], &c. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting, or amiss; to silence vain prating Preachers, that will not submit to their superiors, to ordain elders, to rebuke delinquents, to reject Hereticks, viz. from the communion of the faithful (for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks, but that it was in his power to eject them? And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people) but to the Bishop was committed the cognizance of causes criminal, and particular of Presbyters, (so to Timothy in the instance formerly alledged) nay, [...], all authority, so in the case of Titus, and officium regendae Ecclesiae, the office of ruling the Church, so to them all whom the Apostles left in the several Churches respectively which they had new founded. So Eusebius. For the Bishop was [...], set over all, Vbi supra apud Euseb. lib. 3. c. 23. Clergy and Laity, saith S. Clement.

This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves, and this was not given to Presbyters, as I have already proved, and for the present it will sufficiently appear in this, that Bishops had power over Presbyters, which cannot be supposed they had over themselves, unless they could be their own superiours.

SECT. XXI. Not lessened by the assistance and Counsel of Presbyters.

BUT a Council, or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one▪ and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times, and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere, govern the Church in common with the Bishop, as saith S. Hierom, viz. where there was a Bishop, and where there was none they ruled without him. Comment. in ep. ad Titum. This indeed will call us to a new account, and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierom, which I will set down here, that we may leave the Sun without a cloud. S. Jerome's words are these.

‘Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus, & antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ut Schismatum semina tollerentur.’

Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying, and summes them up thus:

‘Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud vereres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos, & ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quàm Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores: & in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, &c.’

The thing S. Hierome aims to prove, is the identity of Bishop, Presbyter, and their government of the Church in common. * For their identity, It is clear [Page] that S. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order, as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia, one power; for else he contradicts himself most apertly, for in his Epistle ad Evagrium, Qu [...]d facit (saith he) Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat? A Presbyter may not ordain, a Bishop does, which is a clear difference of power, and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact, but of right [quod Presbyter non faciat] not [non facit;] that a Priest may not, must not do that a Bishop does, viz. he gives holy orders. * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not govern in common, but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyned in the common regiment and care of the Diocess, therefore he asserted it as much as he could; And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary, and by actual indulgence, or incroachment, or positive constitution, and no matter of primitive and original right, S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come. And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it only to be a difference in fact, not in right (for so some of late have muttered) then S. Hierome had not said true according to his own Principles, for [Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat?] had been quickly answered, if the Question had only been de facto; for the Bishop governed the Church alone, and so in Jurisdiction was greater than Presbyters, and this was by custom, and in fact at least, S. Hierome says it, and the Bishop took so much power to himself, that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis Episcopalibus, without leave of the Bishop, Ad Nepotian. & de 7. ordin. Eccles. and this S. Hierome complained of; so that de facto the power of ordination was not the only difference: That then (if Saint Hierome says true) being the only difference between Presbyter and Bishop, must be meant de jure, in matter of right, not humane positive, for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto, and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters, but Divine, and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's own confession cannot be meant in respect of order, but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a Superiour order to the Presbyterate.

* Add to this, that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters. To this purpose he urges Acts 20. and Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and some others, but all driving to the same issue. To what? Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters; For who doubts that? But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration, and needs a proof, and this he undertook. Now that they are so called must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects. An identity, at least of Names, for else it had been wholly impertinent. A disparity, or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem, which were a business next to telling pins. Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction. By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate; If jurisdiction too, I am content, but the former is most certain, if he stand to his own principles.

This identity then which S. Jerome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter, must be either in Name or in Jurisdiction. I know not certainly which he means, for his arguments conclude only for the identity of Names, but his conclusion is for identity of Jurisdiction, Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, is the intent of his discourse. If he means the first, viz. that of Names, it is well enough, there is no harm done, it is in confesso apud omnes, but concludes nothing (as I shall shew hereafter) but because he intends (so far as may be guessed by his words) a parity and concurrence of Jurisdiction, this must be considered distinctly.

1. Then; In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing, preaching, consecrating and reconciling in privato foro, but did not in every Church at the first founding it, constitute a Bishop. This is evident in Crete, in Ephesus, in Corinth, at Rome, at Antioch.

2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands [There comes upon me (saith S. Paul) daily the care or supravision of all the Churches.] Not all absolutely, for not all of the Circumcision, but all of his charge, with which he was once charged, and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there, for of these there is the same reason. And again [If any man obey not our word, 2 Thess. 3.14. [...], signifie him to me by [Page]an Epistle] so he charges the Thessalonians, and therefore of this Church, S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands. So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority.

3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick, and criminal causes, nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies, or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters. * The contrary may be greedily swallowed, and I know not with how great confidence, and prescribing prejudice; but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ, any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter, or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop, or express delegation of Apostolical authority (tanquam vicario suo, as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle) to inflict any censures, or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal. Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis, but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination, or any commission from Christ or his Apostles.

This we may best consider by induction of particulars.

1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem, but they had a Bishop always, and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes, therefore whatsoever act they did, it was in conjunction with, and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles. Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem, and also had power alone to govern the Church. I say they had power to govern alone, for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters, that is, before there were any of capacity to joyn with them, they must do it themselves, and then also they must retain the same power, for they could not lose it by giving Orders. Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction, then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order, they only assisting in subordination, and by dependency.

This only by the way; In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary, and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word. For Barnabas, and Judas, Acts 15. and Silas [ [...] S. Luke calls them] were of that Presbytery. [...]. They were Rulers, and Prophets, Chief men amongst the Brethren, and yet called Elders or Presbyters, though of Apostolical power and authority, [...],In Act. Apost. saith Oecumenius. For truth is, that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction, not fixed upon any See, that they also might, together with the twelve, exire in totum mundum. * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas, and Judas, and Silas, men of Apostolical power, and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve, and with the Bishop, they were of equal power, not by vertue of their Presbyterate, but by their Apostolate; or if they were but meer Presbyters, yet because it is certain, and proved, and confessed, that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone, this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis, was a voluntary act, and from this example was derived to other Churches, and then it is most true, that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere, was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae, dominicae dispositionis veritate, (to use S. Hierom's own expression) for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris, by custom rather than Divine institution. For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone, then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles, and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain, and circumstances concur, yet not necessary, because not affixed to their Order; not Dominicae dispositionis veritate, and not laudable when those reasons cease, and there is an emergency of contrary causes.

2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch, but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction, but of ordination indeed we do, and that performed by such men as S. Paul was, and Barnabas, Acts 13. for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch, but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place, to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word; as I proved formerly.

3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters, and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops, and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God. This must do it or nothing. In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, Acts 20. In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops. There must lye the exigence of the argument, and if we can find who is meant by [vos] we shall, I hope, gain the [Page] truth. * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus, and to them he spoke. **It's true, but that's not all the [vos.] For there were present at that Sermon Sopater, and Aristarchus, and Secundus, and Gaius, and Timothy, Acts 20.4. and Tychicus, and Trophimus; And although he sent to Ephesus, as to the Metropolis, and there many Elders were either accidentally, or by ordinary residence, yet those were not all Elders of that Church, but of all Asia, in the Scripture sence, the lesser Asia. For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates [Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia, Verse 18. after what manner I have been with you at all seasons.] His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus, and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all, and therefore were of dispersed habitation, and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God, &c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present, and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant.

Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations.

1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture, particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter, as it is contended for on one side, and granted on all sides, then where both the words are used, what shall determine the signification? For whether (to instance in this place) shall Presbyter limit Episcopus, or Episcopus extend Presbyter? Why may not Presbyter signifie one that is verily a Bishop, as Episcopus signifie a meer Presbyter? For it is but an ignorant conceit, where-ever Presbyter is named, to fancy it in the proper and limited sence, and not to do so with Episcopus, and when they are joyned together, rather to believe it in the limited and present sence of Presbyter, than in the proper and present sence of Episcopus. So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms. These men sent for from Ephesus, are called [...], Elders or Presbyters of the Church, but at Miletus, Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, there they are called Bishops or overseers. So that I may as well say here properly so called Bishops, as another may say, here were meer Presbyters. * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative, that they could not be Bishops, because they were of Ephesus, there never being but one Bishop in one Church; I answer, that in the Apostles times this was not true. For at Jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal and Apostolical authority, and so at Antioch; as at Jerusalem, where James, and Judas, and Silas, and the Apostles, and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, and at Rome, at the same time Peter, and Paul, and Linus, and Clemens, but yet but one of them was fixt, and properly the Bishop of that place. But secondly, All these were not of Ephesus, but the Elders of all Asia, but some from other Countries, as appears ver. 4. So that although they were all Bishops, we might easily find distinct Diocesses for them, without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency. Thus far then we are upon even terms▪ the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meer Presbyters than Bishops in the proper sence.

2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his farewell Sermon, for S. Timothy was there, and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony, and many of those which are reckoned ver. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey; and imployed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches, and particularly Sosipater was there, and he was Bishop of Iconium, and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia, Vbi supra. as Dorotheus and Eusebius witness; and Trophimus of Arles in France, for so it is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters, for besides the premisses we have a witness beyond exception,Lib. 3. cap. 14. the ancient S. Irenaeus, In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis, & Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso, & à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere, &c. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at Jerusalem, at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus, and the neighbouring Cities. * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke, and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed, and taught with Pastoral supravision, but in the mean while here is no commission of power, or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly, nor supposition of any such praeexistent power.

3. All that S. Paul said in this narration, was spoken in the presence of them all, but not to them all. For that of verse 18. [Ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons,] that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the vois [...]age, viz. in a collective sence, not in a distributive, for each [Page] of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travels; but this was not spoken to Sopater the Berean, or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian, but to Tychicus, and Trophimus, who were Asians, it might be addressed. And for that of vers. 25. [Ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more,] this was directed only to the Asians, for he was never more to come thither; but Timothy, to be sure, saw him afterwards, for Saint Paul sent for him, a little before his death, to Rome, and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him. So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at his meeting, as most certainly there was, and of Evangelists and Apostolical men besides, how shall it be known, or indeed with any probability suspected that clause of vers. 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei, does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters, and not particularly to Timothy, who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus, and to Gaius, and to the other Apostolical men, who had at least Episcopal authority, that is, power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction.

4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo, or concredited de novo, or if there be, it is in the word [...] and [...], vers. 28. Bishops and Feeders; and then it belongs either to the Presbyters in conjunction with, and subordination to the Bishops, for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain, by any intimation of that place.

5. How and if these Presbyters, which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia, were made Bishops at Miletus? Then also this way all difficulty will be removed. And that so it was is more than probable; for to be sure, Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See; and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles, and the exigence of the thing it self, when they were to leave a Church, to fix a Bishop in it; for why else was a Bishop fixt in Jerusalem so long before any other Churches, but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence, and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought. And the case was equal here, for Saint Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more; and foresaw that ravening Wolves would enter into the Folds, and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus, and it is unimaginable, that he would not make equal provision for other Churches, there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either Saint Paul did it now or never; and that about this time the other six Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their Candlesticks, is plain, for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus, Antipas was dead, and Saint Timothy had sat in Ephesus, and Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation.

6. Lastly, That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters, except a delegate, and subordinate, appears beyond all exception, by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy, establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters, and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him, for ought appears either there or elsewhere.

* 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear. For what power had they of Jurisdiction? For that is it we now speak of. If they had none before Saint Titus came, we are well enough at Crete. If they had, why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it? Or if he did not, to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned? For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming, or they had not. If they had not, then either they had no jurisdiction at all, or whatsoever it was in subordination to him, they were his inferiours, and he their ordinary Judge and Governour.

5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth, for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop, for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church, and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church.

* This is it that I said before, that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop, for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge. [For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already] and then secondly,1 Cor. 5.3. Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause [in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my Spirit, v. 4. that [Page] is, My power, My authority, for so he explains himself, my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver him over to Satan. And 3. As all this power is delegate, so it is but declarative in the Corinthians, for Saint Paul had given sentence before, and they of Corinth were to publish it. 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly, and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people, and so some have contended; but so it is, but will serve neither of their turns, neither for an independent Presbytery, nor a conjunctive popularity. As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant, I have often heard it confidently averred, but never could see ground for it. The suspicion of it is ver. 2. [And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned; that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you] Taken away. But by whom? That's the Question. Not by them, to be sure. For taken away from you, implies that it is by the power of another, not by their act, for no man can take away any thing from himself, He may put it away, not take it, the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning. * Well then: In all these instances, viz. of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Crete and Corinth (and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question) all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop, or in the Bishop when there was any: And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny, to wit, by voluntary assuming them, in partem sollicitudinis, and by delegation of power Apostolical, or Episcopal, and by way of assistance in acts deliberative, and consiliary, though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem, where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters, men of Apostolical authority. But here lies the issue and strain of the Question.

Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal, and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church, by vertue of their order, or without particular substitution, and delegation. For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters, no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery; no constitution Apostolical, that meer Presbyters should either alone, or in conjunction with the Bishop, govern the Church; no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters, either upon Clergy or Laity; no specification of any power that they had so to do; but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident, Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination; not only with power of imposition of hands, but of excommunication, of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves, as to Titus, and Timothy, the Angel of the Church of Ephesus; and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt, as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified, which delegation was needless, if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter, or a whole Colledge of them.

Now then, return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying: The Church was governed (saith he) communi Presbyterorum consilio, by the common Councel of Presbyters. But,

1. Quo jure was this? That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters, by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms; but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles, and Bishops at first, by what right was that? Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition? Saint Hierom does not say but it was. For he speaks only of matter of fact, not of right: It might have been otherwise, though de facto it was so in some places.

* 2. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is true in the Church of Jerusalem, where the Elders were Apostolical men, and had Episcopal authority and something superadded, as Barnabas, and Judas, and Silas, for they had the authority and power of Bishops, and an unlimited Diocess besides, though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth. But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop, who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction, and therefore does clearly evince, that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them.

* 3. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is also true, because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters, as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles. Now at the first, many Prophets, many Elders (for the words are sometimes used in common) were for a while resident in particular Churches, and did govern in common; [Page] As at Antioch were Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, and Paul, Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed; for all these were Presbyters, in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were, and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem.

* 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine, yet this not being by any divine Ordinance, that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church, neither by any imitation of Scripture,In Ephes. 4. nor by affirmation of S. Hierom, it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose, Postquàm omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae, & officia ordinata, aliter composita res est quam coeperat. It might be so at first de facto, and yet no need to be so neither then, nor after. For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of its own, nor Crete, and there was no need, for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them, and S. John, and other of the Apostles, but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither; for when themselves were to go away, the power must be concredited to another; And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters, yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles, and by substitution, not by any ordinary power, and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle, or the sending of a Bishop to reside. [...].Epist. ad Ant [...] och. So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted, he writ to his Presbyters, Do you feed the Flock amongst you, till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler, viz. My Successor. No longer. Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes.

* 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse, viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition; I answer, that this is true in this sence, Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters, such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem, such as were they of Antioch, such as S. Peter and S. John, [...], all, and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence, that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction.

* Secondly, S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence, [Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters,] viz. quoad exercitium actûs, that is, they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons, but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium, they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters; and that they did not so, but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time, this is it, which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dispensation, for it was otherwise at first, viz. de facto, and might be so still, there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal. * As for the last words in the Objection, [Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere,] it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own; for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names, and common Regiment de facto, not de jure, and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet, is a Non sequitur, unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments, that is, they ought not by God's Law, but in imitation of the practice Apostolical; to wit, when things are as they were then, when the Presbyters are such as then they were; they ought, for many considerations, and in great cases, not by the necessity of a precept.

* And indeed to do him right he so explains himself, [Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen, qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret.] The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop, for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses, who might have ruled alone, yet was content to take others to him, and himself only to rule in chief. Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do, but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them, and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then, yet it is necessary at no time, and was not followed then, and to be sure is needless now. In 1 Tim▪ 3. [...]. Homil. 11. For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention, what ever it is, I have and shall elsewhere produce, for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome, and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate. The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom: It is needless to repeat either the Objection, or Answer.

* But however this saying of S. Hierome, and the parallel of S. Chrysostom, is but like an argument against an evident truth, which comes forth upon a desperate service, and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party, or to run upon their [Page] own Swords; For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated, and then they are impertinent, or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity, and so are false, and die within their own trenches.

I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place. Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse, non Christi, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego autem Cephae, in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ut schismatum semina tollerentur. That is, a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times, that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them, viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge. This I say was in the Apostles times, even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism, for then they said I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and then it was, that he that baptized any Catechumens, took them for his own, not as Christ's Disciples. So that it was, tempore Apostolorum, that this decree was made, for in the time of the Apostles S. James, and S. Mark, and S. Timothy, and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation; It was also [toto orbe decretum] so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution, yet it could not have gone much less, it being, as I have proved, and as S. Hierom acknowledges, Catholick and Apostolick. *

SECT. XXII. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom.

BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ, is an Apostolical precept. We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ, how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution: Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles, as the Apostles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the power and order of Episcopacy. And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopal to a primitive consistence, and for the confirmation of all those pious sons of Holy Church, who have a venerable estimate of the publick and authorized facts of Catholick Christendom.

* For consider we, Is it imaginable, that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves, and not ea quae sunt Jesu Christi; to erect a government of their own devising, not ordained by Christ, not delivered by his Apostles, and to relinquish a Divine foundation, and the Apostolical superstructure, which if it was at all, was a part of our Masters will, which whosoever knew, and observed not, was to be beaten with many stripes? Is it imaginable, that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescriptions of Gentilism to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity, without evidence of Miracle, and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles, should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity, make an Universal dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will, and leave Gentilism to destroy Christianity, for he that erects another Oeconomy than what the Master of the Family hath ordained, destroyes all those relations of mutual dependance which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it, and so destroyes it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family?

* Is it imaginable, that all those glorious Martyrs, that were so curious observers of Divine Sanctions, and Canons Apostolical, that so long as that Ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from blood was of force, they would rather die than eat a strangled Hen, or a Pudding, (for so Eusebius relates of the Christians in the particular instance of Biblis and Blandina) that they would be so sedulous in contemning the Government that Christ left for his Family, and erect another?

* To what purpose were all their watchings, their Banishments, their fears, their fastings, their penances and formidable austerities, and finally their so frequent Martyrdomes, of what excellency or avail, if after all they should be hurried out of this world, and all their fortunes and possessions, by untimely, by disgraceful, by dolorous deaths, to be set before a Tribunal, to give account of their universal [Page] neglect, and contemning of Christ's last Testament; in so great an affair, as the whole government of his Church?

* If all Christendom should be guilty of so open, so united a defiance against their Master, by what argument or confidence can any misbeliver be perswaded to Christianity, which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution, as in its most publick affair, and for matter of order of the most general concernment, is so contrary to the first birth?

* Where are the promises of Christ's perpetual assistance, of the impregnable permanence of the Church against the gates of Hell, of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth, if she be guilty of so grand an error, as to erect a throne where Christ had made all level, or appointed others to sit in it than whom he suffers. * Either Christ hath left no government, or most certainly the Church hath retained that Government whatsoever it is, for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident, or the Catholick Church extreamly negligent (to say no worse) and incurious of her depositum. * But upon the confidence of all * Christendom (if there were no more in it) I * suppose we may fairly venture. Sit anima mea * cum Christianis.

SECT. XXIII. Who first distinguished Names used before in common.

THE First thing done in Christendom, upon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy, is the distinguishing of Names, which before were common. For in holy Scripture all the names of Clerical offices were given to the superiour Order, and particularly all offices, and parts, and persons designed in any imployment of the sacred Priesthood, were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium. And therefore lest the confusion of Names might perswade an identity, and indistinction of office, the wisdom of H. Church found it necessary to distinguish and separate orders and offices by distinct and proper appellations. [For the Apostles did know by our Lord Jesus Christ that contentions would arise, [...], about the name of Episcopacy,] saith S. Clement, and so it did in the Church of Corinth, Epist ad Corin. as soon as their Apostle had expired his last breath. But so it was.

1. The Apostles, which I have proved to be the supream ordinary office in the Church, and to be succeeded in, were called in Scripture [...], Elders or Presbyters, [...], saith Saint Peter the Apostle, 1 Pet. 5.1. the Elders, or Presbyters that are among you, I also who am an Elder, or Presbyter, do intreat. Such elders S. Peter spoke to, as he was himself, to wit, those to whom the Regiment of the Church was committed; the Bishops of Asia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bithynia, that is, to Timothy, to Tychicus, to Sosipater, to the Angels of the Asian Churches, and all others whom himself in the next words points out by the description of their office, [...], &c. Feed the Flock of God as Bishops, or being Bishops and Overseers over it; And that to Rulers he then spake is evident by his [...], for it was impertinent to have warned them of tyranny, that had no rule at all. * The mere Presbyters, I deny not, but are included in this admonition; for as their office is involved in the Bishops office, the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too, so is his duty also in the Bishops; so that, pro ratâ the Presbyter knows what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishops admonition. But again. * [...], saith Saint John the Apostle; and [...]. The Presbyter to Gaius; The Presbyter to the elect Lady.

2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters, no harm though Bishops be called so too, for Apostles and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly. Thus are those Apostolical men in the Colledge at Jerusalem called Presbyters, whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth, [...], principal men, ruling men, and [...], the Presbyters that rule well ▪ by Presbyters are meant Bishops, to whom only according to the intention and exigence of Divine institution the Apostle had concredited the Church of Ephesus, and the neighbouring Cities, ut solus [Page]quisque Episcopus praesit omnibus, as appears in the former discourse. The same also is Acts 20. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, and yet the same men are called [...]. The one place expounds the other, for they are both ad idem, and speak of Elders of the same Church.

* 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters, yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished, that meer Presbyters are never called Bishops, unless it be in conjunction with Bishops, and then in the General address, which, in all fair deportments, is made to the more eminent, sometimes Presbyters are or may be comprehended. This observation if it prove true, will clearly show, that the confusion of names of Episcopus, and Presbyter, such as it is in Scripture, is of no pretence by any intimation of Scripture, for the indistinction of Offices, for even the names in Scripture it self are so distinguished, that a mere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop, but a Bishop and Apostle is often called a Presbyter, as in the instances above. But we will consider those places of Scripture, which use to be pretended in those impertinent arguings from the identity of Name, to confusion of things, and shew that they neither enterfere upon the main Question, nor this observation. * Paul and Timotheus to all the Saints which are in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. I am willinger to chuse this instance, because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question, and I shall take this occasion to clear it from prejudice and disadvantage.

* By Bishops are here meant Presbyters, because * many Bishops in a Church could * not be, and yet Saint Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the Church of Philippi, * and therefore must mean mere * Presbyters; so it is pretended.

1. Then; By [Bishops] are, or may be meant the whole superiour Order of the Clergy, Bishops and Priests, and that he speaks plurally, he may, besides the Bishops in the Church, comprehend under their name the Presbyters too; for why may not the name be comprehended as well as the office, and order the inferiour under the superiour, the lesser within the greater; for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishops order, and is not only inclusively in it, but derivative from it; the same name may comprehend both persons, because it does comprehend the distinct offices and orders of them both. And in this sence it is (if it be at all) that Presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called Bishops.

* 2. Why may not [Bishops] be understood properly; For there is no necessity of admitting that there were any mere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church; It can neither be proved from Scripture, nor Antiquity, if it were denyed: For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopal men as there were at Antioch, might do all that Presbyters could, and much more. And considering that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply, and a Bishop can, it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter, than that there was no Bishop. And certainly it is most unlikely that what is not expressed, to wit, Presbyters should be only meant, and that which is expressed should not be at all intended.

* 3. [With the Bishops] may be understood in the proper sence, and yet no more Bishops in one Diocess than one, [...]. Chrys. in Phil. 1. of a fixt residence; for in that sence is Saint Chrysostom and the Fathers to be understood in their Commentaries on this place, affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop; but then take this along, that it was not then unusual in such great Churches, to have many men who were temporary Residentiaries, but of an Apostolical and Episcopal authority, as in the Churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch there was, as I have proved in the premises. Nay in Philippi it self, if I mistake not, as instance may be given full and home to this purpose. Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus, Titus, Demas, Polybius, & omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo, unde & haec vobis scripsi, saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon. So that many Bishops, (we see) might be at Philippi, and many were actually there long after Saint Paul's dictate of the Epistle.

* 4. Why may not [Bishops] be meant in the proper sence? Because there could not be more Bishops than one in a Diocess. No? By what Law? If by a constitution of the Church after the Apostles times, that hinders not, but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times. If by a Law in the Apostles times, then we have obtained the main Question by the shift, and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one and but one Bishop in a Church, although it is evident they appointed many Presbyters. And then let this Objection be admitted how it will, and do its worst, we are safe enough.

[Page]* 5. [With the Bishops] may be taken distributively, for Philippi was a Metropolis, and had divers Bishopricks under it, and Saint Paul writing to the Church of Philippi, wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit, and therefore might well salute many Bishops, though writing to one Metropolis, and this is the more probable, if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius: for he reads it not [...], but [...], Coepiscopis, & Diaconis, Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi, and to our fellow Bishops.

* 6. S. Ambrose refers this clause of [Cum Episcopis, & Diaconis] to Saint Paul and Saint Timothy, intimating,In 1 Phil. that the benediction and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from Saint Paul and Saint Timothy with [...]he Bishops and Deacons, so that the reading must be thus, Paul and Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons, to all the Saints at Philippi, &c. Cum Episcopis & Diaconis, hoc est, cum Paulo, & Timotheo, qui utique Episcopi erant, simul & significavit Diaconos qui ministrabant ei. Ad plebem enim scribit. Nam si Episcopis scriberet, & Diaconis, ad personas eorum scriberet, & loci ipsius Episcopo scribendum erat, non duobus vel tribus, sicut & ad Titum & Timotheum.

* 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, which may give another light to this, speaking of the Apostles, Page 5 [...]. [...]. They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons. Bishops here indeed may be taken distributively, and so will not infer that many Bishops were collectively in any one Church, but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians. For here either Presbyters are meant by [...], Ministers, or else Presbyters are not taken care of in the Ecclesiastical provision, which no man imagines, of what interest soever he be; it follows then that [Bishops and Deacons] are no more but M [...]jores, and Minores Sacerdotes in both places; for as Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded, so also Presbyter and Diaconus; And I think it will easily be shewn in Scripture, that the word [Diaconus] is given oftner to Apostles, and Bishops, and Presbyters, than to those Ministers whi [...]h now by way of appropriation we call Deacons. But of this anon. Now again to 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. 1 Tim. 3. 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. In Ephes. 4. Idem ait S. Dion [...]sius Ec [...]cl [...]s. hierarch. cap. 5. [...]. 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 [Page] 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. 2 Cor. 6.4. 1 Cor. 3.5. [...], 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, In 1 Phil. [...]. 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. [...]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, Ephes. 4. some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers.] [...], If Pastors, then also Doctors and Teachers. And this is observed by S. Austin. Epist. 59. ad Paulinum. "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 its 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 Christened first in Antioch, for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name. It had been no wonder then, if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the Offices and Orders of the Church.

SECT. XXIV. Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer.

[Page]

BUT immediately after the Apostles, and still more in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church, the Bishop in the present and vulgar conception. Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriads. In the Canons of the Apostles the word [...], or Bishop, is used thirty six times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary, Ruler and President of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity, being twenty four times expresly distinguished from Presbyter, and in the other fourteen having particular care for government, jurisdiction, censures and ordinations committed to him, as I shall shew hereafter, and all this is within the verge of the first fifty, which are received as Authentick, by the Councel of Can. 15. & 16. Nice; of c. 9. & alibi. Antioch, 25. Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles; the Councel of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos, and Apostolicas traditiones; by the Epistle of the first Councel of Constantinople to Damasus, which Theodoret hath inserted into his story; by the Post adven. Epis. Cypri. Councel of Ephesus; by Advers. Praxeam. Tertullian; by Lib. 3. c. 59. de vita Const. Constantine the Great; and are sometimes by way of eminency called the Canons, sometimes, the Ecclesiastical Canons, sometimes, the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers, sometimes the Apostolical Canons, [...], said the Fathers of the Councel in Trullo, Ca. 4. cap. 18. de Orthod. fide. and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture: so in effect does Isidore in his Preface to the work of the Councels, for he sets these Canons in front, because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt, & inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones. The H. Fathers have established these Canos by the authority of Councels, and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions. And great reason, for in Pope Stephen's time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius, Anno Dom. 257. because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous. Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time, who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian, the old copy, elder than this, and yet after the Original to be sure, shews them to be of prime antiquity, and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius, where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons.

* But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg. I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian, and some others, viz. in the sence of the Church, just as the Wisdom of Solomon, or Ecclesiasticus, but yet by most believed to be written by S. Clement, from the dictate of the Apostles, and without all question are so far Canonical, as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority, and of the first Antiquity.

Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority.Epist. ad Trall. [...]. The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all. And a little after, [...], &c. What is the Bishop, but he that hath all authority and rule? What is the Presbytery, but a sacred Colledge, Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop? what are Deacons, &c. So that here is the real and exact distinction of Dignity, the appropriation of Name, and intimation of Office. The Bishop is above all, the Presbyters his helpers, the Deacons his Ministers, [...], Imitators of the Angels who are Ministring Spirits. But this is of so known, so evident a truth, that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it. Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration, viz. to the Trallians, to the Philadelphians, to the Philippians. * And now I shall insert these considerations.

[Page]1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death, yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously, which is an evidence, that confusion of names is no intimation, much less an argument for the parity of Offices, since themselves, who sometimes, though indeed very seldom, confound the names, yet distinguish the Offices frequently, and dogmatically. [...].Epist. ad He [...]on. Where by [...], he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch, so indeed some say, and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning, because by [...] he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria, yet the other may be fairly admitted, for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church, and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen, so that they were Episcopi Vicarii, and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called [...], and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father, but without a Guardian too; and yet what a Bishop was, and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius. * Another example of this is in Eusebius, speaking of the Youth whom S. John had converted and commended to a Bishop. Clemens, whose story this was, proceeding in the relation sayes, [...], &c. But the Presbyter; unless by [...] here S. Clement means not the Order, but Age of the Man, as it is like enough he did, for a little after he calls him [ [...]] The old man, Tum verò Presbyter in domum suam suscipit adolescentem. Redde depositum, O Episcope, saith S. John to him. Tunc graviter suspirans Senior, &c. So S. Clement. * But this, as it is very unusual, so it is just as in Scripture, viz. in descent and comprehension, for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop, or else in the delegation of Episcopal power, for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius.

2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supream order of the Clergy, was done with fair reason and design. For this is no fastuous or pompous title, the word is of no dignity, and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its Offices. But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration, Rise up to the grey head, and it transplants the honour and reverence of Age to the office of the Presbyterate. And yet this the Bishops left, and took that which signifies a meer supra-vision, and overlooking of his charge, so that if we take estimate from the names, Presbyter is a name of dignity, and Episcopus of office and burden. * [He that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work,] [...], saith S. Chrysostom. Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat, bonum desiderat gradum, sed bonum opus desiderat, quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum, so S. Hierom. It is not an honourable Title, but a good Office, and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent Vertues. But for this we need no better testimony than of S. Isidore. Lib. 7. etymolog. c. 12. Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum, quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat curam scil. gerens subditorum. But, Presbyter Graecè Latinè senior interpretatur, non pro aetate, vel decrepitâ senectute, sed propter honorem & dignitatem quam acceperunt. [...], saith Julius [...]ollux.

3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture, and Antiquity, and that both in ascension and descension, yet as Priests may be called Angels, and yet the Bishop be the Angel of the Church, [the Angel] for his excellency, [of the Church] for his appropriate preheminence and singularity, so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture (of which there is not one example but in the sences above explicated, to wit, in conjunction and comprehension;) yet the Bishop is [...] by way of eminence, the Bishop: and in descent of time, it came to pass, that the compellation, which was alwayes his, by way of eminence was made his by appropriation. And a fair precedent of it we have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour, [...], The great Shepherd, and Bishop of our Souls. The name [Bishop] was made sacred by being the appellative of his person, and by fair intimation it does more immediately descend upon them, who had from Christ more immediate mission, and more ample power, and therefore [Episcopus] and [Pastor] by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church hath the greatest power, office and dignity, as participating of the fulness of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our Souls. * And [Page] besides this so fair a Copy; besides the using of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias, and in the Prophet Isaiah, and often in Scripture, as I have shewn before; any one whereof is abundantly enough, for the fixing an appellative upon a Church Officer; this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest, because [...] is indeed often used for the office of Bishops, as in the instances above, but [...] is used for the office of the inferiours, for Saint Paul writing to the Romans, who then had no Bishop fixed in the Chair of Rome, Rom. 16.17. does command them [...], not [...], this for the Bishop, that for the subordinate Clergy. So then, the word [Episcopus] is fixt at first, and that by derivation, and example of Scripture, and fair congruity of reason.

SECT. XXV. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church.

BUT the Church used other appellatives for Bishops, which it is very requisite to specifie, that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers using those words in appropriation to Bishops, which of late have been given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the room of Bishops.

And first, Bishops were called [Pastors] in antiquity, in imitation of their being called so in Scripture. Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius, Lib. 3. hist. c. 36 Denique cum Smyrnam venisset, ubi Polycarpus erat, scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios, eorumque Pastorem, that is, Onesimus, for so follows, in quâ meminit Onesimi. Epist. ad Ephes. Now that Onesimus was their Bishop, himself witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned, [...], &c. Onesimus was their Bishop, and therefore their Pastor, and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himself makes mention of Evodius [...] your most blessed and worthy Pastor.

* When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the Divinity of our blessed Saviour, presently a Councel was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present,Euseb. lib. 7. c. 24. Caeteri vero Ecclesiarum Pastores diversis è locis & urbibus— convenerunt Antiochiam. In quibus insignes & caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesarea Cappadociae, Gregorius, & Athenodorus Fratres—& Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus—Sed & Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerebat. These Bishops, Firmilianus, and Helenus, and Maximus were the Pastors; and not only so, but Presbyters were not called Pastors, for he proceeds, sed & Presbyteri quamplurimi, & Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem— convenerunt. So that these were not under the general appellative of Pastors. Can. 6. And the Councel of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widow-Church, when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop, if any of the Comprovincials be wanting, he must be certified by the Primate, [...], that the multitude require a Pastor to be given unto them. * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters, Deacons, and people of Alexandria, in behalf of their Bishop Athanasius, Hist. tripart. lib. 4. c. 29. Suscipite itaque Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ Pastorem vestrum ac praesulem tanquam vere [...]. And a little after, & gaudere fruentes orationibus qui Pastorem vestrum esuritis & sititis, &c. The same is often used in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen, where Bishops are called Pastores magni, Great Shepherds, or Pastors; * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished, Vniversi lachrymis prosecuti sunt ereptionem Pastoris sui, saith Theodoret, They wept for the loss of their Pastor. And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa, Lib. 4. c. 14. when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalf of Christianity, Et Pastorem (inquit) habemus, & nutus illius sequimur, we have a Pastor (a Bishop certainly, for himself was a Priest) and his commands we follow, But I need not specifie any more particular instances; I touch'd upon it before. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 18. He that shall consider, that to Bishops the Regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first, and the Presbyters were but his Assistants in Cities and Villages, and were admitted in partem soll citudinis, first casually and cursorily, [Page] and then by station and fixt residency when Parishes were divided, and endowed, will easily see, that this word [Pastor] must needs be appropriated to Bishops, to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter, and the practice of infant Christendom, [...] and [...] was intrusted, first solely, then in communication with others, but alwayes principally.

* But now of late, especially 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,Epist. 11. 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. Haeres. 75. 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 Epist. 59. 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,1 Tim. 8. 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 ( [...],Lib. 7. cap. 19. 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,1. lib. 8. c. ult. Apost. constitut. as an Ensign of his Apostleship, a gold plate [Page] or medal, when he was in Pontificalibus, in his Pontifical or Apostolical habit, saith Eusebius. 2. 2. lib. 3. hist. cap. 31. 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. 3. lib. 9. c. 14. hist. tripart. Quâ tempestate in urbe Româ Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum & Petrum, Pontificatum tenebat, saith 4. Eusebius according to the translation of Ruffinus. 4. lib. 3. c. 21. Apud Antiochiani vero Theophilus per idem tempus sextus ab Apostolis Ecclesiae Pontificatum tenebat. saith the same Eusebius. 5. 5. lib. 4. c. 20. 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. 6. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 9. 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. 7. Eccles. hierarch. 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, 8. Lib. 7.12▪ 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. And 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 Lib. 8. c. 46. S. Clement, Episcopis quidem assignavimus, & attribuimus quae ad Principatum Sacerdotii pertinent, Presbyteris vero quae ad Sacerdotium. And in Lib 3. Ep. 1. 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 Lib. 7. c. 28. Eusebius, and summus Sacerdos, the Bishop always, Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus saith Lib. de baptism. 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. Epist. 69. 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. * Euseb. lib. 3. c. 21. Eusebius reckoning some of the chief Bishops assembled in the Council of Antioch, in quibus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus, & Nicomas ab Iconio, & Hierosolymorum praecipuus Sacerdos Hymenaeus, & vicinae huic urbis Cesareae Theotecnus; and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae Sacerdotes. Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecim annis Sacerdotio ministrato diem obiit, for so long he was Bishop, cui succedit Cerdon tertius in Sacerdotium. Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens, for he was Bishop of Hierapolis saith Lib. 3. c. 35. Eusebius, and the Epist. com. provinc. ad S. Leonem. Bishop of the Province of Arles, speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus, ordained Bishop by S. Peter, says, quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit Sacerdotem. *** The Bishop also was ever design'd when Antistes Ecclesiae was the word. Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes, saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus: [...] is the name in Greek,Lib. 4. cap. 26. and used for the Bishop by Justin Martyr (and is of the same authority and use with Praelatus and praepositus Ecclesiae.) Antistes autem Sacerdos dictus, ab eo quod antestat. Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae: & supra se nullum habet, saith S. Isidore.

*** But in those things which are of no Question, I need not insist.Lib. 7. Etymol. c. 12. One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose. The Bishop is sometimes called Primus Presbyter. Nam & Timotheum Episcopum à se creatum Presbyterum vocat: quia Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur, Comment. in 4. Ephes. ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet. Elections were made of Bishops out of the colledge of Presbyters (Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant, saith S. Hierome) but [Page] at first this election was made not according to merit, but according to seniority, and therefore Bishops were called Primi Presbyteri, that's S. Ambrose his sence. But S. Austin gives another, Primi Presbyteri, that is chief above the Presbyters. Quid est Episcopus nisi Primus Presbyter, Quaest. Vet. & N. Testam. Qu. 101. h. e. summus Sacerdos (saith he) And S. Ambrose himself gives a better exposition of his words, than is intimated in that clause before, Episcopi, & Presbyteri una ordinatio est: Vterque enim Sacerdos est, sed Episcopus Primus est, ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus. Hic enim Episcopus est, qui inter Presbyteros Primus est. In 1 Tim. 3. The Bishop is Primus Presbyter, that is, Primus Sacerdos, h. e. Princeps est Sacerdotum, so he expounds it, not Princeps, or Primus inter Presbyteros, himself remaining a meer Presbyter, but Princeps Presbyterorum; for Primus Presbyter could not be Episcopus in another sence, he is the chief, not the senior of the Presbyters. In 4. Ephes. Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sence lower than Episcopus, for Theodoret speaking of S. John Chrysostome, saith, that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch, yet refused to be made Bishop, for a long time. Johannes enim qui diutissimè Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae, ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit.

*** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae, meant the Bishop of the Diocess. Of this there are innumerable examples, but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 23, 27, Epistles; and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres; and infinite places more. Of which this advantage is to be made, that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates, or Praepositi, to be meant of Bishops; Obedite praepositis, Heb. 13. saith Saint Paul. Obey your Prelates, or them that are set over you. Praepositi autem Pastores sunt, saith Saint Austin, Prelates are they that are Pastors. But Saint Cyprian summes up many of them together, and insinuates the several relations, expressed in the several compellations of Bishops. For writing against Florentius Pupianus, ac nisi (saith he) apud te purgati fuerimus .... ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum, Epist. 69. nec plebs praepositum, nec grex Pastorem, nec Ecclesia gubernatorem, nec Christus antistitem, nec Deus Sacerdotes; and all this he means of himself, who had then been six years Bishop of Carthage, a Prelate of the people, a governour to the Church, a Pastor to the flock, a Priest of the most high God, a Minister of Christ.

The summe is this; When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy, under the names of Episcopus or Princeps Sacerdotum, or Presbyterorum Primus, or Pastor, or Doctor, or Pontifex, or Major, or Primus Sacerdos, or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens, or Antistes Ecclesiae, or Ecclesiae sacerdos; (unless there be a specification, and limiting of it to a parochial, and inferior Minister) it must be understood of Bishops in its present acceptation. For these words are all by way of eminency, and most of them by absolute appropriation, and singularity, the appellations, and distinctive names of Bishops.

SECT. XXVIII. And these were a distinct Order from the rest.

BUT, [...] (saith the Philosopher) and this their distinction of names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling, and office, supereminent to the rest.

For first Bishops are by all antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy. Si quis Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut quilibet de numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam, &c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles, and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter, and Deacon, above thirty times in those Canons, and distinct powers given to the Bishop, which are not given to the other, and to the Bishop above the other. Can. 1. & 2. The Council of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first, then Deacons which had fallen in time of persecution, gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the pains as he sees cause. Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... [...]iderint, in eorum potestate id esse. The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall, for indeed they seldome did, but for the rest, provision was made for both their penances, [Page] and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop. And yet sometimes they did fall, Optatus bewails it, but withal gives evidence of their distinction of order. Quid commemorem Laicos qui tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ [...]uerant dignitate suffulti? Lib. ad Parmen. Quid Ministros plurimos, quid Diaconos in tertio, quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos? Ipsi apices, & Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt, The Laity, the Ministers, the Deacons, the Presbyters, nay, the Bishops themselves, the Princes and chief of all proved traditors. The diversity of order is here fairly intimated, but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2d. book adv. Parmen. Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ, Episcoporum, Presbyterorum, Diaconorum, & fidelium. There are four sorts of heads in the Church, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons and the faithful Laity. And it was remarkable when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius, some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office, thought he had wept because he was not Bishop, they pretending comfort told him, quia locus Presbyterii licèt ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui. The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserved a greater, yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick. So Possidonius tells the story. It was the next step,De vita August. c. 4. the next descent, in subordination, the next under it. So the Council of Chalcedon, [...] It is sacriledge to bring down a Bishop to the degree and order of a Presbyter, [...], so the Council permits in case of great delinquency,Can. 29. to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopal order, but still the character remains, and the degree of it self is higher.

* Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus (Fratres chariss.) quia novimus quàm Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium, quod & clero, & plebi debet esse exemplo, said the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, in Eusebius, The office of a Bishop is sacred, Lib. 7. c. 26. and exemplary both to the Clergy, and the People. Interdixit per omnia, Magna Synodus, non Episcopo, non Presbytero, non Diacono licere, &c. Can. 3. Nicene Concil. And it was a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop. Post Achillam enim Alexander....ordinatur Episcopus. Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit, Alexander was ordained a Bishop, and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters. * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church. Julius autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit, erántque pro eo praesentes Vitus, & Vicentius Presbyteri ejusdem Ecclesiae. They were his Vicars, and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Council, saith Sozomen. But most pertinent is that of the Indian persecution related by the same man. Many of them were put to death. Erant autem horum alii quidem Episcopi, alii Presbyteri, alii diversorum ordinum Clerici. Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart. Lib. 3. tripart. c. 2. And this difference of Order is clear in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyricum to the Bishops of the Levant, De Episcopis autem constituendis, vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad [...]inem sani, bene.... Similiter Presbyteros atque Diaconos in sacerdotali ordine definivimus, &c. And of Sabbatius it is said, Nolens in suo ordine nanere Presbyteratus, desiderabat Epi [...]opatum; he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter, but desired a Bishoprick. Ordo Episcoporun quadripartitus est, in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitanis, & Episcopis, saith S. Isidore; Hist. tripart. l. 11. c. 5. Lib. 7. etymol. c. 12. Omnes autem superius designati ordines uno eodémque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur. But it were infinite to reckon authorities, and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councils but we shall find it recorded: And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge, and publish it, that Episcopacy is a peculiar office, and order in the Church of God; as is to be seen in their decretal Epistles, in the first tome of the Councils. Per Bi [...]ium Paris. I only summ this up with the attestation of the Church of England, in the preface to the Book of ordination, It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The same thing exactly that was said in the second Council of Carthage, [...]. But we shall see it better, and by more real probation, for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this;Can. 2.

SECT. XXIX. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree.

[Page]

1. THE Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy, as Deaconship to the Presbyterate, and therefore the Council of Sardis decreed, that no man should be ordained Bishop, but he that was first a Reader, and a Deacon, and a Presbyter, [...],Can. 10. That by every degree he may pass to the sublimity of Episcopacy. [...] &c. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and trial of no small time. Here there is clearly a distinction of orders, and ordinations, and assumptions to them respectively, all of the same distance and consideration;Lib. 5. c. 8. And Theodoret out of the Synodical Epistle of the same Council, says that they complained that some from Arianism were reconciled, and promoted from Deacons to be Presbyters, from Presbyters to be Bishops, calling it [...] a greater degree, or Order: And S. Gregory Nazianz. in his Encomium of S. Athanasius, speaking of his Canonical ordination, and election to a Bishoprick, says that he was chosen being [...], most worthy, and [...], coming through all the inferior Orders. The same commendation S. Cyprian gives of Cornelius. Non iste ad Episcopatum subito pervenit, sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, & in divinis administrationibus Dominum saepè promeritus ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit...& factus est Episcopus à plurimis Collegis nostris qui tunc in Vrbe Româ aderant, Epist. 52. qui ad nos literas.... de ejus ordinatione miserunt. Here is evident, not only a promotion, but a new Ordination of S. Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome; so that now the chair is full (saith S. Cyprian) & quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est, Nec habeat Ecclesiasticam ordinationem &c. No man else can receive ordination to the Bishoprick.

SECT. XXX. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick.

2. THE ordination of a Bishop to his chair was done de Novo after his being a Presbyter, and not only so, but in another manner than he had when he was made priest. This is evident in the first Ecclesiastical Canon that was made after Scripture.Can. Apost. 1. & 2. [...]. A Priest and Deacon must be ordained of one Bishop, but a Bishop must be ordained by two or three at least. And that we may see it yet more to be Apostolical, S. Anacletus in his second Epistle reports, Hierosolymitarum primus 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, Epist. Vnica. 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.

Can. 4. 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 [Page] being gathered together, and the rest consenting; so the ordination to be performed. Can. 19. 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 [...],Can. 12. 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, Can. 4. 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 A. D. 509. 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;Theodoret. l. 9. cap. 44. 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, Cap. 1▪ 2. Lib. 6. hist. cap. 33. 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 th [...] 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 [...]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 [Page] almost 600. years after Christ, and that but once, and that irregular, and that without imitation of his Successors,A. D. 555. 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,In libr. Pontificali. vit. Pelag. 1. 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 much exact, in requiring the capacity of the person, as the Number of the Ordainers. But let them answer it. For my part, I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas, was no more in that case than if a layman had done it; it was [...], and though the ordination was absolutely Uncanonical, yet it being in the exigence of Necessity, and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon, it was valid in naturâ rei, though not in forma Canonis, and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon, and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination.Can. 9. Concil. Sardic. [...], saith the Council of Sardis. Bishops must ordain Bishops; It was never heard that Priests did, or de jure might.

These premises do most certainly infer a real difference, between Episcopacy, and the Presbyterate. But whether or no they infer a difference of order, or only of degree; or whether degree, and order be all one, or no, is of great consideration in the present, and in relation to many other Questions.

1. Then it is evident, that in Antiquity, Ordo and Gradus were used promiscuously. [ [...]] was the Greek word, and for it the Latins used [Ordo] as is evident in the instances above mentioned, to which add, that Anacletus says, that Christ did instituere duos Ordines, Episcoporum & Sacerdotum. And S. Leo affir [...]; Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem, Epist. 3. Epist. 84. c. 4. secundum Presbyteralem, tertium Leviticum; And these among the Greeks are called [...], three degrees. So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called [...], a good degree; and [...], &c. is a censure used alike in the censures of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. They are all of the same Name, and the same consideration, for order, distance, and degree, amongst the Fathers; Gradus, and Ordo are equally affirmed of them all; and the word Gradus is used sometimes for that, which is called Ordo most frequently. So Felix writing to S. Austin, Non tantum ego possum contra tuam virtutem, quia mira virtus est Gradus Episcopalis;Lib. 1. c. 12. de actis cum Felice Manich. lib. 4. Epist. 2. and S. Cyprian of Cornelius, Ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis Gradibus ascendit. Degree, and Order, are used in common, for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons, which corresponds to a degree in qualities, and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution,

2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale, was at first called ordinatio Episcopi. Stir up the Grace that is in thee, juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum, saith Sedulius; And S. Hierom; prophetiae gratiam habebat cum Ordinatione Episcopatus. In 1 Tim. 3. Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior Ordinaret majorem, saith S. Ambrose, proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop. * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro Ordinatum edit, saith Tertulli [...]n; and S. Hierome affirms that S. James was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord.De praescript. cap. 32. [Ordinatus] was the the word at first, and afterwards [Consecratus] came in conjunction with it, when Moses the Monk was to be ordained, to wit a Bishop, for that's the title of the story in Theodoret, and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him,Lib. 4. cap. 23 absit (says he) ut manus tua me Consecret.

3. In all orders, there is the impress of a distinct Character; that is, the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices, which before his ordination he had no power to do. A Deacon hath an order or power

— Quo pocula vitae

Misceat, & latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni,

[Page] as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it. A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church, whereby he is enabled, [...], as the Council of Ancyra does intimate. But a Bishop hath a higher yet; for besides all the offices communicated to Priests, and Deacons; he can give orders, cap. 1. which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order. For Ordo is designed by the Schools to be, traditio potestatis spiritualis, & Collatio gratiae, ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica; a giving a spiritual power, and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations. Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination, and a distinct power (as I shall shew in the descent) it must needs be a distinct order, both according to the Name given it by antiquity, and according to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School.

There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome, obtruded indeed upon no grounds; for they would define order to be a special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale; and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum, or the regiment of the Church, and ordaining labourers for the harvest, and therefore not to be a distinct order.

But this to them that consider things sadly, is true or false according as any man list. For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to the consecration of the Eucharist, who can help it? Then indeed, in that sence, Episcopacy is not a distinct order, that is, a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist, more than a Presbyter hath. But then why these men should only call this power [an order] no man can give a reason. For, 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order, and I think, before Hugo de S. Victore, and the Master of the Sentences, no man ever denied it to be an order. 2. According to this rate, I would fain know the office of a Sub-deacon, and of an Ostiary, and of an Acolouthite, and of a Reader, come to be distinct Orders; for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo, as they have de integro. And if I mistake not; that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist, is more a new power in order to consecration, than all those inferior officers put together have in all, and yet they call them Orders, and therefore why not Episcopacy also, I cannot imagine, unless because they will not.

*** But however in the mean time, the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome, without all reason, and against all Antiquity. This only by the way.

The enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause, and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse. For since (say they) that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest work, of the most secret mystery, greatest power, and highest dignity that is competent to man, and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop, S. Hieron. ad Rusticum Narbonens. apud Gratian. dist. 95. cad. ecce [...]ego casu [...], ibid. is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much superiour to a Presbyter, who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power? And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders, and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter, and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Counterpoise of a Bishop? Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome, would infer an identity of order, though a disparity of degree, but the Men of the other world would infer a parity both of order and degree too. The first are already answered in the premises, The second must now be served.

1. Then, whether power be greater, of Ordaining Priests, or Consecrating the Sacrament is an impertinent Question; possibly, it may be of some danger; because in comparing Gods ordinances, there must certainly be a depression of one, and whether that lights upon the right side or no▪ yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God, to do that, which in Gods estimate may tantamount to a direct undervaluing, but however it is unprofitable, of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith, or manners, and besides, cannot fix it self upon any basis, there being no way of proving either to be more excellent than the other.

2. The Sacraments and mysteries of Christianity, if compared among themselves, are greater, and lesser in several respects. For since they are all in order to several ends, that is, productive of several effects, and they all are excellent, every rite, [Page] and sacrament in respect of its own effect, is more excellent than the other not ordained to that effect. For example. Matrimony is ordained for a means to preserve Chastity, and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his Church, and therefore in these respects is greater than baptism, which does neither. But * Baptism is for remission of sins and The Nicene Creed. in that is more excellent than Matrimony; the same may be said for ordination, and consecration, the one being in order to Christs natural body (as the Schools speak) the other in order to his mystical body, and so have their several excellencies respectively; but for an absolute preheminence of one above the other, I said there was no basis to fix that upon, and I believe all men will find it so that please to try. But in a relative, or respective excellency, they go both before, and after one another. Thus Wool, and a Jewel, are better than each other; for wool is better for warmth, and a jewel for ornament. A frogg hath more sense in it, than the Sun; and yet the Sun shines brighter.

3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater than ordaining Priests, yet that cannot hinder, but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order, because the power of ordaining hath in it the power of consecrating and something more; it is all that which makes the Priest, and it is something more besides, which makes the Bishop. Indeed if the Bishop had it not, and the Priest had it, then supposing consecration to be greater than ordination, the Priest would not only equal, but excel the Bishop; but because the Bishop hath that, and ordination besides, therefore he is higher both in Order, and Dignity.

4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest Clerical power in the world, and that the Bishop and the Priest were equal in the greatest power, yet a lesser power than it, superadded to the Bishops, may make a distinct order, and superiority. Thus it was said of the son of Man, Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis, he was made a little lower than the Angels. It was but a little lower, and yet so much as to distinguish their Natures, for he took not upon him the Nature of Angels, but the seed of Abraham. So it is in proportion between Bishop and Priest; for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church, viz. consecration of the venerable Eucharist, yet differing in a less is paulò minor Angelis, a little lower than the Bishop, the Angel of the Church, yet this little lower, makes a distinct order, and enough for a subordination. * An Angel, and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spiritual essence, they both discourse, they have both election, and freedom of choice, they have will, and understanding, and memory, impresses of the Divine image: and loco-motion, and immortality. And these excellencies are (being precisely considered) of more real and eternal worth, than the Angelical manner of moving so in an instant, and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition, and yet for these superadded parts of excellency, the difference is no less than specifical. If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus, what we call difference in nature there, will be a difference in order here, and of the same consideration.

5. Lastly it is considerable, that these men that make this objection, do not make it because they think it true, but because it will serve a present turn. For all the world sees, that to them that deny the real presence, this can be no objection; and most certainly the Anti-episcopal men do so, in all sences; and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration, more than in ordination? Nay, is there any such thing as consecration at all? This also would be considered from their principles. But I proceed.

One thing only more is objected against the main Question. If Episcopacy be a distinct order, why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest, as (abstracting from the Laws of the Church) a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon, for if it be the impress of a distinct character, it may be imprinted per saltum, and independently, as it is in the order of a Presbyter?

To this I answer, It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independent; as it is in all those offices of humane constitution, which are called the inferior orders; For the office of an Acolouthite, of an Exorcist, of an Ostiary, are no way dependent on the office of a Deacon, and therefore a man may be Deacon, that never was in any of those, and perhaps a Presbyter too, that never was a Deacon, as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples. But a Bishop though he have a distinct character, yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter, but supposes it ex vi ordinis. For since the power of ordination (if any thing be) is the distinct capacity of a Bishop, this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be [Page] in the Bishop, for how else can he ordain a Presbyter with a power, that himself hath not? can he give what himself hath not received?

* I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius, Vox est Aerii haeretici, Vnus est ordo Episcoporum, & Presbyterorum una dignitas. Haeres. 75. To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters, was a heresy first broached by Aerius, and hath lately been (at least in the manner of speaking) countenanced by many of the Church of Rome.

SECT. XXXII. For Bishops had a power distinct, and Superiour to that of Presbyters. As of Ordination.

FOR to clear the distinction of order, it is evident in Antiquity, that Bishops had a power of imposing hands, for collating of orders which Presbyters have not. * What was done in this affair in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated: but now the inquiry is, what the Church did in pursuance of the practice, and tradition Apostolical. The first, and second Canons of Apostles command that two, or three Bishops should ordain a Bishop, and one Bishop should ordain a Priest, and a Deacon. A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain, a Bishop is. Eccles. hier. c. 5. S. Dionysius affirms, Sacerdotem non posse initiari, nisi per invocationes Episcopales, and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop. No more did the Church ever; Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans, did ambire Episcopatum, he was fain to go to the utmost parts of Italy, and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him, as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus, in Eusebius. Lib. 6. cap. 23 To this we may add as so many witnesses, all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome, mentioned in the Pontifical book of Damasus Platina, and others. Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense, Presbyteros decem, Diaconos duos, &c. creat (S. Clemens) Anacletus Presbyteros quinque, Diaconos tres, Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit, and so in descent, for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together.

But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishops hand alone, by Law and Constitution; for particular examples are infinite.

In the Council of Ancyra it is determined [...].Can. 13. That Rural Bishops shall not ordain Presbyters or Deacons in anothers Diocess without letters of license from the Bishop. Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it. * First, not Rural Bishops, that is, Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis, Vicars to the Bishop of the Diocess, they must not ordain Priests and Deacons. For it is [...], it is anothers Diocess, and to be [...] is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture. But then they may with license? Yes; for they had Episcopal Ordination at first, but not Episcopal Jurisdiction, and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour. The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch clears this part. The words are these, as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus. Qui in villis, & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi, tametsi manus impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt, [& ut Episcopi sunt consecrati] tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere, &c. [...] the next clause [& ut Episcopi consecrati sunt] although it be in very ancient Latine copies, yet is not found in the Greek, but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek, but is most certainly implyed in it; for else, what description could this be of Chorepiscopi, above Presbyteri rurales, to say that they were [...], for so had countrey Priests, they had received imposition of the Bishops hands. Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops, and [...] is to be taken collectively, not distributively, to wit, that each Countrey Bishop had received ordination from Bishops, many Bishops in conjunction, and so they were very Bishops, or else they had no more than village Priests, and then this caution had been impertinent.

[Page]* But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition. True it is, but it is in a Parenthesis, with an [...], in the midst of the Canon, and there was some particular reason for the involving them, not that they ever did actually ordain any, but that since it was prohibited to the Chorepiscopi to ordain (to them I say, who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordain without license, it being in alienâ Parochiâ, yet they had capacity by their order to do it) if these should do it, the City Presbyters who were often dispatched into the Villages upon the same imployment, by a temporary mission, that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary, and fixt residence, might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther than it did, or that they might go beyond it, as well as the Chorepiscopi, and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of [...]. *Add to this; The Presbyters of the City were of great honour, and peculiar priviledge, as appears in the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea, and therefore might easily exceed, if the Canon had not been their bridle.

The sum of the Canon is this. With the Bishops license the Chorepiscopi might ordain, for themselves had Episcopal ordination, but without license they might not, for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction; And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neo-Caesarea are said to be [...], like the 70 Disciples, that is, inferior to Bishops, and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles, viz. in hoc particulari, not in order, but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction: but the City Presbyters might not ordain, neither with, nor without license; for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis, and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders, is to be referred to Chorepiscopi, not to Presbyteri Civitatis, unless we should strain this Canon into a sence contrary to the practice of the Catholick Church. Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari, is a most certain rule in Divinity, and admitted by men of all sides, and most different interests. * However we see here, that they were prohibited, and we never find before this time, that any of them actually did give orders, neither by ordinary power, nor extraordinary dispensation; and the constant tradition of the Church, and practice Apostolical is, that they never could give orders; therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception, but is clear for the illegality of a Presbyter giving holy orders, either to a Presbyter, or a Deacon, and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopal order, and jurisdiction for ordinations, for, reddendo singula singulis, and expounding this Canon according to the sence of the Church, and exigence of Catholick custome, the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction, and the Priests of the City for want of order; the first may be supplied by a delegate power in literis Episcopalibus, the second cannot; but by a new ordination, that is, by making the Priest a Bishop. For if a Priest of the City have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus, as I have proved he hath not, by shewing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopal ordination, and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop, the City Priests might not do it, unless more be added to them, for their want was more. They not only want jurisdiction, but something besides, and that must needs be order.

* But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had Episcopal Ordination, yet it was quickly taken from them for their incroachment upon the Bishops Diocess, and as they were but Vicarii, or visitatores Episcoporum in villis, so their ordination was but to a meer Presbyterate. And this we find, as soon as ever we hear that they had had Episcopal Ordination. For those who in the beginning of the 10 Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops, in the end of the same Canon, we find it decreed de novo: [...]. The Chorepiscopus or countrey Bishop must be ordained by the Bishop of the City, in whose jurisdiction he is; which was clearly ordination to the order of a Presbyter, and no more. And ever after this all the ordinations they made were, only to the inferiour Ministeries, with the Bishops License too, but they never ordained any to be Deacons or Priests; for these were Orders of the Holy Ghosts appointing, and therefore were gratia Spiritus Sancti, and issues of order; but the inferiour Ministeries as of a Reader, an Ostiary, &c. were humane constitutions, and required not the capacity of Episcopal Order to collate them; for they were not Graces of the Holy Ghost, as all Orders properly so called are, but might by humane dispensation be bestowed, as well as by humane ordinance they had their first constitution. *

* The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Council of Hispalis: save only that such men also were called Chorepiscopi [Page] who had been Bishops of Cities, but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices, and by being Traditors, but in case they repented and were reconciled, they had not indeed restitution to their See, but, because they had the indeleble character of a Bishop, they were allowed the Name, and honour, and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopal. Now of this sort of Chorepiscopi no objection can be pretended, if they had made ordinations; and of the other nothing pertinent, for they also had the ordination, and order of Bishops. The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Council, as is to be seen in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria. Tripart. Hist. lib. 2. c. 12. ex Theodoret. But however all this while the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand, that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge.

* I find the like care taken in the Council of Sardis, for when Musaeus, and Eutychianus had ordained some Clerks, themselves not being Bishops, Can. 19. Gaudentius (one of the moderate men, it is likely) for quietness sake, and to comply with the times, would fain have had those Clerks received into Clerical communion; but the Council would by no means admit that any should be received into the Clergy [...], (as Balsamon expresses upon that Canon; but such as were ordained by them who were Bishops verily, and indeed. But with those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus, [...], we will communicate as with Laymen: [...]. For they were no Bishops that imposed hands on them; and therefore the Clerks were not ordained truly, but were [...], dissemblers of ordination. Quae autem de Musaeo & Eutychiano dicta sunt, trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fuerunt, &c. saith Balsamon, intimating, that it is a ruled case and of publick interest.

* The same was the issue of those two famous cases, the one of Ischiras ordained of Colluthus [...], one that dreamed only he was a Bishop. Ischiras being ordained by him could be no Priest, nor any else of his ordaining, [...], and Ischyras himself was reduced into lay communion, being deposed by the Synod of Alexandria, [...],Apud Athanas Apolog. 2. epist. Presb. & Diacon. Mareotic. ad Curiosum & Philagrium. falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate, say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis; And of the rest that were ordained with Ischiras, [...] saith S. Athanasius, and this so known a business, [...], No man made scruple of the Nullity. ** The parallel case is of the Presbyters ordained by Maximus, who was another Bishop in the air too; all his ordinations were pronounced null, by the Fathers of the Council in Constantinople. Cap. 4. A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read the words of ordination,Cap. 5. the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Council of Sevil. These cases are so known, I need not insist on them. This only,

In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons, Clergy men were reduced to lay communion, either being suspended, or deposed; that is, from their place of honour, and execution of their function, with, or without hope of restitution respectively; but then still they had their order, and the Sacramens conferred by them were valid, though they indeed were prohibited to minister; but in the cases of the present instance, the ordinations were pronounced as null, to have bestowed nothing, and to be merely imaginary.

* But so also it was in case that Bishops ordained without a title, or in the Diocess of another Bishop, as in the Council of Can. 6. Chalcedon, & of Can. 13. Antioch [...]. And may be it was so in case of ordination by a Presbyter, it was by positive constitution pronounced void, and no more, and therefore may be rescinded by the Countermand of an equal power; A Council at most may do it, and therefore without a Council, a probable necessity will let us loose. But to this the answer is evident.

1. The expressions in the several cases are several, and of diverse issue, for in case of those nullities which are meerly Canonical, they are expressed as then first made, but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop, they are only declared void ipso facto. And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitular ordinations, the Canon saith; [...], Irritam Existimari manus impositionem, to be esteemed as null, that is, not to have Canonical approbation, but is not declared null, in natura rei, as it is in the foregoing instances.

2. In the cases of Antioch, and Chalcedon, the degree is pro futuro, which makes it evident that those nullities are such as are made by Canon, but in the cases of Colluthus, [Page] and Maximus, there was declaration of a past nullity, and that before any Canon was made; and though Synodal declarations pronounced such ordinations invalid, yet none decreed so for the future, which is a clear evidence, that this nullity, viz. in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter, is not made by Canon, but by Canon declared to be invalid in the nature of the thing.

3. If to this be added, that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by nature and institution of the order of Bishops, ordination was appropriate to them, then it will also from hence be evident, that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependent upon positive constitution, but on the exigence of the institution. ** Now that the power of ordination was only in the Bishop, even they who to advance the Presbyters, were willing enough to speak less for Episcopacy, give testimony; making this the proper distinctive cognizance of a Bishop from a Presbyter, that the Bishop hath power of ordination, the Presbyter hath not. So S. Jerome, Quid facit Episcopus (excepta ordinatione) quod Presbyter non faciat?Ad Evagrium. All things (saith he) [to wit all things of precise order] are common to Bishops with Priests, except ordination, for that is proper to the Bishop. And S. Chrysostome, Sola quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt [Episcopi] atque hoc tantum plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur. Homil. 2. in 1. Tim. 2. Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop; and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon.

4. No man was called an heretick for breach of Canon, but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop: Aerius was by Epiphanius, Philastrius, and S. Austin condemned, and branded for heresie, and by the Catholick Church saith Epiphanius. This power therefore came from a higher spring, than positive and Canonical Sanction. But now proceed.

Can. 37.The Council held in Trullo, complaining of the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance, saith that it forced some Bishops from their residence, and made that they could not [...], according to the guise of the Church, give Orders and do such things as did belong to the Bishop; and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases, ut & diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant, to make Canonical ordinations of Clergy men. Giving of Orders is proper, it belongs to a Bishop. So the Council. And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul [by laying on the hands of the Presbytery] interprets it of Bishops; for this reason, because Presbyters did not impose hands. Can. 20. There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Council that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose, Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur, those things that are not done, but by Bishops, they were decreed still to be done by Bishops, though he that was to do them regularly, did fall into any infirmity whatsoever, yet non sub praesentia sua Presbyteros agere permittat, sed evocet Episcopum. Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed to be proper to the Bishops, to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted. The particulars, what they are, are not specified in the Canon, but are named before, viz. Orders, and Confirmation, for almost the whole Council was concerning them, and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi, and the Canon else is not to be understood. * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description, or name of a Bishop, used by S. Chrysostome, [...]. The man that is to ordain Clerks.

* And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholick Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the doctrine of Aerius, Haeres. 75. denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order. [...] (speaking of Episcopacy) [...], speaking of Presbytery. The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God, but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptism, but no fathers or Doctors by ordination. * It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter, the Bishop did it [...],Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. all the whole Clergy was against it, yet the Bishop did ordain him, and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined; I am sure none is either expressed or intimated. For it was a ruled case, and attested by the Uniform practise of the Church, which was set down in the third Council of Carthage, Episcopus Vnus esse potest per quem dignatione Divina Presbyteri multi constitui possunt. Can. 45. This case I instance the more particularly, because it is an exact determination of a Bishops sole power of ordination. Aurelius made a motion, that, if a Church wanted a Presbyter to become her Bishop, they might demand one from any Bishop. It was granted; But Posthumianus the Bishop put this case. Deinde qui Vnum habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? How if the Bishop have but one Priest,[Page]must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widow Church? Yea, that he must. But how then shall he keep ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him? That indeed would have been the objection now, but it was none then. For Aurelius told them plainly; there was no inconvenience in it, for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter, no great matter, he can himself ordain many (and then I am sure there is a sole ordination) but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church, he is not so easily found.

** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church, ordinations were made by the Bishop, and the ordainer spoken of as a single person.Cap. 19. So it is in the Nicene Council, the Council of Cap. 9. Antioch, the Council of Cap. 2. & 6. Chalcedon, and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem; If thou speak (saith he) of Paulinianus, he comes now and then to visit us, not as any of your Clergy, but ejus à quo ordinatus est, that Bishop's who ordained him.

* So that the issue of this argument is this. The Canons of the Apostles, and the rules of the Ancient Councils appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops, of Presbyters to one Bishop, (for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together, but only Origen by the Bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea) Presbyters are never mentioned in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations, and if alone they did it, their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio.

* To these particulars add this, that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonical, which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did joyn in them, and were causes in conjunction. But unless they did it alone, we never read that they were punishable; indeed Bishops were pro toto, & integro, as is reported by Sozomen in the case of Elpidius, Eustathius, Basilius of Ancyra, and Eleusius. Thus also it was decreed in the second and sixth Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, and in the Imperial constitutions. Nov [...]ll. constit. 6. & 123. cap. 16. Since therefore we never find Presbyters joyned with Bishops in commission, or practice, or penalty all this while; I may infer from the premisses the same thing which the Council of Hispalis expresses in direct and full sentence, Episcopus Sacerdotibus, ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest, solus auferre non potest. The Bishop alone may give the Priestly honour, he alone is not suffered to take it away. Cap. 6. This Council was held in the year 657, and I set it down here for this purpose,Can. 2. & 3. to show that the decree of the fourth Council of Carthage, which was the first that licensed Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations, yet was not obligatory in the West; but for almost 300 years after ordinations were made by Bishops alone. But till this Council no pretence of any such conjunction, and after this Council sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 years together; but for ought I know, ever since then it hath obtained, that although Presbyters joyn not in the consecration of a Bishop, yet of a Presbyter they do; but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution, first made in a Provincial of Africa, and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice.

* I know not what can be said against it. I only find a piece of an objection out of S. Cyprian, who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocess, that if any man, he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy. Epist. 33▪ Hunc igitur (Fratres Dilectissimi) à me, & à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis. Here either by his Colleagues he means Bishops or Presbyters. If Bishops, then many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferiour order, which because it was (as I observed before) against the practice of Christendom, will not easily be admitted to be the sence of S. Cyprian. But if he means Presbyters by [Collegae] then sole ordination is invalidated by this example, for Presbyters joyned with him in the ordination of Aurelius.

I answer, that it matters not whether by his Colleagues he means one, or the other, for Aurelius the Confessor, who was the man ordained, was ordained but to be a Reader, and that was no Order of Divine institution, no gift of the Holy Ghost, and therefore might be dispensed by one, or more; by Bishops or Presbyters, and no way enters into the consideration of this question, concerning the power of collating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost, and of Divine ordinance; and therefore, this, although I have seen it once pretended, yet hath no validity to impugne the constant practice of Primitive Antiquity.

But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by meer Presbyters without a Bishop? What think we of the reformed Churches?

1. For my part I know not what to think. The question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice; and we are so bound by publick [Page] interest to approve all that they do, that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own. For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Roman Church, we found these men zealous in it, we thanked God for it (as we had cause) and we were willing to make them recompence, by endeavouring to justifie their ordinations; not thinking what would follow upon our selves. But now it is come to that issue, that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary, because we did not condemn the ordinations of their Presbytery.

2. Why is not the question rather, what we think of the Primitive Church, than what we think of the reformed Churches? Did the Primitive Councils, and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by meer Presbyters? If they did well, what was a vertue in them, is no sin in us. If they did ill, from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations? since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops, and the Presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy, is by all Antiquity expounded either of the office, or of a Colledge of Presbyters; and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands, as appears by comparing the two Epistles to S. Timothy together; and may be so meant by the principles of all sides, for if the names be confounded, then Presbyter may signifie a Bishop, and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops, they can never prove from Scripture, where all men grant that the Names are confounded.

* So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations? From Scripture? That gives it always to Apostles and Bishops, (as I have proved) and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination, can never be shown from thence. From whence then? From Antiquity? That was so far from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone, that Presbyters in the Primitive Church did never joyn with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon, till the fouth Council of Carthage; much less do it alone, rightly, and with effect. So that, as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining, so in Antiquity there is much against it; And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and Antiquity, and not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries. But for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity, than erre with a glorious correspondence.

But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodox Bishops? shall we either sin against our consciences by subscribing to heretical and false resolutions in materiâ fidei, or else lose the being of a Church, for want of Episcopal ordinations? * Indeed if the case were just thus, it was very hard with good people of the transmarine Churches; but I have here two things to consider.

1. I am very willing to believe that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspicion,De Eccles. c. 11. but in cases of necessity. But then I consider that M. Du Plessis, a man of honour and great learning does attest, that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy that joyned in the reformation, whom they might, but did not imploy in their ordinations; And what necessity then can be pretended in this case, I would fain learn that I might make their defence. But, which is of more, and deeper consideration; for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution, as often happens in the beginning of great changes,Danam part. 2. Isagog. lib. 2. cap. 22. Perron. repl. fol. 92. impres. 1605. but, it is their constant and resolved practice at least in France, that if any returns to them they will reordain him by their Presbytery, though he had before Episcopal ordination, as both their friends and their enemies bear witness.

2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personal delinquency; but I never heard that necessity did build a Church. Indeed no man is forced for his own particular to commit a sin, for if it be absolutely a case of necessity, the action ceaseth to be a sin; but indeed if God means to build a Church in any place, he will do it by means proportionable to that end; that is, by putting them into a possibility of doing, and acquiring those things which himself hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church. * So that, supposing that ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of Priests and Deacons (as I have proved it is) and therefore for the founding or perpetuating of a Church, either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations, and then, necessity of the contrary is but pretence and mockery, or if he hath not given such possibility, then there is no Church there to be either built or continued, but the Candlestick is presently removed.

Eccles. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. per Ruffinum.There are divers stories in Ruffinus to this purpose. When Aedesius and Frumen [...]ius were surprized by the Barbarous Indians, they preached Christianity, and baptized [Page] many, but themselves being but Lay-men, could make no Ordinations, and so not fix a Church. What then was to be done in the case? Frumentius Alexandriam pergit — & rem omnem, ut gesta est, narrat Episcopo, ac monet, ut provideat virum aliquem dignum quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat. Frumentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop. Athanasius being then Patriarch ordained Frumentius their Bishop, Et tradito ei Sacerdotio, redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet — ex quo (saith Ruffinus) in Indiae partibus, Ibid. c. 10. & apud Theodoret. l. 1. & populi Christianorum & Ecclesiae factae sunt, & Sacerdotium coepit.

The same happened in the case of the Iberians converted by a Captive woman; Posteà verò quàm Ecclesia magnificè constructa est, & populi fidem Dei majore ardore s [...] ebant, captivae monitis ad Imperatorem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur: Res gesta exponitur: Sacerdotes mittere oratur qui coeptum erga se Dei munus implerent. The work of Christianity could not be compleated, nor a Church founded without the Ministery of Bishops. * Thus the case is evident, that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one; and where God means to found a Church, there he will supply them with those means, and Ministeries which himself hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity. And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us, prove heretical, still Gods Church is Catholick, and though with trouble, yet Orthodox Bishops may be acquir'd. For just so it happened when Mauvia Queen of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermite made the Bishop of her Nation, and offered peace to the Catholicks upon that condition; Lucius an Arian troubled the affair by his interposing and offering to ordain Moses; The Hermite discovered his vileness,Eccles. Hist. lib. 11. cap. 6. per Ruffinum. Et ita majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere. Moses refus'd to be ordain'd by him that was an Arian. So did the reform'd Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman Communion. But what then might they have done? Even the same that Moses did in that necessity; Compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exilium truserat (Lucius) sacerdotium sumere. Those good people might have had order from the Bishops of England, or the Lutheran Churches, if at least they thought our Churches Catholick and Christian.

If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this, will not an extraordinary calling justifie it; Yea, most certainly, could we but see an ordinary proof for an extraordinary calling, viz. an evident prophesie, demonstration of Miracles, certainty of reason, clarity of sence, or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission.

But shall we then condemn those few of the Reformed Churches, whose ordinations always have been without Bishops? No indeed. That must not be. They stand or fall to their own Master. And though I cannot justifie their ordinations, yet what degree their necessity is of, what their desire of Episcopal ordinations may do for their personal excuse, and how far a good life, and a Catholick belief may lead a man in the way to Heaven, (although the forms of external communion be not observed) I cannot determine. * For ought I know their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus, [I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Sathans seat is, and thou heldest fast my faith, and hast not denied my Name; Nihilominus habeo adversus te pauca, Some few things I have against thee;] and yet of them, the want of Canonical ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied; but if it cannot be done, their sin indeed is the less, but their misery the Greater. * I am sure I have said sooth, but whether or no it will be thought so, I cannot tell; and yet why it may not I cannot guess, unless they only be impeccable, which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them, who themselves think, that all the Church possibly may fail. But this I would not have declared so freely, had not the necessity of our own Churches required it; and that the first pretence of the legality, and validity of their ordinations been buoyed up to the height of an absolute necessity; for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conform to us, and to the practice of the Catholick Church, and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeal to exact our conformity to them; But I hope it will so happen to us, that it will be verified here, what was once said of the Catholicks under the fury of Justina, Sed tantafuit perseverantia fidelium populorum, ut animas prius amittere, quàm Episcopum mallent; If it were put to our choice, rather to dye (to wit the death of Martyrs, not rebels) than lose the sacred order and offices of Episcopacy, without which no Priest, no ordination, no consecration of the Sacrament, no absolution, no rite, or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity.

[Page]The summe is this. If the Canons and Sanctions Apostolical, if the decrees of eight famous Councils in Christendom, of Ancyra, of Antioch, of Sardis, of Alexandria, two of Constantinople, the Arausican Council, and that of Hispalis; if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr-Bishops of Rome making ordinations, if the testimony of the whole Pontifical book, if the dogmatical resolution of so many Fathers, S. Denis, S. Cornelius, S. Athanasius, S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, and divers others, all appropriating ordinations to the Bishops hand: if the constant voice of Christendom, declaring ordinations made by Presbyters, to be null and void in the nature of the thing: and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop, approved by any Council, decretal, or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom: if that ordinations of Bishops were always made, and they ever done by Bishops, and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations, and after all this it was declared heresie to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone, or in conjunction with Bishops: as it was in the case of Aerius: if all this, that is, if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular; then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater than the power and order of Presbyters, to wit, in this Great particular of ordination, and that by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom.

SECT. XXXIII. And Confirmation.

* BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy. The next is of Confirmation of baptized people. And here the rule was this,Epist. de Chorepisc. which was thus expressed by Damascen: Apostolorum, & Successorum eorum est per manus impositionem donum Spiritûs sancti tradere. It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. But see this in particular instance.

The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in the cases of necessity, and exigence of journey; Ita tamen ut si supervixerit [baptizatus] ad Episcopum eum perducat, ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit. Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the Bishops hands. This was Law.

Epist. ad Jubaian.It was also a custom saith S. Cyprian, Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur, per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram orationem, & manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur, & signaculo Dominico consummentur; And this custom was Catholick too, and the Law was of Vniversal concernment. Omnes Fideles per manuum impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent, ut pleni Christiani accipere debent. So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle; And Omnibus festinandum est sine mora renasci, Apud Sev. Binium in 1 tom. Concil. & demùm Consignari ab Episcopo, & septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere; so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement. All faithful baptized people must go to the Bishop to be consigned, and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms Confirmation in this to have a special excellency besides baptism, Quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur, because Bishops only can give Confirmation; And the same is said and proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery, Quòd ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus. It cannot, it may not be performed by any, but by the Bishops.

Homil. 18. in Act.Thus S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans, [...]. Philip baptizing the men of Samaria, gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized. For he had not power. For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles. And a little after: [...]. This was peculiar to the Apostles. [...], whence it comes to pass, that the principal and chief of the Church do it, and none else. And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius;In cap. 5. de Eccles. hierarch. [...] [Page] [...]. It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptized. For this was the Ancient practice.

I shall not need to instance in too many particulars, for that the Ministry of Confirmation was by Catholick custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church, is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councils and Fathers; particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17. Eusebius, De Baptism. Tertullian, Epist. 1. cap. 3. ad Decent. S. Innocentius the first, Epist 4. Damasus, Epist. 88. S. Leo, in Epist. ad Episc. German. John the third, in Lib. 3. Ep. 9 S. Gregory, Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius, and Eubulus, the Apud Gratian. de consecrat. dist. 5. can. ut jejuni. Council of Orleans, and of Ibid. can. ut Episcopi. Melda, and lastly of Concil. Hespal. can. 7. Sevill which affirms, Non licere Presbyteris — per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere. It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation, for it is properly an act of Episcopal power— Chrismate spiritus S. super infunditur. Vtraque verò ista manu, & ore Antistitis impetramus. These are enough for authority, and dogmatical resolution from antiquity. For truth is, the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius, the first Author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin and Greek Churches, and it was upon this occasion too. For when the Bulgarians were first converted, the Greeks sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirm them. But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed,Vide Anast 1. biblioth. [...]rae [...]at. in Can. 8. Synodi. both because (as they pretended) the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria, nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation.

The matters of fact, and acts Episcopal of Confirmation are innumerable, but most famous are those Confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema, and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard, because they were ratified by miracle,Vide Optatum lib. 2. S. Bernard. in vita S. Malachiae. Surium. tom. 1. in F [...]br. Dial. adv. Lucifer. saith the Ancient story. I end this with the saying of S. Hierome, Exigis ubi scriptum sit? In actibus Apostolorum. Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret. If you ask where it is written? (viz. that Bishops alone should Confirm) It is written in the Acts of the Apostles (meaning, by precedent, though not express precept) but if there were no authority of Scripture for it, yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command. *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair, for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words, for in the same dialogue, speaking of some acts of Episcopal priviledge and peculiar ministration, particularly of Confirmation, he says, it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quàm ad legis necessitatem. For the honour of the Priesthood, rather than for the necessity of a law.

To this the answer is evident from his own words: That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in Confirmation, is written in the Acts of the Apostles; and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy, than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter. For the question here that is only of concernment, is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop, but by whom it was reserved? Now S. Hierome says it was done apud 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,[Page]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, Caus. 11 q. 3. can. Quod praedecessor. 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,In Ephes. 4. 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, Quest. 101. Vet. & N. Testam. Basileae. 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, Lib. 3. Epist. 26 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. Can. 52. 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, but yet of no objection in case of Confirmation. * And indeed [Consignari] is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross, and anealing. Thus it is used in the [Page] first Arausican Council for extreme Vnction, Can. 2. which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters: Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos, Si Catholici esse desiderent, si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate, & benedictione Consignari placet. Consign'd is the word, and it was clearly in extreme Unction, for that rite was not then ceased, and it was in anealing a dying body, and a part of reconciliation, and so limited by the sequent Canon, and not to be fancied of any other consignation. But I return. *** The first Council of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme, but Bishops only, and takes order,Can. 20. Vt de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur, ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere; that the Chrisme be fetcht by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches. But for what use? why, it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon, against the Holy time of Easter, and then, at Easter was the solemnity of publick baptisms, so that it was to be used in baptism. And this sence being premised, the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrisme, the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia. Statutum verò est, Diaconum non Chrismare, sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo, praesente verò, si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum. Now although this be evident enough, yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council, Can. 1. Nullus ministrorum qui Baptizandi recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi, quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari. The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism, and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters, not the other, for he expresly forbad the other, and the exigence of the Canons, and practice of the Church expound it so, and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms, Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet, Epist. 1. ad Dicent. cap. 3. sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum; there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptism, but he subjoyns a prohibition to Priests for doing it in Confirmation; Non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare, quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum.

By the way; some, that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregorie's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrisme, read it [Vt baptizandos ungant] not [baptizatos] so Gratian, so S. Thomas, but it is needless to be troubled with that, for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word [Baptizatos,] and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation.

I know no other objection, and these we see hinder not, but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of Confirmations done only by Apostles, and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church, and the power of Confirmation by many Councils and Fathers appropriated to Bishops, and denied to Presbyters, and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion, but witnesses of a Catholick practice, and do actually attest it as done by a Catholick consent; and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest, that did, no law that a Priest might impose hands for Confirmation; we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original, Episcopal in the Succession, and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter, and so declared by this instance of Catholick practice.

SECT. XXXIV. And Jurisdiction. Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power.

THUS far I hope we are right. But I call to mind, that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water; some were up to the Chin, some to the Middle, some to the Knees; So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy; some endure not the Name, and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears; some will have them all one in office with Presbyters, as at first they were in Name; and they had need bath up to the Chin; but some stand shallower, and grant a little distinction, a precedency perhaps for order-sake, but no preheminence in reiglement, no superiority of Jurisdiction; Others by all means would be thought to be quite [Page] through in behalf of Bishops order and power such as it is, but call for a reduction to the Primitive state, and would have all Bishops like the Primitive, but because by this means they think to impair their power, they may well endure to be up to the ankles, their error indeed is less, and their pretence fairer, but the use they make of it, of very ill consequence. But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper. That then shall be the present issue, that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power, and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction, than now Men will endure to be granted, or than themselves are very forward to challenge.

1. Then; The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop, did it in terms of presidency and authority. Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit, saith S. Ignatius; Epist. ad Trall. The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father, that is, in power and authority to be sure, (for how else?) so as to be the supreme in suo ordine, in offices Ecclesiastical. And again, Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quàm is qui omni Principatu, & potestate superior est? Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power; A Bishop is greater and higher than all other in power, viz. in materiâ, or gradu religionis. And in his Epistle to the Magnesians. Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere Episcopo praesidente loco Dei. Do all things in Vnity, the Bishop being President in the place of God. President in all things. And with a fuller tide yet, in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem, Dei quidem propter Principatum, Christi verò propter Sacerdotium. It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Jurisdiction. The Bishop is the Prince of the Priests, bearing the Image of God for his Principality (that's his jurisdiction and power) but of Christ himself for his Priesthood, (that's his Order.) S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly, and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh, and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity, and died a Martyr, and hath been honoured as a holy Catholick by all posterity, certainly these testimonies must needs be of great pressure, being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis, not casually slipt from him, and by incogitancy, but resolutely and frequently.

But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages. Fungaris circa eum Potestate honoris tui, Lib. 3. Epist. 9. saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus. Execute the Power of thy dignity upon the refractory Deacon; And Vigor Episcopalis, and Authoritas Cathedrae are the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle. This is high enough. So is that which he presently subjoyns, calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem, A high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church. * Locus Magisterii traditus ab Apostolis, so S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy; A place of mastership or authority delivered by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors. Lib. 4. cap. 63. Eusebius speaking of Dionysius, who succeeded Heraclas, he received (saith he) [...], The Bishoprick of the Precedency over the Churches of Alexandria. Lib. 6. hist. c. 26 Can. 10. [...], saith the Council of Sardis; to the top or height of Episcopacy. Apices & Principes omnium, so Optatus calls Bishops; the Chief and Head of all;Lib. 2. adv. Parmen. and S. Denys of Alexandria, Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum, & ad alios quam plurimos Ecclesiarum Principes de fide Catholicâ suâ, saith Eusebius. And Origen calls the Bishop, Lib. 6. hist. c. 26 Homil. 7. in Jerem. eum qui totius Ecclesiae arcem obtinet, He that hath obtained the Tower or height of the Church.

The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Churches pale, so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocess, yet they should enjoy [...], the authority of their Presidency according to their proper state; their appropriate presidency. And the same Council calls the Bishop [...], the Prelate or Prefect of the Church; I know not how to expound it better. But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage, commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop, Can. 69. [...], that Governs the Church in that place. * And in the Council of Antioch, [...], The Bishop hath Power over the affairs of the Church. Can. 25. Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat. Saint Sylvester [the Bishop] held the Reines or the stern of the Roman Church, Hist. tripart. lib. 1. cap. 12. saith Theodoret.

[Page]But the instances of this kind are infinite, two may be as good as twenty,De dignit. sacerdot. c. 2. and these they are. The first is of S. Ambrose; Honor & Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. The honour and sublimity of Episcopal Order is beyond all comparison great. And their commission he specifies to be in Pasce oves meas; Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur, meritò rectoribus suis subdi dicuntur, &c. The sheep are delivered to Bishops as to Rulers, and are made their Subjects; and in the next Chapter,Cap. 3 Haec verò cuncta, Fratres, ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis, ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus, nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri: ut cum dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus, & dignè noscamus quid sumus — actione potius, quàm Nomine demonstremus. These things I have said, that you may know nothing is higher, nothing more excellent than the dignity and Eminence of a Bishop, &c. * The other is of S. Hierom, Cura totius Ecclesiae ad Episcopum pertinet, The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop. But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos: Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis Dignitate pendet, Cap. 4. cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus Eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. The safety of the Church consists in the dignity of a Bishop, to whom unless an Eminent and Vnparallel'd power be given by all, there will be as many Schisms as Priests.

Here is dignity, and authority, and power enough expressed; and if words be expressive of things (and there is no other use of them) then the Bishop is Superiour in a Peerless and Incomparable Authority, and all the whole Diocess are his subjects, viz. in regimine Spirituali.

SECT. XXXV. Requiring Vniversal Obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity.

BUT from words let us pass to things. For the Faith and practice of Christendom require obedience, Universal obedience to be given to Bishops. I will begin again with Ignatius, that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence, may see what they gain by it, for the more Primitive the testimonies are, the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops; for it happened in this, as in all other things; at first, Christians were more devout, more pursuing of their duties, more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith; and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe, it is nothing, but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them, it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion, and particularly of Charity, come to so low a declension, as it can scarce stand alone; and faith, which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man.

But to our business.

S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis, Necesse itaque est (saith he) quicquid facitis, ut sine Episcopo nihil Tentetis. So the Latin of Vedelius, which I the rather chuse, because I am willing to give all the advantage I can. It is necessary (saith the good Martyr) that whatsoever ye do, you should attempt nothing without your Bishop. And to the Magnesians, Decet itaque vos obedire Episcopo, & in nullo illi refragari. It is fitting that ye should obey your Bishop, and in nothing to be refractory to him. Here is both a Decet and a Necesse est, already. It is very fitting, it is necessary. But if it be possible, we have a fuller expression yet, in the same Epistle; Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit, nec enim possumfacere à me ipso quicquam: sic & vos sine Episcopo, nec Diaconus, nec Laiconus, nec Laicus, Nec quicquam videatur vobis Consentaneum quod sit praeter illius Judicium, quod enim tale est, & Deo inimicum. Here is obedience universal, both in respect of things and persons; and all this no less than absolutely necessary. For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things, saying, of my self I can do nothing: so nor you without your Bishop; whoever you be, whether Priest, or Deacon, or Layman. Let nothing please you, which the Bishop mislikes, for all such things are wicked, and in enmity with God. * But it seems Saint Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept, for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to. We have already reckoned the Trallians, and the Magnesians. But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsus, [...].[Page]Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop. The same to the Philadelphians. Sine Episcopo nihil facite, Do nothing without your Bishop. But this is better explicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna. Sine Episcopo nemo quicquam faciat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant. No man may do any thing without the Bishop, viz. of those things which belong to the Church. So that this saying expounds all the rest, for this universal obedience is to be understood according to the sence of the Church, viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiastical cognizance, all Church-affairs. And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarp their Bishop; that he also look to it, that nothing be done without hi [...] leave. Nihil sine tuo Arbitrio agatur, nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem. As thou must do nothing against Gods will, so let nothing (in the Church) be done without thine. By the way, observe, he says not, that as the Presbytery must do nothing without the Bishop, so the Bishop nothing without them; But, so the Bishop nothing without God. But so it is. Nothing must be done without the Bishop; And therefore although he incourages them that can to remain in Virginity, yet this, if it be either done with pride, or without the Bishop, it is spoiled. For, Si gloriatus fuerit, periit, & si id ipsum statuatur sine Episcopo, corruptum est. His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarp, is with an [Episcopo attendite, sicut & Deus vobis.] The way to have God to take care of us, is to observe our Bishop. Hinc & vos decet accedere Sententiae Episcopi, Ep. ad Ephes. qui secundum Deum vos pascit, quemadmodum & facitis, edocti à spiritu; You must therefore c [...]form to the sentence of the Bishop, as indeed ye do already, being taught so to do by Gods holy Spirit.

There needs no more to be said in this cause, if the authority of so great a man will bear so great a burden. What the man was, I said before: what these Epistles are, and of what authority, let it rest upon Apologia pro Ignatio. Vedelius, a man who is no ways to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy, or rather upon the credit of Lib. 3. hist. c. 30. Eusebius, De Script. Eccles. S. Hierome, and Apud Euseb. quem Latinè reddidit. Ruffinus, who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta, for natural and genuine. And now I will make this use of it; Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state, should do well to stand close to their principles, and count that the best Episcopacy which is first; and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affair, and see what is gotten in the bargain. For my part, since they that call for such a reduction hope to gain by it, and then would most certainly have abidden by it, I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height, but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity. But let this be remembred all along, in the specification of the parts of their Jurisdiction. But as yet I am in the general demonstration of obedience.

Can. 56.The Council of Laodicea having specified some particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop, summs them up thus, Ideus videre est apud Damasum. Ep. de Chorepiscopis. [...]. So likewise the Presbyters, let them do nothing without the precept and counsel of the Bishop, so is the translation of Isidore, ad verbum. This Council is ancient enough, for it was before the first Nicene. So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly. * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum nihil faciant. Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare, Can. 19. vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere, says the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Council according to the Latin of Isidore. Can. 20. The same thing is in the first Council of Toledo, the very same words for which I cited the first Council of Arles, viz. That Presbyters do nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop. Epist. ad Nepotian. Esto subjectus Pontifici tuo, & quasi animae parentem suscipe. It is the counsel of S. Hierome. Be subject to thy Bishop, and receive him as the Father of thy soul.

I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances of the duty, and obedience owing from the Laity to the Bishop. For this account will certainly be admitted by all considering men. God hath intrusted the souls of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiastical orders; they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergie in matters Spiritual with which they are intrusted. For either there is no Government at all, or the Laity must govern the Church, or else the Clergie must. To say there is no Government, is to leave the Church in worse condition than a tyranny. To say that the Laity should govern the Church, when all Ecclesiastical Ministeries are committed to the Clergy, is to say, Scripture means not what it says; for it is to say, that the Clergy must be Praepositi, and [...], and Praelati, and yet the prelation, and presidency, and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presidents or Prelates, and that it is not in them who are so called. * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spiritual are inferiour to the Clergy, and must in [Page] things pertaining to the Soul be ruled by them, with whom their Souls are intrusted; then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy, to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient. Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councils and Fathers, the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop, much more must the Laity, and since the Bishop must rule in chief, and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction and assistance, but ever in subordination to the Bishop, the Laity must obey de integro. For that is to keep them in that state in which God hath placed them.

But for the main, S. Clement in his Epistle to S. James translated by Ruffinus, saith it was the doctrine of Peter, according to the institution of Christ, That Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things; and in his third Epistle; That Presbyters and Deacons, and others of the Clergie must take heed that they do nothing without the license of the Bishop. * And to make this business up compleat, all these authorites of great antiquity, were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respectively, but meer derivations from tradition Apostolical; for not only the thing, but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 Canon of the Apostles. [...] (the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch) [...]. Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without leave of the Bishop, for to him the Lords people is committed, and he must give an account for their souls. * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart, and erecting another altar, he is to be deposed, [...] (saith the 32 Canon) as a lover of Principality: intimating, that he arrogates Episcopal dignity, and so is ambitious of a Principality. The issue then is this. * The Presbyters, and Clergy, and Laity must obey, therefore the Bishop must govern and give them laws. It was particularly instanced in the case of Saint Chrysostome, Lib. 5. cap. 28. [...], saith Theodoret, He adorned and instructed Pontus with these laws, so he, reckoning up the extent of his jurisdiction.

* But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction of Bishops.

SECT. XXXVI. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Spiritual causes of the Laity.

THE Bishops were Ecclesiastical Judges over the Presbyters, the inferiour Clergy and the Laity. What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual, I have already twice explicated; and from hence it descended by a close succession, that they who watched for souls, they had the rule over them, and because no regiment can be without coercion, therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes, and coercion of persons. * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent persons makes the Bishops hand to do it.Can. 33. [...]. If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated by the Bishop, he must not be received by any else, but by him that did so censure him, unless the Bishop that censured him be dead. Can. 5. The same is repeated in the Nicene Council; only it is permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of Bishops, Si fortè aliquâ indignatione, aut contentione, aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui, excommunicati sint, if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion; and when the Synod is met, hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones. But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum, so the Canon; Vt ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas Episcoporum suorum offensas meritò contraxerunt, dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur, quousque in communi, vel ipsi Episcopo suo visum fuerit humaniorem circà eos ferre sententiam. The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop, and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod, or their own Bishop shall give a [Page] more gentle sentence. **This Canon we see relates to the Canon of the Apostles, and affixes the judicature of Priests and Deacons to the Bishops: commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid; only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly; so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely, and so comprehends all of the Diocess and jurisdiction.

The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognizance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop,Can. 59. calling aid from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractory, and disobedient. Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione, vel potestate ad concordiam trahat, inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet. If the Bishops reason will not end the controversies of Clergie-men, his power must; but if any man list to be contentious, intimating (as I suppose out of the Nicene Council) with frivolous appeals, and impertinent protraction, the Synod [of Bishops] must condemn him, viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence. * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair, intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the cause of a Bishop, and the other of the Priests and Deacons. [...],Can. 4. &c. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod (viz. of Bishops, according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon) or a Priest, or Deacon by his own Bishop, if he meddles with any Sacred offices, he shall be hopeless of absolution. But here we see that the ordinary Judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops; but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone: And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omni modo in the next Canon; Si quis Presbyter, vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo — privatim congregationem effecerit, & altare erexerit, & Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere, nec morem gerere primò & secundò vocanti, hic damnetur omni modo — Quòd si Ecclesiam conturbare, & solicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus, per potestates exteras opprimatur. What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first or second Summons, let him be deposed, and if he shall persist to disturb the Church, let him be given over to the secular powers. * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council, [...], &c. If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop, &c. as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles. The Result of these Sanctions is this. The Bishop is the Judge: the Bishop is to inflict censures; the Presbyters and Deacons are either to obey, or to be deposed: No greater evidence in the world of a Superiour jurisdiction, and this established by all the power they had; and this did extend, not only to the Clergy, but to the Laity; for that's the close of the Canon, [...]. ‘This constitution is concerning the Laity, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, and all that are within the rule, viz. that if their Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion, they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere.’

But the Audientia Episcopalis, The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 9. [...]. If any Clergy-man have any cause against a Clergy-man, let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to Secular Courts, [...]. But first let the cause be examined before their own Bishop, or by the Bishops leave before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire. [...]. Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church. Here is not only a subordination of the Clergie in matters criminal, but also the civil causes of the Clergie must be submitted to the Bishop under pain of the Canon. * I end this with the attestation of the Council of Sardis, exactly of the same Spirit, the same injunction, and almost the same words with the former Canons. Hosius the President said;Can. 13. & 14. If any Deacon, or Priest, or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop, [...], knowing him to be excommunicated by his own Bishop, that other Bishop must by no means receive him into his communion.

Thus far we have matter of publick right, and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Judge of the causes, and persons of Clergy-men; and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity. And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolical Canons, of the General Councils of Nice, and of Chalcedon, of the Councils of Antioch, of Sardis, of Carthage; then it is evident, that the Bishop is the Ordinary Judge in all matters of Spiritual cognizance, and hath power of censures, and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction.

[Page]This thing only by the way; in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts. For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches, and in some times [...] and [...], as S. Ignatius calls them; Counsellors and Assessors with the Bishop; yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop, and no concurrent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery: but of this hereafter more particularly.

* Now we may see these Canons attested by practice, and dogmatical resolution. S. Cyprian is the man whom I would chuse in all the world to depose in this cause; because he, if any man, hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters: and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop, and that absolutely, and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery, we are all well enough, and without suspicion. Epist. 10. Diù patientiam meam tenui (Fratres Charissimi) saith he, writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church. He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent; and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocess, yet he also must assert his own priviledges and peculiar. Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini, quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii, nec loci sui memores, sed neque futurum Domini judicium, neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumcliâ & contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent. The matter was, that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon; and this was done without the Bishops leave, by the Presbyters, [Forgetting their own place, and the Gospel, and their Bishop set over them,] a thing that was never heard of, till that time. Totum sibi vendicabant, They that might do nothing without the Bishops leave, yet did this whole affair of their own heads. Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself by his own authority alone, suspends them till his return, and so shews that his authority was independent, theirs was not, and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him, in the presence of the Confessors, and all the people. Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet, ut interim prohibeantur offerre, acturi & apud nos, & apud Confessores ipsos, & apud plebem Vniversam causam suam. * Here it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his own authority, in absence from his Church, and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See.

But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate; saying, they ought to have asked the Bishops leave, Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est, for so was the Catholick custom ever, that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave; but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment, and dishonour the Bishop. Yea,Epist. 11. but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi, and they seldom were discountenanc'd in their requests. What should the Presbyters do in this case? S. Cyprian tells them, writing to the Confessors. Petitiones itaque & desideria vestra Episcopo servent. Epist. 12. Let them keep your petitions for the Bishop to consider of. But they did not, therefore he suspended them, because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui & cathedrae; Preserve the honour of the Bishops chair, and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave.

The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair; for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop, he complained to S. Cyprian, Epist. 65. who was an Arch-Bishop, and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him, Cum pro Episcopatus vigore, & Cathedrae Authoritate haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari; When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy. The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question, and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal jurisdiction, the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian, Fungaris circa eum Potestate Honoris tui, ut eum vel deponas, vel abstineas. Exercise the power of your honour upon him, and either suspend him, or depose him. Epist. 55. And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church, vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet, with full authority as becomes a Bishop.

Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. John Chrysostom, says, That in reforming the lives of the Clergy, he was too fastuous and severe.Tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 3. Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae, erat plurimis exosus, & veluti furio sum universi declinabant. He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergie, that he was [Page]hated by them; which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them; for tyranny is the excess of power, and authority is the subject matter of rigour and austerity. But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio, Nunquam poteris, ô Episcope, hos corrigere, nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos. Thou canst not amend the Clergie unless thou strikest them all with thy pastoral rod. S. John Chrysostom did not indeed do so; but non multum pòst temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis. He deprived and suspended most of the Clergie-men for divers causes: and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him; for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him. * But here we see that the power of censures was clearly and only in the Bishop, for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy, [Vniversos] And he did actually suspend most of them, [Plurimos:] and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should joyn with their Bishop to suspend themselves. Add to this that Theodoret also affirms that Chrysostom intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church,Ibid. cap. 4. Quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent, eos ad templum prohibebat accedere, All them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church.

*** Thus S. Hierom to Riparius, Miror sanctum Episcopum, in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur, Advers. Vigilant. Epist. 53. acquiescere furori ejus, & non virgâ Apostolica, virgaque ferrea confringere vas inutile, & tradere in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fiat. I wonder (saith he) that the holy Bishop is not moved at the fury of Vigilantius, and does not break him with his Apostolical rod, that by this temporary punishment his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishops Pastoral staffe is of fair power and coercion.

The Council of Aquileia convoked against the Arians, is full and mighty in asserting the Bishops power over the Laity, and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy, where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian. Palladius would have declined the judgment of the Bishops, for he saw he should certainly be condemned, and would fain have been judged by some honourable personages of the Laity. But S. Ambrose said, Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent, non Laici de Sacerdotibus. Bishops must judge of the Laity, not the Laity of the Bishops. That's for the jus; and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Council; S. Ambrose Bishop of Milaine gave sentence [Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio, & carendum & in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur.] Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9. The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, whom for heresie the Bishops at Constantinople deposed, Eusebius giving sentence, and chose Basilius in his Room.

* But their Grandfather was served no better. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria served him neither better nor worse. So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator, prius quidem revocare eum admonitionibus, & consiliis nitebatur. Cum vero eum superbire vidisset, Tripart. hist. lib. 1. c. 12. & apertè impietatis facinora praedicare, ex ordine Sacerdotali removit. The Bishop first admonished the heretick, but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy, he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function.

This crime indeed deserved it highly. It was for a less matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter, viz. for a personal misdemeanour, and yet this censure was ratified by the Council of Taurinum, and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi, Can. 4. Ann. Dou [...]. 397. to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censured him. Statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodus, qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia & multa congesserat, & frequentibus eum contumeliis provocaverat — propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus, ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius, in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio. His restitution was therefore left in his power, because originally his censure was. * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Council, Qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus, Who was punished by Triferius the Bishop; Hoc ei humanitate Concilio reservato, ut ipse Triferius in potestate habeat, quando voluerit ei relaxare.

Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick, and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest, and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Council, and the absolution reserved to the Bishop too, which indeed was an act of favour; for they having complained to the Council, by the Council might have been absolved, but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his own power.

* These are particular instances, and made publick by acts conciliary intervening.

* But it was the General Canon and Law of Holy Church.

Cap. 2.Thus we have it expressed in the Council of Agatho. Contumaces vero Clerici prout dignitatis ordo promiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur. Refractory Clerks must be punished by their Bishops, according as the order of their dignity allows. I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop, under a Canonical penalty; and so go on ad alia.

[Page]In the second Council of Carthage, Alypius Episcopus dixit, nec illud praetermittendum est, ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo sùo correptus, aut excommunicatus, Can. 8. rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda, vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit, non exeat impunitus. And the same is repeated in the Greek code of the African Canons. If any Presbyter being excommunicated, or otherwise punished by his Bishop, shall not desist, Can. 10. but contest with his Bishop, let him by no means go unpunished. Act. 4. can. 83. The like is in the Council of Chalcedon, the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Council of Antioch, and of the Apostles. But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action.Post epist. Archimandritarum ad Concilium pro Dioscori rehabilitatione. [...]. The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nice into which I was baptized I know, Other faith I know not. They are Bishops; They have power to excommunicate and condemn, and they have power to do what they please: other faith than this I know none. * This is to purpose, and it was in one of the four great Councils of Christendom, which all ages since have received, with all veneration and devout estimate.

Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd against Nestorius, and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks.Concil. Ephes. c. 5. [...], &c. They who are for their unworthy practices condemned by the Synod or by their own Bishops; although Nestorius did endeavour to restore them, yet their condemnation should still remain vigorous and confirm'd. Upon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation, which indeed of it self is clear enough in the Canon. [...]. Hence you have learned that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergie, and suspend them, and sometimes depose them. Nay, they are bound to it, Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet (ne per plures serpant dira contagia) separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam. It is necessary that the Bishop should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound, lest their infection scatter, so S. Austin. Cap. 15. de corrept. & gratiâ. And therefore the fourth Council of Can. 55. Carthage commands, Vt Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommunicet, That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of their Brethren, (viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine, to be punished in secular tribunals;) For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis, the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion. I add no more, but that excellent saying of S. Austin, Vbi suprà cap. 3. which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess. Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt, & faciamus orent pro nobis, non autem nos corripiant, & arguant, si non fecerimus. Imò omnia fiant, quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant, & praecipiebant quae fierent, & corripiebant si non fierent, &c. And again;Cap. 15. ibid. Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus, pro culparum diversitate diversis, vel minoribus, vel amplioribus, quia & ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium, quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est, potest, si Deus voluerit, in correptionem saluberrimam cedere, atque proficere. Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess, and to punish the disobedient, and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery, [damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium] a condemnation of the Bishops infliction.

Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom, by the Canons of three General Councils, and divers other Provincial, which are made Catholick by adoption, and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church, that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy, and of the Lay-people of his Diocess; that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency; that his censures were firm and valid; and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact; in power or exercise; but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops, and to be only dispatch'd by them, either in full Council, if it was a Bishops cause, or in his own Consistory, if it was the cause of a Priest, or the inferior Clergy, or a Laick, unless in cases of appeal, and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum, in a Synod of Bishops; And all this was confirmed by secular authority, as appears in the imperial Constitutions.

[Page] Novel. constit. 123. c. 11.For the making up this Paragraph complete, I must insert two considerations.

First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance. And secondly of Persons.

The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum, speak in most large and comprehensive terms. [...]. They have power to do what they list. Their power is as large as their will. So the Council of Chalcedon before cited. It was no larger though, than S. Pauls expression, [for to this end also did I write, 2 Corinth. 2.9. that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.] A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience. [...]. And so the stile of the Church runs in descension, [...], so Ignatius, ye must do nothing without your Bishop, [...], to contradict him in nothing. The expression is frequent in him, [...],Vbi supra. to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance,Can. 9. so the Council of Antioch.

* But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam, so S. Ignatius expresses himself. Ye must without your Bishop do nothing; nothing [...], of things pertaining to the Church. So also the Council of Antioch, [...], The things of the Church, are [...], committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted. They are Ecclesiastical persons, it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with, it is for a spiritual end, viz. the regiment of the Church, and the good of souls, and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance. And what are those things?

1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world, that government which he hath constituted de novo, does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty.

Hostis Herodes impie

Christum venire quid times?

Non eripit mortalia

Qui regna dat Coelestia.

So the Church us'd to sing. Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian, the same it takes notice of after it is Christened. And these are all actions civil, all publick violations of justice, all breach of Municipal laws. These the Church hath nothing to do with, unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae; but then when it is once indulged, that act which does annul such pious vows, is just contrary to that religion which first gave them, and then unless there was sin in the donative, the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae. But this it may be is impertinent.

2. The Bishops All, comes in after this; And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock, by its new distinctive Principles. I say, by its new Principles; for there where it extends justice, and pursues the laws of nature, there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian; The Bishop gets nothing of that: But those things which Christianity (as it prescinds from the interest of the republick) hath introduc'd, all them, and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of. Such are causes of Faith, Ministration of Sacraments, and Sacramentals, subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour, censures, irregularities, Orders hierarchical, rites and ceremonies, liturgies, and publick forms of prayer, (as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius, teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies, Tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom) and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these, as dispensation of Church-Vessels, and Ornaments, and Goods, receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church, and whatsoever is of the same consideration, according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles. Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat. Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church; adding this reason. Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae, multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere. He that is intrusted with our precious souls, may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people.

3. There are some things of a mixt nature; and something of the secular interest, and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution, and these [Page] are of double cognizance: the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them. Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men, who are both Clergy, and subjects too; Clerus Domini, and Regis subditi; and for their delinquencies which are in materiâ justitiae, the secular tribunal punishes, as being a violation of that right which the State must defend, but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy, and hath also an obligation of special duty to his Bishop, therefore the Bishop also may punish him; And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty, the Bishop also may impose a censure, for every sin of a Clergy-man is two. But of this nature also are the convening of Synods, the power whereof is in the King, and in the Bishop severally, insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their several respects have peculiar interest; The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity, in which religion hath the deepest interest, and the Church, for the maintenance of faith. And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages, upon the exigence of several occasions, and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience, and attendance upon such solemnities.

4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth, and is a capacity superadded to it, therefore those things which are of mixt cognizance are chiefly in the King; The Supremacy here is his, and so it is in all things of this nature, which are called [Ecclesiastical] because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae, ad finem religionis, but they are of a different nature, and use from things [Spiritual] because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro, and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity, for such things only are properly spiritual.

5. The Bishops Jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only, viz. infliction of censures by excommunications, or other minores plagae which are in order to it. But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God, and their favour to the Church, is assisted by the secular arm, either superadding a temporal penalty in case of contumacy, or some other way abetting the censures of the Church, and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopal Jurisdiction hath a double part; an external, and an internal; this is derived from Christ, that from the King, which because it is concurrent in all acts of Jurisdiction, therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction, viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory.

* And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor, or his Prefect, or any man of consular dignity fit Judge when the Question is of Faith, not that the Prefect was to Judge of that, or that the Bishops were not; but in case of the pervicacy of a peevish Heretick, who would not submit to the power of the Church, but flew to the secular power for assistance, hoping by taking sanctuary there, to ingage the favour of the Prince: In this case the Bishops also appealed thither, not for resolution, but assistance and sustentation of the Churches power. Tripart. Hist. lib. 5. c. 35. It was so in the case of Aetiu [...] the Arian, and Honoratus the Prefect, Constantius being Emperor. For, all that the Prefect did, or the Emperor in this case, was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties, and to incourage the Catholicks; but the precise act of Judicature even in this case was in the Bishops, for they deposed Aetius for his Heresie, for all his confident appeal, and Macedonius, Eleusius, Basilius, Ortasius, and Dracontius for personal delinquencies. * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose, who refused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Judges, though Delegates of the Emperor. Quando audisti (Clementissime Imperator) in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse? S. Ambrose Epist. lib. 2. Epist. 13. When was it ever known that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop? To be sure, it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect; for if they had appealed to him, or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article, and not for incouragement and secular assistance, S. Ambrose in his confident Question of [Quando audisti?] had quickly been answered, even with saying, presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aetius, and Honoratus. * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia, because he refused to answer, except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity. And it is observable that the Arians were the first (and indeed they offered at it often) that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith, for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial, hoped to ingage the Emperor on their party, by making him Umpire. But the Catholick Bishops made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction [Page] of powers and jurisdictions; and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty, so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power. It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia, In verbo [...]. a man so famous and exemplary, that he was called [...], the rule of the Church, that when Constantius the Emperor did precede amongst the Bishops, and undertook to determine causes of meer spiritual cognizance, in stead of a Placet, he gave this answer, [...]. I wonder that thou being set over thing of a different nature, medlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops. The Militia, and the Politia are thine, but matters of Faith and Spirit are of Episcopal cognizance. [...]. Such was the freedom of the ingenuous Leontius. Answerable to which was that Christian and fair acknowledgment of Valentinian, when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia and the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their Legat to desire him, Vt dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse, That he would be pleased to mend the Article. Respondens Valentinianus, ait, Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari. Verùm Sacerdotes apud seipsos congregentur ubi voluerint. Cúmque haec respondisset Princeps, Tripart. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 12. in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi. So Sozomen reports the story. The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith, but referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops, to whom by Gods law they did appertain; upon which intimation given, the Bishops convened in Lampsacum. And thus a double power met in the Bishops. A Divine right to decide the Article. Mihi fas non est, (saith the Emperor) it is not lawful for me to meddle; And then a right from the Emperor to assemble, for he gave them leave to call a Council. These are two distinct powers, one from Christ, the other from the Prince. ***

And now upon this occasion, I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration. The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their Diocesses; all, (I mean) in the sence above explicated; they have power to inflict censures, excommunication is the highest, the rest are parts of it, and in order to it. Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of, or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it, and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases?

1. To this I answer, that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may, or such in which they must use excommunication, then, in these cases no power can forbid them. For what power Christ hath given them, no man can take away.

2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication; so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory. For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii, as most certainly she is not, the Church cannot receive power to put men to death, or to inflict lesser pains in order to it, or any thing above a salutary penance; I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal, then they give the Church what she must not, cannot take. I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death, as any men; but not in the formality of Clergy-men. A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal; and then if any man, or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents, in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them, and pretend to give her another compulsory; they take away the Church-consistory, and erect a vey secular Court, dependant on themselves, and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves, and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for. * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power, is, Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat, He betrays the individual, and inseparable right of holy Church. For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave. Christ is her [...] for that, he is her warrant and security. The other is begged or borrowed, none of her own, nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions. Can. 39. I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question. [...]. Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church, and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante, as in the sight of God, to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess.

[Page]The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge? And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice, I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair, and leave it under that representation.

Presbyters and Deacons, and inferiour Clerks, and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons; No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge. And all Christs sheep hear his voice, and the call of his shepherd-Ministers. * Theodoret tells a story, that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine, the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop, in these words,Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 5. [...]. Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne, that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him, viz. in matters of spiritual import. * And since all power is derived from Christ, who is a King, and a Priest, and a Prophet, Christian Kings are Christi Domini, and Vicars in his Regal power, but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical. * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church, ever since his Kingdom became Christian, and it consists in all things, in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment, and cure of souls, and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own. For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects, himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler, and in both capacities he is to rule, viz. both as Subjects, and as Christian Subjects, except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority. And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities. For superiority is usually expressed in three words, [...], and [...], Excellency, Impery, and Power. The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery; The Bishop hath an Excellency, viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King; but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities; the King in potentiâ gladii, the Bishop in potestate clavium. The Sword, and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power. Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus. Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius, Pontifice clarius, Rege sublimius? King, and Priest, and Prophet, are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven. *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity, which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives; were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience. Epist. ad Philadelph. And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles: Diaconi, & reliquus Clerus, unà cum populo Vniverso, Militibus, Principibus, & Caesare, ipsi Episcopo pareant. Let the Deacons and all the Clergy, and all the people, the Souldiers, the Princes, and Caesar himself obey the Bishop. Lib. de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2. This is it which S. Ambrose said; Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. Si Regum fulgori compares, & Principum diademati, erit inferius, &c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine, that most blessed Prince, Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit, de nobis quoque judicandi, & ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur. Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari, [viz. saecularibus, and in causis simplicis religionis.] So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers.

It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian, Lib. 10. Eccles▪ hist. c. 2. pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians. His answer was, that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor, but Churches to the Bishop; and so they did by all the laws of Christendom. The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor, exactly the same per omnia, as it is related by Ruffinus. Lib. 10. Eccles▪ hist. cap. 19. S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor, to desire him to go forth of the Cancelli, in his Church at Milaine, shews that then the powers were so distinct, that they made no intrenchment upon each other. * It was no greater power, but a more considerable act, and higher exercise, the forbidding the communion to Theodosius, till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica. Theodor. lib. 5. c. 18. It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor, and resolution and authority in the Bishop. But he was not the first that did it; For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod, and the severity of the Bishop. De hoc traditum est nobis, quòd Christianus fuerit, & in die Paschae, i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit, Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 25. & communicare mysteriis, ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum, nisi confiteretur peccata, & inter[Page]poenitentes staret, nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam, culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae, deluisset. The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance. And the Emperor did so. Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat, suscepisse. He did it willingly, undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop.

I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery.Homil. 83. in 26. Matth. It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters, to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion. ‘If he be a Captain, a Consul, or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily, forbid him and keep him off, thy power is greater than his.’ If thou darest not remove him, tell it me, I will not suffer it, &c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures, than in the foregoing instances, the Church might have exercised censures, and all the parts of power that Christ gave her, without either scandal or danger to her self, or her penitents. But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put, a great proportion of secular inconveniences, and humane interest, when excommunications, as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan, so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy, or the peoples rage; as then to be buffeted, so now to be deposed, or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects; in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized, and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution,In 3. partis Supplem. q. 22. a. 5. Vide Aug. ep. 75. & Gratian. dist. 24. q. 2. c. Si habet, sed ibi [Princeps] non inseritur, sed tantùm in glossâ ordinariâ. but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest, Bishops have no power of such censures, nor is it lawful to inflict them, things remaining in that consistence and capacity. And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's, but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps & multitudo non est excommunicanda. A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate.

Thus I have given a short account of the Persons, and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did, and might take cognizance. This use only I make of it. Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls, such a power, Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari, yet it hath its limits, and a proper cognizance, viz. things spiritual, and the emergencies, and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo, and superadded, as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth; And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny (as they list to call it) of Episcopacy, and yet call for the Presbytery. *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever, which are either sins directly, or by reduction. Vide the book of Order of Excommun. in Scotland, & the Hist. of Scotland. Admonit. 2. p. 46. Knox his exhortation to England. [All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death.] There they bring in Murders, Treasons, Witchcrafts, Felonies. Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of [Scandalous and offensive.] Nay [Quodvis peccatum,] saith Snecanus, to which if we add this consideration, that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin, there is nothing in the world, good or bad, vitious or suspicious; scandalous or criminal; true or imaginary; real actions or personal; in all which, and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent, either by false accusation, or real injury; but they comprehend in their vast gripe, and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories, besides their own: and being, for this their cognizance they pretend Divine institution, there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory, no appeal from them, but they shall hear, and determine with final resolution, and it will be sin, and therefore punishable, to complain of injustice and illegality. * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy, and the modesty of their several demands, and the reasonableness, and divinity of each vindication examined, I suppose, were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question, the cause would soon be determined, and the little finger of Presbytery, not only in its exemplary and tried practices, but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns, nay, than the whole body of Episcopacy; but it seldom happens otherwise, but that they who usurp a power, prove tyrants in the execution, whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate.

SECT. XXXVII. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license.

[Page]

BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction. The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority, and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation, insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop. They had power and capacity by their order to Preach, to Minister, to Offer, to Reconcile, and to Baptize. They were indeed acts of order, but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop, that is an act or issue of jurisdiction, and shews the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters, by the practice of Christendom.

S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question, and here also he brings in succour.Epist. ad Smyrn. [...]. It is not lawful without the Bishop (viz. without his leave) either to baptize, or to offer Sacrifice, or to make oblation, or to keep feasts of charity: and a little before, speaking of the B. Eucharist, and its ministration, and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent, [...]. But let that Eucharist (saith he) be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop, or under him, to whom the Bishop shall permit. ***

* I do not here dispute the matter of right, and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure do any offices without Episcopal license, but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the Primitive Church? This is sufficient to shew, to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive; and if I mistake not, it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too. For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant-devotion, in the new spring of Christianity, in the times of persecution, in all the publick disadvantages of state and fortune, when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience, that then they should have thoughts ambitious, incroaching, of usurpation and advantages, of purpose to devest their Brethren of an authority intrusted them by Christ, and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feel a stronger blast of persecution, and was not, as since it hath been, attested with secular assistance, and fair arguments of honour, but was only in a meer spiritual estimate, and ten thousand real disadvantages. This will not be supposed either of wise or holy men. But however. Valeat quantum valere potest. The question is now of matter of fact, and if the Church of Martyrs, and the Church of Saints, and Doctors, and Confessors now regnant in Heaven, be fair precedents for practices of Christianity, we build upon a rock, though we had digg'd no deeper than this foundation of Catholick practice.

Upon the hopes of these advantages, I proceed. [...].Can. Apost. 32. If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart, or erect an Altar (viz. without the Bishops license) let him be deposed; clearly intimating that potestas faciendi concionem, the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies, for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop; and therefore the Canon adds [...]. He is a lover of Rule, he is a Tyrant, that is, an usurper of that power and government which belongs to the Bishop. The same thing is also decreed in the Council of Antioch, and in the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 5. Act. 4. [...]. All the most Reverend Bishops cried out, this is a righteous law, this is the Canon of the holy Fathers. [This] viz. The Canon Apostolical now cited. De baptism. Tertullian is something more particular, and instances in Baptism. Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. Dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter honorem Ecclesiae, quo salvo salva pax est; alioquin etiam Laicis jus est. The place is of great consideration, and carries in it its own objection and its answer. ‘The Bishop hath the right of giving baptism. Then after him, Presbyters and Deacons, [Page] but not without the authority of the Bishop. (So far the testimony is clear) and this is for the honour of the Church.’ * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution, and neither by Divine nor Apostolical ordinance? No indeed. It does not. For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae; and no harm done. For it is honourable for the Church, that her Ministrations should be most ordinate, and so they are when they descend from the superiour to the subordinate. But the next words do of themselves make answer, [Otherwise Lay-men have right to baptize] That is, without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can do it as much as Presbyters and Deacons. For indeed baptism conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to be repeated, but yet they ought not to administer it, so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license: so says Tertullian, let him answer it. Only the difference is this, Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawful in them to baptize any; Presbyters and Deacons may, for their order is a capacity or possibility. ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptism, Tertullian affirms the same of the venerable Eucharist.De coronâ milit. c. 3. vide S. Chrysost. hom. 11. in 1 Tim. & S. Hieron. dial. adv. Lucif. Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quàm Praesidentium sumimus. The former place will expound this, if there be any scruple in [Praesidentium] for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops. I suppose he means [without Episcopal license.] Whatsoever his meaning is, these are his words.

The Council of Gangra forbidding Conventicles, expresses it with this intimation of Episcopal authority. ‘If any man shall make assemblies privately, and out of the Church, so despising the Church,Can. 6. or shall do any Church-offices, [...], without the presence of a Priest by the decree of a Bishop, let him be anathema.’ The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishops license. If they will celebrate Synaxes privately, it must be by a Priest, and he must be there by leave of the Bishop, and then the assembly is lawful. Can. 9. And this thing was so known, that the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisie in Priests to do their offices without a license from the Bishop. Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit, In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simpliciter, aut dissimulantes audacter, praesente, & inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domiciliis agunt agenda, quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra. In some places there are Priests that in private houses do offices (houseling of people is the office meant, communicating them at home) without the consent or leave of the Bishop, being either simply ignorant, or boldly dissembling; implying, that they could not else but know their duties to be, to procure Episcopal license for their ministrations. Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est. Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluerit celebrare, ipse honori suo contrarius existit. ‘All the Bishop said, if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate the mysteries, be the place what it will be, he is an enemy to the Bishops dignity.’

After this in time, but before in authority, is the great Council of Chalcedon. [...].Can. 8. part. 2. Act. 14. Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers, remain under the power of the Bishops of the City. So that they are for their offices in dependance of the authority of the Bishop. The Canon instances particularly to Priests officiating in Monasteries and Hospitals, but extends it self to an indefinite expression, [...], They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop, [...], &c. All they that transgress this constitution in any way, not submitting to their Bishop, Let them be punished Canonically. So that now these general expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop, being to be understood according to the exigence of the matter, to wit, the Ministeries of the Clergy in their several offices, the Canon extends its prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority.

But it was more clearly and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church, we have good witness for it; S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my Author. Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire, Epist. 86. nec praesente Antistite infantem tingere, aut signare, nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare, nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corporis & Sanguinis Christi conficere, nec eo coràm posito populum docere, vel benedicere, &c. It is not lawful for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery, nor to baptize any Catechumens, nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood in the presence of the Bishop without his command. From this place of S. Leo, if it be set in conjunction with the precedent, we have fair evidence of this whole particular. It is not lawful to do any offices without the Bishops leave; So S. Ignatius, [Page] so the Canons of the Apostles, so Tertullian, so the Councils of Antioch and Chalcedon. It is not lawful to do any offices in the Bishops presence without leave, so S. Leo. The Council of Carthage joyns them both together, neither in his presence, nor without his leave in any place.

Now against this practice of the Church, if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to do by Gratian, Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo, dicat quis major est Christo. Dist. 95. cap. Ecce ego. He that will not let Presbyters do what they are commanded to do by God, let him tell us if any man be greater than Christ, viz. whose command it is, that Presbyters should preach. Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave? might not Presbyters do their duty without a license? This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer. * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole Diocess, he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge, he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock, so the Canon of the 1 Apostles, so 2 Ignatius, to the Council of 3 Antioch, 1 Can. 40. 2 Epist. ad Ephes. 3 c. 24. so every where; The Presbyters are admitted in partem solicitudinis, but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocess is in the Bishop, and without the Bishops admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum, although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administring Sacraments, yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge, either temporary or fixt. And therefore it is that a Presbyter may not do these acts without the Bishops leave, because they are actions of relation, and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred, or some particular person; for a Priest must not preach to the stones, as some say Venerable Bede did, nor communicate alone, the word is destructive of the thing, nor baptize, unless he have a Chrysome Child, or a Catechumen; So that all of the Diocess being the Bishops charge, the Bishop must either authorize the Priest, or the Priest must not meddle, lest he be (what S. Peter blamed) [...], a Bishop in anothers Diocess: Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing, of consecrating, &c. For these he had by his ordination, but that in giving license he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions, and did quoad hoc take him in partem solicitudinis, and concredit some part of his Diocess to his administration cum cura animarum.

But then on the other side, because the whole cure of the Diocess is in the Bishop, he cannot exonerate himself of it, for it is a burden of Christs imposing, or it is not imposed at all, therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not divest him of his own power, or any part of it, nor yet ease him of his care, but that as he must still [...], visit and see to his Diocess, so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocess, and this appears in these places now quoted; insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place, there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease. In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potestas minoris. And, though because the Bishop could not do all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocess, therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate, himself looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a general supravision; yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocess, there he being present might do any office, because it was in his own charge, which he might concredit to another, but not exonerate himself of it; And therefore praesente Episcopo (saith the Council of Carthage, and S. Leo) if the Bishop be present, the Presbyter without leave might not officiate; For he had no subjects of his own, but by trust and delegation, and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence, who could not simul omnibus interesse, but then where he was present, the cause of delegation ceasing, the jurisdiction also ceased, or was at least absorpt in the greater, and so without leave might not be exercised; like the stars which in the noon-day have their own natural light, as much as in the night, but appear not, shine not in the presence of the Sun.

This perhaps will seem uncouth in those Presbyters, who (as the Council of Carthage's expression is) are contrarii honori Episcopali; but yet if we keep our selves in our own form, where God hath placed us, and where we were in the Primitive Church, we shall find all this to be sooth, and full of order. For Consider. The elder the prohibition was, the more absolute and indefinite it runs. [Without the Bishop it is not lawful to baptize, to consecrate, &c.] So Ignatius. The prohibition is without limit. But in descent of the Church it runs, [praesente Episcopo] the Bishop being present they must not without leave. The thing is all one, and a derivation from the same original, to wit, the Vniversality of the Bishops Jurisdiction, but the reason of the difference of expression is this. At first Presbyters were in Cities with [Page] the Bishop, and no parishes at all concredited to them. The Bishops lived in Cities, the Presbyters preached and offered [...], from house to house, according as the Bishop directed them. Here they had no ordinary charge, and therefore the first prohibitions run indefinitely, they must not do any Clerical offices sine Episcopo, unless the Bishop sends them. But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct, and the Presbyters fixt upon ordinary charges, then it was only praesente Episcopo, if the Bishop was present, they might not officiate without leave. For in his absence they might do it, I do not say without leave, but I say they had leave given them, when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or temporary residence; as it is to this day, when the Bishop institutes to a particular charge, he also gives power hoc ipso, of officiating in that place. So that at first when they did officiate in places by temporary missions, then they were to have leave, but this license was also temporary; but when they were fixt upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave, but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione subditorum, and that was done in subsidium Muneris Episcopalis, because it was that part of the Bishops charge which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices, and therefore concredited it to a Presbyter, but if he was present, a new leave was necessary, because as the power always was in the Bishop, so now the execution also did return to him when he was there in person, himself if he listed, might officiate.

All this is excellently attested in the example of S. Austin, of whom Possidonius in his life reports that being but a Presbyter, Valerius the Bishop being a Greek born, and not well spoken in the Latin tongue, and so unfit for publick orations, Eidem Presbytero (viz. to Austin) potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi, ac frequentissimè tractandi contra usum quidem, & Consuetudinem Africanarum Ecclesiarum. He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter, to preach in the Church, even while himself was present, indeed against the use and Custom of the African Churches. And for this Act of his he suffered soundly in his report. * For the case was thus. In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresie, the Church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius the Presbyter, that they made a Law not to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all, at least in the Mother Church, and in the Bishops presence. [...], (saith Socrates.) Thence came this Custom in the African Churches. Lib. 5. c. 22. But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able, and himself for want of Latin so unfit, he gave leave to Austin to preach before him, against the custom of the African Churches. But he adds this reason for his excuse too, it was not indeed the custom of Africa, but it was of the Oriental Churches. For so Possidonius proceeds, Sed & ille vir venerabilis, ac providus in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens, in the Levant it was usual for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach, Dummodo factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minime posse cernebat, which determines us fully in the business. For this leave to do offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himself could not fulfil the offices, which shows the Presbyters in their several charges, whether of temporary mission, or fixt residence, to be but Delegates and Vicars of the Bishop admitted in partem Solicitudinis, to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocess.

Against this it is objected out of S. Hierom, and it is recorded by Gratian, Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis, Ad Rustic. Narbon. dist. 95. can. Ecce ego. atque adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere. Behold, I say that Presbyters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bishop. So Gratian quotes it indeed, but S. Hierome says the express contrary, unless we all have false copies. For in S. Hierome it is not [Ecce ego dico] but [Nec ego dico.] He does not say it is lawful for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop. Indeed S. Hierom is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona, because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach, nor to bless, &c. This, perhaps it was not well done, but this makes not against the former discourse; for though it may be fit for the Bishop to give leave, the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages, and multiplication of Christians, and Parishes, yet it is clear that this is not to be done without the Bishops leave, for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome disputes against Rusticus, to shew he did amiss, because he would not give his Presbyters license. * And this he also reprehends in his Epistle ad Nepotianum, Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros, & praesentibus Episcopis non loqui. That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop, that was an ill custom, to wit, as things then stood, and it was mended presently after, for Presbyters did preach in the Bishops presence, but it was by license from their Ordinary. [Page] For so Possidonius relates, that upon this act of Valerius before mentioned, Postea currente & volante hujusmodi famâ, bono praecedente exemplo, accepta ab Episcopis potestate Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis, populis tractare coeperunt verbum Dei. By occasion of this precedent it came to pass, that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishops presence, having first obtained faculty from the Bishop so to do. And a little after it became a custom from a general faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Council of Vase. Now if this evidence of Church practice be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome, Can. 12. let him then first be reconciled to himself, and then we are sure to be helped. For in his dialogue against the Luciferians, his words are these, Cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes. Inde venit ut sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter, neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi. Because the Bishop hath an eminent power, and this power is necessary, thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Deacon may so much as baptize without the Bishops leave.

** This whole discourse shews clearly not only the Bishops to be superiour in jurisdiction, but that they have sole jurisdiction, and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicaridge.

SECT. XXXVIII. Reserving Church-goods to Episcopal dispensation.

** DIVERS other acts there are to attest the superiority of the Bishops jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons, as that all the goods of the Church were in the Bishops sole disposing, and as at first they were laid at the Apostles feet, so afterwards at the Bishops. So it is in the 41 Canon of the Apostles, so it is in the Council of Gangra, and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation, without express delegation from the Bishop, as appears in the seventh and eighth Canons, and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Council. * And therefore when in success of time some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them, thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop; of this the third Council of Toledo complains, and makes remedy, commanding,An. Dom. 589. Vt omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam, ad Episcopi ordinationem & potestatem pertineant. The same is renewed in the fourth Council of Toledo. Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conserunt, nullam se potestatem habere, Cap. 32. sed juxta Canonum instituta, sicut Ecclesiam, ita & dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere. These Councils I produce not as Judges, but as witnesses in the business, for they give concurrent testimony, that as the Church it self, so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons. Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem▪ Videatur Concil. Carthag. Graec. can. 36.38. & 41. & Balsam. ibid. & apologia 2. Justini Martyris. For so the third Council of Toledo calls it, antiquam Constitutionem, and it self is almost 1100 years old, so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church, though it be taken in a narrow sence. For so it was determined in the great Council of Chalcedon, commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward, [...], According to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop.

SECT. XXXIX. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess, or to travel without leave of the Bishop.

ADDE to this, that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocess. So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles, under pain of suspension or deposition, [...] is the censure; and that especially, [...], [Page] If he would not return when his Bishop calls him. The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch, cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo, cap. 17. the censure there is, [...], Let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop, [...], Fix himself in the Diocess of another Bishop. But with license of his Bishop, he may. Sacerdotes, vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare. But this is frequently renewed in many other Synodal decrees,Vide Concil. Epaun. c. 5. & Venet. c. 10. these may suffice for this instance.

* But this not leaving the Diocess is not only meant of promotion in another Church, but Clergy-men might not travel from City to City without the Bishops license; which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico, but extends it almost to a despotick; But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty, and Clerical subordination to their Bishop. The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy-man [...],Can. 41. not to travel without Canonical or dimissory letters. And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition, [...],Can. 42. a Priest or a Clerk must not travel without the command of his Bishop; and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law, De consecrat. dist. 5. can. non oportet, which puts in the clause of [Neque etiam Laicum,] but this was beyond the Council. The same is in the Council of Can. 38. Agatho. The Council of Can. 5. Venice adds a censure, that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went, without letters of license from their Bishop. The same penalty is inflicted by the Council of Epaunum, Can. 6. Presbytero, vel Diaecono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat. The first Council of Tourayne in France, and the third Council of Orleans attest the self-same power in the Bishop, and duty in all his Clergy.

SECT. XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased.

BUT a Coercitive authority makes not a compleat jurisdiction, unless it be also remunerative▪ and [the Princes of the Nations are called [...], Benefactors,] for it is but half a tye to indear obedience, when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit, that which cannot profit. And therefore the Primitive Church, to make the Episcopal Jurisdiction up intire, gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocess to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself, and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted. Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarum non obtemperaverit Episcopis suis volentibus eos ad honorem ampliorem in sua Ecclesia promovere, nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt. Can. 31. So it is decreed in the African Code, They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a greater honour in the Church, must not enjoy what they have already.

But it is a question of great consideration, and worth a strict inquiry, in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church: for the right and the power did not always go together, and also several Orders had several manners of election; Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone, the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops, or by their Chapter; And lastly, because of late strong outcries are made upon several pretensions, amongst which the people make the biggest noise, though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty, therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds.

1. In the Acts of the Apostles, which are most certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church, we find that [Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church] and [they passed through Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and Derbe, [...], appointing them Elders. * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and he says of himself and Titus, [For this cause I sent thee to Crete, [...], That thou shouldest appoint Presbyters, or Bishops (be they which [Page] they will) in every City.] The word [...] ▪ signifies that the whole action was his. For that he ordained them no man questions, but he also appointed them,1 Tit. v. 5. and that was, saith S. Paul, [...], as I commanded thee. It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance, that the Bishop should appoint Presbyters. Let there be half so much shown for the people, and I will also endeavour to promote their interest. *** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture; It is of the seven that were set over the widows. * But first, this was no part of the hierarchy: This was no cure of souls: This was no divine institution: It was in the dispensation of monies: It was by command of the Apostles the election was made, and they might recede from their own right: It was to satisfie the multitude: It was to avoid scandal, which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise: It was in a temporary office: It was with such limitations, and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them: It was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made, if we may believe S. Epiphanius, so that they were Presbyters before this choice: And lastly, It was only a nomination of seven Men, the determination of the business, and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles, and indeed the whole power [Whom we may appoint over this business] and after all this, there can be no hurt done by the objection, especially since clearly, and indubiously the election of Bishops and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons ( [...], saith S. Ignatius of Evodias; Evodias was first appointed to be your Governour, or Bishop, Epist. ad Antioch. by the Apostles) and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops, as in the instances before reckoned. Thus the case stood in Scripture.

2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law, and practice Apostolical. The People did not, might not chuse the Ministers of holy Church. So the Council of Laodicea, [...]. The people must not chuse those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood. Can. 13. The prohibition extends to their Non-election of all the Superiour Clergy, Bishops and Presbyters. But who then must elect them? The Council of Nice determines that, for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made, but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained, which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining or promoting all his Clergy.

* 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone, (as I have already proved.) Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom, that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo, without a particular charge, which was always custom, and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon, and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chuser; for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge; and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance, but part of the Bishops cure, for he had [...], The care of the Churches in all the Diocess; as I have already shown. And therefore when S. Jerome, according to the custom of Christendom,Epist. 61. & 62 had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops, as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus, and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus, Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo, cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes, Let the Bishop rejoyce in his own act, Hieron. ad Nepotian. having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ.

Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop. Haec spectet Sacerdos, & quod cuique congruat, id officii deputet. Let the Bishop observe these rules, Lib. 1. offic. cap. 44. and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity. And Theodoret report of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch, how being an Arian, Adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens, licet turpem habentes vitam, ad Presbyteratus tamen ordinem, & Diaconatus evexit. Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur & Apostolica dogmata defendebant, absque honore deseruit. Tripart. hist. lib. 5. cap. 32. He advanced his own faction, but would not promote any man that was catholick and pious. So he did. The power therefore of Clerical promotion was in his own hands. This thing is evident and notorious; and there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people chusing any Priest, but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples haste snatch'd, and carried him to their Bishop Valerius, intreating him to ordain him Priest. This indeed is true, that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required; In ordinandis Clericis (Fratres Charissimi) solemus vos ante consulere, & mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare. It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the publick [Page] fame of Clerks to be ordained; It was usual (I say) with him, but not perpetual▪ for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus, and divers others, as I shewed elsewhere.

4. In election of Bishops (though not of Priests) the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest, and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages, or publick acclamations. But first; This was not necessary. It was otherwise among the Apostles, and in the case of Timothy, of Titus, of S. James, of S. Mark, and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several charges. 2. This was not by law, or right, but in fact only. It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council, and the 31 Canon of the Apostles, which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power.Epist. 68.

Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended. Quando ipsa [plebs] maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere, &c. Thus he is usually cited, the people have power to chuse, or to refuse their Bishops, and this comes to them from Divine authority. No such matter. The following words expound him better, [Quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere, ut Sacerdos plebe Praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus, atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur: That the Bishop is chosen publickly, in the presence of the people, and he only be thought fit who is approved by publick judgment and testimony; or as S. Pauls phrase is [he must have a good report of all men] that is indeed a divine institution, and that to this purpose, and for the publick attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required, appears clearly by S. Cyprians discourse in this Epistle. For what is the Divine authority that he mentions? It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagoga, before all the congregation. The people chose not, God chose Eleazar, and Moses consecrated him, and the people stood and looked on; that's all that this argument can supply. * Just thus Bishops are, and ever were ordained, Non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ, In the sight of the people standing by; but to what end? Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur. All this while the election is not in the people, nothing but the publick testimony and examination, for so it follows, Et sit ordinatio justa & legitima quae omnium suffragio, & judicio fuerit examinata.

** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn, either the sence or the truth of his assertion. The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons, (but this we have already examined,) the other of S. Peter chusing S. Matthias into the Apostolate; it was indeed done in the presence of the people. * But here it is considerable that at this surrogation of S. Matthias, the Number of the persons present was but 120, of which eleven were Apostles, and 72 were Disciples and Presbyters, they make up 83, and then there remains but 37 of the Laity, of which many were women, which I know not yet whether any man would admit to the election of an Apostle, and whether they do or do not, the Laity is a very inconsiderable Number if the matter had been to be carried by plurality of voices; so that let the worst come that is imaginable, the whole business was in effect carried by the Clergy, whom in this case we have no reason to suspect to be divided, and of a distinct or disagreeing interest. * 2. Let this discourse be of what validity it will, yet all this whole business was miraculous and extraordinary; For though the Apostles named two Candidates, yet the holy Ghost chose them by particular revelation. And yet for all this, it was lawful for S. Peter alone to have done it without casting lots. An non licebat ipsi [Petro] eligere? licebat, & quidem maxime; verum id non facit ne cui videretur gratificari. Quanquam alioqui non erat particeps Spiritûs. For all he had not as yet received the holy Ghost,Homil. 3. in Act. yet he had power himself to have compleated the election. So S. Chrysostom.

So that now, if S. Cyprian means more than the presence of the people for suffrage of publick testimony, and extends it to a suffrage of formal choice, his proofs of the divine authority are invalid, there is no such thing can be deduced from thence, and then this his complying so much with the people (which hath been the fault of many a good man) may be reckoned together with his rebaptization. But truth is, he means no more than suffrage of testimony, viz. That he who is to be chosen Bishop be for his good life a man of good fame, and approved of before God and all the people, and this is all the share they have in their election. * And so indeed himself summs up the whole business, and tells us of another jus Divinum too. ‘[Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divinâ, & Apostolicâ observatione, observandum est & tenendum, [Page] quod apud nos quoque, & fer [...] apud Provincias Vniversas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quinque conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit. It is most diligently to be observed, for there is a Divine tradition, and an Apostolical ordinance for it, and it is used by us and almost by all Churches, that all the Bishops of the Province assembled to the making of right ordinations, and that a Bishop be chosen in the face of the people who best know their life and conversation.]’ So that the Bishops were to make the formal election, the people to give their judgment of approbation in this particular, and so much as concern'd the exemplary piety, and good life of him that was to be their Bishop. Here we see in S. Cyprian is a jus Divinum for the Bishops chusing a Colleague, or a Brother-Bishop, as much as for the presence of the people, and yet the presence was all. And howsoever the people were present to give this testimony, yet the election was clearly in the Bishops, and that by Divine tradition, and Apostolical observation saith S. Cyprian; And thus it was in all Churches almost.

In Africa this was, and so it continued till after S. Austins time,Epist. 120. lib. 3. de Sacerd. particularly in the choice of Eradius his successor. It was so in the Greek Church as S. Chrysostom tells us. It was so in Spain, as Lib. 2 de offic. S. Isidore tells us; and in many other places, that the people should be present, and give acclamation, and tumultuary approbation; but to the formal election of the Clergy, made by enumeration of votes and subscription, the people never were admitted.

5. Although that in times of persecution, at first, and to comply with the people who were in all respects to be sweetned, to make them with easier appetite swallow the bitter pill of persecution, and also to make them more obedient to their Bishop, if they did, though but in a tumult and noise cry him up in his ordination, Ne plebs in vita Episcopum non optatum, aut contemnat, aut oderit, & fiat minùs religiosa quàm convenit, cui non licuerit habere quem voluit, (for so S. Leo expresses the cause) yet the formality and right of proper election was in the Clergy,Epist. 84. c. 5. and often so practised without any consent at all, or intervening act of the people. The right, I say, was in the Bishops, so it was decreed in the Nicene Council, [...].Can. 4. The Bishop must be appointed or constituted by all the Bishops of the Province, [...]. It must be confirmed, and established by the Metropolitan. No Presbyters here all this while, no people. * But the exercise of this power is more clearly seen in the Acts of some Councils, where the Fathers degraded some Bishops, and themselves appointed others in their Rooms. * The Bishops in the Council of Constantinople deposed Marcellus. In cujus locum Basilium in Ancyram miserunt. They sent Basilius Bishop in his room, saith Sozomen. Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9. Ostendat Bassianus si per Synodum Reverendissimorum Episcoporum, & consuetâ lege Episcopus Ephesiorum Metropolis est constitutus, (said the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon.) Let Bassianus show that he was made Bishop of Ephesus by a Synod of Bishops,Act. 11. and according to the accustomed Law. The Law I shewed before, even the Nicene Canon. The Fathers of which Council sent a Synodal Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, to tell them they had deposed Melitius from the office of a Bishop, only left him the name, but took from him all power, Nullum verò omnimodò habere potestatem, neque eligendi, neque ordinandi, &c. Neither suffering him to chuse nor to ordain Clerks.Tripart. hist. lib. 2. c. 12. It seems then that was part of the Episcopal office in ordinary, placitos sibi eligere, as the Epistle expresses it in the sequel, to chuse whom they listed. But the Council deposed Melitius, and sent Alexander their Bishop and Patriarch to rule the Church again. ** And particularly to come home to the case of the present question, when Auxentius Bishop of Milaine was dead, and the Bishops of the Province, and the Clergy of the Church, and the people of the City, were assembled at the chusing of another, the Emperor makes a speech to the Bishops only, that they should be careful in their choice. So that although the people were present, Quibus pro fide, Theodor. lib. 4. c. 5. & religione etiam honor deferendus est, (as S. Cyprians phrase is) To whom respect is to be had, and fair complyings to be used so long as they are pious, catholick and obedient, yet both the right of electing, and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops, the peoples interest did not arrive to one half of this.

6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops, who chose their own successors; it will not be imagined the people will chuse a Bishop over his head, and proclaim that they were weary of him. In those days they had more piety. * Agelius did so, he chose Sisinnius, and that it may appear it was without the people, [Page] they came about him, and intreated him to chuse Marcian, to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor; he complied with them, and appointed Marcian to be his successor, and Sisinnius, whom he had first chosen, to succeed Marcian. Socrat. lib. 5. c. 21. Thus did Valerius chuse his successor S. Austin; for though the people named him for their Priest, and carried him to Valerius to take Orders, yet Valerius chose him Bishop. And this was usual; [...], (as Epiphanius expresses this case,) it was ordinary to do so in many Churches.

7. The manner of election in many Churches was various, for although indeed the Church had commanded it, and given power to the Bishops to make the election, yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters, or the Chapter chose one out of themselves. S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria, from S. Mark's time to Heraclas and Dionysius. In Ephes. 4. S. Ambrose says, that at the first the Bishop was not by a formal new election promoted, but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat. As one died so the next senior did succeed him. In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes.

8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day, and therefore to take it from the Clergy, in whom it always was by permission of Princes, and to interest the people in it, is to recede à traditionibus Majorum, from the religion of our forefathers, and to Innovate in a high proportion.

9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage (by way of testimony, I mean, and approbation) did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop, the people at last, according to their usual guise, grew hot, angry, and tumultuous, and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to name a Bishop of their own sect; and to disgrace one another by publick scandal and contestation, and often grew up to Sedition and Murder; and therefore although they were never admitted, (unless where themselves usurped) farther than I have declared, yet even this was taken from them, especially, since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them, they knew not how to distinguish between power and right, they had not well learned to take denial, but began to obtrude whom they listed, to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked; and the soleship of election, which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops, they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution.

* I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council; Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur (understand him in the sences above explicated) sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent, hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres: Of old time Bishops were chosen, not without the suffrage of the people (for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation) but when this occasioned many seditions and tumults, the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province. And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain, and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible.

Truth is, the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone, and though the Kindred of our blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleophae, the successor of S. James to the Bishoprick of Jerusalem, as Eusebius witnesses; it was propter singularem honorem, Lib. 3. hist. c. 11. an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us; and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too. Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam. The rule of the Apostles, and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to chuse their Colleagues in that Sacred order. * And then in descent, even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election, for they had no authority by Scripture to chuse; by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper, even to a testimonial; and yet I deny not but they did often take more,Tripart. hist. lib. 10. c. 14. as in the case of Nilammon, quem cives elegerunt, saith the story out of Sozomen, they chose him alone, (though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice) and then they behav'd themselves often times with so much insolency, partiality, faction, sedition, cruelty, and Pagan baseness, that they were quite interdicted it, above 1200 years agone. Vide dist. 63. per tot. Gratian. So that they had their little in possession but a little while, and never had any due, and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right, but a popular ambition, and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces.

[Page]But I think I need not have troubled my self half so far, for they that strive to introduce a popular election, would as fain have Episcopacy out, as popularity of election let in. So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seem superfluous. For I consider, that if the peoples power of chusing Bishops be founded upon God's law, as some men pretend from S. Cyprian (not proving the thing from Gods law, but Gods law from S. Cyprian) then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law: For surely God never gave them power to chuse any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted. And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election, if the Church will recede from her Divine right of Episcopacy. But for all their plundering and confounding, their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary.

SECT. XLI. Bishops only did Vote in Councils, and neither Presbyters nor People.

IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bishops, nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality. Now as I have shewen that the Bishop of every Diocess did give laws to his own Church for particulars, so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church, were made by conventions of Bishops, without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters, or any else for sentence and decision.

The instances of this are just so many as there are Councils. S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith, Si judicium Episcoporum est (saith he) quid cum eo commune habet Imperator? Epist. ad Solitar. It is a judgment to be passed by Bishops, (meaning the determination of the article,) and not proper for the Emperor. And when Hosius of Corduba reproved him for sitting President in a Council, Quis enim videns eum in decernendo Principem se facere Episcoporum, non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis? He that sits President makes himself chief of the Bishops, &c. intimating Bishops only to preside in Councils, and to make decision. And therefore conventus Episcoporum, and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for General and Provincial Councils. Bis in anno Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur, said the 38 Canon of the Apostles; and Congregatio Episcopalis the Council of Sardis is called by Theodoret. Lib. 2. cap. 7. And when the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter, Ob quam causam (saith Eusebius) conventus Episcoporum, Lib. 5. cap. 23. & Concilia per singulas quasque provincias convocantur. Where by the way, it is observable, that at first, even provincial Synods were only held by Bishops, and Presbyters had no interest in the decision; however we have of late sate so near Bishops in Provincial assemblies, that we have sate upon the Bishops skirts. But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this. To them I leave it; And because the four general Councils are the Precedents and chief of all the rest, I shall only instance in them for this particular.

1. The title of the Nicene Council runs thus. [...]. The Canons of the 318 Fathers met in Nice. These Fathers were all that gave suffrage to the Canons, for if they had been more, the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony, in that he makes it to be a mystical number; Nam & Abraham trecentos decem & octo duxit ad bellum — De Conciliis id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem & octo Sacerdotes — velut trophaeum extulerunt, Pro [...]m. in lib. de fide. ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum, quod eodem numero in Conciliis, fidei habemus oraculum, quo in historiâ, pietatis exemplum. Well! 318 was the Number of the Judges, the Nicene Fathers, and they were all Bishops, for so is the title of the subscriptions, Subscripserunt trecenti decem & octo Episcopi qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt; 13 whereof were Chorespiscopi, but not one Presbyter, save only that Vitus, and Vincentius subscribed as Legates of the Bishop of Rome, but not by their own authority.

2. The great Council of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops: [...], That's the title [Page] of the Canons. The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in G. P. and that these were all Bishops appears by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Council. [...]. The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops. And of this Council it was that Socrates speaking, Imperator (saith he) nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium Episcoporum convocat. Lib. 5. cap. 8. Here indeed some few Bishops appeared by Proxy, as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter, and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader, and about some four or five more. * This only, amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus, Auxanon, Helladius, and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters. But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies; They were Bishops, saith the title of the Council, and the Oration, and the Canons, and Socrates; And lest there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae, because before Johannes Apameensis subscribed, which seems to intimate that one of them was the Bishop, and the other but a Presbyter indeed, without a subterfuge of modesty, the titles distinguish them. For John was Bishop in the Province of Caelo Syria, and Auxanon of Apam [...]a in Pisidia.

3. The third was the Council of Ephesus, Episcoporum plurium quàm ducentorum, as it is often said in the acts of the Council [of above 200 Bishops] but no Presbyters, for, Cum Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt, horum subscriptionibus contenti fuimus. Epist. Synod. ad Clerum C. Ptanum part. 2. act. [...]. part. 1. c. 32. Vide sect. 36. de simil. fere quaestione in fiue. We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odd Bishops, saith the Council; and Theodosius junior, in his Epistle to the Synod, Illicitum est (saith he) eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus. It is unlawful for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops to be interess'd in Ecclesiastical assemblies.

4. The last of the four great conventions of Christendom was, sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum, of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bithynia. But in all these assemblies, no meer Presbyters gave suffrage, except by legation from his Bishop, and delegation of authority. And therefore when in this Council some Laicks, and some Monks, and some Clergie-men, not Bishops, would interest themselves, Pulcheria the Empress sent letters to Consularius to repel them by force; Si praeter nostram evocationem, aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur, Who come without command of the Empress, or the Bishops permission. Where it is observable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist, to dispute, and to be present in all the action; And thus they often did suffer Abbots, or Archimandrites to be there, and to subscribe too, but that was praeter regulam, and by indulgence only, and condescension; For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe, he answered, Non suum esse, sed Episcoporum tantum subscribere, Action. 1. Concil. Chalced. It belonged only to Bishops to subscribe to Councils. For this reason the Fathers themselves often called out in the Council, Mitte foras superfluos, Concilium Episcoporum est.

But I need not more particular arguments, for till the Council of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voice in Councils, and that Council we know savour'd too much of the Schismatick: but before this Council, no example, no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters, either to Oecumenical, or Provincial Synods. Indeed to a Diocesan Synod, viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy, I find 32 Presbyters subscribing. This Synod was neither Oecumenical nor Provincial, but meerly the Convocation of a Diocess. For here was but one Bishop and some few Abbots, and 32 Presbyters. It was indeed no more than a visitation, or the calling of a Chapter, for of this we receive intimation in the seventh Canon of that assembly,Concil. Antisiodor. can. 7. Vt in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Synodum venirent, that was their summons, Et in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium: so that here is intimation of a yearly Synod besides the first convention, the greatest of them but Diocesan, and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis, or however not enough to give evidence of a subscription of Presbyters to so much as a Provincial Council. For the guise of Christendom was always otherwise, and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspicion of heresie, Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores; Socrat. l. 2. c. 7. Quî namque fieri potest, ut cum simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus? Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests, but Priests do from Bishops.Epist. 3. per Ruffinum. Nam vestrum est eos instruere (saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy, and all the Diocess) eorum est vobis obedire, ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini. And a little after; Audire ergo eum attentius oportet, & ab ipso suscipere doctrinam fidei, monita autem vitae à Presbyteris inquirere. Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life, but of the Bishop receive positions and determinations of faith.

[Page]Against this if it be objected, Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet, That which is of general concernment, must also be of general Scrutiny. I answer, it is true, unless where God himself hath intrusted the care of others in a body, as he hath in the Bishops, and will require the souls of his Diocess at his hand, and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths, and to follow their faith, Heb. 13.7. & 17. 1 Pet. 5.2. Act. 20. whom he hath set over us. And therefore the determination of Councils pertains to all, and is handled by all, not in diffusion, but in representation. For Ecclesia est in Episcopo, & Episcopus in Ecclesiâ, (saith S. Cyprian) the Church is in the Bishop (viz. by representment) and the Bishop is in the Church (viz. as a Pilot in a ship, or a Master in a family, or rather as a steward and Guardian to rule in his Masters absence) and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called (in Eusebius) conventus orbis terrarum, and by S. Austin, Epist. 69. Lib. 3. de vita Constant. lib. de baptis. cap. 18. consensus totius Ecclesiae, not that the whole Church was there present in their several persons, but was there represented by the Catholick Bishops, and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all, I see no reason but the Ladies too may vote in Councils, for I doubt not but they have souls too.

But however, if this argument were concluding in it self, yet it loses its force in England, where the Clergy are bound by Laws of Parliament, and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to chuse neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy, nor Knights of the Shire to represent us as Commons. Epist. 32. In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters, as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-Judges, whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Council (it was an old heretical trick.) Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam, audiant cum populo, non ut quisquam Judex resideat, sed unusquisque de suo affectu habeat examen, & eligat quem sequatur. So may Presbyters be present, so they may judge, not for others, but for themselves. And so may the people be present, and anciently were so; and therefore Councils were always kept in open Churches, [ubi populus judicat] not for others, but for themselves, not by external sentence, but internal conviction, so S. Ambrose expounds himself in the forecited allegation.

There is no considerable objection against this discourse, but that of the first Council of Jerusalem; where the Apostles and Elders did meet together to determine of the question of circumcision. For although in the story of celebration of it, we find no man giving sentence but Peter, and James; yet in Acts 16. they are called [...], decrees judged by the Apostles, and Elders. But first, in this the difficulty is the less, because [Presbyter] was a general word for all that were not of the number of the twelve, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Doctors. And then secondly, it is none at all, because Paul and Barnabas are signally, and by name reckoned as present in the Synod, and one of them Prolocutor, or else both. So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventual assemblies. 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story, yet the Catholick practice of Gods Church is certainly the best expositor of such places where there either is any difficulty, or where any is pretended. And of this, I have already given account.

* I remember also that this place is pretended for the peoples power of voicing in Councils. It is a pretty pageant; only that it is against the Catholick practice of the Church, against the exigence of Scripture, which bids us require the law at the mouth of our spiritual Rulers, against the gravity of such assemblies, for it would force them to be tumultuous, and at the best, are the worst of Sanctions, as being issues of popularity, and to summe up all, it is no way authorized by this first copy of Christian Councils. The pretence is, in the Synodal Acts 15.25. letter written in the name of [the Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren] that is, (says Geta,) The Apostles, and Presbyters, and People. But why not Brethren, that is, all the Deacons, and Evangelists, and Helpers in Government, and Ministers of the Churches? There is nothing either in words, or circumstances to contradict this. If it be asked who then are meant by Elders, if by [Brethren] S. Luke understands these Church-officers? I answer, that here is such variety, that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders and Brethren, yet here are enough to furnish both with variety, and yet neither to admit meer Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word, nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question, nor authorising the decretal. For besides the twelve Apostles, there were Apostolical men which were Presbyters, and something more, as Paul and Barnabas, and Silas, and Evangelists, and Pastors besides, which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently. But however without any further trouble it is evident, that this word [Brethren] [Page] does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy. [Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren what shall we do. Judas and Silas who were Apostolical men, are called in Scripture, chief men among the brethren. But this is too known, to need a contestation.

I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperor in the Eighth Synod. De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus, quàm qui absolutè versamini quid amplius dicam non habeo, quàm quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere, neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae, & universali Synodo adversari. Lay-men (says the Emperor) must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiastical, nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church, or Councils Oecumenical. They must not meddle, for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision. Lib. 4. polit. c. 15 And now after all this, what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops? [...], (saith Aristotle,) They are all evidences of power and authority, to deliberate, to determine or judge, to make laws. But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable. The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters, but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops.

SECT. XLII. And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks.

LASTLY, as if all the acts of Jurisdiction, and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop, over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy, the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri, the Bishops Presbyters; as having a propriety in them, and therefore a superiority over them, and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae, so he was of the persons too, a Ruler in propriety. * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine, Ecclesiae adhuc (saith he) per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens, I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters. And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church, — Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? Can. 45. Concil. Carthag. 3. (saith Posthumianus.) If the Bishop have but one Presbyter, must one be taken from him? Id sequor (saith Aurelius) ut conveniam Episcopum ejus, atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur. And it was resolved, Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo. No man shall retain anothers Bishop, without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is.

* When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries, and entred to purge himself,Eccles. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 17. Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo. He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter; and, Arsenius, cujus brachium dicebatur excisum, lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii. Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader. Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii, &c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests. Lib. 2. cap. 8. So Theodoret, Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters,Athanas. Episc. ad vitam solitar. agentes. as himself witnesses. Paulinianus sometimes to visit us (saith S. Hierome to Pammachius) but not as your Clerk, Sed ejus à quo ordinatur. His Clerk who did ordain. But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances.

The summ is this. The question was, whether or no, and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church. Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars. The power of Church goods, and the sole dispensation of them, and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop. For the Clergy, and Church possessions were in his power, in his administration: the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave: they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop: in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them, and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it: without him they might not baptize, not consecrate the Eucharist, not communicate, not reconcile penitents, not preach; not only, not without his ordination, but not without a special faculty, besides the [Page] capacity of their order: The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions, even by the decree of the Apostles themselves, and the doctrine of Ignatius, and the constitution of S. Clement, of the Fathers in the Council of Arles, Ancyra, and Toledo, and many others: ‘The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy, and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, in Carthage, Antioch, Sardis, Aquileia, Taurinum, Agatho, and by the Emperor, and by the Apostles; and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents, and absolving them as they saw cause, and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function, that they have supreme and universal spiritual power, (viz. in the sence above explicated) over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess, as, [That they are higher than all power, the image of God, the figure of Christ, Christs Vicar, President of the Church, Prince of Priests, of authority imcomparable, unparallell'd power,] and many more, if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction, we have their depositions, we may proceed as we see cause for, and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state, for that is truly a reformation [Id Dominicum quod primum, id haereticum quod posterius,] and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations.’

SECT. XLIII. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes.

BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam; that Bishops were not Diocesan, but Parochial, and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction, that perhaps our Village, or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit, as high as the Bishops throne.

* Well! Put case they were not Diocesan, but parish Bishops, what then? yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them, in all the particular advantages of the former instances.

2. If the Bishops had the Parishes, what cure had the Priests? so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops, and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish, it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest. If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess, it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish. For set a Bishop where you will, either in a Diocess or a Parish, a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination, the same distance still. So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side, but make it far worse, it will not advance the Presbytery, but it will depress the whole Hierarchy, and all the orders of Holy Church.

* But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy, I will consider it in little, and besides that it does no body any good advantage, I will represent it in its fucus, and shew the falshood of it.

1. Then. It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes. For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus, who lived almost 100 years after Christ, and divided Rome into seven Parishes, assigning to every one a Presbyter. So Damasus reports of him in the Pontifical book. Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris, & septem Diacons ordinavit qui custodirent Episcopum praedicantem propter stylum veritatis. He divided the Parishes, or titles in the City of Rome to Presbyters. The same also is by Damasus reported of Dionysius in his life, Hic Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit, & coemiteria, parochiásque & dioeceses constituit. Marcellus increased the number in the year 305. Hic fecit coemiterium viâ Salariâ, & 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex Paganis, & propter sepulturas Martyrum. He made a Sepulture or coemitery for the burial of Martyrs, and appointed 25 Titles or Parishes: but he adds [quasi Dioeceses] as it had been Dio [...]esses, that is, distinct and limited to Presbyters, as Diocesses [Page] were to Bishops; and the use of Parishes which he subjoyns clears the business; for he appointed them only propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum & sepulturas, for baptism, and penance, and burial; for as yet there was no preaching in Parishes, but in the Mother-Church. Thus it was in the West.

* But in Aegypt we find Parishes divided something sooner than the earliest of these, for Eusebius reports out of Philo, that the Christians in S. Mark's time had several Churches in Alexandria. Lib. 2. hist. c. 17. Etiam de Ecclesiis quae apud eos sunt, ita dicit. Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus, &c. But even before this there were Bishops. for in Rome there were four Bishops, before any division of Parishes, though S. Peter be reckoned for none. And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria, S. Mark himself who did it was the Bishop, and before that time S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and in divers other places where Bishops were, there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus's tim [...] for when Dionysius had assigned Presbyters to several Parishes, he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba, and desires him to do so too in his Diocess, as appears in his Epistle to him.

* For indeed necessity required it, when the Christians multiplied and grew to be [...],Apud Binium. tom. 1. Concil. as Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Apolog. c. 37. Cornelius called the Roman Christians, a great and an innumerable people; and did implere omnia, as Tertullians phrase is, filled all places, and publick and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves, and increased jealousies in others, and their publick offices could not be performed with so diffused and particular advantage, then they were forced to divide congregations, and assigned several Presbyters to their cure, in subordination to the Bishop, and so we see the Elder Christianity grew the more Parishes there were. At first in Rome there were none,Lib. 2. contr. Parmeniam. Evaristus made seven, Dionysius made some more, and Marcellus added 25, and in Optatus's time there were 40.

Well then! The case is thus. Parishes were not divided at first, therefore to be sure they were not of Divine institution. Therefore it is no divine institution that a Presbyter should be fixt upon a Parish, therefore also a Parish is not by Christ's ordinance an independant body, for by Christs ordinance there was no such thing at all, neither absolute nor in dependance neither; and then for the main issue, since Bishops were before Parishes (in the present sence) the Bishops in that sence could not be Parochial.

* But which was first, of a private congregation or a Diocess? If a private congregation, then a Bishop was at first fixt in a private congregation, and so was a Parochial Bishop. If a Diocess was first, then the Question will be, how a Diocess could be without Parishes, for what is a Diocess but a jurisdiction over many Parishes?

* I answer, it is true that Diocess and Parish are words used now in contradiction; And now a Diocess is nothing but the multiplication of many Parishes: Sed non fuit sic ab initio, For at first, a Diocess was the City and the Regio suburbicaria, the neighbouring towns in which there was no distinction of Parishes: That which was a Diocess in the secular sence, that is, a particular Province or division of secular prefecture, that was the assignation of a Bishops charge. Lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30. Vide Baron. A.D. 39. n. 10. & B. Rhenan. in notit. provinc. Imperial. in descript. Illyrici. Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Laodicea were [...], heads of the Diocess, (saith Pliny,) meaning in respect of secular jurisdiction; so they were in Ecclesiastical regiment. And it was so upon great reason, for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Commonwealth, it was of less suspicion to the secular power, while the Church regiment was just fixt together with the political, as if of purpose to shew their mutual consistence, and its own subordination. ** And besides this, there was in it a necessity; for the subjects of another Province or Diocess could not either safely or conveniently meet where the duty of the Commonwealth did not ingage them; but being all of one prefecture and Diocess, the necessity of publick meetings in order to the Commonwealth would be fair opportunity for the advancement of their Christendom. And this, which at first was a necessity in this case, grew to be a law in all by the sanction of the Council of Can. 17. Chalcedon, and of Constantinople in Can. 38. Trullo, [...]. Let the order of the Church follow the order and guise of the Commonwealth, viz. in her regiment and prefecture.

* But in the modern sence of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish nor a Diocess, as they are taken in relation; but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himself or his Presbyters had converted, and he also had [Page] the charge of endeavouring the conversion of all the Country. So that although he had not all the Diocess actually in communion and subjection, yet his charge, his Diocess was so much. Just as it was with the Apostles, to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocess, yet at first they had but a small congregation that did actually obey them.

And now to the Question. Which was first, a particular congregation or a Diocess? I answer, that a Diocess was first, that is, the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts; And S. Mark was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted. * But ordinarily the Apostles, when they had converted a City or Nation, then fixt Bishops upon their charge, and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocess; But then, this City, or Nation although it was not the Bishops Diocess before it was a particular congregation, yet it was part of the Apostles Diocess, and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively.

S. Paul was ordained by the prophets at Antioch, Apostle of the Uncircumcision; All the Gentiles was his Diocess, and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted. So that, absolutely, a diocess was before a particular congregation. But if a Diocess be taken collectively, as now it is, for a multitude of Parishes united under one Bishop, then one must needs be before 20, and a particular congregation before a Diocess; but then that particular congregation was not a parish, in the present sence, for it was not a part of a Diocess taking a Diocess for a collection of Parishes; but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocess, and like a Grain of Mustard-seed that in time might, and did grow up to a considerable height, even to a necessity of distinguishing titles, and parts of the Diocess, assigning several parts, to several Priests.

2. We see that the Primitive Bishops, before the division of parishes, had the City, and Country; and after the division of Parishes, had them all under his jurisdiction, and ever, even from the Apostles times had several provinces (some of them I mean) within their limits and charges. * The 35 Canon of the Apostles gives power to the Bishop to dispose only of those things [...], which are under his Diocess and the Neighbour villages, and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Council of Antioch, calling it [...], the Ancient Canon of our forefathers; and yet it self is elder than three of the general Councils, and if then it was an Ancient Canon of the Fathers, that the City, and Villages should be subject to the Bishop, surely a Primitive Bishop was a Diocesan.

But a little before this was the Nicene Council, Can. 6. and there I am sure we have a Bishop that is at least a Diocesan. [...]. Let the old Customes be kept. What are those? [...]. Let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, It was a good large parish; And yet this parish, if we have a mind to call it so, was [...], according to the old custome of their forefathers, and yet that was so early, that S. Anthony was then alive, who was born in S. Irenaeus his time, who was himself but second from the Apostles.

It was also a good large parish that Ignatius was Bishop of, even all Syria, Caelosyria, Mesopotamia, and both the Ciliciae. [...], the Bishop of Syria he calls himself in his Epistle to the Romans, and [...], so Theodoret: and besides all these, his Successors, in the Council of Chalcedon, Lib. 5. ca. 23. Action. 7. had the two Phaeniciae, and Arabia yielded to them by composition. These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes, and would have taken up time enough to preambulate, had that been then the guise of Christendome. Epist. ad Leon. 1. Episc. Rom. Haeres. 86. But examples of this kind are infinite. Theodorus Bishop of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes, Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Thebais, Mareotis, Libya, Ammoniaca, and Pentapolis, saith S. Epiphanius; And his predecessor Julinianus successor of Agrippinus was Bishop Concil. Chalced. act. 16. [...], of the Churches about Alexandria. Either it was a Diocess, or at least a plurality. Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 28. S. Chrysostome had Pontus, Asia, and all Thrace in his parish, even as much as came to sixteen prefectures; a fair bounds surely; and so it was with all the Bishops, a greater, or a lesser Diocess they had; but all were Diocesan; for they had several parishes, singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias, saith Epiphanius in his Epistle to John of Jerusalem, Apud. S. Hieron. haeres. 69. and in his book contra haereses, Quotquot enim in Alexandriâ Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt, sub uno Archiepiscopo sunt, privatimque ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiasticas necessitates,[Page]ita ut habitatores vicini sint uniuscujusque Ecclesiae. Lib. 4. c. 12. Encom. Cyprian. Sozom. lib. 5. c. 18. Vide apud. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 22. All Italy was the parish of Liberius (saith Socrates.) Africa was S. Cyprians parish, saith S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Bazil the great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia. But I rather believe, if we examine their several stories, they will rather prove Metropolitans, than meer parochians.

Thirdly, The ancient Canons forbad a Bishop to be ordained in a Village, Castle, or Town. It was so decreed in the Council of Laodicea before the first Nicene. [...].Can. 56. In the Villages, or Countreys, Bishops must not be constituted. And this was renewed in the Council of Sardis, Can. 6. [...]. It is not lawful to ordain Bishops in Villages or little Towns to which one Presbyter is sufficient, [...], but Bishops must ordain Bishops in those Cities where Bishops formerly have been. * So that this Canon does not make a new constitution, but perpetuates the old sanction. Bishops ab antiquo were only ordained in great Cities, and Presbyters in little Villages. Who then was the Parish Curate? the Bishop or the Priest? The case is too apparent.

Only, here it is objected that some Bishops were of small Towns, and therefore these Canons were not observed, and Bishops might be, and were parochial, as S. Gregory of Nazianzum, Zoticus of Comana, Maris in Dolicha. The one of these is called [...] by Lib. 5. c. 16. Eusebius; and another [...] by Lib. 5. c. 4. Theodoret, a little Town. This is all is pretended for this great Scarcrow of parochial Bishops.

* But, first, suppose these had been parishes, and these three parochial Bishops, it follows not that all were; not those to be sure, which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces, and Kingdomes. Secondly, It is a clear case, that Nazianzum, though a small City, yet was the seat of a Bishops throne, so it is reckoned in the [...] made by Leo the Emperour, where it is accounted inter thronos Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum, Jus Graeco. Rom. p. 89. and is in the same account with Caesarea, with Ephesus, with Crete, with Philippi, and almost fourscore more. Vide Baron. An. Dom. 205. n. 27. As for Zoticus he indeed came from Comana, a Village town, for there he was born, but he was Episcopus Otrenus, Bishop of Otrea in Armenia, saith (a) Nicephorus. Lib. 4. c. 25. And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha, it was indeed such a small City as Nazianzum was, but that proves not but his Diocess and teritory was large enough. Thus was Asclepius vici non grandis, but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus. G [...]miad. apud Hieron. Iohan. de Trittenheim de script. Eccles. His seat might usually be in a little City, if it was one of those towns in which according to the exigence of the Canons [...] in which Bishops anciently were ordained, and yet the appurtenances of his Diocess large, and extended, and too great for an hundred Parish [...]Priests.

Fourthly, The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan, not Parochial: for they were institued to assist the Bishop in part of his Countrey-charge, and were [...], Visiters (as the Council of Laodicea calls them.) But what need such Suffragans, such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish? Indeed they might possibly have been needful for the managing of a City-parish, especially if a whole City was a Parish, as these objectors must pretend, or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochial. But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop, and did their offices in the countrey, while the Bishop was resident in the City, either the Bishops parish extended it self from City to Countrey; and then it is all one with a Diocess: or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus, or Visiter. * The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch describes their use and power. Qui in villis & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi....placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant, ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias. They were to govern the Churches delegated to their charge. It seems they had many Churches under their provision, and yet they were but the Bishops Vicars, for so it follows in the Canon; he must not ordain any Presbyters and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitur, & regio; Without leave of the Bishop of the City to whom both himself and all the countrey is subordinate.

5. The Bishop was one in a City wherein were many Presbyters. [...], saith S. Ignatius. Epist. ad Philadelph. There is one altar in every Church, and one Bishop together with the Presbytery, and the Deacons. Either then a whole City, such as Rome or Jerusalem (which as Josephus reports had 400 Synagogues,) must be but one Parish, and [Page] then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocess as a Parish in that latitude, or if there were many Parishes in a City, and the Bishop could have but one of them, why, what hinder'd but that there might in a City be as many Bishops, as Presbyters? For if a Bishop can have but one Parish, why may not every Parish have a Bishop? But by the ancient Canons, a City, though never so great, could have but one for it self and all the Countrey, therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop, nor the Bishop a meer parish-Priest.

Ne in unâ civitate duo sint episcopi, was the constitution of the Nicene Fathers,Lib. 10. Eccl. hist. as saith Ruffinus; and long before this, it was so known a business that one City should have but one Bishop, that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance, Is ergo qui Evangelium vendicabat nesciebat in ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere, Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap 33. ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta & sex. Novatus (the Father of the old Puritans) was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters; intimating clearly that a Chuch that had two Bishops is not Catholick, but Schismatick at least, (if both be pretended to be of a fixt residence) what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters? He is [...], he fights against God, if S. Ambrose say true, Deus enim singulis Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit. In 1 Cor. 12. God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church; and of what extent this one Church was, may easily be guessed by himself who was the Ruler, and Bishop of the great City, and province of Millain. * And therefore when Valerius [...]. Epiphan. haeres. 66. n. 6. Possidod. in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21. as it was then sometimes used in several Churches had ordained S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo, whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time, S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most Uncanonical, and yet he was not ordained to rule in common with Valerius, but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius. It was the same case in Angelius, a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian to be his successor, and Sisinnius to succeed him, the acts were indeed irregular, but yet there was no harm in it to this cause, they were ordained to succeed not in conjunction. Lib. 4. cap. 15. [...], (saith Sozomen) It is a note of Schism, and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chair. Secundus Episcopus nullus est (saith S. Lib. 4. Epist. 2. Cyprian) And as Cornelius reports it in his Epistle to S. Cyprian, it was the voice of the confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schism, by erecting another Bishop; Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus, unum spiritum sanctum, unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere. And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius and Felix. For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should return to his See, on condition that Felix the Arrian might be Bishop there too, they derided the suggestion, crying out, One God, one Christ, one Bishop. So Theodoret reports. But who lists to see more of this, may be satisfied (if plenty will do it) in In 1. Philip. S. Chrysostom, in 1 Philip. Theodoret, S. in 1 Philip. Hierom, in 1 Philip. Oecumenius, lib. 2. contr. Parmen. Optatus, S. in 1 Tim. 3. & in 1 Phil. Ambrose, Lib. 2. c. 11. and if he please he may read a whole book of it written by S. Cyprian, de Vnitate Ecclesiae, sive de singularitate Praelatorum.

6. Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been Parishes, yet what were the Metropolitans, and the Primates, were they also Parish-Bishops? Surely if Bishops were parochial, then these were at least Diocesan by their own argument, for to be sure they had many Bishops under them. But there were none such in the Primitive Church? yes most certainly. The 35. Canon of the Apostles tells us so, most plainly, and at the worst, they were a very primitive record. Episcopus gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus habeatur, quem velut caput existiment, & nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant, quàm ea sola quae parochiae propriae, & villis quae sub eâ sunt, competunt. The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their Primate, and esteem him as their head, and do nothing without his consent, but those things that appertain to their own Diocess. And from hence the Fathers of the Council of Antioch derived their sanction per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse Metropolitanum Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae gerere, Concil. Antio [...]h. c. 9. &c. The Bishops of every province must know that their Metropolitan-Bishop does take cure of all the province. For this was an Apostolical Constitution (saith S. Clement) that in the conversion of Gentile Cities in place of the Archslamines, Archbishops, Primates, Epist. 1. ad Jacobum Fratrem Domini. or Patriarchs should be placed, qui reliquorum Episcoporum judicia, & majora (quoties necesse foret) negotia in fide agitarent, & secundùm Dei voluntatem, sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli, definirent. vide Concil. Chalced. act. 1. in epist Alexandria was a Metropolitical See long before the Nicene Council, as appears in the sixth Canon before cited; Nay, Dioscorus the Bishop of that Church was required to bring ten of the Metropolitans that he [Page] had under him to the Council of Ephesus, by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperours, so that it was a Patriarchat.Theod. & Valentin. Imp.

These are enough to shew that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops. Now then either Bishops were Parochial, or no: If no, then they were Diocesan; if yea, then at least many of them were Diocesan, for they had (according to this rate) many Parochial Bishops under them. * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle, but as now adays it is made, the consideration of it is material to the main Question. Only this I add; That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his own, and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive, because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had only two towns in their charge, and no more, and each of these towns had in them 170 families, and were bound to have no more, how should this man be confuted? It was just such a device as this in them that first meant to disturb this Question, by pretending that the Bishops were only Parochial, not Diocesan, and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest. Most certainly, themselves could not believe the allegation, only they knew it would raise a dust. But by Gods providence, there is water enough in the Primitive fountains to allay it.

SECT. XLIV. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired.

ANOTHER consideration must here be interposed concerning the intervening of Presbyters in the regiment of the several Churches. For though I have twice already shown that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution, or Apostolical ordinance, yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primitive Church, for those men that call the Bishop a Pope, are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinals too, and to make every Diocess a Roman Consistory.

1. Then, the first thing we hear of Presbyters (after Scripture I mean, for of it I have already given account) is from the testimony of S. Hierome, Antequam studiain religione fierent, in Epist. ad Titum. cap. 1. & diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli &c. communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Before factions arose in the Church, the Church was governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters. Here S. Hierome either means it of the time before Bishops were constituted in particular Churches, or after Bishops were appointed. If before Bishops were appointed, no hurt done, the Presbyters might well rule in common, before themselves had a ruler appointed to govern both them and all the Diocess beside. For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch exhorts the Presbyters to feed the flock until God should declare [...] whom he would make their ruler. Epist. ad Antioch. Epist. 21. And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa and some other women that had made defailance in time of persecution, and so were put to penance, praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantisper sic esse, donec Episcopus constituatur. The Presbyters, whom sede vacante he praeter morem suum calls Praepositos, they gave order that they should so remain till the Consecration of a Bishop. * But, if S. Hierome means this saying of his, after Bishops were fixt, then his expression answers the allegation, for it was but communi Consilio Presbyterorum, the Judicium might be solely in the Bishop, he was the Judge, though the Presbyters were the counsellors. For so himself adds, that upon occasion of those first Schisms in Corinth, it was decreed in all the World, ut omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret, all the care of the Diocess was in the Bishop, and therefore all the power, for it was unimaginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop, and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters. * And so S. Ignatius stiles them, [ [...],] Assessors and Counsellors to the Bishop. But yet if we take our estimate from Ignatius, The Bishop is the Ruler, without him though all concurr'd, yet nothing could be done, nothing attempted; The Bishop was Superiour in all power and authority, He was to be obeyed in all things, and contradicted in nothing; The Bishops judgment was to sway, Ad Trullian. Ad Magnes. and nothing must seem pleasing to the Presbyters that was cross to the Bishops sentence: this, and a great deal more which I have formerly made use of, is in Ignatius; And now let their assistance and counsel extend [Page] as far as it will, the Bishops authority is invulnerable. But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierom's. Sect. thither I refer the Reader.

2. But S. Cyprian must do this business for us, if any man, for of all the Bishops, he did acts of the greatest condescention, and seeming declination of Episcopal authority. But let us see the worst. Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri—solus rescribere nihil potui, Epist. 6. quando à primordio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro, & sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere. And again, quamvis mihi videantur debere pacem accipere, tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi, Epist. 19. ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere. And a third time,Epist. 18. Quae res cùm omnium nostrum consilium & sententiam spectat, praejudicare ego & soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. These are the greatest steps of Episcopal humility that I find in Materiâ juridicâ; The sum whereof is this, that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence, and resolved to do nothing without their advice. But then, consider also, it was, statui apud me, I have resolved with my self to do nothing without your Counsel. It was no necessity ab extrà, no duty, no Sanction of holy Church that bound him to such a modesty, it was his own voluntary act. 2. It was as well Diaconorum, as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction, as appears by the titles of the sixth and eighteenth Epistles; Cyprianus Presbyteris, ac Diaconis fratribus salutem: So that here the Presbyters can no more challenge a power of regiment in common, than the Deacons by any Divine Law, or Catholick practice. 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too, and that will as well disturb the Jus Divinum of an independant Presbytery, as of an independant Episcopacy.

But indeed neither of them both need to be much troubled, for all this was voluntary in S. Cyprian, like Moses, qui cùm in potestate suâ habuit ut solus possit praeesse populo, in 1. ad Titum. seniores elegit (to use S. Hierome's expression) who when it was in his power alone to rule the people, yet chose seventy Elders for assistants. For as for S. Cyprian, this very Epistle clears it that no part of his Episcopal authority was impaired. For he shews what himself alone could do. Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ, & religione, quam satis novi, his literis & hortor & mando &c. I intreat and Command you—vice meâ sungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit, Be my substitutes in the administration of Church affairs. He intreats them pro dilectione, because they loved him, he Commands them pro religione, by their religion; for it was a piece of their religion to obey him, and in him was the government of his Church, else how could he have put the Presbyters, and Deacons in substitution?

* Add to this; It was the custome of the Church, that although the Bishop did only impose hands in the ordination of Clerks, yet the Clergy did approve, and examine the persons to be ordained, and it being a thing of publick interest, it was then not thought fit to be a personal action both in preparation, and ministration too (and for this S. Chrysostome was accused in Concilio nefario [as the title of the edition of it, expresses it] that he made ordinations [...]) yet when S. Cyprian saw occasion for it,Jus Graco Rom. pag. 556 he did ordain without the consent of the Clergy of his Church, for so he ordained Celerinus, so he ordained Optatus, and Saturnus, when himself was from his Church, and in great want of Clergy-men to assist in the ministration of the daily offices. *** He did as much in jurisdiction too, and censures; for himself did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus, and Repostus, and Irene, and Paula, as appears in his 38, and 39 Epistles; and tells Epist. 65. Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abused him by vertue of his Episcopal authority. And the same power singly, and solely, he exercised in his acts of favour and absolution; Vnus atque alius obnitente Plebe & contradicente,Epist. 55. mea tamen facilitate suscepti sunt. Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed, but yet the absolution said to be his own act, against the people and without the Clergy. For he alone was the Judge, insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schism and heresie that the Bishop was not obeyed, Nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos, ibidem. & ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur, and that one high Priest in a Church, and Judge instead of Christ is not admitted. So that the Bishop must be one, and that one must be Judge, and to acknowledge more, in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schism and heresie. Farther yet, this Judicatory of the Bishop is independant, and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit, & dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus, and again,Epist. 52. Epist. 72. habet in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus: rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. The Bishop is Lord of his own actions, and may do what seems good in his own eyes, and for his actions he is to account to Christ.

[Page]This general account is sufficient to satisfie the allegations out of the 6th, and 8th Epistles, and indeed, the whole Question. But for the 18th Epistle, there is something of peculiar answer. For first, it was a case of publick concernment, and therefore he would so comply with the publick interest as to do it by publick council. 2dly, It was a necessity of times that made this case peculiar. Necessitas temporum facit ut non temerè pacem demus, they are the first words of the next epistle, which is of the same matter; for if the lapsi had been easily, and without a publick and solemn trial reconcil'd, it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent, and Martyrdom but seldom. 3dly, The common-council which S. Cyprian here said he would expect, was the council of the Confessors, to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the publick assoyling of such penitents, who were overcome with those fears which the Confessors had overcome. So that this is evidently an act of positive, and temporary discipline; and as it is no disadvantage to the power of the Bishop, so to be sure, no advantage to the Presbyter. * But the clause of objection from the 19th epistle is yet unanswered, and that runs something higher, —tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere. It is called presumption to reconcile the penitents without the advice of those to whom he writ. But from this we are fairly delivered by the title. Cypriano, & Compresbyteris Carthagini consistentibus; Caldonius salutem. It was not the epistle of Cyprian to his Presbyters, but of Caldonius one of the suffragan Bishops of Numidia to his Metropolitan; and now, what wonder if he call it presumption to do an act of so publick consequence without the advice of his Metropolitan. He was bound to consult him by the Canons Apostolical, and so he did, and no harm done to the present Question, of the Bishops sole and independent power, and unmixt with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery, who had nothing to do beyond ministery, counsel, and assistance.

3. In all Churches where a Bishops seat was, there were not always a Colledge of Presbyters, but only in the greatest Churches; for sometime in the lesser Cities there were but two, Esse oportet, & aliquantos Presbyteros, ut bini sint per Ecclesias, & unus in civitate Episcopus, so S. Ambrose, sometimes there was but one in a Church. Post-humianus in the third Council of Carthage put the case.In 1 Tim. 3. Deinde qui unum [Presbyterum] habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? The Church of Hippo had but one. Valerius was the Bishop, and Austin was the Priest; and after him Austin was the Bishop, and Eradius the Priest. Sometimes not one, as in the case Aurelius put in the same Council now cited, of a Church that hath never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that died; and once at Hippo they had none, even then when the people snatch'd S. Austin and carried him to Valerius to be ordain'd. In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was Judge alone, I am sure he had but little company, sometimes none at all.

4. But suppose it had been always done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty,1 Tim. 1. and possibility of Scandal, for so S. Ambrose intimates, Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Concilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ (understand, in these Churches where Presbyters were fixt) yet this might be necessary, and was so indeed in some degree at first, which in succession as it prov'd troublesome to the Presbyters; so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops. At first I say it might be necessary. For they were times of persecutions, and temptation, and if both the Clergy and people too were not complied withal in such exigence of time, and agonies of spirit, it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilism; for a discontented spirit will hide it self, and take sanctuary in the reeds and mud of Nilus, rather than not take complacence in an imaginary security and revenge. 2dly, As yet there had been scarce any Synods to determine cases of publick difficulty, and what they could not receive from publick decision, it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Conciliary assistance, and deliberation. For although, by the Canons of the Apostles, Bishops were bound twice a year to celebrate Synods, yet persecution intervening, they were rather twice a year a [...] than [...], a dispersion than a Synod. 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles, yet it must be length of time, and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give general rules for the emergency of all particulars, and therefore till the Church grew of some considerable age, a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite than since it hath been, when the frequency of general Councils, and provincial Synods, and the peace of the Church, and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers, and Decretals of Bishops, [Page] and a digest of Ecclesiastical Constitutions, hath made the personal assistance of Presbyters unnecessary. 4. When necessity required not their presence and counsel, their own necessity required that they should attend their several cures. For let it be considered; they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop, whether they think of what follows. For either they must have Presbyters ordained without a title, which I am sure they have complained of these threescore years, or else they must be forced to Non-residence. For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary, and daily occurrencies of the Church, unless either they have no cure of their own, or else neglect it? And as for the extraordinary, either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan, or he may be assisted by a Synod, if the Canons already constituted do not aid him, but in all these cases the Presbyter is impertinent.

5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity, and after by custome it grew a Law; so now retrò, first the necessity failed, and then the desuetude abrogated the Law, which before, custome had established. [quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio] saith S. Ambrose, he knew not how it came to be obsolete, but so it was,Vbi suprà. it had expired before his time. Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches (I mean in Great ones) In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum, In Isai. 3. actum Presbyterorum, we have still (saith S. Hierome) in the Church our Senate, a Colledge, or Chapter of Presbyters, (he was then at Rome or Jerusalem) but they were not consulted in Church affairs, and matter of jurisdiction, that was it, that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to pass. And thus it is to this day. In our Mother-Churches we have a Chapter too, but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction, just so it was in S. Ambrose his time, and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular, the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the four general Councils, and therefore is no violation of a divine right, for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions, wherein so much sanctity, and authority, and Catholicism and severe discipline were conjunct; and then besides, it is no innovation in practice which pretends so fair antiquity, but however it was never otherwise than voluntary in the Bishops, and positive discipline in the Church, and conveniency in the thing for that present, and counsel in the Presbyters, and a trouble to the Presbyters persons, and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a particular charge.

* One thing more before I leave. I find a Canon of the Council of Hispalis objected. Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest, solus autem auferre non potest. Can. 6. A Bishop may alone ordain a Priest, a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest. Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures.

* To this I answer, first it is evident, that he that can give an honour can also take it away, if any body can; for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling down, than in raising up. It was wont always to be accounted easier; therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church, founded indeed upon good institution, but built upon no deeper foundation, neither of nature or higher institution, than its own present authority.

But that's enough, for we are not now in question of divine right, but of Catholick and Primitive practice. To it therefore I answer, that the conjunct hand required to pull down a Presbyter, was not the Chapter, or Colledge of Presbyters; but a company of Bishops, a Synodal sentence, and determination, for so the Canon runs, qui profecto nec ab uno damnari nec uno judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiis exui: sed praesentati Synodali Judicio, quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri. And the same thing was determined in the Greeks Council of Carthage. If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused, their own Bishop shall judge them,Can. 20. not alone but with the assistance of six Bishops more, in the case of a Presbyter; three of a Deacon; [...], But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must Alone hear and determine them. So that by this Canon, in some things the Bishop might not be alone, but then his assistants were Bishops, not Presbyters, in other things he alone was judge without either, and yet his sentences must not be clancular, but in open Court, in the full Chapter; for his Presbyters must be present; and so it is determined for Africa in the fourth Council of Carthage, Vt Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum: Can. 23. alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi praesentiâ Clericorum confirmetur. Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory [Page] was kept, lest the sentence should be clandestine, and so illegal, but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum, for it is, sententia Episcopi, The Bishops sentence, and the Clerks presence only; for [...], The Bishops Alone might give sentence in the causes of the inferiour Clergy, even by this Canon it self, which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdiction.

*** I know nothing now to hinder our process; for the Bishops jurisdiction is clearly left in his own hand, and the Presbyters had no share in it, but by delegation and voluntary assumption. Now I proceed in the main question.

SECT. XLV. So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary.

WE have seen what Episcopacy is in it self, now from the same principles let us see what it is to us. And first; Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary, even to the being and constitution of a Church. That runs high, but we must follow our leaders. Epist. ad Tral. S. Ignatius is express in this question. Qui intra altare est, mundus est, quare & obtemperat Episcopo, & sacerdotibus. Qui vero foris est hic is est, qui sine Episcopo, Sacerdote, & Diacono quicquam agit, & ejusmodi inquinatam habet conscientiam, & infideli deterior est. He that is within the Altar, that is, within the communion of the Church, he is pure, for he obeys the Bishop, and the Priests. But he that is without, that is, does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy, he hath a filthy conscience and is worse than an infidel. Necesse itaque est, quicquid facitis, ut sine Episcopo nihil faciatis. It is necessary that what ever ye doe, ye be sure to do nothing without the Bishop. Quid enim aliud est episcopus, &c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater than all power? So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian, and Catholick communion; he that does not, is worse than an Infidel. The same also he affirms again. Quotquot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi, qui vero ab illo declinant, & cum maledictis communionem amplectuntur, hi cum illis excidentur. All they that are on Christs side, are on the Bishops side, but they that communicate with accursed Schismaticks shall be cut off with them. Epist. ad Philadelph. If then we will be Christs servants, we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop. It is the condition of Christianity. We are not Christians else. So is the intimation of S. Ignatius. Epist. 27. & alibi. As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Lapsos, where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keys to S. Peter and the other Apostles, Inde (saith he) per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio, & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur. Hence is it, that by several successions of Bishops the Church is continued, so that the Church hath its being, or constitution by Bishops, and every act of Ecclesiastical regiment is to be disposed by them. Cum hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit, miror &c. Since therefore this is so established by the Law of God, I wonder any man should question it, &c. And therefore as in all buildings, the foundation being gone, the fabrick falls, so if ye take away Bishops, the Church must ask a writing of divorce from God, for it can no longer be called a Church. This account we have from S. Cyprian, and he reenforces again upon the same charge in his Epist. 69.Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum, where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the definition of a Church, [Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata, & pastori suo Grex adhaerens, The Church is a flock adhering to its Pastor, and a people united to their Bishop] for that so he means by Sacerdos, appears in the words subjoyned, Vnde & scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo, & si qui Cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse, & frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt, & latenter apud quosdam communicare se credunt &c. As a Bishop is in the Church, so the Church is in the Bishop, and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church; and therefore they vainly flatter themselves that think their case fair and good, if they communicate in conventicles, and forsake their Bishop.

And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident, and zealous for a Bishop, that they would rather expose themselves and all their tribes to a persecution, [Page] than to the greater misery, the want of Bishops. Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose.vide Concil. Byzacenum. An. Dom. 504 & Su [...]ium die 1 Januar. & Baron. in A. D. 504. When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa had made an edict that no more Bishops should be consecrate, to this purpose that the Catholick faith might expire (so he was sure it would, if this device were perfected) ut arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur, the good Bishops of the province met together in a Council, and having considered of the command of the Tyrant, Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanserant communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum, cogitantes aut regis iracundiam, si qua forsan existeret, mitigandam, quo facilius ordinati in suis plebibus viverent, aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur, coronandos etiam fidei confessione, quos dignos inveniebant promotione. It was full of bravery and Christian sprite. The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God, rather than man, and to consecrate Bishops in all places, hoping the King would be appeased, or if not, yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a fair disposition to receive a Crown of Martyrdome. They did so. Fit repente communis assumptio, and they all strived who should be first, and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost. They were sure they might go to heaven (though persecuted) under the conduct of a Bishop, they knew, without him the ordinary passage was obstructed.

Pius the first Bishop of Rome, and Martyr, speaking of them that calumniate,Epist. 2 and disgrace their Bishops, endeavouring to make them infamous, they add (saith he) evil to evil, and grow worse, non intelligentes quod Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit, & crescit in templum Dei; Not considering that the Church of God doth consist, or is establisht in Bishops, and grows up to a holy Temple? To him I am most willing to add S. Hierome, advers. Lucifer. cap. 4. because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet, The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity.

SECT. XLVI. For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop.

THE Reason which S. Hierome gives, presses this business to a further particular. For if an eminent dignity, and an unmatchable power be not given to him, tot efficicientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary, because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved; and we know that unity, and being, are of equal extent, and if the unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop, then where there is no Bishop, no pretence to a Church; and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatick. For unity which the Fathers press so often, they make to be dependant on the Bishop. Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos dirimere, sed Vnimini Episcopo, subjecti Deo per illum in Christo (saith S. Ignatius. Epist. ad Magnes.) Let nothing divide you, but be united to your Bishop, being subject to God in Christ through your Bishop. And it is his conge to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus, opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro Jesu Christo, in quo manete perunitatem Dei & Episcopi, Farewell in Christ Jesus, in whom remain by the Vnity of God and of the Bishop. Ad Ephes. Quantò vos beatiores judico qui dependetis ab illo [Episcopo] ut Ecclesia à Domino Jesu & Dominus à Patre suo, ut omnia per Vnitatem consentiant. Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop, as the Church on Christ, and Christ on God, that all things may consent in Vnity.

* Neque enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quàm inde quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos, S. Cyprian▪ ep. 55. & ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur. Hence come Schisms, hence spring Heresies that the Bishop is not obeyed, and admitted alone to be the high Priest, alone to be the Judge. The same S. Cyprian repeats again, and by it we may see his meaning clearer. Qui vos audit, Epist. 69. me audit &c. Inde enim haereses & schismata obortae sunt & oriuntur, dum Episcopus qui unus est, & Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur, & homo dignatione Dei honoratus, indignus hominibus judicatur. The pride and peevish haughtiness of some factious people that contemn their Bishops is the cause of all heresie and Schism. And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons, that any Man should have any meetings, or erect an Altar out of the communion of his [Page] Bishop, that if any man proved delinquent in this particular, he was punished with the highest censures, as appears in the 32. Canon of the Apostles, in the 6th Canon of the Council of Gangra, the 5th Canon of the Council of Antioch, and the great Council of Chalcedon, all which I have before cited. The sum is this, The Bishop is the band, and ligature of the Churches Unity;Act. 4. and separation from the Bishop is [...], as Theodorets expression is; a Symbol of faction, and he that separates is a Schismatick.

But how if the Bishop himself be a heretick, or schismatick? May we not then separate? Yes, if he be judged so by a Synod of Bishops, but then he is sure to be deposed too, and then in these cases no separation from a Bishop. For till he be declared so, his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his Diocess, lest they by so doing become their Judges Judge, and when he is declared so, no need of withdrawing from obedience to the Bishop, for the heretick, or schismatick must be no longer Bishop. * But let the case be what it will be, no separation from a Bishop, ut sic, can be lawful; and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawful to separate from a Bishop, yet in no case is it lawful to separate from Episcopacy; That is the quintessence, and spirit of schism, and a direct overthrow to Christianity, and a confronting of a Divine institution.

SECT. XLVII. And Hereticks.

BUT is it not also heresie? Aerius was condemned for heresie by the Catholick Church. The heresie from whence the Aerians were denominated was, sermo furiosus magis quàm humanae conditionis, & dicebat, Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum, nihil dissert hic ab illo. [...]aeres. 75. A mad, and unmanly heresie, to say that a Bishop, and a Priest are all one. So Epiphanius, Assumpsit autem Ecclesia, & in toto mundo assensus factus est, antequam esset Aerius, & qui ab ipso appellantur Aeriani. And the good Catholick Father is so angry at the heretick Aerius, that he thinks his name was given him by Providence, and he is called Aerius, aeriis spiritibus pravitatis, for he was possessed with an unclean spirit, he could never else have been the inventer of such heretical pravity. S. Austin also reckons him in the accursed roll of hereticks, and adds at the conclusion of his Catalogue, that he is no Catholick Christian that assents to any of the foregoing Doctrines, amongst which, this is one of the principal. Philastrius does as much for him.

But against this it will be objected. First, That heresies in the Primitive Catalogues are of a large extent, and every dissent from a publick opinion, was esteemed heresie. 2dly, Aerius was called heretick, for denying prayer for the dead. And why may he not be as blameless in equalling a Bishop and a Presbyter, as in that other, for which he also is condemned by Epiphanius, and Saint Austin. Thirdly, He was never condemned by any Council, and how then can he be called heretick?

I answer; that dissent from a publick, or a received opinion was never called heresie, unless the contrary truth was indeed a part of Catholick doctrine. For the Fathers many of them did so, as S. Austin from the Millenary opinion; yet none ever reckoned them in the Catalogues of hereticks; but such things only set them down there, which were either directly opposite to Catholick belief, though in minoribus articulis, or to a holy life. 2dly, It is true that Epiphanius and S. Austin reckon his denying prayer for the dead to be one of his own opinions, and heretical. But I cannot help it if they did, let him and them agree it, they are able to answer for themselves. But yet they accused him also of Arianism; and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no heresie, because the Fathers called him heretick in one particular upon a wrong principal? We may as well say this, as deny the other. 3dly, He was not condemned by any Council. No. For his heresie was ridiculous, and a scorn to all wise men; as Epiphanius observes, and it made no long continuance, neither had it any considerable party. * But yet this is certain, that Epiphanius and Philastrius, and S. Austin called this [Page] opinion of Aerius a heresy and against the Catholick belief. And themselves affirm that the Church did so; and then it would be considered, that it is but a sad imployment to revive old heresies, and make them a piece of the New religion.

And yet after all this, if I mistake not, although Aerius himself was so inconsiderable as not to be worthy noting in a Council, yet certainly the one half of his error is condemn'd for heresie in one of the four General Councils, viz. the first Council of Constantinople. Can. 6. [...]. We call all them hereticks whom the Ancient Church hath condemn'd, and whom we shall anathematize. Will not Aerius come under one of these titles for a condemn'd heretick? Then see forward. [...]. Here is enough for Aerius and all his hyperaspists, new and old: for the holy Council condemns them for hereticks who do indeed confess the true faith, but separate from their Bishops, and make conventicles apart from his Communion. Now this I the rather urge, because an Act of Parliament made 10 of Elizabeth does make this Council, and the other three of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the rule of judging heresies.

I end this particular with the saying of the Council of Paris against the Acephali (who were the branch of a Crabstock and something like Aerius,) cited by Burchard; lib. 2. decret. cap. 226. Nullâ ratione Clerici aut Sacerdotes habendi sunt, qui sub nullius Episcopi disciplinâ & providentiâ gubernantur. Tales enim Acephalos, id est, sine capite Priscae Ecclesiae consuetudo nuncupavit. They are by no means to be accounted Clergy-men, or Priests, that will not be governed by a Bishop. For such men the Primitive Church call'd [...], that is, headless, witless people.

This only. Acephali was the title of a Sect, a formal heresie, and condemn'd by the Ancient Church, say the Fathers of the Council of Paris. Now if we can learn exactly what they were, it may perhaps be another conviction for the necessity of Episcopal regiment. Nicephorus can best inform us. Eodem tempore, & Acephali, quorum dux Severus Antiochenus fuit, &c. lib. 18. ca. 45. Eccle. hist. Severus of Antioch was the first broacher of this heresy. But why were they called Acephali? id est, sine capitè, quem sequuntur haeretici; Nullus enim eorum reperitur author à quo exorti sunt (saith Isidore.) But this cannot be, for their head is known, Severus was the heresiarch. But then why are they called Acephali? Nicephorus gives this reason,lib. 8. cap. 5. Etymol. and withal a very particular account of their heresie, Acephali autem ob eam causam dicti sunt, quòd sub Episcopis non fuerunt. They refused to live under Bishops. Thence they had their name, what was their heresie? They denyed the distinction of Natures in Christ. That was one of their heresies, but they had more; for they were trium capitulorum in Chalcedone impugnatores, saith Isidore, they opposed three Canons of the Council of Chalcedon. One we have heard,Vt suprd. what their other heresies were, we do not so well know, but by the Canon of the Council of Paris, and the intimation of their name we are guided to the knowlege of a second; They refused to live under the government of a Bishop. And this also was impugnatio unius articuli in Chalcedone, for the eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon commands that the Clergy should be under Episcopal government. But these Acephali would not, they were Antiepiscopal men, and therefore they were condemn'd hereticks; condemn'd in the Council of Paris, of Sevil, and of Chalcedon.

But the more particular account that Nicephorus gives of them I will now insert, because it is of great use. Proinde Episcopis, & Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis, neque baptismus juxta solennem, at (que) receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratur, ne (que) oblatio, aut res aliqua divina facta, ministeriúmve Ecclesiasticum, sicuti mos est, celebratum est. Communionem verò illi à plurimo tempore asservatam habentes feriis pascalibus in minutissimas incisam partes convenientibus ad se hominibus dederunt. Quo tempore quam quisque voluisset placitam sibi sumebat potestatem. Et propterea quod quilibet, quod si visum esset, fidei insertum volebat, quamplurima defectorum, atque haereticorum turba exorta est. It is a story worthy observation. When any Bishop died they would have no other consecrated in succession, and therefore could have no more Priests when any of them died. But how then did they to baptize their Children? Why, they were fain to make shift, and do it without any Church-solemnity. But, how did they for the holy Sacrament, for that could not be consecrated without a Priest, and he not ordained without a Bishop? True, but therefore they, while they had a Bishop, got a great deal of bread consecrated, and kept a long time, and when Easter came, cut it into small bits, or crums rather, to make it go the farther, and gave it to their people. And must we do so too? God forbid. [Page] But how did they when all that was gone? For crummes would not last always. The story specifies it not, but yet I suppose they then got a Bishop for their necessity to help them to some more Priests, and some more crumms; for I find in the Council of Sevil the Fathers saying, Ingressus est ad nos quidam ex haeresi Acephalorum Episcopus; they had then it seems got a Bishop, Can. 12. but this they would seldome have, and never but when their necessity drave them to it. But was this all the inconvenience of the want of Bishops? No. For every man (saith Nicephorus) might do what he list, and if he had a mind to it, might put his fancy into the Creed, and thence came innumerable troops of Schismaticks and Hereticks. So that this device was one simple heresie in the root, but it was forty heresies in the fruit, and branches; clearly proving that want of Bishops is the cause of all Schism, and recreant opinions that are imaginable.

Epist. 3.I sum this up with the saying of S. Clement the Disciple of S. Peter, Si autem vobis Episcopis non obedierint omnes Presbyteri, &c. tribus, & linguae non obtemperaverit, non solùm infames, sed extorres à regno dei, & consortio fidelium, ac à limitibus Sancti Dei Ecclesiae alieni erunt. All Priests and Clergy-men, and people and Nations, and Languages that do not obey their Bishop, shall be shut forth of the communion of Holy Church here, and of Heaven hereafter. It runs high, but I cannot help it, I do but translate Ruffinus, as he before translated S. Clement.

SECT. XLVIII. And Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great Honour.

IT seems then we must have Bishops. But must we have Lord Bishops too? That is the question now, but such an one as the Primitive piety could never have imagined. For, could they, to whom Bishops were placed in a right and a true light, they who believed, and saw them to be the Fathers of their souls, the Guardian of their life and manners (as King Edgar call'd S. Dunstan) the guide of their consciences, the instruments and conveyances of all the blessings heaven uses to pour upon us, by the ministration of the holy Gospel; would they, that thought their lives a cheap exchange for a free, and open communion with a Catholick Bishop; would they have contested upon an aiery title, and the imaginary priviledge of an honour, which is far less than their spiritual dignity, but infinitely less than the burden, and charge of the souls of all their Diocess? Charity thinks nothing too much, and that love is but little, that grutches at the good words a Bishoprick carries with it.

However; let us see whether titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops, or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spiritual heraldry.

1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command. Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum, imaginem Dei referentem. Honour the Bishop as the image of God, as the Prince of Priests. Now since honour, and excellency are terms of mutual relation, and all excellency that is in men, and things, is but a ray of divine excellency; so far as they participate of God, so far they are honourable. Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead, and bears Gods image, certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable. And since honor est in honorante, it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself, but it tells us our duty, we must honour him, we must do him honour: and of all the honours in the world, that of words is the cheapest, and the least.

S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church, [...]. Let them be accounted worthy of double honour. And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one, an honour of Maintenance, the other must certainly be an honour of estimate, and that's cheapest. Can. 10. Graec. The Council of Sardis speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy, uses this expression, [...]. He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood, let him be advanced to the highest honour. Epist. 1. ad Jacobum. Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam, excusans me, & declinans honorem cathedrae, & potestatem, (saith S. Clement, when S. Peter would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chair.) But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the [Page] High-Priest, and then by analogy of the Bishop, who although he be a Minister in the Order of Melchisedech, yet he hath also the Honour of Aaron, Omnis enim Pontisex sacro crismate perunctus, & in civitate constitutus, & in Scripturis sacris conditus, charus & preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet. Every High-Priest ordained in the City (viz. a Bishop) ought forthwith to be dear and precious in the eyes of men. Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent, eique servire, & obedientes ad salutem suam fideliter existere, scientes quòd sive honor, sive injuria quae ei defertur, in Christum redundat▪ & à Christo in Deum. The Bishop is Christs Vicegerent, and therefore he is to be obeyed, knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop, it is done to Christ, and so to God. * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself? He that despiseth you despiseth me. If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest, then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ, yet what is done to the Bishop is far more, and then there is the same reason of the honour. And if so, then the Question will prove but an odd one; even this, Whether Christ be to be honoured or no, or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people? for if the Bishops be, then he is. This is the condition of the Question.

2. Consider we, that all Religions, and particularly all Christianity did give Titles of honour to their High-Priests and Bishops respectively. * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Jews, and how highly honourable Aaron was in proportion. Prophets were called [Lords] in holy Scripture. [Art not thou my Lord Elijah?] said Obadiah to the Prophet. [Knowest thou not that God will take thy Lord from thy head this day?] said the children in the Prophets Schools. So it was then. And in the new Testament we find a Prophet Honoured every where but in his own Country. And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given than was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation. Angels, and Governours, and Fathers of our Faith, and Stars, Apocal. 1. 1 Cor. 4. John 10. Lights of the World, the Crown of the Church, Apostles of Jesus Christ, nay, Gods, viz. to whom the Word of God came; and of the compellation of Apostles, particularly, Saint Hierom saith, that when Saint Paul called himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ, In Titum. it was as Magnifically spoken, as if he had said, Praefectus praetorio Augusts Caesaris, Magister exercitus Tiberii Imperatoris; And yet Bishops are Apostles, and so called in Scripture. I have proved that already.

Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee, forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles, in order to a Kingdom, and an earthly Principality. For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons, viz. fair honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdom; for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messias. To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis; And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners, as if they had meant to supplant the rest, and get the best preferment from them, to wit, in a temporal Kingdom. No, (saith our blessed Saviour) ye are all deceived. [The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority, and are called [...],Matth. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. Benefactors] so the word signifies, [Gracious Lords] so we read it, [But it shall not be so with you.] What shall not be so with them? shall not they exercise authority? [Who then is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord made Ruler over his Houshould?] Surely the Apostles or no body. Had Christ authority? Most certainly. Then so had the Apostles, for Christ gave them his, with a sicut misit me pater, &c. Well! the Apostles might, and we know they did exercise authority. What then shall not be so with them? Shall not they be called [...]? Indeed if Saint Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria, the Ptolomies, whose Honorary appellative that was, would have questioned him highly for it. But if we go to the sence of the word, the Apostles might be Benefactors, and therefore might be called so. But what then? Might they not be called Gratious Lords? The word would have done no hurt, if it had not been an Ensign of a secular Principality.

For as for the word [Lord] I know no more prohibition for that than for being called Rabbi, or Master, or Doctor, or Father. What shall we think now?Matth. 23.8, 9, 10. Ephes. 4. May we not be called Doctors? [God hath constituted in his Church Pastors and Doctors, saith Saint Paul.] Therefore we may be called so. But what of the other, the prohibition runs alike for all, as is evident in the several places of the Gospels, and may no man be called Master, or Father? Let an answer be thought on for these, and the same will serve for the other also without any sensible error. It is not the word, it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity, and an [Page]affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles. * And if we mark it, our Blessed Saviour points it out himself. [The Princes of the Nations [...], exercise authority over them, and are called Benefactors, [...]. It shall not be so with you. Not so? how? Not as the Princes of the Gentiles, for theirs is a temporal Regiment, your Apostolate must be Spiritual. They rule as Kings, you as fellow servants, [...]. He that will be first amongst you, let him be your Minister, or Servant; It seems then among Christs Disciples there may be a Superiority, when there is a Minister or servant? But it must be [...] that this greatness doth consist, it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in. But more particularly, it must be [...].Luke 22. It must not be [as the Princes of the Gentiles] but it must be [as the son of man] so Christ sayes expresly.John 13. And how was that? why, he came to Minister and to serve, and yet in the lowest act of his humility (the washing his Disciples feet) he told them, [ye call me Lord, and Master, and ye say well, for so I am. It may be so with you. Nay, it must be as the son of Man; But then, the being called Rabbi, or Lord, nay, the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio & regimine, in a spiritual superintendency, and [...], may stand with the humility of the Gospel, and office of Ministration.

So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word In locis ubi supra. [...], which signifies to rule with more than a political Regiment, even with an absolute and despotick, and is so used in holy Scripture, viz. in sequiorem partem. God gave authority to man over the creatures,Gen. 1. [...] is the word in the Septuagint, and we know the power that man hath over beasts, is to kill, and to keep alive. And thus to our blessed Saviour, the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by [...].Psal. 110. Psal. 2. And this we know how it must be exercised, [...] with a rod of iron, [...]. He shall break them in pieces like a potters vessel. That's [...], but it shall not be so with you.

But let this be as true as it will. The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticism. It is clear, that the form of Regiment only is distinguished, not all Regiment and authority taken away. [...], but [...], Not as the Kings of the Gentiles, but as the son of man; so must your Regiment be, for sicut misit me Pater, &c. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. It must be a government, not for your Impery, but for the service of the Church. So that it is not for your advancement, but the publick Ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers express the authority and regiment of Bishops. Homil. 6. in Isai. Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur, sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae (saith Origen.) And Saint Hierom; Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint, non Dominos; And yet Saint Hierom himself writing to Saint Austin calls him, Domine verè sancte, & suscipiende Papa. S. Bern. lib. 10. de considerat. Forma Apostolica haec est, Dominatio interdicitur, indicitur Ministratio. It is no Principality that the Apostles have, but it is a Ministery; a Ministery in chief, the Officers of which Ministration must govern and we must obey. They must govern, not in a temporal Regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy, but in a Spiritual, not for honour to the Rulers, so much as for benefit and service to the subject. So Saint Austin. Nomen est operis, Lib. 19. de civit. Dei. c. 19. non honoris, ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse. And in the fourteenth Chapter of the same Book, Qui imperant serviunt iis rebus quibus videntur Imperare. Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant, sed officio consulendi, nec principandi superbiâ, sed providendi misericordiâ. And all this is intimated in the prophetical visions, where the Regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man; and the Empire of the world by Beasts. The first is the Regiment of a Father, the second of a King. The first spiritual, the other secular. And of the fatherly authority it is that the Prophet sayes, Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children, whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands. This (say the Fathers) is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops, who may be [...], Princes or Rulers of Churches, not Princes of Kingdoms, by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate. But if this Ecclesiastical rule or chiefty be interdicted, I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters, the [...] in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves? How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place, though it be but temporary? For is it a sin if it continues, and no sin if it lasts but for a week? Or is it lawful to sin, and domineer, and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together? * But suppose it were, what will they say that are perpetual Dictators? Calvin was perpetual President, and Beza, till Danaeus came to Geneva, even for many years [Page] together? * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery, which is a fixt lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and Consistorial, and that over all Princes, and Ministers, and people, and that for ever? For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so, and not in the Presbytery? If it be lawful here, then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles, for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer, and (as they call it now adayes) to Lord it over their Brethren, when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern? But if the Apostles may govern, then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sons of Zebedee, and then also, their successors the Bishops may do the same.

If I had any further need of answer or escape, it were easie to pretend, that this being a particular directory to the Apostles, was to expire with their persons. So S. Cyprian intimates. Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti, & honoris, & dignitatis;De Vnitat. Eccles. and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors, but will be no wayes pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority. For inter se they might be equal, and yet superiour to the Presbyters and the people.

Lastly, [It shall not be so with you] so Christ said, Non designando officium, but Sortem, not their duty, but their lot; intimating that their future condition should not be honorary, but full of trouble, not advanc'd, but persecuted. But I had rather insist on the first answer; in which I desire it be remembred, that I said, seeking temporal Principality to be forbidden the Apostles, as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle. For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporal principalities as other men. Bishops ut sic are not secular Princes, must not seek for it; But some secular Princes may be Bishops, as in Germany and in other places to this day they are. For it is as unlawful for a Bishop to have any Land, as to have a Country, and a single Acre is no more due to the Order than a Province; but both these may be conjunct in the same person, though still by vertue of Christ's precept the functions and capacities must be distinguished; according to the saying of Synesius, [...]. To confound and intermix the Kingdom and the Priesthood, is to joyn things incompossible and inconsistent; Inconsistent (I say) not in person, but absolutely discrepant in function.

3. Consider we, that Saint Peter, when he speaks of the dutious subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham, he propounds her as an example to all married women, in these words, [She obeyed Abraham, and called him Lord] why was this spoken to Christian women, but that they should do so too? And is it imaginable that such an honourable compellation as Christ allows every woman to give to her Husband, a Mechanick, a hard-handed Artisan, he would forbid to those eminent Pillars of his Church, those Lights of Christendom, whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the Regiment of the Catholick Church. Credat Apella.

4. Pastor, and Father, are as honourable titles as any. They are honourable in Scripture. Honour thy Father, &c. Thy Father in all sences. They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings and Bishops, and that not only in secular addresses, but even in holy Scripture, as is known. Acts 15. Rom. 12. Hebr. 13. Add to this; [...], and [...] are used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church, and I am certain, that, Duke, and Captain, Rulers, and Commanders are but just the same in English that the other are in Greek, and the least of these is as much as [...], or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spiritual Regiment, and us'd words of secular honour to express it, as in the instances above, although Christ did interdict a secular principality, yet he forbad not a secular title; He us'd many himself.

5. The voice of the Spouse, the holy Church hath alwayes expressed their honourable estimate in reverential Compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bishops, and have taught us so to do. * Bishops were called Principes Ecclesiarum, Princes of the Churches. I had occasion to instance it in the question of jurisdiction. Indeed the third Councel of Carthage forbad the Bishop of Carthage to be called Princeps Sacerdotum, or summus sacerdos, or aliquid hujusmodi, but only primae sedis Episcopus. I know not what their meaning was, unless they would dictate a lesson of humility to their Primate, that he might remember the principality not to be so much in his person as in the See, for he might be called Bishop of the prime See. But whatsoever fancy they had at Carthage, I am sure it was a guise of Christendom, not to speak of Bishops sine praefatione honoris, but with honourable mention. [...], To our most blessed Lord. So the Letters were superscribed to Julius Bishop of Rome [Page] from some of his Brethren; in Sozomen. Let no man speak Untruths of me [...],Lib. 3. cap. 23. Epist. ad Greg. Nyssen. Theodoret. lib. 5. ca. 9. Nor of my Lords the Bishops, said Saint Gregory Nazianzen. The Synodical book of the Councel of Constantinople is inscribed Dominis Reverendissimis, ac piissimis Fratribus ac Collegis, Damaso, Ambrosio, &c. To our most Reverend Lords, and holy Brethren, &c. And the Councel of Illyricum sending their Synodal letters to the Bishops of Asia, Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 9. by Bishop Elpidius, Haec pluribus (say they) persequi non est visum, quòd miserimus unum ex omnibus, Dominum, & Collegam nostrum Elpidium, qui cognosceret, esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à Domino, & Collegâ nostro Eustathio. Our Lord and Brother Elpidius. Our Lord and Brother Eustathius. * The Oration in the Councel of Epaunum begins thus. Quod praecipientibus tantis Dominis meis ministerium proferendi sermonis assumo, &c. The Prolocutor took that office on him at the command of so many Great Lords the Bishops. * When the Church of Spain became Catholick, and abjured the Arian heresie, King Recaredus in the third Councel of Toledo made a speech to the Bishops, Non incognitum reor esse vobis, Reverendissimi, Sacerdotes, &c. Non credimus vestram latere Sanctitatem, &c. Vestra Cognovit Beatitudo, &c. Venerandi Patres, &c. And these often, Your Holiness, your Blessedness, Most Reverend, Venerable Fathers: Those were the Addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod. Thus it was when Spain grew Catholick, but not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian Records. They amongst them used but little Reverence to their Bishops. Theodor. lib. 1. c. 4. &c. 5. Athanas. Apolog. 2. Epist 17, 18.19. apud S. Augustin. But the instances of this kind are innumerable. Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity than to speak of Bishops with the titles of [...], Domine verè Sancte, & suscipiende Papa. So Saint Hierom a Presbyter to Saint Austin a Bishop. Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyteria major est, saith Saint Austin. Episcopacy is greater than the office and dignity of a Presbyter according to the Titles of Honour which the custom of the Church hath introduced. In Psal. 13. apud Baron. An. Dom. 58. n. 2. But I shall sum up these particulars in a total, which is thus expressed by Saint Chrysostom. Haeretici à Diabolo Honorum vocabula Episcopis non dare didicerunt. Hereticks have learned of the Devil not to give due titles of honour to Bishops. The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so. * For my own particular, I am confident that my Lords the Bishops do so undervalue any fastuous, or pompous title, that were not the duty of their people in it, they would as easily reject them, as it is our duty piously to use them. But if they still desire appellatives of honour, we must give them, they are their due, if they desire them not, they deserve them much more. So that either for their humility, or however for their works sake we must [highly honour them that have the rule over us] It is the precept of S. Paul, 1 Thess. 5.13. and S. Cyprian, observing how curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the Jews, even then when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell; he did it to teach us a duty. Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros Legitime & plene honorari dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit. Epist. 65. It is the argument he uses to procure a full honour to the Bishop.

* To these I add; If sitting in a Throne even above the seat of Elders be a title of a great dignity, then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishops Chair a Throne, and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church an Inthronization. Quando Inthronizantur propter communem utilitatem Episcopi, &c. saith Pope Anterus in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo. Inthroning is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop. Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesiis excelsae constitutae & praeparatae, Epist. decret. ut Thronus speculationem & potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent, (saith Vrban.) And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero, [...],Epist. ad Heron. I trust that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my Throne.

** The sum of all is this. Bishops if they must be at all, most certainly must be beloved, it is our duties, and their work deserves it. Saint Paul was as dear to the Galatians as their eyes, and it is true eternally, Formosi pedes Evangelizantium, the feet of the Preachers of the Gospel are beauteous, and then much more of the chief.Vrban. ibid. Ideo ista praetulimus (charissimi) ut intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum, in eisque Deum veneremini & eos ut animas vestras diligatis, ut quibus illi non communicant, non communicetis, &c. Now, love to our Superiours is ever honourable, for it is more than amicitia, that's amongst Peers, but love to our Betters, is Reverence, Obedience, and high Estimate. And if we have the one, the dispute about the other would be a meer impertinence.Epist. ad M [...]gnes. I end this with the saying of Saint Ignatius, Et vos dec [...]t non contemnere aetatem Episcopi, sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium omnem [Page] illi impertiri Reverentiam. It is the will of God the Father, that we should give all Reverence, Honour, or veneration to our Bishops.

SECT. XLIX. And trusted with Affairs of Secular interest.

WELL! However things are now, it was otherwise in the old Religion; for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honoured with so great degrees of approximation to himself in power and authority. But then also they went further. For they thought whom God had intrusted with their souls, they might with an equal confidence trust with their personal actions and imployments of greatest trust.

For it was great consideration that they who were Antistites religionis, the Doctors, and great Dictators of faith and conscience, should be the composers of those affairs, in whose determination, a Divine wisdom, and interests of Conscience, and the authority of Religion were the best ingredients.

But it is worth observing how the Church and the Commonwealth did actions contrary to each other, in pursuance of their several interests. The Commonwealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes, and the confidence of their own people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for fair issue, upon such good grounds as they might fairly expect from the Bishops Abilities, Authority and Religion: But on the other side, the Church did as much decline them as she could, and made Sanctions against it so far as she might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people, and ingaging the secular arm to their own assistance. But this we shall see by consideration of particulars.

1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment. Saint Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle, as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the office of a Bishop. And it is hard, if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republick, which must be indulged to a private, personal necessity. But we have not Saint Paul's example only, but his rule too, according to Primitive exposition.1 Cor. 6. [Dare any of you having a matter before another go to Law before the unjust, and not before the Saints? If then ye have judgment of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church.] Who are they? The Clergy, I am sure, now adayes. But Saint Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously. Let the Ministers of the Church be the Judges. In hunc locum. For by [least esteemed] he could not mean the most ignorant of the Laity, they would most certainly have done very strange justice, especially in such causes which they understand not. No, but set them to judge who by their office are Servants, and Ministers of all, and those are the Clergy, who (as Saint Paul's expression is) Preach not themselves, but Jesus to be the Lord, and themselves your servants for Jesus sake. Meliùs dicit apud Dei ministros agere causam. Yea, but Saint Paul's expression seems to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling. [Is there not one wise man among you that is able to judge between his Brethren?] Why Brethren, if Bishops and Priests were to be the Judges, they are Fathers? The objection is not worth the noting, but only for Saint Ambrose his answer to it. Ideò autem fratrem Judicem eligendum dicit, qui adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus. Vide etiam August. de opere Monarch. ca. 29. Saint Paul us'd the word [Brethren] for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church, intimating that the Bishop was to be the man, though till then, in subsidium a prudent Christian man might be imployed.

2. The Church did alwayes forbid to Clergy-men a voluntary Assumption of ingagements in Rebus Saeculi. So the sixth Canon of the Apostles, [...]. A Bishop, Can. 7. Latin. and a Priest, and a Deacon, must not assume, or take on himself worldly cares. Vide Zonar▪ in Can. Apostol. If he does, let him be depos'd. Here the Prohibition is general, No worldly cares. Not domestick. But how if they come on him by Divine imposition, or accident? That's nothing, if he does not assume them; that is, by his voluntary [Page] act acquire his own trouble. So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience, indeed it is trouble to him, but no sin. But if he seeks it for it self it is ambition. In this sence also must the following Canon be understood. [...]. A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian, viz ▪ of secular trust, that is, must not seek a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship.

3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends, not precisely the imployment it self, but the illness of the intention, and this indeed she expresly forbids in her Canons. Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. can. 3. Pervenit ad Sanctam 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, Can. 14. 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: Epist. 66. 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,Vide Synod. Roman. sub Sylvestr. c. 4. Concil. Chalced. c. 26. & Zonar. ibid. 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. Justin. Martyr Apolog. 2. 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,[Page]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,Apud Burchard. lib. 2. decret. cap. 99. 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 on Embassies [sicut hactenus factum est.] 2. The Canon forbids the indiscreet or promiscuous doing of it; not that men of great ability and choice be not imployed, but that there be discretion or discerning in the choice of the men, viz. that such men be chosen whose particular worth did by advancing the legation make compensation for absence from their Churches; and then I am sure there was no indiscretion in the Embassy, quoad hoc at least; for the ordinary Offices of the Church might be dispensed by men of even abilities, but the extraordinary affairs of both states require men of an heightned apprehension. 3. The Canon only took care that the cure of the souls of a Parish be not relinquished, for so is the title of the Canon, Ne Presbyteri causâ legationis per diversa mittantur loca, curâ animarum relictâ. But then if the cure be supplied by delegation, the fears of the Canon are prevented.

* In pursuance of this consideration the Church forbad Clergy-men to receive honour, or secular preferment; and so it is expressed where the prohibition is made. It is in the Councel of Chalcedon. Qui semel in clero deputati sunt, Part. Act. 15. Can. 7. aut Monachorum vitam expetiverunt, statuimus neque ad militiam, neque ad dignitatem aliquam venire mundanam. That's the inhibition; But the Canon subjoyns a temper; Aut hoc tentantes & non agentes poenitentiam, quo minùs redeant ad hoc quod propter deum primitùs elegerunt, anathematizari, they must not turn Souldiers, or enter upon any worldly dignity to make them leave their function, which for the honour of God they have first chosen: for then, it seems, he that took on him military honours, or secular prefectures, or consular dignity, could not officiate in holy Orders, but must renounce them to assume the other: It was in obstruction of this abuse that the Canon directed its prohibition, viz. in this sence clearly, that a Clerk must not so take on him secular Offices, as to make him redire in saeculum, having put his hand to the plow, to look back, to change his profession, or to relinquish the Church, and make her become a Widow. The case of S. Matthew and S. Peter distinguish and clear this business. Ecce reliquimus omnia, was the profession of their Clerical office. S. Matthew could not return to his trade of Publican at all, for that would have taken him from his Apostolate. But S. Peter might and did return to his nets, for all his reliqui omnia. Plainly telling us that a secular calling, a continued fix'd attendance on a business of the world, is an impediment to the Clerical office and ministration, but not a temporary imployment or secession.

[Page]5. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid the cares of houshold, as the cares of publick imployment to Bishops. So the fourth Councel of Carthage decrees. Vt Episcopus nullam rei familiaris curam ad se revocet, Can. 20. sed lectioni, & orationi, & verbi Dei praedicationi tantummodò vacet. Now if this Canon be confronted with that saying of Saint Paul, [He that provides not for them of his own houshold is worse than an Infidel] it will easily inform us of the Churches intention. For they must provide, saith Saint Paul, but yet so provide as not to hinder their imployment, or else they transgress the Canon of the Councel; but this caveat may be as well entred, and observed in things Political as Oeconomical.

Thus far we have seen what the Church hath done in pursuance of her own interest, and that was that she might with sanctity, and without distraction, tend her Grand imployment; but yet many cases did occurr in which she did canonically permit an alienation of imployment, and revocation of some persons from an assiduity of Ecclesiastical attendance, as in the case of the seven set over the Widows, and of Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, and all the Apostles and the Canon of Chalcedon.

Now let us see how the Commonwealth also pursued her interest, and because she found Bishops men of Religion and great trust, and confident abilities, there was no reason that the Commonwealth should be disserv'd in the promotion of able men to a Bishops throne. * Who would have made recompence to the Emperour for depriving him of Ambrose his Prefect, if Episcopal promotion had made him incapable of serving his Prince in any great Negotiation? It was a remarkable passage in Ignatius, [...].Epist. ad Ephes. As our Lord is to be observ'd, so also must we observe the Bishop, because he assists and serves the Lord. And wisemen, and of great understanding must serve Kings, for he must not be served with men of small parts. Here either Ignatius commends Bishops to the service of Kings, or else propounds them as the fittest men in the world to do them service. For if only men of great abilities are fit to serve Kings, surely as great abilities are required to inable a man for the service of God in so peculiar manner of approximation. He then that is fit to be a Bishop, is most certainly fit for the service of his King. This is the sence of Ignatius his di [...]course.

For consider, Christianity might be suspected for a design; and if the Church should chuse the best and most pregnant Understandings for her imployment, and then these men become incapable of aiding the Republick, the promotion of these men would be an injury to those Princes whose affairs would need support. * The interest of the Subjects also is considerable. For we find by experience, that no Authority is so full of regiment, and will so finely force obedience, as that which is seated in the Conscience; And therefore Numa Pompilius made his Laws and imposed them with a face of religious solemnity. For the people are stronger than any one Governour, and were they not awed by Religion, would quickly miscere Sacra prophanis, jumble Heaven and Earth into a miscellany, and therefore not only in the Sanction of Laws, but in the execution of them, the Antistites Religionis are the most competent instruments; and this was not only in all Religions that ever were, and in ours ever till now, but even now we should quickly find it, were but our Bishops in that veneration and esteem that by the Law of God they ought, and that actually they were in the Calenture of primitive devotion, and that the Doctors of Religion were ever even amongst the most barbarous and untaught Pagans.

Upon the confidence of these advantages, both the Emperours themselves, when they first became Christian, allowed appeals from secular Tribunals to the Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 9. Bishops Consistory, even in causes of secular interest, and the people would chuse to have their difficulties there ended whence they expected the issues of Justice and Religion, * I say this was done as soon as ever the Emperours were Christian. Before this time, Bishops, and Priests (to be sure) could not be imployed in state affairs, they were odious for their Christianity; and then no wonder if the Church forbad secular imployment in meaner offices, the attendance on which could by no means make recompence for the least avocation of them from their Church-imployment. So that it was not only the avocation but the sordidness of the imployment that was prohibited the Clergy in the Constitutions of holy Church. But as soon as ever their imployment might be such as to make compensation for a temporary secession, neither Church nor State did then prohibit it; And that was as soon as ever the Princes were Christian, for then immediately the Bishops were imployed in honorary negotiations. It was evident in the case of Saint Ambrose, For the Church of Millaine had him for their [Page] Bishop, and the Emperour had him one of his Prefects, and the people their judge in causes of secular cognizance. For when he was chosen Bishop, the Emperour, who was present at the election, cried out, Gratias tibi ago Domine —quoniam huic viro ego quidem commisi corpora; tu autem animas, Tripart. hist. lib. 7. cap. 8. & meam electionem ostendisti tuae justitiae convenire. So that he was Bishop and Governour of Millaine at the same time; And therefore by reason of both these Offices, Saint Austin was forced to attend a good while before he could find him at leisure. Non enim quaerere ab eo poteram quod volebat sicut volebam, secludentibus me ab ejus aure, S. August lib. 6. Confess. cap. 4. Epist. 110. atque ore catervis negotiosorum hominum, quorum infirmitatibus serviebat. And it was his own condition too, when he came to sit in the chair of Hippo; Non permittor ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem; post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor. And again,Epist. 147. Et homines quidam causas suas saeculares apud nos finire cupientes, quando eis necessarii suerimus, sic nos Sanctos, & Dei servos appellant, ut negotia terrae suae peragant. Aliquando & agamus negotium salutis nostrae & salutis ipsorum, non de auro, non de argento, non de fundis, & pecoribus, pro quibus rebus quotidiè submisso capite salutamur ut dissensiones hominum terminemus. It was almost the business of every day to him, to judge causes concerning Gold, and Silver, Cattel, and Glebe, and all appurtenances of this life. This S. Austin would not have done if it had not been lawful, so we are to suppose in charity; but yet this we are sure of, Saint Austin thought it not only lawful, but a part of his duty, [quibus nos molestiis idem affixit Apostolus, and that by the authority, not of himself,De opere Monach. cap. 29. but of him that spake within him, even the Holy Ghost:] so he.

Thus also it was usual for Princes in the Primitive Church to send Bishops their Embassadours. Constans the Emperour sent two Bishops chosen out of the Councel of Sardis together with Salianus the Great Master of his Army to Constantius. Tripart. hist. lib. 4. cap. 25. Lib. 10. cap. 6. ibid. Lib. 11. cap. 8▪ ibid. Lib. 5. Epist. Ambrose 33. Euseb. lib. 8. cap. 1. Saint Chrysostom was sent Embassadour to Gainas. Maruthus the Bishop of Mesopotamia was sent Embassadour from the Emperour to Isdigerdes the King of Persia. Saint Ambrose from Valentinian the younger to the Tyrant Maximus. * Dorotheus was a Bishop and a Chamberlain to the Emperour. Many more examples there are of the concurrence of the Episcopal office, and a secular dignity or imployment. Now then consider. * The Church did not, might not challenge any secular honour, or imployment by vertue of her Ecclesiastical dignity precisely. 2. The Church might not be ambitious, or indagative of such imployment. 3. The Churches interest abstractly considered was not promoted by such imployment, but where there was no greater way of compensation, was interrupted and depressed. 4. The Church (though in some cases she was allowed to make secession, yet) might not relinquish her own charge to intervene in anothers aid. 5. The Church did by no means suffer her Clerks to undertake any low secular imployment, much more did she forbid all sordid ends, and covetous designs. 6. The Bishop or his Clerks might ever do any action of piety, though of secular burden. Clerks were never forbidden to read Grammar or Philosophy to youth, to be Masters of Schools, of Hospitals, they might reconcile their Neighbours that were fallen out, about a personal trespass, or real action, and yet since now adayes a Clergy-mans imploment and capacity is bounded within his Pulpit, or Reading-desk, or his Study of Divinity at most, these that I have reckoned are as verily secular as any thing, and yet no Law of Christendom ever prohibited any of these, or any of the like nature to the Clergy, nor any thing that is ingenuous, that is fit for a Scholar, that requires either fineness of parts, or great learning, or over-ruling authority, or exemplary piety. 7. Clergy-men might do any thing that was imposed on them by their Superiours. 8. The Bishops and Priests were men of great ability and surest confidence for determinations of Justice, in which, Religion was ever the strongest binder. And therefore the Princes and People sometimes forced the Bishops from their own interest to serve the Commonwealth, and in it they served themselves directly, and by consequence too, the Church had not only a sustentation from the secular Arm, but an addition of honour and secular advantages, and all this warranted by precedent of Scripture, and the practice of the Primitive Church, and particularly of men whom all succeeding Ages have put into the Calender of Saints. * So that it would be considered, that all this while it is the Kings interest and the Peoples that is pleaded, when we assert a capacity to the Bishops to undertake charges of publick trust. It is no addition to the calling of Bishops. It serves the King, it assists the Republick, and in such a plethory, and almost a surfet of Clergy-men as this Age is supplied with, it can be no disservice to the Church, whose daily Offices may be plentifully supplied by Vicars, and for the temporary avocation of some few, abundant recompence is made to the [Page] Church (which is not at all injured) by becoming an occasion of indearing the Church to those whose aid she is.

Epist. 84. There is an admirable Epistle written by Petrus Blesensis in the name of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to Pope Alexander the third in the defence of the Bishop of Ely, Winchester and Norwich that attended the Court upon service of the King. Non est novum (saith he) quòd Regum Consiliis intersint Episcopi. Sicum enim honestate, & sapientiâ caeteros antecedunt, sic expeditiores, & efficaciores in reip. administratione censentur. Quia sicut Scriptum est [minùs salubriter disponitur regnum, quod non regitur consilio sapientum] In quo notatur eos consiliis Regum debere assistere, qui sciant & velint, & possint patientibus compati, paci terrae, ac populi saluti prospicere, erudire ad justitiam Reges, imminentibus occursare periculis, vitaeque maturioris exemplis informare subditos & quâdam authoritate potestativâ praesumptionem malignantium cohibere. It is no new thing for Bishops to be Counsellors to Princes (saith he) their wisdom and piety that enables them for a Bishoprick proclaims them fit Instruments to promote the publick tranquillity of the Commonwealth. They know how to comply with oppressed people, to advance designs of peace and publick security; It is their office to instruct the King to righteousness, by their sanctity to be a rule to the Court, and to diffuse their exemplary piety over the body of the Kingdom, to mix influences of Religion with designs of State, to make them have as much of the Dove as of the Serpent, and by the advantage of their Religious authority to restrain the malignity of accursed people in whom any image of a God or of Religion is remaining. * He proceeds in the discourse and brings the examples of Samuel, Isaiah, Elisha, Jojada, Zacharias, who were Priests and Prophets respectively, and yet imployed in Princes Courts, and Councels of Kings, and adds this; Vnum noveritis, quia nisi familiares, & Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi supra dorsum Ecclesiae hodiè fabricarent peccatores, & immaniter, ac intolerabiliter opprimeret Clerum praesumptio Laicalis. That's most true. If the Church had not the advantage of additional honorary imployments, the plowers would plow upon the Churches back and make long furrows. * The whole Epistle is worth transcribing, but I shall content my self with this summary of the advantages which are acquired both to Policy and Religion by the imployment of Bishops in Princes Courts. Istis mediantibis mansuescit circa simplices judiciarius rigor, admittitur clamor pauperum, Ecclesiarum dignitas erigitur, relevatur pauperum indigentia, firmatur in clero libertas, pax in populis, in monasteriis quies, justitia liberè exercetur, superbia opprimitur, augetur Laicorum devotio, religio fovetur, diriguntur judicia, &c. When pious Bishops are imployed in Princes Councils, then the rigour of the Laws is abated, equity introduced, the cry of the poor is heard, their necessities are made known, the liberties of the Church are conserved, the peace of Kingdoms laboured for, pride is depressed, Religion increaseth, the devotion of the Laity multiplies, and Tribunals are made just, and incorrupt, and merciful. Thus far Petrus Blesensis. * These are the effects, which though perhaps they do not alwayes fall out, yet these things may in expectation of reason be looked for from the Clergy, their principles and calling promises all this. Et quia in Ecclesiâ magis lex est, ubi Dominus legis timetur, meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam. Faciliùs enim Dei timore sententiam legis veram promunt;In 1 Cor. 6. (saith Saint Ambrose,) and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be imployed. But if personal defaillance be thought reasonable to disimploy the whole calling, then neither Clergy nor Laity should ever serve a Prince.

And now we are easily driven into an understanding of that saying of Saint Paul, [No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life. 2 Tim. 2.4.] For although this be spoken of all Christian people, and concerns the Laity in their proportion as much as the Clergy, yet nor one nor the other is interdicted any thing that is not a direct hinderance to their own precise duty of Christianity. And such things must be par'd away from the Fringes of the Laity, as well as the long Robe of the Clergy. But if we should consider how little we have now left for the imployment of a Bishop, I am afraid a Bishop would scarce seem to be a necessary function, so far would it be from being hindered by the collateral intervening of a Lay-judicature. I need not instance in any particulars; for if the judging matters and questions of Religion be not left alone to them, they may well be put into a temporal imployment, to preserve them from suspicion of doing nothing.

I have now done with this; only intreating this to be considered. Is not the King fons utriusque jurisdictionis? In all the sences of Common-law and external compulsory he is. But if so, then why may not the King as well make Clergy-Judges, as [Page] Lay-Delegates? For (to be sure) if there be an incapacity in the Clergy of medling with secular affairs, there is the same at least in the Laity of medling with Church affairs. For if the Clergy be above the affairs of the world, then the Laity are under the affairs of the Church; or else, if the Clergy be incapable of Lay-business because it is of a different and disparate nature from the Church, does not the same argument exclude the Laity from intervening in Church affairs? For the Church differs no more from the Commonwealth than the Commonwealth differs from the Church. And now after all this, suppose a King should command a Bishop to go on Embassy to a forreign Prince, to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification, if the Bishop refuse, did he do the duty of a Subject? If yea, I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop ows to his Prince, when he shall not be bound to obey him in any thing but the saying and doing of his office, to which he is obliged, whether the Prince commands him yea or no. But if no, then the Bishop was tyed to go, and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such imployment, for no man can be bound to do a sin.

SECT. L. And therefore were inforced to delegate the power and put others in substitution.

BUT then did not this imployment, when the occasions were great and extraordinary, force the Bishops to a temporary absence? And what remedy was there for that? For the Church is not to be left destitute, that's agreed on by all the Canons. They must not be like the Sicilian Bishops whom Petrus Blesensis complains of, that attended the Court, and never visited their Churches, or took care either of the cure of souls, or of the Church possessions. What then must be done? The Bishops in such cases may give delegation of their power and offices to others, though now adayes they are complain'd of for their care. I say, for their care; For if they may intervene in secular affairs, they may sometimes be absent, and then they must delegate their power, or leave the Church without a Curate. *** But for this matter the account need not be long. For since I have proved that the whole Diocess is in cura Episcopali, and for all of it he is responsive to God Almighty, and yet that instant necessity and the publick act of Christendom hath ratified it, that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishops charge as there are Parishes in his Diocess, [...] which is pretended for delegation of Episcopal charge, is no less than the act of all Christendom. For it is evident at first, Presbyters had no distinct cure at all, but were in common assistant to the Bishop, and were his Emissaries for the gaining souls in City or Suburbs; But when the Bishops divided Parishes, and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure, so many Parishes as they distinguished, so many delegations they made; And these we all believe to be good both in Law and Conscience. For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria (saith Saint Denis,) he does not do the offices of his Order by himself only,Eccles. hierar. c. 5. but by others also, for all the inferiour Orders do so operate, as by them he does his proper offices.

* But besides this grand act of the Bishops first, and then of all Christendom in consent, we have fair precedent in Saint Paul; for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person. It was a plain delegation; for he commanded them to do it, and gave them his own spirit, that is, his own authority; and indeed without it, I scarce find how the Delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sence of the Apostolick Church, that is, to be buffetted, for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick.

* When Saint Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus, he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar. [Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly, for Demas hath forsaken me, &c.2 Tim. 4. v. 9▪ & 12. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus] Here was an express delegation of the power of jurisdiction [Page] to Tychicus, who for the time was Curate to Saint Timothy. Epaphroditus for a while attended on Saint Paul, although he was then Bishop of Philippi, and either Saint Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution,Phil. 2. v. 25, 26. or the Church was relinquished, for he was most certainly non-resident.

* Thus also we find that Saint Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom.Epist. ad Antioch. Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est, donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est. Ye Presbyters do you feed the Flock till God shall design you a Bishop. Till then. Therefore it was but a delegate power, it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour. Can. 56. To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council. Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi, & sedere in tribunalibus, nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus, aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit. Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop, unless the Bishop be sick, or absent. So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church, that may be committed to others in his absence. And to this purpose Saint Cyprian sent a plain Commission to his Presbyters.Epist. 9. Fretus ergo dilectione & religione vostrâ— his literis hortor, & mando ut vos Vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adiministratio religiosa deposcit. I intreat and command you, that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church; and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius, Eiist. 31. & 39. haeres. 68. two of his Suffragans, together with Rogatianus and Numidicus, two Priests, in substitution for the excommunicating Foelicissimus and four more, [Cùm ego vos pro me Vicarios miserim.] So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius. Videbatur autem & Melitius praemenire, &c. ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu, velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens, & sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans. He did Church offices under and for Hierocles: And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council or Primitive Father against a Bishops giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation.

* Hitherto also may be referr'd, that when the goods of all the Church, which then were of a perplex and busie dispensation, were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopal function, yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a Steward, provided he were a Clergy-man; and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbad any Lay-men to be Stewards for the Church.Concil. Hispal. cap. 6. Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat. But the reason extends the Canon further. Indecorum est enim laicum Vicarium esse Episcopi, & Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare. Vicars of Bishops the Canon allows, only forbids Lay-men to be Vicars. In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio, quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur, &c. In one and the same office the Law of God forbids to joyn men of disparate capacities. Then this would be considered. For the Canon pretends Scripture, Precepts of Fathers, and Tradition of Antiquity for its Sanction.

SECT. LI. But they were ever Clergy-men, for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church.

FOR although Antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars, yet these Vicars and Delegates must be Priests at least. Melitius was a Biship, and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria; so were Herculanus and Caldonius to Saint Cyprian. But they never delegated to any Lay-man any part of their Episcopal power precisely. Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people, I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity, by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas, when his Clerks grew covetous, he cur'd their itch of Gold, by trusting men of another profession, so to shame them into justice and contempt of money. Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 37. Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc▪ Ecclesiasticam rem aut [Page] Laicali procuratione administrandam elegerit —non solùm à Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus, sed etiam & Concilio manebit obnoxius. Concil. H [...]spal. ubi supra. If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to Lay-Administration, he shall be responsive to Christ, and in danger of the Council. But the Thing was of more ancient constitution. For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of Saint Clement, Epist. ad Jacob. Fratr. Dom. which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the Author of it, it is decreed, Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se, apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur, sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur. If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial contestation, let it be ended before the Priests. For so Saint Clement expounds [Presbyteros] in the same Epistle, reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy. De 7. Ordin. Eccles. To this or some parallel constitution Saint Hierom relates, saying that [Priests from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes.] He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops, and they were Judges ab initio, from the beginning (saith S. Hierom.) So that the saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishops authority, but it excludes the assistance of Lay-men from their Consistories. Presbyter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom, but they are alwayes Clergy with him and all men else.

* But for the main Question,Epist. 13. ad Valent. Saint Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence and humility, In causa fidei, vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere, qui nec Munere impar sit, nec jure dissimilis. The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare, That Clergy-men must only judge of Clergy-causes; and this Saint Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale, The Bishops judicature. Si tractandum est, tractare in Ecclesiâ didici, quod Majores fecerunt mei. Si conferendum de fide, Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio, sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe. So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical Order are to be handled in the Church, and that by Bishops, and that sub Imperatore, by permission and authority of the Prince. For so it was in Nice under Constantine. Thus far Saint Ambrose.

* Saint Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba, Epist. ad So. litar. President in the Nicene Council, said, it was the abomination of desolation that a Lay-man shall be Judge in Ecclesiasticis judiciis, in Church-causes; And Leontius calls Church-affairs, Res alienas à Laicis, things of another Court, of a distinct cognisance from the Laity. Suidas in vltâ Leontii. To these add the Council of Venice, for it is very considerable in this Question.Can. 9. A. D. 453. Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat. Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium coeperit habere suspectum, aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio, aliorum Episcoporum audientiam, non saecularium potestatum debebit ambire. Aliter à communione habeatur alienus. Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants, but the Bishop, unless the Bishop be appealed from, then other Bishops must hear the cause, but no Lay-Judges by any means.

* These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperial Edict, for so Justinian commanded,Novell. constit. 123. that in causes Ecclesiastical secular Judges should have no interest, Sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat. The Bishop according to the sacred Canons must be the sole Judge of Church-matters. Lib. 7. epist. 66. I end this with the decretal of Saint Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church. Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ, ne saecularibus viris, atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur. Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any wayes concredited to secular persons. But of this I have twice spoken already. Sect. 36. and Sect. 41.

The thing is so evident, that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church. It was against their faith, it was against their practice; and those few pigmy objections, out of Tertull. Apol. c. 33. S. Ambros. in 1 Tim. 5.1. & lib. 1. de offic. c. 20. S. August. lib. 3. contra Crescon. & Epist. 137. Tertullian, S. Ambrose, and S. Austin using the word Seniores, or Elders, sometimes for Priests, as being the Latine for the Greek [...], sometimes for a secular Magistrate, or Alderman, (for I think Saint Austin did so in his third Book against Cresconius) are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four; for to pretend such slight, aery imaginations against the constant, known, open, Catholick practice and Doctrine of the Church, and History of all ages, is as if a man should go to fight an Imperial Army with a single bulrush. They are not worth further considering.

* But this is; That in this Question of Lay-Elders the Modern Arrians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages. For whatsoever they object [Page] out of Antiquity for the white and watery colours of Lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations, or else clearly abused in the use of them. For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy, but then they misalledge Antiquity, for the men with whose Heisers they would fain plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part, and he that was not would fain have been, it is known so of Tertullian, and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of Lay-Judges in Church matters (which they never dream'd of) yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy, and if not, then the pretended allegations can do no service in the present Question.

I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood, and then it cannot have any colour from any [...], either Divine or Humane, but that Lay-Judges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity, so they are neither nam'd in Scripture, nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office, and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came, even the Lake of Gehenna, and so to the place of the nearest denomination. The Objection is from Saint Paul, [...], &c. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour, 1 Tim. 5.17. especially they that labour in the word and doctrine, especially they—therefore all Elders do not so. Here are two sorts of Elders, Preaching Ministers, and Elders not Preachers. Therefore Lay-Elders, and yet all are Governours.

1. But why therefore Lay-Elders? Why may there not be diverse Church-officers, and yet but one or two of them the Preacher? [Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach] saith S. Paul, and yet the commission of [baptizate] was as large as [praedicate] and why then might not another say, Christ sent me not to Preach, but to Baptize, that is, in S. Paul's sence, not so much to do one, as to do the other, and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism, and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching, then to be sure, some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer, and so not the Preacher, for if he might be both ordinarily, why was not Saint Paul both? For though their power was common to all of the same Order, yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts, and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure, but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other Offices, and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest, so also was the Office, and therefore the sence of the words is this, That all Presbyters must be honoured, but especially they that Prophesie, doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery. So no Lay-Elders yet. Add to this, that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach. Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek born, and yet a Godly Bishop, and Saint Austin his Presbyter preached for him. The same case might occur in the Apostles times. For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes, especially in all great Imperial Cities, and Metropolitans, as Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Caesarea, and the like. Now all could not speak with tongues, neither could all Prophesie, they were particular gifts given severally to several men appointed to minister in Church-offices. Some prophesied, some interpreted; and therefore it is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick, whosoever in the ages Apostolical was not a Preacher.

2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders, so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new Office.

3. The word Presbyter is never used in the New-Testament for a Lay-man, if a Church-officer be intended. If it be said, it is used so here, that is the Question, and must not be brought to prove it self.

4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintained by Ecclesiastical Revenue, for so Saint Paul expounds [honour] in the next verse. Presbyters that rule well must be honoured, &c. For it is written, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn. But now, the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them, they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten legs, and so perish, than fix him upon this place with their hands in their purses. But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him, being he is of their own begetting.

5. This place speaks not of divers persons, but divers parts of the Pastoral office, [...], and [...]. To rule and to labour in the Word. [Page] 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 Sect. 48. lib. 5. cap. 22. 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,Rom. 16. [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,1 Epist. cap. 3. 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.

[Page]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 new emergent Questions: and they, none of them all asserted either by Scripture or Antiquity, that if I had a mind to leave the way of God and of the Catholick Church, and run in pursuit of this meteor, I might quickly be amuzed; but should find nothing certain, but a certainty of being misguided. Therefore if not for conscience sake, yet for prudence, bonum est esse hîc, it is good to remain in the Fold of Christ, under the guard and supravision of those Shepherds Christ hath appointed, and which his Sheep have alwayes followed.

For I consider this one thing to be enough to determine the Question. [My Sheep (saith our blessed Saviour) hear my voice, if a stranger, or a thief come, him they will not hear] Clearly thus. That Christ's Sheep hear not the voice of a stranger, nor will they follow him, and therefore those Shepherds whom the Church hath followed in all Ages, are no Strangers, but Shepherds or Pastors of Christ's appointing, or else Christ hath had no Sheep; for if he hath, then Bishops are the Shepherds, for them they have ever followed. I end with that golden Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, Cap. 3. adv. haereses. Magnoperè curandum est ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est enim verè, proprieque Catholicum. For certainly the Catholick belief of the Church against Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, and (the worst of Hereticks) the Cataphrygians was never more truly received of all, and alwayes, and every where than is the government of the Church by Bishops. Annunciare ergo Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod acceperunt, Cap. 14. nunquam licuit, nunquam licet, nunquam licebit. It never was, is, nor ever shall be lawful to teach Christian people any new thing than what they have received from a primitive fountain, and is descended in the stream of Catholick uninterrupted succession.

* I only add, that the Church hath insinuated it to be the duty of all good Catholick Christians to pray for Bishops, and as the case now stands, for Episcopacy it self, for there was never any Church-Liturgy but said Letanies for their King, and for their Bishop.

[...].

§

§

[Page]

THE REAL PRESENCE AND SPIRITUAL OF CHRIST IN THE Blessed Sacrament Proved against the DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

By JER. TAYLOR, D. D. and Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First.

Oportuit emim certè ut non solùm anima per Spiritum Sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet, verùm etiam ut rude, atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu, tactu, & cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur.

S. Cyril. in Joh. l. 4. c. 14.

Literam sequi, & signa pro rebus accipere servilis infirmitatis est.

S. Aug. l. 3. de doct. Christ.

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent MAJESTY, MDCLXXIII.

To the Right Reverend Dr. WARNER L. B. R.

[Page]

[Page]

Right Reverend Father,

I Am against my Resolution and proper disposition by the over-ruling power of the Divine Providence which wisely disposes all things, accidentally engaged in the Question of Transubstantiation, which hath already so many times passed by the Fire and under the Saw of Contention: that it might seem, nothing could remain which had not been already considered, and sifted to the bran. I had been by chance ingaged in a conference with a person of another perswasion, the man not unlearned nor unwary, but much more confident than I perceived the strength of his argument could warrant; and yet he had some few of the best which their Schools did furnish out and ordinarily minister to their [...], their Emissaries and Ministers of temptation to our people. I then began to consider whether there were not much more in the secret of the Question which might not have perswaded him more fiercely than I could then see cause for, or others at least, from whom upon the strength of education he might have derived his confidence; and searching into all the secrets of it, I found infinite reason to reprove the boldness of those men, who in the sum of affairs and upon examination will be found to think men damned, if they will not speak non-sence, and disbelieve their eyes and ears, and defie their own reason, and recede from Antiquity, and believe them in whatsoever they dream, or list to obtrude upon the world who hath been too long credulous, or it could never have suffered such a proposition to be believed by so many men against all the demonstration in the world. And certainly it is no small matter of wonder, that those men of the Roman Church should pretend Learning, and yet rest their new Articles of Faith upon propositions against all Learning; that they should ingage their Scholars to read and believe Aristotle, and yet destroy his Philosophy, and [Page] reason by their Article; that they should think all the world fools but themselves, and yet talk and preach such things which if men had spoken before this new device arose, they would have been thought mad. But if these men had by chance or interest fallen upon the other Opinion which we maintain against them, they would have filled the World with Declamations against the impossible Propositions and the [...] of their Adversaries; They would have called us Dunces, Idiots, men without souls, without Philosophy, without Sense, without Reason, without Logick, destroyers of the very first notions of mankind. But now that they are ingaged upon the impossible side, they proceed with a prodigious boldness, and seem to wonder that mankind does not receive from them all their first principles, and credit the wildness and new notions of their Cataphysicks (for Metaphysicks it is not.) Their Affirmatives and Negatives are neither natural, nor above, nor besides nature, but against it in those first principles which are primely credible. For that I may use S. Austin's words: Nemo enim huic evidentiae contradicet, nisi quem plus defensare delectat quod sentit, quàm quid sentiendum sit invenire. But I see it is possible for a man to believe any thing that he hath a mind to; and this to me seems to have been permitted to reprove the vanity of mans imagination, and the confidence of opinion, to make us humble, apt to learn, inquisitive, and charitable: for if it be possible for so great a company of men of all sorts and capacities to believe such impossible things, and to wonder that others do not eandem insaniam insanire, it will concern the wisest man alive to be inquisitive in the Articles of his first perswasion, to be diligent in his search, modest in his sentences, to prejudge no man, to reprove the Adversaries with meekness, and a spirit conscious of humane weakness and aptness to be abused. But if we remember that Pere Coton Confessor to Henry the fourth of France was wont to say, that he could do any thing when he had his God in his hand, and his King at his feet, meaning him at confession, and the other in effigie of the Crucifix or in the Host, we may well perceive that they are not such fools but they will consider the advantages that come to their persons and calling, if they can be supposed to make, with pronouncing four words, bread to become God. Vpon the reputation of this great thing the Priests were exempt from secular Jurisdiction and violence; in the Council in Dalmatia held by the Legats of Pope Innocent the third, A. D. 1199. Can. 5. upon this account Pope Urban [Page] the second in a Council which he held at Rome (1097) against the Emperour Henry the fourth, took from secular Princes the investiture of Benefices, and advanced the Clergy above Kings, because their hands create God their Creator, as Simeon Dunelmensis reports, Lib. 2. Chron. apud Vigner. Hist: Eccles. And the same horrible words are used in the famous Book called Stella Clericorum: Where the Priest is called the creator of his Creator: and thence also infers his priviledge and immunity from being condemned. I will not with any envy and reproach object to them that saying of a Bohemian Priest, against which John Hus wrote a book on purpose, That before the Priest said his first Mass he was but the Son of God, but afterward he was the Father of God, and the Creator of his body: It was a rude kind of blasphemy, but not much more than that which their severest men do say, and were never corrected by their expurgatory indices, and is to be seen in Biel on Canon of the Mass, Lection. 4. and Perè dè Bessè in his Royal Priesthood, l. 1. c. 3. where the Priest upon the stock of his power is advanced above Angels, and the blessed Virgin her self; which is the biggest expression which they can devise, unless they advance him above God himself. The consequent of this is a double honour, that is, an honour and maintenance in such a manner as may serve the design of ambition, and fill the belly of covetousness.

This was enough to make them willing to introduce it, and (as to them) the wonder ceases, but it is strange the World could receive it; For though men might be willing to believe a thing that would make for their profit and reputation, yet that they should entertain it to their prejudice, as the other part must do, that at so great a price, and with so great a diminution of their rights, they should suffer themselves to be cousened of their reason, is the stranger thing of the two. But to this also there were many concurrent causes; For, 1. This Doctrine entred upon the world in the most barbarous, most ignorant, and most vitious ages of the world; for we know when it began, by what steps and progressions it prevailed, and by what instruments. It began in the ninth age, and in the tenth was suckled with little arguments and imperfect pleadings, in the eleventh it grew up with illusions and pretence of miracles, and was christened and confirmed in the twelfth, and afterwards lived upon blood, and craft, and violence; But when it was disputed by Pascasius Ratbert the Deacon in the ninth Century, the first collateral device by which they attempted [Page] to set up their fancy was to devise Miracles, which we find done accordingly in the same Pascasius telling a tale of Plegilus seeing upon the Altar a Babe like that which was pictured in the arms of Simeon: In Joannes Diaconus telling a story of something in the dayes of S. Gregory the Great, but never told by any before him, viz. in the year 873. that is 270. years after the death of S. Gregory; and extracted from the Archives of Rome or Italy out of England, where it seems they could better tell what so long before done at Rome, by Damianus in the year 1060. who tells two more; by Guitmond writing against Berengarius out of the Vitae P. P. by Lanfranck, who served his end upon the report of strange Apparitions, and from him Alexander of Hales also tells a pretty tale. For they then observed that the common people did not only then believe all reports of miracles, but desired them passionately, and with them would swallow any thing; But how vainly and falsly the world was then abused, we need no greater witness than the learned Bishop of the Canaries, Melchior Canus. And yet even one of these Authors, though possible apt enough to credit or report any such fine device, for the promotion of his new opinion, yet it is vehemently suspected, that even the tale which was reported out of Pascasius, was a long time after his death thrust in by some Monk in a place to which it relates not, and which without that tale would be more united and more coherent: and yet if this and the other miracles pretended, had not been illusions or directly fabulous, it had made very much against the present Doctrine of the Roman Church, for they represent the body in such manner as by their explications it is not, and it cannot be: they represent it broken, a finger, or a piece of flesh, or bloody, or bleeding, or in the form of an Infant; and then when it is in the species of bread; for if as they say Christ's body is present no longer than the form of bread remained, how can it be Christ's body in the miracle, when the species being gone it is no longer a Sacrament? But the dull inventers of miracles in those ages considered nothing of this; the Article it self was then gross and rude, and so were the Instruments of probation. I noted this, not only to shew at what door so incredible a perswasion entered, but that the zeal of prevailing in it hath so blinded the refiners of it in this age, that they still urge these miracles for proof, when if they do any thing at all, they reprove the present Doctrine.

But besides this device, they inticed the people forward by institution of the solemn Feast of Corpus Christi day, entertain'd their [Page] fancies by solemn and pompous Processions, and rewarded their worshippings and attendances on the blessed Sacrament with Indulgences granted by Pope Urban the fourth, inserted in the Clementines and enlarged by John the 22d. and Martin the fifth, and for their worshipping of the consecrated water they had authentick precedents, even the example of Bonaventure's Lamb, Saint Francis his Mule, S. Anthony of Padoa's Ass; and if these things were not enough to perswade the People to all this matter, they must needs have weak hearts and hard heads; and because they met with Opponents at all hands, they proceeded to a more vigorous way of arguing: they armed legions against their adversaries, they confuted at one time in the Town of Beziers 60000 persons, and in one battel disputed so prosperously and acutely, that they kill'd about 10000 men that were Sacramentaries: and this Bellarmine gives us an instance of the marks of his Church; this way of arguing was used in almost all the Countries of Christendom, till by Crusado's massacres and battels, burnings and the constant Carnificia, and butchery of the Inquisition, which is the main prop of the Papacy, and does more than Tu es Petrus, they prevail'd far and near; and men durst not oppose the evidence whereby they fought. And now the wonder is out, it is not strange that the Article hath been so readily entertained. But in the Greek Church it could not prevail, as appears not only in Cyril's book of late, dogmatically affirming the Article in our sence, but in the Answer of Cardinal Humbert to Nicetas, who maintained the receiving the holy Sacrament does break the fast, which it could not do if it were not, what it seems, bread and wine, as well as what we believe it to be, the body and blood of Christ.

And now in prosecution of their strange improbable success they proceed to perswade all people that they are fools, and do not know the measures of sence, nor understand the words of Scripture, nor can tell when any of the Fathers speak affirmatively or negatively; and after many attempts made by diverse unprosperously enough (as the thing did constrain and urge them) a great Wit, Cardinal Perron, hath undertaken the Question, and hath spun his thread so fine, and twisted it so intricately, and adorned it so sprucely with language and sophisms, that although he cannot resist the evidence of truth, yet he is too subtle for most mens discerning; and though he hath been contested by potent adversaries, and wise men, in a better cause than his own, yet he will alwayes make his Reader believe that he prevails; [Page] which puts me in mind of what Thucydides told Archidamus the King of Sparta, asking him whether he or Pericles were the better wrastler? he told him that when he threw Pericles on his back he would with fine words perswade the people that he was not down at all, and so he got the better. So does he; and is to all considering men a great argument of the danger that Articles of Religion are in, and consequently mens perswasions, and final interest, when they fall into the hands of a witty man and a Sophister, and one who is resolved to prevail by all means. But truth is stronger than wit, and can endure when the other cannot, and I hope it will appear so in this Question, which although it is managed by weak hands, that is, by mine, yet to all impartial persons it must be certain and prevailing upon the stock of its own sincerity and derivation from God.

And now (R. R.) though this Question hath so often been disputed and some things so often said, yet I was willing to bring it once more upon the stage, hoping to add some clearness to it, by fitting it with a good instrument, and clear conveyance, and representment, by saying something new, and very many which are not generally known, and less generally noted; and I thought there was a present necessity of it, because the Emissaries of the Church of Rome are busie now to disturb the peace of consciences by troubling the persecuted, and ejecting scruples into the infortunate, who suspect every thing, and being weary of all, are most ready to change from the present. They have got a trick to ask, where is our Church now! What is become of your Articles of your Religion? We cannot answer them as they can be answered; for nothing satisfies them, but being prosperous, and that we cannot pretend to, but upon the accounts of the Cross, and so we may indeed rejoyce and be exceeding glad, because we hope that great is our reward in Heaven. But although they are pleased to use an Argument that like Jonas Gourd or Sparagus is in season only at some times, yet we according to the nature of Truth, inquire after the truth of their Religion upon the account of proper and Theological Objections; Our Church may be a beloved Church and dear to God though she be persecuted, when theirs is in an evil condition by obtruding upon the Christian world Articles of Religion, against all that which ought to be the instruments of credibility and perswasion, by distorting and abusing the Sacraments, by making error to be an art, and that a man must be witty to make himself capable of being abused, by out-facing [Page] all sence and reason, by damning their brethren for not making their understanding servile and sottish, by burning them they can get, and cursing them that they cannot get, by doing so much violence to their own reasons, and forcing themselves to believe that no man ever spake against their new device, by making a prodigious error to be necessary to salvation, as if they were Lords of the Faith of Christendom.

But these men are grown to that strange triumphal gaety, upon their joy that the Church of England as they think is destroyed, that they tread upon her grave which themselves have digged for her who lives and pities them; and they wonder that any man should speak in her behalf, and suppose men do it out of spight and indignation, and call the duty of her sons, who are by persecution made more confident, pious, and zealous in defending those truths for which she suffers on all hands, by the name of anger, and suspect it of malicious, vile purposes. I wonder'd when I saw something of this folly in one that was her son once, but is run away from her sorrow, and disinherited himself because she was not able to give him a temporal portion, and thinks he hath found out reasons enough to depart from the miserable. I will not trouble him, or so much as name him, because if his words are as noted as they are publick, every good man will scorn them, if they be private, I am not willing to publish his shame, but leave him to consideration and repentance; But for our dear afflicted Mother, she is under the portion of a child, in the state of discipline, her government indeed hindered, but her Worshippings the same, the Articles as true, and those of the Church of Rome as false as ever, of which I hope the following book will be one great instance. But I wish that all tempted persons would consider the illogical deductions by which these men would impose upon their consciences; If the Church of England be destroyed, then Transubstantiation is true; which indeed had concluded well if that Article had only pretended false, because the Church of England was prosperous. But put the case the Turk should invade Italy, and set up the Alcoran in S. Peters Church, would it be endured that we should conclude, that Rome was Antichristian, because her temporal glory is defaced? The Apostle in this case argued otherwise. The Church of the Jews was cut off for their sins; be not high-minded ô ye Gentiles, but fear lest he also cut thee off; it was counsel given to the Romans. But though (blessed be God) our afflictions are great, yet we can, and do onjoy the [Page] same religion as the good Christians in the first three hundred years did theirs; we can serve God in our houses, and sometimes in Churches; and our faith which was not built upon temporal foundations, cannot be shaken by the convulsions of war and the changes of State. But they who make our afflictions an objection against us, unless they have a promise that they shall never be afflicted, might do well to remember, that if they ever fall into trouble, they have nothing left to represent or make their condition tolerable; for by pretending, Religion is destroyed when it is persecuted, they take away all that which can support their own Spirits and sweeten persecution: However, let our Church be where it pleases God it shall, it is certain that Transubstantiation is an evil Doctrine, false and dangerous; and I know not any Church in Christendom which hath any Article more impossible or apt to render the Communion dangerous, than this in the Church of Rome: and since they command us to believe all, or will accept none, I hope the just reproof of this one will establish the minds of those who can be tempted to communicate with them in others. I have now given an account of the reasons of my present engagement; and though it may be enquired also why I presented it to You, I fear I shall not give so perfect an account of it; because those excellent reasons which invited me to this signification of my gratitude, are such which although they ought to be made publick, yet I know not whether your humility will permit it: for you had rather oblige others than be noted by them. Your Predecessor in the See of Rochester, who was almost a Cardinal when he was almost dead, did publickly in those evil times appear against the truth defended in this Book, and yet he was more moderate and better tempered than the rest: but because God hath put the truth into the hearts and mouths of his successors, it is not improper that to you should be offered the opportunities of owning that which is the belief and honour of that See, since the Religion was reformed. But lest it be thought that this is an excuse, rather than a reason of my address to you, I must crave pardon of your humility, and serve the end of glorification of God in it, by acknowledging publickly that you have assisted my condition by the emanations of that grace which is the Crown of Martyrdom: expending the remains of your lessened fortunes, and increasing charity upon your Brethren who are dear to you, not only by the band of the same Ministery, but the fellowship of the same sufferings. But indeed the cause in which [Page] these papers are ingaged, is such that it ought to be owned by them that can best defend it; and since the defence is not with secular arts and aids, but by Spiritual; the diminution of your outward circumstances cannot render you a person unfit to patronize this Book, because where I fail, your wisdom, learning, and experience can supply: and therefore if you will pardon my drawing your name from the privacy of your retirement into a publick view, you will singularly oblige and increase those favours by which you have already endeared the thankfulness and service of,

R. R.

Your most affectionate and endeared Servant in the Lord Jesus, JER. TAYLOR.

A DISCOURSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST In the Holy Sacrament.

[Page]

[Page]

SECT. I. State of the Question.

1. THE Tree of Knowledge became the Tree of Death to us, and the Tree of Life is now become an Apple of Contention. The holy Symbols of the Eucharist were intended to be a contesseration, and an union of Christian societies to God, and with one another; and the evil taking it, disunites us from God; and the evil understanding it, divides us from each other. [...]. And yet if men would but do reason, there were in all Religion no article which might more easily excuse us from medling with questions about it, than this of the holy Sacrament. For as the man in Phaedrus, that being asked what he carried hidden under his Cloak, answered, it was hidden under his Cloak; meaning that he would not have hidden it, but that he intended it should be secret: so we may say in this mystery to them that curiously ask, what, or how it is? Mysterium est; it is a Sacrament, and a Mystery: by sensible instruments it consigns spiritual graces; by the creatures it brings us to God; by the body it ministers to the Spirit. And that things of this nature are undiscernable secrets, we may learn by the experience of those men who have in cases not unlike vainly laboured to tell us, how the material fire of Hell should torment an immaterial soul, and how baptismal water should cleanse the spirit, and how a Sacrament should nourish a body, and make it sure of the resurrection.

2. It was happy with Christendom, when she in this article retained the same simplicity which she always was bound to do in her manners and entercourse; that is, to believe the thing heartily, and not to enquire curiously; and there was peace in this Article for almost a thousand years together, and yet that Transubstantiation was not determined, I hope to make very evident; In synaxi transubstantiationem serò definivit Ecclesia; diù satis erat credere, sive sub pane consecrato, sive quocunque modo adesse verum corpus Christi, so said the great Erasmus. 1 Cor. 7. It was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation; for a long time together it did suffice to believe, that the true body of Christ was present, whether under the consecrated bread or any other way: so the thing was believed, the manner was not stood upon. And it is a famous [Page] saying of Durandus, Neand. synops. Chron. pa. 203. Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus. We hear the Word, we perceive the Motion, we know not the Manner, but we believe the presence:In Mat. 26. Biblioth. Sixt. Senensis l. 4. tit. Johannes Ferus. and Ferus, of whom Sixtus Senensis affirms that he was vir nobiliter doctus, pius & eruditus, hath these words: Cum certum sit ibi esse corpus Christi, quid opus est disputare, num panis substantia maneat, vel non? When it is certain that Christs body is there, what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or no? and therefore Cutbert Tonstal Bishop of Duresme would have every one left to his conjecture concerning the manner.Tonstal de Eucharist. l. 1. pa. 46. De modo quo id fieret. satius erat curiosum quemque relinquere suae conjecturae, sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium Lateranum. Before the Lateran Council it was free for every one to opine as they please, and it were better it were so now.Cyrill in Joh. l. 4. c. 13. But S. Cyril would not allow so much liberty; not that he would have the manner determined, but not so much as thought upon. Firmam fidem mysteriis adhibentes, nunquam in tam sublimibus rebus, illud [Quomodo.] aut cogitemus aut proferamus. For if we go about to think it or understand it, we lose our labour. Quomodo enim id fiat, ne in mente intelligere, nec linguâ dicere possumus, sed silentio & firmâ fide id suscipimus: We can perceive the thing by faith, but cannot express it in words, nor understand it with our mind, said S. Bernard. Oportet igitur (it is at last after the steps of the former progress come to be a duty) nos in sumptionibus Divinorum mysteriorum, Epist. 77. indubitatam retinere fidem, & non quaerere quo pacto. The summe is this; The manner was defined but very lately; there is no need at all to dispute it; no advantages by it, and therefore it were better it were left at liberty, to every man to think as he please; for so it was in the Church for above a thousand years together; and yet it were better men would not at all trouble themselves concerning it; for it's a thing impossible to be understood; and therefore it is not fit to be inquired after. This was their sence: and I suppose we do in no sence prevaricate their so pious and prudent counsel by saying, the presence of Christ is reall and spirituall; because this account does still leave the Article in his deepest mystery: not only because spiritual formalities and perfections are undiscernable and incommensurable by natural proportions and the measures of our usual notices of things, but also because the word spiritual is so general a term, and operations so various and many, by which the Spirit of God brings his purposes to pass, and does his work upon the soul, that we are in this specifick term very far from limiting the Article to a minute and special manner. Our word of spiritual presence is particular in nothing, but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner; we say it is not this, but it is to be understood figuratively, that is, not naturally, but to the purposes and in the manner of the Spirit and spiritual things, which how they operate or are effected, we know no more than we know how a Cherubin sings or thinks, or by what private conveyances a lost notion returns suddenly into our memory and stands placed in the eye of reason. Christ is present spiritually, that is, by effect and blessing; which in true speaking is rather the consequent of his presence than the formality. For though we are taught and feel that, yet this we profess we cannot understand; and therefore curiously inquire not. [...], said Justin Martyr, it is a manifest argument of infidelity to inquire concerning the things of God, How, or after what manner? And in this it was that many of the Fathers of the Church laid their hands upon their mouths, and revered the Mystery, but like the remains of the sacrifice, they burnt it; that is, as themselves expound the allegory, it was to be adored by Faith, and not to be discussed with reason; knowing that, as Solomon said, Scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à gloriâ. He that pries too far into the Majesty, shall be confounded with the Glory.

3. So far it was very well; and if error or interest had not unravelled the secret, and looked too far into the Sanctuary, where they could see nothing but a cloud of fire, Majesty and Secrecy indiscriminately mixt together, we had kneeled before the same Altars, and adored the same mystery, and communicated in the same rites to this day. For in the thing it self there is no difference amongst wise and sober persons, nor ever was till the manner became an Article, and declared or supposed to be of the substance of the thing. But now the state of the question is this.

4. The doctrine of the Church of England, and generally of the Protestants in this Article is: That after the Minister of the holy mysteries hath ritely prayed, and blessed or consecrated the bread and the wine, the symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ, after a Sacramental, that is, in a spiritual real manner: so that all that worthily communicate, do by faith recive Christ really, effectually, to all the purposes of his passion: The wicked receive not Christ, but the bare symbols [Page] only; but yet to their hurt, Dum enim sacramenta violantur, ipse cujus sunt sacramenta violatur, S. Hieron. in 1 Malac. because the offer of Christ is rejected, and they pollute the blood of the Covenant, by using it as an unholy thing. The result of which doctrine is this: It is bread, and it is Christs body. It is bread in substance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed, as the symbols are; each as they can; Christ as Christ can be given; the bread and wine as they can; and to the same real purposes to which they are designed; and Christ does as really nourish and sanctifie the soul, as the elements do the body. It is here as in the other Sacrament; for as there natural water becomes the laver of regeneration; so here bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ; but there and here too, the first substance is changed by grace, but remains the same in nature.

5. ‘That this is the doctrine of the Church of England, is apparent in the Church Catechism; affirming the inward part or thing signified by the consecrated bread and wine to be [The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper;] and the benefit of it to be, the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine: and the same is repeated severally in the exhortation, and in the prayer of the address before the consecration, in the Canon of our Communion; verily and indeed is reipsâ, that's really enough; that's our sence of the Real Presence; and Calvin affirms as much, saying, In the Supper Christ Jesus, Lib. 4. Inst. c. 7. Sect. 32. De Missae Sacrific, viz. his body and blood is truly given under the signs of bread and wine.’ And Gregory de Valentiâ gives this account of the doctrine of the Protestants, that although Christ be corporally in Heaven, yet is he received of the faithful communicants in this Sacrament truly, both spiritually by the mouth of the mind, through a most near conjunction of Christ with the soul of the receiver by faith, and also sacramentally with the bodily mouth, &c. And which is the greatest testimony of all, we who best know our own minds, declare it to be so.

6. Now that the spiritual is also a real presence, and that they are hugely consistent, is easily credible to them that believe that the gifts of the holy Ghost are real graces, and a Spirit is a proper substance: and [...] are amongst the Hellenists [...], intelligible things, or things discerned by the mind of a man are more truly and really such, and of a more excellent substance and reality, than things only sensible. And therefore when things spiritual are signified by materials, the thing under the figure is called true, 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.Heb. 8.2. 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:1 John 2.8. 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;John 15.1. John 6.55, 6, 32. Luke 16.12. 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;Concil. Trident. sess. 4. sub Julio 3. 1551. Can. 8. 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, Rom. 2.29. [...], & [...], that's the real Jew, and the true circumcision that which is of the heart, and in the spirit;John 1.47. 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 [Page] 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, Lib. 1. Eucha. c. 14. Sect. respondeo apud. & 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; Decretum de SS. Euchar. Sacra. Can. 1. 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, L. 1. Euchar. c. 2. Reg. 3. 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 [Page] 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, Col. 2.9. Col. 2.17. 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;Col. 2.17. 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 Dial. de iii. car. unig. 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, Eccles. hist. Eccle. Gallic. l. 4. p. 604, 605. & Comment. de statu relig. & reip. sub Carolo 9. A.D. 1561. & Thuanum, hist. l. 28▪ ad eundem annum. & 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 See Bp. Rid [...] ley's answer to Curtops first argument in his disp. at Oxford, Fox Martyrol. p. 1451. v [...]t. edit.: and so it is in the Sacrament; we [Page] 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,Vide infrà Sect. 12. 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 Dupliciter verò sanguis Christi & caro intelligitur, spiritualis illa, atque Divina, de quâ ipse dixit, Caro mea verè est cibus, &c. vel caro & sanguis, quae crucifixa est, & qui militis effusus est lanceâ: In Epist. Ephes. c. 1. 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;Concil. Trid. decretum de SS. Euchar. Sacram. 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,Can. 8. Anathematis. 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,Tom. 3. disp. 46. Sect. 3. 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, Cap. 1. contr. captiv. Babylon. 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 [Page] 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,In 4. Sent. q. 6. lit. f. 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, Veritas Eucharistiae sine Transubstantiatione salvari potest. Scotus in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. 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,Bellarmin. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. Secundò dicit. 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,Vide infra Sect. 11. n. 19. nor by the Fathers.

3. The other Schoolman I am to reckon in this account is Gabriel Biel. Lect. 40. in Can. Missa. 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. Tom. 9. Tract. 16. Loc. com. l. 3. c. 3. fund. 2. 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 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[Page]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:Lib. de Euchar. cap. 5. 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; Vers. 27. 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;Rev. 2.7. & 17. [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, [Page] 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 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,L. 1. Euch. c. 7. Sect. respond [...]o verba. 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. De communione sub utraque specie. Johannes de Ragusio, Biel In Canon., Cusanus Epist. 7. ad Bohem., Ruard, Tapper Artic. 15., Cajetan Part. 3. q. 80. art. 8., Hessels Lib. de commun. sub unâ specie., Jansenius Concord. Evang. c. 59., Waldensis Tom. 2. de sacram. c. 91., Armachanus Lib. 9. c 8. Ejusdem sententia sunt Aeneas Sylvius dial. contr. Tabor. Alensis part. 4. q. 11. [...]em. 2. a. 4. Lindan [...], Gaspar Sager [...] & alii., 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 Epist. 2. ad Bohem. Ver. 53. 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 Lib. 4. de Miss. myster. c. 21. the third, and from him Vasquez In 3. c. 3. dis 216. n. 50. noted, and Salmeron Tom. 8. tr▪ 24., 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,Clem. Rom. l. 8. c. 20. constit. Apost. Eccles. hierarch. cap. ult. Gennadi [...] cap. 52. de dogmat. Eccles. cap. de Sabbatho Sancto Paschatis. S. Cyprian. Epist. 59. ad Fiduc. Concil. Tolet. 2. c. 11. S. August. Epist. 93. & 106. Innocentius papa ibid. Paulinus Episc. Nolanus A. D. 353. Epist. 12. ad Severum. Paulinus de infantibus ait: Pura salutiferis imbuit ora cilis. Hic mos duravit ad tempora Ludovici Pii, & Lotharii, ait Beat. Rhenan. in Tertul. de Cor. Milit. 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 [Page] 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,L. 1. Euchar. c. 7. Sect. respondio commu [...]m. 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;Beda in 1 Cor. 10. citat. Augustini Serm. ad Infantes. 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.

[Page]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, S. John 6.63▪ 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, L. 3. de Euchar. c. 37. circumgestari, dentibus teri, sensibiliter sacrificari, non minùs quàm 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 Christ [...]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, L. 1. Euchar. cap. 6. Sect. 2. ex dubitatione. 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. Ibid. cap. 11. resp. ad 5. arg. 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 the Whale might have been said to have eaten Jonas, when she swallowed him without manducation or breaking him, and yet no man does speak so: but in the description of that accident reckon the Whale to be fasting for all that morsel: Invasúsque cibus jejunâ vixit in alvo, said Alcimus Avitus: Jejuni, pleníque tamen vate intemerato, said Sidonius Apollinaris; vivente jejunus cibo, so Paulinus: the fish was full and fasting, that is, she swallowed Jonas, but eat nothing. As a man does not eat Bullets or Quicksilver against the Iliacal passion, but swallows them, and we do not eat our pills: The Greek Physicians therefore call a Pill [...], a thing to be swallowed: and that this is distinct from eating, Aristotle tells us, speaking of the Elephant, [...], he eats the earth, but swallows the stones. And Hesychius determined this thing, Non comedet ex eo quisquam, i. e. non dividetur, quia dentium est dividere, & partiri cibos, In Levit. l. 2. c. 1. cum aliter mandi non possint. To chew is but a circumstance of nourishment, but the essence of manducation. But Bellarmine adds, that if you will not allow him to say so, then he grants it in plain terms, that Christ's body is chewed, is attrite or broken with the teeth, and that not tropically but properly, which is the crass Doctrine which Christ reproved in the men of Capernaum. To lessen and sweeten this expression he tells us, [Page] it is indeed broken; but how? under the species of bread and invisibly; well so it is, though we see it not: and it matters not under what; if it be broken, and we bound to believe it, then we cannot avoid the being that, which they so detested, devourers of Mans flesh. See Theophylact in number 15. of this section.

6. Concerning the bread or the meat indeed of which Christ speaks, he also affirms that whosoever eats it hath life abiding in him: 7. Verse 54. But this is not true of the Sacrament; for the wicked eating it, receive to themselves damnation. It cannot therefore be understood of oral manducation, but of spiritual, and of eating Christ by faith: that is, receiving him by an instrument or action Evangelical. For receiving Christ by faith includes any way of communicating with his body: By baptism, by holy desires, by obedience, by love, by worthy receiving of the Holy Sacrament; and it signifies no otherwise, but as if Christ had said: To all that believe in me and obey, I will become the Author of life and salvation: Now because this is not done by all that receive the Sacrament, not by unworthy Communicants, who yet eat the Symbols (according to us) and eat Christ's body (according to their Doctrine) it is unanswerably certain, that Christ here spake of Spiritual manducation, not of Sacramental. Bellarmine (he that answers all things whether he can or no) sayes that words of this nature are conditional; meaning, that he who eats Christ's flesh worthily shall live for ever: and therefore this effects nothing upon vicious persons, yet it may be meant of the Sacrament, because without his proper condition it is not prevalent. I reply, that it is true it is not, it cannot; and that this condition is spiritual manducation: but then without this condition the man doth not eat Christs flesh, that which himself calls the true bread, for he that eats this, [...], he hath life in him, that is, he is united to me, he is in the state of grace at present. For it ought to be observed, that although promises de futuro possibili are to be understood with a condition appendant: yet Propositions affirmative at present, are declarations of a thing in being, and suppose it actually existent: and the different parts of this observation are observable in the several parts of the 54. verse. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; that's an affirmation of a thing in being, and therefore implies no other condition but the connexion of the predicate with the subject. He that eats hath life. But it follows, [...], and I will raise him up at the last day, that's de futuro possibili: and therefore implies a condition besides the affirmation of the Antecedent, viz. si permanserit, if he remain in this condition, and does not unravel his first interest and forfeit his life. And so the Argument remains unharm'd, and is no other than what I learned from Saint Austin, Tract. 26. in Johan. Hujus rei Sacramentum, &c. de mensâ Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium: Res verò ipsa cujus Sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit. And it is remarkable that the context and design of this place takes off this evasion from the Adversary: For here Christ opposes this eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna, and prefers it infinitely; because they who did eat Manna might die, viz. spiritually and eternally: but they that eat his flesh shall never die, meaning, they shall not die eternally: and therefore this eating cannot be a thing which can possibly be done unworthily. For if Manna, as it was Sacramental, had been eaten worthily, they had not died who eat it; and what priviledge then is in this above Manna, save only that the eating of this, supposes the man to do it worthily, and to be a worthy person, which the other did not? Upon which consideration Cajetan sayes,Cajetan. in Joh. 6. that this eating is not common to worthily and unworthily, and that it is not spoken of eating the Sacrament, but of eating and drinking [that is, communicating with] the death of Jesus. The Argument therefore lies thus. There is something which Christ hath promis'd us, which whosoever receives, he receives life and not death; but this is not the Sacrament: for of them that communicate, some receive to life,1 Cor. 11. and some to death, saith S. Austin, and a greater than S. Austin, S. Paul: and yet this, which is life to all that receive it, is Christ's flesh (said Christ himself) therefore Christ's flesh here spoken of is not Sacramental.

8.7. To warrant the Spiritual sence of these words against the Natural, it were easie to bring down a traditive interpretation of them by the Fathers; at least a great consent. Tertullian hath these words. Etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse, Materiâ dicti dirigendus est sensus. Tertul. de [...]esur. carn. c. 37. Nam quia durum & intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendum determinâsset, ut in spiritu disponeret statum salutis, praemisit, Spiritus est qui vivificat; atque ita subjunxit, Caro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scil. ‘Because they thought his saying hard and intolerable, as if he had determined [Page] his flesh to be eaten by them, that he might dispose the state of salvation in the spirit, he premis'd, It is the spirit that giveth life: and then subjoyns, The flesh profiteth nothing, meaning, nothing to the giving of life.’ So that here we have, besides his authority, an excellent Argument for us: Christ said, he that eateth my flesh hath life, but the flesh, that is, the fleshly sence of it profits nothing to life; but the Spirit, that is, the spiritual sence does; therefore these words are to be understood in a spiritual sence.

9. And because it is here opportune by occasion of this discourse, let me observe this, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is infinitely useless and to no purpose; For by the words of our Blessed Lord, by the Doctrine of Saint Paul, and the sence of the Church, and the confession of all sides, the natural eating of Christ's flesh, (if it were there, or could so be eaten) alone or of it self does no good, does not give life; but the spiritual eating of him is the instrument of life to us; and this may be done without their Transubstantiated flesh; it may be done in Baptisme, by Faith and Charity, by Hearing and understanding, and therefore it may also in the blessed Eucharist, although there also according to our Doctrine he be eaten only Sacramentally and Spiritually. And hence it is that in the Mass-book anciently it is prayed after consecration, Quaesumus Omnipotens Deus, Ser. 6.4. temp. Septembr. post consecrat. 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, In Miss. vol. pro quacunque necessitate. 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. Del Euchar. pa. 165. Gallic. Cardinal Perron affirms, that the Real Natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament is to greatest purpose, because the residence of Christ's Natural [Page] 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 Tom. 3. in 3. disp. 204. n 3. Vasquez as groundless, and by Ibid. disp. 64. sect. 1. 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 Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 9. 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, Origen. in Lect. [...].10. hom. 7. 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.De Sacrament. l. 5. c. 4. 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:In Lucam. l. 6. c. 8. 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.

[Page]14. S. Austin gave the same exposition, Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem? Tract. 25. in Joh. Tract. 26. 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,In Joh. 6. 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, L. 3. Eccles. Theol. contra Marcel. Ancyran. M.S. S. Hieron. Psal. 147. Clem. Alex. l. 1. padag. c. 6. [...]; 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 in Psal. 33. 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 wo [...]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.Ver. 47. & 29. & 64. 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,Verse 51. 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.In Allegoriis. [Page] 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. [...],In libro, Pejorem insidiari meliori. The Word of God, the most honourable and eldest of things is called Mana; and [...]. The soul is nourished by the Word, ‘Allegoriis.—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,Supra. 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,De Euchar. l. 1. c. 7. & ad alios patres. 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:Aug. in Psal. 98. 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 [Page] and spiritually to be all one. And again; Vt quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus, similitudinem quoque sanguinis & carnis sumamus, Gratianus ex Augustino de consecrat. dist. 2 Sect. utrum. Lugduni 1541. 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, Prosper Sent. 339. sed verba sunt S. Augustini. 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,De consecrat. dist. 2. c. 55. Gloss. panis est in altari. De Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. saith the Gloss of Gratian; and Bellarmine sayes it cannot be a true Proposition, In quâ subjectum supponit pro [...]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 Pompt. Cathol. ser. 3. heb. sanct. Stapleton, and are good evidence against them.

SECT. IV. Of the Words of Institution.

[Page]

1. MULTA mala oportet interpretari eos qui unum non rectè intelligere volunt, said Irenaeus, Contr. haeres. l. 5. they must needs speak many false things who will not rightly understand one.L. 1. c. 8. Euchar. Sect. sequitur argumentum. 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, elevation of it must of themselves fall to the ground; [Page] it will also follow that it is Christ's body only in a mystical, spiritual, and sacramental manner.

4. Secondly, By what Argument will it so much as probably be concluded that these words [This is my body] should be the words effective of conversion and consecration? That Christ used these words is true, and so he used all the other; but did not tell which were the consecrating words, nor appoint them to use those words; but to do the thing, and so to remember and represent his death. And therefore the form and rites of consecration and ministeries are in the power of the Church, where Christ's Command does not intervene; as appears in all the external ministeries of Religion; in Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Ordination, &c. And for the form of consecration of the Eucharist, S. Basil affirms that it is not delivered to us,De Spir. S. c. 27. [...], &c. The words of Invocation in the manifestation or opening the Eucharistical bread and cup of blessing, which of all the Saints hath left us? for we are not content with these which the Apostles and the Evangelists mention, but before and after we say other things which have great efficacy to this mystery. But it is more material which Saint Gregory affirms concerning the Apostles,L. 7. Ep. 63. Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodò orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent, The Apostles consecrated the Eucharist only by saying the Lords Prayer. To which I add this consideration, that it is certain, Christ interposed no Command in this case, nor the Apostles; neither did they for ought appears intend the recitation of those words to be the Sacramental consecration, and operative of the change, because themselves recited several forms of institution in Saint Matthew and Saint Mark for one, and Saint Luke and Saint Paul for the other, in the matter of the Chalice especially; and by this difference declared, there is no necessity of one, and therefore no efficacy in any as to this purpose.

5. Thirdly, If they make these words to signifie properly and not figuratively, then it is a declaration of something already in being, and not effective of any thing after it. For else [est] does not signifie [is] but it shall be; because the conversion is future to the pronunciation;Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 11. Sect. respondeo cum. and by the confession of the Roman Doctors the bread is not transubstantiated till the [um] in meum be quite out, till the last syllable be spoken; But yet I suppose they cannot shew an example, or reason, or precedent, or Grammar, or any thing for it, that est should be an active word. And they may remember how confidently they use to argue against them that affirm men to be justified by a fiducia and perswasion that their sins are pardoned: saying, that saith must suppose the thing done, or their belief is false: and if it be done before, then to believe it does not do it at all, because it is done already. The case is here the same: They affirm that it is made Christ's body, by saying, it is Christ's body; but their saying so must suppose the thing done, or else their saying so is false; and if it be done before, then to say it, does not do it at all, because it is done already.

6. Fourthly, When our blessed Lord took bread, he gave thanks, said Saint Luke and Saint Paul; he blessed it, said Saint Matthew and Saint Mark; [...], making it Eucharistical; [...], that was, consecrating or making it holy; it was common bread, unholy when he blessed it, and made it Eucharistical, for [...] was the same with [...] is the word in Justin, and [...] bread and wine, food made Eucharistical, or on which Christ had given thanks, Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, so Irenaeus and others; and Saint Paul does promiscuously use [...], and [...], and [...];1 Cor. 14, 15▪ 16, 17. and in the same place the Vulgar Latin renders [...] by benedictionem, and therefore Saint Paul calls it the cup of blessing;1 Cor. 10. and in this very place of Saint Matthew Saint Basil reads [...] instead of [...],In regulis moralibus. either in this following the old Greek Copies who so read this place, or else by interpretation so rendring it, as being the same; and on the other side Saint Cyprian renders [...] (the word used in the blessing the Chalice) by benedixit. Epist. ad Caecilium. Against this Respons. ad Nod. Gordium. Smiglecius the Jesuite with some little scorn sayes, it is very absurd to say that Christ gave thanks to the bread, and so it should be if [...] and [...], blessing and giving of thanks were all one. But in this he shewed his anger or want of skill, not knowing or not remembring that the Hebrews and Hellenist Jews love abbreviature of speech; and in the Epistle to the Hebrews Saint Paul uses [...], to appease or propitiate our sins, instead of [...], to propitiate or appease God concerning our sins; and so is [...], that is, [...], only that by this means God also makes the bread holy, blessed, and eucharistical. [Page] Now I demand, what did Christ's blessing effect upon the Bread and the Chalice? any thing, or nothing? If no change was consequent, it was an ineffective blessing, a blessing that blessed not: if any change was consequent, it was a blessing of the thing in order to what was intended, that is, that it might be Eucharistical, and then the following words [this is my body] this is the blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in my blood, were, as Cabasilas affirms, [...], by way of history and narration; and so the Syriack Interpreter puts them together in the place of S. Matthew, [...] and [...], blessing and giving of thanks, when he did bless it he made it Eucharistical.

7. Fifthly, The Greek Church universally taught that the Consecration was made by the prayers of the ministring man.Apol. 2. Justin Martyr calls it [...], Nourishment made Eucharistical by prayer; and Origen calls it [...],L. 8. contr. Celsum. bread made a body, a holy thing by prayer; [...],L. 4. de fide, cap. 14. so Damascen, by the invocation and illumination of the Holy Ghost [...] ▪ they are changed into the body and blood of Christ. But for the Greek Church the case is evident and confessed.Vide Ambrosium Catharinum in integro quem scripsit libro hac de [...]. L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. For the ancient Latine Church, Saint Hierom reproving certain pert Deacons for insulting over Priests, uses this expression for the honour of Priests above the other, Ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur, by their prayers the body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament. And Saint Austin calls the Sacrament prece mysticâ consecratum. But concerning this, I have largely discoursed in another The Divine Institution of the office ministerial. Sect. 7. place. But the effect of the consideration in order to the present Question is this; that since the change that is made is made not naturally, or by a certain number of syllables in the manner of a charm, but solemnly, sacredly, morally, and by prayer, it becomes also the body of our Lord to moral effects, as a consequent of a moral instrument.

8. Sixthly, And it is considerable, that since the ministeries of the Church are but imitations of Christ's Priestood which he officiates in Heaven, since he effects all the purposes of his graces and our redemption by intercession, and representing in the way of prayer the Sacrifice which he offered on the Cross: it follows that the ministeries of the Church must be of the same kind, operating in the way of prayer, morally, and therefore wholly to moral purposes; to which the instrument is made proportionable. And if these words which are called the words of Consecration be exegetical, and enunciative of the change that is made by prayers, and other mystical words; it cannot be possibly inferred from these words that there is any other change made than what refers to the whole mystery and action: and therefore, Take, eat, and this do, are as necessary to the Sacrament as [Hoc est corpus] and declare that it is Christ's body only in the use and administration: and therefore not natural but spiritual. And this is yet more plain by the words in the Hebrew Text of Saint Matthew, Take, eat this which is my body, plainly supposing the thing to be done already; not by the exegetical words, but by the precedents, the mystick prayer, and the words of institution and use; and to this I never saw any thing pretended in answer. But the force of the Argument upon supposition of the premises is acknowledged to be convincing by an Archbishop of their own,Archiep. Caesar. Tractat. varii disp. de neces. correct. Theol. Schol. Si Christus dand [...] consecravit, &c. ‘If Christ giving the Eucharist did consecrate (as Scotus affirmed) then the Lutherans will carry the victory, who maintain that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only, while it is used, while it was taken and eaten. And yet on the other side, if it was consecrated, when Christ said, Take, eat, then he commanded them to take bread, and to eat bread, which is to destroy the Article of Transubstantiation.’ So that in effect, whether it was consecrated by those words or not by those words, their new Doctrine is destroyed. If it was not consecrated when Christ said, Take, eat, then Christ bid them take bread, and eat bread, and they did so: But if it was consecrated by those words, Take, eat, then the words of consecration refer wholly to use, and it is Christ's body only in the taking and eating, which is the thing we contend for. And into the concession of this Bellarmine is thrust by the force of our Argument.D [...] Euch. l. 1. c. 11. For to avoid Christ's giving the Apostles that which he took, and brake, and blessed, that is, bre [...]d, the same case being governed by all these words; he answers, Dominum accepisse, & benedixisse panem, sed dedisse panem non vulgarem, sed benedictum & benedictione mutatum: The Lord took bread and blessed it, but he gave not common bread, but bread blessed and changed by blessing; and yet it is certain he gave it them before the words, which he calls the words of Consecration. To which I add this consideration: that all words spoken in the person of another are only declarative and exegetical, [Page] not operative and practical; for in particular if these words, hoc est corpus meum were otherwise, then the Priest should turn it into his own, not into the body of Christ. Neither will it be easie to have an answer, not only because the Greeks and Latines are divided in the ground of their argument concerning the mystical instrument of consecration: But the Latines themselves have seven several opinions, as the Archbishop of ‘Caesarea de capite Fontium, hath enumerated them in his nuncupatory Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus before his book of divers treatises: Tractat. varii. and that the consecration is made by [this is my body] though it be now the prevailing opinion, yet that by them Christ did not consecrate the elements, was the express sentence of Pope Innocent 3. and Innocent 4. and of many ancient Fathers, as the same Archbishop of Caesarea testifies in the book now quoted; and the Scholasticks are hugely divided upon this point, viz.’ Whether these words are to be taken materially or significatively; the expression is barbarous and rude, but they mean, whether they be consecratory or declarative. Aquinas makes them consecratory, and his authority brought that opinion into credit; and yet Scotus and his followers are against it: and they that affirm them to be taken significatively, that is, to be consecratory, are divided into so many opinions that they are not easie to be reckoned; only in 4. Sentent. Guido Brianson reckons nine, and his own makes the tenth. This I take upon the credit of one of their own Archbishops.

9. But I proceed to follow them in their own way; whether [Hoc est corpus meum] do effect or signify the change; yet the change is not natural and proper, but figurative, sacramental, and spiritual; exhibiting what it signifies, being real to all intents and purposes of the Spirit: and this I shall first shew by discussing the words of institution; first those which they suppose to be the consecratory words, and then the other.

10. Hoc est corpus meum] Concerning which form of words we must know, that as the Eucharist it self was in the external and ritual part, an imitation of a custome and a sacramental already in use among the Jews, for the major domo to break bread and distribute wine at the Passeover after supper to the eldest according to his age, to the youngest according to his youth, as it is notorious and known in the practice of the Jews: so also were the very words which Christ spake in this changed subject, an imitation of the words which were then used, This is the bread of sorrow which our Fathers eat in Egypt; This is the Passeover: Scaliger de emendatione tempor. l. 6. and this Passeover was called the body of the Paschal Lamb: nay, it was called the body of our Saviour, and our Saviour himself; [...], said Justin Martyr dial. cum Tryph. And Esdras said to the Jews, This passeover is our Saviour, and This is the body of our Saviour, as it is noted by others. So that here the words were made ready for Christ, and made his by appropriation, by meum: he was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, he is the true Passeover; which he then affirming called that which was the Antitype of the Passeover, the Lamb of God [His body] the body of the true Passeover, to wit, in the same sacramental sence in which the like words were affirmed in the Mosaical Passeover.

SECT. V.Sect. 5.

1. HOC, This] That is, this bread is my body, this cup, or the wine in the cup is my blood: concerning the chalice, there can be no doubt; it is, [...] hic calix, this chalice; and as little of the other. The Fathers refer the Pronoun demonstrative to bread, saying, that, of bread it was Christ affirmed, This is my body, which I shall have in the sequel more occasion to prove, for the present, these may suffice; Christus panem corpus suum appellat, saith Lib. ad [...]. Judaos. Tertullian. Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus salvatoris: so Ep. ad H [...] bidiam. S. Hierome. [...], so In Joh. 12. S. Cyril of Alexandria called bread his flesh. Dial. 1. c. 8▪ Theodoret saith that to the body he gave the name of the symbol, and to the symbol the name of his body. [...]] therefore signifies this bread; and it matters not that bread in the Greek is of the masculine gender; for the substantive being understood not expressed, by the rule of Grammar, the adjective must be the neuter gender, and it is taken substantively. Neither is there any inconvenience in this, as Bellarmine weakly dreams upon as weak suggestions. For when he had said that hoc is either taken adjectively or substantively, he proceeds, not adjectively, for then it must agree with the substantive,L. 1. de Euch. chap. 10. Sect. parro. 4. [Page] which in this case is masculine; bread being so both in Greek and Latine. But if you say it is taken substantively (as we contend it is) he confutes you thus; If it be taken substantively, so that hoc signifies this thing, and so be referred to bread, then it is most absurd, because it cannot be spoken of any thing seen; that is, of a substantive, unless it agrees with it, and be of the same gender; that is in plain English, It is neither taken adjectively, nor substantively: not adjectively, because it is not of the same gender: not substantively, because it is not of the same gender; that is, because substantively it is not adjectively. But the reason he adds is as frivolous; because no man pointing to his brother will say hoc est frater meus, but hic est fra [...]er meus, I grant it. But if it be a thing without life you may affirm it in the neuter gender, because it being of neither sex, the subject is supplyed by [thing] so that you may say hoc est aqua, this is water; so in 1 Pet. 2.19. S. Peter, [...], this is grace, and Exod. 8.19. [...]. But of a person present you cannot say so, because he is present, and there is nothing distinct from him, neither re nor ratione, in the thing nor in the understanding; and therefore you must say hic, not hoc; because there is no subject to be supposed distinct from the predicate. But when you see an image or figure of your brother, you may then say, hoc est frater meus, because here is something to make a subject distinct from the predicate. This thing, or this picture, this figure, or this any thing, that can be understood and not expressed, may make a neuter gender; and every School-boy knows it: so it is in the blessed Sacrament, there is a Subject or a thing distinct from Corpus: This bread, this which you see is my body; and therefore is in Hoc no impropriety, though bread he understood.

2. To which I add this, that though bread be the nearest part of the thing demonstrated, yet it is not bread alone, but sacramental bread; that is, bread so used, broken, given, eaten, as it is in the institution and use: [...], this is my body; and [...] refers to the whole action about the bread and wine, and so [...] may be easily understood without an impropriety. And indeed it is necessary that [...] this] should take in the whole action on all sides: because the bread neither is the natural body of Christ, nor yet is it alone a sufficient symbol or representment of it. But the bread broken, blessed, given, distributed, In c. 15. Mat. taken, eaten; this is Christs body, viz. as Origens expression is typicu [...] symbolicúmque corpus. By the way give me leave to express some little indignation against those words of Bellarmine, which cannot easily be excused from blasphemy; saying that if our Lord had said of the bread which the Apostles saw and knew to be bread, This is my body, absurdissima esset locutio, it had been a most absurd speech. So careless are these opiniators of what they say, that rather than their own fond opinions should be confuted, they care not to impute non-sence to the eternal Wisdom of the Father. And yet that Christ did say this of bread so ordered and to be used, Hoc est corpus meum, besides that the thing is notorious, I shall prove most evidently.

3. First, That which Christ broke, which he gave to his disciples, which he bid them eat, that he affirmed was his body. What gave he but what he broke? what did he break, but that which he took? what did he take? accepit panem (saith the Scripture) he took bread, therefore of bread it was that he affirmed, it was his body. Now the Roman Doctors will by no means endure this; for if of bread he affirmed it to be his body; then we have cleared the Question, for it is bread and Christs body too; that is, it is bread naturally, and Christs body spiritually; for that it cannot be both naturally, they unanimously affirm. And we are sure upon this Article: for disparatum de disparato non praedicatur propriè; It is a rule of nature and essential reason, If it be bread it is not a stone, if it be a Mouse it is not a Mule; and therefore when there is any predication made of one diverse thing by another, the proposition must needs be improper and figurative. And the Gloss of Gratian disputes it well,De consecrat. dist. 2. c. qui [...]. If bread be the body of Christ (viz. properly and naturally) then something that is not born of the Virgin Mary is the body of Christ; and the body of Christ should be both alive and dead. Now that [Hoc, This] points to bread, besides the notoriousness of the thing in the story of the Gospels, in the matter of fact, and S. Paul calling it bread so often, (as I shall shew in the sequel) it ought to be certain to the Roman Doctors, and confessed, because by their Doctrines when Christ said Hoc, This] and a while after, it was bread; because it was not consecrated till the last syllable was spoken. To avoid this therefore, they turn themselves into all the opinions and disguises that can be devised Ejusdem sententiae sunt, Ocham, Petrus de A [...]iacho, Cameracensis, Antisiodorensis in 4. l. sent. dist. 13. Roffensis, cap. 4. contra captiv. Babyl. Maldonat. Barradius in Evangel. Stapleton says, that [Hoc, This] does only signifie the predicate, and is referred to the body, so as Adam said, This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone, Hoc] not this rib, but this thing, this predicate; So, Hic est filius [Page]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, L. 2. e [...]am. myst. Calvin. c. 1. Sect. 4. Objectio. 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;L. 1. Euch. c. 11. Sect. ad id vero. 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 [Page] you a thing which shall never be seen. But then if you desire to know how it was pointed at before it was, that is the secret not yet revealed. But finally this is the doctrine that hath prevailed at least in the Jesuits Schools. This] points out something under the accidents of bread, meaning, This which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body: there it rests. But before it go any further I shall disturb his rest with this Syllogism: When Christ said, Hoc, this is my body; by this] he meant this which is contained under the accidents of bread, is my body. But at that instant, that which was contained under the accidents of bread, was the substance of bread; Therefore to the substance of bread Christ pointed, that he related to by the Pronoune demonstrative, and of that he affirmed, it was his body. The Major is that the Jesuits contend for: the Minor is affirmed by Bellarmine, Quando dicitur [Hoc] tum non est praesens substantia corporis Christi: therefore the conclusion ought to be his and owned by them. However I will make bold to call it a demonstration upon their own grounds, and conclude that it is bread and Christs body too; and that is the doctrine of the Protestants. And I add this also, that it seems a great folly to declaim against us for denying the literal, natural sence, and yet that themselves should expound it in a sence which suffers a violence and a most unnatural, ungrammatical torture; for if they may change the words from the right sence and case to the oblique and indirect, why may not we? and it is less violence to say [Hoc est corpus meum] i. e. hic panis est corpus meum; viz. spiritualiter: than to say, hoc est, that is, sub his speciebus est corpus meum. And this was the sence of In 4. qu. 6. Ocham the Father of the Nominalists: it may be held that under the species of bread, there remains also the substance; because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible; and of all the manners this is most reasonable, and more easie to maintain, and from thence follow fewer inconveniences than from any other. Yet because of the determination of the Church (viz. of Rome) all the Doctors commonly hold the contrary. By the way observe that their Church hath determined against that, against which neither the Scripture nor reason hath determined.

2. The case is clearer in the other kind, as in transition I noted above Numb. 1. Sect. 5. Vide Pichere [...]. Doct. Sorbon. in 26. Matth.. [...], hic calix. I demand to what [ [...], Hic, This] does refer? What it demonstrates and points at? The text sets the substantive down, [...], this cup; that is, the wine in this cup; of this it is that he affirmed it to be the blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in his blood: that is, this is the sanction of the everlasting Testament, I make it in my blood, this is the Symbol, what I do now in sign, I will do to morrow in substance, and you shall for ever after remember and represent it thus in Sacrament. I cannot devise what to say plainer than that this [...] points at the chalice. ‘—Hoc potate merum

*

Lib. 4. Evang. hist. vers. 456.

Atque [...]it, hic sanguis populi delicta remittet,

Hunc potate meum] instead of

Hoc potate merum: nam veris credite dictis,

Posthac nonunquam vitis gustabo liquorem,

Donec regna patris melioris munera vitae

In nova me rursus con [...]dent surgere vina.

—’ So Juvencus a Priest of Spain in the reign of Constantine, Drink this wine,] But by the way, this troubled some body, and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into, Hunc potate meum; but that the cheat was too apparent] And if it be so of one kind, it is so in both, that is beyond all question. Against this Bellarmine brings argumentum robustissimum, a most robustious argument: By [...], or cup, cannot be meant the wine in the cup, because it follows, [...], This Cup [is the New Testament in my blood] which was shed for you;L. 10. c. 10. de Euchar. Sect. sed addo arg. referring to the cup, for the word can agree with nothing but the cup; therefore by the cup is meant not wine, but blood, for that was poured out. To this I oppose these things; 1. Though it does not agree with [...], yet it must refer to it, and is an ordinary [...] of case called [...]: and it is not unusual in the best masters of Language: [...], for [...], in Demosthenes: so also Goclenius in his Grammatical problemes observes another out of Cicero. Benè autem dicere, quod est peritè loqui, non habet definitam aliquam regionem, cujus terminis septa teneatur; Many more he cites out of Plato, Homer, and Virgil; and me thinks these men should least of all object this, since in their Latin Bible Sixtus Senensis confesses, and all the world knows, there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties,L. 8. Biblioth. hyperbata and Antip [...]oses. But in the present case it is easily [Page] supplyed by [...], which is frequently understood, and implyed in the article [...], that is, [...], that is, in my bloud which is shed for you. 2. If it were referred to [cup] then the figure were more strong and violent, and the expression less litteral; and therefore it makes much against them, who are undone if you admit figurative expressions in the institution of this Sacrament. 3. To what can [...] refer, but to [...], This cup, and let what sence soever be affixed to it afterwards, if it do not suppose a figure, then there is no such thing as figures, or words, or truth, or things.Vide Bezam in Annot. in hunc locum. 4. That [...] must refer to [...] appears by S. Matthew, and S. Mark, where the word is directly applyed to bloud; S. Paul uses not the word, and Bellarmine himself gives the rule, verba Domini rectiùs exposita à Marco, &c. When one Evangelist is plain, by him we are to expound another that is not plain: and S. Basil in his reading of the words, either following some ancienter Greek copy, or else mending it out of the other Evangelists, changes the case into perfect Grammar, and good Divinity, [...].

6. Thirdly, symbols of the blessed Sacrament are called bread and the cup, after Consecration; that is, in the whole use of them.Regul. moral. 21. This is twice affirmed by S. Paul The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communication (so it should be read) of the bloud of Christ? the bread which we break, 1 Cor. 10.16. is it not the communication of the body of Christ? as if he had said, This bread is Christs body; though there be also this mystery in it, This bread is the communication of Christs body, that is, the exhibition and donation of it, not Christs body formally, but virtually, and effectively, it makes us communicate with Christs body in all the effects and benefits: A like expression we have in Valerius Maximus, where Scipio in the feast of Jupiter is said Graccho Communicasse concordiam, that is, consignasse, he communicated concord; he consigned it with the sacrifice, giving him peace and friendship, the benefit of that communication: and so is the cup of benediction, that is, when the cup is blessed, it communicates Christs blood, and so does the blessed bread; for to eat the bread, in the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christians; they are the words of L. 17 de Civ▪ Dei cap. 5. S. Austin, Omnes de uno pane participamus; so S. Paul, we all partake of this one bread. Hence the argument is plain; That which is broken is the communication of Christs body; But that which is broken is bread, therefore bread is the communication of Christs body. The bread which we break, those are the words.

7. Fourthly, The other place of S. Paul is plainer yet, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. And, so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye declare the Lords death till he come;1 Cor. 11.28. & 26. and the same also vers. 27. three times in this chapter he calls the Eucharist Bread. It is bread, sacramental bread when the communicant eats it: But he that in the Church of Rome should call to the Priest to give him a piece of bread, would quickly find that instead of bread he should have a stone or something as bad. But S. Paul had a little of the Macedonian simplicity, calling things by their own plain names.

8. Fifthly, against this some little things are pretended in answer by the Roman Doctors. 1. That the holy Eucharist, or the sacred body is called [bread] because it is made of bread; as Eve is called of Adam, bone of his bone; and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods; or else because it sometimes was bread, therefore so it is called after: just as we say, The blind see, the lame walk, the harlots enter into the kingdome of heaven. Which answer although Bellarmine mislikes,L. 1. c. 14. de Euchar. yet lest any others should be pleased with it, I have this certain confutation of it: that by the Roman Doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated, and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body; and the holy body never was bread, not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change. It cannot therefore be called bread, unless it be bread; at least not for this reason. For if the body of Christ be not bread then, neither ever was it bread, neither was it made of bread: and therefore these cannot be the reasons, because they are not true. But in the instances alledged, the denomination still remains, because the change was made in the same remaining matter, or in the same person, or they were to be so again as they were before; nothing of which can be affirmed of the Eucharist, by their doctrine, therefore these instances are not pertinent. 2. Others answer, that the holy Body is called Bread, because it seems to be so: just as the effigies and forms of Pomegranates, of Bulls, of Serpents, of Cherubims, are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble. I reply, that well they may, because there is there no danger of being deceived by such appellations, no man will suppose them other than the pictures, and so to speak [Page] is usual and common. But in the matter of the holy Eucharist it ought not to be called bread for the likeness to bread, unless it were bread indeed; because such likeness and such appellation are both of them a temptation against that which these men call an article of faith: but rather because it is like bread, and all the world are apt to take it for such, it ought to have been described with caution, and affirmed to be Christ and God, and not to be bread though it seem so. But when it is often called Bread in Scripture, which name the Church of Rome does not at all use in the mystery, and is never called in Scripture, the Son of God, or God, or Christ; which words the Church of Rome does often use in the mystery; it is certain that it is called bread, not because it is like bread, but because it is so indeed. * And indeed upon such an answer as this, it is easie to affirm an apple to be a Pigeon, and no apple; for if it be urged that all the world calls it an apple, it may be replyed then as now, It is true they call it an apple, because it is like an apple, but indeed it is a Pigeon. 3. Some of them say when it is called bread, it is not meant that particular kind of nourishment; but in general it means any food; and so only represents Christs body as a celestial divine thing intended some way to be our food. Just, as in S. John 6. Christ is called the bread that came down from heaven, not meaning material bread, but divine nourishment. But this is the weakest of all, because this which is called bread is broken, is eaten, hath the accidents of bread, and all the signs of his proper nature; and it were a strange violence that it should here signify any manner of food to which it is not like, and not signify that to which it is so like. * Besides this, bread here signifies, as wine or chalice does in the following words; now that did signifie the fruit of the Vine; that special manner of drink (Christ himself being the Interpreter) and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food.

9. Sixthly, If after the blessing the bread doth not remain, but (as they affirm) be wholly annihilated, then by blessing God destroys a creature: which indeed is a strange kind of blessing; [...], saith Suidas, verb. [...]. When God blesses, he confirms his words with deeds, and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses. And certain it is, that although blessing can change it, it must yet change it to the better; and so we affirm he does: for the bread besides the natural being, by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner; but then it must remain bread still, or else it receives not that increase and change; but if it be annihilated and becomes nothing, it is not Christs body in any sence, nor in any sence can pretend to be blessed. To which add the words of S. Austin, Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet non est causa deficiendi, L. 83 Quast. 21. id est, tendendi ad non esse. He that is the fountain of all being, is not the cause of not being, much less can his blessing cause any thing not to be. It follows therefore, that by blessing the bread becomes better, but therefore it still remains.

10. Seventhly, That it is bread of which Christ affirmed [This is my body] and that it is bread after consecration, was the doctrine of the Fathers in the Primitive Church. I begin with the words of a whole Council of Fathers, In Trullo at Constantinople, decreeing thus against the Aquarii, In Sanctis nihil plus quàm corpus Christi offeratur, ut ipse dominus tradidit, hoc est, panis & vinúm aquâ mixtum, In the holy places or offices] let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ, as the Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water. So Justin Martyr, [...].Just. Mart. Apol. 2. We are taught that the food made eucharistical, the food which by change nourishes our flesh and bloud, is the flesh and bloud of Jesus incarnate, [...], we do not receive it as common bread: No, for it is [...], it is made Sacramental and Eucharistical, and so it is sublimed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still, and that for two reasons. 1. Because still he calls it bread, not common bread, but extraordinary, yet bread still. Card. Perron says, it follows not to say, it is not common bread, therefore it is bread; so as of those which appeared as men to Abraham, we might say they were not common men; but it follows not that they were men at all. So the Holy Ghost descending like a Dove upon the blessed Jesus, was no common Dove; and yet it follows not it was a Dove at all. I reply to this, that of whatsoever you can say, it is extraordinary in his kind, of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind: as concerning the richest scarlet, if you say this is no ordinary colour, you suppose it to be a colour: so the Corinthian brass was no common brass, and the Colossus was no common Statue, and Christmas day is no common day, yet these negatives suppose the affirmative of their proper subject; Corinthian [Page] brass is brass, Colossus is a statue, and Christmas day is a day. But if you affirm of a counterfeit, or of an image or a picture, by saying it is no common thing, you deny to it the ordinary nature by diminution; but if it have the nature of the thing, then to say it is not common, denies the ordinary nature by addition and eminency; the first says it is not so at all, the second says it is more than so; and this is taught to every man by common reason, and he could have observed it if he had pleased; for it is plain, Justin said this of that, which before the Consecration was known to be natural bread, and therefore now to say it was not common bread, is to say it is bread and something more. 2. The second reason from the words of Justin to prove it to be natural food still is because it is that by which our blood and our flesh is nourished by change. Bellarmine says, that these words by which our flesh and blood is nourished, mean by which they use to be nourished; not meaning that they are nourished by this bread when it is Eucharistical. But besides that this is gratis dictum without any colour or pretence from the words of Justin, but by a presumption taken from his own opinion, as if it were impossible that Justin should mean any thing against his doctrine: besides this I say the interpretation is insolent, Nutriuntur i. e. solent nutriri; as also because both the verbs are of the present tense, [...] & [...], The flesh and blood are nourished by bread, and it is the body of Christ; that is both in conjunction; so that he says not, as Bellarmine would have him, Cibus ille ex quo carnes nostrae ali solent cum prece mysticâ consecratur, efficitur corpus Christi; but, Cibus ille quo carnes nostrae aluntur, est corpus Christi. The difference is material, and the matter is apparent: but upon this alone I rely not. To the same purpose are the words of Irenaeus, Dominus accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, & temperamentum calicis, suum sanguinem confirmavit;L. 4. c. 57. Our Lord taking bread confessed it to be his body, and the mixture of the cup he confirmed to be his blood. Here Irenaeus affirms to be true what De Euch▪ l. 3. c. 19▪ Bellarmine says, non potest fieri, cannot be done; that in the same proposition bread should be the subject, and body should be the praedicate; Irenaeus sayes that Christ said it to be so, and him we follow. But most plainly in his fifth Book, Quando ergo & mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi; ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia: Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur? and a little after he affirms that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones; and that this is not understood of the spiritual man, but of the natural disposition or temper; quae de calice qui est sanguis ejus nutritur, & de pane qui est corpus ejus augetur; and again, eum calicem qui est creatura suum sanguinem qui effusus est ex quo auget nostrum sanguinem, & eum panem &c. qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmavit ex quo nostra auget corpora; it is made the Eucharist of the bread, and the body of Christ out of that, of which the substance of our flesh consists and is encreased: by the bread which he confirmed to be his body, he encreases our bodies, by the blood which was poured out he encreases our blood; that is the sence of Irenaeus so often repeated. And to the same purpose is that of Origen, [...].L. 8. adv. Celsum. The bread, which is called the Eucharist, is to us the symbol of thanksgiving or Eucharist to God. So also Tertullian Tertul adv. Marcion. l. 4▪ c. 40., acceptum panem & distributum discipulis suis corpus suum fecit, He made the bread which he took and distributed to his disciples to be his body. But more plainly in his Book De Coronâ militis, Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxiè patimur; we cannot endure that any of the cup or any thing of the bread be thrown to the ground. The Eucharist he plainly calls bread; and that he speaks of the Eucharist is certain, and Bellarmine quotes the words to the purpose of shewing how reverently the Eucharist was handled and regarded. The like is in S. Cyprian, Dominus corpus suum panem vocat, Bellar. l. 4. Euch. c. 14. Sect. si rursus objicia [...]. Cyprian ep. 76▪ Dial. 2. contr▪ Nestor. Catech. mystag. 4. & sanguinem suum vinum appellat. Our Lord calls bread his body, and wine his blood. So John Maxentius in the time of Pope Hormisda, The bread which the whole Church receives in memory of the Passion, is the body of Christ. And S. Cyril of Jerusalem is earnest in this affair; since our Lord hath declared and said to us of bread, This is my body, who shall dare to doubt it? which words I the rather note, because Cardinal Perron brings them, as if they made for his cause, which they most evidently destroy. For if of bread Christ made this affirmation, that it is his body, then it is both bread and Christs body too, and that is it which we contend for. In the Dialogues against the Marci [...]nites, collected out of Maximus, Maximus. Origen is brought in proving the reality of Christs flesh and blood in his incarnation, by this argument. If as these men say, he be without flesh and bloud, [...] [Page] [...], &c. Of what body and of what bloud did he command the images or figures giving the bread and cup to his Disciples, that by these a remembrance of him should be made? Accacius in Gen. 2. Graec. [...]aren. in Pentateuch. But Acacius the successor of Eusebius in his Bishoprick, calls it bread and wine even in the very use and sanctification of us. Panis vinúmque ex hâc materiâ vescentes sanctificat, the bread and wine sanctifies them that are fed with this matter. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum, so S. Hierome, he offered wine not water in the type [representment or sacrament] of his bloud.L. 2. adv. Jovin. Dial. 1. [...]. To the same purpose, but most plain are the words of Theodoret, [...], In the exhibition of the mysteries he called bread his body, and the mixture in the chalice he called bloud. So also S. Austin Serm. 9. De diversis; The Eucharist is our daily bread, but we receive it so that we are not only nourished by the belly, but also by the understanding. And I cannot understand the meaning of plain Latin, if the same thing be not affirmed in the little Mass-book published by Paulus 5. for the English Priests, Deus qui humani generis utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento, tribue quaesumus, ut eorum & corporibus nostris subsidium non desit & mentibus, The present gifts were appointed for the nourishment both of soul and body. Who please may see more in Macarius 27. Homily, and Ammonius in his Evangelical harmony in the Bibliotheca PP. and this though it be decryed now adays in the Roman Schools, yet was the doctrine of Sent 4. dist. 11. q. 3. Scotus, of Ibid. q. 1. Durandus, Ibid. q 6. & Centilog. Theol. con. l. 4. q. 6. Ocham, Ibid. q. 6. ar. 1. Cameracensis, and Canon. missa lect. 40. H. Biel, and those men were for Consubstantiation; that Christs natural body was together with natural bread, which although I do not approve, yet the use that I now make of them cannot be denied me; it was their doctrine, that after consecration bread still remains; after this let what can follow. But that I may leave the ground of this argument secure, I add this, that in the Primitive Church eating the Eucharistical bread was esteemed a breaking the fast, which is not imaginable any man can admit, but he that believes bread to remain after consecration, and to be nutritive as before: but so it was that in the second age of the Church it was advised that either they should end their station (or fast) at the communion, or defer the communion to the end of the station; as appears in Tertullian, de Oratione cap. 14. which unanswerably proves that then it was thought to be bread and nutritive, even then when it was Eucharistical: and Apol. 4.6. Picus Mirandula affirms that if a Jew or a Christian should eat the Sacrament for refection, it breaks his fast. The same also is the doctrine of all those Churches who use the Liturgies of S. James, S. Mark, and S. Chrysostome, who hold that receiving the holy communion breaks the fast, as appears in the disputation of Cardinal Humbert with Nicetas about 600 years ago. The summ of all is this; If of bread Christ said, This is my body, because it cannot be true in a proper natural sence, it implying a contradiction that it should be properly bread, and properly Christs body; it must follow, That it is Christs body in a figurative improper sence. But if the bread does not remain bread, but be changed by blessing into our Lords body; this also is impossible to be in any sence true, but by affirming the change to be only in use, virtue and condition, with which change the natural being of bread may remain. For, he that supposes that by the blessing, the bread ceases so to be, that nothing of it remains, must also necessarily suppose that the bread being no more, it neither can be the body of Christ, nor any thing else. For it is impossible that what is taken absolutely from all being, should yet abide under a certain difference of being, and that that thing which is not at all, should yet be after a certain manner. Since therefore (as I have proved) the bread remains, and of bread it was affirmed [This is my body] it follows inevitably that it is figuratively, not properly and naturally spoken of bread, That it is the flesh or body of our Lord.

SECT. VI. Est corpus meum.

1. THE Next words to be considered are [Est corpus] This is my body;] and here begins the first Topical expression; [Est] that is, significat or repraesentat, & exhibet corpus meum, say some. This is my body, it is to all real effects the same to [Page] your particulars, which my body is to all the Church: it signifies the breaking of my body, the effusion of my blood for you, and applies my passion to you, and conveys to you all the benefits; as this nourishes your bodies, so my body nourishes your souls to life eternal, and consigns your bodies to immortality. Others make the trope in Corpus, so that Est shall signify properly, but Corpus is taken in a spiritual sence, sacramental and Mysterious; not a natural and presential; whether the figure be in Est or in Corpus, is but a question of Rhetorick, and of no effect. That the proposition is tropical and figurative is the thing, and that Christs natural body is now in heaven definitively, and no where else; and that he is in the Sacrament as he can be in a Sacrament, in the hearts of faithful receivers, as he hath promised to be there; that is, in the Sacrament mystically, operatively, as in a moral and divine instrument, in the hearts of receivers by faith and blessing; this is the truth and the faith of which we are to give a reason and account to them that disagree. But this which is to all the purpose which any one pretends can be in the sumption of Christs body naturally, yet will not please the Romanists unless [Est Is] signifie properly without trope or metonymie, and corpus be corpus naturale. Here then I joyn issue; It is not Christs body properly, or naturally: for though it signifies a real effect, yet it signifies the body figuratively, or the effects and real benefits.

2. Now concerning this, there are very many inducements to infer the figurative or tropical interpretation. 1. In the language which our blessed Lord spake, there is no word that can express significat, but they use the word Is; the Hebrews and the Syrians always joyn the names of the signs with the things signified: and since the very essence of a sign is to signifie, it is not an improper elegancy in those languages to use [Est] for significat. 2. It is usual in the Old Testament, as may appear, to understand est when the meaning is for the present, and not to express it: but when it signifies the future then to express it; the seven fat cows, seven years; the seven withered ears shall be seven years of famine. Gen. 41.26, 27. & 40.12, 18. & 17.10. Exod. 12.11. 3. The Greek interpreters of the Bible supply the word est, in the present tense, which is omitted in the Hebrew, as in the places above quoted: but although their Language can very well express [signifies] yet they follow the Hebrew Idiom. 4. In the New Testament the same manner of speaking is retained, to declare that the nature and being of signs is to signifie they have no other esse but significare, and therefore they use est for significat. The Seed is the word, the Field is the World, the Reapers are the Angels, the Harvest is the End of the World; the Rock is Christ; I am the Door; I am the Vine, my Father is the husbandman; I am the way, the truth, and the life; Sarah and Agar are the two Testaments; the Stars are the Angels of the Churches, the Candlesticks are the Churches; and many more of this kind; we have therefore great and fair, and frequent precedents for expounding this est by significat, for it is the style of both the Testaments to speak in signs and representments, where one disparate speaks of another, as it does here: the body of Christ, of the bread, which is the Sacrament; especially since the very institution of it is representative, significative, and commemorative: For so said our blessed Saviour, Do this in memorial of me Nemo recordatur nisi quod in praesentiâ non est positum, S. August. in Psal. 37.; and this doing, ye shew forth the Lords death till he come, saith S. Paul.

3. Secondly, the second credibility that our blessed Saviours words are to be understood figuratively, is, because it is a *Haec n [...] Sacramenta sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur, quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud existentia, aliud significantia. August. l. 3. contr. Max. c. 22. Sacramentum dicitur sacrum signum, sive sacrum secretum. Bern. Serm. d [...] coen. Dom. Sacrament: For mysterious and tropical expressions are very frequently, almost regularly and universally used in Scripture in Sacraments and sacramentals. And therefore it is but a vain discourse of Bellarmine to contend, that this must be a proper speaking, because it is a Sacrament. For that were all one as to say, he speaks mystically, therefore he speaks properly. [...] is the Greek for a Sacrament, and all the Greek that is for it in the New Testament: and when S. Paul tells of a man praying in the spirit, but so as not to be understood, he expresses it by, speaking mysteries 1 Cor. 14.2.. The mysterious and sacramental speaking is secret and dark. But so it is in the sacrament or covenant of circumcision. [...], This is my Covenant, and yet it was but the seal of the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. (if you believe S. Paul) it was a Sacrament and a consignation of it, but it is spoken of it affirmatively;Rom. 4.11. and the same words are used there as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; it is [...] in both places.

4. And upon this account two other usual objections (pretending that this being a Covenant and a Testament, it ought to be expressed without a figure) are dissolved. For here is a Covenant and a Testament and a Sacrament all in one, and yet [Page] the expression of them is figurative; and the being a Testament is so far from supposing all expression in it to be proper and free from figure, that it self, the very word Testament in the institution of the holy Sacrament is tropical or figurative: est Testamentum, that is, est signum Testamenti, it is, that is, it signifies. And why they should say that a Testament must have in it all plain words and no figures or hard sayings, that contend that both the Testaments New, and Old, are very full of hard sayings, and upon that account forbid the people to read them; I confess I cannot understand. Besides this, though it be fit in temporal Testaments all should be plain, yet we see all are not plain; and from thence come so many suits of Law; yet there is not the same reason in spiritual or divine, and in humane Testaments; for in humane, there is nothing but legacies and express commands, both which it is necessary that we understand plainly; but in divine Testaments there are mysteries to exercise our industry and our faith, our patience and inquiry, some things for us to hope, some things for us to admire, some things to pry into, some things to act, some things for the present, some things for the future, some things pertaining to this life, some things pertaining to the life to come, some things we are to see in a glass darkly, some things reserved till the vision of Gods face. And after all this, in humane Testaments men ought to speak plainly, because they can speak no more when they are dead. But Christ can, for he being dead yet speaketh; and he can by his Spirit make the Church understand as much as he please; and he will as much as is necessary: and it might be remembred, that in Scripture there is extant a record of Jacobs Testament, and of Moses, Gen. 49. Deut. 33. which we may observe to be an allegory all the way. I have heard also of an Athenian that had two sons, and being asked on his deathbed to which of his two sons he would give his goods, to Leon or Pantaleon, which were the names of his two sons; he only said, [...], but whether he meant to give all [...] to Leon, or to Pantaleon, is not yet known. And in the Civil Law it is noted that Testaments have figurative expressions very often; and therefore decreed, Non n. in causâ Testamentorum ad definitionem, (strictam, sive propriam verborum significationem, saith the Gloss) utique descendendum est, cum plerumque abusivè loquantur, nec propriis vocabulis ac nominibus semper utantur Testatores, l. non aliter Sect. Titius F. de legat. & fidei com. And there are in Law certain measures for presumption of the Testators meaning. These therefore are trifling arrests; even a commandment may be given with a figurative expression, and yet be plain enough: such was that of Jesus, Pray ye the Lord of the Harvest, that he would send Labourers into his Harvest; and that, Jesus commanded his Disciples to prepare the Passeover; and some others: so, Rent your hearts, and not your garments, &c. And an article of faith may be expressed figuratively; so is that of Christs sitting at the right hand of his Father. And therefore much more may there be figurative expressions in the institution of a mysterie, and yet be plain enough; Tropica loquutio cum fit ubi fieri solet, sine labore sequitur intellectus; said S. Austin, l. 3. de Doct. Christ. c. 37. Certain it is the Church understood this well enough for a Thousand years together, and yet admitted of figures in the institution. and since these new men had the handling of it, and excluded the figurative sence, they have made it so hard, that themselves cannot understand it, nor tell one anothers meaning. But it suffices as to this particular, that in Scripture, doctrines, and promises, and precepts and prophecies, and histories, are expressed sometimes figuratively; Dabo tibi claves; and Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis; and The dragon drew the third part of the Stars with his tail; and Fight the good fight of faith, Put on the armour of righteousness; and very many more.

5. Thirdly, And indeed there is no possibility of distinguishing sacramental propositions from common and dogmatical, or from a commandment; but that these are affirmative of a nature, those of a mystery; these speak properly, they are figurative: such as this, Vnless a man be born of water and the Spirit, be cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. The proposition is sacramental, mystical, and figurative: Go and baptize, that's a precept; therefore the rather is it literal and proper. So it is in the blessed Sacrament, the institution is in [Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, Take, eat] In these also there is a precept, and in the last words: Hoc facite, this do in remembrance of me; But the Sacramental proposition or the mystical, which explicates the Sacrament, is, [Hoc est corpus meum] and either this is, or there is no sacramental proposition in this whole affair to explicate the mysterie, or the being a sacrament. But this is very usual in sacramental propositions. For so baptism is called regeneration, and it is called a burial by S. Paul, for we [Page]are buried with him in baptism; then baptism is either sepulchrum or sepultura, the grave or the burial, but either of them is a figure, and it is so much used in sacramental and mystick propositions, that they are all so, or may be so;Lib. 20. contr. Faustum Manich. c. 21. ut baptismus sepulchrum, sic hoc est corpus meum, saith S. Austin. And this is also observed in Gentile rites:

— [...]

[...]—So Homer:

The slain Lambs and the wine were the Sacrament, the faithful oaths, that is, the rite and mysterie of their sanction; they were oaths figuratively.

6. Fourthly, But to save the labour of more instances; S. Austin hath made the observation, and himself gives in a list of particulars: solet autem res quae significat, ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari; septem spicae, In Levit. q. 57. septem anni sunt (non enim dixit septem annos significant) & multa hujusmodi. Hinc est quod dictum erat, Petra erat Christus, non enim dixit, Petra significat Christum, sed tanquam hoc esset quod utique per substantiam non erat, sed per significationem. ‘The thing which signifies is wont to be called by that which it signifies: the seven ears of corn are seven years: he did not say they signified seven years, but are; and many like this. Hence it is said, the rock was Christ, for he said not, the rock signifies Christ; but as if the thing were that, not which it were in his own substance, but in signification. Pervulgatum est in Scripturâ, ut res figurata nomen habeat figurae, saith Ribera. In apoc. c. 14. v. 8.’ That this is no usual thing is confessed on all hands.

So is that of Exodus, the Lamb is the Passeover; and this does so verifie Saint Austins words, that in the New Testament the Apostles asked our Lord, Where wilt thou that we prepare to eat the Passeover? that is, the Lamb which was the remembrance of the Passeover, as the blessed Eucharist is of the death of Christ.L. 1. Euch. c. 11. Sect. Quadam citantur ▪ To this instance Bellarmine speaks nothing to purpose, for he denies the Lamb to signifie the Passeover, or the passing of the Angel over the houses of Israel, because there is no likelihood between the Lamb and the Passeover; and to make the business up, he says, the Lamb was the Passeover: By some straining, the Lamb slain might signifie the slaying the Egyptians, and remember their own escape at the time when they first eat the Lamb: But by no straining could the Lamb be the thing; especially, if for the dissimilitude it could not so much as signifie it, how could it be the very same to which it was so extreamly unlike? but he always says something, though it be nothing to the purpose: and yet it may be remembred that the eating the Lamb was as proper an instrument of remembrance of that deliverance, as the eating consecrated bread is of the passion of our blessed Lord. ‘But it seems the Lamb is the very passeover, as the very festival day is called the Passeover; so he.’ And he says true, in the same manner; but that is but by a trope or figure, for the feast is the feast of the Passeover; if you speak properly, it is the Passeover by a Metonymie: and so is the Lamb. And this instance is so much the more apposite, because it is the fore-runner of the blessed Eucharist, which succeeded that, as Baptism did Circumcision; and there is nothing of sence that hath been, or I think can be spoken to evade the force of this instance; nor of the many other before reckoned.

8. Fifthly, And as it is usual in all Sacraments, so particularly it must be here, in which there is such a heap of tropes and figurative speeches, that almost in every word there is plainly a trope. For 1. Here is the Cup taken for the thing contained in it. 2. Testament, for the legacy given by it. 3. This,] is not in recto, but in obliquo. This] that is, not this which you see, but this which you do not see. This which is under the species is my dody. 4. My body, but not bodily; my body without the forms and figure of my body, that is, my body, not as it is in nature, not as it is in glory, but as it is in Sacrament; that is, my body Sacramentally. 5. Drink ye] that is also improper; for his blood is not drunk properly, for blood hath the same manner of existing in the chalice as it hath in the Paten, that is, is under the form of wine as it is under the form of bread; and therefore it is in the veins, not separate, say they, See Brerely Liturg. Tract. 4. Sect. 8. Glossa in c. si per negligentiam dist. 2. de consecrat. in hac verba [De sanguine] ait De sanguine, i. e. de sacramento sanguinis. Sanguis n. Christi à corpore Christi separari [...]on valet, ergo nec stillare nec fl [...]tere potest. and yet it is in the bread, as it is in the chalice, and in both as upon the Cross, that is, poured out, so Christ said expresly; for else it were so far from being his blood, that it were not so much as the Sacrament of what he gave; so that the wine in the chalice is not drunk, because it is not separate from the body; and in the bread it cannot be drunk, because there it is not in the [Page] veins; or if it were, yet is made as a consistent thing by the continent, but is not potable: now that which follows from hence is, that it is not drunk at all properly, but figuratively: and so Mr. Brerely See Brerely Liturg. Tract. 4. Sect. 8. confesses sometimes, and Jansenius, Concord. in eum locum. There is also an impropriety in the word [given, for shall be given; is poured out, for shall be poured out Salmer. in 1 Cor. 11. Gregor. de Valent. l. 1. de Missa c. 3. Sect. igitur. Tom. 3. disp. 47. Sect. 4. Sect. exampla tertiae. Ruard Tapper in art. 13.; in [broken, for then it was not broken when Christ spake it, and it cannot be properly spoken since his glorification. Salmeron allows an Enallage in the former, and Suarez a Metaphor in the latter. Frangi cùm dicitur, est Metaphorica locutio. And this is their excuse, why in the Roman missal they leave out the words [which is broken for you] for they do what they please, they put in some words which Christ used not, and leave out something that he did use, and yet they are all the words of institution. And upon the same account there is another trope in [eat] and yet with a strange confidence these men wonder at us for saying the sacramental words are tropical or figurative Dico quòd figura corporis Christi est ibi, sed figura corporis Christi, non est ibi figura corporis Christi Holcot. in 4. sent. quaest. 3., when even by their own confession Anselm, Lombard, Thomas, Lyran, Gorran, Cajetan, Dion. Carth. Catharinus, Salmeron, Bened. Justinian, Sa. in 1 Cor. 11. & innumeri alii. and proper grounds, there is scarce any word in the whole institution but admits an impropriety. And then concerning the main predication; This is my body, as Christ called bread his body, so he called his body bread, and both these affirmatives are destructive of Transubstantiation; for if of bread Christ affirmed, It is his body, by the rule of disparates it is figurative; and if of his body he affirmed it to be bread, it is certain also and confessed to be a figure. Now concerning this, besides that our blessed Saviour affirmed himself to be the bread that came down from heaven, calling himself bread, and in the institution calling bread his body; we have the express words of Theodoret, Dial. 1. c. 8. [...]; Christ gave to his body the name of the Symbol, and to the 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,Tract. 26. in S. Johan. 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, In S. Johan. 6.49. 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.

[Page]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 Vide infra Sect. 12. n. 22. & n. 32. &c. & Sect. 10. n. 6. 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 [Page] 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. De Euch. l. 1. c. 13. Sect. 1▪ 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. 1 Cor. 11.26. 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 [Page] 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 'tis 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;Opusc. Tom. 2. Tract. 2. de Euch. c. 5. 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, In Mat. 15. 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, L. 8. de Trinit. 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,De Coena Dom. aut quicunque author est. and drink not of the blood that issued from thence when the Rock was smitten. They receive corticem sacramenti,[Page]& 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: Super Exod. de agno Pasc. 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,L. 21. de Civit. Dei c. 25. ‘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, Serm. 2. de verb. Apost. 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,L. 1. Euch. c. 14 Sect Respond. apud Augusti [...]ium. 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 De Serm. de verb. Apost. Pauli supr. and shall remark, particularly this; that he calls that which the wicked eat, nothing but signum corporis & sanguinis. His words are these Tract. 26. in Joh. vid. etiam. Bellarmine l. 1. Euch. c. 14. Sect. respondeo S. August., 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. Tract. 59. in Joh. 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, [Page] 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,L. 1. de Euch. c. 11. Sect. ad tertiam dico. 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, [Page] 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.

V. 16, 17. Sect. 5. n. 6. L. 1. Euch. c. 12.2. 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. Sect. sed tota difficultas. 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;C. 10. v. 16. 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,1 Cor. 11.29, 27 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, V. 29. &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;V. 27. 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, In 1 Cor. 11. 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: [Page] 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;1. S. Mat. 15.17. 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.L. 1. Euch. c. 14 Sect. Resp. cum Algero. 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.Sect. 5. n. 9. 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, [...]. Aristot. l. 3. de anim. cap. 12. then how do we eat Christs body? If we manducate bread, then 'tis 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 Sect. 3. n. 6. 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;De consecrat. dist. 2. c. Si per negligentiam. Glos. ibid. 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 In 3. t. 3 d. 195▪ n. 46., and it is the prevailing [Page] 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, In cap. 15. S. Mat. & 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 S. Mat. 15.17. 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, Ep. ad Guitard. 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 [Page] 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;Categor. c. 5. [...], 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: S. Joh. 16.7.14.2. Mat. 26.11. Acts 3.21. Philip. 3.20. 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:Lib. 1. Euch. c. 1 [...]. Sect. Respondeo Argumentum. 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 be in more places than one: if in two, it may be in 2000, and then it may be every where; for it is not limited, and therefore is illimited and potentially infinite. Against this so seemingly impossible at the very first sight, and relying upon a similitude and analogy that is not far from blasphemy, viz. that as God is in Heaven and yet on Earth, eodem modo after the same manner is Christs body; which words it cannot be easie to excuse: against this (I say) (although for the reasons alledged, it be unnecessary to be disproved, yet) I have these things to oppose, 1. The words of Scripture, that affirm Christ to be in Heaven, affirm also that he is [Page]gone from hence. S. Joh. 16.28. Now if Christs body not only could, but must be every day in innumerable places on earth, it would have been said that Christ is in Heaven, but not that he is not here, or that he is gone from hence. 2. Surrexit, non est hîc, was the Angels discourse to the inquiring woman at the Sepulchre, he is risen, he is not here: but if they had been taught the new doctrine of the Roman Schools, they would have denied the consequent; he is risen and gone from hence, but he may be here too. And this indeed might have put the Angels to a distinction: but the womens ignorance rendred them secure. However S. Austin is dogmatical in this Article, saying, Christum ubique totum esse tanquam Deum & in eodem tanquam inhabitante Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum. Epist. ad Dardan. Christ as God is every where, but in respect of his body he is determin'd to a particular residence in Heaven, viz. at the right hand of God, that is, in the best seat, and in the greatest eminency. And in the thirtieth Treatise of S. John, It behoveth that the body of our Lord since it is raised again should be in one place alone, but the truth is spread over all. But concerning these words of S. Austin they have taken a course in all their Editions to corrupt the place; And in stead of [oportet] have clapp'd in [potest] instead of [must be] have foisted in [may be] against the faith of the ancient Canonists and Scholasticks; particularly, Lombard, Gratian, Ivo Carnotensis, Algerus, Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus, Durand, Biel, Scotus, Cassander, and divers others. To this purpose is that of S. Cyril Alex. Lib. 11. in Jon. c. 3. He could not converse with his Disciples in the flesh being ascended to his Father. So Cassian Lib. 4. de incarnat. c. 1., Jesus Christ speaking on Earth, cannot be in Heaven but by the infinity of his Godhead: and Lib. 2. ad Thras [...]undum c. 7. Apol. p. 65. Fulgentius argues it strongly; If the body of Christ be a true body, it must be contained in a particular place: but this place is just so corrupted in their Editions, as is that of S. Austin, potest being substituted instead of oportet; but this doctrine, viz. that to be in several places is impossible to a body, and proper to God, was affirmed by the Universality of Paris in a Synod under William their Bishop 1340, and Johannes Picus Mirandula maintained in Rome it self, that it could not be by the power of God that one body should at once be in divers places.

3. Thirdly, The Scripture speaks of his going thither from hence by elevation and ascension, and of his coming from thence at his appearing, [...], and [...], the words have an Antithesis; the Heavens till then shall retain him; but then he shall come from thence, which were needless if he might be here and stay there too.

4. When Christ said, Me ye have not always, and at another time, Loe, I am with you always to the end of the World; It is necessary that we distinguish the parts of a seeming contradiction. Christ is with us by his Spirit, but Christ is not with us in body; but if his body be here too, then there is no way of Substantial, Real Presence, in which those words can be true [me ye have not always.] The Rhemists in their note upon this place, say, that when Christ said, Me ye have not always, he means, ye have not me in the manner of a poor man, needing relief; that is, Not me so as you have the poor. But this is a trifle; because our Blessed Saviour did not receive that ministery of Mary Magdalen as a poor man, for it was a present for a Prince, not a relief to necessity, but a Regalo fit for so great a person; and therefore if he were here at all after his departure, he was capable of as noble an usage and an address fit to represent a Majesty, or at least to express a love. It was also done for his burying, so Christ accepted it, and that signified and plainly related to a change of his state and abode. But besides this, if this could be the interpretation of those words, then they did not at all signifie Christs leaving this world, but only his changing his circumstance of fortune, his outward dress and appendages of person; which were a strange commentary upon [Me ye have not always;] that is, I shall be with you still,Tract. 50. in Johan. but in a better condition; but S. Austin hath given sentence concerning the sence of these words of Christ [Loquebatur de praesentiâ corporis, &c.] He spake of the presence of his body, ye shall have me according to my providence, according to Majesty, and invisible grace, but according to the flesh which the word assumed, according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me, therefore because he conversed with his disciples forty days he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here; If he be here in person, what need he to have sent his Vicar, his holy Spirit in substitution? especially since by this doctrine he is more now with his Church than he was in the days of his conversion in Palestine; for then he was but in one assembly at once; now he is in thousands every day. If it be said, because although he be here yet we see him not; This is not sufficient, for what matter is it whether we see him or no, if we [Page] know him to be here, if we feel him, if we eat him, if we worship him in presence natural and proper? There wants nothing but some accidents of colour and shape. A friend in the dark, behind a curtain, or to a blind man, is as certainly present as if he were in the light in open conversation, or beheld with the eyes. And then also the office of the holy Spirit would only be to supply the sight of his person, which might possibly be true if he had no greater offices, and we no greater needs, and if he himself also were visible and glorious to our eyes; for if the effect of his substitution is spiritual, secret, and invisible, our eyes are still without comfort; and if the Spirits secret effect does supply it and makes it not necessary that we should see him, then so does our faith do the same thing; for if we believe him there, the want of bodily sight is supplied by the eye of faith, and the Spirit is pretended to do no more in this particular, and then his presence also will be less necessary, because supplied by our own act. Add to this; That if after Christs ascension into Heaven, he still would have been upon Earth, in the Eucharist, and received properly into our mouths, and in all that manner which these men dream; how ready it had been and easie to have comforted them who were troubled for want of his bodily presence; by telling them [Although I go to Heaven, yet fear not to be deprived of the presence of my body, for you shall have it more than before, and much better; for I will be with you, and in you; I was with you in a state of humility and mortality, now I will be with you with a daily and mighty miracle; I before gave you promises of grace and glory, but now I will become to your bodies a seed of immortality. And though you will not see me, but under a vail, yet it is certain, I will be there, in your Churches, in your pixes, in your mouths, in your stomachs, and you shall believe and worship.] Had not this been a certain, clear, and proportionable comfort to their complaint, and present necessity, if any such thing were intended? It had been so certain, so clear, so proportionable, that it is more than probable, that if it had been true, it had not been omitted. But that such sacred things as these may not be exposed to contempt, by such weak propositions and their trifling consequents, the case is plain, that Christ being to depart hence sent his holy Spirit in substitution to supply to his Church the office of a Teacher, which he on Earth in person was to his Disciples; when he went from hence, he was to come no more in person, and therefore he sent his substitute; and therefore to pretend him to be here in person,Heb. 9.24. 2 Cor. 5.6, 8. Phil. 1.23. & 3.20. Coloss. 3.1, 2. S. Joh. 14.16. & 16.7. though under a disguise which we see through with the eye of Faith, and converse with him by presential adoration of his humanity, is in effect to undervalue the real purposes and sence of all the sayings of Christ concerning his departure hence, and the deputation of the holy Spirit. But for this, because it is naturally impossible, they have recourse to the Divine Omnipotency: God can do it, therefore he does. But of this I shall give particular account in the Section of Reason; as also the other arguments of Scripture I shall reduce to their heads of proper matter.

SECT. X. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against sense.

1. THAT which is one of the firmest pillars upon which all humane notices, and upon which all Christian Religion does rely, cannot be shaken; or if it be, all Science * [...]. Arist. l. 8. Phys. [...]. 22. [...]. S. Basil. ep. 43. and all Religion must be in danger. Now beside that all our notices of things proceed from sense, and our understanding receives his proper objects, by the mediation of material and sensible phantasms, and the soul in all her operations during this life is served by the ministeries of the body, and the body works upon the soul only by sense; besides this, ‖1 S. Joh. 1. v. 1, 2, 3. S. John hath placed the whole Religion of a Christian upon the certainty and evidence of sense as upon one unmoveable foundation. ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld, and our hands have handled of the word of life. And the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and bear witness and declare unto you eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us, which we have seen and heard, we declare unto you.’ Tertullian in his book de anima, uses this very argument against the Marcionites, Recita Johannis[Page]testationem; quod vidimus (inquit) quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus, & manus nostrae contrectaverunt, de Sermone vitae. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum, & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur; his testimony was false, if eyes, and ears, and hands be deceived. In Nature there is not a greater argument than to have heard, and seen, and handled.

Sed quia profundâ non licet luctarier

Supplic. Romani Martyr. Prudent.

Ratione tecum, consulamus proxima:

Interrogetur ipsa naturalium

Simplex sine arte sensuum sententia.

And by what means can an assent be naturally produced, but by those instruments, by which God conveys all notices to us, that is, by seeing, and hearing? Faith comes by hearing, and evidence comes by seeing; and if a man in his wits, and in his health, can be deceived in these things, how can we come to believe?

Corpus enim per se communis deliquat esse

Lucret. l. 1.

Sensus: quo nisi prima fides sundata valebit,

Haud erit occultis de rebus quo referentes

Confirmare animi quicquam ratione queamus.

For if a Man or an Angel declares Gods will to us, if we may not trust our hearing, we cannot trust him: for we know not whether indeed he says what we think he says; and if God confirms the proposition by a miracle, an ocular demonstration, we are never the nearer to the believing him, because our eyes are not to be trusted. But if feeling also may be abused, when a man is in all other capacities perfectly healthy, then he must be governed by chance, and walk in the dark, and live upon shadows, and converse with fantasms and illusions, as it happens; and then at last it will come to be doubted whether there be any such man as himself; and whether he be awake when he is awake, or not rather, then only awake when he himself and all the world thinks him to have been asleep: Oculatae sunt nostrae manus, credunt quod vident.

2. Now then to apply this to the present question in the words of S. Austin, Quod ergo vidistis panis est & calix, In Serm. apud Bed. in 1 Cor. 10. Sed haec verba citantur ab Algero l. 1. de Sacram. c. 5. ex Serm. de verbis Domini. Bellarm. l. 1. Euch. c. 14. Sect. Jam ad Petrum Martyrem. quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant. That which our eyes have seen, that which our hands have handled, is bread; we feel it, taste it, see it to be bread, and we hear it called bread, that very substance which is called the body of our Lord. Shall we now say, our eyes are deceived, our ears hear a false sound, our taste is abused, our hands are mistaken? It is answered, Nay; our senses are not mistaken; ‘For our senses in health and due circumstances cannot be abused in their proper object, but they may be deceived about that which is under the object of their senses; they are not deceived in colour, and shape, and taste, and magnitude, which are the proper objects of our senses; but they may be deceived in substances which are covered by these accidents; and so it is not the outward sense so much as the inward sense that is abused. For so Abraham, when he saw an Angel in the shape of a humane body, was not deceived in the shape of a man, for there was such a shape; but yet it was not a man, and therefore if he thought it was, he was abused;’ This is their answer: and if this will not serve the turn, nothing will; This therefore must be examined.

3. Now this, instead of taking away the insuperable difficulty, does much increase it, and confesses the things which it ought to have avoided. For 1. The accidents proper to a substance are for the manifestation, and notice of the substance, not of themselves, for as the man feels, but the means by which he feels is the sensitive faculty, so that which is felt is the substance, and the means by which it is felt is the accidents: as the shape, the colour, the bigness, the motion of a man are manifestative and declarative of a humane substance: and if they represent a wrong substance, then the sense is deceived by a false sign of a true substance, or a true sign of a false substance: as if an Alchymist should shew me brass colour'd like gold, and made ponderous, and so adulterated that it would endure the touchstone for a long while, the deception is, because there is a pretence of improper accidents; true accidents indeed, but not belonging to that substance. But 2. It is true that is pretended, that it is not so much the outward sense that is abused, as the inward; that is, not so much the eye, as the Man; not the sight, but the judgment: and this is it we complain [Page] of. For indeed, in proper speaking, the eye, or the hand is not capable of being deceived; but the man by the eye, or by the ear, or by his hand. The eye sees a colour, or a figure, and the inward sense apprehends it to be the figure of such a substance, and the understanding judges it to be the thing which is properly represented by the accident: it is so, or it is not so: if it be, there is no deception; if it be not so, then there is a cousenage, there is no lye till it comes to a proposition either explicit, or implicit; a lye is not in the senses; but when a man by the ministery of the senses is led into the apprehension of a wrong object, or the belief of a false proposition: then he is made to believe a lye: and this is our case, when accidents proper to one substance are made the cover of another, to which they are not naturally communicable. And in the case of the holy Sacrament, the matter, if it were as is pretended, were intolerable. For in the cases wherein a man is commonly deceived, it is his own fault by passing judgment too soon; as if he should judge Glass to be Crystal, because it looks like it; This is not any deception in the senses, nor any injury to the man; because he ought to consider more things than the colour to make his judgment whether it be Glass, or Crystal, or Diamond, or Ice; the hardness, the weight, and other things are to be ingredients in the sentence. And if any two things had all the same accidents, then although the senses were not deceived, yet the man would certainly and inculpably mistake. If therefore in the Eucharist (as is pretended) all the accidents of bread remain, then all men must necessarily be deceived; If only one or two did remain, one sense would help the other, and all together would rightly inform the understanding. But when all the accidents remain, they cannot but represent that substance to which those accidents are proper; and then the holy Sacrament would be a constant, irresistable deception of all the world, in that in which all mens notices are most evident and most relied upon, I mean their senses. And then the question will not be, whether our senses can be deceived or no? But whether or no it can stand with the justice and goodness of God to be angry with us for believing our senses, since himself hath so ordered it that we cannot avoid being deceived? there being in this case as much reason to believe a lye, as to believe a truth, if things were so as they pretend. The result of which is this: That as no one sense can be deceived about his proper object; but that a man may about the substance lying under those accidents which are the object proper to that sense, because he gives sentence according to that representment otherwise than he ought, and he ought to have considered other accidents proper to other senses, in making the judgment; as the birds that took the picture of grapes for very grapes; and he that took the picture of a curtain for a very curtain, and desired the Painter to draw it aside; they made judgment of the grapes and the curtain only by colour and figure, but ought to have considered the weight, the taste, the touch, and the smell: so on the other side, if all the senses concur, then not only is it true that the senses cannot be deceived about that object which is their own, but neither ought the man to be deceived about that substance which lies under those accidents; because their ministery is all that natural instrument of conveying notice to a mans understanding which God hath appointed. 4. Just upon this account it is, that S. Johns argument had been just nothing in behalf of the whole religion: for that God was incarnate, that Jesus Christ did such miracles, that he was crucified, that he rose again and ascended into Heaven, that he preached these Sermons, that he gave such commandments, he was made to believe by sounds, by shapes, by figures, by motions, by likenesses, and appearances of all the proper accidents: and his senses could not be deceived about the accidents which were the proper objects of the senses; but if they might be deceived about the substance under these accidents, of what truth or substance could he be ascertain'd by their ministery? for he indeed saw the shape of a humane body; but it might so be, that not the body of a man, but an Angelical substance might lie under it; and so the Article of the assumption of humane nature is made uncertain. And upon the same account so are all the other Articles of our Faith which relied upon the verity of his body and nature: all which if they are not sufficiently signified by their proper accidents, could not be ever the more believed for being seen with the eyes, and heard with the ears, and handled with our hands; but if they were sufficiently declared by their proper accidents, then the understanding can no more be deceived in the substances lying under the accidents, than the senses can in the accidents themselves.

4. To the same purpose it was that the Apostles were answered concerning the Article of the truth of Christs resurrection. For when the Apostles were affrighted at his sudden appearing, and thought it had been a Spirit, Christ called them [Page] to feel his hands, and to shew that it was he; For a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have;L. Luk. 24.39. Quod videtur corpus est: quod palpatur corpus est. S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 4. plainly meaning, that 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, L. 1. de Euch. c. 14. Sect. Resp. ad Calvinum. 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 [Page] 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,L. 1. de Euch. c. 14. Sect. Respondent nonnulli. 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:L. de anim [...] cap. 17. Non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos revocare, &c. It is not lawful to doubt of our senses, lest the same doubt be made concerning Christ; lest peradventure it should be said, he was deceived when he said, I saw Satan like lightning fall from Heaven; or when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him; or lest he should be deceived when he touched Peters wives mother by the hand; or that he smelt another breath of ointment, and not what was offered to his burial, Alium postea vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit, or tasted another taste of wine which he consecrated to the memory of his blood. And if the Catholick Christians had believed the substantial, natural presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, and consequently disbelieved the testimony of four senses, as the Church of Rome at this day does, seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, it had been impudence in them to have reproved Marcion by the testimony of two senses concerning the verity of Christs body. And supposing that our eyes could be deceived, and our taste, and our smelling, yet our touch cannot: for supposing the organs equally disposed, yet touch is the guardian of truth, and his nearest natural instrument; all sensation is by touch, but the other senses are more capable of being deceived; because though they finally operate by touch variously affected, yet their objects are further removed from the Organ, and therefore many intermedial things may intervene, and possibly hinder the operation of the sense; that is, bring more diseases and disturbances to the action: but in touch the object and the instrument joyn close together, and therefore there can be no impediment if the instrument be sound, and the object proper. And yet no sense can be deceived in that which it always perceives alike; [...]. Aristot. de animâ, l. 3. t. 152. L. de animâ c. 87, &c. S. Austin. c. 33. de verâ religione. The touch can never be deceived; and therefore a testimony from it, and three senses more cannot possibly be refused: and therefore it were strange if all the Christians for above 1600 years together should be deceived, as if the Eucharist were a perpetual illusion, and a riddle to the senses for so many ages together: and indeed the fault in this case could not be in the senses: and therefore Tertullian and S. Austin dispute wittily, and substantially, that the senses could never be deceived, but the understanding ought to assent to what they relate to it, or represent: For if any man thinks the staff is crooked that is set half way in the water, it is the fault of his judgment, not of his sense; for the air and the water being several mediums, the eye ought to see otherwise in air, otherwise in water; but the understanding must not conclude falsly from these true premises, which the eye ministers: For the thicker medium makes a fraction of the species by incrassation and a shadow; and when a man in the yellow Jaundies thinks every thing yellow, it is not the fault of his eye, but of his understanding; for the eye does his office right, for it perceives just as is represented to it, the species are brought yellow; but the fault is in the understanding, not perceiving that the species are stained near the eye, not further off: When a man in a fever thinks every thing bitter, his taste is not deceived, but judges rightly; for as a man that chews bread and aloes together, tastes not false, if he tastes bitterness; so it is in the sick mans case; the juice of his meat is mingled with choler, and the taste is acute, and exact by perceiving it such as it is so mingled. The purpose of which discourse is this, that no notices are more evident and more certain than the notices of sense; but if we conclude contrary to the true dictate of senses, the fault is in the understanding, [...]. Arist. l. 3. de anim. l. 165. [...]. Id. ibid. collecting false conclusions from right premises; It follows therefore that in the matter of the Eucharist we ought to judge that which our senses tell us; For [Page] whatsoever they say is true: for no deceit can come by them; but the deceit is when we believe something besides or against what they tell us; especially when the organ is perfect, and the object proper, and the medium regular, and all things perfect, and the same always and to all men. For it is observable, that in this case the senses are competent judges of the natural being of what they see, and taste, and smell, and feel; and according to that all the men in the world can swear that what they see is bread and wine; but it is not their office to tell us what they become by the institution of our Saviour; for that we are to learn by faith, that what is bread and wine in nature is by Gods ordinance the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Saviour of the world; but one cannot contradict another; and therefore they must be reconciled: both say true, that which Faith teaches is certain, and that which the senses of all men teach always, that also is certain and evident; for as the rule of the School says excellently, Grace never destroys nature but perfects it, and so it is in the consecration of bread and wine;Aquin. part. 1. q. 1. [...] 8. ad 2. in which although we are more to regard their signification than their matter, their holy imployment, than their natural usage, what they are by grace rather, than what they are by nature, that they are Sacramental rather than that they are nutritive, that they are consecrated and exalted by religion, rather than that they are mean and low in their natural beings, what they are to the spirit and understanding, rather than what they are to the sense; yet this also is, as true and as evident as the other: and therefore though not so apt for our meditation, yet as certain as that which is.

7. Thirdly, Though it be a hard thing to be put to prove that bread is bread, and that wine is wine; yet if the arguments and notices of sense may not pass for sufficient, an impudent person may without possibility of being confuted, out-face any man, that an Oyster is a Rat, and that a Candle is a pig of Lead: and so might the Egyptian Soothsayers have been too hard for Moses: for when they changed rods into Serpents, they had some colour to tell Pharaoh they were Serpents as well as the rod of Moses; But if they had failed to turn the water into blood, they needed not to have been troubled, if they could have born down Pharaoh, that though it looked like water, and tasted like water, yet by their inchantment they had made it verily to be blood: And upon this ground of having different substances, unproper and disproportioned accidents, what hinders them but they might have said so? and if they had, how should they have been confuted? But this manner of proceeding would be sufficient to evacuate all reason, and all science, and all notices of things; and we may as well conclude snow to be black, and fire cold; and two and two to make five and twenty.

8. But (it is said) although the body of Christ be invested with unproper accidents, yet sometimes Christ hath appeared in his own shape, and blood 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.Gu [...]. Malmesbur. de Gestis Regum Anglorum l. 3. 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; [...],Irenae. l. 1. c. 9. 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,Sum. Theod. part. 4. q. 11. memb. 2. art. 4. Sect. 3. 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 [Page] 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, L. 4. contr. haeres. c. 34. Psal. 22. homil. 16. [...], 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; [Page] 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, 83. Homil. upon S. Mat. 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 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, ‘Juven. Sat. 14.2.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 [Page] 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 Ca [...]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, Prompt. Cath. [...]. [...]. hebd. Sanct. Sect. 3. in haec verba. Hoc est corpus meum. 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.2 Thess. 3.2.

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 [Page] 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 Orat. 51. Theodor. dial. [...]. Tertull. contr. Praxeam. c. 10.79. vet. & Nov. Testam. 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; [...];De natur. Deor. l. 1. Plato in Cratylo. which Cicero rendring, says, Cum explicare argumenti exitium non potestis, confugitis ad Deum. When you cannot bring your [Page] argument about, you flye to the power of God. But when we say this is impossible to be done, either we mean it naturally or ordinarily impossible, that is, such a thing which cannot without a miracle be done; as a child cannot with his hands break a giants arm, or a man cannot eat a Milstone, or with his finger touch the Moon. Now in matters of Religion, although to shew a thing to be thus impossible is not enough to prove it was not at all, if God said it was; for although to man it be impossible, yet to God all things are possible; yet when the question is of the sence of the words of Scripture, which are capable of various interpretations, he that brings an argument ab impossibili against any one interpretation, shewing that it infers such an ordinary impossibility as cannot be done without a miracle, hath sufficiently concluded (not against the words, for nothing ought to prejudice them, but) against such an interpretation as infers that impossibility. Thus when in Scripture we find it recorded that Christ was born of a Virgin, to say this is impossible, is no argument against it, because although it be naturally impossible (which I think is demonstrable against the Arabian Physicians) yet to him that said it, it is also possible to do it. But then if from hence any man shall obtrude as an Article of Faith, that the blessed Virgin Mother was so a Virgin that her holy Son came into the world without any aperture of his mothers womb, I doubt not but an argument ab impossibili is a sufficient conviction of the falshood of it; though this impossibility be only an ordinary and natural; because the words of Scripture affirming Christ to be born of a Virgin, say only that he was not begotten by natural generation; not that his egression from his Mothers womb made a Penetration of dimensions. To instance once more: The words of Scripture are plain, That Christ is man, That Christ is God; Here are two natures and yet but one Christ; No impossibility ought to be pretended against these plain words, but they must be sophismes, because they dispute against truth it self. But now if a Monothelite shall say that by this unity of nature, God hath taught an unity of wills in Christ, and that he had but one will, because he is but one person; I do not doubt but an argument from an ordinary and natural impossibility will be sufficient to convince him of his heresie; and in this case the Monothelite hath no reason to say that the Orthodox Christian denies Gods omnipotency, and says that God cannot unite the will of Christs humanity to the will of his Divinity: And this is true in every thing which is not declared minutely, and in his particular sence. There is ordinarily no greater argument in the world, and none better is commonly used, nor any better required than to reduce the opinion to an impossibility; for if this be not true without a miracle, you must prove your extraordinary, and demonstrate your miracle; which will be found to be a new impossibility. A sence that cannot be true without a miracle to make it so, it is a miracle if it be true; and therefore let the literal sence in any place be presumed, and have the advantage of the first offer or presumption; yet if it be ordinarily impossible to be so, and without a miracle cannot be so, and the miracle no where affirmed, then to affirm the literal sence is the hugest folly that can be in the interpretation of any Scriptures.

7. But there is an impossibility which is absolute, which God cannot do, therefore because he is Almighty; for to do them were impotency, and want of power; as God cannot lye, he cannot be deceived, he cannot be mock'd, he cannot die, he cannot deny himself, nor do unjustly: And I remember that Dionysius brings in (by way of scorn) Elymas the Sorcerer finding fault with S. Paul for saying God could not deny himself; as if the saying so, were denying Gods omnipotency; so Elymas objected; as is to be seen in the book de Divin. Nom. c. 8. And by the consent of all the world it is agreed upon this expression, That God cannot reconcile contradictions; that is, It is no part of the divine Omnipotency to make the same proposition true and false at the same time, in the same respect; It is absolutely impossible that the same thing should be and not be at the same time, that the same thing so constituted in his own formality should lose the formality or essential affirmative; and yet remain the same thing. For it is absolutely the first truth that can be affirmed in Metaphysical notices, Nothing can be and not be. This is it in which all men and all Sciences, and all religions are agreed upon as a prime truth in all sences, and without distinctions. For if any thing could be and not be at the same time, then there would be something whose being were not to be. Nay Dominicus à Soto affirms expresly, that not only things only cannot be done by God which intrinsecally, formally,Quaest. in Phys. l. 3. q. 4. 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, [Page] 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. Sent. 4. dist. 11. q. 3. tit. b. 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: 3. q. 75. art. 2. ad. 3. and all this is because i [...] Transubstantiation there are many natural and ordinary impossibilities. In h [...]c conversione sunt plura difficiliora quàm 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 [Page]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 Sent. 4. dist. 11. q. 1.. Cannot God in any sence make this proposition true; This bread is the body of Christ, or this is bread and Christs body too? If they say he cannot, then it is a clear case, who it is that denies Gods omnipotency. If God can, then how will they be able from the words of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation? This also would be considered.

10. But now concerning impossibilities, if it absolutely can be evinc'd that this doctrine of Transubstantiation does affirm contradictions, then it is not only an intolerable prejudice against the doctrine, as is the ordinary and natural impossibility; but it will be absolutely impossible to be true, and it derogates from God to affirm such a proposition in religion, and much more to adopt it into the body of faith. And therefore when S. Paul had quoted that place of Scripture; He hath put all things under him; he adds, It is evident, that he is excepted who did put all things under him; for if this had not been so understood, then he should have been under himself, and he that gave the power should be lessened, and be inferiour to him that received it; which because they infer impossibilities, like those which are consequent to Transubstantiation, S. Paul makes no more of it but to say, The contrary is manifest against the unlimited literal sence of the words. Now for the eviction of this, these two mediums are to be taken. The one, that this doctrine affirms that of the essence, or existence of a thing, which is contrary to the essence or existence of it, and yet that the same thing remains; that is, that the essence remains without the essence, that is, without it self. The other, that this doctrine makes a thing to be and not to be at the same time: I shall use them both but promiscuously, because they are reducible to one.

11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against the nature and essence of a body. Bellarmine seems afraid of this; for immediately before,L. 3. Euch. c. 2. Sect. ult. he goes about to prevaricate about the being of a body in many places at once, he says, that if the essence of things were evidently and particularly known, then we might know what does, and what does not imply a contradiction; but, id non satis constat, there is no certainty of that; by that pretended uncertainty making way as he hopes to escape from all the pressure of contradictions that lye upon the prodigious philosophy of this Article: But we shall make a shift so far to understand the essence of a body, as to evince this doctrine to be full of contradictions.

12. First, For Christs body, his Natural body is changed into a Spiritual body, and it is not now a Natural body, but a Spiritual; and therefore cannot be now in the Sacrament after a natural manner, because it is so no where, and therefore not there; It is sown a natural body, it is raised a Spiritual body. And therefore though this Spirituality be not a change of one substance into another, yet it is so a change of the same substance, that it hath lost all those accidents which were not perfective nor constitutive, but imperfect and separable from the body; and therefore in no sence of nature can it be manducated. And here is the first contradiction. The body of Christ is the Sacrament. The same body is in Heaven. In Heaven it cannot be broken naturally; In the Sacrament they say it is broken naturally and properly; therefore the same body is and is not, it can and it cannot be broken. To this they answer, that this is broken under the Species of bread; Not in it self; Well! is it broken or is it not broken? let it be broken under what it will, if it be broken, the thing is granted. For if being broken under the Species, it be meant that the Species be broken alone, and not the body of Christ, then they take away in one hand when they reach forth with the other. This being a better argument, The Species only are broken, the Species are not Christs body, therefore Christs body is not broken: better I say than this, The body of Christ is under the Species, the Species alone are broken, therefore the body of Christ is broken. For how can the breaking of Species or accidents infer the breaking of Christs body, unless the accidents be Christs body, or inseparable from it? or rather, How can the breaking of the accidents infer the breaking of Christs body when it cannot be broken? To this I desire a clear and intelligible answer. Add to this, how can Species, that is, accidents be broken, but when a substance is broken? for an accident properly, such as smell, colour, taste, hath of it self no solid and consistent, nor indeed any fluid parts, nothing whereby it can be broken, and have a part divided from a part; but as the substance in which the accident is subjected becomes divided, so do the inherent accidents; but no otherwise: and if this cannot be admitted, men cannot know what one another say or mean, they can have no notices of things or regular propositions.

[Page]13. Secondly, But I demand, When we speak of a body, what we mean by it? For in all discourses and entercourses of mankind by words we must agree concerning each others meaning: when we speak of a body, of a substance, of an accident, what does mankind agree to mean by these words? All the Philosophers, and all the wise men in the world, when they divide a substance from an accident, mean by a substance that which can subsist in it self without a subject of inherence.

But an accident is, that whose very essence is to be in another: When they speak of a body and separate it from a Spirit,Aristot. lib. 1 posterior. c. 6. & l. 2. cap. 10. Metaph. lib. 6. c. 4. Idem significatur per ipsum nomen [...]; quod abit cum substantiâ, [...], receptum scilicet in subjecto. Accidens quod accidit. they mean that a Spirit is that which hath no material, divisible parts, physically; that which hath nothing of that which makes a body, that is, extension, limitation by lines, and superficies and material measures. The very first notion and conception of things teaches all men, that what is circumscribed and measured by his proper place is there and no where else. For if it could be there and be in another place, it were two and not one. A finite Spirit can be but in one place, but it is there without circumscription; that is, it hath no parts measured by the parts of a place, but is there after another manner than a body, that is, it is in every part of his definition or spiritual location. So it is said, a soul is in the whole body; not that a part of it is in the hand, and a part of it in the eye, but it is whole in the whole, and whole in every part; and it is true that it is so, if it be wholly immaterial: because that which is spiritual and immaterial cannot have material parts. But when we speak of a body, all the world means that which hath a finite quantity, and is determin'd to one place. This was the philosophy of all the world, taught in all the Schools of the Christians and Heathens, even of all mankind, till the doctrine of Transubstantiation was to be nursed and maintained, and even after it was born it could not be forgotten by them who were bound to keep it. And I appeal to any man of the Roman perswasion, if they can shew me any ancient Philosopher, Greek, or Roman, or Christian of any Nation, who did not believe it to be essential to the being of a body to be in one place: and Amphitruo in the old Comedy had reason to be angry with Sofia upon this point.Plaut. Amphitr. act. 2. sc. 1. Tun' id dicere audes, quod nemo unquam homo antehac vidit, nec potest fieri, tempore uno, Homo idem duobus locis ut simul sit? And therefore to make the body of Christ to be in a thousand places at once, and yet to be but one body, To be in Heaven and to be upon so many Altars, to be on the Altar in so many round Wafers, is to make a body to be a spirit, and to make a finite to be infinite; for nothing can be so but an infinite Spirit.

14. Neither will it be sufficient to fly here to Gods omnipotency: for God can indeed make a body to be a Spirit; but can it consist with the Divine Being to make an infinite substance? Can there possibly be two Categorematical, that is, positive substantial infinites? or can it be that a finite should, remaining finite, yet not be finite, but indefinite and in innumerable places at once * [...]. Plotin. l. de anim. apud Euseb. praepar. Evang. l. 15.? God can new create the body, and change it into a Spirit; But can a body, remaining a body, be at the same time a Spirit? or can it be a body, and yet not be in a place? is it not determined so, that remaining in a place it cannot be out of it? If these things could be otherwise, then the same thing at the same time could be a Body and a Spirit, limited and unlimited, wholly in a place, and wholly out of it, finite and infinite, a body, and yet no body, one, and yet many, the same and not the same, that is, it should not be it self. Now although God can change any thing from being the thing it is, to become another thing, yet is it not a contradiction to say, it should be the same it is, and yet not the same? These are the essential, immediate consequents of supposing a body remaining a body, whose essence it is to be finite and determined in one place, can yet so remaining be in a thousand places.

Thirdly, The Socinians teach that our bodies at the Resurrection shall be (as they say Christs body now is) changed substantially. For corruptible and incorruptible, mortal and immortal, natural and spiritual, are substantial differences: and now our bodies being natural, corruptible and mortal, differ substantially from bodies spiritual, immortal and incorruptible, as they shall be hereafter, and as the body of our Lord now is. Now I am sure the Church of Rome allows not of this doctrine in these; neither have they reason for it; But do not they admit that in hypothesi which they deny in thesi? For is it not a perfect change of substance, that a body from finite is changed to be at least potentially infinite, from being determined in one place to be indefinite and indeterminable? To lose all his essential proprieties must needs infer a substantial [Page] change Quomodo erit Solsplendore privatus? vel quomodo erit splendor, nisi Sol sit à quo defluat? Ignis verò quomodo erit calore careus? vel calor undo manabit nisi ab igne? Cyril. Alex. l. 1. in 1. c. Joh.; and that it is of the essence of a body to be in one place, at least an essential propriety, they will not, I suppose be so impudent as to deny, since they flye to the Divine omnipotency, and a perpetual miracle to make it be otherwise: which is a plain demonstration that naturally it is so; this therefore they are to answer if they can.

15. But let us see what Christian Philosophy teaches us in this particular. S. Austin is a good probable Doctor, and may be trusted for a proposition in Natural Philosophy. These are his conclusions in this Article. Serm. Dom. monte. c. 9. Corpora quae non possunt esse nisi in loco. Bodies cannot be but in their place. In Psal. 86. Angustias omnipotentiae corpora patiuntur, nec ubique possunt esse, nec semper; Divinitas autem ubique praestò est. The Divinity is present every where, but not bodies, they are not omnipotent: meaning, it is a propriety of God to be in many places, an effect of his omnipotence. But more plainly yet, Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, & nusquam erunt, Ep. 57. & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt, If you take from bodies the spaces of place, they will be no where, and if they be no where, they will not be at all: and to apply this to the present question, he affirms, Tract. 31. in Johan. Christus homo secundùm corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco unde venit non est. Christ as man according to the body is in a place and goes from a place, and when he comes to another place is not in the place from whence he came. For besides that so to do is of the verity of Christs body, that it should have the same affections with ours; according as it is insisted upon in divers places of the Scripture, particularly, S. Luke 24.39. it is also in the same place, and in the story apparent, that the case was not alter'd after the resurrection, but Christ moved finitely by dimensions, and change of places. So Theodoret; Dominicum corpus incorruptibile resurrexit & impatibile & immortale, Dial. 2. & divinâ gloriâ glorificatum est, & à coelestibus adoratur potestatibus; corpus tamen est, priorem habens circumscriptionem. Christs body even after the resurrection is circumscribed as it was before. And therefore as it is impious to deny God to be invisible: Lib. de essent. Divinit. so it is profane, not to believe and profess the son of God in his assum'd humility to be visible, corporeal, and local after the resurrection: It is the saying of S. Austin.

16. And I would fain know how it will be answered, that they attribute to the body of Christ, which is his own creature, the incommunicable attribute of ubiquity, either actually or potentially. For let them say; [...]. Stob. tit. 3. is it not an attribute of God to be unlimited and to be undefined by places? S. Austin says it, and it is affirm'd by natural reason, and all the world attributes this to God, as a propriety of his own. If it be not his own, then all the world hath been always deceived till this new generation arose. If it be, let them fear the horrid consequent of giving that to a creature which is the glory of the Creator. And if they think to escape by saying, that they do not attribute to it actual ubiquity, but potential, that is, that though he be not, yet he may be every where; let it be considered, if the argument of the Fathers was good (by which they proved the Divinity of the holy Ghost) This is every where, therefore this is God; is it not also as good to say, This may be every where, therefore this may be God? And then it will be altogether as bad as any thing can be imagined, for it makes the incommunicable attribute of God to be communicable to a creature; and not only so, but it is worse, for it makes, that an actual creature may be a potential God, that is, that there can be a God which is not eternally a God, that is not a pure act, a God that is not yet, but that shall have a beginning in time.

17. Fourthly, There was not in all School Divinity, nor in the old Philosophy, nor in nature any more than three natural proper ways of being in a place, circumscriptivè, definitivè, repletivé. The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament circumscriptively, because there he could be but in one Altar, in one Wafer. It is not there definitively for the same reason, because to be definitely in a place is to be in it so as to be there, and no where else.Super Decret. 3. part de consecrat. d. 2. cap. Quid sit. And both these are affirmed by their 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 [Page] 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.In Decret. de concil. dist. 2. ubi pars in Glossâ. In Thom. tom. 3. disp. 51. 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 Corpus Christi est multiplicatum ad omne punctum hostiae, Tho. Waldens. tom. 2. c. 55. Multiplicatio corporis Christi facta est substantialitèr ad omne punctum hostiae. Id. 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.

[Page]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,In 4. Sent. l. 44. q. 2. art. 2. q. 3. 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 Altars in the Christian Church. But if by Sacramentally he means naturally, and properly, then he contradicts himself, for that is it he must mean by localitèr if he means any thing at all. But it matters not what he means, for it is sufficient to me that he only says it and proves it not; and that it is not sence; and lastly,Lib. 3. Euch. c. 3. Sect. Quidam tamen: Ibid. Sect. Adde quod. that Bellarmine confutes it as not being home enough to his purpose, but a direct destruction of the fancy of Transubstantiation; Si non possit esse unum corpus localitèr in duobus locis; quia divideretur à seipso, profectò non esse possit Sacramentalitèr eâdem ratione. I might make advantage of this contestation between two so great patrons of Transubstantiation, if I did need it; For Aquinas says, that a body cannot be in two places at once locally. Bellarmine says then neither can it Sacramentally; it were easie then to infer that Therefore it is in two places no way in the world. But I shall not need this.

22. Seventhly, For there is a new heap of impossibilities, if we should reckon that which follows from the multiplication of totalities; I mean of the body of Christ, which is one continual substance, one in it self and divided from every thing else, as all unity is; and yet every wafer consecrated is the whole body of Christ, and yet that body is but one, and the wafers which are not one, are every one of them Christs body. And how is it possible that Christs body should be in Heaven, and between it and us are many other bodies interposed, and his body is in none of the intermedials, and that his body should be also here, and yet not joyned to that, either by continuity or contiguity, and the same body should be a thousand miles off, and ten thousand bodies between them, and yet all this be but one: that is, How can it be two and yet be one? For how shall any man reckon two? How can he know that two glasses of wine are not one? We see them in two places, their continuity divided, there is an intermedial distance and other bodies interposed, and therefore we silly men usually say they are two; but it is strange to see, a man may be confident and yet without reason when he hath not wit enough to tell two. But then there is not in nature any way for a man to tell two, if this principle be taken from us.

It will also be an infinite, impossible contradiction which follows the being of a body in two places at once; upon this account. For it will infer that the same body is at the same time, in the same respect, in order to the same place, both actually and potentially, that is, possessed and not possessed of it, and may go to that place where it is already. For suppose a body at S. Omers, and the same body at the same time at Doway, then that body which is actually at S. Omers, may yet at the same time be going from Doway thither, and then he is at the same time there and not there, at his journeys end, and yet on the way thither; that is, in disposition and tendency to that place where he is already actually, and whither he is arriv'd before he set out and began his journey; and goes away from Doway, before he leaves it.

Add to this, that to be in two places at once, makes the same thing which is contained in diverse places to be contain'd in none. For as to be in a place like a body, is to be contain'd in that place; so to be contain'd in that place is to be terminated or bounded by that place; but whatsoever is bounded by a thing, is not without or beyond that bounds: it follows therefore that if a body can be intirely without or beyond that place in which it is contained, that is without the bounds, then it is bounded and not bounded, it is contained and not contained; that is, it is contained by diverse, and it is contained by none.

23. But how can any thing be divided from it self wholly? for either it must be where it is not, or else it must be two.Euch. l. 3. c. 3. Sect. Sed haec ratio. &c. 4. Sect. Sed media via. The wit of man cannot devise a shift to make this seem possible. But Bellarmine can; for he says there is a double indivision, or unity, or being: an intrinsecal and an extrinsecal, a local, and an [Page] essential; Now of these one can be without the other: and though a body have but one unity essential, because it can be but one body, yet it may have more [...]ntrinsecal or local beings. This is the full sence of his device, if at least there be any sence in it. But besides that this distinction is no where taught in any Philosophy, a child of his own still-born, not offer'd to be proved or made credible; it is, if it be brought into open view from without the curtains of a formal distinction, just as if he had said; Whereas you object that one thing can be but in one place, for whatsoever is in two places is two bodies; you are deceiv'd; for it is true, that one body can be but one, but yet it may be two in respect of place; that is, it is but one in nature, but it may be in two places; and so you are confuted. But then if I should reply, This answer is but to deny the conclusion, and affirms the thing in question; there were no more to be said. For that one thing in nature cannot have two adequate places at the same time, was the conclusion of my argument; and the answer is, It can have two, and this is all is said. 2. But then I would fain know what warrant there is for the real distinction of esse essentiale and esse locale of bodies,Substantias enim facis, quibus loca assignas, Tertul. c. 41. contr. Hermog. as if they were two distinct separable beings; whereas quantity is inseparable from bodies, and measure from continual quantities, and to be in a place is nothing but to have his quantity measured. 3. To be in a place, is the termination or limit of a quantitative body, and makes it not to be infinite: and if this can be separated by a distinction from a finite body, then something is said; but if a finite body must be finite and not infinite, then to be determin'd by a place, the proper determination or definition of a quantitative body, is not separable from it. 4. If any man should say that one person cannot be together in two several times, no more than in two several places; This distinction would fetch him in to be of two times together; for there is a double indivision, one in respect of essence, the other in respect of duration, that intrinsecal, this extrinsecal; though one man or body hath but one being or essence intrinsecal and essential, yet he may have more extrinsecal, accidental and temporary. And really the case, as to this distinction, is all one, and so it is to the argument too: for as two times cannot be together because of their successive nature, so neither can two places be adapted at once to one body, because of their continual and united nature: unity and quantity continual being as essential to quantitative bodies, as succession is to them who are measured by time. 5. If one body may possess and fill two places circumscriptively, that it is commensurate to both of them, or to as many more as it shall chance to be in, then suppose a body of five foot long, is in a place at Rome, at Valladolid, at Paris, and at London, in each of these places it must fill a space of five foot long, because it is always commensurate to his place: it will follow, that a body but of five foot long shall fill up the room of twenty foot; which whether it implies not a contradiction that the same body should be but five foot long, and yet at the same time be twenty foot long of the same measure, let all the Geometricians judge. This is such a device, that as one said of the witty drunkenness and arts of the Symposiac among the Greeks, that amongst them a dunce could not be drunk: So in this device a man had need be very cunning to speak such non-sence, and make himself believe those things which are against the conceptions of all men in the world, till this new doctrine turned their brains, and make new propositions and new affirmatives out of old impossibilities. But these people in all this affair, deal with mankind, as if they were beasts, and not reasonable creatures; or as if all their disciples were babies, or fools, and that to them it is lawful to say any thing, and having no understanding of their own, they are to efform them as they please.

23. But to this objection it is answer'd, that it may have a double sence: That a body of five foot long may fill the space of five foot. One; So as the magnitude of such a body should be commensurate to that place, and so a body of five foot cannot fill up the spaces of twenty foot: but another way is, so as the magnitude of the body should not be commensurate, but only to the space of five foot, but yet the same magnitude may be twice, or thrice put to such a space, and this may be done. This is Bellarmines answer; That is,Euch. l. 3. c. 4. Sect. Respondeo dupliciter potest intelligi, &c. If you consider a body of five foot long, so as it can but fill five foot space, in that sence it cannot fill twenty. But if you consider it so as it is commensurate to a space, that is, twenty foot, so it cannot be, being but of five foot long. That this is the sence of his answer, I appeal to all men that can understand common sence. But though it be but of five foot long, yet it may be placed twice or thrice in a space of five foot long, and what then? Then it fills still but a place of five foot long. True in one place, but if it fills five foot at Rome, and at the same time five foot at [Page] Valladolid, and five foot at Paris, and five foot at London, I pray are not four times five twenty? As although the Sun have but force to drink up five measures of water in Egypt; and at the same time as much in Arabia, and as much in Ethiopia, and as much in Greece, he at the same time drinks up twenty measures, though his whole force in one place be but to drink five, and yet still it is but one Sun. But besides all this, that the same body be put twice or thrice into a space of five foot at the same time, is that unreasonable thing, which all the natural and congenite notices of men cry down, and therefore ought not to be said confidently, in a distinction without proof; as if the putting it into a non-sence distinction, could oblige all the world to believe it.

24. Eightly, But I proceed: Valentia De ve [...]â Christi prae [...]entiâ. l. 1. c. 12. affirms that the Fathers prove the Divinity of the holy Ghost by his ubiquity: and it is certain they do so, as appears in Cont. Arium. d [...]sp. inter opera S. Athanas. S. Athanasius, De Spir. S. l. 1. c. 22. S. Basil, De Spir. S. l. 1. c. 7. S. Ambrose, De Spir. S. l. 1. Didymus of Alexandria, De Spir. S. Quod non sit creatura. S. Cyril of Alexandria, Cont. Maxim. Arian. ep. l. 4. c. 31. S. Austin; and divers others: and yet these men affirm that a body may be in many places, and therefore may be in all, and that it is potentially infinite; is it not evident that they take from the Fathers the force of the argument, because ubiquity is communicable to something that is not God; or if it be not, why do they give it to a creature? That which can be in many places, can be in all places; for all the reason that forbids it to be in two thousand, forbids it to be in two; and if those cannot determine it to one place, it cannot be determined at all; I mean, the nature of a body, his determination to places, his circumscription, continuity, unity, quantity, dimensions. Nay, that which is not determined by place, by continuity, nor by his nature, but may be any where, is in his own nature uncircumscribed and indefinite, which is that attribute of God upon which his omnipresence does rely; and that Christs body is not every where actually, as is the holy Ghost, it says nothing against this; because he being a voluntary agent, can restrain the measure of his presence, as God himself does the many manners of his presence. However, that nature is infinite that can be every where, and therefore if it can be communicated to a body, to be so, is not proper to God, nor can it prove the holy Ghost so to be. Of the same nature is that other argument used frequently by the Primitive Doctors, proving two natures to be in Christ, the Divine and the Humane, and the difference between them is remarked in this, that the Divine is in many places, and in all: but the Humane can be but in one at once. This is affirmed by In S. Mat. hom. 33. Origen, Lib. 10. de Trinit. S. Hilary, Ad Marcel. de 4. quaest. S. Hierome, Tract. 30. in Johan. S. Austin, Disp. contr. Sab. Ar. Phot. Gelasius, Lib. 2. ad Thrasim. c. 17. Fulgentius, and Homil. invent. crucis. Ven. Bede. But this is but variety of the same dish; if both these can prevail together, then either of them ought to prevail singly.

25. Against all this, and whatsoever else can be objected, it is pretended, that it is possible for a body to be in many distant places at once. For Christ who is always in Heaven, yet appeared to S. Paul on Earth, and to many other Saints, as to S. Peter, to S. Anthony, to S. Tharsilla, S. Gregory, and I cannot tell who. To this I answer; 1. That in all this there is nothing certain, but that Christ appeared to S. Paul; for it may be, he appeared to him in Heaven, S. Paul being on Earth: for so he did to S. Stephen, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: and from Heaven there might only come a voice and a light.Acts 7.55. 2. It may be S. Paul saw Christ when he was wrapt up into the third Heavens: for, that Christ was seen by him, himself affirms; but he says not that he saw him at his conversion; and all that he says he saw then, was that he saw a great light and heard a voice. Acts 9.3.22.6. 3. That in case Christ did appear corporally to Saul on earth, it follows not his body was in two places at once. I have the warrant of him that is willing enough otherwise that this argument should prevail: Quia non est improbabile Christum privatim & ad breve tempus descendisse de coelo post ascensionem. Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 3. Sect. 1. Confirmatur. It is not unlikely that Christ might privately and for a short time descend from Heaven after his ascension; For when it is said in Scripture that the Heavens must receive him till the day of restitution of all things, it is to be meant, ordinarily, and as his place of residence; but that hinders not an extraordinary commigration; as a man may be said to dwell continually in London, and yet sometimes to go into the country to take the air. For the other instances of S. Peter and S. Anthony, and the rest, if I were sure they were true, I would say the same answer would also serve their turn; but as they are, it is not material whether it does or no.

26. Another way of answering is taken from the examples of God and the reasonable soul. Concerning the soul I have these things to say; 1. Whether the soul be whole in every part of the body, and whole in the whole is presumed by most men, but substantially proved by none, but denied by a great many, and those of the first [Page] rank of learned men. 2. If it were, it follows not that it is in two places or more▪ because not the hand nor the foot is the adequate place of the soul, but the whole body; and therefore the usual expression of Philosophy, saying, The soul is whole in every part is not true positively, but negatively, that is, the soul being immaterial, cannot be cantoniz'd into parts by the division of the body; but positively it is not true. For the understanding is not in the foot, nor the will in the hand: and something of the soul is not organical or depending upon the body: viz. The pure acts of volition, some little glimpses of intuition, reflexion, and the like. 3. If it were, yet to alledge this is impertinent to their purpose: unless whatsoever is true concerning a spirit, can also be affirmed of a body. 4. When the body is divided into parts, the soul is not multiplied into fantastick or real numbers, as it is pretended in Transubstantiation; and therefore although the soul were whole in every part, it could do no service in this question; unless it were so whole in each part, as to be whole when each part is divided, for so it is said to be in the Eucharist; which because we say is impossible, we require an instance in something where it is so; but because it is not so in the soul, this instance is not home to any of their purposes.L. 3. Euch. c. 3. Sect. ad hoc argumentum. But Bellarmine says, God can make it to be so, that the soul shall remain in the member that is discontinued and cut off. I answer that God ever did do so, nor he nor any man else can pretend, unless he please to believe S. Winifreds and S. Denys's walking with their heads in their hands after their decollation; but since we never knew that God did so, and whether it implies a contradiction or no, that it should be so, God hath no where declared; it is sufficient to the present purpose, that it is as much a question, and of it self no more evident than that a body can be conserved in many places: and therefore being as uncertain as the principal question, cannot give faith to it, or do any service. But this is to amuse unwary persons, by seeming to say something, which indeed is nothing to the purpose.

27. But that the Omnipresence of God should be brought to prove it possible that a body may be in many places, truly though I am heartily desirous to do it, if I could justly, yet I cannot find any colour to excuse it from great impiety. But this I shall add, that it is so impossible that any body should be in two places, and so impossible to justifie this from the immensity of God; that God himself is not in proper manner of speaking in two places, he is not capable of being in any place at all, as we understand being in a place; he is greater than all places, and fills all things, and locality, and place; and beings, and relations are all from him: and therefore they cannot comprehend him. But then although this immensity of God is beyond the capacity of place, and he can no more be in a place, than all the world can be in the bottom of a well, yet if God could be limited and determined, it were a contradiction to say that he could be in two places; just as it is a contradiction to say there are two Gods. So that this comparison of Bellarmines, as it is odious up to the neighbourhood, and similitude of a great impiety, so it is [...], it is against that Philosophy whereby we understand any of the perfective notices of God. But these men would fain prevail by all means, they care not how.

28. But why may we not believe as well the doctrine of Transubstantiation in defiance of all the seeming impossibilities, as well as we believe the doctrine of the Trinity in defiance of greater? To this I answer many things. 1. Because the mystery of the Trinity is revealed plainly in Scripture, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation is against it: as I suppose my self to have plainly proved. So that if there were a plain revelation of Transubstantiation, then this argument were good; and if it were possible for ten thousand times more arguments to be brought against it, yet we are to believe the revelation in despite of them all; but when so much of revelation is against it, and nothing for it, it is but vain to say we may believe this, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity; for so we may as well argue for the heresie of the Manichees; why may we not as well believe the doctrine of the Manichees in despite of all the arguments brought against it; when there are so many seeming impossibilities brought against the holy Trinity? I suppose the answer that I have given would be thought reasonable to every such pretence. 2. As the doctrine of the holy Trinity is set down in Scripture, and in the Apostles Creed, and was taught by the Fathers of the first three hundred years, I know no difficulties it hath; what it hath met withal since, proceeds from the too curious handling of that which we cannot understand. 3. The Scool-men have so pried into this secret, and have so confounded themselves and the Articles, that they have made it to be unintelligible, inexplicable, indefensible in all their minuits and particularities; and it is too sadly apparent [Page] in the arguments of the Antitrinitarians, whose sophisms 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.In 4. dist. 44. q. 2.2.2. 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.Lucr. l. 1.’

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,Arist. l. [...]. [...]. 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,

Quàm genita omninò nulla ratione fuissent,

Lucret. l. 1.

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: [...]. S. Basil. Seleuc. homil. in [...]. 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,De Euch. l. 3. c. 5. Sect. Secund [...] observandum. 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. [Page] 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 Quod non possit alterum sine altero intelligi, quemadmodum neque aqua sine humectatione, neque ignis sine calore. Irenae. l. 2. c. 14. 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 Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 7. Sect. Ad secundum Petr. 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;L. 3. Euch. c. 5. Sect. Secundo obser. 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 Ibid. c. 7. Sect. Deinde etiam. 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 extrinsecal to a quantitative body; and it relies upon the definition Aristotle gives of it in the fourth book of his Physicks, that place is the superficies of the ambient body; which is as absurd in nature as any thing can be imagined; for then a stone in the bottom of a river did change his place (though it lie still) in every instant, because new water still washes it; and by this rule it is necessary (against Aristotles great grounds) that some quantitative bodies should not be in a place, or else that quantitative bodies were Categorematically infinite. For either there is no end, but body incloses body for ever, or else the ultimate or outmost body is not inclosed by any thing, and so cannot be in a place. To which add this; that if Epicurus his opinion were true, and that there were some spaces empty, which at least by a Divine power can become true, and he can take the air out from the inclosure of four walls; In this case if you will suppose a man sitting in the midst of that room, either that man were in no place at all, which were infinitely absurd, or else (which indeed is true) circumscription or superficies were not the essence of a place. Place therefore is nothing but the Space to which quantitative bodies have essential relation and finition: that, where they consist, and by which they are not infinite: and this is the definition of place which S. Austin gives in his fourth book Exposit. of Genes. ad literam chapt. 8.

30. God can do what he please, and he can reverse the laws of his whole creation, because he can change or annihilate every creature, or alter the manners and essences; but the question now is, what laws God hath already established, and whether or no essentials can be changed, the things remaining the same? that is, whether they can be the same, when they are not the same? He that says God can give to a body all the essential properties of a Spirit, says true, and confesses Gods omnipotency; but he says also, that God can change a body from being a body, to become a Spirit; but if he says, that remaining a body it can receive the essentials of a Spirit, he does not confess Gods omnipotency, but makes this Article difficult to be believed, by making it not to work wisely, and possibly. God can do all things, but, are they undone when they are done? that is, are the things chang'd in their essentials, and yet remain the same? then how are they chang'd, and then what hath God done to them?

31. But as to the particular question. To suppose a body not coextended to a place, is to suppose a man alive not coexistent to time; to be in no place, and to be in no time, being alike possible Paschasius Diaconus Eccles. Rom. A.D. 500. l. 1. de Spir. S. cap. 12.: and this intrinsecal extension of parts is as inseparable from the extrinsecal, as an intrinsecal duration is from time. Place and Time being nothing but the essential manners of material complete substances, these cannot be supposed such as they are without time and place: because quantitative bodies in their very formality suppose that; For place without body in it, is but a notion [Page] in Logick, but when it is a reality, it is a Vbi, and time is Quando; and a body supposed abstractly from place, is not real but intentional, and in notion only, and is in the Category of substance, but not of quantity. But it is a strange thing that we are put to prove the very principles of nature, and first rudiments of art, which are so plain that they can be understood naturally, but by all devices of the world cannot be made dubitable.

32. But against all the evidence of essential and natural reason, some overtures of Scripture must be pretended. For that two bodies can be in one place appears, because Christ came from his mothers womb, it being closed; into the assembly of the Apostles, the doors being shut; out of the grave, the stone not being rolled away; and ascended into Heaven, through the solid orbs of all the firmament. Concerning the first and the last the Scripture speaks nothing, neither can any man tell whether the orbs of Heaven be solid or fluid, or which way Christ went in. But of the Heavens opening the Scripture sometimes makes mention. And the Prophet David spake in the Spirit saying, Lift up your heads O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in. The stone of the Sepulchre was removed by an Angel, so saith S. Matthew. But why should it be supposed the Angel rolled it away after Christ was risen, or if he did, why Christ did not remove it himself,S. Mat. 28.2. (who loosed all the bands of death by which he was held) and there leave it when he was risen? or if he had passed through and wrought a miracle, why it should not be told us, or why it should not remain as a testimony to the Souldiers and Jews, and convince them the more, when they should see the body gone, and yet their seals unbroken? or if it were not, how we should come to fancy it was so, I understand not; neither is there ground for it. There is only remaining that we account concerning Jesus his entring into the assembly of the Apostles, the doors being shut: To this I answer, that this infers not a penetration of bodies, or that two bodies can be in one place. 1. Because there are so many ways of effecting it without that impossibility. [...], Arist. l. 4. [...]. 2. The door might be made to yield to his Creator as easily as water which is fluid be made firm under his feet; for consistence or lability are not essential to wood and water. For water can naturally be made consistent, as when 'tis turned to ice; and wood that can naturally be petrified, can upon the efficiency of an equal agent be made thin, or labile, or inconsistent. 3. This was done on the same day in which the Sea yielded to the children of Israel, that is, the seventh day after the Passeover, and we may allow it to be a miracle, though it be no more than that of the waters, that is, as these were made consistent for a time. ‘Suppositúmque rotis solidum mare.’ So the doors apt to yield to a solid body.

— possint namque omnia reddi

Mollia, quae fiant, aer, aqua, terra, vapores

Quo pacto fiant & quâ vi cunque gerantur.

4. How easie was it for Christ to pass his body through the pores of it, and the natural apertures if he were pleased to unite them, and thrust the matter into a greater consolidation? 5. Wood being reduced to ashes, possesses but a little room, that is, the crass impenetrable parts are but few, the other apt for cession, which could easily be disposed by God as he pleased. 6. The words in the Text are [...] in the past tense; the gates or doors having been shut; but that they were shut in the instant of his entry, it says not; they might, if Christ had so pleased, have been insensibly opened, and shut in like manner again; and if the words be observed,Chap. 20.19. it will appear that S. John mentioned the shutting the doors in relation to the Apostles fear; not to Christs entring: he intended not (so far as appears) to declare a miracle. 7. But if he had, there are ways enough for him to have entred strangely, though he had not entred impossibly. Vain therefore is the fancy of those men who think a weak conjecture able to contest against a perfect, natural impossibility. For when a thing can be done without a penetration of dimensions, and yet by a power great enough to beget admiration, though without contesting against the unalterable laws of nature, to dream it must be this way, is to challenge confidently, but to be careless of our warrant; I conclude, that it hath never yet been known that two bodies ever were at once in one place.

[Page]33. I find but one objection more pretended, and that is, that place is not essential to bodies: because the utmost Heaven is a body, and yet is not in a place; because it hath nothing without it, that can circumscribe it. To this I have already answered in the confutation of Aristotle's definition of a place.Num. 28. But besides; I answer, that what the utmost Heaven is, our Philosophy can tell or guess at; But it is certain that beyond any thing that Philosophy ever dreamed of, there are bodies. For Christ is ascended far above all Heavens, and therefore to say it is not in a place, or that there is not a place where Christs body is, is a ridiculous absurdity. But if there be places for bodies above the highest Heavens, then the highest Heaven also is in a place, or may be for ought any thing pretended against it. In my Fathers house are many mansions, said Christ, many places of abode, and it is highly probable, that that pavement where the bodies of Saints shall tread to eternal ages, is circumscribed, though by something we understand not. Many things more might be said to this. But I am sorry that the series of a discourse must be interrupted with such trifling considerations.

Vide Boeth. in Praedicam. Aristot.34. The summe is this; as substances cannot subsist without the manner of substances; no more can accidents, without the manner of accidents; quantities, after the manner of quantities; qualities, as qualities; for to separate that from either, by which we distinguish them from each other, is to separate that from them, by which we understand them to be themselves. And four may as well cease to be four, and be reduced to unity, as a line cease to be a line, and a body a body, and a place a place, and a quantum or extensum to be extended in his own kind of quantity or extension: and if a man had talked otherwise, till this new device arose, all sects of Philosophers of the world, would have thought him mad; and I may here use the words of Cotta in Cicero l. 1. De naturâ Deorum: Corpus quid sit, sanguis quid sit, intelligo; quasi corpus & quasi sanguis quid sit, nullo prorsus modo intelligo. But concerning the nature of bodies and quantities, these may suffice in general. For if I should descend to particulars, and insist upon them, I could cloy the reader with variety of one dish.

35. Tenthly, By this doctrine of Transubstantiation, the same thing is bigger and less than it self: for it is bigger in one host, than in another; for the wafer is Christs body, and yet one wafer is bigger than another: therefore Christs body is bigger than it self. The same thing is above it self, and below it self, within it self, and without it self: It stands wholly upon his own right side, and wholly at the same time upon his own left side; it is as very a body as that which is most divisible, and yet it is as indivisible as a Spirit; and it is not a Spirit but a body, and yet a body is no way separated from a Spirit, but by being divisible. It is a perfect body, in which the feet are further from the head, than the head from the breast, and yet there is no space between head and feet at all; So that the parts are further off and nearer, without any distance at all; being further and not further, distant, and yet in every point. By this also here is magnitude without extension of parts; for if it be essential to magnitude to have partem extra partem, that is, parts distinguished, and severally sited, then where one part is, there another is not, and therefore the whole body of Christ is not in every part of the consecrated wafer; and yet if it be not, then it must be broken into parts when the wafer is broken, and then it must fill his place by parts. But then it will not be possible that a bigger body, with the conditions of a body, should be contained in a thing less than it self, that a man may throw the house out at the windows: and if it be possible that a magnitude should be in a point, and yet Christs body be a magnitude, and yet in a point, then the same thing is in a point, and not in a point, extended, and not extended, great and not divisible, a quantity without dimension, something and nothing. * By this doctrine the same thing lies still and yet moves, it stays in a place and goes away from it, it removes from it self, and yet abides close by it self, and in it self, and out of it self; It is removed, and yet cannot be moved, broken and cannot be divided; * passes from East to West through a middle place, and yet stirs not. * It is brought from Heaven to Earth, and yet is no where in the way, nor ever stirs out of Heaven. * It ceases to be where it was, and yet doe [...] not stir from thence, nor yet cease to be at all. * It is removed at the motion of the accidents, and yet does not fall when the host falls: it changes his place but falls not, and yet the changing of place was by falling. Bellarm. Euch. l. 3. c. 10. Sect. respondeo corpus. Suarez. in 3. Tho. 9.76. art. It supposes a body of Christ which was made of bread, that is, Not born of the Virgin Mary; * it says that Christs body is there without power of moving, or seeing, or hearing, or understanding, he can neither remember nor foresee, save himself from robbers or vermin, corruption or rottenness; * it makes that [Page] which was raised in power, to be again sown in weakness; 7. Disp. 53. Sect. 4. Quomodo potest Deus alibi esse vivus, alibi mortuus? Lact. l. 1. c. 1. it gives to it the attribute of an idol, to have eyes and see not, ears and hear not, a nose and not to smell, feet and yet cannot walk. * It makes a thing contained, bigger than the continent, and all Christs body, to go into a part of his body; his whole head into his own mouth, if he did eat the Eucharist, as it is probable he did, and certain that he might have done. These are the certain consequents of this most unreasonable doctrine; in relation to motion and quantity. I need not instance in those collateral absurdities which are appendent to some of the foregoing particulars; as how it should be credible that Christ in his sumption of the last Supper should eat his own flesh; [...], said Simplicius Id Categ. cap. de substant.; Nothing can receive it self, nothing can really participate of it self, and properly; figuratively and Sacramentally this may be done; but not in a natural and physical sence;In S. Joh. 9. for as S. Cyril of Alexandria argues; Si verè idem est quod participat & quod participatur, quid opus est participatione? What need he partake of himself? what need he receive a part of that which he is already whole? and if the partaker, and the thing partaken be naturally the same, then the Sacrament did as much eat Christ, as Christ did eat the Sacrament. * It would also follow from hence, that the soul of Christ should enter into his body, though it were there before it entred; and yet it would now be there twice, at the same time; for it is but one soul, and yet enters after it is there, it never having gone forth. * Nay further yet, upon supposition that Christ did eat the Sacrament, as it is most likely he did, and we are sure he might have done, then the soul of Christ, which certainly went along with his body, which surely was then alive, should be in his body in two contrary and incompatible manners; by one of which he does operate freely, and exercise all the actions of life, by the other he exercises none; by one he is visible, by the other invisible; by one moveable, by the other immovable; by one after the manner of a body, by the other after the manner of a Spirit. The one of these being evident in it self, the other by their own affirmation. But these are by the by; there are whole Categories of fond and impossible consequents from this doctrine.

36. Eleventhly, But if I should also consider the change of consecration, i. e. the conversion of bread into Christs body, and their rare stratagems and devices in ridiculous affirmatives and negatives as to that particular, it would afford a new heap of matter.

37. For this conversion is not generation, it is not corruption, it is not creation, because Christs body already is, and cannot be produced again; it is not after the manner of natural conversions, it differs from the supernatural: there is no change of one form into another, the same first matter does not remain under * several forms, first of bread, then of Christs body. It is turned into the substance of Christs body, and yet nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the body of Christ. It is turned into Christ, and yet it is turned into nothing, the substance is not annihilated, (for then it were not turned into Christs body) and yet it is annihilated or turned to nothing, for it does not become Christs body; it is determined upon Christs body, and yet does not become it, though it be changed into it: for if bread could become Christs body, then bread could receive a greater honour than any of the servants of Christ; for it could be glorified with the biggest glorification, it would be exalted far above all Angels, bread should reign for ever, and be King of all the world, which are honours not communicable to meer man, and by no change can be wrought upon him: and if they may upon bread, then bread is exalted higher than the sons of men; and yet so it is if it be naturally and substantially changed into the body of Christ. Sola enim mutari transformarique in se possunt, quae habent unius materiae commune subjectum. Boeth. de duab. nat. Christi. I cannot insist upon any thing of this, the absurdity being so vast, the labour would be as great, as needless: Only I shall transcribe part of a disputation by which Tertullian proves the resurrection of our bodies by such words which do certainly confute the Roman fancies of Transubstantiation. Cap. 55. de resurrectione carnis. Discernenda est autem demutatio ab omni argumento perditionis, &c. Change must be distinguished from perdition. But they are not distinguished if the flesh be so changed that it perishes. As that which is lost is not changed, so that which is changed is not lost, or perished. For it suffered change, not perdition; for to perish is wholly not to be that which it was; but to be changed is only to be otherwise; Moreover while it is otherwise, it can be the same thing, or it self: for it hath his being which did not perish. Now how it is possible that these words should be reconciled with Transubstantiation, in which they affirm the bread to be changed, and yet totally to have perished, that is, that nothing of it remains, neither matter nor form, it concerns them to take care; for [Page] my part I am satisfied that it is impossible: and I chuse to follow the Philosophy of Tertullian, by which he fairly confirms the Article of the resurrection; rather than the impossible speculations of these men, which render all notices of men to be meer deceptions, and all Articles of Faith, in many things uncertain; and nothing to be certain but that which is impossible. This consideration so moved Durand In 4. d. 11. q. 3. Sect. 5., and their Doctor Fundatissimus Egidius Romanus Theor. 1.2., that they thought to change the word Transubstantiation, and instead of it that they were obliged to use the word of Transformation simply, affirming that other to be unintelligible. But I proceed. By this doctrine Christs body is there where it was not before, and yet not by change of place; for it descends not: nor by production; for it was produced before: not by natural mutation; for Christ himself is wholly immutable, and though the bread be mutable, it can never become Christ. * That which is now, and was always, begins to be, and yet it cannot begin, which was so long before. And by this Doctrine is affirmed that which even themselves * judge to be simply and absolutely impossible. For if after a thing hath his being, and during the first being, it shall have every day many new beginnings, without multiplying the beings, then the same thing is under two times at the same time; it is but a day old, and yet was six days ago, and six ages, and sixteen. * The body of Christ obtains to be what it was not before, and yet it is wholly the same without becoming what it was not. * It obtains to be under the form of bread, and that which it is now and was not before, is neither perfective of his being, nor destructive, nor alterative, nor augmentative, nor diminutive, nor conservative. It is as it were a production, as it were a creation, as a conservation, as an adduction: that is, it is as it were just nothing; for it is not a creation, not a generation, not an adduction, not a conservation. It is not a conversion productive; for no new individual is produced. It is not a conversion conservative; That's a child of Bellarmines: but it is perfect non-sence; for it is (as he says) a conversion in which both the terms remain, in the same place; that is, in which there are two things not converted, but not one that is: but it is a thing of which there never was any example. But then if we ask what conversion it is? after a great many fancies and devices, contradicting each other, at last it is found to be adductive, and yet that adductive does not change the place, but signifies a substantial change; and yet adduction is no substantial change, but accidental; and yet this change is not accidental, Bellarm. de missa l. 1. c. 27. Sect. 3. propositio. L. 3. de Euch. cap. ult. Sect. ad tertiam. Scotus 4. dist. 11. q. 3. Faven. in 4. disp. 35. c. 6. but adductive and substantial. O rem ridiculam, Cato, & jocosam! It is a succession, not a conversion, and Transubstantiation; for it is Corpus ex pane confectum, a body made of bread, and yet it was made before the bread was made: but it is made of it as day of night, not tanquam ex materiâ, but tanquam ex termino, not as of matter, but as of a term, from whence, say they, but that is, a direct motion or succession, not a substantial change. For that I may use the words of Faventinus; What is the formal term of this action of Transubstantiation, or conversion? Not the body of Christ; for that is the material term: the formal term is, that Christs body should be contained under the Species of bread and wine: Hoc autem totum est accidentale & nihil addit in re nisi praesentiam realem sub speciebus. But all this is accidental, and nothing real, but that he becomes present there. For since the body of Christ relates to the accidents only accidentally, it cannot in respect of them, have any substantial manner of being, different from that which it had before it was Eucharistical. And it is no otherwise than if water on the ground were annihilated, or removed, or corrupted, and some secret way changed from thence, and in the place of it Snow should descend from Heaven, or Honey, or Manna, it were hard to call this Conversion, or Transubstantiation: Just as if we should say, that Augustus Caesar was converted into his successor Tiberius, and Moses into Joshua, and Elias into Elisha, or the sentinel is substantially changed into him that relieves him.

38. Twelfthly, Lastly, if we consider the changes that are incident to the accidents of bread and wine, they would afford us another heap of incommodities: for besides that accidents cannot subsist without their proper subjects, and much less can they become the subjects of other accidents [...]. Arist. Metaph. lib. 4. cap. 4.1., for what they cannot be to themselves, they cannot be to others, in matter of supply and subsistence; it being a contradiction to say, insubsistent subsistencies. Besides this, (I say) If Christs body be not invested with these accidents, how do they represent it, or to what purpose do they remain? If they be the investiture of Christs body, then the body is changed, by the mutation of the accidents. But however, I would fain know whether an accident can be sowre or be burnt, as In Lev. c. 1. Hesychius affirms they used in Jerusalem to do to [Page] the reliques of the holy Sacrament; or can accidents make a man drunk, as Aquinas supposes the Sacramental wine did the Corinthians, of whom S. Paul says, One is hungry, and another is drunken? I am sure if it can, it is not the blood of Christ; For Mr. Blands argument in Queen Maryes time, concluded well in this instance. That which is in the chalice can make a man drunk; But Christs blood cannot make a man drunk: Therefore that which is in the chalice is not Christs blood. To avoid this they must answer to the major, and say that it does not supponere universalitèr, for every thing in the chalice does not make a man drunk, for in it there are accidents of bread, and the body besides, and they do inebriate not this; that is to say, a man may be drunk with colour [...]. Arist. l. 3. de anim. c. 12. and quantity, and a smell, when there is nothing that smells Est enim hic color, & sapor qualitas & quantitas, cùm nihil in alterutro sit coloratum, & sapidum, quantum & quale. Innocent. 3. de offic. Missae. l. 3. c. 21.; for indeed if there were a substance to be smelt, it might; but that accidents can do it alone, is not to be supposed; unless God should work a miracle to make a man drunk, which to say I think were blasphemy. But again can an accidental form kill a man? But the young Emperour of the house of Luxemburgh was poysoned by a consecrated wafer, and Pope Victor the third had like to have been, and the Arch-Bishop of York was poysoned by the chalice, say Mathew Paris and Malmsbury. And if the body be accidentally moved at the motion of accidents, Bellar. l. 3. c. 10. de Euch. Sect. Respondeo corpus. then by the same reason it may accidentally become mouldy, or sowre, or poysonous; which methinks to all Christian ears should strike horrour to hear it spoken. I will not heap up more instances of the same kind of absurdities, and horrid consequences of this doctrine: or consider how a man, or a mouse can live upon the consecrated wafers: (as Aimonius tells that Lewis the fair did for forty days together live upon the Sacrament, and a Jew, or a Turk, could live on it without a miracle, if he had enough of it) and yet cannot live upon accidents; it being a certain rule in Philosophy, Ex iisdem nutriuntur mixta ex quibus fiunt; and a man may as well be made of accidents, and be no substance, as well as be nourished by accidents without substance: Neither will I inquire how it is possible that we should eat Christs body without touching it; or how we can be said to touch Christs body, when we only touch and tast the the accidents of bread; or lastly, how we can touch the accidents of bread, without the substance, so to do, being impossible in nature:

Tangere n. & tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res, said Lucretius, and from him Tertullian in his 5 chapt. of his book De animâ. These and divers other particulars, I will not insist upon: But instead of them, I argue thus from their own grounds; if Christ be properly said to be touch'd, and to be eaten, because the accidents are so, then by the same reason, he may be properly made hot, or cold, or mouldy, or dry, or wet, or venomous, by the proportionable mutation of accidents: if Christ be not properly taken and manducated, to what purpose is he properly there? so that on either hand there is a snare. But it is time to be weary of all this, and inquire after the doctrine of the Church, in this great question; for thither at last with some seeming confidence they do appeal. Thither therefore we will follow.

SECT. XII. Transubstantiation was not the Doctrine of the Primitive Church.

COncerning this Topick or Head of argument, I have some things to premise.

1. First, In this question it is not necessary that I bring a Catalogue of all the ancient writers. For although to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be Catholick, it is necessary by Vincentius Lirinensis his rules and by the nature of the thing, that they should all agree; yet to shew it not 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 [Page] 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 See Article 28. of 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:Note: [...]. Suid. [...]. Georg. Alex. vit. Chrys. c. 55. [...]. Chrys. vit. Author anon. Id. in [...], & reliquis observare est [...]. Suidas. [...]. Suidas. [...]. Author vitae Chrysost. anon. c. 52. & de corpore Chrysostomi dixit, [...]. Oecumen. in 1 Pet. 1. [...]. Clem. Alex. strom. 4. Idem l. 3. Paedag. c. 2. [...]. 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,Chapt. 5. In 3. disp. 50. Sect. 3. 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. Theoph. in S. Luc. 24. & in S. Joh. 6. 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 [Page]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, Vide Sect. 11. u. 34. 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;Ad Dardanum. 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 [Page] 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.Serm. de Vnit. The same is affirmed by S. Austin in his Epistle ad Bonifacium. Vide infra. n. 30. 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, Hom. 83. in S. Mat. Hom. 60. & 6. ad Antioch. pop. 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, Homil. 88. in S. Mat. ad Cler. Const. 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, quàm 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. De instit. Cler. l. 11. c. 31. 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, [...].Orat. Catech. 37▪ 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 [Page]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 L. 4. de Sacram. & lib. de iis qui initiantur myster. c. 9. speaking of the baptismal waters affirms naturam mutari per benedictionem, the nature of them is changed by blessing; and S. Cyril of Alexandria Lib. 2. in Johan. c. 42. 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 Ad infantes apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Lib. de Bap., 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. Indeed Mr. Brerely hath got an ignorant fancy by the end, which I am now to note, and wipe off. He saies that the Primitive Christians were scandalized by the Heathen to be eaters of the flesh of a child, which in all reason must be occasioned by their doctrine of the manducation of Christs flesh in the Sacrament; [Page] and if this be true, then we may suspect that they to wipe of this scandal, might remove their doctrine as far from the objection as they could, and therefore might use some lessening expressions. To this I answer, that the occasions of the report were the sects of the Gnosticks, and the Peputians. The Gnosticks, as Epiphanius reports, bruised a new born infant in a mortar, and all of them did communicate by eating portions of it; and the Montanists having sprinkled a little child with meal, let him blood, and of that made their Eucharistical bread; and these stories the Jews published to disrepute, if they could, the whole religion; but nothing of this related to the doctrine of the Christian Eucharist, though the bell always must tinkle as they are pleased to think. But this turned to advantage of the truth, and to the clearing of this Article. For when the scandal got foot, and run abroad, the Heathens spared not to call the Christians Cannibals, and to impute to them anthropophagy, or the devouring humane flesh, and that they made Thyestes's Feast, who by the procurement of Atreus eat his own children. Against this the Christian Apologists betook themselves to a defence. Justin Martyr says the false devils had set on work some vile persons,Legat. pr. Christian. to kill some one or other, to give colour to the report. Athenagoras in a high defiance of the infamy asks, Do you think we are murtherers? for there is no way to eat mans flesh, unless we first kill him. Octavius in Minutius Felix confutes it upon this account: We do not receive the blood of beasts into our food or beverage; therefore we are infinitely distant from drinking mans blood. And this same Tertullian in his Apologetick presses further,Cap. 9. affirming that to discover Christians, they use to offer them a black pudding, or something in which blood remained, and they chose rather to die, than to do it; and of this we may see instances in the story of Sanctus and Blandina in the ecclesiastical histories. Concerning which it is remarkable, what Oecumenius in his Catena upon the 2 chap. of the first Epistle of S. Peter reports out of Irenaeus; The Greeks having taken some servants of Christians, pressing to learn something secret of the Christians, and they having nothing in their notice, to please the inquisitors, except that they had heard of their Masters, that the divine communion is the blood, and body of Christ; they supposing it true according to their rude natural apprehensions, tortur'd Sanctus and Blandina, to confess it. But Blandina answered them thus: How can they suffer any such thing in the exercise of their Religion, who do not nourish themselves with flesh that is permitted? All this trouble came upon the act of the forementioned hereticks; the report was only concerning the blood of an infant, not of a man, as it must have been if it had been occasioned by the Sacrament; but the Sacrament was not so much as thought of in this scrutiny, till the examination of the servants gave the hint in the torture of Blandina. Cardinal Perron perceiving much detriment likely to come to their doctrine by these Apologies of the primitive Christians upon the 11. anathematism of S. Cyril, says, that they deny anthropophagy, but did not deny Theanthropophagy, saying, that they did not eat the flesh, nor drink the blood of a meer man, but of Christ who was God and Man, which is so strange a device, as I wonder it could drop from the pen of so great a wit. For this would have been a worse, and more intolerable scandal, to affirm that Christians eat their God, and sucked his blood, and were devourers not only of a man, but of an immortal God. But however let his fancy be confronted with the extracts of the several apologies which I have now cited, and it will appear, that nothing of the Cardinals fancy can come near their sence, or words: for all the business was upon the blood of a child which the Gnosticks had kill'd, or the Montanists tormented; and the matter of the Sacrament was not in the whole rumour so much as thought upon.

15. Lastly, Unless there be no one objection of ours, that means as it says, but all are shadows, and nothing is awake but Bellarmine, in all his dreams; or Perron in all his laborious excuses; if we be allowed to be in our wits, and to understand Latin, or Greek, or common sence; unless the Fathers must all be understood according to their new nonsence answers, which the Primitive Doctors were so far from understanding or thinking of, that besides that it is next to impudence to suppose they could mean them, their own Doctors in a few ages last past did not know them, but opposed, and spake some things contrary, and many things divers from them: I say unless we have neither sense, nor reason, nor souls like other men, it is certain, that not one, nor two, but very many of the Fathers, taught our doctrine most expresly in this article, and against theirs. * And after all, whether the testimonies of the Doctors be ancient, or modern, it is advantage to us, and inconvenient for them: For if it be ancient, it shews their doctrine not to be from the beginning; [Page] if it be modern, it does it more; for it declares plainly, the doctrine to be but of yesterday: now I am very certain, I can make it appear, not to have been the doctrine of the Church, not of any Church whose records we have, for above a thousand years together.

16. But now in my entry upon the testimonies of Fathers, I shall make my way the more plain and credible, if I premise the testimonies of some of the Roman Doctors in this business. And the first I shall name, is Bellarmine himself,L. 2. Euch. c. 25. Sect. Hic veró. who was the most wary of giving advantage against himself; but yet he says, Non esse mirandum &c. it is not to be wondred at, if S. Austin, Theodoret, and others of the ancients, spake some things which in shew seem to favour the hereticks, when even from Jodocus some things did fall, which by the adversaries were drawn to their cause. Now though he lessens the matter by quaedam and videantur, and in speciem, seemingly, and in shew and some things] yet it was as much as we could expect from him; with whom visibilitèr, if it be on our side, must mean invisibilitèr, and statuimus must be abrogamus. But I rest not here: Alphonsus à Castro says more.De haer. l. 8. v. Indulgentia. De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio. The ancient writers seldom mention the change of the substance of bread into the body of Christ. And yet these men would make us believe that all the world's their own. But Scotus does directly deny the doctrine of Conversion or Transubstantiation to be ancient, so says Henriquez. Ante Concilium Lateranense Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei. Sum. l. 8. c. 23. De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. Vnum tamen. Discourse modest. p. 13. Lib. 4. S [...]nt. dist. 11. lit a. 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;In 3. Tho. to. 3. disp. 183. c. 1. n. 1. 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:Lib. 3. de Euch. c. 1. 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. S. Andrea Annal. to. 1. A. Ep. 44. num. 4. 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;Diacosion Mart. fol▪ 3▪ 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 [Page]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;S. Ignatius. 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, Tertullian adv. Marcion. l. 4. c. 40. 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 concupis [...]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 [Page]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,Heb. 1. v. 1. 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.Lib. 5. cont. Marcion. c. 8. Against the phantasm of Marcion we have proved the verity of Christs body and blood by the Sacrament of bread and wine.Lib. 3. c. 19. 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 [Page] 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.Art. 12. S. 9. 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 De verâ praes. clas. 1. p. 19. Bellarmine Lib. 3. Euch. c. 20. Justinian In 1 Cor. 11. Coton Du Sacr. de la Mes. c. 17. Fevardentius In Irenae. l. 4. c. 34. Valentia De Transub. l. 2. c. 3. and Vasquez T. 3. in 3. disp. 180. n. 21. Origen. Justin Mart. 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; Clemens Alexandrinus paed. l. 2. c. 2. 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.S. Cyprian.

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 [Page]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, and by Gregory de Valentiâ. The words are these, Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est caro, & sicut in personâ Christi &c. ‘The bread which the Lord gave to his disciples is changed, not in shape, but in nature, being made flesh by the omnipotency of the word; and as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen, and the divinity lay hid, so in the visible Sacrament, the divine essence, after an ineffable manner, pours it self forth, that devotion about the Sacraments might be religion, and that a more sincere entrance may be opened to the truth, whereof the body and the blood are Sacraments, even unto the participation of the Spirit, not unto the consubstantiality of Christ.’ This testimony (as Bellarmine says) admits of no answer. But by his favour, it admits of many: 1. Bellarmine cites but half of those words, and leaves out that which gives him answer. 2. The words affirm, that that body and blood are but a Sacrament of a reality and truth; but if it were really, and naturally, Christs body, then it were it self, veritas & corpus, and not only a Sacrament. 3. The truth [of which these are Sacramental] is the participation of the Spirit; that is, a Spiritual communication. 4. This does not arrive ad Consubstantialitatem Christi, to a participation or communion of the substance of Christ, which it must needs do, if bread were so changed in nature, as that it were substantially the body of Christ. 5. These Sermons of S. Cyprians title and name are under the name also of Arnoldus Abbot of Bonavilla in the time of S. Bernard, as appears in a M S. in the Library of All-Souls Colledge, of which I had the honour sometimes to be a Fellow. However, it is confessed on all sides that this Tractate is not S. Cyprians, and who is the Father of it, if Arnoldus be not, cannot be known; neither his age nor reputation. His style sounds like the eloquence of the Monastery, being direct Friers Latin, as appears by his honorificare, amaricare, injuriare, demembrare, sequestrare, attitulare, spiritalitas, t [...] supplico, and some false latin besides, and therefore he ought to pass for nothing; which I confess I am sorry for, as to this question; because to my sence he gives us great advantage in it. But I am content to lose what our cause needs not. I am certain they can get nothing by him. For if the authority were not incompetent, the words were impertinent to their purpose, but very much against them: only let me add out of the same Sermon these words. Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam & incrementum corporibus, ideóque ex consueto effectu fidei nostra adjuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento edocta & visibilibus Sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum, & non tam corporali quàm spirituali transitione nos cum Christo uniri. That common bread being changed into flesh and blood procures life and increment to our bodies; therefore our infirmity being helped with the usual effect of faith is taught by a sensible argument, that the effect of eternal life, is in visible Sacraments, and that we are united to Christ, not so much by a corporal, as by a Spiritual change. If both these discourses be put together, let the authority of the writer be what it will, the greater the better.

23. In the dialogues against the Marcionites collected out of Maximus in the time of Commodus or Severus or thereabouts, Origen is brought in speaking thus:A. D. 190. Maximus. [...]; If, as the Marcionites say, Christ had neither flesh nor blood, of what flesh or of what blood did he, giving bread and the chalice as images, command his disciples, that by these a remembrance of him should be made?

24. To the same purpose are the words of Eusebius: Eusebius. Lib. [...] de monst. evang. c. 1. Lib. 1. c. ult. [...]. He gave to his disciples the Symbols of Divine oeconomie, commanding the image or type of his own body to be made: and again, [...] [Page] [...]. They received a command according to the constitution of the new Testament to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body, and healthful blood.

S. Ephrem. De sacris Antioch. legibus apud Phot. l. 1. eo. 229. Scotus Jesuita exponit [...] cognoscitur, contra sensum loci.25. S. Ephrem the Syrian, Patriarch of Antioch, is dogmatical and decretory in this question, [...]. The body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from his sensible substance, and is undivided from a spiritual grace. He adds the similitude and parity of baptism to this mystery; for even baptism being wholly made Spiritual, and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance, I mean of water, saves, and that which is born doth not perish. I will not descant upon these or any other words of the Fathers I alledge, for if of their own natural intent they do not teach our doctrine, I am content they should pass for nothing.

S. Epiphan. in Ancorato.26. S. Epiphanius affirming man to be like God [...], in some image or similitude, not according to Nature, illustrates it by the similitude of the blessed Sacrament; We see that our Saviour took into his hands, as the Evangelist hath it, that he arose from supper, and took those things, and when he had given thanks he said, This is mine, and this; we see it is not equal, it is not like, not to the image in the flesh, not to the invisible Deity, not to the proportion of members, for this is a round form, [...], and cannot perceive any thing, or [is insensible according to power or faculty] and he would by grace say, This is mine, and this, and every man believes the word that is spoken, for he that believeth not him to be true, is fallen from grace and salvation. Now the force of Epiphanius his argument, consisting in this, that we are like to God after his image, but yet not according to nature, as the Sacramental bread is like the body of Christ, it is plain that the Sacramental species are the body of Christ, and his blood, [...] according to the image or representment, not according to Nature, but according to Grace.

Macarius. homil. 27.25. Macarius his words are plain enough, [...]. In the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his blood, and they that partake of the bread that appears, do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ.

26. S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the Pascha saith, Jam potestatis participes erimus &c. S. Greg. Naz. orat. 2. in Pasc. Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal supper, but still in figure, though more clear than in the old law. For the legal passeover (I will not be afraid to speak it) was a more obscure figure of a figure.

S. Ambrose is of the same perswasion. Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Make this ascribed oblation, reasonable, and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And again, Mira potentia &c. it is a wonderful power of God which makes that the bread should remain what it is, and yet be changed into another thing. C. 4. Ibid. 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;De consec. dist. 2. panis est. 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, In 1 Cor. 11. De offic. l. 1. c. 48. Lib. de initiat. c. 9. 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,S. Chrysost. 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 [Page] know not how any man can sensibly answer these words, ‘[For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread,Ep. ad Caesar. cont. haeres. Apollinarii citat. per Damascen. & per collect. sent. pp. contrà Severianos edit. per Turrian. 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,Hom. 11. in S. Mat. 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, S. August. 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, Ep. ad Bonif [...] ▪ 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 [Page] 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. In Psal. 98. 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; In Psal. 3. 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 Cont. Adimant. c. 12., This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. * Quod ab omnibus sacrificium appellatur, Lib. 10. contr. Faustum Manich. c. 2. &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. De consecrat. d. 2. 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; Lib. 3. c. 15, 16. 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 [...],A.D. 754. of 338. B.B. 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 [...].Vide Concil. general. tom. 3. p. 599. edit. Rom. 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 [Page] 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 In Apolog. & orat. funebr. pro Gorg. Gregory Nazianzen, and Mystag. Catech. 5. S. Cyril of Hierusalem. I remember only one thing objected to this testimony of so many Bishops, that they were Iconoclasts or breakers of images, and therefore not to be trusted in any other Article. So Bellarmine (as I remember.) But this is just as if I should say that I ought to refuse the Lateran Council, because they were worshippers of Images, or defenders of Purgatory. Surely if I should, I had much more reason to refuse their sentence, than there is that the Greeks should be rejected upon so slight a pretence; nay, for doing that which for ought appears, was in all their circumstances their duty in a high measure: so that in effect they are refused for being good Christians. But after this, it happened again that the words of type and image were disliked in the question of the holy Sacrament, by the Emperor Charles the great, his Tutor Alcuinus, and the Assembly at Frankfort; but it was in opposition to the Council of Constantinople, that called it the true image of Christs body, and of the Nicene Council who decreed the worship of Images: for if the Sacrament were an Image, as they of CP. said, then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images: for although these two Synods were enemies to each other, yet the proposition of one might serve the design of the other: but therefore the Western Doctors of that age, speaking against the decree of this, did also mislike the expression of that: meaning that the Sacrament is not a type or image, as a type is taken for a prefiguration, a shadow of things to come, like the legal ceremonies, but in opposition to that is a body, and a truth; yet still it is a Sacrament of the body, a mystery which is the same in effect with that which the Fathers taught in their so frequent using these words of Type, &c. for 750. years together. And concerning this I only note the words of Charles the Emperor, Ep. ad Alcuinum after the Synod, Our Lord hath given the Bread and the Chalice in figurâ corporis sui & sui sanguinis, in the figure of his body and blood. But setting the authority aside, for if these men of CP. be not allowed, yet the others are, and it is notorious that the Greek Fathers did frequently call the bread and wine [...], and the Latin Fathers call them signs, similitudes, figures, types, images, therefore there must be something pretended to stop this great out-cry, and insupportable prejudice of so great, so clear authority. After many trials; as that by antitypes they mean exemplars, that it is only before consecration, not after, and such other little devices, of which they themselves quickly grew weary; at last the craftiest of them came to this, that the body of Christ under the Species might well be said to be the sign of the same body and blood, as it was on the Cross; so Bellarmine;De Euch. l. 2. c▪ 15. That's the answer; and that they are hard put to it, you may guess by the meanness of the answer. For besides that nothing can be like it self, Idem non est simile; the body, as it is under the Species, is glorified, immortal, invisible, impassible, indivisible, insensible; and this is it which he affirms to be the sign, that is, which is appointed to signifie and represent a body that was humbled, tormented, visible, Nemo est sui ipsius imago. S. Hila [...]. lib. de Synod. Quod simile est non est illud cui est simile. S. Athanas. contr. hypocr. Mel [...]ti. mortal, sensible, torn, bleeding, and dying; So that here is a sign nothing like the thing signified, and an invisible sign of a visible body, which is the greatest absurdity in nature, and in the use of things, which is imaginable; but besides this, this answer, if it were a proper and sensible account of any thing, yet it is besides the mark; for that the Fathers in these allegations affirm that the Species are the signs, that is, that bread and wine, or the whole Sacrament is a sign of that body, which is exhibited in effect and Spiritual power: they dreamt not this dream; it was long before themselves did dream it: They that were but the day before them, having, as I noted before, other fancies. I deny not but the Sacramental body is the sign of the true body crucified: but that the body glorified, should be but a sign of the true body crucified, is a device fit for themselves to fancy. To this sence are those words cited by Lombard and Gratian out of S. Austin in the sentences of Prosper. Caro ejus est quam formâ panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus, sanguis quem sub specie vini potamus: Caro, viz. Carnis, & sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis, carne & sanguine utroque invisibili & intelligibili & spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile plenum gratiae & divinae majestatis; That is, It is his flesh which under the form of bread we receive in the Sacrament, and under the form of wine we drink his blood: Now that you may understand [Page] his meaning, he tells you this is true in the Sacramental or Spiritual sence only; for he adds, flesh is the Sacrament of flesh, and blood of blood; by both flesh and blood which are invisible, intelligible and Spiritual, is signified the visible body of Christ full of grace and Divine majesty. In which words here is a plain confutation of their main Article,Vbi suprd. and of this whimsie of theirs. For as to the particular, whereas Bellarmine says, that Christs body real and natural is the type of the body as it was crucified, S. Austin says, that the natural body is a type of that body which is glorified, not the glorified body of the crucified. 2. That which is a type, is flesh in a spiritual sence, not in a natural; and therefore it can mean nothing but this, That the Sacramental body is a figure and type of the real: [...]. And this thing is noted by the Gloss of Gratian. De consecrat. d. 2. c. Hoc est quod. Caro i. e. species carnis, sub qua latet corpus Christi, &c. The flesh, that is, the Species of it under which it lies, are the Sacrament of the flesh: so that the being of a Sacrament of Christs body, is wholly relative to the Symbols, not to the body; as if the body were his own sign and his own Sacrament.

Theodoret.30. Next to this heap of testimonies, I must repeat the words of Theodoret and Gelasius, which though known in this whole question, yet being plain, certain and unanswerable, relying upon a great Article of the religion, even the union of the two natures of Christ into one person without the change of substances, must be as sacred and untouched by any trifling answer, as the Article it self ought to be preserved. The case was this: The Eutychian Hereticks denied the natures of Christ to be united in one person, that is, they denied him to be both God and Man, saying, his humanity was taken into his divinity after his ascension. The Fathers disputing against them,Alphons. à Castro de haeres. Eutych. say, the substances remain intire, though joyned in the person. The Eutychians said this was impossible. But as in the Sacrament the bread was changed into Christs body, so in the ascension was the humanity turned into the divinity. To this Theodoret answers in a Dialogue between the Eutychians under the name of Eranistes and himself the Orthodox: Dial. 1. c. 8. Christ honoured the symbols and signs which are seen with the title of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. The words are not capable of an answer if we observe that he says there is no change made, but only grace superadded; in all things else the things are the same. And again: For neither do the mystical signes recede from their nature; for they abide in their proper substance, Dial. 2. c. 24. figure, and form, and may be seen and touched, &c. So the humanity of Christ: and a little after: So that body of Christ hath the ancient form, figure, superscription, and (to speak the summe of all) the substance of the body, although after the resurrection it be immortal and free from all corruption: Now these words spoken upon this occasion, to this purpose, in direct opposition to a contradicting person, but casting his Article wholly upon supposition of a substantial change, and opposing to him a ground contrary to his, upon which only he builds his answer, cannot be eluded by any little pretence. Bellarmine and the lesser people from him, answer, that by nature he understands the exterior qualities of nature, such as colour, taste, weight, smell, &c. 1. I suppose this, but does he mean so by Substantia too? [...]] Does he by substance mean accidents? but suppose that a while, yet 2. If he had answered thus, how had Theodoret confuted the Eutychians? For thus says Eranistes, As the bread is changed in substance into the body of Christ, so is the humanity into the divinity: yea but, says Theodoret according to Bellarmine; The substances of bread is not changed; for the colour, the shape, the bigness and the smell remain: or thus, the accidents remain, which I call substance; for there are two sorts of substances; substances and accidents; and this latter sort of substances remain; but not the former; and so you are confuted, Eranistes. But what if Eranistes should reply; if you say all of bread is changed excepting the accidents, then my argument holds: for I only contend that the substance of the humanity is changed, as you say the substance of bread is: To this nothing can be said, unless Theodoret may have leave to answer as otherwise men must. But now Theodoret answered, that the substance of bread is not changed, but remains still, and by substance, he did mean substance, and not the accidents; for if he had, he had not spoken sence. Either therefore the testimony of Theodoret remaineth unsatisfied by our adversaries, or the argument of the Eutychians is unanswered by Theodoret. 3. Theodoret in these places opposes Nature to Grace, and says, all remains without any change but of Grace. 4. He also explicates Nature by Substance, so that it is a Substantial Nature he must mean. 5. He distinguishes substance from form and figure, and therefore by substance cannot mean form and figure, as Bellarmine dreams. 6. He affirms concerning the body of Christ, that in the resurrection it is changed in accidents, being made [Page] incorruptible and immortal, but affirms that the substance remains; therefore by substance, he must mean as he speaks without any prodigious sence affixed to the word. 7. Let me observe this by the way, that the doctrine of the substantial change of bread into the body of Christ was the perswasion of the Heretick, the Eutychian Eranistes, but denied by the Catholick Theodoret; So that if they will pretend to antiquity in this doctrine, their plea is made ready and framed by the Eutychian, from whom they may, if they please, derive the original of their doctrine, or if they please, from the elder Marcosites; but it will be but vain to think the Eutychian did argue from thence, as if it had been a Catholick ground; reason we might have had to suppose it, if the Catholick had not denied it. But the case is plain: as the Sadduces disputed with Christ about the Article of no Spirits, no Resurrection, though in the Church of the Jews the contrary was the more prevailing opinion: so did the Eutychians upon a pretence of a Substantial conversion in the Sacrament, which was then their fancy, and devised to illustrate their other opinion: But it was disavowed by the Catholicks.

31. Gelasius was ingaged against the same persons in the same cause,Gelasius de duabus naturis cont. Eutychetem & Nestorium. and therefore it will be needful to say nothing but to describe his words. For they must have the same efficacy with the former, and prevail equally. ‘Certè Sacramenta, &c. Truly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive are a Divine thing, for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature, and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And truly an image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.’ These are his words; concerning which this only is to be considered, beyond what I suggested concerning Theodoret; that although the word [...] in the Greek, which we render substantia, might be apt to receive divers interpretations, though in his discourse he confined it to his proper meaning (as appears above) yet in Gelasius, who was a Latin Author, the word substantia is not capable of it: and I think there is no example where substantia is taken for an accidental nature. It may, as all other words can, suffer alterations by tropes and figures, but never signifie grammatically any thing but it self, and his usual significations: and if there be among us any use of Lexicons or Vocabularies, if there be any notices conveyed to men by forms of speech, then we are sure in these things: and there is no reason we should suffer our selves to be out-faced out of the use of our senses, and our reason, and our language. It is usually here replied, that Gelasius was an obscurer person, Bishop of Caesarea and not Pope of Rome, as is supposed. I answer, that he was Bishop of Rome that writ the book out of which these words are taken, is affirmed in the Bibliotheca PP. approved by the Theological faculty in Paris 1576: and Massonius de Episcopis urbis Romae, in the life of Pope Gelasius, saith, that Pope John cited the book de duabus naturis, and by Fulgentius it is so too. 2. But suppose he was not Pope, that he was a Catholick Bishop is not denied; and that he lived above a 1000 years ago; which is all I require in this business. For any other Bishop may speak truth, as well as the Bishop of Rome; and his truth shall be of equal interest and perswasion. But so strange a resolution men have taken to defend their own opinions, that they will, in despite of all sence and reason, say something to every thing, and that shall be an answer whether it can or no.

32. After all this, it is needless to cite authorities from the later ages; It were Indeed easie to heap up many, and those not obscure either in their name, or in their testimony. Such as Facundus Bishop of Hermian in Africa in the year 552. in his ninth book and last Chapter written in defence of Theod. Mopsuest. &c. hath these words, The Sacrament of his body and blood, we call his body and blood▪ not that bread is properly his body, or the cup his blood, but that they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood. Isidore Bishop of Sevil says, Panis quem frangimus, &c. The bread which we break is the body of Christ, who saith, I am the living bread. But the wine is his blood, Isidorus Hisp. l. 1. de offic. c. 18. and that is it which is written, I am the true vine. But bread, because it strengthens our body, therefore it is called the body of Christ, but wine, because it makes blood in our flesh, therefore it is reduced or referred to the blood of Christ. But these visible things sanctified by the holy Ghost pass into the Sacrament of the Divine body. Suidas in the word [...]. Christ calls the Church his body; and by her as a man he ministers: but as he is God he receives what is offered. But the Church offers the symbols of his body and blood, sanctifying the whole mass by the first fruits. Symbola, i. e. Signa, says the Latin version. The [Page] bread and wine are the signs of his body and his bloud. [...]; so Suidas, Hesychius speaking of this mystery affirms,L. 20. in Levit. c. 8. Fulgentius. Quòd simul panis & caro est, It is both bread and flesh too. Fulgentius saith, Hic calix est novum Testamentum, i. e. Hic calix quem vobis trado, novum Testamentum significat. This cup is the new Testament, that is, it signifies it. [...], said Procopius of Gaza. In Gen. 49. He gave to his disciples the image of his own body; [...], said the scholiast upon Dionysius the Areopagite; These things are symbols, and not the truth, or verity; and he said it upon occasion of the same doctrine which his Author (whom he explicates) taught in that Chapter;In Eccles. hier. c. 3. Dionys. Eccles. hier. c. 3. [...], &c. The Divine symbols being placed upon the Altar by which Christ is signified and participated. But this only I shall remark, that Transubstantiation is so far from having been the Primitive doctrine, that it was among Catholicks fiercely disputed in the time of Charles the Bald, about the year 880. Paschasius wrote for the Substantial conversion; Rabanus maintain'd the contrary in his answer to Heribaldus, and in his writing to Abbot Egilo. There lived in the same time in the Court of Charles the Emperor, a country-man of ours Jo. Scot, A.D. 880. called by some Jo. Erigena, who wrote a book against the substantial change in the Sacrament; He lived also sometimes in England with King Alfred, Apparat. tit. Johannes cognomento Sapiens. and was surnamed the wise, and was a Martyr, saith Possevinus, and was in the Roman Calender; his day was the fourth of the Ides of November, as is to be seen in the Martyrologie published at Antwerp 1586. ‘But when the controversie grew publick and noted, Charles the Bald commanded Bertram or Ratran to write upon the question, being of the Monastery of Corbey: he did so, and defended our doctrine against Paschasius: the book is extant, and may be read by him that desires it; but it is so intire and dogmatical against the substantial change which was the new doctrine of Paschasius, that Turrian gives this account of it, to cite Bertram, what is it else, but to say that Calvins heresie is not new?1599. A.D. 1571. Antwerp. and the Belgick expurgatory Index professeth to use it with the same equity which it useth to other Catholick writers, in whom they tolerate many errors and extenuate or excuse them, and sometimes by inventing some device they do deny it, and put some fit sence to them when they are opposed in disputation, and this they do, lest the Hereticks should talk that they forbid and burn books that make against them.’ You see the honesty of the men; and the justness of their proceedings; but the Spanish expurgatory Index forbids the book wholly, with a penitus auferatur.

I shall only add this, that in the Church of England, Bertrams doctrine prevailed longer; and till Lanfrancks time it was permitted to follow Bertram or Paschasius. And when Osbern wrote the lives of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury, Osbernus vitâ Odonis. Dunstan, and Elphege by the command of Lanfranck, he says, that in Odo's time, some Clergy-men affirmed in the Sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance, and to be Christs body only in figure; and tells how the Arch-bishop prayed, and blood dropped out of the Host over the Chalice, and so his Clerks which then assisted at Mass, and were of another opinion, were convinced. This though he writes to please Lanfranck (who first gave authority to this opinion in England) and according to the opinion which then prevailed, yet it is an irrefragable testimony that it was but a disputed Article in Odo's time; no Catholick doctrine, no Article of Faith, nor of a good while after: for however these Clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle, who could not convince them by the Law and the Prophets, by the Gospels and Epistles; yet his successor, he that was the fourth after him, I mean Aelfrick Abbot of S. Albans, Capgrave calls him Abbot of S. Albans. Malmesb. saith, he was of Malmesbury. A.D. 996. and afterwards Arch-bishop of Canterbury, in his Saxon Homily written above 600 years since, disputes the question, and determines in the words of Bertram only for a Spiritual presence, not natural, or substantial. The book was printed at London by John Day, and with it a letter of Aelfrick to Wulfin Bishop of Schirburn to the same purpose. His words are these: That housel (that is, the blessed Sacrament) is Christs body, not bodily, but spiritually, not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed bread and wine to Housel the night before his suffering, and said by the blessed bread, This is my body. And in a writing to the Arch-bishop of York he said, The Lord] halloweth daily by the hand of the Priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books. And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the self same body that Christ suffered in. I end this with the words of the Gloss upon the Canon Law, Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, De consecrat. d. 2. Hoc est Lug [...]uni. 1518. sed impropriè, unde dicitur suo modo scil. non rei veritate, sed significati mysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur[Page]Christi corpus, i. e. significatur; The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ; but improperly, therefore it is said (meaning in the Canon taken out of S. Austin) after the manner, to wit, not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystery of that which is signified; so that the meaning is, it is called Christ body, that is, Christs body is signified; which the Church of Rome well expresses in an ancient Hymn:

Sub duabus speciebus

Signis tantùm & non rebus

Latent res eximiae.

Excellent things lie under the two species of bread and wine which are only signs, not the things whereof they are signs. But the Lateran Council struck all dead: before which, Transubstantiatio non 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 Sess. 13. c. 5., 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;Tantum ergo Sacramentum adoremus cernui. Hymn. in M [...]ss. 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 [Page] 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;L. 4. de Euch. c. 29 Tom. 2. in 3. Thom. disp. 65. Sect. 1. 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, De vanit. Sci [...]n. c. 3. 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.Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. can. 9. Ledesmo ait Sacerdotem isto Canone probiberi clarâ voce eloqui verba consecrationis descriptor: quâ vis linguâ non legendis — 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 [Page] 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. Vide Bonavent. in 3. dist. 24. a. 1. q. 1. 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. Bishop Andrews Resp. ad apolog. Bellarm. p. 7. 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 error and ignorance I hope will dispose [Page] them to receive a pardon: But yet that also supposes them criminal; And though I would not for all the world be their accuser, or the aggravator of the crime, yet I am not unwilling to be their remembrancer, that themselves may avoid the danger. For though Jacob was innocent in lying with Leah in stead of Rachel, because he had no cause to suspect the deception; yet if Penelope, who had not seen Vlysses in twenty years, should see one come to her nothing like Vlysses, but saying he were her husband, she should give but an ill account of her chastity if she should actually admit him to her bed, only saying, if you be Vlysses, or upon supposition that you are Vlysses, I admit you. For if she certainly admits him, of whom she is uncertain if he be her husband, she certainly is an adulteress: Because she having reason to doubt, ought first to be satisfied of her question. Since therefore besides the insuperable doubts of the main Article it self, in the practice and the particulars there are acknowledged so many ways of deception, and confessed that the actual failings are frequent (as I shewed before out of Pope Adrian) it will be but a weak excuse to say, I worship thee if thou be the Son of God, but I do not worship thee, if thou beest not consecrated, and in the mean time, the Divine worship is actually exhibited to what is set before us. At the best we may say to these men, as our blessed Saviour to the woman of Samaria, Ye worship ye know not what; but we know what we worship. For concerning the action of adoration, this I am to say, That it is a fit address in the day of solemnity, with a Sursum corda, with our hearts lift up to Heaven, where Christ sits (we are sure) at the right hand of the Father, for Nemo dignè manducat nisi priùs adoraverit, said S. Austin, No man eats Christs body worthily, but he that first adores Christ. But to terminate the Divine worship to the Sacrament, to that which we eat, is so unreasonable Vide Theodoret quaest. 55. in Genes. & q. 11. in Levit. and unnatural, and withal so scandalous, that Averroes observing it to be used among the Christians, with whom he had the ill fortune to converse, said these words. [...]. Theodoret q. in Gen. q. 55. Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis. Since Christians worship what they eat, let my soul be with the Philophers. If the man had conversed with those who better understood the Article, and were more religious and wise in their worshippings, possibly he might have been invited by the excellency of the institution to become a Christian. But they that give scandal to Jews by their Images, and leaving out the second Commandment from their Catechisms, give offence to the Turks by worshipping the Sacrament, and to all reasonable men by striving against two or three Sciences and the notices of all mankind.De Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12. We worship the flesh of Christ in the mysteries (saith S. Ambrose) as the Apostles did worship it in our Saviour. For we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our souls the flesh and blood of Christ; So that we worship it in the sumption, and venerable usages of the signs of his body. But we give no Divine honour to the signs: We do not call the Sacrament our God. And let it be considered; whether if the Primitive Church had ever done or taught that the Divine worship ought to be given to the Sacrament, it had not been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the arguments upon their heads, by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images. The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands, to which themselves gave what figure they pleased, and then by certain forms consecrated them, and made by invocation (as they supposed) a Divinity to dwell there. They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see, nor hear, nor smell, nor taste, nor move, nor understand: that which could grow old and perish, that could be broken and burned, that was subject to the injury of Rats and Mice, of Worms and creeping things, that can be taken by enemies, and carried away, that is kept under lock and key for fear of Thieves and sacrilegious persons. Now if the Church of those ages had thought and practised as they have done at Rome in these last ages, might not they have said, Why may not we as well as you? do not you worship that with Divine honours, and call it your God which can be burnt, and broken, which your selves form into a round or a square figure, which the Oven first hardens, and then your Priests consecrate, and by invocation make to be your God, which can see no more, nor hear, nor smell, than the silver and gold upon our Images? Do not you adore that which Rats and Mice eat, which can grow mouldy, and sowre, which you keep under locks and bars, for fear your God be stoln? Did not Lewis the Ninth pawn your God to the Soldan of Egypt, insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escutcheons by way of triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it: True it is, that if we are beaten from our Cities, we carry our Gods with us; but did not the Jesuits carry your Host (which you call God) about their necks from Venice in the time of the Interdict? [Page] And now why do you reprove that in us which you do in your selves? What could have been answered to them, if the doctrine and accidents of their time had furnished them with these or the like instances? In vain it would have been to have replied; Yea, but ours is the true God, and yours are false gods. For they would easily have made a rejoynder; and said, that this is to be proved by some other argument; in the mean time all your objections against our worshipping of Images, return violently upon you. Upon this account, since none of the witty and subtle adversaries of Christianity ever did, or could make this defence by way of recrimination, it is certain there was no occasion given; and therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers, pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament, must needs be Sophistry, and illusion, and can need no particular consideration. But if any man can think them at all considerable, I refer him to be satisfied by Mich. le Faucheur in his voluminous confutation of Card. Perron. I for my part am weary of the infinite variety of argument in this question;L. 4. c. 3. de la Cene du Signeur. and therefore shall only observe this, that antiquity does frequently use the words [...], venerable, adorable, worshipful to every thing that ought to be received with great reverence, and used with regard: to Princes, to Laws, to Baptism, to Bishops, to Priests, to the ears of Priests, the Cross, the Chalice, the Temples, the words of Scripture, the Feast of Easter; and upon the same account by which it is pretended that some of the Fathers taught the adoration of the Eucharist, we may also infer the adoration of all the other instances. But that which proves too much, proves nothing at all.

These are the grounds by which I am my self established, and by which I perswade or confirm others in this Article.

I end with the words of the Fathers in the Council of CP. [...].A.D. 745. Christ commanded the substance of bread to be offered, not the shape of a man, lest Idolatry should be introduced.

Gloria Deo in excelsis:

In terris pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.

THE END.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY.

THE FIRST PART.

By JER TAYLOR, Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First, and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.

The Fifth Edition, Revised and Corrected.

MOLINA. S. IGNATIVS LOYOLA SOCIETATIS IESV FVNDATOR. VASQUEZ.

Optabilior est Fur qúm Mendax assiduus, vtri (que)veró Perditionis haereditatem consequentur

Eccles 20: vers. 25

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent MAJESTY, MDCLXXIII.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

[Page]

[Page]

WHEN a Roman Gentleman had, to please himself, written a book in Greek, and presented it to Cato; he desir'd him to pardon the faults of his Expressions, since he wrote in Greek, which was a Tongue in which he was not perfect Master. Cato told him he had better then to have let it alone and written in Latin; by how much it is better not to commit a Fault, than to make Apologies. For if the thing be good, it needs not to be excus'd; if it be not good, a crude Apologie will do nothing but confess the fault, but never make amends. I therefore make this Address to all who will concern themselves in reading this book, not to ask their pardon for my fault in doing of it; I know of none; for if I had known them, I would have mended them before the Publication; and yet though I know not any, I do not question but much fault will be found by too many; I wish I have given them no cause for their so doing. But I do not only mean it in the particular Periods, where every man that is not a Son of the Church of England or Ireland, will at least do as Apollonius did to the Apparition that affrighted his company on the mountain Caucasus, (he will revile and persecute me with evil words) but I mean it in the whole Design, and men will reasonably or capriciously ask, Why any more Controversies? Why this over again? Why against the Papists, against whom so very many are already exasperated, that they cry out fiercely of Persecution? And why can they not be suffered to [Page] enjoy their share of peace, which hath returned in the hands of His Sacred Majesty at his blessed Restauration? For as much of this as concerns my self I make no excuse, but give my reasons, and hope to justifie this procedure with that modesty which David us'd to his angry brother, saying, What have I now done? is there not a cause? The cause is this:

The Reverend Fathers, my Lords the Bishops of Ireland, in their circumspection and watchfulness over their Flocks having espied grievous Wolves to have entered in, some with Sheeps-cloathing, and some without, some secret enemies, and some open, at first endeavour'd to give check to those enemies which had put fire into the bed-straw; and though God hath very much prosper'd their labours, yet they have work enough to do, and will have, till God shall call them home to the land of peace and unity. But it was soon remembred, that when King James of blessed memory had discerned the spirits of the English Nonconformists, and found them peevish and factious, unreasonable and imperious, not only unable to govern, but as inconsistent with the Government, as greedy to snatch at it for themselves; resolved to take off their disguise, and put a difference between Conscience and Faction, and to bring them to the measures and rules of Laws; and to this the Council and all wise men were consenting, because by the King's great wisdom, and the conduct of the whole Conference and Inquiry, men saw there was reason on the Kings side, and necessity on all sides. But the Gun-powder Treason breaking out, a new Zeal was enkindled against the Papists, and it shin'd so greatly, that the Nonconformists escap'd by the light of it, and quickly grew warm by the heat of that flame, to which they added no small increase by their Declamations and other acts of Insinuation: insomuch that they being neglected, multipli'd until they got power enough to do all those mischiefs which we have seen and felt. This being remembred and spoken of, it was soon observ'd that the Tables only were now turn'd, and that now the publick zeal and watchfulness against those men and those perswasions, which so lately have afflicted us, might give to the Emissaries of the Church of Rome leisure and opportunity to grow into numbers and strength to debauch many Souls, and to unhinge the safety and peace of the Kingdom. In Ireland we saw too much of it done, and found the mischief growing too fast, and the most intolerable inconveniencies, but too [Page] justly apprehended, as near and imminent. We had reason at least to cry Fire when it flamed through our very Roofs, and to interpose with all care and diligence, when Religion and the eternal Interest of Souls was at stake, as knowing we should be greatly unfit to appear and account to the great Bishop and Shepherd of Souls, if we had suffer'd the enemies to sow Tares in our fields, we standing and looking on. It was therefore consider'd how we might best serve God, and rescue our Charges from their danger, and it was concluded presently to run to arms, I mean to the weapons of our warfare, to the armour of the Spirit, to the works of our calling, and to tell the people of their peril, to warn them of the enemy, and to lead them in the ways of truth and peace and holiness: that if they would be admonished, they might be safe; if they would not, they should be without excuse, because they could not say but the Prophets have been amongst them.

But then it was next inquired, Who should minister in this affair, and put in order all those things which they had to give in charge: It was easie to chuse many, but hard to chuse one; there were many fit to succeed in the vacant Apostleship, and though Barsabas the Just was by all the Church nam'd as a fit and worthy man, yet the lot fell upon Matthias; and that was my case: it fell to me to be their Amanuensis, when persons most worthy were more readily excus'd; and in this my Lords the Bishops had reason, that (according to S. Pauls rule) If there be judgments or controversies amongst us, 1 Cor. 6.4. they should be imploy'd who are least esteem'd in the Church; and upon this account I had nothing left me but Obedience; though I confess that I found regret in the nature of the imployment, for I love not to be (as S. Paul calls it) one of the [...], Disputers of this world. For I suppose skill in Controversies (as they are now us'd) to be the worst part of learning, and time is the worst spent in them, and men the least benefited by them; that is, when the Questions are curious and impertinent, intricate and unexplicable, not to make men better, but to make a Sect. But when the Propositions disputed are of the foundation of Faith, or lead to good life, or naturally do good to single persons or publick Societies, then they are part of the depositum of Christianity, of the Analogy of faith; and for this we are by the Apostle commanded to contend earnestly, and therefore Controversies may become necessary; but because they are not often [Page] so, but oftentimes useless and always troublesome; and as an ill diet makes an ill habit of body, so does the frequent use of controversies baffle the understanding, and makes it crafty to deceive others, it self remaining instructed in nothing but useless notions and words of contingent signification and distinctions without difference, which minister to pride and contention, and teach men to be pertinacious, troublesome and uncharitable, therefore I love them not.

But because by the Apostolical Rule I am tyed to do all things without murmurings, as well as without disputings, I consider'd it over again,Phil. 2.14. and found my self reliev'd by the subject matter, and the grand consequent of the present Questions. For in the present affair, the case is not so as in the others; here the Questions are such that the Church of Rome declares them to reach a [...] far as eternity, and damn all that are not of their opinions; and the Protestants have much more reason to fear concerning the Papists, such who are not excus'd by ignorance, that their condition is very sad and deplorable, and that it is charity to snatch them as a brand from the fire; and indeed the Church of Rome maintains Propositions, which, if the Ancient Doctors of the Church may be believ'd, are apt to separate from God. I instance in their superaddition of Articles and Propositions, derived only from a pretended tradition, and not contain'd in Scripture. Now the doing of this is a great sin, and a great danger. Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem; Si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud adjicientibus & detrahentibus destinatum, said Tertullian:Contra Hermogen. I adore the fulness of Scripture; and if it be not written, let Hermogenus fear the woe that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it.

De vera fide & Moral. reg. 72. c. 1. & reg. 80. c. 22.S. Basil says, Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity, and a most certain sign of pride, to introduce any thing that is not written (in the Scriptures;) our blessed Saviour having said, My sheep hear my voice, and the voice of strangers they will not hear; and to detract from Scriptures, or add any thing to the Faith that is not there, is most vehemently forbidden by the Apostle, saying, If it be but a mans Testament, nemo superordinat, no man adds to it. And says also, This was the Will of the Testator. And Theophilus Alexandrinus says plainly,Epist. Pasch. 2. It is the part of a Devillish spirit to think any thing to be Divine, that is not in the authority of the holy Scriptures; De incarn. Christi. and therefore S. Athanasius affirms, [Page] that the Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being immodestiae vaecordia, an evil heart of immodesty, to speak those things which are not written. Now let any man judge whether it be not our duty, and a necessary work of charity, and the proper office of our Ministery, to perswade our charges from the immodesty of an evil heart, from having a Devillish spirit, from doing that which is vehemently forbidden by the Apostle, from infidelity and pride, and lastly from that eternal Woe which is denounc'd against them that add other words and doctrines than what is contain'd in the Scriptures, and say, Dominus dixit, The Lord hath said it, and he hath not said it. If we had put these severe censures upon the Popish doctrine of Tradition, we should have been thought uncharitable; but because the holy Fathers do so, we ought to be charitable, and snatch our Charges from the ambient flame.

And thus it is in the question of Images; Dubium non est, Lib. 2. cap. de Origen. error. Lib. 7. contra Celsum. quin Religio nulla sit, ubicunque simulacrum est, said Lactantius; Without all peradventure where ever an Image is, (meaning for worship) there is no Religion: and that we ought rather to die than pollute our Faith with such impieties, said Origen. It is against the Law of Nature, it being expresly forbidden by the second Commandment, as Irenaeus affirms, Tertullian, Cyprian, and S. Augustine; and therefore is it not great reason we should contend for that Faith which forbids all worship of Images, and oppose the superstition of such Guides who do teach their people to give them veneration, to prevaricate the Moral Law, and the very Law of Nature, and do that which whosoever does has no Religion? We know Idolatry is a damnable sin, and we also know that the Roman Church with all the artifices she could use, never can justifie her self, or acquit the common practices from Idolatry; and yet if it were but suspicious that it is Idolatry, it were enough to awaken us: for God is a jealous God, and will not endure any such causes of suspicion and motives of jealousie. I instance but once more.

The Primitive Church did excommunicate them that did not receive the holy Sacrament in both kinds, and S. Ambrose says,Can. competimus de consecr. dist. 2. in 1 Cor. 11. that he who receives the Mystery other ways than Christ appointed, (that is, but in one kind, when he hath appointed it in two) is unworthy of the Lord, and he cannot have Devotion. [Page] Now this thing we ought not to suffer, that our people by so doing should remain unworthy of the Lord, and for ever be indevout, or cozen'd with a false shew of devotion, or fall by following evil Guides into the sentence of Excommunication. These matters are not trifling, and when we see these errors frequently taught and own'd as the only true Religion, and yet are such evils, which the Fathers say are the way of damnation; we have reason to hope that all wise and good men, lovers of souls, will confess that we are within the circles of our duty, when we teach our people to decline the crooked ways, and to walk in the ways of Scripture and Christianity.

But we have observed amongst the generality of the Irish, such a declension of Christianity, so great credulity to believe every superstitious story, such confidence in vanity, such groundless pertinacy, such vicious lives, so little sense of true Religion and the fear of God, so much care to obey the Priests, and so little to obey God; such intolerable ignorance, such fond Oaths and manners of swearing, thinking themselves more oblig'd by swearing on the Mass-book, than the four Gospels, and S. Patricks Mass-book more than any new one; swearing by their Fathers soul, by their Gossips hand, by other things which are the product of those many Tales are told them; their not knowing upon what account they refuse to come to Church, but only that now they are old and never did, or their country-men do not, or their Fathers or Grandfathers never did, or that their Ancestors were Priests, and they will not alter from their Religion; and after all, can give no account of their Religion what it is: only they believe as their Priest bids them, and go to Mass which they understand not, and reckon their Beads to tell the number and the tale of their prayers, and abstain from Eggs and flesh in Lent, and visit S. Patricks Well, and leave Pins and Ribbons, Yarn or Thread in their holy Wells, and pray to God, S. Mary and S. Patrick, S. Columbanus and S. Bridget, and desire to be buried with S. Francis's Cord about them, and to fast on Saturdays in honour of our Lady. These and so many other things of like nature we see daily, that we being conscious of the infinite distance which these things have from the spirit of Christianity, know that no charity can be greater than to perswade the people to come to our Churches, where they shall be taught all the ways of godly wisdom, of peace and safety to their souls: whereas now there are many of them that know not how to say their [Page] prayers, but mutter, like Pies and Parrots, words which they are taught, but they do not pretend to understand.

But I shall give one particular instance of their miserable superstition and blindness.

I was lately within a few months very much troubled with Petitions and earnest Requests for the restoring a Bell, which a Person of Quality had in his hands in the time of, and ever since, the late Rebellion. I could not guess at the reasons of their so great and violent importunity, but told the Petitioners, If they could prove that Bell to be theirs, the Gentleman was willing to pay the full value of it; though he had no obligation to do so (that I know of) but charity: but this was so far from satisfying them, that still the importunity increased, which made me diligently to inquire into the secret of it. The first cause I found, was, that a dying person in the Parish desired to have it rung before him to Church, and pretended he could not die in peace if it were deni'd him; and that the keeping of that Bell did anciently belong to that Family from Father to Son: but because this seem'd nothing but a fond and an unreasonable superstition, I enquired further, and at last found that they believ'd this Bell came from Heaven, and that it used to be carried from place to place, and to end Controversies by Oath, which the worst men durst not violate if they swore upon that Bell, and the best men amongst them durst not but believe him; that if this Bell was rung before the Corps to the Grave, it would help him out of Purgatory; and that therefore when any one died, the friends of the deceased did, whilest the Bell was in their possession, hire it for the behoof of their dead, and that by this means that Family was in part maintain'd. I was troubled to see under what spirit of delusion those poor souls do lie, how infinitely their credulity is abused, how certainly they believe in trifles, and perfectly rely on vanity, and how little they regard the truths of God, and how not at all they drink of the waters of Salvation. For the numerous companies of Priests and Friars amongst them, take care they shall know nothing of Reliligion, but what they design for them; they use all means to keep them to the use of the Irish Tongue, lest, if they learn English, they might be supplied with persons fitter to instruct them; the people are taught to make that also their excuse for not coming to our Churches, to hear our advices, or converse with us in religious intercourses, because they understand us not, and they will not understand [Page] us, neither will they learn that they may understand and live. And this and many other evils are made greater and more irremediable by the affrightment which their Priests put upon them by the issues of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, by which (they now exercising it too publickly) they give them Laws, not only for Religion, but even for Temporal things, and turn their Proselytes from the Mass, if they become Farmers of the Tithes from the Minister or Proprietary without their leave. I speak that which I know to be true by their own confession and unconstrain'd and uninvited Narratives; so that as it is certain that the Roman Religion, as it stands in distinction and separation from us, is a body of strange Propositions, having but little relish of true primitive and pure Christianity, (as will be made manifest, if the importunity of our Adversaries extort it;) so it is here amongst us a Faction and a State-party and design to recover their old Laws and barbarous manner of living, a device to enable them to dwell alone, and to be Populus unius labii, a people of one language and unmingled with others. And if this be Religion, it is such a one as ought to be reproved by all the severities of Reason and Religion, lest the people perish, and their souls be cheaply given away to them that make merchandize of souls, who were the purchase and price of Christs blood.

Having given this sad account, why it was necessary that my Lords the Bishops should take care to do what they have done in this affair, and why I did consent to be engaged in this Controversie, otherwise than I love to be; and since it is not a love of trouble and contention, but charity to the souls of the poor deluded Irish: there is nothing remaining but that we humbly desire of God to accept and to bless this well-meant Labour of Love, and that by some admirable ways of his Providence, he will be pleas'd to convey to them the notices of their danger, and their sin, and to de-obstruct the passages of necessary truth to them; for we know the arts of their Guides, and that it will be very hard that the notice of these things shall ever be suffer'd to arrive to the common people, but that which hinders will hinder until it be taken away: however we believe and hope in God for remedy.

For although Edom would not let his brother Israel pass into his Country, and the Philistims would stop the Patriarchs Wells, and the wicked Shepherds of Midian would drive their neighbours flocks from the watering-troughs, and the Emissaries of [Page] Rome use all arts to keep the people from the use of Scriptures, the Wells of Salvation, and from entertaining the notices of such things which from the Scriptures we teach; yet as God found out a remedy for those of old, so he will also for the poor misled people of Ireland; and will take away the evil minds, or the opportunities of the Adversaries hindring the people from Instruction, and make way that the Truths we have here taught may approach to their ears, and sink into their hearts, and make them wise unto Salvation. Amen.

A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY To the People of IRELAND. PART I.
The INTRODVCTION.

[Page]

[Page]

THE Questions of difference between Our Churches and the Church of Rome, have been so often disputed, and the evidences on both sides so often produc'd, that to those who are strangers to the present constitution of affairs, it may seem very unnecessary to say them over again: and yet it will seem almost impossible to produce any new matter; or if we could, it will not be probable, that what can be newly alledged can prevail more than all that which already hath been so often urged in these Questions. But we are not deterr'd from doing our duty by any such considerations: as knowing, that the same Medicaments are with success applied to a returning or an abiding Ulcer; and the Preachers of God's Word, must for ever be ready to put the People in mind of such things, which they already have heard, and by the same Scriptures, and the same Reasons, endeavour to destroy their sin, or prevent their danger; and by the same word of God to exstirpate those errors, which have had opportunity in the time of our late disorders to spring up and grow stronger, not when the Keepers of the field slept, but when they were wounded, and their hands cut off, and their mouths stopp'd, lest they should continue, or proceed to do the work of God thoroughly.

A little warm Sun, and some indulgent showers of a softer Rain, have made many weeds of erroneous Doctrine to take root greatly, and to spread themselves widely: and the Bigots of the Roman Church, by their late importune boldness and indiscreet forwardness in making Proselytes, have but too manifestly declar'd to all the World, that if they were rerum potiti, Masters of our affairs, they would suffer nothing to grow but their own Colocynths and Gourds. And although the Natural remedy for this, were, to take away that impunity, upon the account of which alone they do encrease; yet because we shall never be Authors of such Counsels, but confidently rely upon God, the Holy Scriptures, right Reason, and the most venerable and prime Antiquity, which are the proper defensatives of truth for its support and maintenance; yet we must not conceal from the People, committed to our charges, the great evils to which they are tempted by the Roman [Page] Emissaries, that while the King and the Parliament take care to secure all the publick interests by instruments of their own, we also may by the word of our proper Ministery endeavour to stop the progression of such errors, which we know to be destructive of Christian Religion, and consequently dangerous to the interest of Souls.

In this procedure, although we shall say some things which have not been alwayes plac'd before their eyes, and others we shall represent with a fittingness to their present necessities, and all with Charity too, and zeal for their souls, yet if we were to say nothing but what hath been often said already, we are still doing the work of God, and repeating his voice, and by the same remedies curing the same diseases, and we only wait for the blessing of God prospering that importunity which is our duty:Eccles. 11.6. according to the advice of Solomon, In the Morning sow thy seed, and in the Evening withhold not thy hand; for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this, or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.

CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Roman Church in the Controverted Articles, is neither Catholick, Apostolick, nor Primitive.

SECT. I.

De unit. Eccles. cap. 6.IT was the challenge of Saint Augustine to the Donatists, who (as the Church of Rome does at this day) inclos'd the Catholick Church within their own circuits: [Ye say that Christ is Heir of no Lands, but where Donatus is Co-heir. Read this to us out of the Law and the Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel it self, or out of the Letters of the Apostles; Read it thence and we believe it.] Plainly directing us to the Fountains of our Faith, the Old and New Testament, the words of Christ, and the words of the Apostles. For nothing else can be the Foundation of our Faith: whatsoever came in after these, foris est, it belongs not unto Christ Ecclesia ex sacris & canonicis Scripturis ostendenda est, quaeque ex illis ostendi non potest Ecclesia non est, S. Aug. de unit. Eccle. c. 4. & c. 3. Ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi decernamus causam nostram..

To these we also add, not as Authors or Finishers, but as Helpers of our Faith, and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical, the Sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God, in the Ages next after the Apostles. Not that we think them or our selves bound to every private Opinion, even of a Primitive Bishop and Martyr; but that we all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire, and transmitted faithfully to the after-Ages the whole faith, [...], the form of doctrine, and sound words, which was at first delivered to the Saints, and was defective in nothing that belong'd unto salvation; and we believe that those Ages sent millions of Saints to the bosome of Christ, and seal'd the true Faith with their lives and with their deaths, and by both gave testimony unto Jesus, and had from him the Testimony of his Spirit.

And this method of procedure we now chuse, not only because to them that know well how to use it, to the Sober and Moderate, the Peaceable and the Wise, it is the best, the most certain, visible and tangible, most humble and satisfactory; but also because the Church of Rome does with greatest noises pretend her Conformity to Antiquity. Indeed the present Roman Doctrines, which are in difference, were invisible and unheard-of in the first and best Antiquity, and with how ill success their Quotations are out of the Fathers of the first three Ages, every inquiring Man may easily discern. But the noises therefore which they make are from the Writings of the succeeding Ages; where secular interest did more prevail, and the Writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous, full of controversie, and ambiguous sences, fitted to their own times and questions, full of proper Opinions, and such variety of sayings, that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively. Now although things being thus, it will [Page] be impossible for them to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers, that their Doctrine which they would prove thence, was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church; because any number that is less than all, does not prove a Catholick consent: yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary, will certainly prove that what many of them (suppose it) do affirm, and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny, was not then matter of Faith, or a Doctrine of the Church; for if it had, these had been Hereticks accounted, and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church. But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it; yet we shall have no need to make use of it; since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerours; but even in the succeeding Ages, we have the advantage both numero, pondere & mensurâ, in number, weight and measure.

We do easily acknowledge that to dispute these Questions from the sayings of the Fathers, is not the readiest way to make an end of them; but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures, as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions, and from thence can never be confuted; but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures, and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them, of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation: and therefore if we find any Doctrine now taught, which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation, we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith, and which ought not to be impos'd upon Consciences. They were wise unto salvation, and fully instructed to every good work; and therefore the Faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture, we profess also; and in the same Faith, we hope to be sav'd even as they. But for the new Doctors; we understand them not, we know them not: Our Faith is the same from the beginning, and cannot become new.

But because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us, and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances, and little images of things instead of solid arguments; we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted, and chuse this sword of Goliah to combat their errors; for non est alter talis; It is not easie to find a better than the Word of God, expounded by the prime and best Antiquity.

The first thing therefore we are to advertise is, that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good People of our Dioceses, from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick, and divert them to Propositions of their own, new and unheard-of in the first Ages of the Christian Church.

For the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick, because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and nothing else as matter of Faith; and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures, we can have no new matters of belief, no new Articles of faith. Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence, we disclaim it, as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour. We also do believe the Apostles Creed, the Nicene, with the additions of Constantinople, and that which is commonly called, the Symbol of Saint Athanasius: and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us, that they, together with the plain words of Scripture, are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us: and in pursuance of these, it is commanded by our Church, that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed, but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament, and collected out of the same Doctrine, by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church Lib. Canon. discip. Eccles. Angl. & injunct. Regin. Elis. A.D. 1571 Can. de Concionatoribus.. This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church, they admitted all into their Communion that were of this Faith; they condemned no Man that did not condemn these; they gave Letters communicatory by no other cognisance, and all were Brethren who spake this voice. [Hanc legem sequentes, Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti, reliquos verò dementes, vesanosque judicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere] said the Emperours, Gratian, Valentinian, Dat. 3. Calen. Mart. Thessalonicae. and Theodosius, in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Christians and Catholicks, viz. all they who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity; which indeed was the sum of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils.

[Page]And what Faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace, the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion, or the firmer basis of a holy life, and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter, than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold, and we after them? That which we rely upon, is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge to be the adequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief: The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in, is the way which we walk: what they did not teach, we do not publish and impose; into this Faith intirely, and into no other, as they did theirs, so we baptize our Catechumens: The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd, we use also, and we use no other: and in short, we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes, except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion, and in which we shall prove that they have innovated. So that by their confession, all the Doctrine which we teach the people as matter of Faith, must be confessed to be Ancient, Primitive, and Apostolick, or else theirs is not so: for ours is the same, and we both have received this Faith from the Fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition; not they from us, or we from them, but both of us from Christ and his Apostles. And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick or Primitive; it is so, confessedly: But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first Ages, which were no part of their faith, which were never put into their Creeds, which were not determin'd in any of the four first General Councils, rever'd in all Christendom, and entertain'd every where with great Religion and Veneration, even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical Writings.

Of this sort, because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many, and hath adopted them into their late Creed, and imposes them upon the People, not only without, but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God; laying heavy burdens on mens Consciences, and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower by their own inventions; arrogating to themselves a dominion over our faith, and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught; corrupting the Faith of the Church of God, and teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of Men; and lastly, having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ, who alone is the Author and finisher of our Faith, and hath perfected it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures; therefore it is, that we esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger, and to depart from it, and call upon them to stand upon the wayes, and ask after the old paths, and walk in them; lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them, who remove the ancient Land-marks, which our Fathers in Christ have set for us.

Now that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick, appears in this; That in the Church of Rome, there is pretence made to a power, not only of declaring new Articles of faith, but of making new Symbols or Creeds, and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation. Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the tenth against Martyn Luther, in which, amongst other things, he is condemn'd for saying, [It is certain, that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith.] We need not add that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Quod sit metrum & regula, ac scientia credendorum. Summae de Ecclesia, l. 2. c. 203., Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Novum Symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat, quia est caput▪ fidei Christianae, cujus authoritate omnia quae ad fidem spectant firmantur & roborantur. q. 59. a. 1. & art. 2. sicut potest novum symbolum condere, ita potest novos articulos supra alioe multiplicare., Petrus de Ancorano Papa potest facere novos articulos fidei, id est, quod modo credi oporte [...]t, cum sic prius non oporteret. In cap. cum Christus. de haret. n. 2., and the Famous Abbot of Panormo Papa potest inducere novum artic [...] lum fidei. In idem., that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds, but new Articles of Faith; that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd, which before never was necessary; that he is the measure and rule, and the very notice of all credibilities; That the Canon Law is the Divine Law; and whatever Law the Pope promulges, God, whose Vicar he is, is understood to be the Promulger. That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope; and that in his arbitration Religion doth consist: which are the very words of Hostiensis Super 2. Decret. de jurejur. e. nimis. n. 1., and Ferdinandus ab Inciso Apud Petrum Ciezum [...]. 2. instit. per. cap. 69., who were Casuists and Doctors of Law, of great authority amongst them and renown. The thing it self is not of dubio [...] disputation amongst them, but actually practis'd in the greatest Instances, as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth, at the end of the Council of Trent; by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council [Page] of Trent for the present and for the future, but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed, and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius: That this is the true Catholick Faith; and that without this no Man can be saved.

Now since it cannot be imagined that this power, to which they pretend, should never have been reduc'd to act; and that it is not credible they should publish so invidious and ill-sounding Doctrine to no purpose, and to serve no end; it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons, that they have need of this Doctrine, or it would not have been taught, and that consequently without more ado, it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this new faith; and that they can therefore in no sence be Apostolical, unless their being Roman makes them so.

To this may be added another consideration, not much less material, that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria, that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers, though not by Scripture; they have also many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers themselves, that they are not right on their side; and of this, they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory indices. The Serpent by being so curious a defender of his head, shews where his danger is, and by what he can most readily be destroyed. But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers Writings; their thrusting in that which was spurious, and like Pharaoh, killing the legitimate Sons of Israel Johannes Clemens aliquot solia Theodoreii laceravit & abjecit in focum, in quibus contra transubstantiationem praeclare disseruit. Et cum non ita pridem Origenem excuderent, totum illud caput sextum Johannes & quod commentabatur Origenes omis [...] runt, & mutilum ediderunt librum propter eandem causam.; though in this, they have done very much of their work, and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a record infinitely worse, than of themselves uncorrupted, they would have been (of which divers Learned Persons have made publick complaint and demonstration) they have at last fallen to a new trade, which hath caus'd more disreputation to them, than they have gain'd advantage, and they have virtually confess'd, that in many things, the Fathers are against them.

For first, the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors; but with this clause, Iique ipsi privatim, nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt, quem eundum neque aliis communicabunt, neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt: that they should keep the expurgatory Index privately, neither imparting that Index, nor giving a copy of it to any. But it happened, by the Divine Providence so ordering it, that about thirteen years after, a copy of it was gotten and published by Johannes Pappus, and Franciscus Junius; and since it came abroad against their wills, they find it necessary now to own it, and they have printed it themselves. Now by these expurgatory Tables, what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In Saint Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil, these words, [The Church is not built upon the Man, but upon the Faith] are commanded to be blotted out: and these [There is no merit, but what is given us by Christ,] and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost, and the former words are in his first Homily upon that of Saint John, Ye are my friends, &c.] The like they have done to him in many other places, and to Saint Ambrose, and to Saint Austin, and to them all Six [...]us S [...]nensis epist. dedicat. ad Pium Quin. laudat Pontificem in haec ve [...]a: expurgari & emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum, ac praecipue veterum patrum scripta., insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons, shewed and complain'd of it to Junius, that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of Saint Ambrose in that Edition of his Works, which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's Book [In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors, and extenuate and excuse them; and finding out some Commentary, we feign some convenient sence when they are oppos'd in disputations] they do indeed practise, but esteem it not sufficient; for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions. Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors; insomuch that out of one of Froben's Indices they have commanded these words to be blotted [The use of Images forbidden] The Eucharist no Sacrifice, but the memory of a Sacrifice] Works, although they do not justifie, yet are necessary to Salvation] Marriage is granted to all that will nor contain] Venial sins damn] The dead Saints, after this life cannot help us] nay out of the Index of Saint Austin's Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur [Dele, Index expurgator. Madrii. 1612. in indice libror. e [...]purgatorum. pag 39. Solus Deus adorandus] that God alone is to be worshipped, is commanded to be blotted out, as being a dangerous Doctrine. These Instances may serve instead of multitudes, which might be brought of their corrupting the Witnesses, and razing the Records of Antiquity, that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reprov'd. [Page] Now if the Fathers were not against them, what need these Arts? Why should they use them thus? Their own expurgatory indices are infinite testimony against them, both that they do so, and that they need it.

But besides these things, we have thought it fit to represent in one aspect, some of their chief Doctrines of difference from the Church of England, and make it evident that they are indeed new, and brought into the Church, first by way of opinion, and afterwards by power, and at last, by their own authority decreed into Laws and Articles.

SECT. II.

FIRST, We alledge that that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty, and expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; and we prove it, first, Gal. 1.8. by the words of the Apostle, saying, If we, or an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel (viz. in whole or in part, for there is the same reason of them both) than that which we have preached, let him be Anathema: and secondly, by the sentence of the Fathers in the third General Council,Part. 2. act. 6. c. 7. that at Ephesus. [That it should not be lawful for any Man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed than that which was defin'd by the Nicene Council: and that whosoever shall dare to compose or offer any such to any Persons willing to be converted from Paganism, Judaism, or Heresie, if they were Bishops or Clerks, they should be depos'd, if Lay-men, they should be accursed.] And yet in the Church of Rome, Faith and Christianity increase like the Moon; Bromyard complain'd of it long since, and the mischief increases daily. They have now a new Article of Faith, ready for the stamp, which may very shortly become necessary to salvation; we mean, that of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Whether the Pope be above a Council or no; we are not sure, whether it be an Article of Faith amongst them or not: It is very near one if it be not. Bellarmine would fain have us believe that the Council of Constance approving the Bull of Pope Martin the fifth, declar'd for the Popes Supremacy. But John Gerson, De potest. Eccles. Concil. 12. who was at the Council, sayes that the Council did abate those heights to which flattery had advanc'd the Pope; and that before that Council, they spoke such great things of the Pope, which afterwards moderate Men durst not speak; but yet some others spake them so confidently before it, that he that should then have spoken to the contrary would hardly have escap'd the note of Heresie: and that these Men continued the same pretensions even after the Council. But the Council of Basil decreed for the Council against the Pope; and the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth, decreed for the Pope against the Council. So that it is cross and pile; and whether for a penny, when it can be done; it is now a known case, it shall become an Article of Faith. But for the present it is a probationary Article, and according to Bellarmine's expression is serè de fide, it is almost an Article of Faith;De concil. author. l. 2. c. 17. Sect. 1. Sess. 21. c. 4. they want a little age, and then they may go alone. But the Council of Trent hath produc'd a strange new Article; but it is sine controversiâ credendum, it must be believ'd, and must not be controverted: that although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants, yet they did not believe it necessary to salvation. Now this being a matter of fact, whether they did or did not believe it, every man that reads their writings can be able to inform himself: and besides that it is strange that this should be determin'd by a Council, and determin'd against evident truth (it being notorious, that divers of the Fathers did say it is necessary to salvation;) the decree it self is beyond all bounds of modesty, and a strange pretension of Empire over the Christian belief. But we proceed to other Instances.

SECT. III.

THE Roman Doctrine of Indulgences was the first occasion of the great change and Reformation of the Western Churches, begun by the Preachings of Martyn Luther, and others; and besides that it grew to that intolerable abuse, that it became a shame to it self,Part. 1. Sum. tit. 10. c. 3. and a reproach to Christendom, it was also so very an Innovation, that their great Antoninus confesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly, either [Page]in the Scriptures, or in the sayings of the ancient Doctors: And the same is affirmed by Sylvester Prierias. Bishop Fisher of Rochester sayes,In art. 18. Luther. that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences; and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory; and many of the School-men confess that the use of Indulgences began in the time of Pope Alexander the third, towards the end of the twelfth Century: but Agrippa imputes the beginning of them to Boniface the eighth, who liv'd in the Reign of King Edward the first of England; 1300. years after Christ. But that in his time the first Jubilee was kept, we are assur'd by Crantzius. This Pope Intravit u [...] vulp [...]s, regna [...]vit ut leo, moriebatur ut canis, de eo saepi [...] dictum. lived and died with great infamy, and therefore was not likely from himself to transfer much honour and reputation to the new institution. But that about this time Indulgences began, is more than probable; much before, it is certain they were not. For in the whole Canon Law written by Gratian, and in the sentences of Peter Lombard there is nothing spoken of Indulgences. Now because they liv'd in the time of Pope Alexander the third, if he had introduc'd them, and much rather if they had been as ancient as Saint Gregory (as some vainly and weakly pretend, from no greater authority than their own Legends) it is probable that these great Men, writing Bodies of Divinity and Law, would have made mention of so considerable a Point, and so great a part of the Roman Religion, as things are now order'd. If they had been Doctrines of the Church then, as they are now, it is certain they must have come under their cognisance and discourses.

Now lest the Roman Emissaries should deceive any of the good Sons of the Church, we think it fit to acquaint them, that in the Primitive Church, when the Bishops impos'd severe penances, and that they were almost quite perform'd, and a great cause of pity intervened, or danger of death, or an excellent repentance,Tertul. 1. ad Martyr. c. 1. S. Cyprian. lib▪ 3. Ep. 15. apud Pamelium 11. Concil. Nicen. 1. can. 12. Conc. Ancir. c. 5. Concil. Laodicen. c. 2. S. Basil. in Ep. canonicis habentur in Nomocanone Photii, can. 73. or that the Martyrs interceded, the Bishop did sometimes indulge the penitent, and relax some of the remaining parts of his penance; and according to the example of Saint Paul, in the case of the incestuous Corinthian, gave them ease, lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow. But the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences is wholly another thing; nothing of it but the abused name remains. For in the Church of Rome they now pretend that there is an infinite of degrees of Christ's merits and satisfaction beyond what is necessary for the salvation of his servants: and (for fear Christ should not have enough) the Saints have a surplusage of merits, Communis opinio D. D. tam Theologorum, quam Canonicorum, quod sunt ex abundantia meritorum quae ultra mensuram demeritorum suorum sancti sustinuerunt, & Chri [...]sti, Sum. Angel. v. Indulg. 9. or at least of satisfactions more than they can spend, or themselves do need; and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure, a kind of poor-mans box; and out of this, a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor souls in Purgatory; who because they did not satisfie for their venial sins, or perform all their penances which were imposed, or which might have been imposed, and which were due to be pa [...]d to God, for the temporal pains reserved upon them, after he had forgiven them the guilt of their deadly sins, are forc'd sadly to roar in pains not inferiour to the pains of Hell, excepting only that that they are not eternal. Lib. 1. de indulgent. cap. 2. & 3. That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgences, we appeal to Bellarmine.

Now concerning their new foundation of Indulgences the first stone of it was laid by Pope Clement the sixth, in his extravagant Vnigenitus, de poenitentiis & remissionibus, A. D. 1350. This Constitution was published fifty years after the first Jubilee, and was a new device to bring in Customers to Rome at the second Jubilee, which was kept in Rome in this Popes time. What ends of profit and interest it serv'd, we are not much concern'd to enquire; but this we know, that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine, for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis In 4. l. sen. dist. 19. q. 2., and Durandus Ibid. dist. 20. q. 3., not long before this extravagant; and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany, rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences, made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it.

But as to the thing it self: it is so wholly new, so meerly devis'd and forged by themselves, so newly created out of nothing, from great mistakes of Scripture, and dreams of shadows from Antiquity; that we are to admonish our charges, that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them, any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers, which were born but yesterday. That which is not, cannot be numbred; and that which was not, could not be confuted. But the perfect silence of Antiquity in this whole matter, is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later Laboratories of Rome. Vbi supra. For as Durandus [Page] said, the Holy Fathers, Ambrose, Hillary, Hierom, Augustine speak nothing of Indulgences. And whereas it is said that Saint Gregory six hundred years after Christ, gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations; Magister Angularis who lived about two hundred years since, sayes, he never read of any such any where; and it is certain there is no such thing in the Writings of Saint Gregory, nor in any History of that Age or any other that is authentick: and we could never see any History pretended for it by the Roman Writers, but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius: which is so ridiculous and weak, that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story; and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences, and Altisiodorensis, for story and record. And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment, reserv [...]d by God after the sin is pardoned, were given by Christ to his Church, that no one of the ancient Doctors should tell any thing of it: insomuch that there is no one Writer of authority and credit, not the more ancient Doctors we have named, nor those who were much later, Rupertus Tuitiensis, Anselm, or Saint Bernard, ever took notice of it; but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about one thousand two hundred years after Christ: and Cardinal Cajetan told Pope Adrian the sixth, that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears, that an Indulgence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed; and therefore can be nothing of that which is now adayes pretended.

True it is, that the Canonical penances were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations; and the ancient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose, that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition, and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness, and absolution without amends: It became a Trumpet, and a Leavy for the Holy War, in Pope Vrban the Seconds time; for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Sarazens: and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences: for concerning the value of Indulgences, the complaint is both old and doubtful,In lib. 4. sent. said Pope Adrian; and he cites a famous gloss, which tells of four Opinions all Catholick, and yet vastly differing in this particular: but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences:Verb. Indulgentiae. No man could then tell; and the Point was but in the infancy, and since that, they have made it what they please: but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine, and they have devised new Propositions, as well as they can, to make sence of it; and yet it is a very strange thing; a solution, not an absolution, (it is the distinction of Bellarmine) that is, the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this World, or in the world to come; and in the end, it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer: a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture, or Catholick Tradition; and not only so, but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins, that Christ and his Apostles taught not; a way destructive to the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus: it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes, a hope that will make men asham'd; a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ; a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ; a practice that supposes a new bunch of Keyes given to the Church, besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdom of Heaven;Vt quid non praevides tibi in die judicii, quando nemo poterit per alium excusari, vel defendi; sed ûnusquisque sufficiens onui erit sibi ipsi: Th. a Kempi [...] l. 1. de imit. c. 24. a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints, and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ, who taught us, That when we have done all that is commanded, we are unprofitable servants, and therefore certainly cannot supererogate, or do more than what is infinitely recompenc'd by the Kingdom of Glory, to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd, especially, since the greatest Saint cannot but say with David, Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified; It is a practice that hath turn'd Penances into a Fair, and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard, and the labours of Love into the labours of Pilgrimages, superstitious and useless wandrings from place to place; and Religion into vanity, and our hope in God to a confidence in man, and our fears of hell to be a meer scare-crow to rich and confident sinners: and at last, it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady, the Wife of Franceschet to Cibo Bastard Son of Pope Innocent the eighth, and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters, at Dice and Cards, and men did vile actions that they might win Indulgences; by Gaming, making their way to Heaven easier.

[Page]Now although the Holy Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences, because in their dayes it was not: yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practises. For besides that they teach repentance wholly reducing us to a good life; a faith that intirely relies upon Christ's merits and satisfactions; a hope wholly depending upon the plain promises of the Gospel, a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience, a labour of love, a religion of justice and piety, and moral vertues: they do also expresly teach that pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions, which are now the earnings and price of Indulgences, are not requir'd of us, and are not the way of salvation, as is to be seen in an Oration made by Saint Gregory Nyssene, wholly against pilgrimages to Jerusalem; in Saint Chrysostom Homil. 1. in ep. ad Philem., Saint Augustine Serm. de Marty. ib., and Saint Bernard Serm. 1. de Advent.: The sence of these Fathers is this, in the words of Saint Augustine: God said not, Go to the East, and seek righteousness; sail to the West that you may receive indulgence. But indulge thy brother, and it shall be indulg'd to thee: you have need to inquire for no other indulgence to thy sins; if thou wilt retire into the closet of thy heart, there thou shalt find it. That is, All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through JESVS CHRIST, and is wholly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ, and perseverance in good works, and intire mortification of all our sins.

To conclude this particular: Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences be a heap almost as great as the abuses themselves, yet the greatest Patrons of this new Doctrine could never give any certainty, or reasonable comfort to the Conscience of any person that could inquire into it. They never durst determine, whether they were Absolutions, or Compensations; whether they only take off the penances actually impos'd by the Confessor, or potentially, and all that which might have been impos'd; whether all that may be paid in the Court of men; or all that can or will be required by the Laws and severity of God. Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question, Whether the Treasure of the Church consists of the Satisfactions of Christ only, or of the Saints? For if of Saints, it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate, and being finite and limited, will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served; and if therefore it be necessary to add the merits and satisfaction of Christ, since they are an Ocean of infinity, and can supply more than all our needs, to what purpose is it to add the little minutes and droppings of the Saints? They cannot tell whether they may be given, if the Receiver do nothing or give nothing for them: And though this last particular could better be resolv'd by the Court of Rome, than by the Church of Rome, yet all the Doctrines which built up the new Fabrick of Indulgences, were so dangerous to determine, so improbable, so unreasonable, or at best so uncertain and invidious, that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena, the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines, and all the cases of Conscience quite alone, and slubber'd the whole matter both in the Question of Indulgences and Purgatory, in general and recommendatory terms; affirming, that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church, and that the use is wholesome: And that all hard and subtil Questions (viz.) concerning Purgatory, (which although (if it be at all) it is a fire, yet is the fuel of Indulgences, and maintains them wholly;) all that is suspected to be false, and all that is uncertain; and whatsoever is curious and superstitious, scandalous, or for filthy lucre, be laid aside. And in the mean time, they tell us not what is, and what is not Superstitious; nor what is scandalous, nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence; and they establish no Doctrine, neither curious, nor incurious, nor durst they decree the very foundation of this whole matter, The Churches Treasure: Neither durst they meddle with it, but left it as they found it, and continued in the abuses, and proceeded in the practice, and set their Doctors, as well as they can, to defend all the new, and curious, and scandalous Questions, and to uphold the gainful trade. But however it be with them, the Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct Innovation in the matter of Christian Religion, and that was it which we have undertaken to demonstrate.

SECT. IV.

[Page]

THE Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mother of Indulgences, and the fear of that hath introduc'd these: For the world happened to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable, who being told he was likely to fall into a delirium in his feet, was advis'd for remedy to take the juyce of Cotton: He feared a disease that was not, and look'd for a cure as ridiculous. But if the Patent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles; if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built, the Superstructures of Rome must fall; they can be no stronger than their Supporter. Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Innovation,

1. We consider, That the Doctrines upon which it is pretended reasonable, are all dubious, and disputable at the very best. Such are,

1. Their distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature.

2. That the taking away the guilt of sins, does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment; that is, That when a mans sin is pardoned, he may be punished without the guilt of that sin, as justly as with it; as if the guilt could be any thing else but an obligation to punishment for having sinned: which is a Proposition, of which no wise man can make sence; but it is certain that it is expresly against the Word of God, who promises upon our repentance, so to take away our sins that he will remember them no more: Ezek. 18.22. And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon; for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way, but by curing our evil hearts, and taking away the punishment Neque ab iis quos sanas lente languor abscedit, sed illico quem restituis ex integro convulescit; quia consummatum est quod facis, & perfectum quod largiris, S. Cyprian. de coena Domini: vel potius Arnoldus. P. Gelasius d. vincul. anathem. negat poenam deberi culpae, si culpa corrrigatur.. And this was so perfectly believ'd by the Primitive Church, that they alwayes made the penances and satisfaction to be undergone, before they gave absolution; and after absolution they never impos'd or oblig'd to punishment, unless it were to sick persons, of whose recovery they despaired not: of them indeed, in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments, they expected they should perform what was injoyn'd them formerly. But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul, and a foul stain to his reputation; we demand, In what does this stain consist? in the guilt, or in the punishment? If it be said that it consists in the punishment; then what does the guilt signifie, when the removing of it does neither remove the stain nor the punishment, which both remain and abide together? But if the stain and the guilt be all one, or alwayes together, then when the guilt is taken away there can no stain remain; and if so, what need Delet gratia finalis peccatum veniale in ipsa dissolutione corporis & animae. Hoc ab antiquis dictum est. Albert. Mag. in compend. Theolog. verit. l. 3. c. 13. is there any more of Purgatory? For since this is pretended to be necessary, only lest any stain'd or unclean thing should enter into Heaven; if the guilt and the pain be removed, what uncleanness can there be left behind? Indeed Simon Magus (as Epiphanius reports, Haeres. 20.) did teach, That after the death of the body there remain'd [...], a purgation of souls: But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authentick Doctor, themselves can best tell.

3. It relies upon this also, That God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfactions, which must regularly be paid here or hereafter, even by them who are pardon'd here: which if it were true, we were all undone.

4. That the death of Christ, his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye, nor (as it may happen) of a long time after. All which being Propositions new and uncertain, invented by the School Divines, and brought ex post facto, to dress this Opinion, and make it to seem reasonable; and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace, of the righteousness of Faith, and the infinite value of Christ's Death, must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self,Art. 18. cont. Luther. Invent. rerum l. 8. c. 1. which but by these cannot be supported. But to put it past suspicion and conjectures; Roffensis and Polydor Virgil affirm, That who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers, shall find that none, or very rarely any one of them, ever makes mention of Purgatory; and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it, but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it: But for the Catholick Church, it was but lately known to her.

But before we say any more in this Question, we are to premonish, That there are two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity.

[Page]The first is, That the Ancient Churches in their Offices, and the Fathers in their Writings, did teach and practise respectively, prayer for the dead. Now because the Church of Rome does so too, and more than so, relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory, and for the souls there detaind; her Doctors vainly suppose, that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead, that they conclude for Purgatory; which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable: For it is true, the Fathers did pray for the dead, but how? That God would shew them mercy, and hasten the Resurrection, and give a blessed Sentence in the great day. But then it is also to be remembred, that they made prayers, and offered for those, who, by the confession of all sides, never were in Purgatory, even for the Patriarchs and Prophets, for the Apostles and Evangelists, for Martyrs and Confessors, and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary: So we find it in Haeres. 75. Epiphanius, Cateches. mystag. 5. Saint Cyril, and in the Canon of the Greeks, and so it is acknowledged by their own De ritibus, lib. 2. c. 35. Durandus; and in their Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of Saint Leo: Of which because by their latter Doctrines they grew asham'd, they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God, by the intercession of Saint Leo, in behalf of themselves; so by their new doctrine, making him an Intercessor for us, who by their old Doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him; of which,Innocent. P. de Coeleb. Missar. cap. cum Martha. Pope Innocent being ask [...]d a reason, makes a most pitiful excuse.

Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed, and indeed generally for all, it is not now seasonable to discourse; but to say this only, that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd, the Church of England never did condemn by any express Article, but left it in the middle;Apologia confessionis Augustanae expresse approbat clausu [...]am illam [...], Deus dei ei pacatam quietem, ad vitam, resurrectionem. and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead, and her interest in the communion of Saints, and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church, parts and members of the Body of Christ; but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory, and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it: And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead, infers the belief of Purgatory, every man may satisfie himself, by seeing the Writings of the Fathers, where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause for praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place. Which thing is so certain, that in the very Roman Offices, we mean the Vigils said for the dead, which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture, speaking of the miseries of this World, Repentance, and Reconciliation with God, the bliss after this life of them that die in Christ, and the Resurrection of the Dead; and in the Anthems, Versicles, and Responses, there are Prayers made recommending to God the Soul of the newly defunct, praying, he may be freed from Hell, and eternal death, that in the day of Judgment he be not judged and condemned according to his sins, but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection; but not one word of Purgatory, or its pains.

The other cause of their mistake is, That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life; but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Judgment, and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory. We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it; and so Saint Ambrose follows him in the Opinion (for it was no more;) so does Saint Basil, Saint Hilary ▪ Saint Hierom, and Lactantius, as their words plainly prove, as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis, affirming, that all men, Christ only excepted, shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Judgment; even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire. There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers, which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory: Sixtus Senensis sayes, and he sayes very true, that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Victorinus Martyr, Prudentius, Saint Chrysostom, Arethas, Euthimius, and Lib. 6. Bibl▪ Sanct. annot. 345. Bernardum excusandum arbitror ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae Patrum, qui ante ipsum huic dogmati authoritatem suo testimonio visi sunt praebuisse; praeter citatos, enumerat, S. Jacobum Apostolum, Irenaeum, Clementem Romanum, Augustinum, Theodoretum, Oecumenium, Theophylactum, & Johannem, 22. pontif. Rom. quam sententiam non modo do [...]uit, & declaravit, sed ab omnibus teneri mandavit, ut ait Adrianus P. in 4. lib. sent. in fine quaest. de sacram. confirmationis. Saint Bernard, did all affirm, that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles, reserved unto the sentence of the great day; and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life. We do not interpose in this Opinion to say that it is true or false, probable or improbable; for these Fathers intended it not as a matter of faith, or necessary belief, so far as we find. But we observe from hence, that if their opinion be true, then the Doctrine of Purgatory is false. If it be not true, yet the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory, which is inconsistent with this so generally receiv'd Opinion of the Fathers, is, at least, new, no Catholick Doctrine, not belived in the Primitive [Page] Church; and therefore the Roman Writers are much troubled to excuse the Fathers in this Article, and to reconcile them to some seeming concord with their new Doctrine.

But besides these things, it is certain, that the Doctrine of Purgatory, before the day of Judgment,Euchirid. c. 69. lib. 21. de civit. Dei cap. 26. in Saint Augustine's time, was not the Doctrine of the Church; it was not the Catholick Doctrine; for himself did doubt of it: [Whether it be so or not, it may be inquired; and possibly it may be found so, and possibly it may never:] so Saint Augustine. In his time therefore it was no Doctrine of the Church, and it continued much longer in uncertainty;Lib. 8. Chron. cap. 26. for in the time of Otho Frisingensis, who liv'd in the year 1146. it was gotten no further than to a Quidam asserunt: [some do affirm, that there is a place of Purgatory after death.] And although it is not to be denied, but that many of the ancient Doctors had strange Opinions concerning Purgations, and Fires, and Intermedial states, and common Receptacles, and liberations of Souls and Spirits after this life; yet we can truly affirm it, and can never be convinc'd to erre in this affirmation, that there is not any one of the Ancients within five hundred years, whose opinion in this Article throughout, the Church of Rome at this day follows.

But the people of the Roman Communion have been principally led into a belief of Purgatory by their fear, and by their credulity; they have been softned and intic'd into this belief by perpetual tales and legends, by which they lov'd to be abus'd. To this purpose, their Priests and Friers have made great use of the apparition of Saint Hierom after death to Eusebius, commanding him to lay his fack upon the corps of three dead men, that they arising from death might confess Purgatory, which formerly they had denied. The story is written in an Epistle imputed to Saint Cyril; but the ill luck of it was, that Saint Hierom out-lived Saint Cyril, and wrote his life, and so confuted that story; but all is one for that, they believe it nevertheless: But there are enough to help it out; and if they be not firmly true Haec descripsimus, ut tamen in iis nulla velut Canonica constituatur authoritas. l. de 8. quaest. Dulcitii. c. 1. Dist. 3. exem. 4. Exempl. 60. Histor. Lomb., yet if they be firmly believ'd all is well enough. In the Speculum exemplorum it is said, That a certain Priest in an extasie saw the soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eves of his house tormented with frosts and cold rains, and afterwards climbing up to Heaven upon a shining Pillar. And a certain Monk saw some souls roasted upon spits like Pigs, and some Devils basting them with scalding Lard; but a while after they were carried to a cool place, and so prov'd Purgatory. But Bishop Theobald standing upon a piece of Ice to cool his feet, was nearer Purgatory than he was aware, and was convinc'd of it, when he heard a poor soul telling him, that under that Ice he was tormented: and that he should be delivered, if for thirty dayes continual he would say for him thirty Masses:Legend. 185. and some such thing was seen by Conrade and Vdalric in a Pool of water: For the place of Purgatory was not yet resolv'd on, till Saint Patrick had the key of it delivered to him; which when one Nicholas borrowed of him, he saw as strange and true things there, as ever Virgil dreamed of in his Purgatory, or Cicero in his dream of Scipio, or Plato in his Gorgias or Phaedo, who indeed are the surest Authors to prove Purgatory. But because to preach false stories was forbidden by the Council of Trent, there are yet remaining more certain Arguments, even revelations made by Angels, and the testimony of Saint Odilio himself, who heard the Devil complain (and he had great reason surely) that the souls of dead men were daily snatch'd out of his hands, by the Alms and Prayers of the living; and the Sister of Saint Damianus being too much pleas'd with hearing of a Piper, told her Brother, that she was to be tormented for fifteen dayes in Purgatory.

We do not think that the wise men in the Church of Rome believe these Narratives; for if they did, they were not wise: But this we know, that by such stories the people were brought into a belief of it; and having served their turn of them, the Master-builders used them as false Arches and Centries, taking them away when the parts of the building were made firm and stable by Authority. But even the better sort of them do believe them, or else they do worse, for they urge and cite the Dialogues of Saint Gregory, the Oration of Saint John Damascen de Defunctis, the Sermons of Saint Augustine upon the Feast of the Commemoration of All-souls (which nevertheless was instituted after Saint Augustine's death) and divers other citations, which the Greeks in their Apology call [...], the Holds and the Castles, the corruptions and insinuations of Heretical persons. But in this they are the less to be blamed, because better Arguments than they have, no men are tied to make use of.

[Page]But against this way of proceeding we think fit to admonish the people of our charges, that,Deut. 18.11, &c. Isai. 8.19. Vide Maldonat. in 16. cap. S. Lucae. besides that the Scriptures expresly forbid us to enquire of the dead for truth; the Holy Doctors of the Church, particularly, Tertullian, Saint Athanasius, Saint Chrysostom, Isidor and Theophylact, deny that the souls of the dead ever do appear; and bring many reasons to prove, that it is unfitting they should; saying, If they did, it would be the cause of many errors, and the Devils under that pretence, might easily abuse the World with notices and revelations of their own: and because Christ would have us content with Moses and the Prophets, and especially, to hear that Prophet whom the Lord our God hath raised up amongst us, our blessed Jesus, who never taught any such Doctrine to his Church.

But because we are now representing the Novelty of this Doctrine, and proving, that anciently it was not the Doctrine of the Church, nor at all esteemed a matter of Faith, whether there was or was not any such place or state, we add this, That the Greek Church did alwayes dissent from the Latins in this particular, since they had forg'd this new Doctrine in the Laboratories of Rome; and, in the Council of Basil, publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory. How afterwards they were press'd in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius, and by their necessity; how unwillingly they consented, how ambiguously they answered, how they protested against having that half-consent put into the Instrument of Union; how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs, being obnoxious to the Pope; how a while after they dissolv'd that Union, and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine, are things so notoriously known, that they need no further declaration.

We add this only, to make the conviction more manifest: We have thought fit to annex some few, but very clear testimonies of Antiquity, Ad Demetrian. sect. 16. expresly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory. Saint Cyprian saith, Quando istinc excessum fuerit, nullus jam locus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis effectus: [When we are gone from hence, there is no place left for repentance, and no effect of satisfaction.] Saint Dionysius call the extremity of death, [...], The end of all our Agonies; and affirms, That the Holy men of God rest in joy, and in never-failing hopes, Eccles. hier. c. 7. and are come to the end of their holy combates. Saint Justin Martyr affirms,Quaest. & respons. ad orthod. qu. 5. Just [...]o imputat. That when the soul is departed from the body, [...], presently there is a separation made of the just and unjust: The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have deserv'd; but the souls of the just into Paradise, where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels. Saint Ambrose De bono mortis c. 4. saith, That Death is a Haven of rest, and makes not our condition worse; but according as it finds every man, so it reserves him to the judgment that is to come. The same is affirmed by In Psal. 2. Homil. 22. Saint Hilary, (c) Saint Macarius, and divers others; they speak but of two states after death, of the just and the unjust: These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgment of the great day; the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of Rest. Saint Gregory Nazianzen expresly affirms, That after this life there is no purgation: Orat. 5. in Plagum grandinis & [...]at. 42. in Pascha. de Eccles. dogmat. c. 79. For after Christ's ascension into Heaven, the souls of all Saints are with Christ, saith Gennadius; and going from the body, they go to Christ, expecting the resurrection of their body, with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss; and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church: [In what place soever a man is taken at his death, of light or darkness, of wickedness or vertue, [...], In Eccles. c. 11. in the same order, and in the same degree; either in light with the just, and with Christ the great King; or in darkness with the unjust, and with the Prince of Darkness,] said Olympiodorus. And lastly, we recite the words of Saint Leo, one of the Popes of Rome, speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances,Epist. 59. [But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord, being interrupted by any obstacles, falls from the gift of the present Indulgence (viz. of Ecclesiastical Absolution) and before he arrive at the appointed remedies (that is, before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions) ends his temporal life, that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd when he is devested of his body, he cannot obtain.] He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory, what they paid not here; and of being cleansed there, who were not clean here: And how these words, or any of the precedent, are reconcileable with the Doctrines of Purgatory, hath not yet entred into our imagination.

To conclude this particular, We complain greatly, that this Doctrine, which in all the parts of it, is uncertain, and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false, is yet with all the faults of it passed into an Article of Faith by the Council of [Page] Trent. But, besides what hath been said, it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture,Rev. 14.13. Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth, even so saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours. If all the dead that die in Christ be at rest, and are in no more affliction or labours; then the Doctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable:John 5.24. To these words we add the saying of Christ, and we rely upon it [He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but passeth from death unto life.] If so, then not into the judgment of Purgatory: If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life, then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell. They that have eternal life, suffer no intermedial punishment, judgment, or condemnation after death; for death and life are the whole progression, according to the Doctrine of Christ, and Him we chuse to follow.

SECT. V.

THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick, that we know the very time it began to be own'd publickly for an Opinion, and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrine, and by what arts it was promoted, and by what persons it was introduc'd.

For all the world knows, that by their own parties, by In 4. lib. sent. d. 11. q. 3. Scotus, Ibid. q. 6. Ocham, Lect. 40. in can. missa. Biel, Fisher Bishop of Cap. 1. contr. captiv. Babyl. Rochester, and divers others, whom De Euchar. l. 3. cap. 23. sect. Secundo dicit. Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men, it was declared, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible; that in the Scriptures there is no place so express, as (without the Churches Declaration) to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation, and therefore at least, it is to be suspected of novelty. But further, we know it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ; that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith, till the Lateran Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third, one thousand two hundred years and more after Christ; that since that pretended Venêre tum quidem multa in consultationem, nec decerni tamen quicquam aperiè potuit. Platina in vita Innocen. III. determination, divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it, than they were before; but still have publickly affirm'd, that the Article is not express'd in Scripture; particularly, Johannes de Bassolis, Cardinal Apud Suar. Tom. 3. disp. 46. sect. 3. Cajetan, and Melchior Loc. com. l. 2. c. com. fund. 2. Canus, besides those above reckon'd: And therefore, if it was not express'd in Scripture, it will be too clear, that they made their Articles of their own heads: for they could not declare it to be there, if it was not; and if it was there but obscurely, then it ought to be taught accordingly; and at most, it could be but a probable Doctrine, and not certain as an Article of Faith. But that we may put it past argument and probability, it is certain, that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly: so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine, or an Article of the Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church.

Now for this, we need no proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome. Scotus sayes, that before the Lateran Council,L. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. sect. [...]num tamen. Sum. l. 8. c. 20. Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith, as Bellarmine confesses; and and Henriquez affirms, that Scotus sayes, it was not ancient; insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance, saying, he talk'd at that rate, because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory the Seventh, nor that consent of Fathers which (to so little purpose) he had heap'd together.Discurs. modest. pag. 13. Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem, said some of the English Jesuits in Prison: The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation; and in Peter Lombard's time, it was so far from being an Article of Faith, or a Catholick Doctrine, that they did not know whether it were true or no: And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article, he confess'd, He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these, [If it be inquir'd what kind of conversion it is, Lib. 4. sent. dist. 11. lit. a. whether it be formal or substantial, or of another kind? I am not able to define it: Only I know that it is not formal, because the same accidents remain, the same colour and taste. To some it seems to be substantial, saying, that so the substance is chang'd into the substance, that it is done essentially. To which the former Authorities seem to consent. But to this sentence others oppose these things: If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially[Page]converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, then every day some substance is made the Body or Blood of Christ, which before was not the body; and to day something is Christ's Body, which yesterday was not; and every day Christ's Body is increased, and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the Conception:] These are his words, which we have remark'd, not only for the Arguments sake (though it be unanswerable) but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new, not the Doctrine of the Church: And this was written but about fifty A.D. MCLX. years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran A. D. MCCXV. Council, and therefore it made haste, in so short time to pass from a disputable Opinion, to an Article of Faith. But even after the Council, A. D. MCCLXX. secund. Buchol. sed secundum Volaterranum MCCCXXXV. In lib. 4. sent. dist. 11. qu. 1. sect. Propter tertium. Durandus, as good a Catholick, and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome, publickly maintain'd, that even after consecration, the very matter of bread remain'd: And although he sayes, that by reason of the Authority of the Church, it is not to be held; yet it is not only possible it should be so, but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christ's Body, and yet the matter of bread remain: and if this might be admitted, it would salve many difficulties, which arise from saying that the substance of bread does not remain. But here, his reason was overcome by authority, and he durst not affirm that of which alone he was able to give (as he thought) a reasonable account. But by this it appears, that the Opinion was but then in the forge, and by all their understanding they could never accord it, but still the Questions were uncertain, according to that old Distich;

Corpore de Christi lis est, de sanguine lis est,

Déque modo lis est, non habitura modum.

And the Opinion was not determin'd in the Lateran, as it is now held at Rome; but it is also plain, that it is a stranger to Antiquity. De haeres. lib. 8. Verlo Indulgentia. De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis scriptoribus mentio, said Alphonsus à Castro. There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of transubstantiating the bread into Christ's Body. We know the modesty and interest of the man; he would not have said it had been seldom, if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted; he might have said and justified it, There was no mention at all of this Article in the Primitive Church: And, that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity, will not be deny'd by any sober person, who considers, That it was with so much uneasiness entertained, even in the corruptest and most degenerous times, and argued and unsetled almost 1300. years after Christ.

And that it was so, will but too evidently appear by that stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law.Cap. Ego Berengarius de Consecrat. dist. 2. For Berengarius was by Pope Nicolaus, commanded to recant his error in these words, and to affirm▪ Verum corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter, non solùm in sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri, That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually, not only in Sacrament, but in truth is handled by the Priests hands, and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful. Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hundred and fourteen Bishops, and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy, France, and Germany, yet at this day it is renounc'd by the Church of Rome, and unless it be well expounded (sayes the Gloss) will lead into a heresie, greater than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce; and no interpretation can make it tolerable, but such an one, as is in another place of the Canon Law, Statuimus, i. e. abrogamus; nothing but a plain denying it in the sence of Pope Nicolas. But however this may be, it is plain they understood it not, as it is now decreed. But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie, they spake rudely, ignorantly, and easily to be reprov'd; but being asham'd and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis, spake more warily, but yet differently from what they said at first: so it was and is in this Question; at first they understood it not; it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sence, to make any thing of it; but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is.

But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best Ages of the Church, these following testimonies do make evident.Adver. Marcion. l. 4. c. 40. The words of Tertullian are these; The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples, Christ made it his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is, the figure of my Body.

SECT. II. Of PVRGATORY.

[Page]

THAT the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty, and a part of their New Religion, is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester, and Alphonsus à Castro; whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church, under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholick verities. The words of Roffensis in his eighteenth article against. Luther are these, *A letter to a friend touching Dr. Taylor, Sect. 4. n. 26. p. 10. which if the Reader please for his curiosity or his recreation to see, he shall find this pleasant passage, of deep learning and subtle observation (Dr. Tay. had said that Roffensis and P. V. affirm, that whoso searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers, shall find that none, or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory.) Whereas Pol. Virgil affirms no such thing; nor doth Roffensis say, That very rarely any one of them mentions it, but only, that in these Ancient Writers, he shall find none, or but very rare mention of it. If this man were in his wits when he made this answer (an answer which no man can unriddle, or tell how it opposes the objection) then it is very certain, that if this can pass among the answers to the Protestants objections, the Papists are in a very great strait, and have very little to say for themselves: and the letter to a friend was written by compulsion, and by the shame of confutation; not of conscience or ingenuous perswasion. No man can be so foolish, as to suppose this fit to be given in answer to any sober discourse; or if there be such pitiful people in the Church of Rome, and trusted to write Books in defence of their Religion; it seems they care not what any man says or proves against them; if the people be but cosen'd with a pretended answer; for that serves the turn, as well as a wiser. Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios, & nullum, quantum opinor, aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet. Sed neque Latini simul omnes, at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt. ‘He that pleases, let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks, and (as I suppose) he shall find none, or very rare mention (or speech) of Purgatory. But neither did all the Latins at one time, but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing. And again [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.Lib. 8. cap. 1. de inven. rerum.

Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says,Note: Ego vero Origin [...]m quod m [...]i est muneris quaeritans non reperio ante fuisse, quod sciam, quum D. Gregorius ad suas stationes id praemii proposuerit. Quapropter in reparum perspicuâ, utar testimonio Johannis Roffensis Episcopi, qui in eo opere quod nuper in Lutherum scripsit, sic de ejusmodi veniarum initio prodit. Multos fortasse movit indulgentiis istis non usque adeò fidere, quod earum usus in Ecclesiâ videatur recentior, & admodum serò apud Christianos repertus. Quibus ego respondeo, non certò constare à quo primum tradicoeperint. Fuit tamen nonnullus earum usus (ut aiunt) apud Romanos vetustissimus, quod ex stationibus intelligi potest & subiit. Nemo certe dubitat orthodoxus an purgatorium sit, de quo tamen apud priscos nonulla vel quam rarissime fiebat mentio. Sed & Gracis ad hunc usque diem, non est creditum esse: quamdiu enim nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura, nemo quaesivit Indulgentias; nam ex il [...]o pendet omnis indulgentiarum existimatio: si tollas purgatorium, quorsum indulgentiis opus erit? coeperunt igitur indulgentiae postquam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum est. 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. Lib. 4. verb. Indul. vide etiam lib. 12. lil. purgatorium. 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 [Page] 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; E. W. Truth will out. cap. 3. pag. 23. 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;Vers. 6. 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.Contr. hares. lib. 12. tit. purgator. Jo. Medina de poenit. tract. 6. q. 6. Cod. de oratione. Bellar. de purgat. lib. 2. cap. 5. Vide missam in commemorationem omnium defunctorum. Saepissime petuntur illa quae certo sciuntur eventura ut petuntur, & hujus rei plurima sunt testimonia, said Alphonsus à Castro: and so also Medina and Bellarmine acknowledge. The thing is true, they say; but if it were not, yet we find that de facto they do pray Domine Jesu Christe, rex gloriae libera animas Fidelium defunctorum de poenis Inferni & de profundo lacu: libera eos de ore leonis, ne absorbeat eos Tartarus, ne cadant in obscurum. So it is in the Masses pro defunctis. And therefore this Gentleman talking that in Heaven all is remitted, and in Hell nothing is forgiven, and from hence to conclude that there is no avoiding of Purgatory, is too hasty a conclusion: let him stay till he comes to Heaven, and the final sentence is past, and then he will (if he finds it to be so) have reason to say what he does; but by that time the dream of Purgatory will be out; and in the mean time let him strive to understand his Mass-book better. Saint Austin thought he had reason to pray for pardon and remission for his Mother; for the Reasons already expressed, though he never thought his Mother was in Purgatory. It was upon consideration of the dangers of every soul that dies in Adam; and yet he affirms she was even before her death alive [Page] unto Christ. And therefore she did not die miserable, nor did she die at all (said her Son,Confess. lib. 9. cap. 12. & 13.) Hoc & documentis ejus morum, & fide non ficta, rationibus certis tenebamus; and when he did pray for her; Credo jam feceris quod te rogo, sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine: which will yet give another answer to this confident Gentleman; Saint Austin prayed for pardon for his Mother, and did believe the thing was done already; but he prayed to God to approve that voluntary Oblation of his mouth. So that now all the Objection is vanished; S. Austin prayed (besides many other Reasons) to manifest his kindness, not for any need she had. But after all this, was not Saint Monica a Saint? Is she not put in the Roman Calendar, and the fourth of May appointed for her Festival? And do Saints, do Canoniz'd persons use to go to Purgatory? But let it be as it will, I only desire that this be remembred against a good time; that here it is confessed that prayers were offered for a Saint departed. I fear it will be denied by and by.

But 2. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory; for the Patriarchs, Apostles, &c. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary; this which is a direct and perfect overthrow of the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory, and therefore if it can be made good, they have no probability left, upon the confidence of which they can plausibly pretend to Purgatory. I have already offered something in proof of this,Letter pag. 11. n. 31. which I shall now review, and confirm fully. I begin with that of Durantus, whom I alledged as confessing that they offer'd *But then it is to be remembred, that they made prayers, and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory: so we find in Epiphanius, Saint Cyril, the Canon of the Greeks, and so (viz. that they offered) is acknowledged by their own Durantus. Disswasive, pag. 27. line 30. &c. Lib. 2. de ritibus cap. 35. for the Patriarchs, and Prophets, and the Blessed Virgin: I intend him for no more, for true it is, he denies that the Church prayed for them, but that they communicated and offered sacrifice for them, even for the Blessed Virgin Mary her self, this he grants. I have alledged him a little out of the order, because observing where Durantus and the Roman Doctors are mistaken, and with what boldness they say, that offering for them is only giving thanks, and that the Greek Fathers did only offer for them Eucharists, but no Prayers; I thought it fit first to reprove that initial error, viz. [that Communicantes, & offerentes pro sanctis is not Prayer;] and then to make it clear that they did really pray, for mercy, for pardon, for a place of rest, for eternal glory for them who never were in Purgatory, for it is a great ignorance to suppose, that when it is said the sacrifice or oblation is offered, it must mean only thanksgiving. For it is called in Saint Dionys, [...], an Eucharistical prayer; and the Lords Supper is a sacrifice in genere orationis, and by themselves is intended as propitiatory for the quick and dead. And Saint Cyprian speaking of Bishops, being made Executors of Testaments,Lib. 1. Epist. 9. saith, Si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebratur. Neque enim ad altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece, qui ab altari sacerdotes avocare voluit. Where offerre and celebrare sacrificium pro dormitione is done sacerdotum prece, it is the oblation and sacrifice of prayer: and Saint Cyprian presently after joyns them together, pro dormitione ejus oblatio aut deprecatio. And if we look at the forms in the old Roman Liturgy us'd in the dayes of Pope Innocent the third we shall find this well expounded, prosit huic sancto vel illi talis oblatio ad gloriam. They offered, but the Offering it self was not Eucharistical but deprecatory. And so it is also in the Armenian Liturgy publish'd at Crackow: Per hanc etiam oblationem da aeternam pacem omnibus qui nos precesserunt in fide Christi, sanctis Patribus, Patriarchis, Apostolis, Prophetis, Martyribus, &c. which testimony does not only evince, that the offering Sacrifices and Oblations for the Saints, did signifie praying for them; but that this they did for all Saints whatsoever. And concerning Saint Chrysostom, that which Sixtus Senensis sayes is material to this very purpose. Et in Liturgia Divini sacrificii ab eo edita, & in variis homiliis ab eodem approbata, Lib. 6. biblioth. Annot. 47. conscripsit formulam precandi, & offerendi; pro omnibus fidelibus, defunctis, & praecipue pro animabus beatorum, in haec verba, Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Patribus, Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apostolis & Martyribus, &c. By which confession it is acknowledged not only that the Church prayed for Apostles and Martyrs, but that they intended to do so, when they offered the Sacramental Oblations; and offerimus is offerimus tibi preces. Now since it is so, I had advantage enough in the confession of their own Durantus, that he acknowledged so much, that the Church offered sacrifice for Saints. Now though he presently kick'd this down with his foot, and denied that they prayed for Saints departed; I shall yet more clearly convince him and all the Roman Contradictors of their bold and unreasonable error in this affair. [Page] Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a Witness,Haeres. 75. but because I cited no words of his, and my Adversaries have cited them for me, but imperfectly, and left out the words where the Argument lies, I shall set them down at length. ‘ [...], &c. We make mention of the just and of sinners; for sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them. For the Just, the Fathers, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, Evangelists 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,Letter pag. 10. Truth will out▪ pag. 25. (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, In Psal. 36. Conc. 2. To. 8. p. 120. 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,A. L. p. 11. 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. Mysta. Catech▪ 5. 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 confess [...]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 [Page] 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.

Biblioth. Sanct. l. 6. Annot. 345 Sect. Jacob. Apostolus.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.]’

Basilii [...] ab Andrea Masio ex Syrineo conversa.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 thanks for them, or praying to them, but a direct praying for them, even for holy Bishops, Confessors, Martyrs, that God (meaning in much mercy) would remember them, that is, make them to rest in the bosom of Abraham, in the Region of the living, as Saint James expresses it.

And in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Saint Basil, Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Cyril, the Churches pray; ‘[Be mindful O Lord of thy Saints, vouchsafe to receive all thy Saints which have pleas'd thee from the beginning, our Holy Fathers, the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Preachers, Evangelists, and all the Souls of the Just which have died in the faith, but chiefly of the holy, glorious and perpetual Virgin Mary the Mother of God, of Saint John Baptist the Forerunner and Martyr, Saint Stephen the first Deacon and first Martyr, Saint Mark Apostle, Evangelist and Martyr.]’

Of the same spirit were all the Ancient Liturgies or Missals, and particularly that under the name of Saint Chrysostom is most full to this purpose; ‘Let us pray to the Lord for all that before time have laboured and performed the holy Offices of Priesthood. For the memory and remission of sins of them that built this holy House, and of all them that have slept in hope of the resurrection and eternal life in thy society: of the Orthodox Fathers and our Brethren. [...]. O thou lover of men pardon them.] And again, [Moreover we offer unto thee this reasonable service for all that rest in Faith, our Ancestors, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, &c. especially the most holy and unspotted Virgin Mary] and after concludes with this prayer [Remember them all who have slept in hope of Resurrection to Eternal life, and make them to rest where the light of thy countenance looks over them.] Add to these if you please, the Greek Mass of Saint Peter:’ ‘To them, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing light and peace.]’ So that nothing is clearer than that in the Greek Canon they prayed for the souls of the best of all the Saints, whom yet because no man believes they ever were in Purgatory; it follows that prayer for the dead us'd by the Ancients does not prove the Roman Purgatory.

Eccles. hier. Cap. 7. in theoria.To these add the Doctrine and Practice of the Greek Fathers: Dionysius speaking of a person deceased, whom the Ministers of the Church had publickly pronounced to be a happy man, and verily admitted into the society of the Saints, that have been from the beginning of the world, yet the Bishop prayed for him, That God would forgive him all the sins which he had committed through humane infirmity, and bring him into the light and region of the[Page]living, into the bosoms of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, where pain and sorrow and sighing have no place;Naz. in funus Caesari [...]o [...] at. 10. To the same purpose is that of Saint Gregory Nazianzen in his Funeral Oration upon his Brother Caesarius, of whom he had expresly declar'd his belief, that he was rewarded with those honours which did befit a new created soul; yet he presently prayes for his soul, Now, O Lord, receive Caesarius. I hope I have said enough concerning the Greek Church, their Doctrine and practice in this particular: and I desire it may be observed, that there is no greater testimony of the Doctrine of a Church than their Liturgy. Their Doctors may have private Opinions which are not against the Doctrine of the Church; but what is put into their publick devotions, and consign'd in their Liturgies, no man scruples it, but it is the Confession and Religion of the Church.

But now that I may make my Reader some amends for his trouble in reading the I trifling Objections of these Roman Adversaries, and my Defences; I shall also for the greater conviction of my Adversaries shew, that they would not have oppos'd my Affirmation in this particular, if they had understood their own Mass-book, for it was not only thus from the beginning until now in the Greek Church, but it is so to this very day in the Latin Church. In the old Latin Missal we have this prayer,Missa latina Antiqua edit. Argentinae. 1557. pag. 52. [Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro omnibus in tui nominis confessione defunctis, ut te dextram auxilii tui porrigente vitae perennis requiem habeant, & à poenis impiorum segregati semper in tuae laudis laetitia perseverent. And in the very Canon of the Mass, which these Gentlemen I suppose (if they be Priests) cannot be ignorant in any part of, they pray, Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, & dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis Domine & omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis & pacis, ut indulgeas deprecamur. Unless all that are at rest in Christ go to Purgatory, it is plain that the Church of Rome prayes for Saints, who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory. I could bring many more testimonies if they were needful; but I summ up this particular with the words of Saint Austin: Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum, De cura pro mortuis, cap. 4. quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christiana & Catholica societate defunctis etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque, sub generali commemoratione suscepit Ecclesia. The Church prayes for all persons that died in the Christian and Catholick Faith. And therefore I wonder how it should drop from Saint Austin's Pen, Injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyre. De verbis Apostoli Serm. 17. But I suppose he meant it only in case the prayer was made for them, as if they were in an uncertain state, and so it is probable enough, but else his words were not only against himself in other places, but against the whole practice of the Ancient Catholick Church.Sacramentarium Gregor. antiquum. I remember that when it was ask'd of Pope Innocent by the Archbishop of Lyons, why the Prayer that was in the old Missal for the soul of Pope Leo; Annue nobis Domine, animae famuli tui Leonis haec prosit oblatio, it came to be chang'd into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec prosit oblatio; Pope Innocent answered him, that who chang'd it or when, he knew not, but he knew how, that is, he knew the reason of it, because the Authority of the Holy Scripture said, he does injury to a Martyr that prayes for a Martyr, the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints.] The good man had heard the saying somewhere, but being little us'd to the Bible, he thought it might be there, because it was a pretty saying. However though this change was made in the Mass-books, and prayer for the soul of Saint Leo, was chang'd into a prayer to Saint Leo Vide M [...]ssal. Roman. Paris 1529. Cap. cum Marthae. Extrav. de celebrat. Missarum in Glossâ.; and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could, yet because they did it so pitifully, they had reason to be asham'd of it; and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent, it is put out again, and the prayer for Saint Leo put in again Missale Rom. in decreto Concil. Trid. restit. in festo S. Leonis., That by these offices of holy attonement, (viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament) a blessed reward may accompany him, and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us.

Another Argument was us'd in the Dissuasive, against the Roman Doctrine of II Purgatory, viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick Doctrine, when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught, that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment, but that no soul enters into the supreme Heaven, or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment: but at that day, say many of them, all must pass through the universal fire. To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis; to all which being so evident and apparent, the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word,Letter to a friend, pag. 12. but have left the whole fabrick of [Page] the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great Authorities, only one of them, striving to find some fault, sayes, that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis, as saying, That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the Doctrine (that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles) but commanded it to be held by all, as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John, &c. but only reports the opinion of others. To which I answer, that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own Authority. For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent, also it is only said of Sixtus, Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum—& Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards,And these are the words of Senensis concerning Pope John 22. and Pope Adrian. that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence, but commanded it to be held by all men, as saith Adrian. Now although in his narrative of it, Adrian begins with novissime fertur, it is reported, yet Senensis himself when he had said, Pope John is said to have decreed this; he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this Decree. 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it, that he gives the reason of the same, even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied, or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that Opinion. 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it, that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the Opinion. 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed; yet all that he can say against it, is, that apud probatos scriptores non est Vndequaque certum. 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of Antiquity, against this charge against Pope John, only he sayes, that Pope Benedict the Eleventh affirms, that John being prevented by death could not finish the Decree. 6. But this thing was not done in a corner, the Acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the Decree were too notorious. 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no, when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the Doctrine contrary to the Roman, as it is this day, and yet the Roman Doctors care not what they say, insomuch that Saint Bernard having fully and frequently taught, That no souls go to Heaven till they all go, neither the Saints without the common people, nor the spirit without the flesh; that there are three states of souls, one in the tabernacles (viz. of our bodies) a second in atriis or outward Courts, and a third in the House of God; Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd;Annot. 345. and Sixtus Senensis adds these words, (which thing also I do not deny) yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum, for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church, who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this Opinion.

III But that the present Doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new Article of Faith, is therefore certain, because it was no Article of Faith in Saint Austin's time, for he doubted of it. And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of Saint Austin. Enchirid. cap. 68, 69. The words I shall now produce, because they will answer for themselves. In the 68. Chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best Armour in which they trusted, and expounds the words of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 3. He shall be saved yet so as by fire] to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world. And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds, [That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible, and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd, Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit quari potest. & aut inveniri aut latere, and either be found or lie hid. Now what is that which thus may, or may not be found out? This, that [some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods, by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire.] This is it which Saint Austin sayes is not incredible, only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting, [it is not incredible, such a thing may be, it may be inquir'd after, it may be found to be so, or it may never be found, but lie hid] then words signifie nothing: yea [but the doubting of Saint Austin does not relate to the matter or question of Purgatory, but to the manner of the particular punishment, viz. ‘Whether or no that pain of being troubled for the loss of their goods be not a part of the Purgatory flames?’ (sayes E. W. E.W. pag. 28.) A goodly excuse! as if Saint Austin had troubled himself with such an impertinent Question, whether the poor souls in their infernal flames be not troubled that they left their lands and money behind them? Indeed it is possible they might wish some of the waters of their Springs or Fish-ponds to cool their tongues: but Saint Austin surely did not suspect that the tormented Ghosts were troubled they had not brought their best clothes with them, and money in their purses; This is too pitiful and strain'd an Answer; the case being so evidently clear, that the thing Saint Austin doubted of was, since [Page] there was to some of the faithful, who yet were too voluptuous or covetous persons, a Purgatory in this world, even the loss of their Goods which they so lov'd, and therefore being lost so grieved for, whether or no they should not also meet with another Purgatory after death: that is, whether besides the punishment suffered here, they should not be punish'd after death; how? by grieving for the loss 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,De octo Quaest▪ Dulcit. Qu. 3. 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,S. Aug. de civit. Dei, lib. 21▪ cap. 26. 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, De C. Dei. lib 21. c. 13. 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, Ibid. 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, [Page] 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 l [...] 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,Purgatorias autem poenas nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque judicium. Cap. 16. In Psal. 6. [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 De C. D. lib. 16. c. 24. & lib. 20. c. 25. in other places: So, at the setting of the Sun, that is, at the end (viz. of the world) the day of judgment is signified by that fire, dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire, and those who are to be damned in the fire;] nothing is plainer 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 can be understood, where it is said, who shall endure the day of his coming, &c.

3. Saint Austin speaks things expresly against the Doctrine of Purgatory; ‘[Know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Paradise, according to its good deservings, or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara, Aug. tom. 9. de vanitate saecul [...], c. 1. & de consolatione mortuorum Serm. 2. cap. 1. into the hell of the damned; for I know not well how else to render it.] And again [the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham, if she be faithful, or in the custody of the infernal prison, if it be sinful, until the appointed day comes, in which she shall receive her body:] pertinent to which is that of Saint Austin, if he be Author of that excellent Book de Eccles. dogmatibus, De Dogmat. 6. Eccles. cap. 79. Aut Augustini aut Gennadii. which is imputed to him.’ [After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens, the souls of all the Saints are with Christ, and going from the body go unto Christ, expecting the resurrection of their body.]

But I shall insist no further upon these things; I suppose it very apparent, that Saint Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory, and that if he had fancied right, yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied. There is only one Objection which I know of, which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things. Saint Austin, speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life, saith, Constat autem, &c. but it is certain, that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirits suffer, when they have receiv'd their bodies, shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire;] here is a positive determination of the Article, by a word of confidence, and a full certificate; and therefore Saint Austin in this Article was not a doubting person. To this I answer, it may be he was confident here, but it lasted not long; this fire was made of straw and soon went out; for within two Chapters after, he expresly doubts, as I have prov [...]d. 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world; and if they be so referred, it is most agreeable to his other sentiments. 3. This Constat, or decretory phrase, and some lines before or after it, are not in the old Books of Bruges and Colein, nor in the Copies printed at Friburg; and Ludovicus Vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this Objection being remov'd,Contra Pharis. tit. 8. In exposit. precationis missae. Advers. haeres. lib. 12. tit. Purgatorium. In Cathol. Romano pacifico 9. de purgat. there remains no ground to deny, that Saint Austin was a doubting person in the Article of Purgatory. And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him; and the same is said of him by Hofmeister, but modestly; and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead, which is nothing to the purpose; and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus à Castro, and by Barnesius. Well! but suppose Saint Austin did doubt of Purgatory? This is no warranty to the Church of England, for she does [Page] not doubt of it as Saint Austin did, but plainly condemns it. So one of my Adversaries objects; To which I answer, That the Church of England may the rather condemn it, because Saint Austin doubted of it; for if it be no Catholick Doctrine, it is but a School point, and without prejudice to the Faith may be rejected. But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the Doctrine, if it had been left as Saint Austin left it; that is, but as a meer uncertain Opinion, but when the wrong end of the Opinion was taken, and made an Article of Faith; and damnation threatned to them that believed it not; she had reason to consider it, and finding it to be chaff, wholly to scatter it away. 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed, if in any case she see more than Saint Austin did, and proceed accordingly; for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things, of which Saint Austin indeed did not doubt, but affirm'd confidently; I instance in the necessity of communicating Infants, and the matter of appeals to Rome.

The next Authority to be examin'd is, that of Otho Frisingensis, concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive, for making him to speak of a Purgatory before, whereas he speaks of one after the day of Judgment, with a Quidam asserunt, some affirm it, viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death; nay but you are deceiv'd sayes E. W. and the rest of the Adversaries; he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment. Now truly that is more than I said; but that Otho said it, is by these men confess'd. But his words are these; [I think it ought to be search'd, whether the judgment being pass'd, Esse quippe apud inferos locum purgationum in quo salvandi vel tenebristantum [...]fficiantur, vel expiationis [...]gne decequantur quidam asserunt. besides the lower hell, there remain a place for lighter punishments; for that there is (below, or) in hell a Purgatory place, in which they that are to be sav [...]d are either affected (afficiantur, invested, punish'd) with darkness only, or else are boiled in the fire of expiation, some do affirm.] What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory; for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this Opinion are such, which relate to the interval between death and the last judgment; Juxta illud Patriarchae, lugens descendam ad inferos; & illud Apostoli, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem; I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny, but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day: and therefore so is the Opinion for the proof of which these places are brought. 2. By post judicium, in the title, and transacto judicio in the Chapter, Otho means the particular judgment passing upon every one at their death: which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum. 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day; because that which he sayes, some do affirm, quidam asserunt; is, that those which are salvandi, to be sav'd hereafter, are either in darkness or in a Purgatory fire; which therefore must be meant of the interval; for after the day of judgment is pass'd, and the books shut, and the sentence pronounc'd, none can be sav'd that are not then acquitted, unless Origen's Opinion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be reintroduc'd, which the Church before Otho many Ages had exploded, and therefore so good and great a person would not have thought that fit to be then disputed: and it was not then a Question, nor a thing Undetermin'd in the Church. 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgment, it makes very much against the present Roman Doctrine; for Otho applies the Question to the case of Infants dying without Baptism; now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgment, then I quoted Otho according to my own sence and his; but if he means it to be after the day of judgment, then the limbus infantum of the Roman Church is vanish'd, (for the scruple was mov'd about Infants.) Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet? And there is none such till after dooms day; so that let it be as it will, the Roman Church is a loser, and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall.

But now after Saint Austin's time; especially in the time of Saint Gregory, and since, there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death, and telling strange things of their torments below; many of which being gather'd together by the speculum exemplorum, the Legend of Lombardy and others, some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to shew, that in the time when these stories were told, the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear; but they found Purgatory in Baths, in Eves of Houses, in Frosts and cold Rains, upon Spits rosting like Pigs or Geese, upon pieces of Ice. Now to this there is nothing said; but that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing: which saying as it was spoken invidiously, so it was to no purpose; for if the Objector ever hath read the distinction which [Page] is quoted, throughout; he should have found the whole story at large. It is the 31 example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Doway 1603. And the same words are exactly in an ancienter Edition printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman. But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any Argument, if they can any way put it off from being believ'd upon any foolish pretence.

But then as to the thing it self, though learned men deny the Dialogues of Saint Gregory, Note: Post hoc [...]pparuit eidem presbytero columna quaedam jubaris immensi, cujus claritas altra communem solis valentiam coruscare videbatur, de coelo usque ad terram porrecta, per quam anima quaedam Angelico ductu ad sydera contendebat. Sciscitante verò presbytero, quidnam hoc esset? Respondit alter, ipsa est anima Constantini quondam Judicis & domini Turritani, haec autem per novem annos ventis & pluviis & algoribus semper exposita à die exitus sui usque nunc in stillicidio domus suae constitit, ibique suorum excessuum poenas luit: sed qui misericors & liberalis in pauperes extitit, & judicium injuriam patientibus fecit, insuper etiam de malis quae commisit confessa & poenitens à corpore exivit, idcircò misericordiam à Deo cons [...]cuta, hodiernâ die meretur ab omnibus malis liberari, &c. Haec & multa alia sacerdos ille vidit & audivit de secretis alterius vitae. from whence many of the like stories are deriv'd, to be his, as Possevine confesses, and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms; yet I am willing to admit them for his, but yet I cannot but note, that those Dialogues have in them many foolish, ridiculous and improbable stories, but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory; but then the right also may be done to Saint Gregory, his Doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present Article of the Church of Rome, so fond they are in the alledging of Authorities; that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscerning quotations. For 1. Saint Gregory Pope affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole Doctrine of Purgatory. For *S. Greg. M. lib. 13. in J [...]bum. c. 15. c. 17. he sayes, That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of [Christ] our Author, that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body, Mox, forthwith we are lead to c [...]lestial rewards; and a little after speaking of those words of Job, In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea] *Cum constat quod apud inferos justi non in locis poenalibus, sed in superiori quietis sinu tenerentur, magna nobis oberitur quaestio quidnam sit quod B. Job. asserit. he sayes thus [Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in penal places, but are held in the superior bosom of rest, a great question arises, what is the meaning of Blessed Job.] If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of Saint Gregory, then fire and water can be reconcil'd. This is the Doctrine of Saint Gregory in his own works, for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no, I shall not dispute; but if I were studying to do honour to his memory, I should never admit them to be his, and so much the rather because the Doctrine of the Dialogues contradicts the Doctrine of his Commentaries, and yet even the Purgatory which is in the Dialogues is unlike that which was declar'd at Basil;Lib. 4. Dialog. c. 39. Cap. 46. for the Gregorian Purgatory supposed only an expiation of small and light faults, as immoderate laughter, impertinent talking, which nevertheless he himself sayes are expiable by fear of death; and Victoria, In summa sacram. Eccles. n. 110. Decis. cas. conscient. part. 1. lib. 1. c. 6. n. 10. and Jacobus de Graffis say, are to be taken away by beating the breast, holy water, the Bishops blessing; and Saint Austin sayes they are to be taken off by daily saying the Lords prayer; and therefore being so easily, so readily, so many wayes to be purg'd here, it will not be worth establishing a Purgatory for such alone, but he admits not of any remaining punishment due to greater sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. But concerning Saint Gregory I shall say no more, but refer the Reader to the Apology of the Greeks, who affirm that Saint Gregory admitted a kind of Purgatory, but whether allegorically or no, or thinking so really, they know not; but what he said was [...], and by way of dispensation, and as it were constrained to it, by the Arguments of those who would have all sins expiable after death, against whom he could not so likely prevail, if he had said that none was; and therefore he thought himself forc'd to go a middle way, and admit a Purgatory only for little or venial sins, which yet will do no advantage to the Church of Rome. And besides all this, Saint Gregory or whoever is the Author of these Dialogues hath nothing definite, or determin'd, concerning the time, manner, measure or place; so wholly new was this Doctrine then, that it had not gotten any shape or feature.

Next I am to account concerning the Greeks, whom I affirm alwayes to have differed from the Latins, since they had forg'd this new Doctrine of Purgatory in the Roman Laboratories:The Letter pag. 14. and to prove something of this, I affirm'd that in the Council of Basil they publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory.] Against this, up starts a man fierce and angry, and sayes there was no such Apology publish'd in the Council of Basil, for he had examined it all over, and can find no such Apology. I am sorry for the Gentlemans loss of his labour, but if he had taken me along with him, I could have help'd the learned man. This Apology was written by Marcus Metropolitan of Ephesus as Sixtus Senensis confesses,Biblioth. lib. 6. Annot. 259. and that he offered it to the Council of Basil. That it was given and read to the Deputies of the Council,Lib. 2. p. 186. June 14. 1438. is attested by Cusanus, and Martinus Crusius in his Turco-Graecia. [Page] But it is no wonder if this over-learned Author of the Letter miss'd this Apology in his search of the Council of Basil, for this is not the only material thing that is missing in the Editions of the Council of Basil; for Linwood that great and excellent English Canonist made an Appeal in that Council, and prosecuted it with effect in behalf of King Henry of England, Cum in temporalibus non recognoscat superiorem in terris, &c. But nothing of this now appears, though it was then registred, but it is no new thing to forge or to suppress Acts of Councils: But besides this, I did not suppose he would have been so indiscreet as to have look'd for that Apology in the Editions of the Council of Basil, but it was deliver'd to the Council by the Greeks, and the Council was wise enough not to keep that upon publick record; however if the Gentleman please to see it, he may have it among the Booksellers, if he will please to ask for the Apologia Graecorum de igne purgatorio published by Salmasius; it was supposed to be made by Marc Archbishop, but for saving the Gentleman's charge or trouble, I shall tell him a few words out of that Apology which will serve his turn, [...], &c. For these Reasons the Doctrine of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church, as that which slackens the endeavours of the diligent, as perswading them not to use all means of contention to be purged in this life, since another purgation is expected after it. And it is infinitely to be wondred at the confidence of Bellarmine (for as for this Objector, it matters not so much) that he should in the face of all the world say,De purgatori [...] lib. 1. c. 15. Sect. Ad secundum dico. that the Greek Church never doubted of Purgatory: whereas he hath not brought one single, true and pertinent testimony out of the Greek Fathers for the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory, but is forc'd to bring in that crude Allegation of their words, for prayer for the dead, which is to no purpose, as all wise men know; Indeed he quotes the Alchoran for Purgatory,Bellar. lib. 1. c. 11. Sect.. de Mahumitanis. an authentick Author (it seems) to serve such an end. But besides this, two memorable persons of the Greek Church, Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica, and Marc Archbishop of Ephesus, have in behalf of the Greek Church written against the Roman Doctrine in this particular. And it is remarkable that the Latines were and are so put to it to prove Purgatory fire from the Greek Fathers, that they have forg'd a citation from Theodoret, In 1 Cor. 3. which is not in him at all, but was first cited in Latin by Thomas Aquinas either out of his own head, or cosen'd by some body else; And quoted so by Bellarmine Lib. 1. de purgat. c. 5. Sect. ex Graecis., which to wise men cannot but be a very great Argument of the weakness of the Roman cause in this Question from the Greek Fathers, and that Bellarmine saw it, but yet was resolv'd to run through it and out-face it; but Nilus taking notice of it, sayes that there are no such words in Theodoret in the many Copies of his Works which they had. In Greek it is certain they are not, and Gagneius first translated them into Greek to make the cheat more prevalent, but in that translation makes use of those words of the Wisdom of Solomon, [...], as Gold in the fornace (meaning it of the affliction of the Righteous in this world) but unluckily he made use of that Chapter: In the first verse of which Chapter, it is said,Sap. 3. v. 6. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and no torment shall touch them, which is a testimony more pregnant against the Roman Purgatory, than all that they can bring from the Greek Fathers for it. And this Gentleman confutes the Dissuasive, as he thinks, by telling the story according as his own Church hath set it down, who as with subtle and potent Arts they forc'd the Greeks to a seeming Union, so they would be sure not to tell the World in their own Records how unhandsomely they carried themselves. But besides this, the very answer which the Archbishop of Ephesus gave to the Latines in that Council (and which words the Objector here sets down and confesses) are a plain confutation of himself, for the Latins standing for a Purgatory fire temporary; the Archbishop of Ephesus denies it, saying, That the Italians confess a fire, both in the present World and Purgatory by it (that is, before the day of Judgment) and in the world to come, but not Purgatory but Eternal; But the Greeks hold a fire in the world to come only, (meaning Eternal) and a temporary punishment of souls, that is, that they go into a dark place, and of grief, but that they are purged, that is, delivered from the dark place, by Priests Prayers and Sacrifices, and by Alms, but not by fire.] Then they fell on disputing about Purgatory fire, to which the Greeks delay'd to answer: And afterwards being pressed to answer, they refus'd to say any thing about Purgatory, and when they at the upshot of all were utcunque United, Joseph the Patriarch of C. P. made a most pitiful confession of Purgatory in such general and crafty terms, as sufficiently shew'd, that as the Greeks were forc'd to do something, so the Latins were content with any thing, [Page] for by those terms, the Question between them was no way determin'd, Romae veteris Papam Domini nostri Jesu Christi vicarium esse concedere, atque animarum purgationem esse non inficior. He denied not that there is a Purgatory. No, for the Greeks confess'd it, in this world before death, and some of them acknowledged a dark place of sorrow after this life, but neither fire nor Purgatory; for the Purgation was made in this world, and after this world by the prayers of the Priests, and the alms of their friends, the purgation was made, not by fire, as I cited the words before. The Latins told them there should be no Union without it; The Greek Emperour refus'd, and all this the Objector is pleas'd to acknowledge; but after a very great bussle made, and they were forc'd to patch up a Union, hope to get assistance of the Latins: But in this also they were cosen'd, and having lost C. P. many of the Greeks attributed that fatal loss to their dissembling Union made at Florence; and on the other side the Latins imputed it to their Opinion of the Procession of the Holy Ghost: however, the Greek Churches never admitted that union as is averred by Laonicus Chalcondylas, de rebus Turcicis. lib. 1. non longè ab initio. And it is a strange thing that this affair, of which all Europe was witness, should with so little modesty be shuffled up, and the Dissuasive accused for saying that which themselves acknowledge. But see what some of themselves say, Vnus est ex notissimis Graecorum & Armenorum erroribus quo docent nullum esse purgatorium, quo animae ex hac luce migrantes purgentur sordibus quas in hoc corpore contraxerunt, Lib. 12. tit. purgatorium. saith Alphonsus à Castro. It is one of the most known errors of the Greeks and Armenians that they teach there is no Purgatory: And Aquinas writing contra Graecorum errores labours to prove Purgatory:Se [...] Binius tom. 4. Concil. And Archbishop Antoninus who was present at the Council of Florence, after he had rejected the Epistle of Eugenius, adds, Errabant Graeci purgatorium negantes, quod est haereticum. Add to these the testimony of Roffensis and Polydore Virgil before quoted,Art. 18. contr. Luther. Vsque ad hunc diem Graecis non est creditum purgatorium: and Gregory de Valentia disp. 11. Qu. 1. punctum. 1. Sect. 5. De locis animarum post mortem. saith, Expresse autem purgatorium negarunt Waldenses haeretici, ut refert Guido Carmelita in summa de haeresi: Item scismatici Graeci recentiores, ut ex concilio Florentino apparet. And Alphonsus à Castro Lib. 8. adv. hares. tit. Indulgentiae. saith, Unto this very day, Purgatory is not believ'd by the Greeks. And no less can be imagined, since their prime and most learned Prelate, besides what he did in the Council, did also after the Council publish an Encyclical Epistle against the definition of the Council, as may be seen in Binius his narrative of the Council of Florence: By all which appears how notoriously scandalous is the imputation of falsehood laid upon the Dissuasive by this objector; who by this time is warm with writing, and grows uncivil, being like a baited Bull, beaten into choler with his own tail, and angred by his own objections.

IV But the next charge is higher; it was not only doubted of in S. Austins time, and since; but the Roman doctrine of Purgatory without any hesitation or doubting is against the express doctrines deliverd by divers of the Ancient Fathers; and to this purpose some were remark'd in the Dissuasive, which I shall now verefie and add others very plain and very considerable.

Ad D [...]metrian. Sect. 16. & Sect. 22.S. Cyprian exhorts Demetrianus to turn to Christ while this world lasts, saying, that after we are dead there is no place of repentance, no place of satisfaction.] To this the letter Pag. 17. answers; It is not said when we are dead, but when you are dead, meaning that this is spoken to heathens, not to Christians. As if quando istinc excessum fuerit, being spoken impersonally, does not mean indefinitely all the world, and certainly it may as well one as the other, Christians as well as Heathens, for Christians may be in the state of deadly sin, and aversion from God as well as Heathens, and then this admonition and reason fits them as well as the other. E. W. Pag. 32. answers, that S. Cyprian means that after death there is no meritorious satisfaction; he says true indeed, there is none that is meritorious, neither before nor after death, but this will not serve his turn, for S. Cyprian says, that after death there is none at all; no place of Satisfaction] of any kind whatsoever, no place of wholsome repentance. And therefore it is vain to say that this Council was only given to Demetrianus, who was a Heathen; for if he had been a Christian, he would or at least might have us'd the same argument, not to put any part of his duty off upon confidence of any thing to be done or suffered after this life.Donec aev [...] temporalis fine completo ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividamur. Ibid. Sect. 16. For his argument is this, this is the time of repentance, after death it is not; now you may satisfie (that is, appease) the Divine anger, after this life is ended, nothing of this can be done. For S. Cyprian does not speak this dispensativè, or by relation to this particular case, but assertivè, he affirms expresly speaking to the same [Page] Demetrian; [that when this life is finished we are divided, either to the dwellings of death or of immortality. And that we may see this is not spoken of impenitent Pagans only, as the letter to a friend dreams, Serm. de lapsis. Confiteantur singulis vos fratres delictum suum, dum adhuc qui d [...]liquit in saeculo est, dum admitti confessio ejus potest, dum satisfactio, & remissio facta per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est. S. Cyprian renews the same caution and advice to the lapsed Christians: [O ye my Brethen let every one confess his sin, while he that hath sinn'd is yet in this world, while his confession can be admitted, while satisfaction and pardon made by the Priests is grateful with God.] If there had been any thought of the Roman Purgatory in S. Cyprians time, he could not in better words have impugned it, than here he does. All that have sinn'd must here look to it, here they must confess, here beg pardon, here make amends and satisfie, afterwards neither one nor the other shall be admitted. Now if to Christians also there is granted no leave to repent, no means to satisfie, no means of pardon after this life, these words are so various and comprehensive that they include all cases; and it is plain S. Cyprian speaks it indefinitely, there is no place of repentance, no place of satisfaction; none at all, neither to Heathens nor to Christians. But now let these words be set against the Roman doctrine, viz. that there is a place called Purgatory, in which the souls tormented do satisfie, and come not out thence till they have paid, (viz. by sufferings, or by suffrages) the utmost farthing, and then see which we will follow: for they differ in all the points of the Compass. And these men do nothing but betray the weakness of their cause by expounding S. Cyprian to the sence of new distinctions, made but yesterday in the forges of the Schools. And indeed the whole affair upon which the answer of Bellarmine relies, which these men have translated to their own use, is unreasonable. For is it a likely business, that when men have committed great crimes they shall be pardon'd here by confession, and the ministeries of the Church, &c. and yet that the venial sins though confess'd in the general, and as well as they can be, and the party absolved, yet there should be prepared for their expiation the intolerable torments of hell fire, for a very long time; and that for the greater sins, for which men have agreed with their adversary in the way, and the Adversary hath forgiven them, yet that for these also they should be cast into prison, from whence they shall not come till the utmost farthing be paid; that is against the design of our Blessed Saviours Counsel, for if that be the case, then though we and our adversaries are agreed upon the main, and the debt forgiven, yet nevertheless we may be delivered to the tormentors. But then concerning the sence of S. Cyprian in this particular, no man can doubt that shall have but read his excellent treatise of mortality: that he could not, did not admit of Purgatory after death before the day of judgment, for he often said it in that excellent treatise which he made to comfort and strengthen Christians against the fear of death; that immediately after death we go to God or the Devil: ‘And therefore it is for him only to fear to die, who is not willing to go to Christ, and he only is to be unwilling to go to Christ who believes not that he begins to reign with Christ.] That we in the mean time die, we pass over by death to immortality.] It is not a going forth, but a pass over, and when our temporal course is run, a going over to immortality.] Let us embrace that day, which assigns every one of us to our dwelling, and restores those which are snatch'd from hence, and are disintangled from the snares of the world to Paradise, and the Heavenly kingdom.]’ There are here many other things so plainly spoken to this purpose, that I wonder any Papist should read that treatise, and not be cur'd of his infirmity.

To the same purpose is that of S. Dionys, calling death the end of holy agonies;S. Dionys. and therefore it is to be suppos'd they have no more agonies to run through immediately after death. To this E. W. answers; that S. Denis means,Pag. 32. that death is the end of all the agonies of this life. A goodly note! and never revealed till then and now; as if this were a good argument to encourage men to contend bravely, and not to fear death, because when they are once dead, they shall no more be troubled with the troubles of this life; indeed you may go to worse, and death may let you into a state of being as bad as hell, and of greater torments than all the pains of this world put together amount to.] But to let alone such ridiculous subterfuges, see the words of S. Dionys, ‘[They that live a holy life, looking to the true promises of God, as if they were to behold the truth it self in that resurrection which is according to it, with firm and true hope, and in a Divine joy come to the sleep of death, as to an end of all holy contentions;]’ now certainly if the doctrine of Purgatory were true, and that they who had contended here, and for all their troubles in this world were yet in a tolerable condition, should be told, that now they shall go to worse, he that should tell them so would be but one of Jobs comforters. [Page] No, the servant of God [coming to the end of his own troubles (viz. by death) is filled with holy gladness, and with much rejoycing ascends to the way of Divine regeneration,] viz. to immortality] which word can hardly mean, that they shall be tormented a great while in hell fire.

Justin Martyr resp. ad Quest. 75.The words of Justin Martyr, or whoever is the Author of those Questions and Answers imputed to him, affirms that presently after the departure of the soul from the body, a distinction is made between the just and the unjust, for they are brought by Angels to places worthy of them; the souls of the just to Paradise, where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels, but the souls of the unrighteous to the places in Hades,] the invisible region or Hell.] Against these words because they pinch severely,Pag. 33. E. W. thinks himself bound to say something; and therefore 1. whereas Justin Martyr says, after our departure presently there is a separation made, he answers, that Justin Matyr means here to speak of the two final states after the day of judgment, for so it seems he understands [...], or presently after death, to mean the day of judgment; of the time of which neither men nor Angels know any thing. And whereas Justin Martyr says, that presently the souls of the righteous go to Paradise, E. W. answers:Pag. 33. 2. That Justin does not say that all just souls are carried presently into Heaven; no, Justin says, into Paradise, true, but let it be remembred that it is so a part of Heaven, as limbus infantum is by themselves call'd a part of hell; that is, a place of bliss; the region of the blessed. But 3. Justin says that presently there is a separation made, but he says not that the souls of the righteous are carried to Paradise.] That's the next answer, which the very words of Justin do contradict. There is presently a separation made of the just and unjust, for they are by the Angels carried to the places they have deserved. This is the separation which is made, one is carried to Paradise, the other to a place in hell. But these being such pitiful offers at answering, the Gentleman tries another way, and says, 4. That this affirmative of Justin contradicts another saying of Justin, which I cited out of Sixtus Senensis, that Justin Martyr and many other of the Fathers, affirm'd that the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles, reserved unto the sentence of the great day; and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life. To this I answer, that one opinion does not contradict another; for though the Fathers believ'd that they who die in the Lord rest from their labours and are in blessed places, and have antepasts of joy and comforts, yet in those places they are reserv'd unto the judgment of the great day: The intermedial joy or sorrow respectively of the just and unjust does but antedate the final sentence; and as the comforts of Gods spirit in this life are indeed graces of God and rewards of Piety, as the torments of an evil conscience are the wages of impiety, yet as these do not hinder, but that the great reward is given at dooms-day and not before, so neither do the joys which the righteous have in the interval. They can both consist together, and are generally affirm'd by very many of the Greek and Latin Fathers.E. W. pag. 36. And methinks this▪ Gentleman might have learn'd from Sixtus Senensis how to have reconcil'd these two opinions; for he quotes him, saying there is a double beatitude, the one imperfect of soul only, the other consummate and perfect of soul and body. The first the Fathers call'd by several names of Sinus Abrahae, Atrium Dei, sub Altare, &c. The other, perfect joy, the glory of the resurrection, &c. But it matters not what is said, or how it be contradicted, so it seem but to serve a present turn. But at last, if nothing of this will do, these words are not the words of Justin, for he is not the Author of the Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos. To which I answer, it matters not whether they be Justins or no: But they are put together in the collection of his works, and they are generally called his, and cited under his name, and made use of by Bellarmine Lib. de baptis. c. 25. & 26. lib. de confirmat. c. 5. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 6., when he supposes them to be to his purpose. However the Author is Ancient and Orthodox, and so esteem'd in the Church, and in this particular speaks according to the doctrine of the more Ancient Doctors; well! but how is this against Purgatory? says E. W. for they may be in secret receptacles after they have been in Purgatory.P. 36. line 29. To this I answer, that he dares not teach that for doctrine in the Church of Rome, who believes that the souls deliver'd out of Purgatory go immediately to the heaven of the Blessed, and therefore if his book had been worth the perusing by the Censors of books, he might have been questioned, and followed Mr. Whites fortune. And he adds, it might be afterwards according to Origens opinion; that is, Purgatory might be after the day of judgment, for so Origen held, that all the fires are Purgatory, and the Devils themselves should be sav'd. Thus this poor Gentleman thinking it necessary to answer one argument [Page] against Purgatory brought in the Dissuasive, cares not to answer by a condemned heresie, rather than reason shall be taught by any son of the Church of England. But however, the very words of the Fathers cross his slippery answers so, that they thrust him into a corner; for in these receptacles the godly have joy, and they enter into them as soon as they die, and abide there till the day of judgment.

S. Ambrose is so full, pertinent and material to the Question in hand, and so destructive of the Roman hypothesis, that nothing can be said against it.De bono mortis cap. 4. ‘His words are these, [therefore in all regards death is good because it divides those that were always fighting, that they may not impugn each other, and because it is a certain port to them▪ who being toss'd in the sea of this world require the station of faithful rest; and because it makes not our state worse, but such as it finds every one, such it reserves him to the future judgment, and nourishes him with rest, and withdraws him from the envy of present things, and composes him with the expectation of future things.Pag. 34.]’ E. W. thinking himself bound to say something to these words; answers, It is an excellent saying, for worse he is not, but infinitely better, that quit of the occasions of living here, is ascertain'd of future bliss hereafter, which is the whole drift of the Saint in that Chapter: Read it, and say afterwards if I say not true.] It is well put off. But there are very many that read him, who never will or can examine what S. Ambrose says, and withal such he hopes to escape. But as to the thing: That death gives a man advantage, and by its own fault no disadvantage is indeed not only the whole drift of that Chapter, but of that whole book. But not for that reason only is a man the better for death, but because it makes him not worse in order to Eternity; nay, it does not alter him at all as to that, for as death finds him, so shall the judgment find him (and therefore not purified by Purgatory) for such he is reserved; and not only thus, but it cherishes him with rest, which would be very ill done if death carried him to Purgatory. Now all these last words and many others, E. W. is pleas'd to take no notice of, as not being for his purpose. But he that pleases to see more, may read the 12. and 18. Chapters of the same Treatise.

S. Gregorie's saying, that after this life there is no purgation,S. Greg. Nazianz. orat. 15. in plagam grandinis. [...]. can no way be put off by any pretences. For he means it of the time after death before the day of judgment, which is directly oppos'd to the doctrine of the Church of Rome; and unless you will suppose that S. Gregory believ'd two Purgatories, it is certain he did not believe the Roman; for he taught that the purgation which he calls Baptism by fire and the saving, yet as by fire, was to be perform'd at the day of judgment: and the curiosity of that trial is the fierceness of that fire, as Nicetas expounds S. Gregories words in his oration in sancta lumina. So that S. Gregory affirming that this world is the place of purgation, and that after this world there is no purgation, could not have spoken any thing more direct against the Roman Purgatory.

S. Hilary, and S. Macarius speak of two states after death, and no more. True says E. W. but they are the two final states. That is true too, in some sence,In Psalm. for it is either of eternal good, or evil; but to one of these states they are consigned and determined at the time of their death, at which time every one is sent either to the bosom of Abraham, or to a place of pain, where they are reserved to the sentence of the great day. S. Hilary's words are these [There is no stay or delaying. For the day of judgment is either an eternal retribution of beatitude or of pain: But the time of our death hath every one in his laws whiles either Abraham (viz. the bosome of Abraham) or pain reserves every one unto the Judgment.] These words need no Commentary. He that can reconcile these to the Roman Purgatory, will be a most mighty man in controversie.Homil. 22. vide etiam homil. 26. And so also are the words of S. Macarius, when they go out of the body, the quires of Angels receive their souls, and carry them to their proper place [...] to a pure world, and so lead them to the Lord.] Such words as these are often repeated by the Holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Ancient Church; I summ them up with the saying of S. Athanasius, [...], &c. It is not death that happens to the righteous,De Virgin. but a translation: For they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest. And as a man would go out of prison, so do the Saints go out of this troublesome life, unto those good things which are prepared for them.] Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in Purgatory by Joh. Gerson, in his querela defunctorum, and Sr. Tho. More in his supplication of souls, and it will be found that the doctrine of the Fathers [Page] differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome as much as heaven and hell, rest and labor, horrid torments and great joy. I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo which one of my adversaries could not find, because the Princes was mistaken;Letter. p. 18. It is the 91. Epistle, so known, and so us'd by the Roman writers in the Qu. of Confession, that if he be a man of learning it cannot be suppos'd, but he knew where to find them. The words are these: ‘But if any of them, for whom we pray unto the Lord being intercepted by any obstacle, falls from the benefit of the present Indulgences, and before he comes to the constituted remedies shall end his temporal life by humane condition (or frailty) that which abiding in the body he hath not received, being out of the flesh he cannot.’ Now against these words of S. Leo, set the present doctrine of the Church of Rome; [that what is not finished of penances here, a man may pay in Purgatory] and let the world judge whether S. Leo was in this point a Roman Catholick. Indeed S. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal, of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away; but I hope the Roman Doctors will excuse the Saint, because the distinction is but new and modern. But this testimony of S. Gregory must not go for a single Testimony: That, which abiding in the body could not be receiv'd, out of the body cannot; that is, when the soul is gone out of the body, as death finds them, so shall the day of judgment find them. And this was the sence of the whole Church; for after death there is no change of state before the General Trial: no passing from pain to rest in the state of separation, and therefore either there are no Purgatory pains, or if there be, there is no [...]ase of them before the day of judgment; and the Prayers and Masses of the Church cannot give remedy to one poor soul; and this must of necessity be confessed by the Roman Doctors, or else they must shew that ever any one Catholick Father did teach, that after death, and before the day of Judgment, any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain: that is, that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment. He that can shew this, will teach me what I have not yet learned, but he that cannot shew it, must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church.

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. P. 18. 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 [Page] (that is, the way of Transubstantiation) an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi [...] pane, manentibus substantia & accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Can [...]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, Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Sect. Secund [...] dicit. 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,Vbi supra. 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,Contra Captiv. Babyl. c. 1. 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 fier [...] 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.Tom. 9. tract. 16. p. 108. p. 110. 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, Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 34. Pag. 37. vide Letter. p. 18. sed adeo tamen certa in [...]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,Pag. 38. See also the letter to a friend, p. 19. for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard, and adds foul and uncivil words, which I pass by: but the thing is this; that I said, Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so, and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it, and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges. Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio, an formalis an substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio: [I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial:] So far E. W. quotes him, but leaves out one thing very material, viz. whether besides formal, or substantial, it be of another kind. Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this, takes a great deal of useless pains, not one word of all that he says being to the purpose, or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so, or that he did not think so. But the thing is this: Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church; the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then, Luther followed. The second, that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ, but ceases not to be what it was. But this is not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, for that makes a third opinion, which is that the substance of bread ceases to be, and nothing remains but the accident. Quartam opinionem addit Magister, that is, Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion; that the substance of bread is not converted, but is annihilated: this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion] Now of these four opinions, all which were then permitted and disputed▪ Peter Lombard seems to follow the second; but if this was his opinion it was no more, for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no.Vbi supra. [Page] But whether he does or no truly, I think it is very hard for any man to tell; for this question was but in the forge, not polished, not made bright with long handling. And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences, I told of no opinion of his at all, but that in his time they did not know whether it (viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation) were true or no, that is, the generality of the Roman Catholicks did not know: and he himself could not define it. And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this Article: and they that differ in their judgments about an Article, and yet esteem the others Catholick, may think what they please, but they Cannot tell certainly what is truth. But then as for Peter Lombard himself, all that I said of him was this, that he could not tell, he could not determine whether there was any substantial change or no. If in his after discourse he declares that the change is of substances, he told it for no other than as a meer opinion: if he did, let him answer for that, not I; for that he could not determine it, himself expresly said it, in the beginning of the eleventh distinction. And therefore these Gentlemen would better have consulted with truth and modesty, if they had let this alone, and not have made such an outcry against a manifest truth. Now let me observe one thing which will be of great use in this whole affair, and demonstrate the cange of this doctrine. These three opinions were all held by Catholicks, and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the Gloss of the Canon Law it self.Innocent. de offic. Mis. part. 3. cap. 18. For this opinion was not fix'd and setled, nor as yet well understood, but still disputed (as we see in Lombard and Scotus:) And although they all agreed in this (as Salmeron observes of these three opinions,Cap. cum Martha in gloss. Extrav. de celebr. miss. as he cites them out of Scotus) that the true body of Christ is there, because to deny this were against the faith; and therefore this was then enough to cause them to be esteem'd Catholicks, because they denied nothing which was then against the [...]aith, but all agreed in that, yet now the case is otherwise; for whereas one of the opinions was, that the substance of bread remains, and another opinion, that the substance of bread is annihilated, but is not converted into the body of Christ; now both of these opinions are made heresie, and the contrary to them, which is the third opinion pass'd into an article of faith, Quod vero ibi substantia panis non remanet, Vbi supra. jam etiam ut articulus fidei definitum est, & conversionis sive transubstantiationis nomen evictum. So Salmeron. Now in Peter Lombards time; if they who believed Christs real presence were good Catholicks, though they believed no Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, that is, did not descend into consideration of the manner, why may they not be so now? Is there any new revelation now of the manner? Or why, is the way to Heaven now made narrower than in Lombards time? For the Church of England believes according to one of these opinions; and therefore is as good a Catholick Church as Rome was then, which had not determined the manner. Nay if we use to value an Article the more, by how much the more Ancient it is, certainly it is more honourable that we should reform to the Ancient model, rather than conform to the new. However, this is also plainly consequent to this discourse of Salmeron; The abett [...]r [...] of those three opinions, some of them do deny something that is of faith, therefore the faith of the Church of Rome now is not the same it was in the days of Peter Lombard. Lastly, this also is to be remark'd, that to prove any ancient Author to hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as it is at this day an Article of faith at Rome, it is not enough to say, that Peter Lombard, or Durand, or Scotus, &c. did say that where bread was before, there is Christs body now; for they may say that and more, and yet not come home to the present Article; and therefore E. W. does argue weakly, when he denies Lombard to say one thing, [viz. that he could not define whether there was a substantial change or no, (which indeed he spake plainly) because he brings him saying something as if he were resolv'd the change were substantial, which yet he speaks but obscurely. And the truth is, this question of Transubstantiation is so intricate and involved amongst them, seems so contrary to sense and reason, and does so much violence to all the powers of the soul, that it is no wonder, if at first the Doctors could not make any thing distinctly of it. However, whatever they did make of it, certain it is they more agreed with the present Church of England, than with the present Church of Rome; for we say as they said, Christs body is truly there, and there is a conversion of the Elements into Christs body, for what before the Consecration in all sences was bread, is after Consecration in some sence Christs body; but they did not all of them say, that the substance of bread was destroyed, and some of them denied [Page] the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ; which whosoever shall now do, will be esteemed no Roman Catholick.E. W. pag. 37 ‘And therefore it is a vain procedure to think they have prov'd their doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Fathers also; if the Fathers tell us, [That bread is chang'd out of his nature into the body of Christ: that by holy invocation it is no more common bread: that as water in Cana of Galilee was chang'd into wine; so in the Evangelist, wine is changed into blood: That bread is only bread before the sacramental words, but after consecration is made the body of Christ.]’ For though I very much doubt, all these things in equal and full measures cannot be prov'd out of the Fathers, yet suppose they were, yet all this comes not up to the Roman Article of Transubstantiation: All those words are true in a very good 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, Pag. 37. though more fully and explicitely declared in the Lateran Council. But in the Dissuasive it was said,L [...]tter to a friend. pag. 18. that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council, where many things indeed came then in consultation, yet nothing could be openly decreed. Nothing, (says Platina) that is, says my Adversary, nothing concerning the holy land, and the aids to be raised for it: but for all this, there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation. To this I reply, that it is as true that nothing was done in this question, as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War; for one was as much decreed as the other. For if we admit the acts of the Council,Ad liberandum terram sanctam de manibus impiorum. Extrav. de Jud [...] is & Saracenis. Cum sit. that of giving aid to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. [...]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;Vide pr [...]fat. Later. Concil. secundum p. Crab. 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,Vide Matth. Paris, ad A.D. 1215. & Naacteri generat. 41. ad eundem annum. Et Sabellicum E [...] ad. 9. lib. 6. & Godfridum Monachum ad A. D. 1215. 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 [Page] 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.Tract. 16. tom. 9. p. 110. 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,Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Sect. Vnum tamen. 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;Scotus negat doctrinam de conversion [...] & transubst. esse antiquam. Henriquez lib. 8. c. 23. in Marg. ad liter. h. 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,Summ [...]. l. 8. c. 23. p. 448. lit. C. in Marg. Henriquez shall be my warrant: Durandus dist. qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed absque assertione, &c. He saith it is probable, but without assertion, that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity. And a little after he adds out of Cajetan, Paludanus and Soto, that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous, [Page] 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,Lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 13. 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 h [...]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,Letter. p. 21. 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 reported by the Author of the modest discourse; And the great Erasmus who liv'd and died in the communion of the Church of Rome, and was as likely as any man of his age to know what he said,In priorem Epist. ad Corinthios citante etiam Salm [...] ron. tom. 9. tract. 16. p. 1087PUNC; gave this testimony in the present Question; In synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit Ecclesia, & re & nomine veteribus ignotam. In the Communion the Church hath but lately defin'd Transubstantiation, which both in the thing and in the name was unknown to the Ancients.

Now this was a fair and friendly inducement to the Reader to take from him all prejudice, which might stick to him by the great noises of the Roman Doctors,Videat lector Picherellum exposit: ve [...]borum institutionis coena Domini, & ejusdem dissertationem de Missâ. made upon their presence of the Fathers being on their side; yet I would not so rely upon these testimonies, but that I thought fit to give some little Essay of this doctrine out of the Fathers themselves.

[Page]To this purpose is alledged Justin M. saying of the Eucharist, that it was a figure, which our Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion] These were quoted not as the words, but as the doctrine of that Saint; and the Letter will needs suppose me to mean those words, which are (as I find) in 259, and 260. page of the Paris edition;1615. [The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread which the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion.] These are Justins words in that place, with which I have nothing to do (as I shall shew by and by:) But because Cardinal Perron intends to make advantage of them, I shall wrest them first out of his hands, and then give an account of the doctrine of this holy man in the present Article; both out of this place and others. [ [...], The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord deliver'd us to do; therefore says the Cardinal, the Eucharistical bread is the truth, since the Cake was the figure or the shadow.] To which I answer, that though the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread, yet so might that bread be a figure of something else: Just as baptism, I mean, the external rite, which although it self be but the outward part, and is the [...], or figure of the inward washing by the spirit of grace, and represents our being buried with Christ in his death, yet it is an accomplishment in some sence of those many figures, by which (according to the doctrine of the Fathers) it was prefigured. Such as in S. Peter the waters of the deluge, in Tertullian were the waters of Jordan into which Naaman descended, in S. Austin the waters of sprinkling: These were types, and to these baptism did succeed, and represented the same thing which they represented, and effected or exhibited the thing it did represent, and therefore in this sence they prefigur'd baptism: And yet that this is but a figure still, we have S. Peters warrant;1 Pet. 3.21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. The waters of the flood were [...] a type of the waters of baptism; the waters of baptism were [...], that is, a type answering to a type: and yet even here there is a typical representing, and signifying part, and beyond that there is the veritas, or the thing signified by both. So it is in the oblation of the Cake, and the Eucharistical bread, that was a type of this, and this the [...], or correspondent of that; a type answering to a type, a figure to a figure; and both of them did and do respectively represent a thing yet more secret. For as S. Austin said, these and those are divers in the sign, but equal in the thing signified, divers in the visible species, but the same in the intelligible signification; those were promissive, and these demonstrative, or as others express it, those were pronunciative, and these of the Gospel are contestative. A. D. 1547. So Friar Gregory of Padua noted in the Council of Trent: And that this was the sence of Justin M. appears to him that considers what he says. 1. He does not say the Cake is a type of the bread, but the oblation of the Cake, that is, that whole rite of offering a Cake after the Leper was cleansed in token of thankfulness, and for his legal purity, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, which for the remembrance of the passion which he suffer'd for these men whose minds are purged from all perverseness, Jesus Christ our Lord commanded to make or do.] To do what? To do bread? or to make bread? No, but to make bread to be Eucharistical, to be a memorial of the Passion, to represent the death of Christ: so that it is not the Cake and the bread that are the type and the antitype; but the oblation of the Cake was the figure, and the Celebration of Christs memorial, and the Eucharist are the things presignified and prefigur'd; But then it remains, that the Eucharistical bread is but the instrument of a memorial or recordation, which still supposes something beyond this, and by this to be figured and represented. For as the Apostle says, Our Fathers did eat of the same spiritual meat, that is, they eat Christ, but they eat him in figure, that is, in an external symbol: so do we, only theirs is abolished, and ours succeeds the old, and shall abide for ever. Nay the very words us'd by Justin M. do evince this, it is [...], when it is an Eucharist, it is still but bread; and therefore there is a body of which this is but an outward argument, a vehicle, a channel and conveyance, and that is the body of Christ; for the Eucharistical bread is both bread, and Christs body too. For it is a good argument to say, this is bread Eucharistical, therefore this is bread; and if it be bread still, it must be a figure of the bread of life; and this is that which I affirmed to be the sence of Justin M. The like expression to this is in his second Apology; It is not common bread, meaning, that it is sanctified and made Eucharistical. But here, it may be, the argument will not hold; it is not common bread, therefore it is bread: for I remember that Cardinal [Page] Perron hath some instances against this way of arguing. For the Dove that descended upon Christs head was not a common Dove, and yet it follows not; therefore this was a Dove. The three that appeared to Abraham were not common men; therefore they were men, it follows not. This is the sophistry of the Cardinal, for the confutation of which I have so much Logick left as to prove this to be a fallacy, and it will soon appear if it be reduc'd to a regular proposition. This bread is not common, therefore this bread is extraordinary bread, A propositione ter [...]i [...] adjecti▪ ad propositio nem secundi adjecti va [...]et consequentia, si subjectum supponat realiter. Reg. Dialect. Vide sect. 5. n. 10. Of Christ [...] real presence and spiritual. 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, [...],Pag. 296. the bread made his body, though this also would not have done their work for them; but when he says he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body, the bread must needs be the sign, figure and representation of that body. 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it; still it is wine when the Eucharist is made, when the faithful have given thanks; and if it be bread still, we also grant it to be Christs body, and then there is a figure and the things figured, the one visible and the other invisible; and this is it which I affirmed to be the sence of Justin Martyr. Oratio 2. in Pascha. 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 Sic solemus loqui: sicut panis est vita corporis: ita verbum Dei est vita animae. Non scil. eundem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connotando, sed similem & analogicum effectum utrius (que) nutrimenti observando.) for if it were so, it would not only destroy an Article of Christian faith, but even of the Roman too; for if the changes were in the same manner, then either [Page] 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, Lib. 4. c. 34. & lib. 5. c. 2. especially S. Irenaeus, and certainly destroys the whole Roman Article of Transubstantiation; for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body, then it is still the substance of bread: for accidents do not nourish, and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition; but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another. But of this enough.

Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive, but his words, though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone,A. L. only one of them says, that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd, for the first three chapters are not extant: well! but the words are; and the last chapter is, which is there quoted, and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended, and not omit the Cypher, which I suppose he would, if he had foreseen he should have been written against by so learned an adversary.Note: Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. ult. [...]. The Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the N. T. to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the Table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood.) So the words are translated in the Dissuasive. But the letter translates them thus. Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table, and the memory of that body and healthful blood, (as is the institute of the new Testament.) But to let them agree as well as they can, the words of Eusebius, out of his last chapter, I translated as well as I could; the Greek words I have set in the Margent, that every one that understands may see I did him right; and indeed to do my Adversary right, when he goes about to change, not to mend the translation, he only changes the order of the words, but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it: for he acknowledges the main Question, viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table; but then that l may do my self right, and the question too; whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him, and made him to render [...] as if it were [...], and hath made [...] to be governed by [...], which is so far off it, and hath no relation to it, and not to be governed by [...] with which it is joyn'd, and hath made [...] to be governed by [...], when it hath a substantive of its own [ [...],] and he repeats [...] once more than it is in the words of Eusebius, only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements, the symbols of the body and blood. But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity, or an innocent perswasion. But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question, so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend, he hath these words fully to our purpose.

Note:

Lib. 5. c. 3. [...].]

Et lib. 8. c. 1. [...].] Et Paulo post ▪ [...].]

[ [...].]

[...].

[First, our Lord and Saviour, and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastick Laws, by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing blood.] And again, [By the wine which is the symbol of his blood, he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death, and believe in his blood.] [Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy, commanding them to make the image (figure or representation) of his own body.] And Again, [He received not the sacrifices of blood, nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses, but ordained we should use bread, the symbol of his own body.] So far I [Page] thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius, to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs, but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament.

S. Macarius is cited in the Disswasive in these words,Macarius homil. 27. [In the Church is offered bread and wine, the Antitype of his flesh and blood, and they that partake of the bread that appears, do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ.] Pag. 22. A. L. saith, Macarius saith not so, but rather the contrary, viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar. [or an antitype] his flesh and blood.] Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says; yet I cannot but note [that they who gave him this answer, may be asham'd,] for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer. First, he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head, there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted. 2. He makes [...] to be put with [...], by way of apposition, expresly against the mind of S. Macarius, and against the very Grammar of his words. And after all, he studies to abuse his Author, and yet gets no good by it himself; for if it were in the words as he hath invented it, or some body else for him, yet it makes against him as much, saying, bread and wine exhibite Christs body; which is indeed true, though not here said by the Saint, but is directly against the Roman article, because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us: but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius, which in the Disswasive are translated exactly, as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent.

There now only remains the authority of S. Austin, which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England, and assert to his own party.Pag. ibid. I cited five places out of S. Austin, to the last of which but one, he gives this answer; that S. Austin hath no such words in that book, that is, in the Tenth book against Faustus the Manichee. Concerning which, I am to inform the Gentleman a little better. These words [that which by all men is called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice] are in the tenth book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation, and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume, as the other. But the following words [in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance,] are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee Hujus sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur, [post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur.] lib 20. c. 21. contr. Faustum Manich.. All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together in a close order, like a continued discourse; but all of them are S. Austins words, as appears in the places set down in the Margent. But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin, he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed; but to the words he hath nothing to say. To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer; that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist, but only the eating it in that gross, carnal, and sensible manner, as the Capharnaites conceiv'd. To which I reply, that it is true, that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words: and although the Roman error be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites, yet it was as false, as unreasonable, and as impossible. And be the occasion of the words what they are, or can be, yet upon this occasion S. Austin spake words, which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical. For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of, but the antithesis to this is that which S. Austin urges, and which comes home to our question, [I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you:] But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers, I will gratifie my Adversary, or rather indeed my Unprejudicate Readers, by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin, agreeing perfectly with that of our Church. ‘[At this time after manifest token of our liberty hath shin'd in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs,De doctr. Christ lib. 3. cap. 9. 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 [Page] to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery, from which they were brought f [...]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, Epist. 23. 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.

P. 41. Orat. 2. in Pascha. Jam verò Paschalis participes erimus, nunc quidem adhuc typicè, tametsi apertiùs licet quam in veteri; legale siquidem Pascha (ne [...] enim dicere verebor) figurae f [...]gura erat obscurior.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, Lib. de Synod. saith S. Hilary; and yet if it were possible to be otherwise, yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing, that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible.De Euchar. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. est [...]gitur tertia. 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,E.W. p. 42. 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 [Page] be seen how they could have answered all the rest, if they had pleased. The argument is this, every consecrated wafer (saith the Church of Rome) is Christs body; and yet this wafer is not that wafer, therefore either this, or that is not Christs body, or else Christ hath two natural bodies; for there are two Wafers.] To this is answered, the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ, no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man, or conclude there are two Gods, one in Heaven, and the other in Earth, because Heaven and Earth are more distinct than two wafers. To which I reply, that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole, and so is but in one place, and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial, then indeed, if there were but one soul in feet and head, the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose. But here these wafers are two intire wafers, separate the one from the other; bodies intermedial put between; and that which is here is not there; and yet of each of them it is affirm'd, that it is Christs body; that is, of two wafers, and of two thousand wafers, it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body. Now if these wafers are substantially not the same, not one, but many; and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body, then these bodies are many, for they are many of whom it is said, every one distinctly and separately, and in it self is Christs body. 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer, with the presence of God in Heaven, it is spoken without common wit or sence; for does any man say that God is in two places, and yet be the same one God? Can God be in two places that cannot be in one? Can he be determin'd and number'd by places, that sills all places by his presence? or is Christs body in the Sacrament, as God is in the world, that is, repletivè, filling all things alike, spaces void and spaces full, and there where there is no place, where the measures are neither time nor place, but only the power and will of God. This answer, besides that it is weak and dangerous, is also to no purpose, unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body. Yea but S. Austin says of Christ, Ferebatur in manibus suis, &c. he bore himself in his own hands:In Ps. 33. and what then? Then though every wafer be Christs body, yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies: for then there would be two bodies of Christ, when he carried his own body in his hands. To this I answer, that concerning S. Austins mind we are already satisfied, but that which he says here is true, as he spake and intended it; for by his own rule, the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes: Christ bore his own body in his own hands, when he bore the Sacrament of his body; for of that also it is true, that it is truly his body in a Sacramental, spiritual, and real manner, that is, to all intents and purposes of the holy Spirit of God.Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist. 11. lib. 4. ad finem li [...]. C. According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard, [We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth, and consecrated by mystick prayer, we receive in memory of the Lords Passion; which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape, it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament, but by the spirit of God working invisibly.] If this be good Catholick doctrine, and if this confession of this article be right, the Church of England is right; but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession, but impose what is unknown in Antiquity, and Scripture, and against common sence, and the reason of all the world; she must needs be greatly in the wrong. But as to this question, I was here only to justifie the Disswasive; I suppose these Gentleman may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry, if they please to read a Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, printed at London by R. Royston. book I have written on this subject intirely, of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice.

SECT. IV. Of the Half-Communion.

[Page]

WHEN the French Embassador in the Council of Trent, A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity, among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered; that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France, instead of a medicine, and that it was better to let them die, than to cure them with such remedies. The Embassador being greatly offended, replied: that it was not fit to give the name of poison to the blood of Christ, and to call the holy Apostles poisoners, and the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and of that which followed for many hundred years, who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that blood to all the people: this was a great and a publick, yet but a single person, that gave so great offence.

One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance;Sess. 13. which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine, and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds, yet the Council not only condemns them as hereticks, and to be punished accordingly, who say it is unlawful to observe the custom and law of giving it in one kind only; but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds. This last thing is so shameful and so impious, that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing: which if it be not an argument of the self-conviction of the man, and a resolution to abide in his error, and to deceive the people even against his knowledge, let all the world judge: for the words of the Councils decree, as they are set down by Carranza, at the end of the decree are these [Item praecipimus sub p [...]na excommunicationis quod nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis & vini. Lugduni. A.D. 1600. apud Horatium Cardon. p. 440.] I need say no more in this affair: To affirm it necessary to do in the Sacraments what Christ did, is called heresie; and to do so is punished with excommunication. But we who follow Christ, hope we shall communicate with him, and then we are well enough, especially since the very institution of the Sacrament in both kinds, is a sufficient Commandment to minister and receive it in both kinds. For if the Church of Rome upon their supposition only, that Christ did barely institute confession, do therefore urge it as necessary, it will be a strange partiality, that the confessed institution by Christ of the two Sacramental species, shall not conclude them as necessary, as the other upon an Unprov'd supposition. And if the institution of the Sacrament in both kinds be not equal to a command, then there is no command to receive the bread, or indeed, to receive the Sacrament at all: but it is a mere act of supererogation, that the Priests do it at all, and an act of favour and grace, that they give even the bread it self to the Laity.

But besides this, it is not to be endur'd that the Church of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of abstaining from the cup 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, A.D. 1562. 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;Vide Preface to the Disswasive, Part 1. Canon comperimus de consecrat. dist. 2. 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 [Page] 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. In consult. de sacra Commun. 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.

[Page]To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe, and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People: which distinction, though it be in this article nothing to the purpose, yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils, which my Adversaries put me often to sight with. His words are these:Note: In Corinth. 11. Indignum dicet esse Domino qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore. Ideóque praemonet ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad Eucharistiam Domini: quoniam futurum est judicium, ut quemadmodum accedit unusquisque, reddat causa [...] in Die Domini Jesu Christi, quia sine disciplinâ traditionis & conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt corporis & sanguinis Domini. ‘[He (viz. the Apostle S. Paul) saith, that he is unworthy of the Lord who otherwise celebrates the mystery than it was deliver'd by him. For he cannot be devout that presumes otherwise than it was given by the Author: Therefore he before admonishes, that according to the order delivered, the mind of him that comes to the Eucharist of our Lord be devout; for there is a judgment to come, that as every one comes, so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, because they who come without the discipline of the delivery (or tradition) and of conversation are guilty of the body and blood of our Lord.]’ One of my Adversaries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be understood only of the Priest: and it appears so, by the word celebrat, not recipit; he that celebrates otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer, that first it is plain, and S. Ambrose so expresses his meaning to be of all that receive it,A.L. p. 4. for so he says [that the mind of him that cometh to the Eucharist of our Lord ought to be devout.] 2. It is an ignorant conceit, that S. Ambrose by celebrat, means the Priest only, because he only can celebrate. For however the Church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the Priest, yet in the Primitive Church it was no more than recipit or accedit ad Eucharistiam, which appears not only by S. Ambrose his expounding it so here,Serm. 1. de elecmos. but in S. Cyprian, speaking to a rich Matron, Locuples & dives Dominicum celebrare te credis, & corban omnino non respicis? Dost thou who art rich and opulent suppose that you celebrate the Lords Supper, (or sacrifice) who regardest not the poor mans basket? Celebrat is the word, and receive must needs be the signification, and so it is in S. Ambrose; and therefore I did (as I ought) translate it so. 3. It is yet objected, that I translate [aliter quam ab eo traditum est] otherwise than he appointed; whereas it should be, otherwise than it was given by him. And this surely is a great matter, and the Gentleman is very subtle. But if he be ask'd, whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did, to be given as he gave it? I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing. But ab eo traditum est, of it self signifies, appointed; for this he deliver'd not only by his hands, but by his commandment of Hoc facite; that was his appointment. Now that all this relates to the whole institution and doctrine of Christ in this matter, and therefore to the duplication of the Elements, the reception of the chalice, as well as the consecrated bread, appears first by the general terms; qui aliter mysterium celebrat, he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered. 2. These words are a Commentary upon that of S. Paul, He that eats this bread, and drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.] Now hence S. Ambrose arguing that all must be done, as our Lord delivered, says also that the bread must be eaten, and the cup drunk as our Lord delivered: and he that does not do both, does not do what our Lord delivered. 3. The conclusion of S. Ambrose is full to this particular: They are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, who came without the discipline of the delivery and of conversation, that is, they who receive without due preparation, and not after the manner it was delivered, that is, under the differing symbols of bread and wine.Disp. 5. de sacra coena. To which we may add that observation of Cassander, and of Vossius; that the Apostles represented the persons of all the faithful, and Christ saying to them, Take and eat, he also said, Drink ye all of this; he said not, Eat ye all of this; and therefore if by vertue of these words, Drink ye all of this, the Laity be not commanded to drink, it can never be proved that the Laity are commanded to eat; Omnes is added to bibite, but it is not expresly added to Accipite & Comedite, and therefore Paschasius Radbertus, Lib. de corp. & sang. Domini cap. 15. who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christs incarnation, so expounds the precept without any hesitation, Bibite ex hoc omnes, i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes, Drink ye all of this, as well they that minister, as the rest of the believers. And no wonder, since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ; by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument, the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it. For saith S. Cyprian, [If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments, how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption,Epist. 63. or to change it into any thing [Page] but that which was appointed by him?] Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine, but took water instead of it; and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all; but whatever the instance was or could be, S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution. The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians; Abeo quod Christus Magister & praecepit & gessit humana & novella institutione decedere, by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did; that the Bishops would not do; tamen quoniam quidam, &c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly [In calice Dominico sanctificando & plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus & Deus noster sacrificii hujus author & Doctor fecit & docuit, &c.] In sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught, viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people; therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem & originem traditionis Dominicae, to the root and original of the Lords delivery. Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says, that when the chalice was sanctified, it was also ministred to the people; I desire it be considered, whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice, in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people: Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution? Do they do what Christ did? Do they teach what Christ taught? Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first? Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do? and thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise? They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord, and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason: for they always believed that a peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine; and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs blood for us, and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls, bread and drink being the natural provisions; and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly, the body being given for our bodies, and the blood for the cleansing our souls, the life of every animal being in the blood: and finally, this in the integrity, signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption. For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years. This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter, but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants. The words are these, [seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver, I can find no reason why their bit of bread only, may not as well work that effect, as to taste of their wine with it.] To these words, 1. I say, that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion, yet it is falsely said, that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith. For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed, that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper: and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine,] and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mention'd: So ignorant, so deceitful, or deceiv'd is E. W in the doctrine of the Church of England. But then as for his foolish sarcasm, calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread, which he does in scorn; he might have considered, that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause, that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread, it is more like Marchpane than common bread, and besides that (as Salmeron acknowledges) anciently, Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat, Salmer. in 11. Cor. 10. disp. 17. pag. 138. that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church; out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant, by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented, and that Durandus affirming the same thing,Durand. ration. Divin. offic. l. 4. c. 53. says that the Grecians continue it to this day; besides this (I say) the Author of the Roman order (says Cassander) took it very ill,Cassand. liturg. c. 27. Sect. E [...]cum mensa. that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form, which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum, scraps of little penies or pieces of money,] and not worthy to be called bread, being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread. But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity, and it is little noted, they having so many greater changes to answer for.

[Page]But it seems this Section was too hot for them, they loved not much to meddle with it; and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure, but desire the Reader, who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question, to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium, Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9. or the Cases of Conscience; only I must needs observe, that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants, when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome. To which I only add, that for above 700. years after Christ, it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup, and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup; how it is since, and how it comes to be so, is too plain. But it seems the Church hath power to dispence in this affair, because S. Paul said, that the Ministers of Christ are dispensers of the mysteries of God: as was learnedly urg'd in the Council of Trent in the doctrine about this question.

SECT. V. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown Tongue.

THE Question being still upon the novelty of the Roman doctrines, and Practices; I am to make it good that the present article and practice of Rome is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church. To this purpose I alledged S. Basil in his Sermon or book de variis scripturae locis: E.W. p. 45. and A.L. p. 25. But say my adversaries, there is no such book.] Well! was there such a man as S. Basil? If so, we are well enough; and let these Gentlemen be pleas'd to look into his works printed at Paris, 1547. by Carola Guillard, and in the 130. page, he shall see this Book,Note: Recordemini quaeso ex his spiritu libus sermonibus qui lecti sunt medicinae. Reminiscamini earum quae sunt in psalmis monitionum; proverbialia praecepta, historiae pulchritudinem, exemplaque investigate. His addite Apostolica mandata. In omnibus vero tanquam coronida, perfectionemque verba evangelica conjungite, ut ex omnibus utilitatem capientes, ad id demum convertatis & revertamini ad quod quisque jucundè est offectus, & ad quod obeundum gratiam à spiritu sancto accepit. Sermon, or Homily, in aliquot scripturae locis, at the beginning of which he hath an exhortation in the words placed in the Margent, there we shall find the lost Sheep: The beginning of it is an exhortation to the people, congregated to get profit and edification by the Scriptures read at morning prayer, the Monitions in the Psalms, the precepts of the Proverbs; Search ye the beauty of the history, and the examples, and add to these the precepts of the Apostles. But in all things joyn the words of the Gospel, as the Crown and perfection, that receiving profit from them all, ye may at length turn to that to which every one is sweetly affected, and for the doing of which he hath received the grace of the Holy Spirit.]

Now this difficulty being over, all that remains for my own justification is, that I make it appear that S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Aquinas and Lyra do respectively exhort to the study of the Scriptures, exhorting even the Laity to do so, and testifie the custom of the Ancient Church in praying in a known tongue, and commending this as most useful, and condemning the contrary as being useless and without edification. I shall in order set down the doctrine they deliver in their own words, and then the impertinent cavils of the adversaries will of themselves come to nothing.

S. Chrysostom commenting upon S. Pauls words concerning preaching and praying for edification,35. Homil. in 1 Cor. 14. chap. and so as to be understood; coming to those words of S. Paul, If I pray with my tongue, my spirit prayeth but my mind is without fruit [you see (saith he) how a little extolling prayer he shews, that he who is such a one (viz. as the Apostle there describes) is not only unprofitable to others, but also to himself, since his mind is without fruit.] Now if a man praying what he understands not, does 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, Pag. 25. 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; [Page] but they all say, that he who hears and understands not whether it be the speaker or the scholar, is but a Barbarian.In 1 Cor. 14. 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, Note: Vtiliu [...] dicit (Apostolus) paucis verbis in apertione serm [...] nis loqui, quod omnes intelligant, quàm prolixam orationem habere in obscuro. Imperitus enim audiens quod non intelligit, nescit finem orationis, & non respondet Amen, id est, verum, ut confirmetur benedictio. Et in haec verba Nam tu quidem bene gratia agis] de eo dicit qui cognita sibi loquitur quia scit quid dicit, (sed alius non aedificatur) si utique ad Eccl [...]siam adificandam convenitis, ea d [...]bent dici quae intelligant audientes. Nam quid prodest ut lingua loquatur quam solus scit, ut qui audit, nihil proficiat. Ideò tacero debet in Ecclesiâ, ut ii loquantur qui prosunt audientibus. 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. August. in 2. Comment. in Ps. 18. Deprecati Dominum ut ab ocultis nostris mundet nos, & ab alienis par [...]at servis suis, quid hoc sit intelligere debemus, ut humanâ ratione non quasi avium voce cantemus. Nam & Meruli, & Psittaci, & Corvi, & Pica, & hujusmodi volucres saepe ab hominibus docentur sonare quod nesciunt. Scienter autem cantare non avi sed homini Divinâ voluntate concessum est. Et paulo post Nos autem qui in Ecclesiâ divina eloquia cantare didicimus simul etiam instare debemus esse quod scriptum est, Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem: proinde charissimi quod consonâ voce cantavimus, seren [...] etiam corde nosse ac videre debemus. 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 ‖Tho. Aquin. in 1 Cor. 14. Ille qui intelligit reficitur, & quantum ad intellectum & quantum ad affictum [...] sed meus ejus qui non intelligit, est sine fructu refectionis. And again, quantum ad fructum devotionis spiritualis privatur qui non attendit ad ea quae orat, seu non intelligit. Lyra. Caeterum hic consequenter idem ostendit in oratione publicâ, quia si populus intelligat orationem seu benedictionem sacerdotis, melius reducitur in Deum & devotius Amen. And again, Propter quod in Ecclesiâ primitivâ benedictiones & caetera omnia lege communia * fielent in vulgari. * For of common things, that is, things in publick the Disswasive speaks, Common prayers, common preachings, common Eucharists and thanksgivings, common blessings. All these and all other publick and common things being us'd in the vulgar tongue in the Primitive; Communia and omnia are equivalent, but Communia is Lyra's word. 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,Homil. 1. in 8. Johan. Videat lector S. Basil. in Ascert. in 278. resp. in regul. brevior. & Cassidore. 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, Note: De doctrin. Christianâ lib. 2. c. 5. Ex quo factum est, ut etiam scriptura divina, quâ tantis morbis humanarum voluntatum subvenitur, ab unâ linguâ pro [...]ecta, qua opportunè potuit per orbem terrarum disseminari, per varias interpretum linguas longè latéque diffusa innotesceret gentibus ad salutem. Theodoret. lib. 5. de curand. Graecaffect. Nos autem verbis Apostolicae propheticaeque doctrinae inexhaustum robur manifestè ost [...]ndimus. Vniversa enim fa [...]ies terrae quantacunque soli subjicitur, ejusmodi verborum plena jam est. Hebrai verò libri non modo in Graecumidioma conversi sunt, sed in Romanam quoque linguam, Egyptiam, Persicam, Indicam, Armenicamque & Scythicam, atque adeò Sauromaticam, semelque ut dicam in linguas omnes quibus ad bunc diem nationes u [...]uniur. 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 [Page] 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 outfacing 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 Quamvis per se bonum sit ut officia divina celebrentur eâ linguâ quam plebs intelligat, id enim per se confert ad aedificationem, ut bene probat hic locus. Estius in 1. ep. Cor. cap. 14 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. Note: Respon. ad artic pacis. Magis fore ad aedificationem Ecclesiae, ut preces vulgari linguâ conciperentur. Ex hâc doctrinâ Pauli habetur quod melius ad aedificationem Ecclesiae est orationes publicas, quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici linguâ communi Clericis & populo, quàm dici latinâ. Idem in 1 Cor. 14.] 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,Studete verba Dei, viz. Lectiones sacras distinctè & apertè ad intelligentiam & aedificationem fidelium absque omni mendacio falsitatis proferre, &c. 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 [Page] 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. Isa. 25.11. 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 [...]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 did give veneration and worship to the Image even of the cross it self, but no words of S. Cyril were quoted; for the denial [Page] is not in express words, but in plain and direct argument: for being by Julian charg'd with worshipping the cross, S. Cyril in behalf of the Christians takes notice of their using the cross in a religious memory of all good things, to which by the cross of Christ we are ingag'd, that is, he owns all that they did, and therefore taking no notice of any thing of worship, and making no answer to that part of the objection, it is certain that the Christians did not do it, or that he could not justifie them in so doing. But because I quoted no words of S. Cyril, I now shall take notice of some words of his,Nemo autem ignorat nulli prorsus naturae, praeterquam Dei, adorationem à scripturis contribui. Thesaur. l. 2. c. 1. & alibi. Vna Natura est deitatis quam solummodo adorare opertet. which do most abundantly clear this particular by a general rule; [Only the Divine Nature is capable of adoration, and the Scripture hath given adoration to no nature but to that of God alone;] that, and that alone ought to be worshipped. But to give yet a little more light to this particular; it may be noted that before S. Cyrils time this had been objected by the Pagans, particularly by Caecilius, to which Minutius answers by directly denying it, and saying, that the Pagans did rather worship crosses, that is, the woodden parts of their Gods. The Christians indeed were by Tertullian called Religiosi crucis, because they had it in thankful use and memory, and us'd it frequently in a symbolical confession of their not being asham'd, but of their glorying in the real cross of Christ: But they never worshipped the material cross, or the figure of it, as appears by S. Cyrils owning all the objections, excepting this only, of which he neither confessed the fact, nor offered any justification of it when it was objected, but professed a doctrine with which such practice was inconsistent. And the like is to be said of some other of the Fathers who speak with great affections and veneration of the cross, meaning to exalt the passion of Christ; and in the sence of S. Paul to glory in the cross of Christ, not meaning the material cross, much less the image of it, which we blame in the Church of Rome: And this very sence we have expressed in S. Ambrose, Orat. de obitu Theodos. Sapiens Helena egit, quae crucem in capite regum levavit, ut Christi Crux in Regibus adoretur. The figure of the material cross was by Helena plac'd upon the heads of Kings, that the cross of Christ in Kings might be ador'd:] How so? He answers, Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni. It is to the holy redemption, not to the cross materially taken; this were insolent, but the other is piety. In the same manner also S. Chrysostom is by the Roman Doctors,E.W. p. 57. and particularly by Gretser, and E. W. urg'd for the worshipping Christs cross. But the book de cruce & latrone, whence the words are cited; Gretser and Possevine suspect it to be a spurious issue of some unknown person: It wants a Father; and sometimes it goes to S. Austin, and is crouded into his Sermons de Tempore:Serm. 30. But I shall not trouble my discourse any farther with such counterfeit ware. What S. Chrysostoms doctrine was in the matter of Images, is plain enough in his indubitate works, as is, and shall be remark'd in their several places.

The famous testimony of Epiphanius, against the very use of Images in Churches, being urg'd in the Disswasive as an irrefragable argument that the Roman doctrine is not Primitive or Catholick, the contra-scribers say nothing; but that when S. Hierom translated that Epistle of S. Epiphanius,A. [...]. it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Hierom translated; which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Hieroms time.] A likely matter! but spoken upon slight grounds. It appears not, saith the Objector, that this story was in it then: To whom does it not appear? To Bellarmine indeed it did not, nor to this Objector who writes after him. Alan Cope denied that Epiphanius ever wrote any such Epistle at all, or that S. Hierom ever translated any such; but Bellarmine being asham'd of such unreasonable boldness, found out this more gentle answer, which here we have from our Objector: well! but now the case is thus; that this story was put into the Epistle by some Iconoclast is vehemently suspected by Bellarmine and Baronius. But this Epistle vehemently burns their fingers, and the live-coal sticks close to them, and they can never shake it off. For 1. who should add this story to this Epistle? not any of the reformed Doctors; for before Luthers time many ages, this Epistle with this story was known, and confessed, and quoted, in the Manuscript copies of divers Nations. 2. This Epistle was quoted, and set down as now it is, with this story by Charles the great above DCCC. years ago. 3. And a little after by the Fathers in the Council of Paris;Sirmond. Not. in Concil. Norbon. c. 13. l. 1. Concil. Gal. only they call the Author John Bishop of C. P. instead of Jerusalem. 4. Sirmondus the Jesuit cites this Epistle as the genuine work of Epiphanius. 5. Marianus Victor, and Dionysius Petavius a Jesuit, of great and deserved same for learning in their Editions of Epiphanius, have published this whole Epistle; and have made no note, given no censure upon this story. 6. Before them Tom. 3. lit. 19. c. 157. & apud Bellarm. lib. 2. de imag. c. 9. Thomas Waldensis, and since him Alphonsus à Castro acknowledge this whole Epistle as the proper issue of Epiphanius. [Page] 7. Who can be suppos'd to have put in this story? The Iconoclasts? Not the Greeks, because if they had, they would have made use of it for their advantage, which they never did in any of their disputations against images; insomuch that Bellarmine makes advantage of it, because they never objected it.Lib. 2. de imag. cap. 9. Sect. secundò quia haretici. Not the Latins that wrote against images; for though they were against the worship of images, yet they were not Iconoclasts: Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was, but he could not put this story in, for before his time it was in, as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted. These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius, and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome, as himself testifies. But after all this, if there was any foul play in this whole affair,In Epist. 61. & 101. ad Pammach. the cosenage lies on the other side; for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius, and only the Latin copies remain; and in all of them of Epiphanius's works, this story still remains. But how the Greek came to be lost, though it be uncertain, yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss:Syn. 7. Act. 8. Can. 9. And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council, that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of other hereticks. It is most likely here it might go away: But however, the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular.De moribus Eccles. lib. 1. c. 34.

The authority of S. Austin, reprehending the worship of images, was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent. In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae, Note: Jam videbitis quid inter ostentationem & sinceritatem—postremo quid inter superstitionis Sirenas & portum religionis intersit. Nolite mihi colligere professores Nominis Christiani, nec professionis suae vim aut s [...]tentes aut exhibentes. Nolite con [...]ectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsâ verâ religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita libidinibus dediti, ut obliti sint quid promiserint Deo. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores, novi multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos vivant. he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent; in which, describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion, he presses it on to [...]ssue; [Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name. Follow not the troops of the unskilful, who in true religion it self either are superstitious, or so given to lusts▪ that they have forgotten what they have promis'd to God. I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchres and pictures, I know that there are many who live luxuriously over [the graves of] the dead.] That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vitious, is plain,Note: Sed & illa quàm vana sint, quàm noxia, quàm sacrilega, qu [...]madmodum à magna parte vestrum, atque adeò penè ab omnibus vobis non observentur, alio volumine ostendere institui. Nune vos illud admoneo, ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae maledicere desinatis, vituperando mores hominum quos & ipsa condemnat, & quos quotidie tanquam malos filios corrigere studet. and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons. But see what follows, [But how vain, how hurtful, how sacrilegious they are, I have purpos'd to shew in another volume.] Then addressing himself to the Manichees, who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholicks, did reproach the Catholick Church, he says, [Now I admonish you [...]hat at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholick Church, by reproaching the manners the of these men, (viz. worshippers of pictures, and sepulchres, and livers riotously over the dead,) whom she her self condemns, and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct.] By these words now cited, it appears plainly, that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians, who in his time did worship pictures, were not only superstitious, but condemned by the Church. This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said; but that he did say so, we have his own words for witness. Yea, but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of Pictures alone: what then? Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious, and their actions vain, hurtful and sacrilegious. But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these, because he says it of the others too? But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitious;] I know not what this offer of an answer means, certain it is, when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious, his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves. But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy, and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post, he wries his back and shrinks from the blow, though he knows he cannot get loose.

In the Margent of the Dissuasive,De fide & symb. c. 7. Contr. Adimant. c. 13. there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at; but the Pag. 27. Letter says, that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose: That is now to be tryed. The purpose for which they were brought, is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images: It was not intended that all these places should all speak or [Page] prove the same particular; but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margent, the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry, and to the condemnation of the Roman doctrine, as the first was of the Roman practice. The words are these, ‘[Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape, that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side, or that because the Father is said to sit, it is to be supposed, that he does it with bended knees, lest we fall into that sacriledge, for which the Apostle execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man. For, for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness, but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart.]’ So S. Austin. Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section, as more relating to the proper matter of it, as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God; but here it serves without any sensible error, and where ever it is, it throws a stone at them, and hits them. But of this more in the sequel.

Contr. Adimant. c. 13.But the third testimony (however it pleases A. L. to deny it) does speak home to this part of the question, and condemns the Roman hypothesis: the words are these, [See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote, or that ye make shapes and images:] But it adds also saying, Your God is a consuming fire, and a zealous God. These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded; [Yet remember not only there, but also here concerning the zeal of God, be so blames the Scriptures, that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books, concerning the not worshipping of images; as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God, but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images. Therefore he would seem to favour images, which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect,] meaning the sect of the Manichees, who to comply with the Pagans, did retain the worship of images. And now the three testimonies are verified; and though this was an unnecessary trouble to me, and I fear it may be so to my Reader, yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this, that in S. Austins sence, that which Romanists do now, the Manichees did then; only these did it to comply with the Heathens, and those out of direct and meer superstition. But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine, the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee, cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him, chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that, which the Jews did in this, viz. that which was written, Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, thou shalt not make an idol to thee, and such like things: and in the latter place, he affirms that the second Commandment is moral, viz. that all of the Decalogue are so, but only the fourth. I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest: for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum, speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul, he says, Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum & Apostolos ejus non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt.

The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question, and does great effort to the Roman practices. E. W. takes notice of it, and his best answer to it is, that it hath often been answered already.E. W. pag. 57. He says true; it hath been answered both often and many ways. The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bishops, who in the 36. Canon, decreed this [placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere] It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches; That's the decree; The reason they give is, ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur, lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls. So that there are two propositions; 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches. 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls.Pag. 57. E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon. Mark, first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures, ne quod colitur & adoratur. By which Mark, E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration, and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God, (who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches, & illi soli servies) but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear, 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls, or 2. defaced by the Heathen; the first of these is Bellarmines, the latter is Perrons answer: But too childish to need a severer consideration. But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames, upon boards or cloth, as it is in many Churches in [Page] Rome, and other places. 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches; for fear of spoiling one kind of them, they might have permitted others, though not these. 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think, that in that age, in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images, they should be so curious to preserve their pictures, and reserve them for [...]doration. 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution, ne quod colitur, & adoratur, and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it, is so unlike the religion of Christians, the piety of those ages, the Oeconomy of the Church, and the analogy of the Commandment, that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him, that shall so perversly invent an Unreasonable Commentary, rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony. But some are wiser, and consider, that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd, but that they be not in the Churches: and that what is adorable be not there painted, and not, be not there spoiled. The not painting them is the utmost of their design, not the preserving them; for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls, and preserved well enough, and easily repaired upon decay, therefore this is too childish; to blot them out for fear they be spoiled, and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out. Agobardus Bishop of Lions, above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis & imaginibus, which was published by Papirius Massonus; and thus illustrates it, Recte (saith he) nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere [Nec] quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur. Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition, not the ridiculous preserving the pictures. So it was Understood then. But then 2. Agobardus reads it, Nec, not [Ne] quod colitur, which reading makes the latter part of the Canon, to be part of the sanction, and no reason of the former decree; pictures must not be made in Churches, neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored. This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since. By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius, that the Canon is not genuine, is plainly confuted; this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council, but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius, and so many ages after the Council. And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron who tells a story, that in Granada in memory of this Council, they use frames for pictures, and paint none upon the wall at this day. It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sence of the Patrons of images, and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council. For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls, for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree; but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches. Now then let this Canon be confronted with the Council of Trent, Sess. 25. decret. de S. S. invoc. [Imagines Christi, Deiparae virginis, & aliorum sanctor [...]m in templis praesertim habendas & retinendas, that the images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints be had and kept especially in Churches:] and in the world there cannot be a greater contradiction between two, than there is between Eliberis and Trent, the old and the new Church: for the new Church not only commands pictures and images to be kept in Churches, but paints them upon walls, and neither fears thieves nor moisture. There are divers other little answers amongst the Roman Doctors to this uneasie objection; but they are only such as venture at the telling the secret reasons why the Council so decreed; as Alan Cope saith, it was so decreed, lest the Christians should take them for Gods, or lest the Heathen should think the Christians worshipped them; so Sanders. But it matters not for what reason they decreed: Only if either of these say true, then Bellarmine and Perron are false in their conjectures of the reason. But it matters not; for suppose all these reasons were concentred in the decree, yet the decree it self is not observ'd at this day in the Roman Church, but a doctrine and practice quite contrary introduced. And therefore my opinion is, that Melchior Canus answers best,Loc. Theol. lib. 5. c. 4. [aut nimis duras aut parum rationi consentaneas à Consiliis provincialibus interdum editas, non est negandum. Qualis illa non impudenter modo verum etiam impie à Concilio Elibertino de tollendis imaginibus. By this we may see not only how irreverently the Roman Doctors use the Fathers when they are not for their turns; but we may also perceive how the Canon condemns the Roman doctrine and practice in the matter of images.

[Page]The next inquiry is concerning matter of History, relating to the second Synod of Nice in the East, and that of Francfurt in the West. In the Dissuasive it was said, that Eginardus, Hincmarus, Aventinus, &c. affirmed, 1. That the Bishops assembled at Francfurt, and condemned the Synod of Nice. 2. That they commanded it should not be called a General Council. 3. They published a book under the name of the Emperor confuting that Unchristian Assembly. These things were said out of these Authors, not supposing that every thing of this should be prov'd from every one of them, but the whole of it by its several parts from all these put together.

1. That the Bishops of Francfurt condemned the Synod of Nice or the seventh General. Whether the Dissuasive hath said this truly out of the Authors quoted by him, we need no further proof, but the confession of Bellarmine. Auctores antiqui omnes conveniunt in hoc, Lib. 2. de imagin. c. 14. Sect. secundò quia. quod in concilio Francofordiensi sit reprobata Synodus VII. quae decreverat imagines adorandas. Ita Hincmarus, Aimonius, Rhegino, Ado, & alii passim docent. So that if the objector blames the Dissuasive for alledging these authorities, let him first blame Bellarmine, who confesses that to be true, which the Dissuasive here affirms.Sect. neque obstat. Now that by the VII. Synod Bellarmine means the II. Nicene, appears by his own words in the same chapter. Videtur igitur mihi in Synodo Francofordiensi vere reprobatam Nicaenam II. Synodum; sed per errorem, & materialiter, &c. And Bellarmine was in the right; not only those which the Dissuasive quoted, but all the Ancient Writers saith Bellarmine. So the Author of the life of Charles the Great, speaking of the Council of Francfurt; [Their Queen Fastrada died. Pseudosynodus Graecorum quam falso septimam vocabant pro imaginibus, rejecta est à pontificibus. The same is affirmed by the Annals of the Francks Ad annum 794.; by Adhelmus Benedictinus in his Annals, in the same year; by Hincmarus Rhemensis Opusc. 55. N. cap. 20. in an Epistle to Hincmarus his Nephew; by Strabus the Monk of Fulda, Rhegino Prumiensis, Vrspergensis, and Hermanus Contractus in their Annals and Chronicles of the year 794. By Ado Viennensis Chron. aetat. 6. ad annum Christi eundem & 792.; sed pseudosynodus, quam septimam Graeci appellant, pro adorandis imaginibus, abdicata penitus; the same is affirmed by the annals of Eginhardus ad eund. annum.; and by Aimoinus Lib. 4. c. 85. and Aventinus. I could reckon many more, if more were nececessary, but these are they whom the Dissuasive quoted, and some more; against this truth nothing material can be said, only that Hincmarus and Aimonius (which are two whom the Dissuasive quotes) do not say that the Synod of Francfurt rejected the second Nicene, but the Synod of C. P. But to this Bellarmine himself answers, that is is true they do so, but it is by mistake; and that they meant the Council which was kept at Nice: so that the Dissuasive is justified by his greatest adversary. But David Blondel answers this objection, by saying that C.P. being the head of the Eastern Empire, these Authors us'd the name of the Imperial city for the provinces under it: which answer though it be ingenious, yet I rather believe that the error came first from the Council of Francfurt, who called it the Synod at C. P. and that after it, these Authors took it up: but that error was not great, but always excusable, if not warrantable; because the second Nicene Council was first appointed to be at C.P. but by reason of the tumults of the people, was translated to Nice. But to proceed, That Blondus (whom the Dissuasive also quotes) saith, the Synod of Francfurt abrogated the seventh Synod, the objector confesses, and adds, that it confuted the Felician heresie for taking away of images: concerning which, lest the less wary Reader should suppose the Synod of Francfurt to have deternin'd for images, as Alan Cope, Gregory de Valentia, Vasquez, Suarez, and Binius would fain have the world believe; I shall note, that the Synod of Francfurt did at the same time condemn the Heresie of Felix Vrgetitanus, which was, that Christ was the adopted son of God. Now because in this Synod were condemned the breakers of images, and the worshippers of images; some ignorantly (amongst which is this Gentleman the objector) have suppos'd that the Felician Heresie was that of the Iconoclasts.

2. Now for the second thing which the Dissuasive said from these Authors; that the Fathers at Francfurt commanded that the second Nicene should not be called a general Council, that matter is sufficiently cleared in the proof of the first particular; for if they abrogated it, and called it pseudosynodum, and decreed against it; hoc ipso, they caused it should not be, or be called a General Synod. But I shall declare what the Synod did in the words of Adhelmus Benedictinus; In annal. Synodus etiam quae paucos ante annos C. P. sub Helena & Constantino filio ejus congregata, & ab ipsis non tantum septima, verum etiam Vniversalis est appellata, ut nec septima nec Vniversalis diceretur, habereturque quasi supervacua, in totum ab omnibus abdicata est.

[Page]3. Now for the third thing, which the Dissuasive said, that they published a book under the name of the Emperor; I am to answer that such a book about that time, within three or four years of it, was published in the name of the Emperor, is notoriously known, and there was great reason to believe it was written three or four years before the Synod, and sent by the Emperor to the Pope; but that divers of the Church of Rome did endeavour to perswade the world that the Emperor did not write it, but that it was written by the Synod, and contains the acts of the Synod, but published under the Emperors name. Now this the Dissuasive affirm'd by the authority of Hincmarus who does affirm it, and of the same opinion is Bellarmine; Vide supra. Sect. primò quia. Scripti videntur in Synodo Francofordiensi & acta continere synodi Francofordiensis: & enim asserit Hincmarus ejus temporis Author.] So that by all this the Reader may plainly see how careful the Dissuasive was in what was affirm'd, and how careless this Gentleman is of what he objects: Only this I add, that though it be said that this book contained the acts of the Synod of Francfurt, though it might be partly true, yet not wholly. For this Synod did indeed do so much against that of the Greeks, and was so decretory against the worship of Images, (quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur, said Hoveden, A. D. 793. and Matthew of Westminster) that it is vehemently suspected, that the Patrons of Images (the objector knows whom I mean) have taken a timely course with it, so that the monuments of it are not to be seen, nor yet a famous and excellent Epistle of Alcuinus written against the Greek Synod, though his other works are in a large volume carefully enough preserved.

It was urg'd as an argument à minori ad majus, that in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images;Of making of images. and therefore it was impossible that the worship of images should then be the doctrine or practice of the Catholick Church. To this purpose Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian and Origen were alledged.A. L. p. 27. First for Tertullian, of whom the Letter says, that he said no such thing: sure it is, this man did not care what he said; supposing it sufficient to pass the common Reader, to say Tertullian did not say for what he is alledged, for more will believe him, than examine him. But the words of Tertullian shall manifest the strange confidence of this person. The Quotations out of Tertullian are only noted in the Margent, but the words were not cited, but now they must, to justifie me and themselves. 1. That reference to Tertullians book of Idolatry,Cap. 3. the objector takes no notice of, as knowing it would reproach him too plainly: see the words, [the artificers of statues and images, and all kind of representations, the Devil brought into the world,] and when he had given the Etymology of an idol, saying [...] is formula, he adds, Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit: Diabolum seculo intulissè artifices statuarum & imaginum & omnis generis simulachrorum, Inde omnis Idoli artifex ejusdem & Vnius est criminis. And a little before. Exinde jam caput facta est Idololatriae ars omnis quae Idolum quoquo modo edit. And in the beginning of the fourth chapter, Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus prohibet. Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli possit, tanto prius est ne fiat si coli non licet. And again, toto mundo ejusmodi artibus interdixit servis Dei. And a little after he brings in some or other objecting; Sed ait quidam adversus similitudinis interdictae propositionem, cur ergo Moses in eremo simulachrum serpentis ex aere secit? To this at last he answers. Si eundum Deum observas habes legem ejus, ne feceris similitudinem, si & praeceptum factae postea similitudinis respicis & tu imitare Moysen. Ne facias adversus legem simulachrum aliquod, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. Now here is no subterfuge for any one: For Tertullian first says, the Devil brought into the world all the artists and makers of statues, images and all sorts of similitudes. 2. He makes all these to be the same with Idols. And 3. that God as well forbad the making of these and the worship of them, and that the maker is guilty of the same crime; and lastly I add, his definition of Idolatry, Idololatria est omnis circa omne idolum famulatus & servitus. Every image is an idol, and every service and obeysance about any or every idol is idolatry. I hope all this put together will convince the Gentleman that denied it, that Tertullian hath said some such thing as the Dissuasive quoted him for. Now for the other place quoted, the words are these; proinde & similitudinem vetans fieri omnium quae in coelo & in terra & in aquis, ostendit & causas, idololatriae scilicet substantiam exhibentes. Lib. 2. advers. Marc. 4. c. 22. God forbidding all similitude to be made of things in Heaven and Earth, and in the Waters, shews the causes that restrain idolatry: the causes of idolatry be more fully described in the fore-cited place; Quando enim & sine idolo idololatria fiat: for he supposes the making of the images to be the cause of their worshipping, and he calls this making statues and images Daemoniis corpora facere. But there is yet another [Page] place in his books against Marcion, where Tertullian affirming that S. Peter knew Moses and Elias on Mount Tabor by a spiritual extasie,Lib. 4. c. 22. says it upon this reason, Nec enim imagines eorum aut statuas populus habuisset aut similitudines lege prohibente. The same also is to be seen in his book De spectaculis, c. 23. Jam vero ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem similitudinem vetat fieri, quanto magis imaginis suae. By this time I hope the Gentleman thinks himself in some shame, for denying that Tertullian said the making of Images to be Unlawful.

Now let us see for the other two Authors quoted by the Dissuasive; The objector in the Letter says, they only spake of making the Images of Jupiter and the other heathen Gods:Pag. 27. but E. W. says he cannot find those quotations out of Clemens of Alexandria, because the books quoted are too big, and he could not espy them. The author of the Letter never examined them,Pag. 54, 55. but took them for granted; but E. W. did search a little, but not exactly. However he ought not to have look'd in the sixth book of the Stromata for the words there quoted, but in the protrepticon, as I shall shew by and by. That other quotation in the Stromata is the sixth book, and is only referred to, as to the question in general against images, for so S. Clement calls it spiritual adultery to make idols or images. Now to this E. W. says, although he did not find what he look'd for, yet he knows before-hand, that the word in the Latin translation is simulachrum, that is [...], an Idol. It is indeed well guessed of E. W· for the word is [...],Strom. l. 6. p. 687. edit. Paris. 1629. and if he had seen the place, he now tells us what answer we might have expected. But I am before-hand with him in this particular, and out of Tertullian have prov'd, idolum to be the same with formula, deriv'd from [...], and consequently means the same with an Image. And he hath a good warrant from the greatest Master of the Latin tongue. Imagines quae idola nominant, quorum incursione non solum videamus, Lib. 1. de fin. bon. & malor. sed etiam cogitemus, &c. said Cicero: and the same notion of [...] is in a great Master of the Greek, S. Chrysostom, who speaking of the statues and images with which they adorned their houses calls them Idols. [...].In cap. 3. Epist. ad Philip. bom. 10. But it matters not so much what Greek or Latin word is us'd in any translation, for in the Hebrew in which the spirit of God spake, when he forbad the worship of images, he us'd two words, [...] Pesel and [...] Themunah, and the latter of these signifies always an image or similitude, and that most properly, and is always so translated; and the former of these is translated indifferently by [...], or [...], and [...], image, carved image and idol, for they are all one. And therefore proportionably Justin Martyr reciting this law of God, says, that God forbad every image and similitude, [...] are the words. But suppose that idolum and imago were not the same; yet because the Commandment forbids not only idolum but imago, not only Pesel but Themunah; they do not observe the Commandment, who make to themselves, viz. for worship, either one or the other. But to return to S. Clement, of whom our present inquiry is. And to deal most clearly in this affair, as in all things else, that out of the Stromata of S. Clement, that I rather remark, is not this of the sixth book, but out of the fifth. S. Clement of Alexandria saith;Lib. Strom. 5. Pag. 559. Paris. 1629. Gr. Lat. [...]. Pythagoras commanded that his disciples should not wear rings, or engrave them with the images of their Gods, as Moses many ages before made an express law, that no man should make any graven, cast or painted image; and of this he gives two reasons. 1. [...], that we may not attend to sensible things, but pass on to the things discernible by the understanding. 2. [...]. The custome of seeing so readily causes that the Majesty of God becomes vile and contemptible, and by matter to worship that which is perceiv'd intellectually, is to disesteem him by sensation.] Now the Reader may perceive that S. Clemens speaks against the making of any images,Vide etiam eundem in Protreptico. pag. 41. Nobis enim est apertè vetitum fallacem ariem exercere. Non facies enim (inquit Propheta) cujusvis rei similitudinem. Id. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 687. not only of Jupiter and the Heathen Gods, but of the true God, of whatsoever intelligible being we ought to worship; and that upon such reasons which will greatly condemn the Roman practices. But hence also it is plain, how careless and trifling this objector is, minding no truth but the number of objections. See yet further out of S. Clement. Nobis enim est aperte vetitum fallacem artem exercere. Non facies enim (inquit Propheta) cujusvis rei similitudinem, we are forbidden to exercise that cosening art, (viz. of making pictures or images) for says the prophet (meaning Moses) thou shalt not make the likeness [Page] of any thing. E. W. it seems could not find these words of S. Clement in his Paraenetick: He should have said his Protreptick, Pag. 55. for I know of no Paraenetick that he hath written. But E. W. followed the Printers error in the Margent of the Dissuasive, and very carefully turned over a book that was not, and compared it in bigness with a book that was. But I will not suppose this to be ignorance in him, but only want of diligence: however the words are to be found in the 41. page of this Protreptick, or his admonition to the Gentiles, and now they are quoted, and the very page named; only I desire E. W. to observe, that in this place S. Clement uses not the word [...] but [...], not simulachrum, but cujusvis rei similitudinem.

In the place which was quoted out of Origen in his fourth book against Celsus, Pag. 181. edit G. L. Canta [...]. 1658. speaking of the Jews he hath these words: [...]. All makers of Images were turned from their common-wealth: for not a painter or a statuary was admitted, their laws wholly forbidding them, lest any occasion should be given to dull men, or that their mind should be turned from the worship of God to earthly things by these temptations.] Then he quotes the law of God against making images, and adds, by which law this was intended, that being content with the truth of things they should beware of lying figments.] There it is plain that Origen affirms the law of God to have forbidden the making images, any similitude of things in Heaven, Earth or Waters: which law also he in another place Homil. 8. in Exod. apud Bellarm. imagin. l. 2. c. 7. Sect. sed hac. affirms to be of a moral and eternal obligation, that is, not to be spoken to them only who came out of the terrestrial Egypt; and therefore is of Christian duty. And of the same mind are S. Irenaeus L. 4. c. 31. & 32. Tertullian L. de idololat. cap. 5. S. Cyprian L. 3. ad Quirinum c. 59. & de exhort. martyrii. c. 1. and S. Austin L. 15. contra Faustum c. 4. & 7. affirming the whole decalogue, except the law of the Sabbath to be an unalterable, or natural law. But for the further verification of the testimony from Origen against the worship of images in the Primitive Church, I thought fit to add the concurrent words of the prudent and learned Cassander Consult. de imagin. & simulachris.: Quantum autem veteres initio Ecclesiae ab omni veneratione imaginum abhorruerunt declarat unus Origenes adversus Celsum: but of this I shall have occasion to speak yet once more. And so at last all the quotations are found to be exact, and this Gentleman to be greatly mistaken.

From the premisses I infer; if in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images, certainly it is unimaginable they should worship them, and the argument is the stronger, if we understand their opinion rightly; for neither the second Commandment, nor yet the Ancient Fathers in their Commentaries on them, did absolutely prohibit all making of Images; but all that was made for religious worship, and in order to Adoration, according as it is expressed in him, who among the Jews collected the negative precepts, which Arias Montanus translated in Latin:Lib. 4. degenerat. & regeneratione Adam. the second of which is signum cultus causa ne facito; the third, simulachrum Divinum nullo pacto conflato; the fourth, signa religiosa nulla ex materia facito.

The authorities of these Fathers being rescued from slander, and prov'd very pungent and material; I am concerned in the next place to take notice of some authorities which my adversaries urge from antiquity,E. W. pag. 49. to prove that in the Primitive Church they did worship images. Concerning their general Council, viz. the second Nicene, I have already made account in the preceeding periods; The great S. Basil is with great solemnity brought into the Circus, and made to speak for images as apertly, plainly and confidently, as Bellarmine or the Council of Trent it self. His words are these,Note: [...]. [I admit the holy Apostles, and Prophets and Martyrs, and in my prayer made to God call upon them, that by their intercession God may be propitious unto me. Whereupon I honour and adore the characters of their images; and especially those things being delivered from the holy Apostles, and not prohibited, but are manifested, or seen in all our Churches.] Now I confess these words are home enough, and do their business at the first sight; and if they prove right, S. Basil is on their side, and therefore E. W. with great noise and preface insults, and calls them Unanswerable. The words he says are found in S. Basils 205. Epistle ad Julianum. I presently consulted S. Basils works, such as I had with me in the Countrey, of the Paris Edition by Guillard 1547. and there I found that S. Basil had not 205. Epistles in all; the number of all written by him and to him being but 180. of which, that to Julianus is one, viz. Epistle 166. [Page] and in that there is not one word to any such purpose as is here pretended. I was then put to a melius inquirendum. Appendix ad Tract. de cultu imaginum in prooem. ante Cap. 1. & in Cap. 4. Bellarmine (though both he, and Lindan and Harding cry up this authority as irrefragable) quotes this authority not upon his own credit, but as taking it from the report of a book published 1596, called Synodus Parisiensis, which Bellarmine calls, Vnworthy to see the light. From hence arises this great noise; and the fountain being confessedly corrupt, what wholsome thing can be expected thence? But in all the first and voluminous disputations of Bellarmine upon this Question, he made no use of this authority, he never saw any such thing in S. Basils works, or it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted it. But the words are in no ancient Edition of S. Basil, nor in any Manuscript that is known in the world. 2. John Damascen, and Germanus Bishop of C. P. who wrote for the worship of images, and are the most learned of all the Greeks that were abu'sd in this Question; yet they never urg'd this authority of S. Basil, which would have been more to their purpose than all that they said beside. 3. The first mention of this is in an Epistle of Pope Adrian to the Emperors in the seventh Synod, and that makes the business more suspicious, that when the Greek writers knew nothing of it, a Latin Bishop, a stranger, not very well skill'd in Antiquity, should find this out, which no man ever saw before him, nor since in any Copy of S. Basils works: But in the second Nicene Council such forgeries as these were many and notorious. S. Gregory the Great is there quoted as Author of an Epistle de veneratione imaginum; when it is notorious, it was writ by Gregory III. and there were many Basils, and any one of that name would serve to give countenance to the error of the second Nicene Synod; but in S. Basil the Great there is not one word like it. And therefore they who set forth S. Basils, works at Paris 1618. who either could not, or ought not to have been ignorant of so vile a cheat, were infinitely to blame to publish this as the issue of the right S. Basil, without any mark of difference, or note of inquiry.

There is also another saying of S. Basil, of which the Roman writers make much, and the words are by Damascen imputed to the Great S. Basil; Imaginis honor exemplum transit, which indeed S. Basil speaks only of the statues of the Emperors, and of that civil honour, which by consent and custome of the world did pass to the Emperor, and he accepted it so; but this is no argument for religious images put up to the honour of God, he says not, the honour of any such image passes to God; for God hath declar'd against it, (as will appear in the following periods) and therefore from hence the Church of Rome can have no argument, no fair pretence; and yet upon this very account, and the too much complying with the Heathen rites and manners, and the secular customs of the Empire, the veneration of images came into Churches. But suppose it be admitted to be true; yet although this may do some countenance to Thomas aquinas and Bonaventures way of worshipping the image and the sampler with the same worship; yet this can never be urg'd by all those more moderate Papists, who make the worship to an image of a lower kind: For if it be not the same worship, then they that worship images, worship God and his Saints by the image not as they deserve, but give to them no more than the image it self deserves: let them take which part they please, so that they will but publickly own it. But let this be as it will, and let it be granted true, that the honour done to the image can pass to the sampler, yet this is but an arbitrary thing, and a King may esteem it so if he please, but if the King forbids any image to be made of him, and counts it a dishonour to him, then I hope it is; and that's the case now, for God hath forbidden any such way of passing honour to him by an image of him; and he hath forbidden it in the second Commandment, and this is confessed by Vasquez Tom. 3. Comment. in 3. part. Qu. 25. art. 3. disp. 94. c. 3.: So that upon this account, for all the pretence of the same motion to the image and the sampler, to pass such a worship to God, is no better than the doing as the Heathen did, when they worshipped Mercury by throwing stones at him.

Pag. 50.Another authority brought by E. W. for veneration of images, is from Athanasius, but himself damns it in the Margent, with and without ingenuity; for ingenuously saying, that he does not affirm it to be the Great Athanasius, yet most disingenuously he adds, valeat quantum valere potest, that is, they that will be cosened let them.Martinus Delrio Vindiciae Areopag. c. 14. And indeed these Questions and Answers to Antiochus are notoriously spurious, for in them are quoted S. Epiphanius, and Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Scala Johannis, Maximus, and Nicephorus who were after Athanasius; and the book is rejected by Delrio, by Sixtus Senensis, and Possevine. But with such stuff as this the Roman Doctors are forc'd to build their Babel; and E. W. in page 56. [Page] quotes the same book against me for worshipping the Cross together with another spurious piece de Cruce & passione Domini, which Nannius, a very learned man of their own and professor at Lovaine, rejects, as it is to be seen in his Nuncupatory Epistle.

Yea, but S. Chrysostoms Liturgy is very clear, for it is said, that the Priest turns himself to our Saviours picture, and bows his head before the picture, and says this prayer; These words indeed are very plain, but it is not plain that these are S. Chysostom's, words, for there are none such in S. Chrysostoms Liturgy in the Editions of it by Claudius de Saintes, or Morellus, and Claudius Espencaeus acknowledges with great truth and ingenuity, that this Liturgy begun and compos'd by S. Chrysostom was inlarged by many things put into it, according to the variety of times. And it is evidently so, because divers persons are there commemorated, who liv'd after the death of Chrysostom, as Cyrillus, Euthymius, Sabas, and Johannes Eleemosynarius, whereof the last but one lived 126. years, the last 213. years after S. Chrysostom. Now how likely, nay how certain it is that this very passage was not put in by S. Chrysostom, but is of later interpolation, let all the world judge by that known saying of S. Chrysostom; Comment. in Isai. c. 2. T. [...]. Quid enim est vilius atque humilius homine ante res inanimatas se incurvante & saxa venerante? What in the world is baser and more abject than to see a man worshipping stones, and bowing himself before inanimate things?] These are his great authorities which are now come to nothing; what he hath from them who came after these, I shall leave to him to make his best of them▪ for about the time of Gregory some began to worship images, and some to break them, the latter of which he reproves, and the former he condemns; what it was afterwards all the world knows.

But now having clear'd the Question from the trifling arguments of my adversaries, I shall observe some things fit to be considered in this matter of images. 1. It came at first from a very base and unworthy stock. I have already pointed at this, but now I shall explain it more fully; it came from Simon Magus and his crew; Theodoret says, that the followers of Simon brought in the worship of images, viz. of Simon in the shape of Jupiter, and Helena in the figure of Minerva; but S. Austin says that Simon Magus himself imagines & suam & cujusdam meretricis quam sibi sociam scelerum fecerat discipulis suis praebuisse adorandas. De haeres. ad quod vult Deum paulò ab initio. haeres. 1. E. W. pag. 51. E. W. upon what confidence I know not, says, that Theodoret hath nothing like it, either under the title de Simone or Carpocrate. And he says true, but with a shameful purpose to calumniate me, and deceive his Reader; as if I had quoted a thing that Theodoret said not, and therefore the Reader ought not to believe me. But since in the Dissuasive Theodoret was only quoted lib. 5. haeret. fabul. and no title set down;Cum ejus statuam in Jovis figuram construxissent, Helenae autem in Minervae speciem, eis thura adolebant, & libabant, & tanquam Deos adorabant, Simonianos seipsos nominantes. Theodoret haeret. fab. lib. 1. tit. Simonis haeresis in fin. if he had pleased to look to the next title, Simonis haeresis, where in reason all Simons heresies were to be look'd for, he should have found that which I referred to. But why E. W. denies S. Austin to have reported that for which he is quoted, viz. that Simon Magus brought in some images to be worshipped, I cannot conjecture, neither do I think himself can tell; but the words are plain in the place quoted, according to the intention of the Dissuasive. But that he may yet seem to lay more load upon me, he very learnedly says that Irenaeus, in the place quoted by me, says not a word of Simon Magus being Author of images; and would have his Reader believe that I mistook Simon Magus for Vide Irena. lib. 1. adv. haeres. c. 23. & 24. Vbi suprà haeres. 7. Simon Irenaeus. But the good man I suppose wrote this after supper, and could not then read or consider that the testimony of Irenaeus was brought in to no such purpose; neither did it relate to any Simon at all, but to the Gnosticks or Carpocratians, who also were very early and very deep in this impiety; only they did not worship the pictures of Simon and Selene, but of Jesus and Paul, and Homer, and Pythagoras, as S. Austin testifies of them; But that which he remarks in them is this, that Marcellina, one of their sect, worshipped the pictures of Jesus, &c. adorando, incensumque ponendo, they did adore them, and put incense before them: I wish the Church of Rome would leave to do so, or acknowledge whose disciples they are in this thing. The same also is said by Epiphanius; and that the Carpocratians placed the image of Jesus with the Philosophers of the world, collocatasque adorant, & gentium mysteria perficiunt. But I doubt that both Epiphanius and S. Austin, who took this story from Irenaeus, went farther in the Narrative than Irenaeus; for he says only that they placed the images of Christ, &c. Et has coronant: No more, and yet even for this, for crowning the image of Christ with flowers Iren. reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt, i. e. sicut caeterorum illustrium virorum imaginibus consueverunt facere., though they did not so much as is now adays done at Rome, S. Irenaeus made an outcry and reckoned them in the black Catalogue of hereticks, not [Page] for joyning Christs image with that of Homer and Aristotle, Pythagoras and Plato, but even for crowning Christs image with flowers and coronets, as they also did those of the Philosophers; for though this may be innocent, yet the other was a thing not known in the religion of any, that were called Christians, till Simon and Carpocrates began to teach the world.

2. We find the wisest and the most sober of the Heathens speaking against the use of images in their religious rites. So Varro, when he had said that the old Romans had for 170. years worshipped the Gods without picture or image, adds, quod si adhuc mansissent, castius Dii observarentur, and gives this reason for it, qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt, & civitatibus suis & metum dempsisse, & errorem addidisse. The making images of the Gods took away fear from men and brought in error:Prudenter existimavit Deos facile posse in simulachrorum stoliditate contemni. which place S. Austin quoting, commends and explicates it, saying, he wisely thought that the Gods might easily be despised in the blockishness of images. The same also was observed by Plutarch, and he gives this reason, nefas putantes augustiora exprimere humilioribus, neque aliter aspirari ad Deum quam mente posse. They accounted it impiety to express the Great Beings with low matter,Plut. in Numâ. and they believed there was no aspiring up to God but by the mind.] This is a Philosophy which the Church of Rome need not be ashamed to learn.

3. It was so known a thing, that Christians did abominate the use of images in religion,Aelius Lamprid. in Alexandro Severo. edit. Salmat. p. 120. and in their Churches; that Adrian the Emperor was supposed to build Temples to Christ, and to account him as God, because he commanded that Churches without images should be made in all Cities, as is related by Lampridius.

4. In all the disputations of the Jews against the Christians of the Primitive Church, although they were impatient of having any image, and had detested all use of them, especially ever since their return from Babylon, and still retained the hatred of them, even after the dissolution of their Temple, even unto superstition (says Bellarmine;) yet they never objected against Christians their having images in their Churches,De imag. c. 7. Sect. Ad primum. much less their worshipping them. And let it be considered, that in all that long disputation between Justin Martyr and Tryphon the Jew, in which the subtle Jew moves every stone, lays all the load he can at the Christians door, makes all objections, raises all the envy, gives all the matter of reproach he can against the Christians, yet he opens not his mouth against them concerning images. The like is to be observed in Tertullians book against the Jews; no mention of images, for there was no such thing amongst the Christians, they hated them as the Jews did; but it is not imaginable they would have omitted so great a cause of quarrel. On the other side, when in length of time images were brought into Churches, the Jews forbore not to upbraid the Christians with it. There was a dialogue written a little before the time of the seventh Synod, in which a Jew is brought in saying to the Christians, [I have believed all ye say, and I do believe in the crucified Jesus Christ, that he is the son of the living God; Scandalizor autem in vos Christiani quia imagines adoratis, Synod. 7. Act. 5. I am offended at you Christians that ye worship images; for the Scripture forbids us every where to make any similitude or graven image. And it is very observable that in the first and best part of the Talmud of Babylon, called the Misna, published about the end of the second Century, the Christians are not blamed about images; which shews they gave no occasion: but in the third part of the Talmud about the 10. and 11. age after Christ, the Christians are sufficiently upbraided and reproached in this matter. In the Gemara, which was finished about the end of the fifth Century, I find that learned men say the Jews call'd the Christian Church the house of Idolatry; which though it may be expounded in relation to images, which about that time began in some Churches to be placed and honoured; yet I rather incline to believe, that they meant it of our worshipping Jesus for the true God and the true Messias; for at this day they call all Christians Idolaters, even those that have none, and can endure no images in their Religion or their Churches. But now since these periods, it is plain that the case is altered, and when the learned Christians of the Roman communion write against the Jews, they are forced to make apologies for the scandal they give to the Jews in their worshipping of images, as is to be seen (besides Leontius Neopolitanus of Cyprus his apology which he published for the Christians against the Jews;) in Ludovicus Carretus his Epistle, in Sepher Amana, and Fabianus Fioghus his Catechetical Dialogues. But I suppose this case is very plain, and is a great conviction of the innovation in this matter made by the Church of Rome.

[Page]5. The matter of worshipping images looks so ill, so like Idolatry, so like the forbidden practices of the Heathens, that it was infinitely reasonable, that if it were the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, the Primitive Priests and Bishops should at least have considered, and stated the question how far, and in what sence it was lawful, and with what intention, and in what degrees, and with what caution, and distinctions this might lawfully be done; particularly when they preach'd, and wrote Commentaries and explications upon the Decalogue; especially since there was at least so great a semblance of opposition and contradiction between the commandment and any such practice; God forbidding any image and similitude to be made of himself, or any thing else in Heaven, or in Earth, or in the Sea, and that with such threatnings and interminations of his severe judgments against them that did make them for worship, and this thing being so constantly objected by all those many that opposed their admission and veneration; it is certainly very strange that none of the Fathers should take notice of any difficulty in this affair. They objected the Commandment against the Heathens for doing it; and yet that they should make no account, nor take notice how their worshipping Saints and God himself by images, should differ from the Heathen superstition that was the same thing to look upon: This indeed is very Unlikely. But so it is; Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus speak plainly enough of this matter, and speak plain down-right words against making and worshipping images, and so careless they were of any future chance, or the present concern of the Roman Church, that they do not except the image of the true God, nor the image of Saints and Angels no not of Christ, or the Blessed Virgin Mary her self. Nay Origen expounds the Commandments, and S. Austin makes a professed commentary upon them,Homil. 8. in Exod. but touch'd none of these things with the top of his finger, only told that they were all forbidden: we are not so careless now adays in the Church of Rome; but carefully expound the Commandments against the unsufferable objections of the Hereticks of late, and the Prophets and the Fathers of old. But yet for all this, a suspicious man would conclude that in the first 400. years, there was no need of any such explications, inasmuch as they had nothing to do with images, which only could make any such need.

6. But then in the next place I consider, that the second Commandment is so plain, so easie, so peremptory against all the making and worshipping any image or likeness of any thing, that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbidden, it is so expressed, that upon supposition that God did intend to forbid it wholly, it could not more plainly have been expressed. For the prohibition is absolute and universal, and therefore of all particulars; and there is no word or sign by the vertue of which it can with any probability be pretended that any one of any kind is excepted. Now then to this, when the Church of Rome pretends to answer they over-do it, and make the matter the more suspicious. Some of them answer by saying, that this is no moral Commandment, not obligatory to Christians, but to the Jews only: Others say, that by this Commandment it is only forbidden to account an image to be very God; so Cajetan: Others say that an idol only is forbidden, and that an image is no idol. Others yet distinguish the manner of worshipping, saying that the image is worshipp'd for the Samplers sake, not for its own. And this worship is by some called [...] or service; by others [...]; saying that the first is to images of Saints, the other to God only. And yet with this difference; Some saying that the image of God is ador'd with the same kind of adoration that God is; only it is to the image for Gods sake; so S. Thomas of Aquine, and generally his scholars. Others say that it is a religious kind of Worship due to Images, but not at all Divine; some say it is but a civil worship. And then it is for the image sake, and so far is intransitive, but whatever is paid more to the image is transitive, and passes further. And whatsoever it be, it cannot be agreed how it ought to be paid: whether properly or improperly, Vnivocally or aequivocally, for themselves or for something else, whether analogically or simply, whether absolutely or by reduction. And it is remarkable what Bellarmine answers to the Question, with what kind of worship images may be ador'd? He answers with this proposition; [The worship which by it self and properly is due to images, is a certain imperfect worship, Lib. 2. de imagin. S.S. Cap. 25. which analogically and reductively pertains to a kind of that worship, which is due to the Exemplar:] and a little after, to the images a certain inferiour worship is due, and that not all one, but various according to the variety of images. To the images of Saints is due dulia secundum quid, which if you [Page] do not understand, Bellarmine in the next words explains most clearly; dulia secundum quid, is as a man may say, reductive and analogical. But after all this we may be mistaken, and we cannot tell whom to follow nor what to do in the case. Thomas and his Scholars warrant you to give the same worship to Gods image as to God: And is the easiest way indeed to be understood, and indeed may quickly be understood to be direct idolatry. Bellarmine and others tell you, stay, not so altogether; but there is a way to agree with S. Thomas, that it shall be the same worship, and not the same worship; for it is the same by reduction, that is, it is of the same kind, and therefore Divine, but it is imperfectly divine, as if there could be degrees in Divine worship; that is, as if any worship could be divine, and yet not the greatest. But if this seems difficult, Bellarmine illustrates it by similitudes. This worship of images is the same with the worship of the Example, viz. of God, or of Christ, as it happens, just as a painted man is the same with a living man, and a painted horse with a living horse, for a painted man and a painted horse differ specifically; as the true man and the true horse do; and yet the painted man is no man, and the painted horse is no horse.] The effect of which discourse is this, that the worship of images, is but the image of worship; hypocrisie and dissimulation all the way; nothing real, but imaginative and phantastical; and indeed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine, with their Saints, Thomas and Bonaventure, yet it is the best way to avoid idolatry, because they give no real worship to images: But then on the other side, how do they mock God and Christ, by offering to them that which is nothing; by pretending to honour them by honouring their images; when the honour they do give to images, is it self but imaginary, and no more of reality in it, than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man. However, if you will not commit down-right idolatry, as some of their Saints teach you, then you must be careful to observe these plain distinctions, and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image, you do it not materially but formally; not as it is of such a substance, but as it is a sign; next take care that you observe what sort of image it is, and then proportion your right kind to it, that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due; and be careful that if dulia only be due that your worship be not hyperdulical. In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases, and according but to a few Doctors; and therefore when you have got all these cases together, be sure that in all other cases it be transitive. But then when the worship is pass'd on to the Exemplar, you must consider, that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example, yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship, though the kind be perfect; and that it is but analogical, and it is reductive, and it is not absolute, not simple, not by it self; not by an act to the image distinct from that which is to the Example, but one and the same individual act, with one intention, as to the supreme kind, though with some little variety, if the kinds be differing. Now by these easie, ready, clear, and necessary distinctions, and rules, and cases, the people being fully and perfectly instructed, there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment, because the Commandment does not forbid any worship that is transitive, reduct, accidental, consequential, analogical and hyperdulical, and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest doctors teach now a days. But now after all this, the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images, and no manner of way, and trouble the peoples heads with no distinction; for by these no man can ever be at peace, or Understand the Commandment, which without these laborious devices (by which they confess the guilt of the Commandment, does lie a little too heavy upon them) would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood. And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety, or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curious, that the second Commandment be not expos'd to the eyes and ears of the people; leaving it out of their manuals, breviaries and Catechisms, as if when they teach the people to serve God, they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments. And when at any time they do set it down, they only say thus, Non facies tibi Idolum, which is a word not us'd in the second Commandment at all; and if the word which is there us'd be sometimes translated Idolum, yet it means no more than similitude; or if the words be of distinct signification, yet because both are expresly forbidden in that Commandment, it is very ill to represent the Commandment so, as if it were observ'd according to the intention of that word, yet the [Page] Commandment might be broken, by the not observing it according to the intention of the other word, which they conceal. But of this more by and by.

7. I consider that there is very great scandal and offence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity; the very Turks and Jews, with whom the worship of Images is of very ill report, and that upon (at least) the most probable grounds in the world. Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report, and to walk circumspectly and charitably towards them that are without, and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile: Now if we consider, that if the Christian Church were wholly without Images, there would nothing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church, or to any grace which is in order to Heaven; and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby-ceremonies as the Synagogue did; and yet on the other side, that the Jews and Turks are the more, much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus, by the Image-worship done by his pretended servants;1 Cor. 8.13. the consequent will be, that to retain the worship of Images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians, and puts limits, and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale.

8. It is also very scandalous to Christians, that is, it makes many, and endangers more to fall into the direct sin of idolatry. *De invent. rerum l. 6. c. 13. Eo insaniae deventum est, ut haec pietatis pars par [...]um disserat ab imputate. Sunt enim benè multi rudiores stupidioresque qui sax as vel ligneas, seu in parieti [...]us pictas imag [...]nes colant, ron ut siguras, sed perindè ac si ipsae s [...]nsum aliquem habeant, & eis magis f [...]dant quam Christo, Po [...]yd. Virg. lib. 6. c. 13. de invent. rerum. Li [...]us Giraldus in Syntag. de Dus Gentium loquens de exc [...]ssu Romanae Ecclesia in negotio imaginum, praefatur, [Satius esse ea Harpocrati & Angeronae consignare. Illud certe non praetermittam, nos dico Christianes, ut aliquando Romanos fuisse sine imaginibus in primitivâ quae vocatur Ecclesia.] Erasmus in Catech [...]s [...] ait, usque ad aetatem Hieronymi erant probatae rel [...]gionis viti, qui in Templis nullam fereban [...] imagin [...]m, nec pictam, nec sculptam, nec textam, acne Christi quid [...]m.] Et ibid. Vt imagines sint in Templis nulla praecepit vel humana constitutio, & ut facilius est, ita tutius quoque omnes imagines [...] Templis submovere.] Videatur etiam Cassandri consultatio; sub hoc titulo & Masius in Josuah, cap. 8. Sic autem queritur Ludovicus Vives Comment. in lib. 8. c. ult. de civit. Dei. Divos Divasque non alitèr venerantur, quàm Deum ipsum. Non video in multis quid discrimen sit inter corum opinionem de sanctis, & id quod Gentiles putabant de Diis suis. Diodorus Siculus dixit de Mose, imaginem statuit nullam, ideo quod non crederet Deum homini similem esse, & Dion. lib. 36. Nullam effigiem in Hierosolymis habuere, quod Deum crederent ut ineffabilem, ita inaspicuum [ [...].] Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome, that almost all the holy Fathers damned the worship of Images, for this very reason, for fear of idolatry; and Cassander says, that all the ancients did abhor all adoration of Images; and he cites ‖Consul. de imagin. ex Origene contr. Celsum. lib. 7. versus finem. Origen as an instance great enough to verifie the whole affirmative. Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra, quia quantum possumus cavemus, ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem, ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid. This authority E.W. pag. 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question, saying, that Origen hath nothing against the use of Images, and declares our Christian doctrine thus, then he recites the words above quoted; than which, Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church; and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument: The Scripture doth not say that God made the world, it only declares the Christian doctrine thus, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, &c. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people. And of this danger S. Austin *Epist. 49. q. 3. gives a rational account; [No man doubts but idols want all sense: But when they are plac'd in their seats, in an honourable sublimity, that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice, by the very likeness of living members and senses, although they be senseless and without life, they affect weak minds, that they seem to live and feel, especially when the veneration of a multitude is added to it, by which so great a worship is bestowed upon them.] Here is the danger, and how much is contributed to it in the Church of Rome, by clothing their Images in rich apparel, and by pretending to make them nod their head, to twinkle the eyes, and even to speak, the world is too much satisfied. Some such things as these, and the superstitious talkings and actings of their Priests made great impressions upon my Neighbours in Ireland; and they had such a deep and religious veneration for the Image of our Lady of Kilbrony, that a worthy Gentleman, who is now with God, and knew the deep superstition of the poor Irish, did not distrain upon his Tenants for his rents, but carried away the Image of the female Saint of Kilbrony; and instantly the Priest took care that the Tenants should redeem the Lady, by a punctual and speedy paying of their rents; for they thought themselves Unblessed as long as the Image was away; and therefore they speedily fetch'd away their Ark from the house of Obededom, and were afraid that their Saint could not help them, when her Image was away. Now if S. Paul would have Christians to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, to avoid the giving offence to weak brethren, much more ought the Church to avoid tempting all the weak people of her Communion to idolatry, by countenancing, and justifying, and imposing such acts, which all their heads can never learn to distinguish from Idolatry.

[Page] C. 14. C. 41. apud Bellarmin. lib. 2. de imag. S.S. c. 22. Sect. Secunda propositio.I end this with a memorial out of the Councils of Sens and Mentz, who command moneri populum ne imagines adorent: The Preachers were commanded to admonish the people that they should not adore Images. And for the Novelty of the practice here in the British Churches, it is evident in Ecclesiastical story, that it was introduc'd by a Synod of London, about the year 714. under Bonifacius the Legat, and Bertualdus Achbishop of Dover; and that without disputation or inquiry into the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it, but wholly upon the account of a vision pretended to be seen by Eguinus Bishop of Worcester; the Virgin Mary appearing to him, and commanding that her Image should be set in Churches and worshipped. That Austin the Monk brought with him the banner of the Cross, and the Image of Christ, Beda tells; and from him Baronius, and Binius affirms, that before this vision of Egwin the Cross and Image of Christ were in use; but that they were at all worshipped or ador'd Beda saith not; and there is no record, no monument of it before this Hypochondrical dream of Egwin: and it further appears to be so, because Albinus or Alcuinus an English-man, Master of Charles the Great,A.D. cir [...]iter 792. when the King had sent to Offa the book of G. P. for the worship of Images, wrote an Epistle against it, Ex authoritate Divina scripturarum mirabiliter affirmatum; and brought it to the King of France in the name of our Bishops and Kings,Annal. part. 1. saith Hovedon.

SECT. VII. Of Picturing God the Father, and the Holy Trinity.

AGAINST all the authorities almost which are or might be brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Picturing God the Father, or the Holy Trinity, the Roman Doctors generally give this one answer; That the Fathers intended by their sayings, to condemn the picturing of the Divine Essence; but condemn not the picturing of those symbolical shapes or forms in which God the Father, or the Holy Ghost, or the Blessed Trinity are supposed to have appeared. To this I reply, 1. That no man ever intended to paint the essence of any thing in the world. A man cannot well understand an Essence, and hath no Idea of it in his mind, much less can a Painters Pencil do it. And therefore it is a vain and impertinent discourse to prove that they do ill who attempt to paint the Divine Essence.Vide Plutarch. de [...]side & Osir. This is a subterfuge which none but men out of hope to defend their opinion otherwise, can make use of. 2. To picture God the Father in such symbolical forms in which he appear'd, is to picture him in no form at all; for generally both the Schools of the Jews and Christians consent in this, that God the Father never appear'd in his person; for as S. Paul affirms, he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see; He always appeared by Angels, or by fire, or by storm and tempest, by a cloud or by a still voice; he spake by his Prophets, and at last by his Son; but still the adorable majesty was reserved in the secrets of his glory. 3. The Church of Rome paints the Holy Trinity in forms and symbolical shapes in which she never pretends the Blessed Trinity did appear, as in a face with three Noses and four Eyes, one body with three heads, and as an old man with a great beard, and a Popes Crown upon his head, and holding the two ends of the transverse rafter of the Cross with Christ leaning on his breast, and the Holy Spirit hovering over his head: And therefore they worship the Images of God the Father, and the Holy Trinity, figures which (as is said of Remphan and the Heathen Gods and Goddesses) themselves have made; which therefore must needs be Idols by their own definition of Idolum; simulachrum rei non existentis; for never was there seen any such of the Holy Trinity in Unity, as they most impiously represent. And if when any thing is spoken of God in Scripture allegorically, they may of it make an Image to God, they would make many more Monsters than yet they have found out: For as Durandus In 3. sent. dist. 9. q. 2. n. 15. well observes, ‘If any one shall say, that because the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove, and the Father in the old Testament under the Corporal forms, that therefore they may be represented by Images, we must say to this, that those corporal forms were not assumed by the Father and the Holy Spirit; and therefore a representation of them by Images is not a representation of the Divine person, but a representation of that form or shape alone. Therefore there is [Page] no reverence due to it, as there is none due to those forms by themselves. Neither were these forms to represent the Divine persons, but to represent those effect [...] which those Divine persons did effect.]’ And therefore there is one thing more to be said to them [...]hat do so;Rom. 1.23. They have chang'd the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a mortal man. Now how will the Reader imagine that the Disswasive is confuted, and his testimonies from Antiquity answered? Why,Pag. 60. most clearly E. W. saith, that one principle of S. John Damascen doth it, it solves all that the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter. Well! what is this principle? The words are these; (and S. Austin points at the same) Quisnam est qui invisibilis & corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis & figurae expertis Dei simulachrum effingere queat? De fide & symbolo c. 7. Damasc. lib. 4. O [...] thod. fidei, cap. 17. Extremae itaque dementiae atque impietatis fuerit Divinum numen fingere & figurare.] This is the principle to confute the Doctor:] why, but the Doctor thinks that in the world there cannot be clearer word [...] for the reproof of picturing God and the Holy Trinity. For to do so is madness and extreme impiety, so says Damascen: But stay says E. W. these words of Damascen are [as who should say, He that goes about to express by any Image the perfect similitude of Gods intrinsecal perfections or his Nature, E.W p. 60. (which is immense without body or figure) would be both impious, and act the part of a Mad-man.] But how shall any man know that these words of Damascen are as much as to say this meaning of E. W. and where is this principle (as he calls it) of Damascen, by which the Doctor is so every where silenc'd? Certainly E. W. is a merry Gentleman, and thinks all mankind are fools. This is the ridiculous Commentary of E. W. but Damascen was too learned and grave a person to talk such wild stuff. And Cardinal Cajetan gives a better account of the doctrine of Damascen. Note: Authoritas Damasceni in literâ damuat i [...]as (imagines Dei) insipientiae & impietatis. Et eadem [...]st ratio nunc de Deitate quae erat in veteri lege quoad rem figurabilem vel non secundunt se. Constat autem in veteri lege imagines Dei esse prohibitas. ‘[The Authority of Damascen in the (very) letter of it condemns those Images, (viz. of God) of folly and impiety. And there is the same reason now concerning the Deity which was in the old law. And it is certain, that in the old law the Images of God were forbidden.Videat (si placet) lector Lucum Fudensem adv. Albig. error. l. 2. c. 9. Tom. 4. Bibl. p. p [...] part. 2. Apud Nicen. Synod. 11. Act. 5]’ To the like purpose is that of the famous Germanus, who though too favourable to pictures in Churches for veneration, yet he is a great enemy to all pictures of God. Neque [...]nim invisibilis Deitatis imaginem, & similitudinem, vel schema, vel figuram aliquam formamus, &c. as who please may see in his Epistle to Thomas Bishop of Claudiopolis; But let us consider when God forbad the children of Israel to make any likeness of him, did he only forbid them to express by any Image the perfect similitude of his intrinsecal perfections? Had the children of Israel leave to picture God in the form of a man walking in Paradise? Or to paint the Holy Trinity like three men talking to Abraham? Was it lawful for them to make an Image or picture, or (to use E. W. his expression) to exhibit to their eyes those visible or circumscribed lineaments, which any man had seen? And when they had exhibited these forms to the eyes, might they then have fallen down and worshipped those forms, which themselves exhibited to their own and others eyes? I omit to enquire how they can prove that God appear'd in Paradise in the form of a man, which they can never do, unless they will use the Friers argument; Faciamus hominem ad similitudinem nostram, &c. and so make fair way for the Heresie of the Anthropomorphites.

But I pass on a little further; Did the Israelites, when they made a molten calf, and said, These are thy Gods O Israel, did they imagine that by that Image they represented the true form, essence or nature of God? Or did the Heathens ever pretend to make any Image of the intrinsecal perfections of any of their Majores or Minores Dii, or any of their Daemons and dead Heroes? And because they neither did nor could do that, may it therefore be concluded, that they made no Images of their Gods? Certain it is, the Heathens have as much reason to say they did not picture their Gods, meaning their nature and essence, but by symbolical forms and shapes represented those good things which they suppos'd them to have done. Thus the Egyptians pictur'd Joseph with a Bushel upon his head, and called him their God Serapis; but they made no Image of his essence, but symbolically represented the benefit he did the Nation by preserving them in the seven years famine. Thus Ceres is painted with a Hook and a Sheaf of corn, Pomona with a Basket of Apples, Hercules with a Club, and Jupiter himself with a handful of symbolical Thunderbolts; This is that which the Popish Doctors call picturing God, not in his Essence, but in history, or in symbolical shapes: For of these three ways of picturing God, Bellarmine says, the two last are lawful. And therefore the Heathens not doing the first, but the second, and the third only, are just so to be excused as the Church of Rome is. But then neither these nor those [Page] must pretend that they do not picture God: For whatever the intention be,Note: Observandum est tribus modis posse aliquid pingi. Vno modo ad exprimendam perfectam similitudinem formulae, & naturae rei ipsius. Altero modo ad historiam aliquam otulis exhibendam. Tertio potest aliquid pingi extra historiam ad explicandam naturam rei, non per immediatam & propriam similitudinem, sed analogiam, sive metaphoricas, mysticasque significationes. Bellarm. de imag. lib. 2. c. 8. Sect. pro solutione. Hoc modo pingimus Deum, ibid. Sect. Hoc modo. still an Image of God is made, or else why do they worship God by that, which if it be no image of God, must by their own doctrine be an Idol? And therefore Bellarmines distinction is very foolish, and is only crafty to deceive; for besides the impertinency of it in answering the charge, only by declaring his intention, as being charged with picturing God; he tells he did it indeed, but he meant not to paint his nature, but his story or his symbolical significations, which I say is impertinent, it not being inquir'd with what purpose it is done, but whether or no; and an evil thing may be done with a good intention: Besides this I say, that Bellarmines distinction comes just to this issue: God may be painted or represented by an image, not to express a perfect similitude of his form or nature, but to express it imperfectly, or rather not to express it, but ad explicandam naturam, to explain it, not to describe him truly, but historically; though that be a strange history, that does not express truly and as it is: But here it is plainly acknowledged, that besides the history, the very Nature of God may be explicated by pictures or images, provided they be only metaphorical and mystical, as if the only reason of the lawfulness of painting God is, because it is done imperfectly and unlike him; or as if the metaphor made the Image lawful; just as if to do Alexander honour, you should picture him like a Bear, tearing and trampling every thing, or to exalt Caesar, you should hang upon a table the pictures of a Fox and a Cock and a Lion, and write under it, This is Cajus Julius Caesar. But I am ashamed of these prodigious follies. But at last, why should it be esteemed madness and impiety to picture the nature of God, which is invisible, and not also be as great a madness to picture any shape of him, which no man ever saw? But he that is invested with a thick cloud, and encircled with an inaccessible glory, and never drew aside the Curtains to be seen under any representment, will not suffer himself to be expos'd to vulgar eyes, by phantastical shapes, and ridiculous forms.

But it may be, the Church of Rome does not use any such impious practice, much less own so mad a doctrine; for one of my adversaries says, that the picturing the forms or appearances of God is all that some (in their Church) allow, that is, some do, and some do not: So that it may be only a private opinion of some Doctors, and then I am to blame to charge Popery with it.Lib. 2. de reliq. & imagin. S.S. cap. 8. Sect. Ego dico tria. To this I answer, that Bellarmine indeed says, Non esse tam certum in Ecclesia an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive Trinitatis, quam Christi & Sanctorum; It is not so certain, viz. as to be an article of faith. But yet besides that Bellarmine allows it, and cites Cajetan, Catharinus, Payva, Sanders and Thomas Waldensis for it; this is a practice and doctrine brought in by an unproved custom of the Church; Constat quod haec consuetudo depingendi Angelos & Deum modo sub specie Columbae, modo sub Figura Trinitatis, sit ubique inter Catholicos recepta: The picturing Angels, and God sometimes under the shape of a Dove, and sometimes under the figure of the Trinity,Pujol. de adorat. disp. 3. Sect. 4. is every where received among the Catholicks, said a great Man amongst them. And to what purpose they do this, we are told by Cajetan, speaking of Images of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost saying, Haec non solum pinguntur ut ostendantur sicut Cherubim olim in Templo, In 3. part. Tom. q. 25. a. 3. sed ut adorentur. They are painted, that they may be worshipped, ut frequens usus Ecclesiae testatur: This is witnessed by the frequent use of the Church. So that this is received every where among the Catholicks, and these Images are worshipped, and of this there is an Ecclesiastical custom; and I add▪ In their Mass-book lately printed, these pictures are not infrequently seen. So that now it is necessary to shew that this, besides the impiety of it, is against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, and is an innovation in religion, a propriety of the Roman doctrine, and of infinite danger and unsufferable impiety.

Pag. 28.To some of these purposes the Disswasive alledged Tertullian, Eusebius and S. Hierom; but A. L. says, these Fathers have nothing to this purpose. This is now to be tried. These men were only nam'd in the Disswasive. Their words are these which follow.

De [...]ronâ mili [...].1. For Tertullian ▪ A man would think it could not be necessary to prove that Tertullian thought it unlawful to picture God the Father, when he thought the whole art of painting and making Images to be unlawful, as I have already proved. But however let us see. He is very curious that nothing should be us'd by Christians or in the service of God, which is us'd on, or by, or towards Idols; and because they did paint and picture their Idols, cast, or carve them, therefore nothing of that kind [Page] ought to be in rebus Dei, as Tertullian's phrase is. But the summ of his discourse is this,Note: De Cor. Milit. Johannes Filio [...]i inquit, Custodite vos ab idolis, non jam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsâ [...]ffigie eorum: Indignum enim est ut imago Divini, imago idoli & mortui fiat: Si enim verbo nudo condit [...]o polluitur ut Apostolus docet, si quis dixerit idolothytum est, nor contigeris, multo magis [...]um habitu, & [...]itu, & apparatu, &c. Quid enim tam dignum Deo quàm quod indignum idolo? ‘[The Heathens use to picture their false Gods that indeed befits them, but therefore is unfit for God; and therefore we are to flee, not only from Idolatry, but from Idols: in which affair a word does change the case, and that, which before it was said to appertain to Idols, was lawful, by that very word was made Unlawful, and therefore much more by a shape or figure; and therefore flee from the shape of them; for it is an Unworthy thing, that the Image of the living God, should be made the Image of an Idol or a dead thing. For the Idols of the Heathens are silver and gold, and have eyes without sight, and noses without smell, and hands without feeling.]’ So far Tertullian argues. And what can more plainly give his sence and meaning in this Article? If the very Image of an Idol be Unlawful, much more is it unlawful to make an Image or Idol of the living God, or represent him by the Image of a dead man.

But this argument is further and more plainly set down by Athanasius, whose book against the Gentiles is spent in reproving the Images of God real or imaginary; insomuch that he affirms that the Gentiles dishonour even their false Gods, by making Images of them, and that they might better have pass'd for Gods, if they had not represented them by visible Images. And therefore, That the religion of making Images of their Gods, is not piety, Note: Nam siut dicitis literarum i [...]star Dei pr [...]sentiam signant, atque ad [...]ò a [...]si Deum significantia Divi [...]s d [...]gn [...] censentur honoribus, certè qui ea scul [...]sit, eisque [...]ffigie [...] dedit, multo magis hos prom [...]rebatur hono [...]es. Et paulò post. Quo circa hujusmodi religio, Deorumque fictio non pietatis esse, sed iniquitatis invectio — Veritatis via ad eum qui verus Deus est di [...]get. Ad eum verò cognoscen [...]um & exactissim [...] intelligendum nullius extra nos positae rei opem necessariam habemus — Quod si quis interrogat qu [...] nam ista sit? Vniuscujusque animam esse dixerim, atque insitam illam intelligentiam, per ipsam enim selam Deus inspici, & intelligi potest. Orat. contr. Gentiles. but impious. For to know God we need no outward thing; the way of truth will direct us to him. And if any man ask which is that way, viz. to know God, I shall say, it is the soul of a man, and that understanding which is planted in us; for by that alone God can be seen and Vnderstood.] The same Father does discourse many excellent things to this purpose, as that a man is the only Image of God; Jesus Christ is the perfect Image of his Glory, and he only represents his essence; and man is made in the likeness of God, and therefore he also in a less perfect manner represents God: Besides these, if any many desires to see God, let him look in the book of the creature, and all the world is the Image and lively representment of Gods power, and his wisdom, his goodness and his bounty. But to represent God in a carved stone, or a painted Table, does depauperate our understanding of God, and dishonours him below the Painters art; for it represents him lovely only by that art, and therefore less than him that painted it. But that which Athanasius adds is very material, and gives great reason of the Command, why God should severely forbid any Image of himself: Calamitati enim & tyrannidi servien [...]es homines Vnicum illud est nulli Communicabile Dei nomen lignis lapidibusque impos [...]runt: Some in sorrow for their dead children, made their Images and fancied that presence; some desiring to please their tyrannous Princes, put up their statues, and at distance by a phantastical presence flattered them with honours. And in process of time, these were made Gods; and the incommunicable name was given to wood and stones.] Not that the Heathens thought that Image to be very God, but that they were imaginarily present in them, and so had their Name. Hujusmodi igitur initiis idolorum inventio Scriptura [...]este apud homines coepit, Thus idolatry began saith the Scripture, and thus it was promoted; and the event was, they made pitiful conceptions of God, they confined his presence to a statue, they worshipped him with the lowest way [...]maginable, they descended from all spirituality and the noble ways of Understanding, and made wood and stone to be as it were a body to the Father of Spirits, they gave the incommunicable name not only to dead men, and Angels, and Daemons, but to the Images of them; and though it is great folly to picture Angelical Spirits, and dead Heroes, whom they never saw, yet by these steps when they had come to picture God himself, this was the height of the Gentile impiety, and is but too plain a representation of the impiety practised by too many in the Roman Church.

But as we proceed further, the case will be yet clearer. Concerning the testimony of Eusebius, I wonder that any writer of Roman controversies should be ignorant, and being so, should confidently say, Eusebius had nothing to this purpose, viz. to condemn the picturing of God, when his words are so famous, that they are recorded in the seventh Synod;Synod. 7. Act. 6. and the words were occasioned by a solemn message sent to [Page] Eusebius by the sister of Constantius and wife of Licinius, lately turned from being Pagan to be Christian, desiring Eusebius to send her the picture of our Lord Jesus; to which he answers: Quia vero de quadam imagine, quasi Christi, scripsisti, hanc volens tibi à nobis mitti, quam dicis, & qualem, hanc quam perhibes Christi imaginem? Vtr [...] veram & incommutabilem, & natura characteres suos portantem? An istam quam propter nos suscepit servi formae schemate circumamictus? Sed de forma quidem Dei nec ipse arbitror te quaerere semel ab ipso edoctam, quoniam neque patrem quis novit nisi filius, neque ipsum filium novit quis aliquando digne, nisi solus pater qui eum genuit. And a little after, Quis ergo hujusmodi dignitatis & gloriae vibrantes, & praefulgentes splendores exarare potuisset mortuis & inanimatis Coloribus & scripturis Vmbraticis? And then speaking of the glory of Christ in Mount Thabor, he proceeds; Ergo si tunc incarnata ejus forma tantam virtutem sortita est ab inhabitante in se Divinitate mutata, quid oportet dicere cum mortalitate exutus, & corruptione ablutus, speciem servilis formae in gloriam Domini & Dei commutavit? Where besides that Eusebius thinks it unlawful to make a picture of Christ, and therefore consequently, much more to make a picture of God; he also tells Constantia, he supposes she did not offer at any desire of that.] Well, for these three of the Fathers we are well enough, but for the rest, the objector says, that they speak only against representing God as in his own essence, shape or form. To this I answer, that God hath no shape or form, and therefore these Fathers could not speak against making Images of a thing that was not; and as for the Images of his essence, no Christian, no Heathen ever pretended to it; and no man or beast can be pictured so: no Painter can paint an Essence. And therefore although this distinction was lately made in the Roman Schools, yet the Fathers knew nothing of it, and the Roman Doctors can make nothing of it, for the reasons now told. But the Gentleman saith, that some of their Church allow only and practise the picturing those forms, wherein God hath appeared. It is very well they do no more; but I pray in what forms did God the Father ever appear, or the Holy and Mysterious Trinity? Or suppose they had, does it follow they may be painted? We saw but now out of Eusebius, that it was not esteemed lawful to picture Christ, though he did appear in a humane body: And although it is supposed that the Holy Ghost did appear in the shape of a Dove,Concil. C.P. Can. 82. yet it is forbidden by the sixth General Council to paint Christ like a Lamb, or the Holy Spirit like a Dove. Add to this, where did ever the Holy and Blessed Trinity appear like three faces joyned in one, or like an old man with Christ crucified, leaning on his breast, and a Dove hovering over them; and yet however the objector is pleas'd to mince the matter, yet the doing this is ubique inter Catholicos recepta; and that not only to be seen, but to be ador'd, as I prov'd a little above by testimonies of their own.

The next charge is concerning S. Hierom, that he says no such thing; which matter will soon be at an end, if we see the Commentary he makes on these words of Isaiah; Note: In Cap. 40. Isai. Aut quam imaginem ponetis ei, qui spiritus est, & in omnibus est, & ubique discurrit, & terram quasi pugillo continet? Simulque irridet stultitiam nationu [...], quod art [...] fex sive Faber aerarius, aut aurifex aut argentarius Deum sibi faciant. Cui ergo similem fecisti Deum?] To whom do you liken God?] Or what Image will ye make for him, who is a Spirit, and is in all things, and runs every where, and holds the earth in his fist? And he laughs at the folly of the Nations, that an Artist, or a Brasier, or a Goldsmith, or a Silversmith makes a God,] viz. by making the Image of God. But the objector adds, that it would be long to set down the words of the other Fathers quoted by the Doctor: and truly so the Doctor thought so too at first; but because the objector says they do not make against what some of his Church own and practise, I thought it might be worth the Readers pains to see them.

De fide & symb. c. 7. Tale enim simulachrum Deo n [...]fas est Christiano in Templo collocare, multò magis in corde nefarium est, ubi verè Templum est.The words of S. Austin in this question are very plain and decretory. ‘For a Christian to place such an Image to God, (viz. with right and left-hand, sitting with bended knees, that is, in the shape of a man) is wickedness; but much more wicked is it to place it in our hearts.’ But of this I have given account in the preceding Section.

Theodoret, Damascen, and Nicephorus do so expresly condemn the picturing God, that it is acknowledg'd by my adversaries, only they fly for succour to the old mumpsimus; they condemn the picturing the essence of God, but not his forms and appearances; a distinction which those good old writers never thought of, but directly they condemned all Images of God and the Holy Trinity. And the Bishops in the seventh Synod, though they were worshippers of Images, yet they thinking that Angels were Corporeal, believ'd they might be painted, but denied it of God expresly. And indeed it were a strange thing that God in the old Testament should so severely forbid [Page] any Image to be made of him, upon this reason because he is invisible; and he presses it passionately by calling it to their memory, that they heard a voice, but saw no shape; and yet that both he had formerly and did afterwards shew himself, in shapes and forms which might be painted, and so the very reason of the Commandment be wholly void. To which add this consideration, that although the Angels did frequently appear, and consequently had forms possible to be represented in Imagery, yet none of the Ancients did suppose it lawful to paint Angels, but they that thought them to be corporeal. [...],Lib. de l [...]gat. said Philo. To which purpose is that of Seneca, Effugit oculos, cogitatione visendus est: And Antiphanes said of God,Natur. q. 8.30. [...]: God is not seen with eyes, he is like to no man; therefore no man can by an Image know him. By which it appears plainly to be the General opinion of the Ancients, that whatever was incorporeal was not to be painted, no, though it had appeared in symbolical forms, as confessedly the Angels did. And of this the second Synod of Nice it self is a sufficient witness;Act 5. the Fathers of which did all approve the Epistle of John Bishop of Thessalonica, in which he largely discourses against the picturing of any thing that is incorporeal. He that pleases to see more of this affair, may find much more, and to very great purpose in a little book de imaginibus, Pag. 734. &c. in the first book of the Greek and Latin Bibliotheca Patrum; out of which I shall only transcribe these words: Non esse faciendum imagines Dei: imo si quis quid simile attentaverit, hunc ex [...]remis suppliciis, veluti Ethnicis communicantem dogmatis, subjici. Let them translate it that please, only I remember that Aventinus tells a story, that Pope John XXII. caused to be burnt for Hereticks,Annal. Bio [...]um. l. 7. those persons who had painted the Holy Trinity, which I urge for no other reason, but to shew how late an innovation of religion this is in the Church of Rome. The worship of Images came in by degrees, and it was long resisted, but until of late, it never came to the height of impiety as to picture God, and to worship him by Images: But this was the state and last perfection of this sin, and hath spoiled a great part of Christianity, and turn'd it back to Ethnicism.

But that I may summ up all; I desire the Roman Doctors to weigh well the words of one of their own Popes, Gregory II. to the Question,In Epistolâ quam Baronius Graecè edidit Tom. 9. Annal. ad A.D. 726. in Margine. Cur tamen Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi non oculis subjicimus? Why do we not subject the Father of our Lord Jesus to the eyes? He answers, Quoniam Dei natura spectanda proponi non potest ac fingi: The nature of God cannot be expos'd to be beheld, nor yet feign'd.] He did not conclude that therefore we cannot make the Image of his essence, but none at all, nothing of him to be expos'd to the sight. And that this is his direct and full meaning, besides his own words, we may conclude from the note which Baronius makes upon it. Postea in usu venisse ut pingatur in Ecclesia Pater & Spiritus Sanctus. Afterwards it became an use in the Church (viz. the Roman) to paint the Father and the Holy Ghost. And therefore besides the impiety of it, the Church of Rome is guilty of innovation in this particular also, which was the thing I intended to prove.

THE END.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

VNVM NECESSARIVM. OR, The Doctrine and Practice OF REPENTANCE. DESCRIBING The Necessities and Measures of a Strict, a Holy, and a Christian Life. AND Rescued from Popular Errors.

By JER. TAYLOR, Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First, and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.

Poenitentiae compensatione redimendam proponit impunitatem Deus. Praeveniamus faciem ejus in confessione.

Tertul. de Poenit.

Cor contritum

S▪ PETER

MARY MAGDALENE

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent Majesty, 1673.

TO The Right Honourable and Noblest Lord, RICHARD Earl of Carbery, &c.

[Page]

[Page]

MY LORD,

THE duty of Repentance is of so great and universal concernment, a Catholicon to the evils of the Soul of every man, that if there be any particular in which it is worthy the labours of the whole Ecclesiastical Calling, to be instant in season and out of season, it is in this duty; and therefore I hope I shall be excused, if my Discourses of Repentance, like the duty it self, be perpetually increasing; and I may, like the Widow in the Gospel to the unjust Judge, at least hope to prevail with some men by my importunity. Men have found out so many devices and arts to cousen themselves, that they will rather admit any weak discourses and images of Reason, than think it necessary to repent speedily, severely and effectively. We find that sinners are prosperous, and God is long before he strikes; and it is always another mans case, when we see a judgment happen upon a sinner, we feel it not our selves, for when we do, it is commonly past remedy. Indeed it was to be pitied in the Heathen, that many of them were tempted to take the thriving side, when Religion it self was unprosperous. When Jupiter suffered his golden Scepter to be stole, and the Image never frown'd; and a bold fellow would scrape the Ivory thigh of Hercules, and go away without a broken pate, for all the Club that was in his hand; they thought they had reason to think there was no more sacredness in the Images of their gods, than in the statues of Vigellus: and because the event of all regular actions was not regular and equal, but Catiline was hewn down by the Consuls sword for his Rebellion, and for the same thing Caesar became a Prince, they believed that the Powers that govern'd these extraregular events, must [Page] it self be various and changeable, and they call'd it Fortune. But (My Lord) that Christians should thus dote upon temporal events, and the little baits of fishes and the meat of dogs, adoring every thing that is prosperous, and hating that condition of things that brings trouble, is not to be pardon'd to them who profess themselves Servants and Disciples of a Crucified Lord and Master. But it is upon the same account that men are so hardly brought to repent, or to believe that Repentance hath in it so many parts, and requires so much labour, and exacts such caution, and cannot be performed without the best assistances, or the greatest skill in spiritual notices. They find sin pleasant and prosperous, gay and in the fashion: And though wise men know it is better to be pleas'd than to be merry, to have rest and satisfaction in wisdom and perfective notices of things, than to laugh loud, and fright sobriety away with noises, and dissolution, and forgetfulness: yet this severer pleasure seems dull and flat, and men generally betake themselves to the wildnesses of sin, and hate to have it interrupted by the intervening of the sullen grace of Repentance. It was a sprightly saying of him in the Comedy,

Ego vitam Deorum proptereà sempiternam esse arbitror,

Quòd voluptates eorum propriae sunt. Nam mihi immortalitas

Parta est, si huic nulla aegritudo gaudio intercesserit.

Our immortality is to be reckoned by the continuance of our pleasure. My life is then perpetual, when my delights are not interrupted. And this is the immortality that too many men look after by incompetent means. But to be called upon to Repentance, and when men inquire what that is, to be told it is all the duty of a returning man; the extermination of sin, the mortification of all our irregular appetites, and all that perfection of righteousness which can consist with our state of imperfection; and that in order to these purposes, we must not refuse the sharpest instruments, that they may be even cut off which trouble us, but that we suffer all the severity of voluntary or imposed discipline, according as it shall be judged necessary, this is it which will trouble men; such, I mean, who love a beggerly ease before a laborious thriving trade (a foul stable to some beasts is better than a fair way) and therefore it is, [Page] that since all Christians are convinced of the necessity, the indispensable necessity of Repentance, they have resolved to admit it, but they also resolve they will not understand what it is. Vna herclè falsa lachrymula; one or two forc'd tears against a good time: and (believe it) that's a great matter too, that is not ordinary. But if men lose an estate,

— Nemo dolorem

Fingit in hoc casu, vestem diducere summam

Contentus, vexare oculos humore coacto.

Men need not to dissemble tears or sorrow in that case: but as if men were in no danger when they are enemies to God, and as if to lose Heaven were no great matter, and to be cast into Hell were a very tolerable condition, and such as a man might very well undergo, and laugh heartily for all that; they seem so unconcerned in the actions of Religion, and in their obedience to the severe laws of Repentance, that it looks as if men had no design in the world, but to be suffered to die quietly, to perish tamely, without being troubled with the angry arguments of Church-men, who by all means desire they should live and recover, and dwell with God for ever. Or if they can be forc'd to the further entertainments of Repentance, it is nothing but a calling for mercy, an ineffective prayer, a moist cloud, a resolution for to day, and a solemn shower at the most. ‘Mens immota manet, lachrymae volvuntur inanes.’ The mind is not chang'd, though the face be: for Repentance is thought to be just as other Graces, fit for their proper season, like fruits in their own month; but then every thing else must have its day too: we shall sin, and we must repent; but sin will come again, and so may repentance: For there is a time for every thing under the Sun; and the time for Repentance is when we can sin no more, when every objection is answered, when we can have no more excuse; and they who go upon that principle will never do it, till it be too late: For every age hath temptations of its own, and they that have been us'd to the yoke all their life time, will obey their sin when it comes in any shape in which they can take any pleasure. [Page] But men are infinitely abus'd, and by themselves most of all. For Repentance is not like the Summer fruits, fit to be taken a little, and in their own time▪ it is like bread, the provisions and support of our life, the entertainment of every day, but it is the bread of affliction to some, and the bread of carefulness to all: and he that preaches this with the greatest zeal, and the greatest severity, it may be he takes the liberty of an enemy, but he gives the counsel and the assistance of a friend.

My Lord, I have been so long acquainted with the secrets of your Spirit and Religion, that I know I need not make an apology for dedicating this severe Book to you. You know, according to the prudence which God hath given you, that he that flatters you is your enemy, and you need not be flattered; for he that desires passionately to be a good man and a religious, to be the servant of God and be sav'd, will not be fond of any vanity, and nothing else can need to be flattered; but I have presented to your Lordship this Discourse, not only to be a testimony to the world, how great a love, and how great an honour I have for you, but even by ascribing you into this relation, to endear you the rather every day more and more to the severest Doctrines and practices of Holiness. I was invited to make something of this by an Honourable Person who is now with God, and who desir'd his needs should be serv'd by my Ministery. But when I had entred upon it, I found it necessary to do it in order to more purposes, and in prosecution of the method of my other Studies. All which as they are designed to Gods glory and the Ministery of Souls, so if by them I can signifie my obligations to your Lordship, which by your great Nobleness do still increase, I shall not esteem them wholly ineffective even of some of those purposes whither they are intended; for truly my Lord, in whatsoever I am or can do, I desire to appear,

My Noblest Lord,

Your Honours most obliged, and most affectionate Servant, JER. TAYLOR.

THE PREFACE To the Right Reverend and Religious FATHERS, BRIAN Lord Bishop of SARVM, AND JOHN Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER, And to the most Reverend and Religious Clergy of ENGLAND, my dear Brethren.

[Page]

Men, Brethren and Fathers,

THE wiser part of Mankind hath seen so much trifling in the conduct of disputations, so much partiality, such earnest desires of reputation, such resolution to prevail by all means, so great mixture of interest in the contention, so much mistaking of the main question, so frequent excursions into differing matter, so many personal quarrels, and petty animosities, so many wranglings about those things that shall never be helped, that is, the errors and infirmities of men; and after all this (which also must needs be consequent to it) so little fruit and effect of questions, no man being the wiser, or changed from error to truth, but from error to error most frequently: and there are in the very vindication of truth so many incompetent, uncertain, and untrue things offered, that if by chance some truth be gotten, we are not very great gainers, because when the whole account is cast up, we shall find, or else they that are disinterest will observe that there is more error than truth in the whole purchase; and still no man is satisfied, and every side keeps its own, unless where folly or interest makes some few persons to change; and still more weakness and more impertinencies crowd into the whole affair upon every reply, and more yet upon the rejoynder, and when men have wrangled tediously and vainly, they are but where they were; save only that they may remember they suffered infirmity, and, i [...] may be, the transport of passions, and uncharitable expressions; and all this for an unrewarding interest, for that which is sometimes uncertain it self, unrevealed, unuseful, and unsatisfying; that in the event of things, and after being wearied for little or nothing, men have now in a very great proportion left it quite off, as unsatisfying waters, and have been desirous of more material nourishment, and of such notices of things and just assistances, as may promote their eternal interest.

And indeed it was great reason and high time that they should do so: for when they were imployed in rowing up and down in uncertain seas, to find something that was not necessary, it was certain they would less attend to that which was more worthy their inquiry: and the enemy of mankind knew that to be a time of his advantage, and accordingly sowed tares while we so slept; and we felt a real mischief while we contended for an imaginary and phantastick good. For things were come to that pass, that it was the character of a good man to [Page] be zealous for a Sect, and all of every party respectively, if they were earnest and impatient of contradiction, were sure to be sav'd by their own Preachers; and holiness of life was not so severely demanded, but that men believe their Country Articles; and Heaven gates at no hand might be permitted to stand open to any one else. Thence came hatred, variance, emulation and strifes; and the Wars of Christendom which have been kindled by Disputers, and the evil lives which were occasioned and encouraged by those proceedings, are the best confutation in the world of all such disputations.

But now when we come to search into that part of Theologie which is most necessary, in which the life of Christianity, and the interest of Souls, the peace of Christendom, and the union of Minds, the sweetness of Society, and the support of Government, the usefulness and comfort of our lives, the advancement of Vertue, and the just measures of Honour; we find many things disordered, the Tables of the Commandments broken in pieces, and some parts are lost and some disorder'd, and into the very practice of Christians there are crept so many material errors, that although God made nothing plainer, yet now nothing is more difficult and involv'd, uncertain and discompos'd, than many of the great lines and propositions in Moral Theologie: Nothing is more neglected, more necessary, or more mistaken. For although very many run into holy Orders without just abilities, and think their Province is well discharged if they can preach upon Sundays; and men observing the ordinary preaching to be little better than ordinary talk, have been made bold to venture into the Holy Sept, and invade the secrets of the Temple, as thinking they can talk at the same rate which they observe to be the manner of vulgar Sermons: yet they who know to give a just value to the best things, know that the Sacred Office of a Priest, a Minister of Religion, does not only require great holiness, that they may acceptably offer the Christian Sacrifices and Oblations of Prayer and Eucharist for the people, and become their fairest examples; but also great abilities, and wise notices of things and persons, strict observation, deep remembrances, prudent applications, courage and caution, severity and mercy, diligence and wisdom, that they may dispence the excellent things of Christianity, to the same effect whither they were design'd in the Counsels of Eternity, that is, to the glory of God and the benefit of Souls.

But it is a sad thing to observe how weakly the Souls of men and women are guided; with what false measures they are instructed, how their guides oftentimes strive to please men rather than to save them, and accordingly have fitted their Discourses and Sermons with easie theoremes, such which the Schools of learning have fallen upon by chance, or interest, or flattery, or vicious necessities, or superinduc'd arts, or weak compliances. But from whatsoever cause it does proceed, we feel the thing: There are so many false principles in the institutions and systemes of moral or Casuistical Divinity, and they taught so generally, and believed so unquestionably, and so fitted to the dispositions of men, so complying with their evil inclinations, so apt to produce error and confidence, security and a careless conversation, that neither can there be any way better to promote the interest of souls, nor to vindicate truth, nor to adorn the science it self, or to make Religion reasonable and intelligible, or to promote holy life, than by rescuing our Schools and Pulpits, and private perswasions from the believing such propositions which have prevailed very much and very long, but yet which are not only false, but have immediate influence upon the lives of men, so as to become to them a state of universal temptation from the severities and wisdom of Holiness.

When therefore I had observed concerning the Church of England [which is the most excellently instructed with a body of true Articles, and doctrines of Holiness, with a discipline material and prudent, with a Government Apostolical, with dignities neither splendid nor sordid, too great for contempt, and too little for envy (unless she had met with little people & greatly malicious) and indeed with every thing that could instruct or adorn a Christian Church, so that she wanted nothing but the continuance of peace, and what she already was;] that amongst all her heaps of excellent things, and Books by which her sons have ministred to piety & learning [Page] both at home and abroad, there was the greatest scarcity of Books of Cases of Conscience; and that while I stood watching that some or other should undertake it according to the ability which God gave them; and yet every one found himself hindred or diverted, persecuted or disabled, and still the work was left undone, I suffered my self to be invited to put my weak hand to this work, rather than that it should not be done at all. But by that time I had made some progression in the first preparatory discourses to the work, I found that a great part of that learning was supported by principles very weak and very false: and that it was in vain to dispute concerning a single case whether it were lawful or no, when by the general discoursings of men it might be permitted to live in states of sin without danger or reproof, as to the final event of souls. I thought it therefore necessary by way of address and preparation to the publication of the particulars, that it should appear to be necessary for a man to live a holy life; and that it could be of concern to him to inquire into the very minutes of his conscience: For if it be no matter how men live, and if the hopes of Heaven can well stand with a wicked life, there is nothing in the world more unnecessary, than to enquire after cases of Conscience. And if it be sufficient for a man at the last to cry for pardon for having all his life time neither regarded Laws nor Conscience, certainly they have found out a better compendium of Religion, and need not be troubled with variety of rules and cautions of carefulness and a lasting holiness; nor think concerning any action or state of life, whether it be lawful or not lawful; for it is all one whether it be or no, since neither one nor the other will easily change the event of things.

For let it be imagined, what need there can be that any man should write cases of Conscience, or read them, if it be lawful for a man thus to believe and speak.

I have indeed often in my younger years been affrighted with the fearful noises of damnation, and the Ministers of Religion, for what reasons they best know, did call upon me to deny my appetite, to cross my desires, to destroy my pleasures, to live against my nature; and I was afraid as long as I could not consider the secrets of things; but now I find that in their own Books there are for me so many confidences and securities, that those fears were most unreasonable, and that as long as I live by the rules and measures of nature, I do not offend God, or if I do, I shall soon find a pardon. For I consider that the Commandments are impossible, and what is not possible to be done we are not to take care of: and he that fails in one instance cannot be sav'd without a pardon, not by his obedience; and he that fails in all may be sav'd by pardon and grace. For the case is so, that we are sinners naturally, made so before we were born; and nature can never be changed until she be destroyed: and since all our irregularities spring from that root, it is certain they ought not to be imputed to us; and a man can no more fear Gods anger for being inclined to all sin, than for being hungry, or miserable: and therefore I expect from the wisdom and goodness of God some provisions which will so extinguish this solemn and artificial guilt, that it shall be as if it were not. But in the mean time the certainty of sinning will proceed. For besides that I am told that a man hath no liberty, but a liberty to sin, and this definite liberty is in plain English a very necessity, we see it by a daily experience that those who call themselves good men, are such who do what they would not, and cannot do what they would; and if it be so, it is better to do what I have a mind to quietly, than to vex my self, and yet do it nevertheless: and that it is so, I am taught in almost all the discourses I have read or heard upon the seventh Chapter to the Romans: and therefore if I may have leave to do consonantly to what I am taught to believe, I must confess my self to be under the dominion of sin, and therefore must obey; and that I am bidden to obey unwillingly, and am told that the striving against sin is indeed ordinarily ineffective, and yet is a sign of regeneration; I can soon do that; I can strive against it, and pray against it; but I cannot hope to prevail in either, because I am told before-hand, that even the regenerate are under the power of sin▪ they will and do not; they do and will not; and so it is with me; I would fain be perfect if I could; but I must not hope it; and therefore I would only [Page] doe my actions so reasonably, that I would not be tied to vex my self for what I cannot help; or to lose the pleasure of my sin by fretting at it, when it is certain it will be done, and yet I shall remain in the state of regeneration. And who can help all this, but God, whose mercy is indeed infinite; and although in the secret dispensation of affairs, he hath concluded all under sin, yet he had no purpose we should therefore perish; but it was done that he might have mercy upon all; that is, that we may glorifie him for supplying our needs, pardoning our sins, relieving our infirmities? And therefore when I consider that Gods mercy hath no limit in it self, and is made definite only by the capacity of the object, it is not to be doubted, but he loves his creatures so well, that we shall all rejoyce in our being freed from eternal fears. For to justifie my hopes, why may not I be confident of Heaven for all my sins, since the imputation of Christs righteousness is that by which I shall be justified? my own is but like a menstruous rag, and the just falls seven times a-day; but Christs Cross pays for all. And therefore I am confident I shall do well. For I am one of those for whom Christ died; and I believe this, this faith is not to be reprov'd, for this is that which justifies, who shall condemn me? It is not a good life that justifies a man before God, but it is faith in the special promises; for indeed it being impossible to live innocently, it is necessary that away of Gods own finding out should be relied upon. Only this indeed I do, I do avoid the capital sins, blasphemies, and horrid murders; I am [...], I sin like a Gentleman, not like a Thief; I suffer infirmities, but do not do like a Devil; and though I sin, yet I repent speedily, and when I sin again, I repent again, and my spiritual state is like my natural, day and night succeed each other by a never failing revolution. I sin indeed in some instances, but I do my duty in many; and every man hath his infirmities; no man can say, My soul is pure from sin; but I hope that because I repent still as I sin, my sins are but as single actions; and since I resist them what I can, I hope they will be reckoned to me but as sins of infirmity, without which no man is, or can be in this state of imperfection. For if I pray against a sin, and my spirit does resist it, though the flesh prevails, yet I am in the state of grace. For that I may own publickly what I am publickly taught; a man cannot be soon out of the state of grace, but he may be soon in; Gods love is lasting and perpetual when it hath once begun; and when the curtain is drawn over the state of grace by the intervening of a sin, yet as soon as ever we begin to cry for pardon, nay when we do but say, we will confess our sins, nay when we do but resolve we will, God meets us with his pardon, and prevents us with some portions of it. And let things be at the worst they can, yet he that confesseth his sins to God, shall find mercy at the hands of God; and he hath established a holy Ministery in his Church to absolve all penitents; and if I go to one of them, and tell the sad story of my infirmity, the good man will presently warrant my pardon, and absolve me. But then I remember this also, that as my infirmity that is unavoidable shall not prejudice me, so neither shall any time prejudice my repentance. For if on my death-bed I cry unto God for pardon, and turn heartily unto God in the very instant of my dissolution, I am safe; because when-ever a man converts to God, in the same instant God turns to him, or else it were possible for God to hate him that loves God, and our repentance should in some periods be rejected, expresly against all the promises. For it is an act of contrition, an act of the love of God that reconciles us; and I shall be very unfortunate, if in the midst of all my pains, when my needs increase, and my fears are pregnant, and my self am ready to accept pardon upon any terms, I shall not then do so much as one act of a hearty sorrow and contrition. But however, I have the consent of almost all men, and all the Schools of learning in the world, that after a wicked life my repentance at last shall be accepted. Saint Ambrose, who was a good probable Doctor, and one as fit to be relied on as any man else, in his Funeral Oration of Valentinian hath these words; ‘Blessed is he truly, who even in his old age hath amended his [Page] error; Blessed is he who even just before the stroke of death turns his mind from vice. Blessed are they whose sins are covered, for it is written, Cease from evil, and do good and dwell for evermore. Whoever therefore shall leave off from sin, and shall in any age be turned to better things, he hath the pardon of his former sins, which either he hath confessed with the affections of a penitent, or turned from them with the desires of amends.’ But this [Prince] hath company enough in the way of his obtaining pardon; For there are very many who could in their old age recal themselves from the slipperiness and sins of their youth; but seldom is any one to be found, who in his youth with a serious sobriety will bear the heavy yoke. And I remember that when Faustus Bishop of Rhegium being asked by Paulinus Bishop of Nola from Marinus the Hermit, whether a man who was involved in carnal sins and exercised all that a criminous person could do, might obtain a full pardon, if he did suddenly repent in the day of his death? did answer peevishly, and severely, and gave no hopes, nor would allow pardon to any such; Avitus the Archbishop of Vienna reproved his pride and his morosity, and gave express sentence for the validity of such a repentance:Ep [...]st. 4. and that Gentleness hath been the continual Doctrine of the Church for many Ages; insomuch that in the year 1584. Henry Kyspenning a Canon of Xant published a Book, intituled, The Evangelical Doctrine of the meditation of death, with solid exhortations and comforts to the sick, from the currents of Scripture, and the Commentaries of the Fathers, where teaching the sick man how to answer the objections of Satan,Lib. 3. c. 11. he makes this to be the fifteenth: I repent too late of my sins. He bids him answer; It is not late if it be true: and to the Thief upon the Cross Christ said, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise: And afterwards, a short prayer easily pierceth Heaven, so it be darted forth with a vehement force of the spirit. Truly the history of the Kings tells that David who was so great a sinner, used but three syllables; for he is read to have said no more but Peccavi, I have sinned. For S. Ambrose said, The flame of the sacrifice of his heart ascends up to Heaven. Because we have a merciful and gentle Lord; and the correction of our sins needs not much time, but great fervour. And to the same purpose are the words of Alcuinus the Tutor of Charles the Great: It behoves us to come to repentance with all confidence, and by faith to believe undoubtedly, that by repentance our sins may be blotted out, Etiamsi in ultimo vitae spiritu commissa poeniteat, although we repent of our sins in the last breath of our life.

Now after all these grounds of hope and confidence to a sinner, what can be pretended in defiance of a sinful life; and since men will hope upon one ground, though it be trifling and inconsiderable, when there are so many doctrinal grounds of hopes established propositions, parts of Religion and Articles of faith to rely upon, (for, all these particulars before reckoned, men are called upon to believe earnestly, and are hated and threatned and despised, if they do not believe them) what is there left to discourage the evil lives of men, or to lessen a full iniquity, since upon the account of the premises, either we may do what we list without sin, or sin without punishment, or go on without fear, or repent without danger, and without scruple be confident of Heaven?

And now if Moral Theologie relie upon such notices as these, I thought my work was at an end before I had well finished the first steps of my progression. The whole summ of affairs was in danger, and therefore I need not trouble my self or others with consideration of the particulars. I therefore thought it necessary first to undermine these false foundations; and since an inquiry into the minutes of conscience is commonly the work of persons that live holily, I ought to take care that this be accounted necessary, and all false warrants to the contrary be cancell'd, that there might be many idonei auditores, persons competent to hear and read, [Page] and such who ought to be promoted and assisted in their holy intendments. And I bless God there are very many such; and though iniquity does abound, yet Gods grace is conspicuous and remarkable in the lives of very many, to whom I shall design all the labours of my life, as being dear to God, and my dear Brethren in the service of Jesus. But I would fain have the Churches as full as I could before I begin; and therefore I esteem'd it necessary to publish these Papers before my other, as containing the greatest lines of Conscience, and the most general cases of our whole life, even all the doctrine of Repentance, upon which all the hopes of man depend through Jesus Christ.

But I have other purposes also in the publication of this Book. The Ministers of the Church of Rome (who ever love to fish in troubled waters, and to oppress the miserable and afflicted, if they differ from them in a proposition) use all the means they can to perswade our people, that the man that is afflicted is not alive, that the Church of England now it is a persecuted Church, is no Church at all; and though (blessed be God) our Propositions, and Doctrines, and Liturgie, and Communion are sufficiently vindicated in despite of all their petty oppositions and trifling arrests, yet they will never leave making noises and outcries; which for my part I can easily neglect, as finding them to be nothing but noise. But yet I am willing to try the Rights and Excellencies of a Church with them upon other accounts; by such indications as are the most proper tokens of life, I mean, propositions of Holiness, the necessities of a holy life: for certainly that Church is most to be followed, who brings us nearest to God; and they make our approaches nearest, who teach us to be most holy, and whose Doctrines command the most excellent and severest lives. But if it shall appear that the prevailing Doctrines in the Church of Rome do consequently teach, or directly warrant impiety, or which is all one, are too easie in promising pardon, and for it have no defences, but distinctions of their own inventing, I suppose it will be a greater reproof to their confidence and bold pretensions, than a discourse against one of their immaterial propositions, that have neither certainty nor usefulness. But I had rather that they would preach severity, than be reprov'd for their careless propositions, and therefore am well pleased that even amongst themselves some are so convinc'd of the weakness of their usual Ministeries of Repentance, that as much as they dare they call upon the Priests to be more deliberate in their absolutions, and severe in their impositions of satisfactions, requiring a longer time of Repentance before the penitents be reconcil'd.

Monsieur Arnauld of the Sorbon hath appeared publickly in reproof of a frequent and easie Communion, without the just and long preparations of Repentance, and its proper exercises and Ministery. Petavius the Jesuit hath oppos'd him; the one cries, The present Church, the other, The Ancient Church; and as Petavius is too hard for his adversary in the present Authority, so Monsieur Arnauld hath the clearest advantage in the pretensions of Antiquity and the arguments of Truth; from which Petavius and his abettor Bagot the Jesuit have no escape or defensative, but by distinguishing Repentance into Solemn and Sacramental: which is just as if they should say, Repentance is twofold; one, such as was taught and practis'd by the Primitive Church; the other, that which is in use this day in the Church of Rome: for there is not so much as one pregnant testimony in Antiquity for the first four hundred years, that there was any Repentance thought of, but Repentance toward God, and sometimes perform'd in the Church, in which after their stations were perform'd, they were admitted to the holy Communion; excepting only in the danger or article of death, in which they hastened the Communion, and enjoyn'd the stations to be afterwards completed, in case they did recover, and if they did not, they left the event to God. But this question of theirs can never be ended upon the new principles, nor shall be freely argued because of their interest. For whoever are obliged to profess some false propositions, shall never from thence find out an intire truth, but like caskes in a troubled sea, sometimes they will be under water, sometimes above. For the productions [Page] of error are infinite, but most commonly monstrous: and in the fairest of them there will be some crooked or deformed part.

But of the thing it self I have given such accounts as I could, being ingaged on no side, and the servant of no interest, and have endeavour'd to represent the dangers of every sinner, the difficulty of obtaining pardon, the many parts and progressions of Repentance, the severity of the Primitive Church, their rigid Doctrines and austere Disciplines, the degrees of easiness and complyings that came in by negligence; and I desire that the effect should be, that all the pious and religious Curates of Souls in the Church of England would endeavour to produce so much fear and reverence, caution and wariness in all their penitents, that they should be willing to undergo more severe methods in their restitution than now they do: that men should not dare to approach to the holy Sacrament, as soon as ever their foul hands are wet with a drop of holy rain; but that they should expect the periods of life, and when they have given to their Curate fair testimony of a hearty Repentance, and know it to be so within themselves, they may with comfort to all parties, communicate with holiness and joy. For I conceive this to be that event of things which was design'd by S. Paul in that excellent advice; Obey them that have the rule over you, [...], submit your selves, Heb. 13.17. viz. to their ordering and discipline, because they watch for your souls, as they that must give accounts for them, that they may do it with joy. I am sure we cannot give accounts of souls of which we have no notice: and though we had reason to rescue them from the yoke of bondage, which the unjust laws and fetters of annual and private Confession (as it was by them ordered) did make men to complain of; yet I believe we should be all unwilling, our Charges should exchange these fetters for worse, and by shaking off the laws of Confession, accidentally entertain the tyranny of sin. It was neither fit that all should be tied to it, nor yet that all should throw it off. There are some sins, and some cases, and some persons to whom an actual Ministery and personal provision and conduct by the Priests Office were better than food or physick. It were therefore very well if great sinners could be invited to bear the yoke of holy discipline, and do their Repentances under the conduct of those who must give an account of them, that they would inquire into the state of their souls, that they would submit them to be judged by those who are justly and rightly appointed over them, or such whom they are permitted to chuse; and then that we would apply our selves to understand the secrets of Religion, the measures of the Spirit, the conduct of Souls, the advantages and disadvantages of things and persons, the ways of life and death, the lahyrinths of temptation, and all the remedies of sin, the publick and private, the great and little lines of Conscience, and all those ways by which men may be assisted and promoted in the ways of godliness: for such knowledge as it is most difficult and secret, untaught and unregarded; so it is most necessary, and for want of it, the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is oftentimes given to them that are in the gall of bitterness: that which is holy is given to Dogs. Indeed neither we nor our Forefathers could help it always; and the Discipline of the Church could seize but upon few: all were invited, but none but the willing could receive the benefit; but however, it were pity that men upon the account of little and trifling objections, should be discouraged from doing themselves benefit, and from enabling us with greater advantages to do our duty to them. It was of old observed of the Christians: [...]: they obey the laws, and by the excellency of their own lives excel the perfection of the laws: and it is not well, if we shall be earnest to tell them that such a thing is not necessary, if we know it to be good. For in this present dissolution of manners, to tell the people concerning any good thing that it is not necessary, is to tempt them to let it alone.

The Presbyterian Ministers (who are of the Church of England, just as the Irish are English) have obtained such power with their Proselytes, that they take some account of the Souls (of such as they please) before they admit them to their communion in Sacraments; [Page] they do it to secure them to their party, or else make such accounts to be as their Shibboleth, to discern their Jews from the men of Ephraim: but it were very well we would do that for Conscience, for Charity, and for Piety, which others do for Interest, or Zeal; and that we would be careful to use all those Ministeries, and be earnest for all those Doctrines, which visibly in the causes of things are apt to produce holiness and severe living. It is no matter whether by these arts any Sect or Name be promoted; it is certain Christian Religion would, and that's the real interest of us all, 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: whose 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 [Page]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 da [...]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 lo [...]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 he reveres.

And this liberty I now take, is no other than hath been used by the severest Votaries in that Church where to dissent is death, I mean in the Church of Rome. I call to witness those disputations and contradictory assertions in the matter of some articles, which are to be observed in Andreas Vega, Dominicus à Soto, Andradius, the Lawyers about the Question of divorces, and clan destine contracts, the Divines about predetermination, and about this very article of Original sin, as relating to the Virgin Mary. But blessed be God, we are under the Discipline of a prudent, charitable, and indulgent Mother; and if I may be allowed to suppose, that the article means no more in short, than the office of Baptism explicates at large, I will abide by the trial, there is not a word in the Rubricks or Prayers, but may very perfectly consist with the Doctrine I deliver. But though the Church of England is my Mother, and I hope I shall ever live, and at last die in her Communion, and if God shall call me to it, and enable me, I will not refuse to die for her; yet I conceive there is something most highly considerable in that saying, Call no man Master upon earth; that is, no mans explication of her articles shall prejudice my affirmative, if it agrees with Scripture and right reason, and the doctrine of the Primitive Church for the first 300 years; and if in any of this I am mistaken, I will most thankfully be reproved, and most readily make honourable amends. But my proposition, I hope, is not built upon the sand: and I am most sure it is so zealous for Gods honour, and the reputation of his justice, and wisdom, and goodness, that I hope all that [Page] are pious (unless they labour under some prejudice and prepossession) will upon that account be zealous for it, or at least confess that what I intend hath in it more of piety, than their negative can have of certainty. That which is strain'd, and held too hard will soonest break. He that stoops to the authority, yet twists the article with truth, preserves both with modesty and Religion.

One thing more I fear will trouble some persons, who will be apt to say to me as Avitus of Vienna did to Faustus of Rhegium, Hic quantum ad frontem pertinent quasi abstinentissimam vitam professus, & non secretam crucem, sed publicam vanitatem, &c. That upon pretence of great severity, as if I were exact or could be, I urge others to so great strictness, which will rather produce despair than holiness. Though I have in its proper place taken care concerning this, and all the way intend, to rescue men from the just causes and in-lets to despair; that is, not to make them do that against which by preaching a holy life, I have prepar'd the best defensative; yet this I shall say here particularly: That I think this objection is but a mere excuse which some men would make, lest they should believe it necessary to live well. For to speak truth, men are not very apt to despair, they have ten thousand ways to flatter themselves, and they will hope in despight of all arguments to the contrary; In all the Scripture there is but one example of a despairing man, and that was Judas; who did so, not upon the stock of any fierce propositions preach'd to him, but upon the load of his foul sin, and the pusillanimity of his spirit. But they are not to be numbred who live in sin, and yet sibi suaviter benedicunt, think themselves in a good condition; and all them that rely upon those false principles which I have reckoned in this Preface, and confuted in the Book, are examples of it. But it were well if [...] would distinguish the sin of despair from the misery of despair. Where God hath [...] us no warrant to hope, there to despair is no sin; it may be a punishment, and to hope [...] may be presumption.

I shall end with the most charitable advice I can give to any of my erring Brethren▪ [...] no man be so vain as to use all the wit and arts, all the shifts and devices of the world, [...] may behold to enjoy the pleasure of his sin, since it may bring him into that condition, that it [...] be disputed, whether he shall despair or no. Our duty is to make our calling and electio [...] sure; which certainly cannot be done but by a timely and effective repentance. But they that will be confident in their health, are sometimes pusillanimous in their sickness, presumptious in sin,De Repub. 1. and despairing in the day of their calamity. Cognitio de incorrupto Dei judicio in multis dormit; sed excitari solet circa mortem, said Plato. For though [...] give false sentences of the Divine judgments, when their temptations are high, and their [...] pleasant, yet about the time of their death, their understanding and notices are awakened, [...] they see what they would not see before, and what they cannot now avoid.

Thus I have given account of the design of this Book to you, Most Reverend Fat [...] and Religious Brethren of this Church; and to your judgment I submit what I have here discoursed of; as knowing that the chiefest part of the Ecclesiastical office is conversant about Repentance; and the whole Government of the Primitive Church was almost wholly imployed in ministring to the orders, and restitution and reconciliation of penitents; and therefore you are not only by your ability, but by your imployment and experiences, the most competent Judges, and the aptest promoters of those truths by which Repentance is made most perfect and unreprovable. By your Prayers, and your Authority, and your Wisdom, I hope it will be more and more effected, that the strictnesses of a holy life be thought necessary, and that Repentance may be no more that trifling, little piece of duty, to which the errors of the late Schools of learning, and the desires of men to be deceiv'd in this article, have reduc'd it. I have done thus much of my part toward it, and I humbly desire it may be accepted by God, by you, and by all good men.

JER. TAYLOR.

VNVM NECESSARIVM. OR, The DOCTRINE and PRACTICE OF REPENTANCE.

[Page]

CHAP. I. The Foundation, and Necessity of Repentance.

SECT. I. Of the indispensable Necessity of Repentance in remedy to the unavoidable transgressing the Covenant of Works.

IN the first entercourse with Man, God made such a Covenant as he might justly make out of his absolute dominion, and such as was agreeable with those powers which he gave us, and the instances in which obedience was demanded. For 1. Man was made perfect in his kind, and God demanded of him perfect obedience. 2. The first Covenant was the Covenant of Works, that is, there was nothing in it, but Man was to obey or die: but God laid but one command upon him that we find; the Covenant was instanced but in one precept. In that he fail'd, and therefore he was lost. There was here no remedy, no second thoughts, no amends to be made. But because much was not required of him, and the Commandment was very easie, and he had strengths more than enough to keep it, therefore he had no cause to complain: God might, [...]nd did exact at first the Covenant of Works, because it was at first infinitely tole [...]ble. But,

2. From this time forward this Covenant began to be hard, and by degrees be [...]e impossible; not only because mans fortune was broken, and his spirit troubled, [...] his passions disordered and vext by his calamity and his sin, but because man upon [...]e birth of children and the increase of the world contracted new relations, and consequently had new duties and obligations, and men hindred one another, and their faculties by many means became disorder'd and lessen'd in their abilities; and their will becoming perverse they first were unwilling, and then unable by superinducing dispositions and habits contrary to their duty. However, because there was a necessity that man should be tied to more duty, God did in the several periods of the world multiply Commandments, first to Noah, then to Abraham, and then to his posterity; and by this time they were very many: And still God held over mans head the Covenant of Works.

3. Upon the pressure of this Covenant all the world did complain: Tanta mandata sunt, ut impossibile sit servari ea, said S. Ambrose: In cap. 3. Gal. the Commandments were so many and great, that it was impossible they should be kept. For at first there were no promises at all of any good, nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors; and after a long time they were entertain'd but with the promise of temporal good things, which to some men were perform'd by the pleasures and rewards of sin; and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man, it could not be that man should remain innocent; and for repentance, in this Covenant there was no regard, or provisions made. But I said,

[Page]4. The Covenant of Works was still kept on foot; How justly, will appear in the sequel; but the reasonableness of it was in this, that men living in a state of awfulness might be under a pedagogy or severe institution restraining their loosenesses, recollecting their inadvertencies, uniting their distractions. For the world was not then prepar'd by spiritual usages and dispositions to be governed by love and an easie yoke, but by threatnings and severities. And this is the account S. Paul gives of it, [...], The Law was a Schoolmaster, that is, had a temporary authority serving to other ends,Gal. 3.24. with no final concluding power. It could chastise and threaten, but it could not condemn: it had not power of eternal life and death, that was given by other measures. But because the world was wild and barbarous, good men were few, the bad potent and innumerable, and sin was conducted and help'd forward by pleasure and impunity, it was necessary that God should superinduce a law, and shew them the rod, and affright and check their confidences, left the world it self should perish by dissolution. The law of Moses was still a part of the Covenant of Works. Some little it had of repentance; Sacrifice and expiations were appointed for small sins; but nothing at all for greater. Every great sin brought death infallibly. And as it had a little image of Repentance, so it had something of Promises, to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward obedience. But this would not do it. The promises were temporal, and that could not secure obedience in great instances; and there being for them no remedy appointed by repentance, the law could not justifie, it did not promise life Eternal, nor give sufficient security against the Temporal, only it was brought in as a pedagogy for the present necessity.

5. But this pedagogie or institution was also a manuduction to the Gospel. For they were used to severe laws, that they might the more readily entertain the holy precepts of the Gospel, to which eternally they would have shut their ears, unless they had had some preparatory institution of severity and fear: And therefore S. Paul also calls it, [...], a pedagogie, or institution leading unto Christ.

6. For it was this which made the world of the Godly long for Christ, as having commission to open the [...], the hidden mystery of Justification by Faith and Repentance. For the law called for exact obdience, but ministred no grace but that of fear, which was not enough to the performance or the engagement of exact obedience. All therefore were here convinced of sin, but by this Covenant they had no hopes, and therefore were to expect relief from another and a better: according to that saying of S. Paul, The Scripture concludes all under sin (that is, declares all the world to be sinners) that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Gal. 3.22. This S. Bernard expresses in these words, Deus nobis hoc fecit, ut nostram imperfectionem ostenderet, & Christi avidiores nos faceret. Our imperfection was sufficiently manifest by the severity of the first Covenant, that the world might long for salvation by Jesus Christ.

7. For since mankind could not be saved by the Covenant of works, that is, of exact obedience, they must perish for ever, or else hope to be sav'd by a Covenant of ease and remission, that is, such a Covenant as may secure Mans duty to God, and Gods Mercy to Man, and this is the Covenant which God made with mankind in Christ Jesus, the Covenant of Repentance.

8. This Covenant began immediately after Adams fall. For as soon as the first Covenant, the Covenant of works was broken, God promised to make it up by an instrument of mercy which himself would find out. The Seed of the woman should make up the breaches of the man. But this should be acted and published in its own time, not presently. In the mean time man was by virtue of that new Covenant or promise admitted to Repentance.

9. Adam confessed his sin and repented. Three hundred years together did he mourn upon the mountains of India, and God promised him a Saviour by whose obedience his repentance should be accepted. And when God did threaten the old world with a floud of waters, he called upon them to repent, but because they did not, God brought upon them the floud of waters. For 120. years together he called upon them to return before he would strike his final blow. Ten times God tried Pharaoh before he destroyed him. And in all ages, in all periods, and with all men God did deal by this measure; and (excepting that God in some great cases, or in the beginning of a Sanction to establish it with the terror of a great example) he scarce ever destroyed a single man with temporal death for any nicety of the law, but for long and great prevarications of it: and when he did otherwise, he did it after the man had been highly warned of the particular, and could have obeyed easily, which [Page] was the case of the man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath; and was like the case of Adam, who was upon the same account judged by the Covenant of works.

10. This then was an emanation both of Gods justice and his mercy. Until man had sinned he was not the subject of mercy: and if he had not then receiv'd mercy, the infliction had been too severe and unjust, since the Covenant was beyond the measures of man, after it began to multiply into particular laws, and man by accident was lessen'd in his strengths.

11. From hence the corollaries are plain, 1. God was not unjust for beginning his entercourse with mankind by the Covenant of works, for these reasons.

I. Because Man had strengths enough to do it, until he lessen'd his own abilities.

II. The Covenant of works was at first instanc'd but in a small Commandment: in abstaining from the fruit of one tree, when he had by him very many others for his use and pleasure.

III. It was necessary that the Covenant of works should begin: for the Covenant of faith and repentance could not be at first; there was no need of it, no opportunity for it, it must suppose a defailance, or an infirmity, as physick supposes sickness and mortality.

IV. God never exacted the obedience of Man by strict measures, by the severity of the first Covenant after Adams fall; but men were sav'd then as now, they were admitted to repentance, and justified by faith and the works of faith. And therefore the Jews say that three things were before the world, The Law, the name of the Messias, and Repentance; that is, as S. Paul better expresses it, This Repentance through faith in the Messias is the hidden wisdom of God, 1 Cor. 2.7. ordained before the world unto our glory. So that at first it was not impossible; and when it was, it was not exacted in the impossible measure; but it was kept in pretence and overture for ends of piety, wisdom and mercy, of which I have given account; it was [...], a wise dispensation, but it was hidden.

12. For since it is essential to a law that it be in a matter that is possible, it cannot be suppos'd that God would judge man by an impossible Commandment.Plato lib. 5. de leg. Demosth. contra Timocratem. Plutar. in Solon. Curius Fortunatianus Rhet. Nemo obligatur ad impossibile. A good man would not do it, much less the righteous and merciful Judge of Men and Angels. But God by holding over the world the Covenant of works, non fecit praevaricatores sed humiles, did not make us sinners by not observing the [...], the minutes and tittles of the law, but made us humble, needing mercy, begging grace, longing for a Saviour, relying upon a better Covenant, waiting for better promises, praying for the Spirit of grace, repenting of our sins, deploring our infirmities, and justified by faith in the promises of God.

13. II. This then is the great introduction and necessity of repentance. We neither could have liv'd without it, nor have understood the way of the Divine Justice, nor have felt any thing of his most glorious attribute. But the admission of us to repentance, is the great verification of his justice, and the most excellent expression of his mercy: This is the mercy of God in Jesus Christ, springing from the fountains of grace, purchas'd by the blood of the Holy Lamb, the Eternal sacrifice, promised from the beginning, always ministred to mans need in the secret Oeconomy of God, but proclaim'd to all the world at the revelation of God incarnate, the first day of our Lord Jesus.

14. But what are we eased now under the Gospel, which is a Law of greater holiness and more Commandments, and a sublimer purity, in which we are tied to more severity than ever man was bound to under any institution and Covenant? If the Law was an impossible Commandment, who can say he hath strictly and punctually perform'd the injunctions of the Gospel? Is not the little finger of the Son heavier than the Fathers loyns? Here therefore it is to be inquired, Whether the Commandments of Jesus Christ be as impossible to be kept as the Law of Moses? If we by Christ be tied to more holiness, than the sons of Israel were by Moses Law, then because that could not be kept, then neither can this. But if we be not tied to more than they, how is the law of Christ a more perfect institution, and how can we now be justified by a law no better than that by which we could not be justified? But then, if this should be as impossible as ever, why is it a-new imposed? why is it held over us, when the ends for which it was held over us, now are served? And at last, how can it be agreeable to Gods wisdom and justice, to exact of us a law which we cannot perform, or to impose a law which cannot justly be exacted? The answering and explicating this difficulty will serve many propositions in the doctrine of Repentance.

SECT. II. Of the possibility or impossibility of keeping the Precepts of the Gospel.

[Page]

15. IT were strange that it should be possible for all men to keep the Commandments, and requir'd and exacted of all men with the intermination or threatning of horrid pains,Lib. 1. Dial. adv. Pelag. and yet that no man should ever do it. S. Hierome brings its Atticus thus arguing: Da exemplum, aut confitere imbecillitatem tuam; and the same also was the argument of Orosius; and the reasonableness of it is a great prejudice against the contrary affirmation of S. Austin, Alipius & Evodius, Aurelius & Possidius, who because it is no good consequence to argue à non esse ad non posse, and though it is not done, yet possibly it might; conclude, that it is possible to keep the Commandments, though as yet no man ever did, but he that did it for us all. But as Marcellinus said well, It is hard to say that by a Man a thing can be done, of which although there was a great necessity and a severe Commandment, yet there never was any example. Because in men there is such infinite variety of tempers, dispositions, apprehensions, designs, fears and hopes, purposes and interests, that it were next to a miracle that not one of all mankind should do what he can, and what so highly concerns him. But because this,Rom. 8. although it be a high probability, yet is no certain demonstration; that which S. Paul taught is certainly to be relied upon, That the Law could not do it for [...]s, that is, could not bring us justification, in that it was weak through the flesh; meaning that because we were so weak we could not fulfil the righteousness of the Law, therefore we could not be justified by that Covenant. Mos [...] manns graves, facies cornata, impedita lingua, lapideae tabulae. Moses's hands were heavy, his face bright, his tongue stammering, and the tables were of stone; by which is meant, that the imposition and 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.

S. Hier. lib. 2. in Gal. c. 3.16. 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,Rhet. lib. 1. 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 [Page] 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;Seneca Ep. 67. 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,Haeres. 59. 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 Zabuli. S. Cypr. de oper. & ele [...]mos. 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 to be sorrowful are natural effects of their proper apprehensions, and therefore are not properly capable of a law. Though it be possible for a man who is of a sanguine complexion, in perfect health and constitution, not to act his lust; yet it will be found next to impossible not to love it, not to desire it: and who will find it possible that every man and in all cases of his temptation should overcome his fear? But if this fear be instanced in a matter of religion, it will be apt to multiply eternal scruples, and they are equivocal effects of a good meaning, but are proper and univocal enemies to piety and a wise religion.

[Page]22. I need not take notice of the infinite variety of thoughts and sentences that divide all mankind concerning their manner of pleasing and obeying God; and the appendant zeal by which they are furiously driven on to promote their errors or opinions as they think for God: and he that shall tell these men they do amiss would be wondred at; for they think themselves secure of a good reward even when they do horrible things. But the danger here is very great, when the instrument of serving God is nothing but opinion and passion abus'd by interest; especially since this passion of it self is very much to be suspected; it being temerity or rashness; (for some zeal is no better) and its very formality is inadvertency and inconsideration.

23. But the case is very often so, that even the greatest consideration is apt to be mistaken: and how shall men be innocent, when besides the signal precepts of the Gospel, there are propounded to us some general measures, and as I may call them extraregular lines, by which our actions are to be directed; such as are, the analogy of faith, fame, reputation, publick honesty, not giving offence, being exemplary; all which, and divers others being indefinite measures of good and evil, are pursued as men please, and as they will understand them. And because concerning these, God alone can judge righteously, he alone can tell when we have observed them; we cannot, and therefore it is certain we very often do mistake.

24. Hence it is that they who mean holiness and purity are forc'd to make to themselves rules and measures by way of Idea or instrument, endeavouring to chuse that side that is the surest; which indeed is but a guessing at the way we should walk in; and yet by this way also, men do often run into a snare, and lay trouble and intricacy upon their consciences, unnecessary burthens which presently they grow weary of, and in striving to shake them off, they gall the neck, and introduce tediousness of spirit or despair.

25. For we see when Religion grows high, the dangers do increase, not only by the proper dangers of that state, and the more violent assaults made against Saints than against meaner persons of no religious interest; but because it will be impossible for any man to know certainly what intension of spirit is the minimum religionis, the necessary condition, under or less than which God will not accept the action: and yet sometimes two duties justle one another, and while we are zealous in one, we less attend the other, and therefore cannot easily be certain of our measures; and because sometimes two duties of a very different matter are to be reconcil'd and waited upon, who can tell what will be the event of it, since mans nature is so limited and little that it cannot at once attend upon two objects?

26. Is it possible that a man should so attend his prayers, that his mind should be always present and never wander? does not every man complain of this, and yet no man can help it? And if of this alone we had cause to complain, yet even for this we were not innocent in others; and he that is an offender in one is guilty of all; and yet it is true that in many things we all offend. And all this is true when a man is well and when he is wise; but he may be foolish and he will be sick, and there is a new scene of dangers, new duties, and new infirmities, and new questions, and the old uncertainty of things, and the same certainty of doing our duty weakly, and imperfectly, and pitiably.

— Quid tam dextro pede concipis, ut te

Conatus non poeniteat, votique peracti?

27. Since therefore every sin is forbidden, and yet it can enter from so many angles, I may conclude in the words of Sedulius, Lex spiritualis est, quia spiritualiae mandat, In cap. 7. Rom. ardua praecipit opera spiritus, prohibens peccata, & ideò non potest impleri. Gods law is spiritual, and we are carnal and disproportionate to it while we are in the state of conjunction, and therefore it cannot be kept. Deus jugum legis homini imponit, homo ferre non valet, said the Fathers of the Synod of Frankeford. God hath imposed a yoke, but man cannot bear it. For that I may summ up all,

28. In affirmative Precepts the measure is, To love God with all our faculties and degrees. In negative Precepts the measure is, Not to lust or desire. Now if any man can say that he can so love God in the proper and full measures, as never to step aside towards the creatures with whom he daily converses, and is of the same kindred with them, and that he can so abstain from the creature, as never to covet what he is forbidden; then indeed he justifies God in imposing a possible law, and condemns himself that he does not what he ought. But in all he infers the absolute necessity of Repentance.

[Page]29. But because we are sure God is just and cannot be otherwise, all the Doctors of the Church have endeavoured to tie these things together, and reconcile our state of infirmity with the justification of God. Many lay the whole fault upon Man, not on the impossible imposition. But that being the Question cannot be concluded on either hand with a bare Affirmative or Negative: and besides, it was condemn'd by the African Councils to say, that a man might, if he pleas'd, live without sin.

Posse hominem sine peccato decurrere vitam,

Si velit, ut potuit, nullo delinquere primus

Libertate suâ:

Carm. de ingratis c. 9.

Nempe haec damnata fuêre

Conciliis, mundique manu — said Prosper.

For if it were only the fault of men, then a man might if he pleased keep the whole law, and then might be justified by the law, and should not need a Saviour.Epist. ad Innocent. S. Augustine indeed thought it no great error, and some African Bishops did expresly affirm that some from their conversion did to the day of their death live without sin. This was worse than that of Pelagius, save only that these took in the Grace of God, which (in that sence which the Church teaches) the Pelagians did not. But this also was affirmed by Lib. 2. de merit. & remiss. c. 6. lib. de Spirit & lit. c. 1. S. Austin, upon which account it must follow that the Commandments are therefore possible, because it is only our fault that they are not kept. But how to reconcile this opinion and saying of S. Austin and some other Africans, with the African Councils, with S. Hierome, Orosius, Lactantius, and with Serm. 49. de tempore. S. Austin himself, and generally the whole ancient Church against the Pelagians, I cannot understand: but it is sufficiently confuted by all the foregoing considerations.

30. S. Hierome says, that the observation of the Commandments is possible to the whole Church, but not to every single person, but then the difficulty remains. For the whole Church being a collection of single persons is not the subject of a law. Nothing is universal but Names and Words; a thing cannot be universal, it is a contradiction to say it is. To say the Church can keep it, is to say that every man can keep it; To say that every man of the Church cannot keep it, is to say that the whole Church cannot keep it: As he that says Mankind is reasonable, says that every man is; but he that says every man is not just, says that all mankind is not just. But if it contains in it another sence, it is a dangerous affirmative, which I shall represent in his own words: Ita fit ut quod in alio aut primum aut totum est, in alio ex parte versetur, & tamen non sit in crimine qui non habet omnia, nec condemnetur ex eo quod non habet, Lib. 1. dial adv. Pelag. sed justificetur ex eo quod possidet. I will not be so severe as S. Austin, who in his nineteenth Sermon de tempore, calls it blasphemy. It is indeed a hard saying, if he means that a man can be justified by some vertues, though he retains some vices: For he that sins in one is guilty of all. But yet some persons shall be crowned who never converted souls, and some that never redeem'd captives, and millions that never sold all and gave to the poor: and there are many graces, of which some lives have no opportunities. The state of Marriage hath some graces proper to it self; and the Calling of a Merchant, and the Office of a Judge, and the imployment of an Advocate hath some things of vertue which others do not exercise, and they also have their proper graces: and in this sence it is true what S. Hierome says, that he that hath not all, may be justified by what he hath, and not sentenced for what he hath not, it not being imputed to him that he hath not that of which he hath no use. Now although this be true, yet it is not sufficient to explicate the Question: For the Commandments are not only impossible in this sence, but even in that where the scene of his duty does lie, and where his graces ought to have been exercised, every man is a sinner, every man hath fail'd in his proper duty and calling. So that now to say the Commandments are possible to the whole Church, and not to every single person, is to divide the duty of a Christian, and to give to every one a portion of duty, which must leave in every one a portion of impiety; and to say that this is keeping the Commandments, or a sufficient means of justification, is that which S. Austin call'd blasphemy.

31. But S. Hierome hath another answer: Hoc & nos dicimus, Dial. extr. adv. Pelag. l. 3▪ posse hominem non peccare si velit, pro tempore, pro loco, pro imbecillitate corporeâ, quamdiu intentus est animus, quamdiu corda nullo vitio laxatur in Citharâ. God hath not impos'd an impossible law. For there is no Commandment, but a man that considers, that endeavours, that understands, that watches, that labours, may do in time and place, and so long as he adverts, and is dipassionate, so long as his instrument is in tune. Which answer is like that saying of the Schools, That there is no difficulty in things, but every thing [Page] is easie to be understood; but that we find difficulty, is because of the weakness of the understanding; that is, things are easie to be understood, if we were wise enough to understand them: But because our understanding is weak, therefore things are hard; for to be intelligible is a relative term; and it is not sence to say, that a thing is in it self easie to be understood, but hard to the understanding; for it is as if it were said, It is easie, but that it is hard: and that's the thing which in this question is complain'd of on all hands. For an Oak is easie to be pull'd up by the roots, if a man had strength enough to do it; but if this be impos'd upon a weak man or a child, they have reason to complain: and a Bushel or two of Wheat is no great thing to carry, but it is too great for me, I cannot do it. So by this account of S. Hierome, the Commandments are not impossible, for there is not any one of them, but any man can do at some time, while he considers and is in perfect disposition. But then we are to remember, that the Commandments are always imposed, and we are not always in that condition of good things to be wise and watchful, well dispos'd, and well resolv'd, standing upon our guard, and doing what we can at other times; and therefore it is that the Commandments are impossible. So that still the difficulty remains and the inquiry must go on, How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible law? or if he does not exact it, how we understand the way of the Divine Wisdom in imposing that law which he cannot justly exact?

32. To the first I answer, that God doth not exact of us what is not possible to be done. The highest severity of the Gospel is to love God with all our soul, that is, to love him as much as we can love him; and that is certain we can do. Every man can do as much as he can, and God requires no more: and even those things which we can do, though he calls upon us to do the most, yet he punishes us not if we do it heartily and sincerely, though with less passion and exactness. Now as Gods justice was secur'd in the imposition of the law of Moses, because whatever severity was held over them to restrain their loosenesses, yet God exacted it only by the measures of a man, and healed all their breaches by the medicine of Repentance: So now in the Gospel he hath done it much more [...], God hath taken the vail off, and profess'd it openly, he hath included this mercy in the very constitution of the Covenant. For the Gospel is the Covenant of Repentance; we shall not have leave to sin, but we shall have leave to repent if we have sinned: so that God hath imposed a law of perfection, but he exacts it according to the possibilities of imperfect persons,S. August. lib. 1. Retract. c. 19. Omnia mandata Dei facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur, and then we have kept the Commandments, when we 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,Heb. 10.28. 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, Rom. 8.3. 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 [Page] 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,Apud Diodor Sicul. 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, [...].Hem. 3. inter. 19. 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,In epistolâ ad Innocentium dictum est, multos Catholicos viros dixisse posse hominem esse sine peccato per gratiam Dei, non à nativitate sed à conversione. 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 this also we exercise a holy fear, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. It enlarges our care, and endears our watchfulness and caution. It cures or prevents our pride and bold challenges of God for rewards which we never can deserve. It convinces us of the necessity of the Divine aid, and makes us to relie upon Gods goodness in helping us, and his mercy in pardoning us; and truly without this we could neither be so sensible of our infirmities, [Page] nor of the excellent gifts and mercies of God: for although God does not make necessities on purpose that he may serve them, or introduce sin that he might pardon it, yet he loves we should depend upon him, and by these rare arts of the Divine Oeconomy make us to strive to be like him, and in the midst of our finite abilities have infinite desires, that even so we may be disposed towards the holiness and glories of eternity.

38. IV. Although God exacts not an impossible law under eternal and insufferable pains, yet he imposes great holiness in unlimited and indefinite measures, with a design to give excellent proportions of reward answerable to the greatness of our endeavour. Hell is not the end of them that fail in the greatest measures of perfection; but great degrees of Heaven shall be their portion who do all that they can always, and offend in the fewest instances. For as our duty is not limited, so neither are the degrees of glory: and if there were not this latitude of duty, neither could there be any difference in glory; neither could it be possible for all men to hope for Heaven, but now all may: The meanest of Gods servants shall go thither, and yet there are greater measures for the best and most excellent services.

39. Thus we may understand that the imposing of the Divine Laws in all the periods of the world, was highly consistent with the Divine Justice, and an excellent, infinite wisdome, and yet in the exacting them, Mercy prevail'd; because the Covenant of Works or of exact obedience was never the rule of life and death, since the Saviour of the world was promised, that is, since the fall of Adam, but all Mankind was admitted to repentance, and wash'd clean in the blood of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, and was slain from the beginning of it. Repentance was the measure of our duty, and the remedy for our evils; and the Commandments were not impossible to him that might amend what was done amiss.

SECT. III. How Repentance and the Precept of Perfection Evangelical can stand together.

40. THAT the Gospel is a Covenant of Repentance, is evident in the whole design and nature of the thing, in the preparatory Sermons made by the Baptist, by the Apostles of our Lord, by the seventy two Disciples, and the Exhortations made by S. Peter at the first opening the Commission, and the secret of the Religion. Which Doctrine of Repentance, lest it should be thought to be a permission to sin, a leave to need the remedy, is charged with an addition of a strict and severe holiness, the Precept of Perfection. It therefore must be such a repentance as includes in it perfection, and yet the perfection is such as needs repentance. How these two are to stand together,Mat. 5.48. is the subject of the present inquiry. Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect; that's the charge. To be perfect as God, and yet to repent as a Man, seem contrary to each other. They seem so only. For,

41. I. It does not signifie perfection of degrees in the natural sence of the word. For as Philo said well, [...], Perfections and the heights of excellencies are only proper to one: [...], said Clemens of Alexandria, God alone is wise, he alone is perfect. All that we do is but little, and that little is imperfect, and that imperfection is such as could be condemned, if God did not use gentleness and mercy towards us. But,

II. Although perfection of degrees cannot be understood to be our duty in the periods and spaces of this life, because we are here in the state of labour and contention, of pilgrimage and progression, yet even in this life we are to labour towards it: and Be ye perfect, viz. with the highest degrees of holiness, is to be understood in a current and transient sence. For this Precept thus understood, hath its obligation upon our endeavour only, and not upon the event. When a General commands his Army to destroy the Enemy, he binds them only to a prudent, a possible and vigorous endeavour to do it, and cannot intend the effect, but by several parts answerable to the steps of the progression. So is that in the Psalms, Be learned ye that are Princes of the world, Psal. 2. that is, learn, and so by industry and attention arrive at knowledge. For although [Page] though every man be a sinner, yet he that does not endeavour to avoid all sin, is not only guilty of the sin he commits, but the negligence also, which is the parent of the sin, is another sin, and directly criminal. So it is in the degrees of perfection, what we cannot attain to, we must at least desire. In this world we cannot arrive thither, but in this life we must always be going thither. It is status [...]iae, grace is the way to glory. And as he that commands us to enter into a City from which we are hugely distant, means we should pass through all the ways that lead thither: so it is here. The Precept must be given here, and begun, and set forward, and it will be finished hereafter. But as a man may be an adulterer, or a thief, with his heart and his eye, as well as with his hand; so it is also in good things: A mans heart and eye may be in Heaven, that is, in the state of perfection, long before he sets his feet upon the golden threshold. His desires are first crown'd and fainted, and then the work shall be made perfect.

43. III. There is another sort of perfection which may not be improperly meant in this charge of duty, and that is, a perfection of state. Be ye perfect, that is, Be ye holy; for [...] is sanctifico, and [...] is festum, or a holy day, a day that hath the perfection added to it of which a day is capable, a day sanctified to the Lord. For [...] is the same with [...], to sanctifie is to make perfect. Heb. 7.19. Nihil enim sanctificavit lex, so the Latin reads the words of S. Paul; but in the Greek it is [...], The law made that perfect which it did sanctifie. So that, Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, is. Be ye holy like him, or in imitation of him. And thus the word is expounded in Plato, [...]. That's the perfection of good to be like God; but to be like him is to be just, and holy, and prudent. That's [...], as much as we can, that is, with a hearty, righteous, sincere endeavour: for so [...] or holy is used. It signifies sincere, true, without error. [...]. So Damascius in Suidas. It is not likely or true, that he that is not wise in little things should be wise in great things. But to live holily in the Christian sence, is to live in faith and good works, that's Christian perfection. [...]. He is good and holy, who by faith and good works is like unto God. For this perfection or [...] holiness is nothing else but a pursuance of that which is just and good; for so said Moses concerning the man that forsook God, and denied that he had made a Covenant with him, [Do not say in thine heart, [...], let it be lawful or holy, or permitted to me to depart from the Lord. To this sence was that of Justin Martyr, who expounds this phrase of [Be ye perfect] by Christianum fieri, Be perfect, that is, Be Christians, be Christs Disciples; for he who came [...] to fulfil, to consummate obedience, to perfect the law, to obey him, and be Disciples of his institution, is our perfection and consummation.

44. IV. This perfection of state, although it does not suppose a perfection of degrees, yet it can be no less than 1. A perfection of parts. It must be a Religion that is not mingled with interest, piety to God that is not spoiled with cruelty to our neighbours, a zeal that hath in it no uncharitableness or spite, that is, our Religion must be intire, and not defective in any constituent part. So S. James uses the word [...] for [...], perfect and intire wanting nothing. 2. To which add this also,Jam. 1.4. That to this perfection of state, perseverance is of necessity to be added. For so we are taught by the same Apostle, Let patience have her perfect work, that is, let it bear you through all your trials, lasting till all your sufferings are over; For he that endures to the end shall be crowned, because he only is perfect. Our holiness must persevere to the end. But 3. it must also be growing all the way. For this word perfect is sometimes in Scripture used for degrees, and as a distinction between Christians in the measures of duty. S. Paul uses it to signifie well grown Christians, or men in Christianity. [...]; stand perfectly and full, Col. 4.12. or confidently fulfilling all the will of God: for therefore we preach Christ, and exhort every man, and teach every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man [...] perfect in Christ Jesus; that is, that they should not always be as babes, 1.28. for whom milk and weak nutriment is to be provided; nor like those silly women, always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; but it is commanded us to be wise and perfect, to be men in Christ; so S. Paul makes the antithesis, Be ye babes in malice, but in your minds [...] be perfect, that is, be men, 1 Cor. 14.20. wise and confident, and strong, and well grown. Perfectly instructed; that is, readily prepared to [Page]every good work; not always imployed in the elements and infant propositions and practices of Religion, but doing noble actions, well skill'd in the deepest mysteries of faith and holiness. This is agreeable to that expression of S. Paul, who having laid the foundation of Christianity by describing the fundamentals, intending to speak of the more mysterious points of the Religion,Heb. 6.1. calls it a going on to perfection: So that by this Precept of perfection it is intended we should do more than the lowest measure of our duties, and there is no limit, but even the utmost of our power; all that we can is the measure of our duty: I do not say, all that we can naturally or possibly, but all that we can morally and probably, according to the measures of a man, and the rate of our hindrances and infirmities.

45. V. But the last sort and sence of perfection, is that which our blessed Saviour intended particularly in the instance and subject matter of this Precept, and that is, a perfection in the kind of action, that is, a choice and prosecution of the most noble and excellent things in the whole Religion. Three are especially instanc'd in the holy Gospel.

I. The first is, a being ready, or a making our selves ready to suffer persecution, prescrib'd by our blessed Saviour to the rich young man, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all and give to the poor, Mat. 19.21. that is, if thou wilt be my disciple, make thy self ready, and come and follow me. For it was at that time necessary to all that would follow Christs person and fortune, to quit all they had above their needs. For they that followed him, were sure of a Cross; and therefore to invite them to be disciples, was to engage them to the suffering persecution; and this was that which our blessed Saviour calls perfection.

Dulce periculum est,

O Lenaee, sequi Deum

Cingentem viridi tempora pampino.

It is an easie thing to follow God in festivals and days of Eucharist; but to serve him in hard battels, to die for him, is the perfection of love, of faith and obedience. Obedient unto death, was the Character of his own perfection; for Greater love than this hath no man, than to lay down his life. Scis quem dicam bonum, perfectum, absolutum? Quem malum facere nulla vis, Seneca. nulla necessitas potest. He is good, absolute and perfect, whom no force, no necessity can make evil.

II. The second instance is, being merciful; for S. Luke recording this Precept expounds it by [...], Be ye perfect, that is, Be ye merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful;Luke 6.36. for by mercy only we can be like him. [...].Scriptor ad Di [...]gnetum. He that bears his neighbours burthen, and is willing to do benefit to his inferiors, and to minister to the needy of the good things which God hath given him, he is as God to them that receive, he is an imitator of God himself. And Justin Martyr reciting this Precept of our blessed Saviour, instead of [...] uses the word [...], Be ye good and bountiful us your heavenly Father is. And to this purpose the story of Jesus and the young man before mentioned, is interpolated in the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Nazarens, ‘The Lord said unto him, How sayest thou, I have kept the Law and the Prophets, when it is written in the Law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self? and behold many of thy brethren the sons of Abraham are covered in filth, and die with hunger, and thy house is full of good things, and nothing goes forth to them from thence. If therefore thou wilt be perfect, sell all and give to the poor.’ Charity, which is the fulfilling the Commandment, is also the perfection of a Christian: and that a giving of alms should be perfection, is not disagreeing with the design of the word it self; [...], say the Grammarians; it signifies to spend, and [...] is a great spender or a bountiful person.

III. The third is the very particular to which our blessed Master did especially relate in the words of the sanction or institution: and we are taught it by the particle [...] or therefore. For when the holy Jesus had describ'd that glory of Christianity that we should love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them which despitefully use us and persecute us; he propounds the example of our heavenly Father; for he maketh his Sun to rise on the evil and on the good. But the Publicans love their friends, and salute their brethren: but more is expected of us; Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect; that is, do more than the Publicans, do as your Father does, be perfect as he is, that is, love your enemies.

[Page]46. VI. Now concerning this sence of the Precept of perfection, which is the choice and pursuance of the noblest actions of Religion, we must observe that they are therefore perfection, because they suppose a man to have pass'd through the first and beginning graces, to have arrived at these excellencies of piety and duty. For as no man can on a sudden become the worst man in the world, his soul must by degrees be unstript of holiness and then of modesty, and then of all care of reputation, and then of disuse, and by these measures he will proceed to the consummation of the method of Hell and darkness: So can no man on a sudden come to the right use of these graces. Not every man that dies in a good cause shall have the reward of Martyrdome; but he that having liv'd well, seals that doctrine with dying which before he adorn'd with living. And therefore it does infinitely concern all them that suffer in a good Cause, to take care that they be not prodigal of their sufferings, and throw them away upon vice. Peevishness or pride, lust or intemperance, can never be consecrated by dying or by alms. But he that after a patient continuance in well doing, adds Charity or Martyrdome to the collective body of his other graces, he hath made them perfect with this kind of perfection. Martyrdome can supply the place of actual baptisms, but not of repentance: Because without our fault it may so happen that the first cannot be had; but without our fault the second is never left undone.

47. Thus perfection and repentance may stand together. Perfection does not suppose the highest intention of degrees in every one, but in all according to their measures of grace and time. Evangelical perfection is such as supposes a beginning, an infant grace, progression and variety, watchfulness and fear, trembling fear. And there are many graces required of us, whose material and formal part is Repentance: Such as are Mortification, Penitential sorrow, Spiritual mourning, Patience, some parts of Humility, all the parts and actions of Humiliation; and since in these also perfection is as great a duty as in any thing else, it is certain that the perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention.

48. But yet perfection cannot be less than an intire piety, a holiness perfect in its parts, wanting nothing material, allowing no vicious habit, permitting no vile action, but contending towards the greatest excellency, a charitable heart, a ready hand, a confident Religion, willing to die when we are called to die, patient, constant and persevering, endeavouring [...] according to the measures of a man, to be pure and pleasing to God in Jesus Christ. This is the summ of all those several sences of perfection which are prescrib'd in the several uses of the word in holy Scripture. For though God through Jesus Christ is pleased to abate for our unavoidable infirmities, that is, for our Nature, yet he will not abate or give allowance to our superinduc'd evil customes; and the reason is plain for both, because the one can be helped and the other cannot; and therefore as to allow that is to be a patron of impiety, so not to allow for this, is to demand what cannot be done: that is against the holiness, this against the goodness of God.

49. There is not a man upon earth that sinneth not, said Solomon; and, the righteous shall be punished, said David; and he found it so by a sad experience: for he,1 Kings 8.46▪ Psal. 37.29. vet. edit. though affirmed to be blameless save in the matter of Vriah, and a man after Gods own heart, yet complains that his sins are innumerable, more than the hairs upon his head. But though no man can live without errour or mistake, the effects of weakness and ignorance, inadvertency and surprise, yet being helped by Gods grace, we can and must live without great sins, such which no man admits but with deliberation.

50. For it is one thing to keep the Commandments in a sence of favour and equity, and another thing to be without sin. To keep the Commandments [...] or exactly, is to be without sin; because the Commandment forbids every sin, and sin is a transgression of the Commandment: But as in this sence no man can keep the Commandments; so in no sence can he say, that he hath not sinned. But we can by the help of Gods grace keep the Commandments acceptably through Jesus Christ, but we cannot keep them so as to be without sin. Which S. Gregory thus expresses, Multi sine crimine, nullus verò esse sine peccatis valet. Many live without crimes, none without offence. And it is now as it was under the law, many were then righteous and blameless; David, Josiah, Joshua, Caleb, Zachary, and Elizabeth, Saul before his conversion according to the accounts of the Law; and so are many now, according to the holy and merciful measures of the Gospel, not by the force of Nature, but by the helps of Grace, not always, but at some time, not absolutely, but in a limited measure; that is, not innocent, but penitent, not perfect absolutely, but excellently contending, and perfect in their desires, not at their journeys end, but on their way thither; [Page] free from great sins, but speckled with lesser spots, ever striving against sin, though sometimes failing. This is the Precept of perfection, as it can consist with the measures and infirmities of a man.

51. We must turn from all our evil ways, leaving no sin unmortified, that's one measure of perfection, it is a perfect conversion. * We must have Charity; that's another perfection, it is a perfect grace. * We must be ready to part with all for a good conscience, and to die for Christ; that's perfect obedience, and the most perfect love. * We must conform to the Divine Will in doing and suffering; that's perfect patience: we must live in all holy conversation and godliness; that's a perfect state. *We must ever be going forward and growing in godliness, that so we may be perfect men in Christ. * And we must persevere unto the end; that's perfection, and the crown of all the rest. If any thing less than this were intended, it cannot be told how the Gospel should be a holy institution, or that God should require of us to live a holy life; but if any thing more than this were intended, it is impossible but all mankind should perish.

52. To the same sence are we to understand those other severe Precepts of Scripture of [being pure, unblameable, without spot or wrinkle, without fault] that is, that we be honest and sincere, free from hypocrisie, just in our purposes and actions, without partiality and unhandsome mixtures. S. Paul makes them to expound each other, [...] and [...],Phil. 1.10. sincere, that is, without fault, pure and clear in Conscience.

53. Like to this is that of [Toto corde] loving and serving God with all our heart, and with all our strength. That this is possible, is folly to deny. For he that saith he cannot do a thing with all his strength, that is, that he cannot do what he can do, knows not what he says: and yet to do this, is the highest measure and sublimity of Christian perfection, and of keeping the Commandments. But it signifies two things: 1. [...], without hypocrisie, sincerely and heartily, opposite to that of Corde & corde in the Psalmist. Corde & corde loquuti sunt; they spake with a double heart: but the men of Zebulon went out to battel absque corde & corde, 1 Chron. 12.33. they were not of a double heart, so S. Hierome renders it, but heartily or with a whole heart they did their business. 2. It signifies diligence and labour, earnestness and caution: Totus in hoc sum; so the Latines use to speak, I am earnest and hearty in this affair, I am wholly taken up with it.

54. Thus is the whole design of the Gospel rarely abbreviated in these two words of Perfection and Repentance. God hath sent Jesus to bless you [...], whilest, Acts 3.26. or so that, every one of you turn from your iniquities. He blesses us, and we must do our duty; He pardons us, and we obey him; He turns us, and we are turned. And when S. Peter had represented the terrors of the day of Judgment, he infers, What manner of persons ought we to be [...],2. Pet 3.11. in holy living and holy worshippings?Vers. 14. This he calls a giving diligence to be found [...], without spot and unblameable; that's Christian perfection: and yet this very thing is no other than what he calls a little before [...],Vers. 9. a coming to repentance. Living in holy conversation and piety, in the faith of Christ, is the extent and burthen of repentance, and it is the limit and declaration of the [spotless and unblameable] This is no more, and that is no less.

55. Upon this account the Commandments are not only possible but easie, necessary to be observed, and will be exacted at our hands as they are imposed. That is, 1. That we abstain from all deliberate acts of sin. 2. That we never contract any vicious habit. 3. That if we have we quite rescind and cut them off, and make amends for what is past. 4. That our love to God be intire, hearty, obedient and undivided. 5. That we do our best to understand Gods will and obey it, allowing to our selves deliberately or by observation not the smallest action that we believe to be a sin. Now that God requires no more, and that we can do thus much, and that good men from their conversion do thus much, though in differing degrees, is evident upon plain experience and the foregoing considerations. I conclude with the words of the Arausican Council. Omnes baptizati Christo auxiliante & cooperante possunt & debent quae ad salutem pertinent, si fidelitèr laborare voluerint, adimplere. All baptized Christians may by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, if they will faithfully labour, perform and fulfil all things that belong to their salvation.

56. The summ of all is this: The state of regeneration is perfection all the way, even when it is imperfect in its degrees. The whole state of a Christians life is a state of perfection. Sincerity is the formality or the Soul of it: A hearty constant endeavour is the Body or material part of it: And the Mercies of God accepting it in Christ, and assisting and promoting it by his Spirit of Grace, is the third part of its constitution, [Page] it is the Spirit. This perfection is the perfection of Men, not of Angels; oand it is as in the perfection of Glory, where all are perfect, yet all are not equal. Every regenerate man hath that perfection, without which he cannot be accepted, but some have this perfection more, some less. It is the perfection of state, but the perfection of degrees is not yet. Here men are [...], made perfect according to the measure of their Fathers (as Porphyrie express'd it) that is, by the measures of mortality, or as it pleases God to enable and accept them.

SECT. IV. The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practice.

1. THE Law is either taken for the Law of Moses, or the Law of Works: The Law of Works is that Empire and Dominion which God exercised over man, using his utmost right, and obliging man to the rigorous observation of all that Law he should impose upon him. And in this sence, it was a law of death, not of life, for no man could keep it, and they that did not, might not live. This was impos'd on Adam only.

2. But when God brought Israel out of Egypt, he began to make a Covenant with them, with some compliance to their infirmities: For because little things could not be avoided, Sacrifices were appointed for their expiation; which was a mercy as the other was a misery, a repentance as the sin: But for great sins there was no Sacrifice appointed, no repentance ministred. And therefore still we were in the ministration of death; for this mercy was not sufficient, as yet it was not possible for a man to be justified by the Law. It threatned sinners with death, it inflicted death, it did not promise eternal life, it ministred no grace, but fear and temporal hope: It was written in Tables of stone, not in their hearts; that is, the material parts of the Law of Moses were not consonant to natural and essential reason, but arbitrary impositions; they were not perfective of a man, but very often destructive. This was a little alteration or ease of the Covenant of Works, but not enough.

3 From this state of evil things we were freed by Christ; The law was called the letter, the ministration of death, the ministration of condemnation, the old Testament; apt to amaze and confound a sinner, but did not give him any hopes of remission, no glimpse of heaven, no ministry of pardon: But the Gospel is called, the Spirit, or the ministration of the Spirit, the law of faith, the law of liberty; it ministers repentance, it enjoyns holiness, it gives life, and we all have hopes of being saved.

4. This which is the state of things in which the whole world is represented in their several periods, is by some made to be the state of every returning sinner; and men are taught that they must pass through the terrors of the Law, before they can receive the mercies of the Gospel. The Law was a Schoolmaster to bring the Synagogue to Christ; it was so to them who were under the Law, but it cannot be so to us, who are not under the Law but under grace. For if they mean the law of Works, or that interposition which was the first entercourse with man, they lose their title to the mercies of the Gospel; If they mean the law of Moses, then they do not stand fast in the liberty by which Christ hath made them free. But whatsoever the meaning be, neither of them can concern Christians. For God hath sent his Son to establish a better Covenant in his blood, to preach repentance, to offer pardon, to condemn sin in the flesh, to publish the righteousness of God, to convince the world of sin by his holy Spirit, to threaten damnation not to sinners absolutely, but absolutely to the impenitent, and to promise and give salvation to his Sons and Servants.

5. I. The use that we Christians are to make of the Law, is only to magnifie the mercies of God in Jesus Christ, who hath freed us from so severe a Covenant, who does not judge us by the measures of an Angel, but by the span of a mans hand. But we are not to subject our selves so much as by fiction of law or fancy to the curse and threatnings of the Covenant of Works, or of Moses Law, though it was of more instances and less severity, by reason of the allowance of Sacrifices for expiation.

6. II. Every Christian man sinning, is to consider the horrible threatnings of the Gospel, the severe intermination of eternal pains, the goodness of God leading to [Page] repentance, the severity of his Justice in exacting great punishments of criminals, the reasonableness of this Justice punishing such persons intolerably, who would not use so great a grace in so pleasing a service, for the purchase of so glorious a reward. The terrors of the Law did end in temporal death, they could affright no further; but in the Gospel Heaven and Hell were opened, and laid before all mankind: and therefore by these measures a sinner is to enter into the sorrows of contrition and the care of his amendment. And it is so vain a thing to think every sinner must in his repentance pass under the terrors of the Law, that this is a very destruction of that reason for which they are fallen upon the opinion. The Law is not enough to affright sinners, and the terrors of the Gospel are far more to persevering and impenitent sinners, than the terrors of the Law were to the breakers of it. The cause of the mistake is this: The Law was more terrible than the Gospel is, because it allowed no mercy to the sinner in great instances: But the Gospel does. But then if we compare the state of those men who fell under the evils of the Law, with these who fall under the evils threatned in the Gospel, we shall find these to be in a worse condition than those by far, as much as hell is worse than being stoned to death, or thrust through with a sword. This we are taught by that excellent Author of the Divine Epistle to the Hebrews, He that despised Moses law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy, Heb. 10.28, 29. who hath troden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace? So that, under the Gospel, he that sins and repents is in a far better condition, than he that sinn'd under the Law, and repented. For repentance was not then allowed of, the man was to die without mercy. But he that sins and repents not, is under the Gospel in a far worse condition than under the Law; for under the Gospel, he shall have a far sorer punishment, than under the Law was threatned. Therefore let no man mistake the mercies of the New Covenant, or turn the grace of God into wantonness. The mercies of the Gospel neither allow us to sin, nor inflict an easier punishment; but they oblige us to more holiness, under a greater penalty. In pursuance of which, I add,

7. III. The Covenant by which mankind must now be judged, is a Covenant of more Mercy, but also of more holiness: and therefore let no man think that now he is disobliged from doing good works, by being admitted to the Covenant of Faith: For though the Covenants are oppos'd, as Old and New, as a worse and a better, yet Faith and Works are not oppos'd. We are in the Gospel tied to more, and to more excellent works than ever the subjects of any Law were; but if after a hearty endeavour we fall into infirmity, and still strive against it, we are pitied here, but there we were not. Under the first Covenant, the Covenant of Works, no endeavour was sufficient, because there was no allowance made for infirmities, no abatements for ignorance, no deductions of exact measures, no consideration of surprises, passions, folly, and inadvertency: but under the New Covenant our hearty endeavour is accepted; but we are tied to endeavour higher and more excellent things than they. But he that thinks this mercy gives him liberty to do what he please, loses the mercy, and mistakes the whole design and Oeconomy of Gods loving kindness.

8. IV. To every Christian it is enjoyned that they be perfect; that is, according to the measure of every one. Which perfection consists in doing our endeavour. He that does not do that, must never hope to be accepted, because he refuses to serve God by something that is in his power. But he that does that, is sure that God will not refuse it, because we cannot be dealt withal upon any other account, but by the measures of what is in our power; and for what is not, we cannot take care.

9. V. To do our endeavour or our best, is not to be understood equally in all the periods of our life, according to the work or effect it self, nor according to our natural powers, but it is accounted for by the general measures and great periods of our life. A man cannot pray always with equal intention, nor give the same alms, nor equally mourn with sharpness for his sins. But God having appointed for every duty proper seasons and solennities, hath declared, that He does his best, who heartily endeavours to do the duty in its proper season: But it were well we would remember that he that did a good act to day, can do the same to morrow in the same circumstances; and he that yesterday fought a noble battle and resisted valiantly, can upon the same terms contend as manfully every day, if he will consider and watch. And though it will never be that men will always do as well as at some times, yet when at any time they commit a sin, it is not because they could not, but because they would not help it.

[Page]10. VI. He that would be approved in doing his best, must omit no opportunity of doing a good action; because when it is plac'd in its proper circumstances, God lays his hand upon it, and calls to have it done, and there can be no excuse for the omission. He does not do his best, that does not do that, Because such a person does voluntarily omit the doing of a good, without just cause; and that cannot proceed from an innocent principle.

11. VII. He that leaves any thing undone which he is commanded to do, or does what he is commanded to forbear, and considers or chooses so to do, does not do his best, cannot plead his priviledge in the Gospel, but is fallen under the portion of sinners, and will die, if he does not repent and make it up some way or other, by sorrow, and a future diligence.

12. VIII. To sin against our Conscience, can at no hand consist with the duty of Christian perfection; Because he loves not God with all his heart, nor serves him with all his strength, who gives some of his strength, and some of his affection to that which God forbids.

13. IX. No man must account that he does his duty, that is, his best, or according to the perfection requir'd of Christians, but he that does better and better, and grows toward the measures of the fulness of Christ. For perfection is an infinite word; and it could not be communicated to several persons of different capacities and degrees, but that there is something common to them all which hath analogy and equivalent proportions. Now nothing can be perfect, but that to which nothing is wanting; and therefore a man is not any way perfect but by doing all, all that he can; for then nothing is wanting to him, when he hath put forth all his strength. For perfection is not to be accounted by comparing the subjects which are perfect, for in that sence nothing is perfect but God▪ but perfection is to be reckoned by every mans own proportions: For a body may be a perfect body, though it have not the perfection of a soul; and a man is perfect when he is heartily and intirely Gods servant, though he have not the perfection of S. Paul; as a man is a meek man, though he be not so meek as Moses or Christ. But he is not meek, if he keeps any fierceness or violence within. * But then because to be more perfect is incident with humane nature, he that does not endeavour to get as much as he can, and more than he hath, he hath not the perfection of holy desires. Therefore

14. X. Every person that is in the state of grace, and designs to do his duty, must think of what is before him, not what is past; of the stages that are not yet run, not of those little portions of his course he hath already finish'd.

Vt cum carceribus missos rapit ungula currus,

Horat. Serm. l. 1. Satyr.

Instat equis auriga suos vincentibus, illum

Praeteritum temnens, extremos inter euntem.

For so did the Contenders in the Olympick Races, never look behind but contend forwards: And from hence S. Paul gives the rule I have now described. Brethren, I count not my self to have apprehended; but this one thing I do, Phil. 3.13, 14. forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling. Let therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded. That is, no man can do the duty of a Christian, no man can in any sence be perfect, but he that adds vertue to vertue, and one degree of grace unto another. ‘Nilque putans actum, dum quid superesset agendum.’ Nothing is finish'd, as long as any thing is undone. For our perfection is always growing; it stands not, till it arrive at the [...] the crowning of him that runs. For the enforcing of which the more, I only use S. Chrysostoms argument, [...]; If S. Paul who had done so much, and suffered so much, was not very confident, but that if he did look back, he might also fall back; what shall we say, whose perfection is so little, so infant and imperfect, that we are come forwards but a little, and have great spaces still to measure?

15. XI. Let every man that is or desires to be perfect, endeavour to make up the imperfection or meanness of his services, by a great, a prompt, an obedient, a loving and a friendly mind. For in the Parable our blessed Lord hath taught us,Luke 17.7. that the servant who was bidden to plow the field, or feed the cattel, is still called an unprofitable [Page] servant, because he hath done only what was commanded him; that is, they had done the work, utcunque, some way or other; the thing was finish'd though with a servile spirit; for [...] properly signifies to do the outward work; and the works of the Law are those which consisted in outward obedience, and by which a man could not be justified. But our blessed Saviour teaching us the righteousness of the Kingdome, hath also brought the word [...] to signifie the internal also; a mixture of faith and operation. For to the Jews enquiring, What shall we do to work the works of God? Jesus answers, [...], &c. This is the work of God that ye believe in him whom he hath sent:John 6.28, 29. and since this [to do] in the Christian sence is to do bona benè, good Works with a good mind. For since the works are not only in them [...]elves inconsiderable, but we also do them most imperfectly and with often failings, a good mind and the spirit of a friend or a son will not only heighten the excellency of the work, but make amends for the defect too. The doing what we are commanded, that is in the usual sence of doing, still leaves us unprofitable; for we are servants of God, he hath a perfect and supreme right over us, and when this is done, still can demand more, when we have plowed, he will call upon us to wait at supper; and for all this, we are to expect only impunity and our daily provisions. And upon this account, if we should have performed the Covenant of Works, we could not have been justified. But then, there is a sort of working, and there are some such servants which our Lord uses magis ex aequo & bono, quàm ex Imperio; with the usages of sons, not of slaves or servants.Luke 12.37. He will gird himself and serve them, he will call them friends and not servants;Luke 12. these are such as serve animo liberali, such which Seneca calls humiles amicos, humble friends, serving as S. Paul expresses it, [...], in the simplicity of their heart; not [...], with eye-service, but honestly, heartily, zealously, and affectionately, [...]; so S. Peter, freely, readily, not grudgingly, or of necessity.

16. XII. The proper effect of this is, that all the perfect do their services so, that their work should fail rather than their minds, that they do more than is commanded. Exiguum est ad legem bonum esse, To be good according to the rigour of the law, to do what we are forc [...]d to, to do all that is lawful to do, and to go toward evil or danger as far as we can, these are no good signs of a filial spirit, this is not Christian perfection; [...], That, slaves consider; This is commanded and must be done under horrible pains: and such are the negative precepts of the Law, and the proper duties of every mans calling. [...], This is an act of piety of mine own choosing, a righteousness that I delight in; that is the voice of sons and good servants, and that's rewardable with a mighty grace. And of this nature are the affirmative precepts of the Gospel, which being propounded in general terms, and with indefinite proportions, for the measures are left under our liberty and choice, to signifie our great love to God. [...], said S. Chrysostome; Whatsoever is over and above the Commandments, that shall have a great reward. God forbids unmercifulness, he that is not unmerciful keeps the Commandment; but he that besides his abstinence from unmercifulness according to the commandment, shall open his hand and his heart, and give plentifully to the poor, this man shall have a reward; he is amongst those servants whom his Lord will make to sit down, and himself will serve him. When God in the Commandment forbids uncleanness and fornication; he that is not unchast, and does not pollute himself, keeps the Commandment. But if to preserve his chastity he uses fasting and prayer, if he mortifies his body, if he denies himself the pleasures of the world, if he uses the easiest, or the harder remedies, according to the proportion of his love and industry, especially if it be prudent, so shall his greater reward be. If a man out of fear of falling into uncleanness, shall use austerities, and find that they will not secure him, and therefore to ascertain his duty the rather shall enter into a state of marriage, according as the prudence and the passion of his desires were for God and for purity; so also shall his reward be. To follow Christ is all our duty; but if that we may follow Christ with greater advantages we quit all the possessions of the world, this is more acceptable; because it is a doing the Commandment with greater love. We must so order things that the Commandment be not broken, but the difference is in finding out the better ways, and doing the duty with the more affections.

17. Now in this case they are highly mistaken that think any thing of this nature is a work of supererogation: For all this is nothing but a pursuance of the commandment. For [...] or Commandment] is taken in a general sence, for the prescription of whatsoever is pleasing and acceptable to God, whatsoever he will reward with mighty [Page] glories. So loving God with all our heart, with all our soul, and all our mind, and all our strength, is called [...], the first and the great Commandment; that is,Mat. 22.37. nothing is more pleasing, nothing more acceptable to God, because it proceeds out of an excellent love. But some Commandments are propounded as to friends, some as to servants; some under the threatning of horrible pains, others not so, but with the proposition and under the invitation of glorious rewards. It was commanded to S. Paul to preach the Gospel: if he had not obeyed, he should have perished: Wo is me (saith he) if I preach not the Gospel: he was bound to do it. But he had another Commandment also, to love God as much as was possible, and to love his neighbour: which precepts were infinite, and of an unlimited signification, and therefore were lest to every servants choice to do them with his several measures of affection and zeal. He that did most, did the Commandment best; and therefore cannot be said to do more than was commanded; but he that does less; if he preaches the Gospel, though with a less diligence, and fewer advantages, he obeys the Commandment, but not so nobly as the other. For example: God Commands us to pray. He obeys this, that constantly and devoutly keeps his morning and evening Sacrifice, offering devoutly twice a day. He that prays thrice a day, does better, and he that prays seven times a day, hath done no work of supererogation, but does what he does in pursuance of the Commandment. All the difference is in the manner of Doing what is commanded; for no man can do more than he is commanded. But some do it better, some less perfectly; but all is comprehended under this Commandment of loving God with all our hearts. When a father commands his children to come to him, he that comes slowly, obeys the commandment, but he that runs does obey more willingly and readily: now though to come running was left to the choice of the childs affection, yet it was but a brisk pursuance of the commandment. Thus when he that is bound to pay Tithes, gives the best portion, or does it cheerfully, without contention, in all questions taking the worse of the thing, and the better of the duty, does what he is commanded, and he does it with the affection of a son and of a friend, he loves his duty. Be angry, but sin not: so it is in the Commandment; but he that to avoid the sin, will endeavour not to be angry at all, is the greater friend of God, by how much the further he stands off from sin. Thus in all doubts to take the surest side, to determine always for Religion, when without sin we might have determin'd for interest; to deny our selves in lawful things, to do all our duty by the measures of Love and of the Spirit, are instances of this filial obedience, and are rewarded by a [...], a perswasion and confidence of Gods love to us, enabling us to call him Father, as well as Lord. Thus this Parable, or one like it, is told in the book of Hermas. The Lord commanded his servant to put pales about his vineyard: He did so, and digg'd a ditch besides, and rooted out all the weeds; which when his Lord observ'd, he made him coheir with his son. When S. Paul exhorted the Corinthians to give a free contribution to the poor Saints at Jerusalem, he invites to do it nobly and cheerfully, not as of constraint; for Gods Commandment nam'd not the summ, neither can the degree of affection be nam'd; but yet God demands all our affection. Now in all the affirmative Precepts, the duty in the lowest degree is that which is now made necessary under the loss of all our hopes of Eternity; but all the further degrees of the same duty are imposed upon the condition of greater rewards, and other collateral advantages of duty.

When Hystaspes ask'd Cyrus the Persian why he preferr'd Chrysantas before him, since he did obey all his Commands: The Prince answered, [...]. Chrysantas does not stay till he is called; and he does not only what is commanded, but what is best, what he knows is most pleasing to me. So does every perfect man, according to the degrees of his love and his perfection; [...].Clem. Al [...]x. Strom. 5. The righteousness of a perfect man consists not in legal innocence, but in love and voluntary obedience. This is that charity which is the glory of Christianity, the crown of all other graces, that which makes all the external works of obedience to be acceptable, and every act of the most excellent piety and devotion is a particular of that grace, and therefore though it is highly acceptable, yet it is also commanded in the general, and in the sence before explicated; and he that does no more than he is particularly commanded, obeys God as a Lion obeys his keeper; meat and stripes are all the endearments of his peace and services.

[Page]

Qui manet ut moneatur semper servos homo officium suum,

Plautus Stich [...].

Non voluntate id facere meminit, servos is habitu haud probus est.

The servant that must be called upon at every step, is but an unprofitable and unworthy person: To do only what we are commanded, will never bring us to the portion and inheritance of Sons. We must do this chearfully, and we must do more; even contend to please God with doing that which is the righteousness of God, striving for perfection, till perfection it self becomes perfect; still obeying that law of Sons, Love the Lord with all thy heart, till our charity it self is crown'd. Therefore,

19. XIII. Let no man propound to himself a limit of duty, saying, he will go so far, and go no further. For the Commandment is infinite, and though every good man obeys it all the way of his holy conversation, yet it shall not be finish'd till his life is done. But he that stints himself to a certain measure of love, hath no love at all; for this grace grows for ever: and when the object is infinite, true love is not at rest till it hath possess'd what is infinite; and therefore towards that there must be an infinite progression, never stopp'd, never ceasing, till we can work no more.

20. XIV. Let every man be humbled in the sense of his failings and infirmities. Multum in hâc vitâ ille profecit, qui quàm longè sit à perfectione justitiae proficiendo cognovit, De spir. & lit. c. 36. said S. Austin. It is a good degree of perfection to have proceeded so far, as well to know and observe our own imperfections. The Scripture concludes all under sin; not only because all have fail'd of the Covenant of Works, of the exactness of obedience, but by reason of their prevarication of that law which they can obey. And indeed no man could be a sinner, but he that breaks that law which he could have kept. We were all sinners by the Covenant of works, but that was in those instances where it might have been otherwise. For the Covenant of Works was not impossible, because it consisted of impossible Commandments; for every Commandment was kept by some or other, and all at some times: but therefore it was impossible to be kept, because at some time or other men would be impotent, or ignorant, or surpris'd, and for this, no abatement was made in that Covenant. But then since in what every man could help he is found to be a sinner, he ought to account it a mighty grace that his other services are accepted. In pursuance of this,

21. XV. Let no man boast himself in the most glorious services and performances of Religion. Qui in Ecclesiâ semper gloriosè & granditer operati sunt, & opus suum Domino nunquam imputaverunt, Epist. ad lapsos. as S. Cyprian's expression is; They who have greatly serv'd God in the Church, and have not been forward to exact and challenge their reward of God, they are such whom God will most certainly reward. For humility without other external works is more pleasing to God, than pride though standing upon 1 heaps of excellent actions. It is the saying of S. Chrysostome. * For if it be as natural to us to live according to the measures of reason, as for beasts to live by their nature and instinct, what thanks is due to us for that, more than to them for this? And therefore one said well, Ne te jactes si benè servisti: Obsequitur Sol, obtemperat Luna. Boast not if thou hast well obeyed: The Sun and the Moon do so, and shall never be rewarded. 2* But when our selves and all our faculties are from God, he hath power to demand all our services without reward, and therefore if he will reward us, it must wholly be a gift to us, that he will so crown our services. * But he does not only 3 give us all our being and all our faculties,Concil. Arausic. 2. c. 18. Debetur merc [...]s bo [...]i [...] operibus: sed gratia qua non debetur praecedit ut fiant. but makes them also irriguous with the dew of his Divine Grace; sending his holy Son to call us to repentance, and to die to obtain for us pardon, and resurrection, and eternal life; sending his holy Spirit by rare arguments, and aids external and internal to help us in our spiritual contentions and difficulties. So that we have nothing of our own, and therefore can challenge nothing to our selves. * But besides these considerations, many sins are forgiven to 4 us, and the service of a whole life cannot make recompence for the infinite favour of receiving pardon: * Especially since after our amendment and repentance, there are 5 remaining such weaknesses and footsteps of our old impieties, that we who have daily need of the Divine Mercy and Pity, cannot challenge a reward for that which in many degrees needs a pardon; for if every act we do should not need some degrees of pardon, yet our persons do in the periods of our imperfect workings. * But after all 6 this all that we can do is no advantage to God, he is not 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,Job 35.7. and pleased himself in [Page] 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 7 things were away) could not countervail the least moment of Eternity:Rom. 8.18. 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, Psal. 62.12. he rewardeth every man according to his work: so said David; according to the nature and graciousness of the work,Mat. 5.12. 1 Cor. 3.8. Mat. 16.27. 2 Cor. 4.17. 2 Thes. 1.5. Ap [...]. 3.4. & 16.6. Rom. 8.18. 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,In Matth. lib. 3. cap. 20. v. 8. 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:2 Cor. 8.12▪ 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.Gen. 2.17.

Cursed in every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the law to do them.Gal. 3.10. Deut. 27.26.

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,Deut. 27.8. 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,Deut. 28. 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,Lev. 26.23, 24, &c. 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.Heb. 10.28.

The New Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace.

[Page]

WE are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ: Rom. 3. vers. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. 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. Rom. 8.1, 14, 26, 27, 28. 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? Ver. 33, &c. 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,Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. 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. 2 Cor. 5.17, 18, 19, 20, 21. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministery of reconciliation. * Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God. * For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,Acts. 2.37, 38. and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.Rom. 10.13.

Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doth those things shall live by them.Acts 2.21. Rom. 10.5, 6, 8, 9. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise—The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Death is swallowed up in victory. O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?1 Cor. 15.55, 56. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

My yoke is easie, and my burthen is light.

Rom. 8.3, 4.For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, hath for sin condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

His Commandments are not grievous.

If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life. 1 Joh. 5.3. Rom. 5.10. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the attonement.

Phil. 4·13.I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

2 Cor. 12.9. Matth. 7.7.Ask and you shall have, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.

2 Cor. 7.1. Vide etiam Isa. 49.6. & 53.12. Psal. 22.23, 24 25, 26, 27, 28. Jer. 32.34.To him that hath shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly.

Having therefore these promises, let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord.

The PRAYER.

[Page]

I.

O Eternal God, Lord of Heaven and Earth, Father of Men and Angels, we do adore thy infinite Goodness, we revere thy Justice, and delight in thy Mercies, by which thou hast dealt with us, not with the utmost right and dominion of a Lord, but with the gentleness of a Father; treating us like friends, who were indeed thy enemies. Thou, O God, didst see our follies, and observe our weaknesses, thou knowest the aversness of our nature to good, and our proneness to commit vanity; and because our imperfect obedience could not bring us to perfect felicity whither thou didst design us, the great God of all the world was pleased to make a new Covenant with Man, and to become a debtor to his servants. Blessed be God, and blessed be that Mercy, which hath done so great things for us. O be pleased to work that in us which thou expectest from us. Let us not lose our title in the Covenant of Faith and Repentance, by deferring the one, or dishonouring the other; but let us walk worthy of our vocation, according to the Law of Faith, and the Mercies of God, and the Covenant of our Lord Jesus.

II.

O Blessed Jesus, never suffer us to abuse thy mercies, or to turn thy Grace into wantonness. Let the remembrance and sense of thy glorious favours endear our services, and let thy goodness lead us to Repentance, and our Repentance bring forth the fruits of godliness in our whole life. Imprint deeply upon our hearts the fear and terror of thy Majesty, and perpetually entertain our spirits with highest apprehensions of thy loving kindness, that we may fear more, and love more, every day more and more hating sin, crucifying all its affections and desires, passionately loving holy things, zealously following after them, prudently conducting them, and indefatigably persevering in them to the end of our lives.

III.

O Blessed and Eternal God, with thy spirit inlighten our understandings in the rare mysterious Secrets of thy Law. Make me to understand all the most advantageous ways of duty, and kindle a flame in my Soul, that no difficulty or contradiction, no temptation within, or persecution without, may ever extinguish. Give me a mighty grace, that I may design to please thee with my best and all my services, to follow the best examples, to do the noblest Charities, to pursue all Perfection, ever pressing forward to the mark of the high calling in Christ Jesus. Let us rather choose to die, than to sin against our Consciences. Let us also watch, that we may omit nothing of our duty, nor pretermit any opportunity by which thou canst be glorified, or any Christian instructed, comforted or assisted, not resting in the strictest measures of Command, but passing forward to great and prudent significations of love, doing heroick actions; some things by which thou mayest be greatly pleased, that thou mayest take delight to pardon, to sanctifie, and to preserve thy servants for ever. Amen.

CHAP. II. Of the Nature and Definition of Repentance; And what parts of duty are signified by it in Holy Scriptures.

[Page]

SECT. I.

THE Greeks use two words to express this duty, [...] and [...] is from [...], post factum angi & cruciari, to be afflicted in mind, to be troubled for our former folly; it is [...], saith Phavorinus; a being displeased for what we have done: and it is generally used for all sorts of Repentance, but more properly to signifie either the beginnings of a good, or the whole state of an effective Repentance. In the first sence we find it in S. Mathew 21.32. [...]; and ye seeing, did not repent that ye might believe him. Of the second sence we have example in Judas, [...],Matth. 27.3. he repented too, but the end of it was, he died with anguish and despair; and of Esau it is said, [...], he found no place for an [effective] repentance; but yet he repented too, for he was [...], and [...],Heb. 12.17. he fain would have had it otherwise, and he sought it with tears; which two do fully express all the meaning of this [...], when it is distinguished from the better and effective Repentance. There is in this Repentance, a sorrow for what is done, a disliking of the thing with its consequents and effect; and so far also it is a change of mind. But it goes no further than so far to change the mind, that it brings trouble and sorrow, and such things which are the natural events of it. [...], saith Suidas. It is an affection incident to man, not to God, who cannot repent: where although by [...] he means an Accident or property of Man, that is, a quality in the general sence; yet that it is properly a passion in the special sence, was the sence of all men,Lib. de poenit. 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,2 Cor. 7.11. [...], and [...], a repentance not to be repented of, not to be sorrowed for, a repentance that is unto salvation. Sorrow may go before this,Homil. 9. de poenit. 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.Lib. 2. adv. Marcion. cap. 20. 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,Matth. 21.29. afterwards was sorry for refusing, and he went to work, [...]; and in the some Chapter, [...]; [Page] 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, Prov. 14. 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,

Au [...]on. Epigr.

Nempe ut poeniteat, sic Metanoea

Malè Metanoea usus est: verbum purum Gracum est, nec tamen eo sensu & definitione à Graecis usurpatum. Rectè igitur & face [...]è f [...]ssus est id [...]m Ausonius in Epigrammate de abusu hujus verbi parusa Latini, ‘Sum Dea, cui nomen nec Cicero ipse dedit.’

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; [...] Heb. 6.1. 1 Kings 8.35. Isai. 59.20. 2 Chron. 7.14. Jer. 18.7, 8, 9. & 31.19. 2 Tim. 2.19., 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 2 Sam. 12.5, 13. Deut. 30.2. Jer. 3.7. Acts 26.18. Eph. 5.14. Ezek. 33.12. Luke 19.8, 9, 10.; 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 De poenit. in princip. calls it [a passion of the mind, or grief for the offence of our former acts] S. Austin Lib. de ver. & fals. poenit. c. 8. 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 Lib. 6. Divin. instit. c. 13. describing Repentance, gives only the Grammatical sence of [...]. Agere autem poenitentiam nihil aliud est quàm 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 suckers and excrescencies) which therefore by way of eminency they call Penances; for they suppose the word in its very nature and institution to signifie something that is punitive, and afflictive. So Hugo, Poenitentia quasi punientia, quòd per eam homo in se puniat, Lib. 3. de myste. Eccles. quod malè admisit. Much like that of Scotus; poenitentia quasi poenae tenentia; which they both learned from S. Austin; poenitere est idem quod rei commissae aliquem pudere ac pigere, it a ut, Solil. cap. 19. [Page] poenitet, sit idem quod poena tenet. This sence of the word prevailed long, and therefore some that would speak exactly, observing that the duty of Repentance did principally consist in the amendment of our lives, were forc'd to use the word Resipiscentia, Lib. 6. c. 24. which better renders the Greek [...]. So Lactantius expresly, Graeci meliùs & significantiùs [...] dicunt: quam Latinè possumus resipiscentiam dicere. Resipiscit enim ac mentem suam quasi ab insaniâ recipit quem errare piget, castigátque seipsum dementiae, & confirmat animum suum ad rectiùs vivendum. He truly repents who recovers his mind from folly, and chastising his error, and grieving for his madness, strengthens his purposes to better living.

7. Either of the words will serve the turn. Poenitentia, or Penance, is the old Latin word; Resipiscentia is the new one, but very expressive and significant: and it is indifferent which be used, if men had not a design upon one, which cannot prudently be effected by it. But such is the force of words, especially when men chuse and affect one particularly and studiously reject another which is apt to signifie the same thing, that in the Greek Church because their words for Repentance did imply only or principally a change of life, they usually describe Repentance in that formality; but the later Latins practise and discourse to other purposes; and the Colledge of Rhemes render [...], word for word after their vulgar Latin, agite poenitentiam, do penance, which is so absurd a reddition, that their interest and design is more apparent than their skill in Grammar, or their ingenuity. It is much, very much better which we learn from a wise Heathen, who gives such an account both of the words and thing as might not misbecome the best instructed Christian, so far as concerns the nature and morality of the duty: His words are excellent words, and therefore I shall transcribe them.In Pythag. Hie [...]ocl. in vers. 29. pag. 166. Edit. Lond. 1654. [...]. We ought principally to take care that we do not sin; but if we be overtaken, then to make diligent haste to return to justice or righteousness as the cure of our wickedness: that we may amend out evil counsels or wills, by the help of a better. For when we are fallen from goodness, we receive or recover it again [...], by a wise or well principled penitential sorrow, admitting a Divine correction. [...], but repentance it self is the beginning of wisdom, a flying from foolish words and deeds, and the first institution of a life not to be repented of. Where besides the definition of repentance and a most perfect description of its nature and intention, he with some curiosity differences the two Greek words; making [...] to be but the beginning of [...]: sorrow the beginning of repentance; and both together the reformation of the old, and the institution of a new life.

8. But to quit the words from being the subject matter of a Quarrel, it is observable that the Latin word poenitentia does really signifie (by use I mean and custom) as much as the Greek [...], and is expressive of the whole duty of Repentance; and although it implies that sorrow and grief which is the natural in-let of reformation of our lives, and the consequent of our shame and sin, yet it also does signifie correction and amendment, which is the formality and essence of Repentance; and therefore Erasmus more warily and in imitation of the old Latins, says that poenitere is from pone tenere, quod est posterius consilium capere; to be wiser the next time;Noct. Att. lib. 17. c. 1. to chuse again and chuse better; and so A. Gellius defines it, Poenitere, tum dicere solemus, cum quae ipsi fecimus, aut quae de nostrâ voluntate nostróque consilio facta sunt, ea nobis pòst incipiunt displicere, sententiámque in iis nostram demutamus. To repent is when those things which we have done displease us, and we change our minds. So that here is both a Displeasure and a Change; a displeasure and sorrow for the evil, and a change to better. And there ought to be no scruple in this; for by the first sorrow of a penitent man, is meant nothing else but the first act of eschewing evil: which whether it be by grief alone, or by fear, or by hope, or by all these, it is not without some trouble of mind, and displeasure; for if it were still in all sences a pleasure to go on, they would never return back. And therefore to suppose repentance without displeasure, is to suppose a change of mind without alteration, or a taking a new course without disliking the old. But then to suppose any other sorrow naturally necessary, than this which naturally is included in the change, is to affirm that to be true which experience tells us is not true, and it is to place self-affliction and punition at the head, which is [Page] to be look'd for in the retinue of repentance; to make the daughter to be before the Mother, and the fruit to be kept in the root, not to grow upon the branches. But the Latin words can no way determine any thing of Question in this article; and the Greek words are used promiscuously; and when they are distinguished, they differ but as the more and less perfect, as the beginning of Repentance and the progress of perfection; according to that saying, Poenitentiae erroris magnus gradus est ad resipiscentiam, To acknowledge and be sorry for our sin is a great step to repentance; and both together signifie all that piety, that change, and holiness which is the duty of the new man, of the Returning sinner: and we can best learn it by the words of him that revealed and gave this grace to all his servants; even of the Holy Jesus speaking to S. Paul at his Conversion, from whose blessed words, together with those of S. Paul in his narrative of that story, we may draw this more perfect description. To repent is to turn from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God, Acts 26.18, 20▪ doing works worthy of amendment of life, for the forgiveness of sins, that we may receive inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ Jesus.

9. Upon this account, the parts of Repentance are two; 1. Leaving our sins: which is properly repentance from dead works. And 2. Doing holy actions in the remaining portion of our days; actions meet for repentance; so the Baptist called them. This is in Scripture by way of propriety called Repentance; [...], so the Baptist used it; distinguishing Repentance from its fruits; that is, from such significations,Mat. 3.8. exercises and prosecutions of this change, as are apt to represent, and to effect it more and more; such as are confession, weeping, self-afflictions, alms, and the like. So S. Paul, using the same words before King Agrippa. But by way of Synecdoche, Acts 26.20. not only the fruits and consequent expressions, but the beginning sorrow also is signified by the same word: and all are under the same Commandment, though with different degrees of necessity, and expression; of which I shall afterwards give account. Here I only account concerning the essential and constituent parts and definition of Repentance.

10. All the whole duty of Repentance, and every of its parts, is sometimes called Conversion. Thus godly sorrow is a conversion or change: and upon that account S. James calls upon sinners, Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep, let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into weeping. This is the first change of our affections,James 4. which is attended with a change of our judgment: when we do no longer admire the false beauties of sin; but judge righteously concerning it. And of this the Prophet Jeremy gives testimony, Surely, after that I was turned, I repented. Jer. 31.19. And by this word [...] the Hebrews express the duty; which the LXX. indifferently render by [...], and is best rendred, Conversion. And then follows the conversion of the whole man, body and soul, mind and spirit, all are set in opposition against sin, and apply themselves to the service of God, and conformity to Jesus.

SECT. II. Of Repentance in general; or Conversion.

1. REpentance and Faith in Scriptures signifie sometimes more generally; and in the federal sence are used for all that state of grace and favour which the holy Jesus revealed, and brought into the world. They both signifie the Gospel: For the whole Gospel is nothing else but that glad tidings which Christ brought to all mankind, that the Covenant of Works, or exact measures should not now be exacted, but men should be saved by second thoughts, that is, by Repentance and amendment of life, through faith in the Lord Jesus. That is, if we become his Disciples, (for that is the condition of the Covenant) we shall find mercy, our sins shall be blotted out, and we shall be saved if we obey heartily and diligently, though not exactly. This becoming his Disciples is called Faith, that is, coming to him, believing him, hoping in him, obeying him; and consequent to this is, that we are admitted to Repentance, that is, to the pardon of our sins. For him hath God exalted on his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour [...], to give repentance and remission of sins. Acts 5.31. [Page] This is the summ Total of the Gospel. That we have leave to repent, supposes that God will pardon what is past. But then that we have leave to repent, supposes us also highly bound to it. It is in meer pity to our imfirmities, our needs and our miseries, that we have leave to do it: and this is given to mankind by faith in Jesus Christ, that is, by becoming his Disciples; for he hath power to pardon sins, and to take them away, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, viz. which we have committed. This is that which all the world did need, and long'd for; it was the [...], the hidden mystery from all ages, but revealed in Christ; whose blood (as S. Clement expresses it) [...], brought to all the world the grace of Repentance.

2. This is the Gospel. For the Gospel is nothing else but Faith and Repentance. The Gospel is called Faith by S. Paul, Gal. 3.23. [...], before that faith came, we were under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed; that is, to the Gospel, or the glad tidings of Repentance; which is called [...], the hearing of faith. For Faith being here opposed to the Law, that is, the Covenant of Mercy to the Covenant of Works, Verse 2. must mean, the Covenant of Repentance. And therefore although, if we consider them as proper and particular graces and habits, they have differing natures and definitions; yet in the general and federal sence of which I now speak, Faith and Repentance are only distinguished by relations and respects, not by substance and reality.Acts 20.21. Repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, Repentance for having sinned against God; a Repentance, I say, through faith in Jesus Christ; that is, a Repentance procured, and preach'd and enjoyn'd by Christ, being the summ of his Discipline. And that it may appear Faith and Repentance to be the same thing, and differing only in name and manner of expression, S. Paul confounds the distinction which he formerly made, and that which he called, Repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus, in his Sermons in Asia; in his Epistle to the Hebrews, he calls, Repentance from dead works and faith in God. And the words are used for each other promiscuously in S. Luke; for that which the rich man in Hell called [...], Abraham called [...]. If one comes from the dead they will repent: No, said Abraham, If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, then if one come from the dead, they will not believe, or be perswaded. And S. Peter giving an account of the delaying of the coming of the Lord for the punishment of the obdurate Jews and enemies of Christ,2 Pet. 3.9, 15. says, it is because God of his infinite goodness expects even them also to be converted to the faith, or becoming Christians, as the whole design of the place infers; and this he calls [...], a coming to Repentance, that is, to the faith of Christ. And therefore the Gospel is nothing else but an universal publication of Repentance and pardon of sins in the Name of Christ, that is procured for all them who are his Disciples: and to this we are baptized, that is, adopted into the Religion, into that Discipleship under which God requires holiness, but not perfect measures; sincerity without hypocrisie, but not impeccability or perfect innocence.

3. And as the Gospel is called Faith, and Faith is Repentance, that is, it is the same Covenant of Grace and Mercy, with this only difference, that it is called Faith, as it relates to Christ who procured this mercy for us, Repentance, as it signifies the mercy it self so procured: So Baptism by the same analogy is called the Baptism unto Repentance, [...], the Baptism of Repentance, so it is called in the Jerusalem Creed; that is, the admission to the grace of the Gospel; which the Fathers of C.P. in their appendage to the Nicene Creed, thus express: I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins, that is, to remission of sins we are admitted by Baptism alone; no other way shall we have this grace, this title, but by being once initiated into the Gospel to be Disciples of Jesus. Not that it is to be supposed that our sins are only pardon'd when we are baptized; but that by Baptism we are admitted to the state and grace of Repentance and pardon of sins. And this is demonstratively certain, not only upon those many instances of baptized penitents, admitted to pardon, and baptized Criminals called upon in Scripture to repent, but upon the very nature of the Evangelical Covenant, and the whole design of Christs coming. For if we were not admitted to Repentance after Baptism, then we were still to be judged by the Covenant of Works, not by the Covenant of Faith; and we should inherit by the Law, or not at all, and not be heirs according to promise; and then Christ were dead in vain, we are yet in our sins; and all the world must perish, because all men have sinned, and so none should go to Heaven but newly baptized Infants, or newly baptized Catechumens: and how then could the Gospel be a New Covenant, it being exactly the [Page] same with the Law; for so it must be, if it promise no mercy or Repentance to them that sin after our admittance to it. * But Baptism is a new birth, and by it we are [...], renewed unto Repentance, unto that state of life which supposes holiness and imperfection, and consequently needs mercy all the way; according to that saying, Justus ex fide vivet, The just shall live by faith; that is, all our righteousness, all our hopes, all our spiritual life is conserved by, and is relying upon this Covenant of Mercy, the Covenant of Faith, or Repentance: all his life time the just shall still need pardon, and find it, if he perseveres in it, that is, endeavours to obey according to the righteousness of Faith, that is, sincerely, diligently, and by the measures of a man. Of this we shall in the sequel make use.

4. For the present I consider, that Repentance or Conversion admits of degrees according to the necessities of men. For that Repentance which Christ and his Apostles preach'd at the opening of the Kingdom, was an universal change of life, which men did lead in the darkness of Heathen ignorance, and idolatrous impieties among the Gentiles, and the more than Heathen crimes among the Jews; the whole Nation being generally false, superstitious, bloody, persecutors, proud, rebellious, and at last rejecters and crucifiers of their Messias, whom they had long'd for ever since they were a people: But in the perswasion and effecting of this Repentance, there was some difference of Dispensation and Ministery.

5. John the Baptist began, and he preach'd Repentance to the Jews, that they might believe in the Messias, and so flee from the wrath to come, that is, from the destruction of their Nation, which he prophetically foretold should come to pass, for their rejecting him whom the Baptist did fore-signifie. Christ and his Apostles pursued the same Doctrine, still thrusting forward the design, that is, preaching such a Repentance as was proportionable to his purpose; that is, obedience to the Gospel, the admission of such doctrines which did destroy the gayeties and cursed usages of the world. So that the Repentance which was first preached was in order to Faith; that is, the Baptist, and Christ, and Christs Apostles preaching Repentance, did mean such a conversion or change as would take them off from those crimes which so prepossess'd their hearts, that by them they were indispos'd to receive Christs person and doctrine, both which were so contrary to their prejudices of Pride and Covetousness, Malice and Ambition.

6. And therefore among the Jews, Repentance was to go before Faith: for they were already sufficiently disposed to believe the Revelations of God, they had been used to Prophets, and expected the Messias, and pray'd for his day, and long'd passionately for it; so that they were by nothing hindred in their faith, but by their lusts and secular thoughts; and the way to make them believe, was to cure their pride. How can ye believe, who receive honour one of another? John 5.44. Their hunting after praise among the people, did indispose them to the believing and receiving Christs person and doctrine. Therefore until they did repent of that, they could not believe; and accordingly our blessed Saviour complain'd, that when they saw the light which shin'd in the Ministery of John the Baptist, yet they would not repent, that they might believe. * But afterwards the Jews when they were invited to the Religion, that is, to believe in Jesus, were first to be called to Repentance, because they had crucified the Lord of life: and if they should not repent for crucifying an innocent person, they would be infinitely far from believing him to be the Lord of life, and their long desired Messias.

7. But the Repentance that was preached to the Gentiles, though it had the same design (as to the event of things) yet it went in another method. Their Religion taught them impiety, lust and folly was plac'd upon their Altars, and their gods bore in their hands smoking firebrands kindled with the coals of Sodom: they had false confidences, and evil examples, and foolish principles; they had evil laws, and an abominable Priesthood, and their Daemons, whom they call'd Gods, would be worshipped with lusts and cruelty, with drunkenness and revellings; so that their false belief and evil Religion betrayed them to evil lives, therefore they were to be recovered by being taught a better belief, and a more holy Religion, therefore in these, faith was to go before Repentance. Poenitentiae stimulus ex fide acciderat, as Tertullians expression is. Faith was the motive of their Repentance. [...].Strom. 2. So S. Clemens Alexandrinus. [...]. Repentance is the perfection and consummation of Faith. For unless the sinner believes his action to be a sin, and that evil is his portion if he sins, and that he shall be happy if he live by the rule [Page] of the Commandments, he can never be converted: Therefore in the conversion of the Gentiles, Faith was to be ordinarily the first.

8. In proportion to these several methods, the doctrine or state of Christianity was sometimes called Mark 1.15. Faith, sometimes Acts 26.20.2.38.3.19. Repentance: He that believed Jesus Christ, would repent of his sins; and he that did repent, would believe. But sometimes Infidelity stood at the gate, and sometimes Malice and vile Affections. That which stood next, was first to be removed.

9. Now the access of both these to Christ is in Scripture called Conversion, or Repentance. Where Faith only was wanting, and the man was of Moses and a good man, the becoming a Christian was a [...], a perfection or consummation, a progression rather than a returning, [...] 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.Acts 14.15. & 26.18. 2 Cor. 3.16. Rom. 13.12, 13 Eph. 5.8. Tit. 2.14. Acts 3.26. 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, Luke 22.32. Jam. 3.20. Mat. 13.15. John. 12.40. 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,Col. 1.21▪ is to represent them holy and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight. 22▪ 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,Tit. 3.5. Rom. 12.2. Eph. 4.23. 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 [Page]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: Eph. 2.10.3.9 John 36. 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:Jam. 1.18. 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, Jude. Rev. 7.14. Heb. 10.22, 23 Psal. 50.9. 2 Cor▪ 7.1. 1 John 3.3 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,Gal. 2.20 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, Rom. 6.17. Acts 6.7. 1 Pet. 4.3. Eph. 2.3. Jam. 1.22, 23. 1 John 3.22. John 3.4. 1 John 1.6. 2 Cor. 8.21. Col. 1.10. 1 Cor. 15 58. 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 fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; * abounding in the work of the Lord. [...] and [...] are the words often used, fill'd full, and perfect.

16. To the same purpose is it, that we are commanded to live in Christ, and unto God, that is, to live according to their will, and by their rule, and to their glory,2 Tim. 3.12. and in their fear and love, called by S. Paul to live in the faith of the Son of God: Gal. 2.20. 1 Cor. 2.1. 1 Thess. 1.6 John 2.6. Eph. 2.10. to be followers of Christ, and of God, to dwell in Christ, and to abide in him; to walk according to the Commandments of God, in good works, in truth, according to the Spirit, to walk in light, to walk with God; which was said of Enoch: of whom the Greek LXX. read [...], He pleased God. * There are very many more to the same purpose. For with great caution and earnestness the holy Scriptures place the duties of mankind in practice and holiness of living, and removes it far from a confidence of notion and speculation. Qui fecerit, & docuerit, He that doth them and teaches them, shall be great in the Kingdom; and, Why do you call me Lord, Lord, Mat. 5.19. Luke 5.46. John 15.14. Ignat. ad Magnis. and do not the things I say to you? and, Ye are my friends if ye do what I command you. [...]. We must not only be called Christians, but be so; for not to be called but to be so, brings us to felicity; that is, since the life of a Christian is the life of Repentance, whose work it is, for ever to contend against sin, for ever to strive to please God, a dying to sin, a living to Christ, he that thinks his Repentance can have another definition, or is compleated in any other, or in fewer parts, must be of another Religion than is taught by Christ and his holy Apostles. This is the Faith of the Son of God, this is that state of excellent things which he purchased with his blood: and as there is no other Name under Heaven, so there is no other Faith, no other Repentance whereby we can be saved.

Upon this Article it is usual to discourse of Sorrow and Contrition, of Confession of sins, of making amends, of self-affliction, and some other particulars: but because [Page] they are not parts, but actions, fruits, and significations of Repentance, I have reserved them for their proper place. Now I am to apply this general Doctrine to particular states of sin and sinners, in the following Chapters.

SECT. III. Descriptions of Repentance taken from the Holy Scriptures.

¶ WHEN Heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee: if they pray towards this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin when thou afflictest them: 1 Kings 8.35, 36. Then hear thou in Heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land which thou hast given to thy people for an Inheritance.

¶ And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob (saith the Lord.) Isa. 59.20, 21. As for me, this is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: If he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right: Ezek. 33.14, 15, 16. If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life without committing iniquity; he shall even live, he shall not die. * None of his sins that he hath committed, shall be mentioned unto him; he hath done that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live.

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that hence forth we should not serve sin. Rom. 6.6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19. Likewise reckon ye also your selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. * Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. * Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield your selves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. * Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. * I speak after the manner of men, because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Rom. 7.4, 5, 6. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. * But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. Rom. 13.11, 12, 13. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. * Let us walk honestly as in the day, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. * But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Having therefore these promises (dearly beloved) let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 2 Cor. 7.1, 10, 11. For godly sorrow worketh Repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. * For behold, this self same thing that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of your selves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge? in all thing ye have approved your selves to be clear in this matter.

[Page]For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. 2 Cor. 5.15, 17▪ Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are past away, behold all things are become new.

That ye put off, concerning the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts: Ephes. 4.22, 23, 24. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind. * And that ye put on that new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Eph. 5.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. * For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord, walk as children of light. * For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth. * Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord: * And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. * See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise: * Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. * Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ fitteth on the right hand of God. Col. 3.1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. * For ye are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. * Mortifie therefore your members, which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry. * But now, you also p [...]t off all these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. * Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; * And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men, Tit. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. Teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world: * Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ: * Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purifie unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us: Heb. 12.1, 2, 14, 15. Looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the Cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. * Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: * Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled.

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures. Jam. 1.18, 21 22. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness, and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the ingraffed word, which is able to save your souls. * But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Pet. 1.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. And besides this, giving all diligence, add to your faith, vertue; and to vertue, knowledge; * And to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; * And to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity: * For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. * But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see far off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end, for the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 1.13, 14, 15, 16. As obedient children, not fashioning your selves according to the former lusts in your ignorance. * But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; * Because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness, by whose stripes ye were healed.1 Pet. 2.24▪

The indispensable necessity of a good life, represented in the following Scriptures.

[Page]

WHosoever breaketh one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so,Mat. 5.19. he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Luke 6.46.And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

John 15.14.Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Rom. 12.1, 2. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, that acceptable and perfect will of God.

Who will render to every man according to his deeds: Rom. 2.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. To them, who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternal life. * But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness; indignation and wrath, * Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. * But glory, honour and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Commandments of God. 1 Cor. 7.19.

1 Cor. 18.58.Therefore my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as you know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Gal. 6.15.

For in Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. Gal. 5.6.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained,Eph. 2.10. that we should walk in them.

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment: Phil. 1.9, 10, 11 That ye may approve things that are excellent, that ye may be sincere, and without offence till the day of Christ: * Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God.

1 Thess. 4.1, 2, 3Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk, and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. * For ye know what Commandments we gave by the Lord Jesus. * For this is the will of God, even your sanctification.

As you know how we exhorted, and comforted, and charged every one of you (as a Father doth his children;) 1 Thess. 2.11, 12, 13. That ye should walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his Kingdom and glory. * For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

He [...]. 9.4, 5, 9.How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?

And having an High Priest over the house of God; Heb. 10.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water: * Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, (for he is faithful that promised.) * And let us consider one another, to provoke unto love and to good works. * Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another, and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully, after that 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 devour the adversaries. * He that despised Moses's law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses: * Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought [Page] worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace?

For the time is come, that judgment must begin at the house of God:1 Pet. 4.17. and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God?

And every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 1 John 3.3, 22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his Commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight.

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, Apoc. 2.26. to him will I give power over the Nations.

A Penitential Psalm, collected out of the Psalms and Prophets.

HAVE mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testifie against us: our transgressions are with us, and as for our iniquities, we know them;

In transgressing and lying against the Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falshood.

Our feet have run to evil, our thoughts are thoughts of iniquity. The way of peace we have not known: we have made us crooked paths, whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

Therefore do we wait for light, but behold obscurity: for brightness, but we walk in darkness.

Look down from Heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy Holiness and of thy Glory: where is thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies towards me? are they restrained?

We are indeed as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags: and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away.

But now, O Lord, thou art our Father: we are the clay, and thou our potter, and we all are the work of thy hand. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord; neither remember iniquity for ever: behold, see we beseech thee, we are thy people. Thou, O Lord, art our Redeemer: thy Name is from everlasting.

O Lord, Father and Governour of my whole life, leave me not to the sinful counsels of my own heart, and let me not any more fall by them. Set scourges over my thoughts, and the discipline of wisdom over my heart, lest my ignorances encrease, and my sins abound to my destruction.

O Lord, Father and God of my life, give me not a proud look, but turn away from thy servant always a haughty mind.

Turn away from me vain hopes and concupiscence, and thou shalt hold him up that is always desirous to serve thee.

Let not the greediness of the belly, nor the lust of the flesh take hold of me: and give not thy servant over to an impudent mind.

There is a word that is clothed about with death: God grant it be not found in the portion of thy servant. For all such things shall be far from the godly, and they shall not wallow in their sins.

Though my sins be as scarlet, yet make them white as snow: though they be red like crimson, let them be as wooll.

For I am ashamed of the sins I have desired, and am confounded for the pleasures that I have chosen.

Lord make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is: that I may know how frail I am, and that I may apply my heart unto wisdom.

Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy loving kindness and thy truth continually preserve me.

For innumerable evils have compassed me about, mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up: for they are more than the hairs of my head, therefore my heart faileth me.

[Page]But thou, O Lord, though mine iniquities testifie against me, save me for thy Name sake: for our backslidings are many, we have sinned grievously against thee.

But the Lord God will help me, therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.

He is near that justifieth me, who will contend with me? The Lord God will help me, who is he that shall condemn me? I will trust in the Lord, and stay upon my God.

O let me have this of thine hand, that I may not lie down in sorrow.

S. Paul's Prayers for a holy life.

I.

I BOW my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in Heaven and Earth is named,Eph. 3.14, &c. that he would grant unto me according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in my heart by faith; that being rooted and grounded in love, I may be able to comprehend with all Saints, what is the breadth and length, and depth and height: and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, and may be filled with all the fulness of God, through the same our most blessed Saviour Jesus. Amen.

The Doxologie.

Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us: Vnto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

II.

Col. 1.9, &c. O MOST gracious God, grant to thy servant to be filled with the knowledge of thy Will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; to walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, to be fruitful in every good work, increasing in the knowledge of God. Strengthen me, O God, with all might according to thy glorious power, unto all patience, and long-suffering, and joyfulness: So shall I give thanks unto the Father, who hath made me meet to be partaker of the inheritance of the Saints in light, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

III.

1 Thess. 3.11, 12NOW God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ perfect what is lacking in my faith, direct my way unto him, make me to increase and abound in love towards all men, and establish my heart unblameable in holiness before God even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his Saints.

IV.

Heb. 13.20, 21.THE God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the Everlasting Covenant, make me perfect in every good work to do his will, working in me what is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

A Penitential Prayer.

I.

O ETERNAL God, most merciful Father, who hast revealed thy self to Mankind in Christ Jesus, full of pity and compassion, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and [Page] transgression, and sin; be pleased to effect these thy admirable mercies upon thy servant, whom thou hast made to put his trust in thee. I know, O God, that I am vile and polluted in thy sight; but I must come into thy presence or I die. Thou canst not behold any unclean thing, and yet unless thou lookest upon me, who am nothing but uncleanness, I shall perish miserably and eternally. O look upon me with a gracious eye; cleanse my Soul with the blood of the holy Lamb; that being purified in that holy stream, my sins may lose their own foulness, and become white as snow: Then shall the leprous man be admitted to thy Sanctuary, and stand before the Throne of Grace, humble, and full of sorrow for my fault, and full of hope of thy mercy and pardon, through Jesus Christ.

II.

O MY God, thou wert reconciled to Mankind by thy own graciousness and glorious goodness, even when thou didst find out so mysterious ways of Redemption for us by sending Jesus Christ; then thou didst love us, and that holy Lamb did from the beginning of the world lie before thee as sacrific'd and bleeding; and in the fulness of time he came to actuate and exhibite what thy goodness had design'd and wrought in the Counsels of Eternity. But now, O gracious Father, let me also be reconciled to thee; for we continued enemies to thee, though thou lovedst us; let me no longer stand at distance from thee, but run unto thee, bowing my will, and submitting my understanding, and mortifying my affections, and resigning all my powers and faculties to thy holy Laws, that thou mayest take delight to pardon and to sanctifie, to assist thy servant with thy grace, till by so excellent conduct, and so unspeakable mercy, I shall arrive to the state of glory.

III.

O Blessed Saviour Jesus, thou hast made thy self a blessed Peace-offering for sins, thou hast procured and revealed to us this Covenant of Repentance and remission of sins; and by the infinite mercies of the Father, and the death and intercession of the Son, we stand fair and hopeful in the eye of the Divine Compassion, and we have hopes of being saved. O be pleased to work thy own work in us. The grace and admission to Repentance is thy own glorious production, thou hast obtained it for us with a mighty purchase: but then be pleas'd also to take me in, to partake actually of this glorious mercy. Give to thy servant a perfect hatred of sin, a great displeasure at my own folly for ever having provoked thee to anger; a perpetual watchfulness against it, an effective resolution against all its tempting instances, a prevailing strife, and a glorious victory; that the body of sin being destroyed, I may never any more serve any of its baser interests; but that by a diligent labour, and a constant care, I may approve my self to thee my God, mindful of thy Covenant, a servant of thy Will, a lover of thy Glory; that being thy Minister in a holy service, I may be thy Son by adoption and participation of the glories of the Lord Jesus. O let me never lie down in sin, nor rise in shame; but be partaker both of the Death and the Resurrection of our Lord; that my imperfect and unworthy services may, by passing into the holiness of thy Kingdom, be such as thy servant desires they should, and fit to be presented unto thee in the perfect holiness of Eternity, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

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.

[Page]

SECT. I.

MEN have not been satisfied with devising infinite retirements and disguises of their follies to hide them from the world, but finding themselves open and discerned by God, have endeavoured to discover means of escaping from that Eye from which nothing can escape but innocence, and from which nothing can be hid, but under the cover of mercy. For besides that we expound the Divine Laws to our own purposes of ease and ambition, we give to our sins gentle censures, and adorn them with good words, and refuse to load them with their proper characters and punishments, and at last are come to that state of things, that since we cannot allow to our selves a liberty of doing every sin, we have distinguished the Question of sins into several orders, and have taken one half to our selves. For we have found rest to our fancies in the permissions of one whole kind, having distinguished sins into Mortal and Venial in their own nature; that is, sins which may, and sins which may not be done, without danger; so that all the difference is, that some sins must be taken heed of, but others there are, and they the most in number, and the most frequent in their instances and returns, which we have leave to commit, without being affrighted with the fearful noises of damnation; by which doctrine, iniquity and confidence have much increased and grown upon the ruines and declension of the Spirit.

2. And this one Article hath almost an infinite influence to the disparagement of Religion in the determination of Cases of Conscience. For supposing the distinction to be believed, experience and certain reason will evince, that it is impossible to prescribe proper limits and measures to the several kinds; and between the least Mortal, and the greatest Venial sin, no man is able with certainty to distinguish: and therefore (as we see it daily happen, and in every page written by the Casuists) men call what they please Venial, take what measures of them they like, appoint what expiation of them they fancy, and consequently give what allowance they list to those whom they please to mislead. For in innumerable Cases of Conscience it is oftner inquired, whether a thing be Venial or Mortal, than whether it be lawful or not lawful; and as Purgatory is to Hell, so Venial is to Sin, a thing which men fear not, because the main stake they think to be secured: for if they may have Heaven at last, they care not what comes between. And as many men of the Roman perswasion will rather chuse Purgatory, than suffer here an inconsiderable penance, or do those little services which themselves think will prevent it: so they chuse venial sins, and hug the pleasures of trifles, warming themselves at phantastick fires, and dancing in the light of the Glo-worms; and they love them so well, that rather than quit those little things, they will suffer the intolerable pains of a temporary Hell; for so they believe: which is the testimony of a great evil and a mighty danger; for it gives testimony, that little sins can be beloved passionately, and therefore can minister such a delight as is thought a price great enough to pay for the sufferance of temporal evils, and Purgatory it self.

3. But the evil is worse yet when it is reduc'd to practice. For in the decision of very many questions, the answer is, It is a venial sin; that is, though it be a sin, yet there is in it no danger of losing the favour of God by that, but you may do it, and you may do it again a thousand thousand times;Lib. 1. de amiss. gratiae cap. 13. Sect. alterum est. and all the venial sins of the world put together, can never do what one mortal sin can, that is, make God to be your enemy: So Bellarmine expresly affirms. But because there are many Doctors who [Page] write Cases of Conscience, and there is no measure to limit the parts of this distinction, (for that which is not at all cannot be measured) the Doctors differ infinitely in their sentences; some calling that Mortal which others call Venial, (as you may see in the little Summaries of Navar and Emanuel Sà) the poor souls of the Laity, and the vulgar Clergy who believe what is told them by the Authors or Confessors they chuse to follow, must needs be in infinite danger, and the whole body of Practical Divinity, in which the life of Religion and of all our hopes depends, shall be rendred dangerous and uncertain, and their confidence shall betray them unto death.

4. To bring relief to this state of evil, and to establish aright the proper grounds and measures of Repentance; I shall first account concerning the difference of sins, and by what measures they are so differenc'd. 2. That all sins are of their own nature punishable as God please, even with the highest expressions of his anger. 3. By what Repentance they are cur'd, and pardon'd respectively.

SECT. II. Of the difference of sins, and their measures.

5. I. SINS are not equal, but greater or less in their principle as well as in their event. It was one of the errors of Jovinian, which he learned from the Schools of the Stoicks, that all sins are alike grievous;

— Nam dicunt esse pares res,

Furta latrociniis, & magnis parva minantur:

Horat. Serm. l. 1. Sat. 3.

Falce recisuros simili se, si sibi regnum

Permittant homines—

For they supposed an absolute irresistible Fate to be the cause of all things; and therefore what was equally necessary, was equally culpable, that is, not at all: and where men have no power of choice, or (which is all one) that it be necessary that they chuse what they do, there can be no such thing as Laws, or sins against them. To which they adding that all evils are indifferent, and the event of things, be it good or bad, had no influence upon the felicity or infelicity of man, they could neither be differenc'd by their cause, nor by their effect; the first being necessary, and the latter indifferent. * Against this I shall not need to oppose many Arguments; for though this follows most certainly from their doctrine, who teach an irresistible Decree of God to be the cause of all things and actions; yet they that own the doctrine disavow the consequent, and in that are good Christians, but ill Logicians. But the Article is sufficiently cleared by the words of our B. Lord in the case of Judas, whose sin (as Christ told to Pilate) was the greater, because he had not power over him but by special concession; in the case of the servant that knows his Masters will, Mat. 23.24. Luke 6.41. and does it not; in the several condemnations of the degrees and expressions of anger in the instances of Racha, and [...] Ira festuca est: odium verò trabs. Aug., Thou vain man, or Thou fool: by this comparing some sins to gnats, and some to Camels: and in proportion to these, there are [...] in S. Luke, many stripes; a [...] in S. James, a greater condemnation. * Thus to rob a Church is a greater sin than to rob a Thief; To strike a Father is a higher impiety than to resist a Tutor; To oppress a Widow is clamorous, and calls aloud for vengeance, when a less repentance will vote down the whispering murmurs of a trifling injury, done to a fortune that is not sensible of smaller diminutions.

Nec vincit ratio tantundem ut peccet, idémque

Qui teneros caules alieni fregerit horti,

Vt qui nocturnus Divûm sacra legerit—

He is a greater criminal that steals the Chalice from a Church, than he that takes a few Coleworts, or robs a garden of Cucumers. But this distinction and difference is by something that is extrinsecal to the action, the greatness of the mischief, or the dignity of the person; according to that,

[Page]

Omne animi vitium tanto conspectius in se

Crimen habet, quanto major qui peccat habetur.

6. II. But this when it is reduc'd to its proper cause, is, because such greater sins are complicated; they are commonly two or three sins wrapt together, as the unchastity of a Priest, is uncleanness and scandal too: Adultery is worse than Fornication, because it is unchastity and injustice, and by the fearful consequents of it, is mischievous and uncharitable.

Et quas Euphrates, & quas mihi misit Orontes,

Me capiant; Nolo furta pudica thori.

So Sacriledge is theft and impiety. And Apicius killing himself, when he suppos'd his estate would not maintain his luxury, was not only a self-murtherer, but a gluttonous person in his death: ‘Lib. 3.22. Epigr. Mart.Nil est Apici tibi gulosius factum.’ So that the greatness of sins is in most instances by extension and accumulation; that as he is a greater sinner who sins often in the same instance, than he that sins seldom; so is he who sins such sins as are complicated and intangled, like the twinings of combining Serpents. And this appears to be so, because if we take single sins, as uncleanness and theft, no man can tell which is the greater sin; neither can they be differenc'd but by something that is besides the nature of the action it self. A thought of theft, and an unclean thought, have nothing by which they can excel each other; but when you cloath them with the dress of active circumstances, they grow greater or less respectively; because then two or three sins are put together, and get a new name.

7. III. There is but one way more by which sins can get or lose degrees, and that is the different proportions of our affections. This indeed relates to God more immediately, and by him alone is judg'd; but the former being invested with material circumstances, can be judg'd by men: But all that God reserves for his own portion of the Sacrifice, is the Heart; that is, our love and choice; and therefore the degrees of love or hatred, is that measure by which God makes differing judgments of them. For by this it is, that little sins become great, and great sins become little. If a Jew had maliciously touch'd a dead body in the days of Easter, it had been a greater crime, than if in the violence of his temptation he had unwillingly will'd to commit an act of fornication. He that delights in little thefts, because they are breaches of Gods Law, or burns a Prayer-book, because he hates Religion, is a greater criminal than he that falls into a material heresie by an invincible or less discerned deception: Secure but to God your affections, and he will secure your innocence or pardon; for men live or die by their own measures. If a man spits in the face of a Priest to defie Religion, or shaves the beard of an Embassador to disgrace the Prince (as it hapned to Davids Messengers) his sin is greater than if he kill'd the Priest in his own just defence, or shot the Embassador through the heart, when he intended to strike a Lion. For every negligence, every disobedience being against Charity or the love of God, by interpretation; this superaddition of direct malice is open enmity against him, and therefore is more severely condemned by him who sees every thought and degrees of passion and affection. For the increase of malice does aggravate the sin, just as the complication of material instances. Every degree of malice being a [...] distinct and commensurate a sin, as any one external instance that hath a name; and therefore many degrees of malice combine and grow greater as many sins conjoyn'd in one action, they differ only in Nature, not in Morality; just as a great number and a great weight: So that in effect, all sins are differenc'd by complication only, that is, either of the external or the internal instances.

8. IV. Though the negligence or the malice be naturally equal, yet sometimes by accident the sins may be unequal, not only in the account of men, but also before God too; but it is upon the account of both the former. It is when the material effect being different upon men, God hath with greater caution secur'd such interests. So that by interpretation the negligence is greater, because the care was with greater earnestness commanded; or else because in such cases the sin is complicated: for such [Page] sins which do most mischief, have besides their proper malignity, the evil of uncharitableness, or ha [...]ing our brother. In some cases God requires one hand, and in others both. Now he that puts but one of his fingers to each of them, his negligence is in nature the same, but not in value, because where more is required, the defect was greater. If a man be equally careless of the life of his Neighbours Son and his Neighbours Cock, although the will or attendance to the action be naturally equal, that is, none at all, yet morally, and in the divine account they differ, because the proportions of duty and obligation were different, and therefore more ought to have been put upon the one than upon the other: just as he is equally clothed that wears a single garment in Summer and Winter, but he is not equally warm, unless he that wears a silk Mantle when the Dog-star rages, claps on Furrs when the cold North-star changes the waters into rocks.

9. V. Single sins done with equal affection or disaffection, do not differ in degrees as they relate to God, Nihil invenies rectius recto, non magis quàm verius vero, quàm temperato temperatius, omnis in modo est virtus: modus certa mensura est. Co [...]stantia non habet quò procedat, non magis quàm siducia, aut veritas, aut fides. Sen. Ep. 67. but in themselves are equally prevarications of the Divine Commandment. As he tells a lie that says the Moon is foursquare, as great as he that says there were but three Apostles, or that Christ was not the Son of Man: and as every lie is an equal sin against truth; so every sin is an equal disobedience and recession from the Rule. But some lies are more against Charity, or Justice, or Religion, than others are, and so are greater by complication; but against truth they are all equally oppos'd: and so are all sins contrary to the Commandment. And in this sence is that saying of In regul. brevior. S. Basil: Primò enim scire illud convenit, differentiam minorum & majorum nusquam in Novo Testamento reperiri. Siquidem una est & eadem sententia adversus quaelibet peccata, cum Dominus dixerit, Qui facit peccatum servus est peccati: & item, Sermo quem loquutus sum vobis, ille judicabit eum in Novissimo die: & Johannes [...]ociferans dicat, Qui contumax est in filium, non videbit vitam aeternam; sed ira Dei manet super eum▪ cum contumacia non in discrimine peccatorum, sed in violatione praecepti positam habeat futuri supplicii denunciationem. The difference of great and little sins is no where to be found in the New Testament. One and the same sentence is against all sins; our Lord saying, He that doth sin is the servant of sin; and the word that I have spoken, that shall judge you in the last day; and John crieth out, saying, He that is disobedient to the Son, shall not see eternal life, but the wrath of God abideth on him: for this contumacy or disobedience does not consist in the difference of sins, but in the violation of the Divine Law; and for that it is threatned with eternal pain. But besides these Arguments from Scripture, he adds an excellent Reason: Prorsus autem si id nobis permittitur, ut in peccatis hoc magnum, illud exiguum appellemus, invicto argumento concluditur magnum mic [...]ique esse illud à quo quisque superatur: contráque exiguum quod unusquisque ipse superat. Vt in athletis qui vicit fortis est; qui autem victus est, imbecillior eo unde victus est, quisque ille sit. If it be permitted that men shall call this sin great, and that sin little; they will conclude that to be great which was too strong for them; and that to be little which they can master. As among Champions, he is the strongest that gets the victory. And then upon this account, no sin is Venial that a man commits, because that is it which hath prevail'd upon and master'd all his strengths.

10. The instance is great whatsoever it be that God hath chosen for our obedience. To abstain from the fruit of a tree, not to gather sticks or dew after a certain hour, not to touch the Curtains of the Ark, not to uncover our fathers shame, all is one as to God; for there is nothing in all our duty that can add any moments to his felicity, but by what he please he is to try our obedience. Let no man therefore despise a sin, or be bold to plead for it, as Lot for Zoar, Is it not a little one? For no man can say it is little, if God hath chosen the Commandment which the sin transgresses, as an instrument of his glorification and our felicity. Disobedience is the formality of sin; and since the instance or the matter of sin is all one to God, so also is the disobedience. The result of this consideration is this: 1. That no man should indulge to himself the smallest sin, because it is equally against God as the greatest: and though accidentally it may come not to be so exacted, yet of it self it may, and God is just if he does. 2. There is no sin, but if God enters into judgment with us, he may justly sentence us for it to the portion of accursed Spirits. For if for any, then for all, there being (as to him) no difference. But these things are to be proved in the following Section.

SECT. III. That all sins are punishable as God please, even with the pains of Hell.

[Page]

11. I. IN the aggravation of sins, the injured person is as considerable as any other circumstance. He that smites a Prince, he that fires a Temple, he that rails upon the Bible, he that pollutes the Sacraments, makes every sin to be a load: and therefore since every sin is against God, it ought not to be called little, unless God himself should be little esteemed. And since men usually give this account, that God punishes a transient sin with an immortal pain, because though the action is finite, yet it was against an infinite God, we may upon the same ground esteem it just, that even for the smallest sin, God in the rigour of his justice can exact the biggest calamity. For an act of Murther, or a whole year of Adultery, hath no nearer proportion to an eternity of pains, than one sinful thought hath: for greater or less are no approaches towards infinite; for between them both, and what is infinite, the distance is equally infinite.

12. II. In the distinction of sins Mortal and Venial, the Doctors of the Roman Church define Venial sins to be such which can consist with the love of God, which never destroy or lessen it Venialia peccata ex consensu omnium Theologorum, neque tollunt neque minuunt habitum charitatis, sed solum actum & fervorem ejus impediunt. Bellarm. de amiss. grat. c. 13. Sect. alterum est.; in the very definition supposing that thing which is most of all in question; and the ground of the definition is nothing but the analogy and proportion of the entercourses and usages of men, who for a small offence do not neglect or cast away the endearments of an old friend Idem ib. cap. 11. Sect. Quartum argum.: of which when I have given account, I suppose the greatest difficulty of the question is removed. Against this therefore I oppose this proposition, The smallest sins are destructive of our friendship with God. For although Gods mercies are infinite and glorious, and he forgives millions to us that grudge to remit the trifles of our brother; and therefore whatsoever we can suppose a man will forgive to his friend, that and much more, infinitely more may we expect from the treasures of his goodness and mercy; yet our present consideration is, not what we can expect from Gods mercy, but what is the just demerit of our sins; not what he will forgive, but what he may justly exact; not what are the measures of pardon, but what are the accounts of his justice: for though we have hopes upon other reckonings, yet upon the account even of our smallest sins, we have nothing but fear and sadder expectations. For we are not to account the measures and rules of our friendship with God, by the easiness and ignorance, by the necessities and usual compliances of men. For

13. I. Certain it is, that in the usual accounts of men some things are permitted, which are not so in the accounts of God. All sorts of ignorance use to lessen a fault amongst men, but before God some sorts of ignorance do aggravate; such as is, the voluntary and malicious, which is the worst sort of vincible. Not that men do not esteem him vicious and unworthy who enquires not for fear he should know, but because men oftentimes are not competent judges whether they do or no.

14. II. Because men know not by what purpose their neighbours action is directed, and therefore reckon only by the next and most apparent cause, not by the secret and most operative and effective.

15. III. Because by the laws of Charity we are bound to think the best, to expound things fairly, to take up things by the easier handle; there being left for us no other security of not being confounded by mutual censures, judgments and inflictions, but by being restrained on the surer side of Charity, on which the errors of men are not judged criminal and mischievous, as on the other side they are. But God knows the hearts of men, their little obliquities and intricate turnings, every propensity and secret purpose, what malice is ingredient, and what error is invincible, and how much is fit to be pitied, and therefore what may justly be exacted. For there are three several ways of judgment according to the several capacities of the Judges. * First, the laws of men judge only by the event, or material action, and meddle not at all with the purpose, but where it is open'd by an active sign. He that gives me a thousand pounds to upbraid my poverty, or with a purpose to feed my crimes, is not punishable by law: but he is that takes from me a thousand shillings, though secretly [Page] he means to give it to my needy brother. Because as in the estimation of men nothing is valuable but what does them good or hurt: so neither can their Laws and Tribunals receive testimony of any thing but what is seen or felt. And thus it is also in the measures of sins. To break order in a day of battel, is but a disorder, and so it is to break order at S. George's show, at a training, or in a Procession; and yet that is punished with death, this with a Cudgel; the aptness to mischief, and the evil consequent, being in humane Judicatories the only measures of judgment: Men feel the effects, and the Laws do judge accordingly. 2. In the private judgments of men, mercy must interpose; and it can oftner than in the publick: because in the private entercourses of men, there is a sense, and can be a consideration of particulars, and little accidents and significations of things, and some purposes may be privately discerned, which cannot publickly be proved. He that went to help his friend out of a river, and pull'd his arm out of joynt, was excused by the wronged preserved person: the evil accident was taken off by the pious purpose: But he that to dishonour his friend throws a glass of wine in his face, and says he did it in sport, may be judged by his purpose, not by his pretence, because the pretence can be confuted by the observation of little circumstances and adherencies of the action, which yet peradventure cannot legally be proved. Alitèr leges, alitèr philosophi tollunt astutias: leges, quatenus tenere manu res possunt; philosophi, quatenus ratione & intelligentiâ. Laws regard the great materialities of obedience, the real, sensible effect. But wise men, Philosophers and private Judges, take in the accounts of accidental moments and incidencies to the action, said Cicero. But 3. Gods judgment is otherwise yet;Offic. lib. [...]. for he alone can tell the affection, and all that which had secret influence into the event: and therefore he can judge by what is secret, by the purpose and heart, which is indeed the only way of doing exact justice. From hence it follows, that what ought not to dissolve the friendship of man, may yet justly dissolve our friendship with God, for he takes other measures than men may or can.

16. IV. Because offences against God may be avoided, but it is not so in our entercourses with men; for God hath told us plainly what is our duty, what he expects, what will please, and what will displease him: but men are often governed by Chance; and that which pleases them to day, shall provoke them to morrow; and the next day you shall be their enemy, for that for which three days ago they paid you thanks.

17. V. If men exact little things, it becomes their own case; for we sin against our brother and need his pardon: and therefore ‘Hanc veniam petimúsque damúsque vicissim;’ We give and ask pardon; ‘Det ille veniam facilè, cui veniâ est opus:’ But we never found iniquity in God, or injustice in the most High, and therefore he that is innocent may throw a stone at the criminal.

18. VI. God hath in the smallest instance left us without excuse; for he hath often warned us of small offences. * He hath told us their danger. He that despiseth little things, shall perish by little and little. * He hath told us, they asperse us with a mighty guilt; for he that offends in one Commandment, is guilty of all. * He hath told us that we are not certainly excused, though our conscience do not manifestly accuse us; for so S. Paul, I am not hereby justified, for God is greater than my conscience. * He hath threatned loss of Heaven to him that is guilty of the breach of one, [...], though of the least of these Commandments ( [...], these which Christ had reckoned in his Sermon, where fetters are laid upon thoughts and words) shall be called the least in the Kingdom, that is, he shall be quite shut out: for minimus here is as much as nullus; minimus vocabitur, that is, minimi aestimabitur, he shall not be esteem'd at all in the accounts of doomsday mercy, [...],In resp. ad orthod. apud Justin. in the accounts of the Doomsday book, where there shall be a discerning of them who shall be glorified, from them that are to be punished. And this which is one of the severest periods of holy Scripture, can by no arts be turned aside from concluding fully in this question.De amiss grat. cap. 12. Sect. Restat ultim. Bellarmine says it means only to condemn those who by false doctrines corrupt these severe precepts, and teach men as the Pharisees did of old; not all those who break [Page] them themselves, if they teach others to keep them. He that breaks one of these, and shall teach men so to do; so are the words of Christ. But it is a known thing that [...] is oftentimes used for [...]; He that breaks one of these, or shall teach others. The words were spoken to the persons of the Apostles, who were to teach these doctrines [...] exactly as Christ preach'd them; but without peradventure they were also intended to all the Church: and the following words, and the whole analogy of the adjoyned discourse make it clear to every observing Reader; and the words plainly say this, He that shall break one of these least Commandments, and He that shall teach men so, each of them shall be called the least in the Kingdom. But 2. why did our blessed Lord so severely threaten those that should teach others to break any of these severe Commandments by false interpretation? but only because it was so necessary for all to keep them in the true sence, and so fearful a thing to any to break them. 3. Those who preach severe doctrines to others, and touch them not with one of their fingers, are guilty of that which Christ reproved in the Pharisees; and themselves shall be cast-aways, while they preach to others: so that the breaking it by disobedience is damnable, as well as the breaking it by false interpretation:

Odi homines ignavâ operâ, philosophâ sententiâ,

Pa [...]uvius.

Qui cum sibi semitam non sapiant, alteri monstrant viam.

Indeed it is intolerable to teach men to be vicious; but it is a hateful baseness to shew others that way which our selves refuse to walk in. Whatever therefore may not be allowed to be taught, may not also be done; for the people are not to be taught evil, because they must not do evil; but may the teachers do what they may not teach, and what the people may not do, or is not the same punishment to them both? 4. Now upon these grounds this very gloss which Bellarmine gives being a false interpretation of these words of Christ (which are a summary of his whole Sermon, and as it were the sanction and establishment of the former and following periods into laws) must needs be of infinite danger to the inventer and followers of it: for this gloss gives leave to men to break the least of these Commandments, some way or other (if they do not teach others so to do) without being affrighted with fears of Hell; but in the mean while, this gloss teaches, or gives leave to others to break them, but allows no false interpretation of them but its own. 5. But then it is worse with them who teach others so to do, and command all men to teach so; and if the Roman Doctors who teach that some breach of these Commandments is not of its own nature, and by the divine threatnings, exclusive of the transgressors from the Kingdom of God, be not in some sence a teaching men so to do, then nothing is: For when God said to Adam, That day thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die; the Tempter said, Nay, but ye shall not die; and so was author to Adam of committing his sin. So when our blessed Saviour hath told us, that to break one of these least Commandments is exclusive 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.

[Page]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. Homil. 35. in Lucam. Vnusquisque pro qualitate & quantitate peccati diversam mulctae sententiam expendit. Si parum est quod peccas, ferieris damn [...] minuti, ut Lucas scripsit, ut verò Matthaeus, quadrantis. Veruntamen necesse est hoc ipsum quod e [...]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; [...]. Lib. 4. de orthod. [...] de cap. 23. 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. Orat. [...].

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 aliqu [...] 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 [...];Rom. 5.18. Eph. 2.1. 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: Lib. 3. quaest. super Levit. q. 20. 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:Rom. 7.5. In cap. 2. Ephes. Jam. 1.15. Vid. Com. DD. in Titum verb. [...]. 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 Apol. de liber. arbit. 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. Lib. 13. c. 19. 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 they are transgressions of the Divine Law. So S. Basil argues; Nullum peccatum contemnendum ut parvum, quando D. Paulus de omni peccato generatim pronunciaverat stimulum mortis esse peccatum; The sting of death is sin; that is, death is the evil consequent of sin, and comes in the tail of it; of every sin, and therefore no sin must be despised as if it were little. Now if every little sin hath this sting also (as it is on all hands agreed that it hath) it follows that every little transgression is perfectly and intirely against a Commandment. And indeed [Page] it is not sence to say any thing can in any sence be a sin, and that it should not in the same sence be against a Commandment. For although the particular instance be not named in the Law, yet every instance of that matter must be meant. It was an extreme folly in Bellarmine to affirm,De amiss. grat. cap. 11. Sect. Assumptio probatur. Peccatum veniale ex parvitate materiae est quidem perfectè voluntarium, sed non perfectè contra legem. Lex enim non prohibet furtum uniu [...] oboli in specie, sed prohibet furtum in genere. That a sin that is venial by the smalness of the matter is not perfectly against the Law, because the Law forbids theft indeed in the general, but does not in particular forbid the stealing of a half-peny: for upon the same reason it is not perfectly against the Law to steal three pound nineteen shillings three pence, because the Law in general only forbids theft, but does not in particular forbid the stealing of that summ. * But what is besides the Law, and not against it, cannot be a sin; and therefore to fancy any sin to be only besides the Law is a contradiction; so, to walk, to ride, to eat flesh or herbs, to wear a long or a short garment, are said to be besides the Law; but therefore they are permitted and indifferent. Indifferent I say in respect of that Law which relates to that particular matter, and indifferent in all sences; unless there be some collateral Law which may prohibit it indirectly. So for a Judge to be a Coachman, for a Priest to be a Fidler or Inne-keeper, are not directly unlawful, but indirectly they are, as being against decency and publick honesty or reputation, or being inconvenient in order to that end whither their calling is design'd. To this sence are those words of S. Paul, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; That is, some things which directly are lawful, by an indirect obligation may become unfit to be done; but otherwise, Licitum est quod nullâ lege prohibetur, saith the Law. If no Law forbids it, then it is lawful; and to abstain from what is lawful though it may have a worthiness in it more than ordinary, yet to use our liberty is at no hand a sin. The issue then is this; either we are forbidden to do a venial sin, or we are not. If we are not forbidden, then it is as lawful to do a venial sin as to marry, or eat flesh: If we are forbidden, then every such action is directly against Gods Law, and consequently finable at the will of the supreme Judge, and if he please, punishable with a supreme anger. And to this purpose there is an excellent observation in S. Austin, Lib. 3. quaest. super Levit. q. 20. Peccatum & delictum si nihil differrent inter se, & si unius rei duo nomina essent, non curaret Scriptura tam diligentèr unum esse utriusque sacrificium; There are several names in Scripture to signifie our wandrings, and to represent the several degrees of sin; but carefully it is provided for, that they should be expiated with the same sacrifice; which proves that certainly they are prevarications of the same Law, offences of the same God, provocations of the same anger, and heirs of the same death: and even for small offences a Sacrifice was appointed, lest men should neglect what they think God regarded not.

24. III. Every sin, even the smallest, is against Charity, which is the end of the Commandment. For every sin or evil of transgression is far worse than all the evils of punishment with which mankind is afflicted in this world; and it is a less evil that all mankind should be destroyed, than that God should be displeased in the least instance that is imaginable. Now if we esteem the loss of our life or our estate, the wounding our head, or the extinction of an eye to be great evils to us, and him that does any thing of this to us, to be our enemy, or to be injurious, we are to remember that God hates every sin worse, than we can hate pain or beggery. And if a nice and a tender conscience, the spirit of every excellent person does extremely hate all that can provoke God to anger or to jealousie; it must be certain that God hates every such thing with an hatred infinitely greater, so great that no understanding can perceive the vastness of it and immensity. For by how much every one is better, by so much the more he hates every sin; and the soul of a righteous man is vexed and afflicted with the inrodes of his unavoidable calamities, the armies of Egypt, the Lice and Flies, his insinuating, creeping infirmities: Now if it be holiness in him to hate these little sins, it is an imitation of God; for what is in us by derivation, is in God essentially; therefore that which angers a good man, and ought so to do, displeases God, and consequently is against charity or the love of God. For it is but a vain dream to imagine, that because just men, such who are in the state of grace, and of the love of God, do commit smaller offences, therefore they are not against the love of God; for every degree of cold does abate something of the heat in any hot body; but yet because it cannot destroy it all, cold and heat may be consistent in the same subject; but no man can therefore say, they are not contraries, and would not destroy each other if they were not hindred by something else; and so would the smallest [Page] offences also destroy the life of grace, if they were not destroyed themselves. But of this afterwards. For the present, let it be considered, how it can possibly consist with our love to God, with that duty that commands us to love him with all our heart, with all our strength, with all our might, and with all our soul, how (I say) it can be consistent with a love so extended, so intended, to entertain any thing that he hates so essentially. To these particulars I add this one consideration; That since there is in the world a fierce opinion, that some sins are so slight and little, that they do not destroy our relation to God, and cannot break the sacred tie of friendship, he who upon the inference and presumption of that opinion shall chuse to commit such small sins, which he thinks to be the All that is permitted him, is not excused by that supposition: For if it be said that he is therefore supposed to love God, because he only does those little sins which he thinks are not against the love of God, and if he did not think so, he would not do them; This excuses him not, but aggravates the sin, for it is turning the grace of God into wantonness. For since that such little things are the easier pardon'd, is wholly owing to Gods grace and his singular goodness, he that abuses this goodness to licentiousness, makes his sin to abound, because Gods grace abounds; because God is good, he takes leave to do evil, that is, to be most contrary to God. For it is certain that every man in this case hath affections for sin as formerly; indeed he entertains it not in the ruder instances because he dares not, but he does all that he dares do; for when he is taught that some certain sins are not damnable, there he will not abstain: which is a demonstration that though he does something for fear, yet he does nothing for love.

26. IV. From this it follows, that every sin, though in the smallest instance, is a turning from God and a conversion to the creature. Suidas defines [...] sin to be [...], a declension from good; and [...] is [...], that is, [...], to shoot besides the mark, to conduct our actions by an indirect line to a wrong object, from God to the Creature. Peccare est tanquam line [...] transilire; so Parad. 3. Cicero: a sinner goes out of those limits and marks which are appointed him by God. Than this, no greater evil can be spoken of any thing, and of this, all sin partakes more or less. Some few sins are direct aversions from God; so Atheism, Blasphemy, Apostasie, Resolution never to repent, and some few more: but many other very great sins are turnings from God not directly, but by interpretation. He that commits fornication may yet by a direct act of understanding and a full consent, believe God to be the chiefest Good: and some very vicious persons have given their lives for a good cause, and to preserve their innocence in some great instance, where the scene of their proper and natural temptation does not lie. Some others there are who out of a sincere but an abused Conscience persecute a good cause; these men are zealous for God, and yet fight against him: But because these are real enemies, and but supposed friends, therefore by interpretation and in effect they turn from God and turn to the Creature. Delictum quasi derelictum, said S. Austin; because in every sin God is forsaken. They have left me the living Fountain, Lib. 3. Quaest. in Lev. c. 20. and digged to themselves cisterns that hold no water. So God complains by the Prophet. He that prefers pleasure or profit before his duty, rejects God, but loves money, and pays his devotion to interest, or ease, or sensuality. And just so does the smallest sin. For since every action hath something propounded to it as its last end, it is certain he that sins, does not do it for God, or in order to him. He that tells a lie to promote Religion, or to save the life of a man, or to convert his soul, does not tell that lie for God, but tells the lie to make way for something else which is in order to God; he breaks his legs, that he may the better walk in the path of the Divine Commandments. A sin cannot be for God, or in order to him, no not so much as habitually. For whatsoever can never be referred to God actually, cannot at any time be referred habitually. Since therefore the smallest sins cannot be for God, that which is not with him is against him; if it be no way for God, it is either directly or by interpretation for pleasure or ease, or profit or pride, for something that is against him.

27. And it is not to be neglected, that the smaller the sin is, the less it is excusable if it be done when it is observed. For if it be small, is it not the sooner obeyed, and the more reasonably exacted, and the more bountifully repaid, when Heaven is given as the price of so small a service? He that pursues his crime for a mighty purchase, to get a Kingdom, or a vast estate, or an exquisite beauty, or something that is bigger than the ordinary vertues of easie and common men, hath something (not to warrant and legitimate, but) to extenuate the offence by greatning the temptation. But to lose the friendship of God for a Nut-shell, to save six pence, to lose Heaven with [Page] peevishness, to despise the Divine Laws for a non-sence insignificant vapour, and a testy pride hath no excuse, but it loads the sinner with the disreputation of a mighty folly. What excuse can be made for him that will not so much as hold his peace to please God? What can he do less for him? How should it be expected he should mortifie his lusts, deny his ambition, part with his goods, lose an eye, cut off a hand, give his life for God, when he will not for God lose the no pleasure of talking vainly, and proudly, and ridiculously? If he will not chastise his wanton thoughts to please God, how shall he throw out his whole body of lust? If he will not resist the trifling temptations of a drinking friend to preserve his temperance, how shall he chuse to be banished or murther'd by the rage of a drunken Prince, rather than keep the circle in their giddy and vertiginous method? The less the instance be, the direct aversation from God is also most commonly the less; but in many cases the aversation is by interpretation greater, more unreasonable, and therefore less excusable; as when the small instance is chosen by a perfect and distinct act of election; as it is in those who out of fear of Hell quit the acting of their clamorous sins, and yet keep the affections to them, and consequently entertain them in thoughts and little reflexions, in remembrances and phantastick images.

28. V. But if we reduce this Question a little nearer to practice and cloath it with circumstances, we shall find this account to be sadder than is usually suppos'd. But before I instance in the particulars, I shall premise this distinction of venial sins, which is necessary not only for the conducting of this Question, but our Consciences also in this whole Article. The Roman Schools say, that sins are Venial either by the imperfection of the agent, as when a thing is done ignorantly, or by surprize, or inadvertency: or 2. A sin is Venial by the smalness of the matter; as if a man steals a farthing, or eats a little too greedily at his meal, or lies in bed half an hour longer than would become him: or 3. A sin (say they) is Venial in its whole kind, that is, such which God cannot by the nature of the thing punish with the highest punishment; such as are idle words and the like. Now first, I suppose that the two latter will be sound to be both one: For either God hath not forbidden idleness or falseness, or he hath made no restraint at all upon words, but left us at liberty to talk as we please; for if he hath in this case made a law, then idle words either cannot pretend to an excuse, or it must be for the smalness of the matter; or else it must fall in with the first, and be excused, because they cannot always be attended to.

29. Now concerning the first sort of venial sins, it is not a kind of sins, but a manner of making all sins venial, (that is) apt for pardon: for by the imperfection of the agent or the act, all great sins in their matter, may become little in their malice and guilt. Now these are those which Divines call sins of infirmity; and of them I shall give an account in a distinct Chapter, under that title.

30. Concerning the second, i. e. sins venial for the smalness of the matter; I know none such. For if the matter be a particular that God hath expresly commanded or forbidden respectively, it is not little, but all one to him as that which we call the greatest. But if the particular be wholly relating to our neighbour, the smalness of the matter does not absolutely make the sin venial: for amongst us nothing is absolutely great, or absolutely little, but in comparison with something else; and if a vile person had robb'd the poor woman that offered two mites to the treasury of the Temple, he had undone her; a farthing there was all her substance: so that the smalness of the matter is not directly an excuse. If a man had robb'd a rich man of a farthing, he had not indeed done him so great a mischief: but how if the rich man was not willing to part with his farthing, but would be angry at the injury, is it not a sin, because the theft was small? No man questions but it is. It follows therefore that the smalness of the matter cannot make a sin venial, but where there is a leave expresly given, or justly presumed: and if it be so in a great matter, it is as little a sin as if the matter were small, that is, none at all.

31. But now concerning the third, which the Roman Schools dream of, sins venial in their own nature, and in their whole kind; that is it which I have been disputing against all this while, and shall now further conclude against by arguments more practical and moral. For if we consider what are those particulars which these men call venial sins in their whole kind and nature, we shall find that Christ and they give measures differing from each other. The Catalogues of them I will take from the Fathers, not that they ever thought these things to be in their nature venial, (for they that think so of them are strangers to their writings: and to this purpose Bellarmine hath not brought one testimony pertinent and home to the question:) but [Page] because they reckon such Catalogues of venial sins, which demonstrate that they do mean sins made venial by accident, by mens infirmity, by Gods grace, by pardon, by repentance, and not such which are so in their own nature. But the thing it self will be its own proof.

32. S. Austin reckons, Vanas cachinnationes; in escis aviditatem, Lib. 50. homil. hom. 50.7. Serm. 244. de temp. [...]nchi [...] c. 78. & immoderatiorem appetitum; in vendendis & emendis rebus, charitatis & vilitatis vota perversa; usum matrimonii ad libidinem; judicia apud infideles agitare; Dicere fratri Fatue. Vain laughter, greediness in meat, an immoderate or ungovern'd appetite; perverse desires of dearness and cheapness in buying and selling commodities; the use of marriage to lustfulness and inordination; to go to law before the unbelievers; to call our brother Fool. S. Hierome reckons, jestings, anger, and injurious words. Caesarius Arelatensis the Bishop reckons, excess in eating and drinking, idle words, Dial. 2. adv. Pelag. Homil. 8. & 13 importune silence, to exasperate an importunate begger, to omit the fasts of the Church, sleepiness or immoderate sleeping, the use of a wife to lustfulness, to omit the visitation of the sick and of prisoners, and to neglect to reconcile them that are at variance, too much severity or harshness to our family, or too great indulgence, flattery, talkings in the Church, poor men to eat too much when they are brought rarely to a good table, forswearings [unwary perjury] slander or reproaches, rash judgment, hatred, sudden anger, envy, evil concupiscence, filthy thoughts, the lust of the eyes, the voluptuousness of the ears, or the itch of hearing, the speaking filthy words: and indeed he reckons almost all the common sins of mankind. S. Bernard reckons, stultiloquium, vaniloquium, De praecept. & Dispens. c. 14. otiosè dicta, facta, cogitata; talking vainly, talking like a fool, idle or vain thoughts, words and deeds. These are the usual Catalogues, and if any be reckoned, they must be these; for many times some of these are least consented to, most involuntary, most ready, less avoidable, of the lightest effect, of an eternal return, incurable in the whole, and therefore plead the most probably, and are the soonest likely to prevail for pardon; but yet they cannot pretend to need no pardon, or to fear no damnation. For our blessed Saviour says it of him that speaks an angry word, that he shall be guilty of hell fire. Now since we find such as these reckon'd in the Catalogue of venial sins; and S. Austin in particular calls that venial to which our blessed Saviour threatned hell fire; it is certain he must not mean that it is in its own nature venial, but damnable as any other: but it is venial, that is, prepared for pardon upon other contingencies and causes, of which I shall afterwards give account. In the mean time, I consider,

33. VI. When God appointed in the Law expiatory Sacrifices for sins, although there was enough to signifie that there is difference in the degrees of sin, yet because they were eodem sanguine eluenda, and without shedding of blood there was no remission, they were reckon'd in the same acounts of death and the Divine anger. And it is manifest that by the severities and curse of the Law no sin could escape. For cursed is he that continues not in every thing written in the law, to do them. The Law was a Covenant of Works and exact measures. There were no venial sins by vertue of that Covenant; for there was no remission: and without the death of Christ we could not be eased of this state of danger. Since therefore that any sin is venial or pardonable, is only owing to the grace of God, to the death of Christ; and this death pardons all upon the condition of Faith and Repentance, and pardons none without it: it follows that though sins differ in degree, yet they differ not in their natural and essential order to death. The man that commits any sin, dies if he repents not, and he that does repent timely and effectually, dies for none. The wages of sin is death; of sin indefinitely, and therefore of all sin, and all death: for there is no more distinction of sin than death; only when death is threatned indefinitely, that death is to be understood, which is properly and specifically threatned in that Covenant where the death is named; as death temporal in the Law, death eternal under the Gospel.

34. And thus it appears in a very material instance relating to this question: for when our blessed Saviour had threatned the degrees of anger, he did it by apportioning several pains hereafter of one sort, to the several degrees of the same sin here, which he expresses by the several inflictions passed upon Criminals by the Houses of Judgment among the Jews. Now it is observable,Matth. 5.22▪ that to the least of these sins Christ assigns a punishment just proportionable to that which the gloss of the Pharisees and the Law it self did to them that committed Murther, which was capital; He shall be guilty of judgment; so we read it, [...], not [...]: [Page] so it is in the Greek: He shall be guilty in the [...], that is, in the Court of Judgment, the Assembly of the twenty three Elders; and there his punishment was death, but the gentlest manner of it, the decapitation or smiting him through with the sword, and therefore the least punishment hereafter answering to death here, can mean no less than death hereafter Ita interpretantur hunc locum Barradius, Maldonatus, & Estius ad hunc locum: & apud vetustiores eadem sententia praevaluit. Hac enim erat mens Strabi Fuldensis qui glossam ordinariam compilavit, & Hugonis Cardinalis.. *And so also was the second; [...], he that calls Racha shall be guilty, that is, shall be used as one that stands guilty in the Sanhedrim, or Council, meaning that he is to die too, but with a severer execution by stoning to death: this was the greatest punishment by the houses of judgment; for Crucifixion was the Roman manner. These two already signifie Hell, in a less degree, but as certainly and evidently as the third. For though we read Hell-fire, in the third sentence only, yet [...] no otherwise signifies Hell, than the other two, by analogy and proportionable representment. The cause of the mistake is this: When Christ was pleased to add yet a further degree of punishment in hell to a further degree of anger and reproach, the Jews having no greater than that of stoning by the judgment of the Sanhedrim or Council, he would borrow his expression from that which they and their Fathers too well understood, a barbarous custome of the Phoenicians of burning children alive in the valley of Hinnom, [...] which in succession of time the Hellenists called [...] not much unlike the Hebrew word: and because by our blessed Lord it was used to signifie or represent the greatest pains of hell that were spoken of in that gradation, the Christians took the word and made it to be its appellative, and to signifie the state or place of the damned: just as [...] the garden of Eden is called Paradise. But it was no more intended that this should signifie Hell, than that any of the other two should. The word it self never did so before; but that and the other two were taken as being the most fearful things amongst them here, to represent the degrees of the most intolerable state hereafter: just as damnation is called death; the second death; that because we fear the first as the worst of present evils, we may be affrighted with the apprehensions of the latter. From this authority it follows; that as in the Law no sins were venial, but by repentance and sacrifice; so neither in the Gospel are they: not in their own nature, not by the more holy Covenant of the Gospel, but by repentance and mortification. For the Gospel hath with greater severity laid restraint upon these minutes and little particles of action and passion: and therefore if in the law every transgression was exacted, we cannot reasonably think that the least parts of duty, which the Gospel superadded with a new and severer caution, as great and greater than that by which the law exacted the greatest Commandments, can be broken with indemnity, or without the highest danger. The law exacted all its smallest minutes; and therefore so does the Gospel, as being a Covenant of greater holiness. But as in the law for the smaller transgressions there was an assignment of expiatory rites; so is there in the Gospel of a ready repentance, and a prepared mercy.

37. VII. Lastly, those sins which men in health are bound to avoid, those sins for which Christ did shed his most precious blood, those sins which a dying man is bound to ask pardon for, though he hopes not, or desires not to escape temporal death, certain it is, that those sins are in their nature, and in the Oeconomy or dispensation of the Divine threatnings, damnable. For what can the dying man fear but death eternal? and if he be bound to repent and ask pardon even for the smallest sins which he can remember, in order to what pardon can that repentance be, but of the eternal pain, to which every sin by its own demerit naturally descends? If he must repent and ask pardon when he hopes not, or desires not the temporal, it is certain he must repent, only that he may obtain the eternal. And they that will think otherwise, will also find themselves deceiv'd in this. *For if the damned souls in hell are punish'd for all their sins, then the unpardon'd venial sins are there also smarted for. But so it is, and so we are taught in the doctrine of our great Master. If we agreee not while we are in the way, we shall be cast into the eternal prison, and shall not depart thence till we have paid the uttermost farthing: that is, ever for our smallest sins, if they be unremitted, men shall pay in hell their horrible Symbol of damnation. And this is confessed on all hands Aquina [...] 1.2. quaest. 87. art. 5.: that they who fall into hell, pay their sorrows there even for all. But it is pretended, that this is only by accident Bellar. de amiss. gra. lib. 1. c. 14. Sect. Extu [...] ad., not by the first intention of the Divine justice; because it happens that they are subjected in such persons, who for other sins (not for these) go to hell. Well! yet let it be considered, whether or no do not the smallest unremitted sins, increase the torments of hell in their proportion? If they do not, then they are not at all punished in hell; [Page] for if without them the perishing soul is equally punished, then for them there is no punishment at all. But if they do increase the pains, as it is certain they do, then to them properly, and for their own malignity and demerit, a portion of eternal pains is assigned. Now if God punishes them in hell, then they deserv'd hell; if they be damnable in their event, then they were so in their merit; for God never punishes any sin more than it deserves, though he often does less. But to say that this is by accident, that is, for their conjunction with mortal sins, is confuted infinitely, because God punishes them with degrees of evil proper to them, and for their own demerit. There is no other accident by which these come to be smarted for in hell, but because they were not repented of; for by that accident they become Mortal; as by the contrary accident, to wit, if the sinner repents worthily, not only the smallest, but the greatest also become Venial: The impenitent pays for all; all together. But if the man be a worthy penitent, if he continues and abides in Gods love, he will find a mercy according to his circumstances, by the measures of Gods graciousness, and his own repentance: so that by accident they may be pardoned, but if that accident does not happen, if the man be not penitent, the sins shall be punished directly, and for their own natural demerit. The summ is this.

If a man repents truly of the greater sins, he also repents of the smallest; for it cannot be a true repentance which refuses to repent of any; so that if it happens that for the smallest he do smart in hell, it is because he did not repent truly of any, greatest, nor smallest. But if it happens that the man did not commit any of the greater sins, and yet did indulge to himself a licence to do the smallest,Serm. 1. de coenâ Dom. & Serm. 1. de convers. Paul [...]. even for those which he calls the smallest, he may perish; and what he is pleased to call little, God may call great. Cum his peccatis neminem salvandum, said S. Bernard: with these (even the smallest sins) actually remaining upon him unrepented of in general or particular, no man can be saved.

SECT. IV. The former doctrine reduc'd to practice.

36. I HAVE been the more earnest in this article, not only because the Doctrine which I have all this while opposed makes all the whole doctrine of moral Theology to be inartificial, and in many degrees useless, false and imprudent; but because of the immediate influence it hath to encourage evil lives of men. For,

37. I. To distinguish a whole kind of sins is a certain way to make repentance and amendment of life imperfect and false. For when men by fears and terrible considerations are scar'd from their sins, as most repentances begin with fear, they still retain some portions of affection to their sin, some lookings back and phantastick entertainments, which if they be not pared off by repentance, we love not God with all our hearts; and yet by this doctrine of distinguishing sins into Mortal and Venial in their whole kind and nature, men are taught to arrest their repentances, and have leave not to proceed further: for they who say sins are Venial in their own nature, if they understand the consequences of their own doctrine, do not require repentance to make them so, or to obtain a pardon which they need not.

38. II. As by this means our repentances are made imperfect, so is a relapse extreamly ready; for while such a leaven is left,Lib. 10. Moral, c. 14. it is ten to one but it may sowre the whole mass. S. Gregory said well, Si curare parva negligimus, insensibiliter seducti audentèr etiam majora perpetramus: we are too apt to return to our old crimes, whose reliques we are permitted to keep and kiss.

[Page]38. III. But it is worse yet. For the distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their nature is such a separation of sin from sin, as is rather a dispensation or leave to commit one sort of them; the expiation of which is so easy, the pardon so certain, the remedy so ready, the observation and exaction of them so inconsiderable. For there being so many ways of making great sins little, and little sins none at all, found out by the folly of men and the craft of the Devil, a great portion of Gods right, and the duty we owe to him, is by way of compromise and agreement left as a portion to carelesness and folly: and why may not a man rejoyce in those trifling sins, for which he hath security he shall never be damned? As for the device of Purgatory, indeed if there were any such thing, it were enough to scare any one from committing any sins, much more little ones. But I have conversed with many of that perswasion, and yet never observed any to whom it was a terror to speak of Purgatory, but would talk of it as an antidote or security against hell, but not as a formidable story to affright them from their sins, but to warrant their venial sins, and their imperfect repentance for their mortal sins. And indeed let it be considered: If venial sins be such as the Roman DD. describe them; that they neither destroy nor lessen charity or the grace of God, that they only hinder the fervency of an act, which sleep or business or any thing that is most innocent may doe; that they are not against the law but besides it; as walking and riding, standing and sitting are; that they are not properly sins, that all the venial sins in the world cannot amount to one mortal sin, but as time differs from eternity, finite from infinite, so do all the Venial sins in the world put together, from one Mortal act; that for all them a man is never the less beloved, and loves God nothing the less; I say, if venial sins be such (as the Roman Writers affirm they are) how can it be imagined to be agreeable to Gods goodness to inflict upon such sinners who only have venial sins unsatisfied for, such horrible pains (which they dream of in Purgatory) as are, during their abode, equal to the intolerable pains of hell, for that which breaks none of his laws, which angers him not, which is not against him or his love, which is incident to his dearest servants? Pro peccato magno paulum supplicii satis est patri; But if fathers take such severe amends of their children for that which is not properly sin, there is nothing left by which we can boast of a fathers kindness. In this case, there is no remission; for if it be not just in God to punish such sins in hell, because they are consistent with the state of the love of God, and yet they are punished in Purgatory, that is, as much as they can be punished; then God does remit to his children nothing for their loves sake, but deals with them as severely as for his justice he can, in the matter of venial sins; indeed if he uses mercy to them at all, it is in remitting their mortal sins, but in their venial sins, he uses none at all. Now if things were thus on both sides, it is strange, men are not more afraid of their venial sins, and that they are not more terrible in their description, which are so sad in their event; and that their punishment should be so great, when their malice is so none at all; and it is strangest of all, that if men did believe such horrible effects to be the consequent of venial sins, they should esteem them little, and inconsiderable, and warn men of them with so little caution. But to take this wonder off, though they affright men with Purgatory at the end, yet they make the bugbear nothing by their easy remedies and preventions in the way. Venial sins may be taken off (according to their doctrine) at as cheap a rate as they may be committed; but of this I shall give a fuller account in the 6. Sect. of this Chapter. In the mean time, to believe Purgatory, serves the ends of the Roman Clergy, and to have so much easiness and leave in venial sins, serves the ends of their Laity; but as truth is disserv'd in the former, so is piety and the severities of a holy life very much slackned by the latter.

40. But as care is taken that their doctrine do not destroy charity or good life by loosnes and indulgence, so care must be taken that ours do not destroy hope, and discountenance the endeavours of pious people; for if the smallest sins be so highly punishable, who can hope ever to escape the intolerable state of damnation? And if God can be eternally angry for those things which we account small sins, then no man is a servant or a friend of God; no man is in the state of the Divine favour; for no man is without these sins; for they are such, ‘Quae non possit homo quisquam evitare cavendo,’ a man by all his industry cannot wholly avoid. Now because the Scripture pronounces some persons just, and righteous, as David and Josiah, Zechary and Elizabeth, [Page] who yet could not be innocent and pure from small offences: either these little things are in their own nature venial, or the godly have leave to do that, which is punished in the ungodly, or some other way must be found out, how that which is in its own nature damnable, can stand with the state of grace; and upon what causes, sins which of themselves are not so, may come to be venial, that is, more apt and ready to be pardoned, and in the next dispositions to receive a mercy.

SECT. V.

41. I. NO just person does or can indulge to himself the keeping of any sin whatsoever; for all sins are accounted of by God according to our affections, and if a man loves any, it becomes his poison. Every sin is damnable when it is chosen deliberately, either by express act or by interpretation; that is, when it is chosen regularly or frequently. He that loves to cast over in his mind the pleasures of his past sin, he that entertains all those instances of sin, which he thinks not to be damnable, this man hath given himself up to be a servant to a trifle, a lover of little and phantastick pleasures. Nothing of this can stand with the state of grace. No man can love sin and love God at the same time; and to think it to be an excuse to say the sin is little, is as if an adulteress should hope for pardon of her offended Lord, because the man whom she dotes upon is an inconsiderable person.

42. II. In sins we must distinguish the formality from the material part. The formality of sin is disobedience to God, and turning from him to the Creature by love and adhesion. The material part is the action it self. The first can never happen without our will; but the latter may by surprise and indeliberation, and imperfection of condition. For in this life our understanding is weak, our attention trifling, our advertency interrupted, our diversions many, our divisions of spirit irresistible, our knowledge little, our dulness frequent, our mistakes many, our fears potent, and betrayers of our reason; and at any one of these doors sin may enter, in its material part, while the will is unactive, or the understanding dull, or the affections busie, or the spirit otherwise imployed, or the faculties wearied, or reason abused: Therefore if you inquire for venial sins, they must be in this throng of imperfections, but they never go higher. Let no man therefore say, I have a desire to please my self in some little things; for if he desires it, he may not do it, that very desire makes that it cannot be venial, but as damnable as any, in its proportion.

43. III. If any man about to do an action of sin, inquires whether it be a venial sin or no, to that man, at that time that sin cannot be venial: for whatsoever a man considers, and acts, he also chooses and loves in some proportion, and therefore turns from God to the sin, and that is, against the love of God, and in its degree destructive or diminutive of the state of grace. Besides this, such a person in this enquiry asks leave to sin against God, and gives a testimony that he would sin more if he durst. But in the same degree in which the choice is lessened, in the same degree the material part of the sin receives also diminution.

44. IV. It is remarkable, that amongst the Ancients this distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial, or to use their own words, Graviora & Leviora, or Peccata & Crimina, does not mean a distinction of kind, but of degrees. They call them mortal sins which shall never, or very hardly be pardon'd, not at all but upon very hard terms. So Pacianus. In Para [...], De modo criminum edisserens nequis existimet omnibus omnino peccatis summum discrimen impositum, sedulòque requirens, quae sint peccata, quae crimina, nequis existimet propter innumera delicta, quorum fraudibus nullus immunis est, me omne hominum genus indiscretâ poenitendi lege constringere. The highest danger is not in every sin; offences and crimes must be distinguished carefully: for the same severe impositions are not indifferently to be laid upon Criminals, and those whose guilt is in such instances from which no man is free. ‘Wherefore covetousness may be redeem'd with liberality, slander with satisfaction, morosity with cheerfulness, sharpness with gentle usages, lightness with gravity, perverseness or peevishness with honesty and fair carriage. But what shall the despiser of God do? what shall the Murtherer do? what remedy shall the Adulterer Fornicator. Promiscuè sapius usurpantur fornicatio & adulterium, have? Ista sunt capitalia Fratres, ista mortalia.’ These are the deadly sins, these are capital crimes: meaning [Page] that these were to be taken off by the severities of Ecclesiastical or publick Repentance (of which I am afterwards to give account) and would cost more to be cleansed. To a good man, and meliorum operum compensatione (as Pacianus affirms) by the compensation of good work, that is, of the actions of the contrary graces, they are venial, they are cured. For by venial they mean such which with less difficulty and hazard may be pardon'd: such as was S. Pauls blasphemy and persecuting the Church; for that was venial, that is, apt for pardon, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief: and such are those sins (saith Caesarius) which are usual in the world, though of their own nature very horrible, as forswearing our selves, slander, reproach, and the like; yet because they are extreamly common, they are such to which if a continual pardon were not offered, Gods numbers would be infinitely lessened. In this sence every sin is venial, excepting the three Capitals reckoned in Tertullian, Idolatry, Murther, and Adultery; every thing but the sin against the Holy Ghost, and its branches reckoned in Pacianus; every thing but the seven deadly sins, in others. Now according to the degree and malignity of the sin, or its abatement by any lessening circumstance, or intervening considerations, so it puts on its degrees of veniality, or being pardonable. Every sin hath some degree of being venial, till it arrives at the unpardonable state, and then none is. But every sin that hath many degrees of Venial, hath also some degrees of Damnable. So that to enquire what venial sins can stand with the state of grace; is to ask, how long a man may sin before he shall be damn'd; how long will God still forbear him, how long he will continue to give him leave to repent? For a sin is venial upon no other acount but of Repentance. If Venial be taken for pardonable, it is true that many circumstances make it so, more or less; that is, whatever makes the sin greater or less, makes it more or less venial: and of these I shall give account in the Chapter of sins of Infirmity. But if by Venial, we mean actually pardon'd, or not exacted: Nothing makes a sin venial, but Repentance, and that makes every sin to be so. Therefore,

45. V. Some sins are admitted by holy persons, and yet they still continue holy; not that any of these sins is permitted to them; nor that God cannot as justly exact them of his servants as of his enemies; nor that in the Covenant of the Gospel they are not imputable; nor that their being in Gods favour hides them, for God is most impatient of any remaining evil in his children: But the only reasonable account of it is, because the state of grace is a state of Repentance; these sins are those which as Pacianus expresses it, contrariis emendata proficiunt, they can be helped by contrary actions: and the good man does perpetually watch against them, he opposes a good against every evil; that is, in effect he uses them just as he uses the greatest that ever he committed. Thus the good man when he reproves a sinning person over-acts his anger, and is transported to undecency, though it be for God: Some are over zealous, some are phantastick and too apt to opinion, which in little degrees of inordination are not so soon discernible. A good man may be over-joyd, or too much pleas'd with his recreation, or be too passionate at the death of a child, or in a sudden anger go beyond the evenness of a wise Christian, and yet be a good man still, and a friend of God, his son and his servant: but then these things happen in despite of all his care and observation; and when he does espy any of these obliquities, he is troubled at it, and seeks to amend it: and therefore these things are venial, that is, pitied and excused, because they are unavoible, but avoided as much as they well can (all things considered) and God does not exact them of him, because the good man exacts them of himself. * These being the Rules of Doctrine, we are to practise accordingly.

To which add the following measures.

46. VI. This difference in sins, of Mortal and Venial, that is, greater and less, is not to be considered by us, but by God alone, and cannot have influence upon us to any good purposes. For 1. We do not always know by what particular measures they are lessened: In general we know some proportions of them, but when we come to particulars, we may easily be deceived, but can very hardly be exact. S. Austin said the same thing.Enthirid. cap. 78. Quae sint levia, & quae gravia peecata, non humano sed Divino sunt pensanda judicio. God only, not man, can tell which sins are great, and which little. For since we see them equally forbidden, we must with equal care avoid them all. Indeed if the case should be so put, that we must either commit Sacrilege, or tell a spiteful lie, kill a man, or speak unclean words, then it might be of use to us to consider which is the greater, which is less, that, of evils we might choose the less: but this case [Page] can never be, for no man is ever brought to that necessity that he must choose one sin; for he can choose to die before he shall do either, and that's the worst that he can be put to. And therefore though right reason and experience, and some general lines of Religion mark out some actions as criminal, and leave others under a general and indefinite condemnation, yet it is in order to repentance and amends when such things are done, not to greater caution directly of avoiding them in the days of temptation; for of two infini [...]ies in the same kind, one cannot be bigger than the other. We are tied with the biggest care to avoid every sin, and bigger than the biggest we find not. This only: For the avoiding of the greatest sins, there are more arguments from without, and sometimes more instruments and ministeries of caution and prevention are to be used, than in lesser sins; but it is because fewer will serve in one than in another; but all that is needful must be used in all, but there is no difference in our choice that can be considerable, for we must never choose either, and therefore beforehand to compare them together, whereof neither is to be preferred before the other, is to lay a snare for our selves, and make us apt to one by undervaluing it, and calling it less than others, that affright us more. Indeed when the sin is done, to measure it may be of use (as I shall shew) but to do it beforehand hath danger in it of being tempted, and more than a danger of being deceived. For our hearts deceive us, our purposes are complicated, and we know not which end is principally intended, nor by what argument amongst many, we were finally determin'd, or which is the prevailing ingredient; nor are we competent Judges of our own strengths, and we can do more than we think we can; and we remember not, that the temptation which prevails was sought for by our selves; nor can we separate necessity from choice, our consent from our being betrayed; nor tell whether our fort is given up, because we would do so, or because we could not help it. Who can tell whether he could not stand one assault more, and if he had, whether or no the temptation would not have left him? The ways of consent are not always direct, and if they be crooked, we see them not. And after all this, if we were able, yet we are not willing to judge right, with truth, and with severity: something for our selves, something for excuse, something for pride; a little for vanity, and a little in hypocrisie, but a great deal for peace and quiet, that the rest of the mind may not be disturbed, that we may live and die in peace, and in a good opinion of our selves. These indeed are evil measures, but such by which we usually make judgment of our actions, and are therefore likely to call great sins little, and little sins none at all. **

47. II. That any sins are venial being only because of the state of grace and Repentance, under which they are admitted; what condition a man is in, even for the smallest sins, he can no more know than he can tell that all his other sins are pardon'd, that his Repentance is accepted, that nothing of Gods anger is reserved, that he is pleased for all, that there is no Judgment behind hanging over his head, to strike him for that wherein he was most negligent. Now although some men have great and just confidences that they are actually in Gods favour, yet all good men have not so. For there are coverings sometimes put over the spirits of the best men; and there are intermedial and doubtful states of men, (as I shall represent in the Chapter of Actual sins) there are also ebbings and flowings of sin and pardon: and therefore none but God only knows how long this state of veniality and pardon will last; and therefore as no man can pronounce concerning any kind of sins, that they are in themselves venial, so neither can he know concerning his own, or any mans particular state, that any such sins are pardon'd, or Venial to him. He that lives a good life will find it so in its own case, and in the event of things; and that's all which can be said as to this particular; and it is well it is so, ne studium proficiendi ad omnia peccata cavenda pigres [...]at (as S. Austin well observed.) If it were otherwise, and that sins in their own nature by venial and not venial are distinguished and separate in their natures from each other, and that some of them are of so easie remedy, and inconsiderable a guilt, they would never become earnest to avoid all.

48. III. There are some sins which indeed seem venial, and were they not sentenc'd in Scripture with severe words would pass for trifles; but in Scripturis demonstrantur opinione graviora (as S. Austin notes) they are by the word of God declared to be greater than they are thought to be; and we have reason to judge so,Enchirid. 79. concerning many instances in which men are too easie, and cruelly kind unto themselves. S. Paul said, I had not known concupiscence to be a sin, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not lust: and we use to call them scrupulous and phantastick persons who make much adoe about a careless word, and call themselves to severe account for every thought, and are [Page] troubled for every morsel they eat, when it can be disputed whether it might not better have been spared. Who could have guessed that calling my enemy Fool should be so great a matter; but because we are told that it is so; told by him that shall be our Judge, who shall call us to account for every idle word; we may well think that the measures which men usually make by their customes and false principles, and their own necessities, lest they by themselves should be condemned, are weak and fallacious: and therefore whatsoever can be of truth in the difference of sins, may become a danger to them who desire to distinguish them, but can bring no advantages to the interests of piety and a holy life.

49. IV. We only account those sins great which are unusual, which rush violently against the conscience, because men have not been acquainted with them: Peccata sola inusitata exhorrescimus, August. ubi suprà. usitata verò diligimus. But those which they act every day, they suppose them to be small, quotidianae incursiones, the unavoidable acts of every day; and by degrees our spirit is reconciled to them, conversing with them as with a tame wolf, who by custome hath forgotten the circumstances of his barbarous nature, but is a wolf still. [...] (as Synesius calls them) the little customes of sinning, men think, ought to be dissembled. This was so of old; Caesarius Bishop of Arles complain'd of it in his time. Verè dico Fratres &c. ‘I say truly to you Brethren,Hom. 16. this thing according to the Law and Commandment of our Lord, never was lawful, neither is it, nor shall it ever be; but as if it were worse, ita peccata ista in consuetudinem missa sunt, & tanti sunt qui illa faciunt, ut jam quasi ex licito fieri credantur; these sins are so usual and common that men now begin to think them lawful.’ And indeed who can do a sin every day, and think it great and highly damnable? If he think so, it will be very uneasie for him to keep it: but if he will keep it, he will also endeavour to get some protection or excuse for it; something to warrant, or something to undervalue it; and at last it shall be accounted venial, and by some means or other reconcileable with the hopes of heaven. He that is used to oppress the poor every day, thinks he is a charitable man if he lets them go away with any thing he could have taken from them: But he is not troubled in conscience for detayning the wages of the hireling, with deferring to do justice, with little arts of exaction and lessening their provisions. For since nothing is great or little but in comparison with something else, he accounts his sin small, because he commits greater; and he that can suffer the greatest burthen, shrinks not under a lighter weight; and upon this account it is impossible but such men must be deceiv'd and die.

50. VII. Let no man think that his venial or smaller sins shall be pardoned for the smalness of their matter, and in a distinct account; for a man is not quit of the smallest but by being also quit of the greatest: for God does not pardon any sin to him that remains his enemy; and therefore unless the man be a good man and in the state of grace, he cannot hope that his venial sins can be in any sence indulg'd; they increase the burden of the other, and are like little stones laid upon a shoulder already crushed with an unequal load. Either God pardons the greatest, or the least stand uncancell'd.

51. VIII. Although God never pardons the smallest without the greatest, yet he sometimes retains the smallest, of them whose greatest he hath pardon'd. The reason is, because although a man be in the state of grace and of the Divine favour, and God will not destroy his servants for every calamity of theirs, yet he will not suffer any thing that is amiss in them. A Father never pardons the small offences of his son who is in rebellion against him; those little offences cannot pretend to pardon till he be reconciled to his Father; but if he be, yet his Father may chastise his little misdemeanors, or reserve some of his displeasure so far as may minister to discipline, not to destruction: and therefore if a son have escaped his Fathers anger and final displeasure, let him remember, that though his Father is not willing to dis-inherit him, yet he will be ready to chastise him. And we see it by the whole dispensation of God, that the righteous are punished, and afflictions begin at the House of God; and God is so impatient even of little evils in them, that to make them pure he will draw them through the fire; and there are some who are sav'd, yet so as by fire. And certainly, those sins ought not to be neglected, or esteemed little, which provoke God to anger even against his servants. We find this instanc'd in the case of the Corinthians, who used undecent circumstances and unhandsome usages of the blessed Sacrament; even for this, God severely reprov'd them; for this cause many are weak, and sick, and some are fallen asleep, 1 Cor. 11.30. which is an expression used in Scripture to signifie them that die in the [Page] Lord, and is not used to signifie the death of them that perish from the presence of the Lord. These persons died in the state of grace and repentance, but yet died in their sin; chastised for their lesser sins, but so that their souls were sav'd. This is that which Clemens Alexandrinus affirms of sins committed after our illumination, [...], These sins must be purged with a [...],Stroma [...]. 4. with the chastisements of sons. The result of this consideration is that which S. Peter advises, that we pass the time of our sojourning here in fear: for no man ought to walk confidently, who knows that even the most laudable life hath in it evil enough to be smarted for with a severe calamity.

52. IX. The most trifling actions, the daily incursions of sins, though of the least malignity, yet if they be neglected, combine and knit together, till by their multitude they grow insupportable; This caution I learn from Caesarius Arelatensis. Hom. 13. Et hoc considerate Fratres, quia etiamsi capitalia crimina non subreperent, ipsa minuta peccata quae (quod pejus est) aut non attendimus, aut certè pro nihilo computamus, si simul omnia congregentur, nescio quae bonorum operum abundantia illis praeponderare sufficiat. Although capital sins invade you not, yet if your minutes, your small sins which either we do not consider at all, or value not at all, be combin'd, or gathered into one heap, I know not what multitude of good works will suffice to weigh them down. For little sins are like the sand, and when they become a heap are heavy as lead; and a leaking ship may as certainly perish with the little inlets of water as with a mighty wave; for of many drops a river is made; and therefore,S. August. epist. 108. ad Seleu. lib. 50. hom. 42. ipsa minuta vel levia non contemnantur. Illa enim quae humanae fragilitati quamvis parva tamen crebra subrepunt, quasi collecta contra nos fuerint, ita nos gravabunt sicut unum aliquod grande peccatum Idem tract. 1. in ep. Johan. Levia multa faciunt unum grande.. Let not little sins be despised, for even those smallest things which creep upon us by our natural weakness, yet when they are gathered together against us, stand on an heap, and like an army of flies can destroy us as well as any one deadly enemy. Quae quamvis singula non lethali vulnere ferire sentiantur, sicut homicidium, & adulterium, vel caetera hujusmodi, tamen omnia simul congregata velut scabies, Lib. 50. hom. hom. 50. c. 8. quo plura sunt, necant, & nostrum decus ita exterminant ut à filii sponsi speciosi formâ prae filiis hominum castissimis amplexibus separent, nisi medicamento quotidianae poenitentiae dissecentur. ‘Indeed we do not feel every one of them strike so home and deadly, as murder and adultery does, yet when they are united, they are like a scab, they kill with their multitude, and so destroy our internal beauty, that they separate us from the purest embraces of the Bridegroom, unless they be scattered with the medicine of a daily repentance.’ For he that does these little sins often, and repents not of them, nor strives against them, either loves them directly or by interpretation.

53. X. Let no man when he is tempted to a sin, go then to take measures of it; because it being his own case he is an unequal and incompetent Judge; His temptation is his prejudice and his bribe, and it is ten to one but he will suck in the poyson, by his making himself believe that the potion is not deadly. Examine not the particular measures unless the sin be indeed by its disreputation great, then examine as much as you please, provided you go not about to lessen it. It is enough it is a sin, condemned by the laws of God, and that death and damnation are its wages.

54. XI. When the mischief is done, then you may in the first days of your shame and sorrow for it, with more safety take its measures. For immediately after acting, sin does to most men appear in all its ugliness and deformitty: and if in the days of your temptation you did lessen the measure of your sin, yet in the days of your sorrow, do not shorten the measures of repentance. Every sin is deadly enough; and no repentance or godly sorrow can be too great for that which hath deserved the eternal wrath of God.

55. XII. I end these advices with the meditation of S. Hierom. Si ira & sermonis injuria, atque interdum jocus judicio, concilióque, atque Gehennae ignibus delegatur, quid merebitur turpium rerum appetitio, & avaritia quae est radix omnium malorum? If anger, and injurious words, and sometimes a foolish jest is sentenc'd to capital and supreme punishments, what punishment shall the lustful and the covetous have? And what will be the event of all our souls, who reckon these injurious or angry words of calling Fool, or Sot amongst the smallest, and those which are indeed less we do not observe at all? For who is there amongst us almost, who calls himself to an account for trifling words, loose laughter, the smallest beginnings of intemperance, careless spending too great portions of our time in trifling visits and [Page] courtships, balls, revellings, phantastick dressings, sleepiness, idleness, and useless conversation, neglecting our times of prayer frequently, or causlesly, slighting religion and religious persons, siding with factions indifferently, forgetting our former obligations upon trifling regards, vain thoughts, wandrings and weariness at our devotion, love of praise, laying little plots and snares to be commended; high opinion of our selves, resolutions to excuse all, and never to confess an error; going to Church for vain purposes, itching ears, love of flattery, and thousands more? The very kinds of them put together are a heap; and therefore the so frequent and almost infinite repetition of the acts of all those are, as Davids expression is, without hyperbole, more than the hairs upon our head; they are like the number of the sands upon the Sea shore for multitude.

SECT. VI. What repentance is necessary for the smaller or more Venial sins.

56. I. UPON supposition of the premises; since these smaller sins are of the same nature, and the same guilt, and the same enmity against God, and consign'd to the same evil portion that other sins are, they are to be wash'd off with the same repentance also as others. Christs blood is the lavatory, and Faith and Repentance are the two hands that wash our souls white from the greatest and the least stains: and since they are by the impenitent to be paid for in the same fearful prisons of darkness, by the same remedies and instruments the intolerable sentence can only be prevented. The same ingredients, but a less quantity possibly may make the medicine. Caesarius Bishop of Arles, who spake many excellent things in this article, says that for these smaller sins a private repentance is proportionable.Hom. 1. Si levia fortasse sunt delicta, v. g. si homo vel in sermone, vel in aliquâ reprehensibili voluntate; si in oculo peccavit, aut corde; verborum & cogitationum maculae quotidianâ oratione curandae, & privatâ compunctione terendae sunt. The sins of the eye, and the sins of the heart, and the offences of the tongue are to be cured by secret contrition and compunction and a daily prayer. But S. Cyprian commends many whose conscience being of a tender complexion, they would even for the thoughts of their heart do publick penance: His words are these; —multos timoratae conscientiae, De lapsis. quamvis nullo sacrificii aut libelli facinore constricti essent, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc ipsum apud Sacerdotes Dei dolenter & simplicitèr confitentes exomologesin conscientiae fecisse, animi sui pondus exposuisse, salutarem medelam parvis licet & modicis vulneribus exquirentes. Because they had but thought of complying with idolaters, they sadly and ingenuously came to the Ministers of holy things, Gods Priests, confessing the secret turpitude of their conscience, laying aside the weight that pressed their spirit, and seeking remedy even for their smallest wounds. And indeed we find that among the Ancients there was no other difference in assignation of repentance to the several degrees of sin,Vide S. Aug. lib. 83. q. 26. & Caesar. Arelat. hom. 1. but only by publick, and private: Capital sins they would have submitted to publick judgment; but the lesser evils to be mourn'd for in private: of this I shall give account in the Chapter of Ecclesiastical repentance. In the mean time, their general rule was, That because the lesser sins came in by a daily incursion, therefore they were to be cut off by a daily repentance; which because it was daily, could not be so intense and signally punitive as the sharper repentances for the seldome returning sins, yet as the sins were daily, but of less malice, so their repentance must be daily, but of less affliction. Medicamento quotidianae poenitentiae dissecentur;Lib. 50. hom. h. 50. c. 8. That was S. Austins rule. Those evils that happen every day, must be cried out against every day.

57. II. Every action of repentance, every good work done for the love of God and in the state of grace, and design'd, and particularly applied to the intercision of the smallest unavoidable sins, is through the efficacy of Christs death, and in the vertue of repentance operative towards the expiation or pardon of them. For a man cannot do all the particulars of repentance for every sin; but out of the general hatred of sin picks out some special instances, and apportions them to his [Page] special sins; as to acts of uncleanness he opposes acts of severity, to intemperance he opposes fasting. But then as he rests not here, but goes on to the consummation of Repentance in his whole life: so it must be in the more venial sins. A less instance of express anger is graciously accepted, if it be done in the state of grace and in the vertue of Repentance; but then the pardon is to be compleated in the pursuance and integrity of that grace, in the Summes total. For no man can say that so much sorrow, or such a degree of Repentance is enough to any sin he hath done: and yet a man cannot apportion to every sin large portions of special sorrow, it must therefore be done all his life time; and the little portions must be made up by the whole grace and state of Repentance. One instance is enough particularly to express the anger, or to apply the grace of Repentance to any single sin which is not among the Capitals; but no one instance is enough to extinguish it. For sin is not pardon'd in an instant (as I shall afterwards discourse) neither is the remedy of a natural and a just proportion to the sin.

Note: Ecclesia Romana alia excogitavit facilè, quorum nonnulla declinant aperte nimis ad superstitionem:

Consiteor, tundo, conspergor, conteror, oro,

Signor, edo, dono, per hac venialia pono.

Therefore when many of the ancient Doctors apply to venial sins special remedies by way of expiation, or deprecation, such as are, beating the breast, saying the Lords Prayer, Alms, communicating, confessing, and some others; the doctrine of such remedies is not true, if it be understood that those particulars are just physically or meritoriously proportion'd to the sin. No one of these alone is a cure or expiation of the past sin; but every one of these in the vertue of Repentance is effective to its part of the work, that is, he that repents and forsakes them as he can, shall be accepted, though the expression of his Repentance be applied to his fault but in one or more of these single instances; because all good works done in the Faith of Christ, have an efficacy towards the extinction of those sins which cannot be avoided by any moral diligence; there is no other thing on our parts which can be done, and if that which is unavoidable were also irremediable, our condition would be intolerable and desperate. To the sence of this advice we have the words of S. Gregory: Si quis ergo peccata sua tecta esse desiderat, Deo ea per vocem confessionis ostendat, &c. ‘If any man desires to have his sins covered, let him first open them to God in confession: but there are some sins, which so long as we live in this world, can hardly, or indeed not at all be wholly avoided by perfect men.’ For holy men have something in this life, which they ought to cover; for it is altogether impossible that they should never sin in word or thought. Therefore the men of God do study to cover the faults of their eyes or tongue with good deeds, they study to over-power the number of their idle words with the weight of good works. But how can it be that the faults of good men should be covered, when all things are naked to the eyes of God? but only because that which is covered is put under, something is brought over it: Our sins are covered when we bring over them the cover of good works. But Caesarius the Bishop is more punctual, and descends to particulars. For having given this general rule, Illa parva vel quotidiana peccata bonis operibus redimere non desistant. Let them not cease to redeem or expiate their daily and small faults with good works; he adds, But I desire more fully to insinuate to you, with what works small sins are taken off. So often as we visit the sick, go (in Charity) to them that are in prison, reconcile variances, keep the fasts of the Church, wash the feet of strangers, repair to the vigils and watches of the Church, give alms to passing beggars, forgive our enemies when they ask pardon: istis enim operibus & his similibus minuta peccata quotidiè redimuntur; with these and the like works the minute or smaller sins are daily redeemed or taken off.

58. III. There is in prayer a particular efficacy, and it is of proper use and application in the case of the more venial and unavoidable sins, rather this than any other alone, especially being helped by Charity, that is, alms and forgiveness. Because the greatest number of venial sins comes in (as I shall Chap. of sins of infirmity. afterwards demonstrate) upon the stock of ignorance, or which is all one, imperfect notices and acts of understanding; and therefore have not any thing in the natural parts and instances of Repentance, so fit to expiate or to cure them. But because they are beyond humane cure, they are to be cured by the Divine Grace, and this is to be obtained by Prayer. And this S. Clement advis'd in his Epistle. [...]. Lift up your eyes to God Almighty, praying him to be merciful to you,De Symb. ad Catech. lib. 1. c. 6. & lib. 50. Homil. 28. if you have unwillingly fallen into errour. And to the same purpose are the words of S. Austin: Propter levia sine quibus esse non possumus, oratio inventa: for those lighter sins without which we cannot be, Prayer is invented as a remedy.

[Page]59. IV. Perpetually watch, and perpetually resolve against them, as against any, never indulging to thy self leave to proceed in one. Let this care be constant and indefatigable, and leave the success to God. For in this there is a great difference between Capital or Deadly, and the more venial sins. For, he that repents of great sins, does so resolve against them, that he ought really to believe that he shall never return to them again. No drunkard is truly to be esteem'd a penitent, but he that in consideration of himself, his purpose, his reasons, and all his circumstances, is by the grace of God confident that he shall never be drunk again. The reason is plain: For if he thinks that for all his resolution and repentance the case may happen, or will return in which he shall be tempted above his strength, that is, above the efficacy of his resolution, then he hath not resolv'd against the sin in all its forms or instances: but he hath left some roots of bitterness which may spring up and defile him; he hath left some weak places, some parts unfortified, and does secretly purpose to give up his fort, if he be assaulted by some sort of enemies. He is not resolved to resist the importunity of a friend, or a prevailing person, a Prince, his Landlord, or his Master; that for the present he thinks impossible, and therefore ows his spiritual life to chance, or to the mercies of his enemy, who may have it for asking: But if he thinks it possible to resist any temptation, and resolves to do it if it be possible, the natural consequent of that is, that he thinks he shall never fall again into it. But if beforehand he thinks he shall relapse, he is then but an imperfect resolver, but a half-fac'd penitent. * But this is not so in the case of smaller sins coming by ignorance or surprise, by inadvertency and imperfect notices, by the unavoidable weakness and imperfect condition of mankind. For he who in these resolves the strongest, knows that he shall not be innocent but that he shall feel his weakness in the same or in other instances; and that this shall be his condition as long as he lives, that he shall always need to pray, Forgive me my trespasses: and even his not knowing concerning all actions, and all words, and all thoughts, whether they be sins or no, is a certain betraying him into a necessity of doing something for the pardon of which Christ died, for the preventing of which a mighty care is necessary, in the suffering of which he ought to be humbled, and for the pardon of which he ought for ever to pray. And therefore S. Chrysostome upon those words of S. Paul; I am conscious in nothing, that is, I do not know of any failing in my Ministry; saith, [...]; what then? he is not hereby justified, [...], because some sins might adhere to him he not knowing that they were sins. Ab occultis meis munda me Domine, was an excellent prayer of David. Cleanse me, O Lord, from my secret faults. Hoc dicit, nequid fortè per ignorantiam deliquisset, saith S. Hierome; he prayed so, lest peradventure he should have sinned ignorantly. But of this I shall give a further account in describing the measures of sins of infirmity. For the present, although this resolution against all, is ineffective as to a perfect immunity from small offences, yet it is accepted as really done, because it is done as it can possibly.

60. V. Let no man relie upon the Catalogues which are sometimes given, and think that such things which the Doctors have call'd Venial sins, may with more facility be admitted, and with smaller portions of care be regarded, or with a slighter repentance washed off. For besides that some have called perjuries, anger, envy, injurious words, by lighter names and titles of a little reproof, and having lived in wicked times, were betray'd into easier sentences of those sins which they saw all mankind almost to practise, which was the case of some of the Doctors who lived in the time of those Warrs which broke the Roman Empire; besides this, I say, venial sins can rather be See Chap. 7. of sins of infirmity. described, than enumerated. For none are so in their nature, but all that are so, are so by accident; and according as sins tend to excuse, so they put on their degrees of veniality. No sin is absolutely venial, but in comparison with others: Neither is any sin at all times, and to all persons alike venial. And therefore let no man venture upon it upon any mistaken confidence: They that think sins are venial in their own nature, cannot agree which are venial and which are not; and therefore nothing is in this case so certain, as that all that doctrine which does in any sence represent sins as harmless or tame Serpents, is infinitely dangerous, and there is no safety, but by striving against all beforehand, and repenting of all as there is need.

61. I summ up these questions and these advices with the saying of Josephus, [...]. [...]. It is as damnable to indulge leave to our selves to sin little sins as great ones: A man may be choaked with a raisin, as well as with great morsels of flesh; and a small leak in a ship, if it be neglected, will as certainly sink her as if she sprung a plank. Death is the wages of all; and damnation is [Page] the portion of the impenitent, whatever was the instance of their sin. Though there are degrees of punishment, yet there is no difference of state, as to this particular: and therefore we are tied to repent of all, and to dash the little Babylonians against the stones, against the Rock that was smitten for us. For by the blood of Jesus, and the tears of Repentance, and the watchfulness of a diligent, careful person, many of them shall be prevented, and all shall be pardoned.

A Psalm to be frequently used in our Repentance for our daily Sins.

BOW down thine ear, O Lord, hear me, for I am poor and needy: Rejoyce the soul of thy servant; for unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul.

For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee: Teach me thy way, O Lord, I will walk in thy truth; unite my heart to fear thy Name.

Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his Maker? Behold, he put no trust in his Servants; and his Angels he charged with folly.

How much less on them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth? Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? They die even without wisdom.

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. Moreover, by them is thy servant warned, and in keeping of them there is great reward.

Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from my secret faults: keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me, then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity and seek after leasing? But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly, for himself: The Lord will hear when I call unto him.

Out of the deep have I called unto thee, O Lord; Lord hear my voice: O let thine ears consider well the voice of my complaint.

If thou, Lord, wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, O Lord who may abide it? But there is mercy with thee, therefore shalt thou be feared.

Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and keep the door of my lips: Take from me the way of lying; and cause thou me to make much of thy law.

The Lord is full of compassion and mercy, long-suffering, and of great goodness: He will not alway be chiding, neither keepeth he his anger for ever.

Yea, like as a Father pitieth his own children: even so is the Lord merciful unto them that fear him. For he knoweth whereof we are made: he remembreth that we are but dust.

Praise the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: which forgiveth all thy sin, and healeth all thine infirmities.

Glory be to the Father, &c.

The PRAYER.

[Page]

1

O Eternal God, whose perfections are infinite, whose mercies are glorious, whose justice is severe, whose eyes are pure, whose judgments are wise; be pleased to look upon the infirmities of thy servant, and consider my weakness. My spirit is willing, but my flesh is weak; I desire to please thee, but in my endeavours I fail so often, so foolishly, so unreasonably, that I extreamly displease my self, and I have too great reason to fear that thou also art displeased with thy servant. O my God, I know my duty, I resolve to do it, I know my dangers, I stand upon my guard against them, but when they come near I begin to be pleased, and delighted in the little images of death, and am seised upon by folly, even when with greatest severity I decree against it. Blessed Jesus pity me, and have mercy upon my infirmities.

II.

O Dear God, I humbly beg to be relieved by a mighty grace, for I bear a body of sin and death about me; sin creeps upon me in every thing that I do or suffer. When I do well, I am apt to be proud, when I do amiss, I am sometimes too confident, sometimes affrighted: If I see others do amiss, I either neglect them, or grow too angry; and in the very mortification of my anger, I grow angry and peevish. My duties are imperfect, my repentances little, my passions great, my fancy trifling: The sins of my tongue are infinite, and my omissions are infinite, and my evil thoughts cannot be numbred, and I cannot give an account concerning innumerable portions of my time which were once in my power, but were let slip and were partly spent in sin, partly thrown away upon trifles and vanity: and even of the hasest sins of which in accounts of men I am most innocent, I am guilty before thee, entertaining those sins in little instances, thoughts, desires and imaginations, which I durst not produce into action and open significations. Blessed Jesus pity me, and have mercy upon my infirmities.

III.

TEACH me, O Lord, to walk before thee in righteousness, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Give me an obedient will, a loving spirit, a humble understanding, watchfulness over my thoughts, deliberation in all my words and actions, well tempered passions, and a great prudence, and a great zeal, and a great charity, that I may do my duty wisely, diligently, holily; O let me be humbled in my infirmities, but let me be also safe from my enemies; let me never fall by their violence, nor by my own weakness; let me never be overcome by them, nor yet give my self up to folly and weak principles, to idleness, and secure, careless walking; but give me the strengths of thy Spirit, that I may grow strong upon the ruines of the flesh, growing from grace to grace till I become a perfect man in Christ Jesus. O let thy strength be seen in my weakness; and let thy mercy triumph over my infirmities; pitying the condition of my nature, the infancy of grace, the imperfection of my knowledge, the transportations of my passion. Let me never consent to sin, but for ever strive against it, and every day prevail, till it be quite dead in me, that thy servant living the life of grace, may at last be admitted to that state of glory where all my infirmities shall be done away, and all tears be dried up, and sin and death shall be no more. Grant this, O most gracious God and Father, for Jesus Christ his sake. Amen.

Our Father, &c.

CHAP. IV. Of Actual, single Sins, and what Repentance is proper to them.

[Page]

SECT. I.

1. THE first part of Conversion or Repentance is a quitting of all sinful habits, and abstaining from all criminal actions whatsoever.

Virtus est vitium fugere, & sapientia prima

Stultitiâ caruisse —

For unless the Spirit of God rule in our hearts, we are none of Christs; but he rules not where the works of the flesh are frequently, or maliciously, or voluntarily entertained. All the works of the flesh, and whatsoever leads to them, all that is contrary to the Spirit, and does either grieve or extinguish him, must be rescinded, and utterly taken away. Concerning which, it is necessary that I set down the Mat. 15.19. Mar. 7.21. Gal. 5.16, 19, 20, 21. Eph. 4.31. &c. 5.3, 4, 5. 2 Tim. 3.2, 3, 4, 5. Rom. 1.29, 30, 31, 32. 1 Cor. 6.9. Rev. 21.8. 1 Pet. 4.3, 15. Catalogues which by Christ and his Apostles are left us as lights and watch-towers to point out the rocks and quicksands where our danger is: and this I shall the rather do, not only because they comprehend many evils which are not observed or feared; some which are commended, and many that are excused; but also because although they are all mark'd with the same black character of death, yet there is some difference in the execution of the sentence, and in the degrees of their condemnation, and of the consequent Repentance.

Evil thoughts: or discoursings.

2. [...], Evil reasonings. [...], says Hesychius, that is, prating; importune pratling and looseness of tongue, such as is usual with bold boys and young men; prating much and to no purpose. But our Bibles read it, Evil thoughts, or surmisings; for in Scripture it is [...]; so Suidas observes concerning [...], and [...], that is, [...], to think long and carefully, to dwell in meditation upon a thing: to which when our blessed Saviour adds [...], evil, he notes and reproves such kind of morose thinkings and fancying of evil things: and it is not unlikely that he means thoughts of uncleanness, or lustful fancies. For [...], saith Suidas: [...], says Hesychius; it signifies such words as are prologues to wantonness: so [...] in Aristophanes.

[...]

[...].

Lysistrat [...] ▪

So that here are forbidden all wanton words, and all morose delighting in venereous thoughts, all rollings and tossing such things in our mind. For even these defile the soul. Verborum obscoenitas si turpitudini rerum adhibeatur, ludus ne libero quidem homine dignus est, said Cicero. Obscene words are a mockery not worthy of an ingenuous person. This is that [...], or [...], pro [...]. Eph. 5.4. [...], that foolish talking and jesting which S. Paul joyns to [...], that filthiness of communication which men make a jest of, but is indeed the basest in the world; the sign of a vile dishonest mind: and it particularly noted the talk of Mimicks and Parasites, Buffoons and Players, whose trade was to make sport, [...], and they did use to do it with nastiness and filthy [Page] talkings; as is to be seen in Aristophanes, and is rarely described and severely reproved in S. Chrysostom in his sixth Homily upon S. Matthew. For per verba dediscitur rerum pudor, which S. Paul also affirms in the words of Menander, [...], Evil words corrupt good manners; and evil thoughts being the fountain of evil words, lie under the same prohibition. Under this head is the [...], a talkative rash person, ready to speak, slow to hear; against S. James his rule.

Inventers of Evil things.

3. Contrivers of all such artifices as minister to vice. Curious inventions for cruelty, for gluttony, for lust; witty methods of drinking, wanton pictures, and the like; which for the likeness of the matter I have subjoyn'd next to the [...], the evil thinkings or surmises reproved by our blessed Saviour, as these are expresly by S. Paul.

[...], COVETOVSNESS: or,

4. Inordinate, unreasonable desires. For the word does not only signifie the designing and contrivances of unjust ways of purchasing, which is not often separated from covetous desires: but the very studium habendi, the thirst, or greediness, secret and impatient desires of having abundance: [...], the hurt of immoderate lusting or desire; and is sometimes applied to the matter of uncleanness; but in this Catalogue I wholly separate it from this, because this is comprised under other words. Neither will it be hard to discern and to reprove this sin of desires in them that are guilty of it, though they will not think or confess what is, and what is not abundance. For there is not easily to be found a greater testimony of covetousness than the error concerning the measure of our possessions. He that is not easie to call that abundance which by good and severe men is thought so, desires more than he should. [...], when any thing is over and above the needs of our life, that is too much; and to desire that, is covetousness, saith S. Luke. [...], Take heed and keep your selves from covetousness; for our life consisteth not in abundance; intimating that to desire more than our life needs, is to desire abundance, and that is covetousness; and that is the root of all evil: that is, all sins and all mischiefs can come from hence.

Divitis hoc vitium est auri: nec bella fuere,

Faginus adstabat cum scyphus ante dapes.

There were no wars in those days when men did drink in a treen cup.

[...], WICKEDNESS.

5. This is the same that the Latines call Malitia; a scurvy, base disposition; aptness to do shrewd turns, to delight in mischiefs and tragedies; a loving to trouble our neighbour, and to do him ill offices; crosseness, perverseness and peevishness of action in our entercourse. [...], saith Suidas. Facessere negotium alicui; to do a man an evil office, or to put him to trouble. And to this is reducible that which S. Paul calls [...], Malignity; a baseness of nature by which we take things by the wrong handle, and expounding things always in the worst sence. Vitiositas is the Latin word for it, and it seems to be worse than the former, by being a more general principle of mischief. Malitia certi cujusdam vitii est: Tuscul. 4. vitiositas omnium, said Cicero. This is in a mans nature an universal depravation of his spirit; that is in manners, and is sooner cured than this.

[...]. CRAFTINESS.

6. That is, a wiliness and aptness to deceive; a studying by some underhand trick to over-reach our brother: like that of Corax his Scholar, he cousen'd his Master with a trick of his own art; [...], A crafty Crow laid a crafty egge. By which is not signified that natural or acquired sagacity by which men can contrive wittily, or be too hard for their brother if they should endeavour it: [Page] but a studying how to circumvent him, and an habitual design of getting advantage upon his weakness; a watching him where he is most easie and apt for impression, and then striking him upon the unarm'd part. But this is brought to effect, by ‘DECEIT.’

7. Cùm aliud simulatur, aliud agitur alterius decipiendi causâ, said Vlpian and Aquilius; that is, all dissembling to the prejudice of thy Neighbour, [...]; any thing designed to thy Neighbours disadvantage by simulation or dissimulation.

VNCLEANNESS. [...].

8. Stinking: So the Syriack Interpreter renders it; and it means obscene actions. But it signifies all manner of excess or immoderation; and so may signifie [...], prodigal or lavish expences, and immoderate use of permitted pleasures, even the excess of liberty in the use of the Marriage-bed. For the Ancients use the word not only for unchaste, but for great and excessive. [...], They are exceeding fat: and a Goat with great horns is called [...]. It is luxuria or the excess of desire in the matter of pleasures. Every excess is [...], it is intemperance: [...] signifies a special kind of crime under this. It means all voluntary pollutions of the body, or ‘WANTONNESS.’

9. That is, all tempting foolish gestures; such which Juvenal reproves, ‘Cheironomon Ledam molli seltante Bathyllo,’ which being presented in the Theatre would make the Vestal wanton. Every thing by which a man or woman is [...] abominable in their lusts; to which the [...], the lusts not to be named are reducible: amongst which S. Paul reckons the effeminate, and abusers of themselves with mankind; that is, they that do, and they that suffer such things. Philoctetes and Paris; Caesar and the King of Pontus. Mollities or softness is the name by which this vice is known, and the persons guilty of it, are also called the [...], The abominable. John 21.8.

HATRED.

10. [...]; Great, but transient angers. The cause, and the degree, and the abode makes the anger Criminal. By these two words are forbidden all violent passion, fury, revengefulness. [...], The enemy and the avenger, says David. But not this only, but the misliking and hating of a man, though without actual designs of hurting him, is here noted; that is, when men retain the displeasure, and refuse to converse, or have any thing to do with the man, though there be from him no danger of damage, the former experiment being warning enough. The forbearing to salute him, to be kind or civil to him, and every degree of anger that is kept, is an [...], a part of Enmity or Hatred. To this are reduc'd the Vnmerciful; that is, such as use their right in extream severity towards Servants and Malefactors, Criminal or obnoxious persons: and the Implacable, that is a degree beyond; such who being once offended will take no satisfaction, but the utmost and extremest forfeiture.

DEBATE, CONTENTIONS.

11. That is, all striving in words or actions, scolding and quarrels, in which as commonly both parties are faulty when they enter, so it is certain they cannot go forth from them without having contracted the guilt of more than one sin: whither is reduced clamour, or loud expressions of anger: Clamour is the horse of anger, said S. Chrysostom, anger rides upon it; throw the horse down, and the rider will fall to the ground. Blasphemy; backbiting we read it,Eph. 4 35. but the Greek signifies all words that are injurious to God or Man.

[Page]WHISPERERS.

12. That is, such who are apt to do shrewd turns in private; a speaking evil of our Neighbour in a mans ear; Hic nigrae succus loliginis, haec est Aerugo mera: this is an arrow that flieth in the dark, it wounds secretly, and no man can be warned of it. [...], backbiters; it is the same mischief, but it speaks out a little more than the other; and it denotes such who pretend friendship and society, but yet traduce their friend, or accuse him secretly; [...], as Polybius calls it, a new way of accusation, to undermine a man by praising him, that you seeming his friend, a lover of his vertue and his person, by praising him may be the more easily believed in reporting his faults: like him in Horace, who was glad to hear any good of his old friend Capitolinus, whom he knew so well, who had so kindly obliged him,

Sed tamen admiror quo pacto Judicium illud

Fugerit —

but yet I wonder that he escaped the Judges Sentence in his Criminal cause. There is a louder kind of this evil, [...], Railers; that's when the smoke is turned into a flame, and breaks out; it is the same iniquity with another circumstance; it is the vice of women and boys, and rich imperious fools, and hard rude Masters to their Servants, and it does too often infect the spirit and language of a Governour. Our Bibles read this word, by Despiteful; that notes an aptness to speak spiteful words, cross and untoward, such which we know will do mischief or displease.

FOOLISHNESS.

13. Which we understand by the words of S. Paul, Be not foolish, but understanding what the will of the Lord is:Eph. 5.17. It means a neglect of enquiring into holy things; a wilful or careless ignorance of the best things, a not studying our Religion, which indeed is the greatest folly and sottishness,Prov. 24.9. it being a neglecting of our greatest interests, and of the most excellent notices, and it is the fountain of many impure emanations. A Christian must not be [...], he must not call fool, nor be a fool. Heady, is reduc'd to this, and signifies, rash and indiscreet in assenting and dissenting; people that speak and do foolishly, because they speak and do without deliberation.

PRIDE.

14. [...]; a despising of others, if compared with our selves: so Theophrastus calls it. Concerning which we are to judge our selves by the voices of others, and by the consequent actions observable in our selves: any thing whereby we overvalue our selves, or despise others; preferring our selves, or depressing them in unequal places or usages, is the signification of this vice; which no man does heartily think himself guilty of, but he that is not; that is, the humble man. A particular of this sin is that which is in particular noted by the Apostle, under the name of [...], arrogance, or bragging; which includes pride and hypocrisie together: for so Plato defines it to be, [...], a pretending to excellencies which we have not; a desiring to seem good, but a carelesness of being so; reputation and fame, not goodness being the design. To this may be referred Emulations, [...], so the Apostle calls them, zeals, it signifies immoderate love to a lawful object: like that of the wife of Ajax in Sophocles.

— [...]

[...],

[...].

She did him most strange, zealous services, as if her affection had no measure. It signifies also violent desires of equalling or excelling another for honours sake, ambition and envy mixt together: it is a violent pursuit after a thing that deserves it not. A consequent of these is, ‘[Page] [...]. Seditions, or Schisms and Heresies.’

15. That is, Divisions in the Church upon diversity of Opinions, or upon Pride, Faction and Interest, as in chusing Bishops, in Prelations and Governments Ecclesiastical, from factious Rulers, or factious Subjects; which are properly Schisms, but use commonly to belch forth into Heresie: according to that saying, Plerunque schisma in haeresin eructat.

AN EVIL EYE.

16. That is, a repining at the good of others; Envy, a not rejoycing in the prosperity of our Neighbours; a grieving because he grieves not. Aut illi nescio quid incommodi accidit, aut nescio cui aliquid boni: when good happens to another, it is as bad as if evil happened to himself.

[...]·

[...].

This is one of the worst of Crimes, for a man to hate him that is prosperous; hate him whom God loves or blesses. It bears part of its punishment along with it: the sin hath in it no pleasure, but very much torment. ‘Nam sese excruciat qui beatis invidet.’ A part of this is Vnthankfulness; those who do not return kindnesses to others,2 Tim. 3.2. from whom they have received any, neither are apt to acknowledge them: which is properly an envying to our friend the noblest of all graces, that of Charity; or it is Pride or Covetousness, for from any of these roots this equivocal issue can proceed.

LOVERS OF PLEASVRES.

17. Such who study and spend their time and money to please their senses;

— rarum & memorabile magni

Gutturis exemplum, conducendúsque Magister:

Rare Epicures and Gluttons, such which were famous in the Roman Luxury, and fit to be Presidents of a Greek Symposiack, not for their skill in Philosophy, but their witty Arts of drinking.

Ingeniosa gula est,

Petron.

Siculo scarus aequore mersus

Ad mensam vivus perducitur—

Sensual men: Such who are dull, and unaffected with the things of God, and transported with the lusts of the lower belly; persons that are greedy of baser pleasures. [...], said the Scholiast upon Aristotle. Al [...]x. Aphrod. in lib. de anim. The wicked man allows to himself too large a portion of sweet things. Licorishness, is the common word to express this vice in the matter of eating and drinking.

BVSIE-BODIES.

18. That is, such who invade the offices, or impertinently obtrude their advice and help when there is no need, and when it is not lik'd, nor out of charity, but of curiosity, or of a trifling spirit: and this produces talking of others, and makes their conversation a scene of Censure and Satyr against others; never speaking of their own duty, but often to the reproach of their Neighbours, something that may lessen or disparage him.

The Fearful, and the Vnbelievers.

19. That is, they that fear man more than God, that will do any thing, but suffer nothing, that fall away in persecution; such who dare not trust the Promises, but fear want, and fear death, and trust not God with chearfulness, and joy, and confidence.

[Page] [...]. They that take pleasure in those that do these things.

20. That is, they who in any sence incourage, or promote, or love the sin of another, are guilty themselves; not of the others sin, but of their own. He that commands a man to swear, is not guilty of that swearing, but of that commanding him. It is a sin to do so; but that sin to which the man is encouraged or tempted, or assisted, is his own sin, and for it he is to repent; every man for his own. For it is in artificially said by the Masters of Moral Theology, that by many ways we are guilty of the sins of others: by many ways indeed we can procure them to sin; and every such action of ours is a sin, against charity and the matter of that Commandment in which the temptation was instanc'd: But their sin is not ours; their sin does not properly load us, neither does our being author of it, excuse them. It was the case of Adam and Eve, and the Serpent, who yet did every one bear their own burden. Aristotle, Epist. 21. Zeno, and Chrysippus were notorious in this kind. Non est enim immunis à scelere qui ut fieret imperavit, nec est alienus à crimine, cujus consensu licèt à se non admissum crimen, tamen publicè legitur, said S. Cyprian. He that commands, and he that consents, and he that delights, and he that commends, and he that maintains, and he that counsels, and he that tempts, or conceals, or is silent in anothers danger, when his speaking will prevent it, is guilty before God. Corrumpere, & corrumpi saeculum vocatur. This evil is of a great extent, but receives its degrees according to the influence or causality it hath in the sins of others.

21. These I have noted and explicated, because they are not so notorious as others, which have a publick name, and filthy character, and easie definition: Such as, adulteries, fornication, drunkenness, idolatry, hating of God and good men, perjury, malicious lies, [...], as S. Paul adds, and such like; these and those and all that are like these,Gal. 5.21. exclude us from the Kingdom of Heaven. They are the works of the flesh; but these which are last reckoned are such which all the world condemns, and they are easily discerned, as smoak, or a cloud upon the face of the Sun: but the other are sometimes esteemed innocent, often excused, commonly neglected, always undervalued. But concerning all these, the sentence is sad and decretory. They that are such shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven: 1 Cor. 6.10. But, they shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. Rev. 21.8. Now if we list to observe it, many of these are such which occur so frequently in our daily conversation, are so little noted and so confidently practised, that to try men concerning their hopes of Heaven by such measures would seem strange, and hard: but it is our faults that it is so; these are the measures of the Sanctuary, and not to be prejudg'd by later and looser customs.

SECT. II. Whether every single act of these Sins puts a man out of Gods favour?

22. IN this Question, by a single act, I mean, a deliberate act, a wilful, observ'd, known act; for concerning acts by surprize, by incogitancy, by imperfection, I shall give a special account in a Chapter on purpose. To this therefore I answer by several propositions.

23. I. There are some acts of sin so vile, and mischievous that they cannot be acted but by a great malice or depravation of the will; and do suppose a man to be gone a great way from God before he can presumptuously or wilfully commit any of them; such as are idolatry, wilful murder, adultery, witchcraft, perjury, sacriledge, and the like: such which by reason of their evil effect are called peccata clamantia ad Dominum, crying sins; as, oppressing widows, entring into the fields of the fatherless, killing a man by false accusation, grinding the face of the poor, some sort of unnatual lusts: or such which by reason of their scandal, and severe prohibitions of them, and their proper baseness and unholiness, are peccata vastantia conscientiam, they lay a mans conscience [Page] waste; such are all these that I have now reckoned. Now concerning every one of these there is amongst wise and good men no question, but every act of them is exclusive of a man from all his hopes of Heaven, unless he repent timely and effectually. For every act of these is such as a man cannot be surprised in the commission of it; he can have no ignorance, no necessity, no infirmity to lessen or excuse his fault; which because it is very mischievous in the event, expresly and severely, and by name forbidden, is also against holiness, and against charity, against God, and against the Commandment so apparently, that there is nothing to lessen them into the neighbourhood of an excuse, if he that commits them have a clear use of reason. Some acts of other sins are such which as they are innocent of doing mischief to our neighbour, so they are forbidden only in general; but concerning the particular there is not any express certainty, as in drunkenness; which though every Christian knows to be forbidden, yet concerning every particular act it is not always so certain that it is drunkenness, because the acts partake of more and less; which is not true in murder, in adultery, apostasie, witchcraft, and the like: Besides which, in some of the forbidden instances there are some degrees of surprise, even when there are some degrees of presumption and deliberation, which in others there cannot be. Upon which considerations it is apparent that the single acts of these greater sins are equal to a habit in others, and are for the present, destructive of the state of Gods favour, a man that does them is in the state of damnation, till he hath repented; that is, no good man can do one of these acts, and be a good man still; he is a wicked person, and an enemy of God if he does.

24. II. This is apparent in those acts which can be done but once; as in parricide, or murdering our Father or Mother, and in the wilful murder of our self. There can be no habit of these sins; all their malignity is spent in one act; and the event is best declared by one of them; the man dies in his sin, in that sin which excludes him from Heaven. Every act of these sins is like the stinging of Bees; ‘— animámque in vulnere ponunt;’ He cannot strike again, he can sin that sin over no more; and therefore it is a single act that damns in that case. Now though it is by accident that these sins can be but once acted, yet it is not by accident that these single acts destroy the soul, but by their malice and evil effect, their mischief or uncharitableness: it follows therefore that it is so in all the single acts of these great crimes; for since they that cannot be habitual, yet are highly damnable; the evil sentence is upon every act of these greater crimes.

25. III. Concerning the single acts of other sins which are not so highly criminal, yet have a name in the Catalogues of condemn'd sins, the sentence in Scripture is the same; the penalty extreme, the fine is the whole interest: S. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians seem only to condemn the habit, Thieves, drunkards, covetous, railers, &c. shall not inherit the kindom of Heaven. 1 Cor. 6.10. Now one act does not make them properly such; a habit, not an act, denominates. But lest this be expounded to be a permission to commit single acts, S. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, affixes the same penalty to the actions, as to the habits; [...], they that do such things;Gal. 5.21. that is, the actions of those sins are damnable and exclusive from Heaven as verily as the habits. And however in moral accounts, or in Aristotle's Ethicks, a man is not called by the name of a single action, yet in all laws both of God and man he is. He that steals once is a thief, in the Courts of God and the King; and one act of adultery makes a man an adulterer; so that by this measure, [they that are such] and [they that do such things] means the same; and the effect of both, is exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven.

26. IV. Single actions in Scripture are called, works of darkness, deeds of the body, works of the flesh; and though they do not reign, yet if they enter,Ephes. 8. Rom. 8.13. they disturb the rest and possession of the spirit of grace; and therefore are in their several measures against the holiness of the Gospel of Christ. All sins are single in their acting; and a sinful habit differs from a sinful act, but as many differ from one, or as a year from an hour: a vicious habit is but one sin continued or repeated; for as a sin grows from little to great, so it passes from act to habit: a sin is greater because it is complicated externally or internally, no other way in the world; it is made up of more kinds, or more degrees of choice; and when two or three crimes are mixt in one action, then the sin is loud and clamorous; and if these still grow more numerous, and not interrupted [Page] and disjoyned by a speedy repentance, then it becomes a habit. As the continuation of an instant or its perpetual flux makes time and proper succession, so does the re-acting or the continuing in any one or more sins make a habitual sinner. So that in this Question, the answer for one will serve for the other: where-ever the habit is forbidden, there also the act is criminal and against God, damnable by the laws of God, and actually damning without repentance. Between sins great and little, actual and habitual, there is no difference of nature or formality, but only of degrees.

27. V. And therefore the words that represent the state of sin are used indifferently both for acts and habits. [...] signifies to do single acts, and by aggravation only can signifie an habitual sinner: [...], he that commits sin is of the Devil;John 3.8. so S. John: by which although he means especially him that commits sin frequently or habitually; for where there is greater reason, there is the stronger affirmative: yet that he must also mean it of single sins is evident, not only by the nature of the thing, some single acts in some instances being as mischievous and malicious as a habit in others; but by the words of our blessed Saviour, that the Devil is the Father of lies; and therefore every one that tells a lie is of the Devil; eátenus. To which add also the words of S. John explicating his whole design in these and all his other words; These things I write unto you that ye might not sin, that is, that ye might not do sinful actions; for it cannot be supposed, that he did not as verily intend to prevent every sin, as any sin, or that he would only have men to beware of habitual sins, and not of actual, single sins, without which caution he could never have prevented the habitual. To do sin is to do one, or to do many; and are both forbidden under the same danger.

28. The same manner of expression in a differing matter hath a different signification. To do sin is to do any one act of it: but to do righteousness is to do it habitually. He that doth sin, that is, one act of sin, is of the Devil; But he that doth righteousness, viz. habitually, he [only] is righteous. The reason of the difference is this, because one sin can destroy a man, but one act of vertue cannot make him alive. As a phial is broken, though but a piece of its lip be cut away; but it is not whole unless it be intire and unbroken in every part. Bonum ex integrâ causâ, malum ex qualibet particulari. Dionys. de Divin. Nomin. And therefore since he that does righteousness (in S. John's phrase) is righteous; and yet no man is righteous for doing one act of righteousness; it follows, that by doing righteousness, he must mean doing it habitually. But because one blow can kill a man or wound him desperately; therefore when S. John speaks of doing sin, he means doing any sin, any way, or in any degree of act or habit. For this is that we are commanded by the Spirit of Christ; we must [...], walk exactly, not having spot or wrinkle, Eph. 5.15, 27. or any thing of that nature, [...], holy and unblameable; so must the Church be; that is, so must be all the faithful, or the men and women of the Christian Church; for the Church is nothing but a congregation or collective body of believing persons; Christ therefore intending to represent the Church of God without spot, or wrinkle, or fault; intends that all his servants should be so. For, let no man deceive himself. Omnis homo qui post baptismum mortalia crimina commiserit; Caesar. Arelat. hom. 16. hoc est, homicidium, adulterium, furtum, falsum testimonium, vel reliqua crimina perpetravit, unde per legem mundanam mori poterat, si poenitentiam non egerit, eleemosynam justam non fecerit, nunquam habebit vitam aeternam, sed cum Diabolo descendet ad inferna. ‘Every man who after his baptism hath committed mortal, or killing sins, that is to say, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, or any other crimes which are capital by humane laws, if he does not repent, if he does not give just measures of alms, he shall not have eternal life, but with the Devil he shall descend into Hell.’ This is the sad sentence against all single acts of sin in the capital or greater instances.

28. But upon this account who can be justified? who can hope for Heaven, since even the most righteous man that is, sinneth; and by single acts of unworthiness interrupts his course of piety, and pollutes his spirit? If a single act of these great or mortal sins can stand with the state of grace, then not acts of these but habits are forbidden, and these only shut a man from Heaven. But if one single act destroys the state of grace, and puts a man out of Gods favour, then no man abides in it long, and what shall be at the end of these things?

29. To this I answer, that single acts are continually forbidden, and in every period of their commission displease God, and provoke him to anger. To abide in any one sin, or to do it often, or to love it, is against the Covenant of the Gospel, and the [Page]essence and nature of repentance, which is a conversion from sin to righteousness: but every single act is against the cautions and watchfulness of repentance. It is an act of death, but not a state; it is the way of death, but is not in the possession of it. It is true that every single act of fornication merits an eternal Hell, yet when we name it to be a single act, we suppose it to be no more, that is, to be rescinded and immediately cut off by a vigorous and proportionable repentance: if it be not, it is more than a single act, for it is a habit, as I shall remonstrate in the Chapter of Habits. But then upon this account a single act of any sin may be incident to the state of a good man, and yet not destroy his interests or his hopes; but it is upon no other ground but this, It is a single act, and it does not abide there, but passes immediately into repentance: and then though it did interrupt or discompose the state of grace or the Divine favour, yet it did not destroy it quite. The man may pray Davids prayer: I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost: O seek thy servant, for I do not forget thy Commandments. Psal. 119. ult.

30. So that if a man asks whether a good man falling into one act of these great sins, still remains a good man; the answer is to be made upon this consideration, He is a good man that is so sorry for his sin, and so hates it, that he will not abide in it: and this is the best indication, that in the act there was something very pitiable, because the mans affections abide not there; the good man was smitten in a weak part, or in an ill hour, and then repents: for such is our goodness; to need repentance daily for smaller things, and too often for greater things. But be they great or little, they must be speedily repented of; and he that does so, is a good man still. Not but that the single act is highly damnable, and exclusive of Heaven, if it self were not excluded from his affections: but it does not the mischief, because he does not suffer it to proceed in finishing that death which it would have effected, if the poison had not been speedily expelled, before it had seis'd upon a vital part.

31. But secondly, I answer, that being in the state of grace is a phrase of the Schools, and is of a large and almost infinite comprehension. Every Christian is in some degree in the state of grace, so long as he is invited to Repentance, and so long as he is capable of the Prayers of the Church. This we learn from those words of S. John, All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death; that is,1 John 5.17. some sorts of sins are so incident to the condition of men, and their state of imperfection, that the man who hath committed them is still within the methods of pardon, and hath not forfeited his title to the Promises and Covenant of Repentance: But there is a sin unto death: that is, some men proceed beyond the measures and Oeconomy of the Gospel, and the usual methods and probabilities of Repentance, by obstinacy, and persevering in sin, by a wilful, spiteful resisting, or despising the offers of grace and the means of pardon; for such a man S. John does not encourage us to pray: If he be such a person as S. John described, our prayers will do him no good; but because no man can tell the last minute or period of pardon, nor just when a man is gone beyond the limit; and because the limit it self can be enlarged, and Gods mercies stay for some longer than for others, therefore S. John left us under this indefinite restraint and caution; which was decretory enough to represent that sad state of things in which the refractory and impenitent have immerged themselves, and yet so indefinite and cautious, that we may not be too forward in applying it to particulars, nor in prescribing measures to the Divine Mercy, nor passing final sentences upon our brother, before we have heard our Judge himself speak. Sinning a sin not unto death, is an expression fully signifying that there are some sins which though they be committed and displease God, and must be repented of, and need many and mighty prayers for their pardon, yet the man is in the state of grace and pardon, that is, he is within the Covenant of mercy, he may be admitted to repentance, if he will return to his duty: So that being in the state of grace, is having a title to Gods loving kindness, a not being rejected of God, but a being beloved by him to certain purposes of mercy, and that hath these measures and degrees.

32. I. A wicked Christian that lives vilely, and yet is called to Repentance by the vigorous and fervent Sermons of the Gospel, is in a state of grace, of this grace. God would fain save him, willing he is and desirous he should live; but his mercy to him goes but thus far, that he still continues the means of his salvation; he is angry with him, but not finally. The Jews were in some portions of this state until the final day came in which God would not be merciful any more: Even in this thy day, O Jerusalem, said our blessed Saviour; so long as their day lasted, their state of grace lasted, God had mercy for them, if they had had gracious hearts to receive it.

[Page]33. II. But he that begins to leave his sins, and is in a continual contestation against them, and yet falls often, even most commonly, at the return of the temptation, and sin does in some measure prevail; he is in the state of a further grace, nearer to pardon, as he is nearer to holiness; his hopes are greater and nearer to performance, He is not far from the Kingdom of Heaven, so our blessed Lord expressed the like condition; he is [...], ordered, dispos'd towards life eternal: and this is a further approach towards the state of life.

34. III. He that loves no sin, but hath overcome his affections to all, and hates all, but yet with so imperfect a choice or aversation, that his faith is weak, and his repentance like an infant; this man is in a better state than both the former: God will not quench the smoaking flax, nor break the bruised reed; God hath in some measure prevail'd upon him: and as God is ready to receive the first unto the means, and the second unto the grace of Repentance; so this third he is ready to receive unto pardon, if he shall grow and persevere in grace. And these are the several stages and periods of being in the state of grace.

I. With the first of these not only an act, but a habit of sin is consistent; but how long and how far, God only knows.

II. With the second period a frequency of falling into single sins is consistent: But if he comes not out of this state, and proceed to the third period, he will relapse to the first, he must not stay here long.

III. But they that are in the third period, do sometimes fall into single sins, but it is but seldom, and it is without any remanent portion of affection, but not without much displeasure and a speedy repentance; and to this person, the proper remedy is to grow in grace, for if he does not, he cannot either be secure of the present, or confident of the future.

35. IV. But then if by being in the state of grace is meant a being actually pardon'd and beloved of God unto salvation, so that if the man dies so, he shall be saved, it is certain that every deliberate sin, every act of sin that is considered and chosen, puts a man out of the state of grace; that is, the act of sin is still upon his account, he is not actually pardon'd in that for any other worthiness of state, or relation of person; he must come to new accounts for that; and if he dies without a moral retraction of it, he is in a sad condition, if God should deal with him summojure, that is, be extreme to mark that which was done amiss. The single act is highly damnable; the wages of it are death, it defiles a man, it excludes from Heaven, it grieves the holy Spirit of grace, it is against his undertaking, and in its own proportion against all his hopes: if it be not pardon'd, it will bear the man to Hell; but then how it comes to be pardon'd in good men, and by what measures of favour and proper dispensation, is next to be considered. Therefore,

36. V. Though by the nature of the thing and the laws of the Covenant, every single deliberate act of sin provokes God to anger, who therefore may punish it by the severest laws which he decreed against it; yet by the Oeconomy of God and the Divine Dispensation it is sometimes otherwise. For besides the eternal wrath of God, there are some that suffer his temporal; some suffer both, some but one. God uses to smite them whom he would make to be, or them who are his sons, if they do amiss. If a wicked man be smitten with a temporal judgment, and thence begins to fear God and to return, the anger will go no further; and therefore much rather shall such temporal judgments upon the good man that was overtaken in a fault be the whole exaction. God smites them that sin these single sins, and though he could take all, yet will demand but a fine.

37. VI. But even this also God does not do, but in the case of scandal or danger to others: as it was in the particular of David, Because thou hast made the enemies of God to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee shall die: or else 2. When the good man is negligent of his danger, or dilatory in his repentance, and careless in his watch, then God awakens him with a judgment, sent with much mercy.

38. VII. But sometimes a temporal death happens to good men so overtaken; It happened so to Moses and Aaron for their fault at the waters of Massah and Meribah; to the Prophet of Judah that came to cry out against the Altar in Bethel; to Vzzah for touching the Ark with unhallowed fingers, though he did it in zeal; to the Corinthians who had not observed decent measures in receiving the holy Sacrament; and thus it happened (say some of the ancient Doctors) to Ananias and Sapphira; God took a fine of them also salvo contenemento, their main stake being secured, ‘[Page]— Culpam hanc miserorum morte piabant.’ There is in these instances this difference: Moses and Aaron were not smitten in their sin, but for it, and (as is not doubted) after they had repented: but Vzzah, and the Prophet, and Ananias and Sapphira, and the Corinthians died not only for their sin, but in it too: and yet it is hoped Gods anger went no further than that death, because in every such person who lives well, and yet is overtaken in a fault, there is much of infirmity and imperfection of choice, even when there are some degrees of wilfulness and a wicked heart. And though it be easie to suppose that such persons in the beginning of that judgment, and the approach of that death, did morally retract the sinful action by an act of repentance, and that upon that account they found the effect of the Divine mercies by the blood of the Lamb who was slain from the beginning of the world; yet if it should happen that any of them die so suddenly, as not to have power to exercise one act of repentance, though the case be harder, yet it is to be hoped that even the habitual repentance and hatred of sin by which they pleased God in the greater portions of their life, will have some influence upon this also. But this case is but seldom, and Gods mercies are very great and glorious; but because there is in this case no warrant, and this case may happen oftner than it does, even to any one that sins one wilful sin, it is enough to all considering persons to make them fear: but the fool sinneth and is confident.

39. VIII. But if such overtaken persons do live, then Gods Dispensation is all mercy, even though he strikes the sinner, for he does it for good. For God is merciful and knows our weaknesses, our natural and circumstant follies: he therefore recalls the sinning man, he strikes him sharply, or he corrects him gently, or he calls upon him hastily, as God please, or as the man needs. The man is fallen from the favour or grace of God, but (I say) fallen only from one step of grace; and God is more ready to receive him, than the man is to return; and provided that he repent speedily, and neither add a new crime, nor neglect this, his state of grace was but allayed and disordered, not broken in pieces or destroyed.

40. IX. I find this thing rarely well discoursed of by some of the ancient Doctors of the Church. Tertullians words are excellent words to this purpose: Licet perisse dicatur, erit & de perditionis genere retractare, quia & ovis non moriendo, sed errando; Lib. de Pudicit. c. 7. & drachma non intereundo, sed latitando perierunt. Ita licet dici perisse quod salvum est. That may be said to be lost which is missing, and the sheep that went astray was also lost; and so was the groat, which yet was but laid aside, it was so lost that it was found again. And thus that may be said to have perish'd, which yet is safe. Perit igitur & fidelis elapsus in spectaculum quadrigarii furoris & gladiatorii cruoris, & scenicae foeditatis, Xisticae vanitatis, in lusus, in convivia saecularis solennitatis, in officium, in Ministerium alienae idololatriae aliquas artes adhibuit curiositatis, in verbum ancipitis negotiationis impegit, ob tale quid extra gregem datus est: vel & ipse fortè irâ, tumore, emulatione, quod denique saepe fit, dedignatione castigationis abrupit, debet requiri atque revocari. The Christian is (in some sort) perished, who sins by beholding bloody or unchaste spectacles, who ministers to the sins of others; who offends by anger, emulation, rage, and swelling, too severe animadversions; this man must be sought for and called back, but this man is not quite lost. Quod potest recuperari non perit, nisi foris perseveravit. Benè interpretaberis parabolam, viventem adhuc revocans peccatorem. That which may be recovered, is but as it were lost, unless it remains abroad, and returns not to the place from whence it wandred.

41. To the same purpose S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose discourse of the Parable of him that fell among the thieves and was wounded and half dead. Such are they who in times of persecution fell away into dissimulation. Nec putemus mortuos esse, De lapsis ad Anton. 52. sed magis semianimes jacere eos quos persecutione funestâ sauciatos videmus, qui si in totum mortui essent, nunquam de eisdem postmodùm & Confessores & Martyres fierent. For if these were quite dead, you should not find of them to return to life, and to become Martyrs and Confessors for that faith which through weakness they did seemingly abjure. These men therefore were but wounded and half dead: for they still keep the faith, they preserve their title to the Covenant, and the Promises of the Gospel, and the grace of Repentance. Quam fidem qui habet, Lib. 1. de Poenit. c. 10. vitam habet (saith S. Ambrose) He that hath this faith hath life, that is, he is not excluded from pardon; whom therefore peradventure the good Samaritan does not pass by, because he finds there is life in him, some principle by which he may live again. Now as it was in the matter [Page] of Faith, so it is of Charity and the other graces. Every act of sin takes away something from the contrary grace; but if the root abides in the ground, the plant is still alive, and may bring forth fruit again. But he only is dead who hath thrown God off for ever, Eph. 4.1. or intirely, with his very heart. So S. Ambrose. To be dead in trespasses and sins, which is the phrase of S. Paul, is the same with that expression of S. John, of sinning a sin unto death, that is, habitual, refractory, pertinacious and incorrigible sinners, in whom there is scarce any hopes or sign of life. These are they upon whom (as S. Paul's expression is) the wrath of God is come upon them to the uttermost;1 Thess. 2.16. [...], unto death; so was their sin, it was a sin unto death, so is their punishment.

The result of these considerations is this. He that commits one act of a wilful sin, hath provoked God to anger; which whether it will be final or no, we cannot know but by the event, by his forbearing us, and calling us, and accepting us to repentance. One act does not destroy the life of grace utterly, but wounds it more or less, according to the vileness and quantity, or abode in the sin.

SECT. III. What Repentance is necessary for single acts of Sin.

42. I. UPON consideration of the premisses it appears to be dangerous practically to inquire how far single acts of sin can stand with the state of grace, or the being of a good man. For they ought not to be at all, and if they be once, we must repent, and the sin must be pardoned, or we die: And when it can be ask'd how far any sin can be consistent with the state of Gods favour, it cannot be meant that God indulges it to a good man with impunity, or that his grace and favour consists in this that he may safely sin once or twice in what instance or in any instance he shall chuse: but in this it does; a single act of sin does not so destroy the hopes of a good man, but that if he returns speedily he shall be pardoned speedily; for this, God will do for him, not by permitting him to sin again, but by taking his sin away, and healing his soul; but how soon, or how much, or how long God will pardon or forbear, he hath no way told us. * For in the several states and periods of the soul in order to vertue or vice respectively, there is no specifical difference but of degrees only, not of state. As the sins are more or longer, God is more angry, and the man further off; but the man is not wholly altered from his state of grace till he be arriv'd at the unpardonable condition. He is a good, or an evil man, more or less, according as he sins or repents. For neither of the appellatives are absolute and irrespective; and though in Philosophy we use to account them such by the prevailing ingredient, yet the measures of the spirit are otherwise. The whole affair is arbitrary, and gradual, various by its own measures and the good pleasure of God, so that we cannot in these things which are in perpetual flux, come to any certain measures. But although in judging of events we are uncertain, yet in the measures of repentance we can be better guided. Therefore first in general:

43. II. S. Cyprian's rule is a prudent measure, Quàm magna deliquimus, tam granditèr defleamus; ut poenitentia crimine minor non sit. According to the greatness of the sin, so must be the greatness of the sorrow: and therefore we are in our beginnings and progressions of repentance to consider all the ¹ circumstances of aggravation, ² the complication of the crime, ³ the scandal and ⁴ evil effect; and in proportion to every one of these, the sorrow is to be enlarged and continued. For if it be necessary to be afflicted because we have done evil; it is also necessary that our affliction and grief be answerable to all the parts of evil: because a sin grows greater by being more in matter or choice, in the instances, or in the adhesion; and as two sins must be deplored more than one, so must two degrees, that is, the greater portions of malice and wilfulness be mourned for with a bigger sorrow than the less.

44. III. Every single act of sin must be cut off by a moral revocation, or a contrary act; by which I mean, an express hatred and detestation of it. For an act of sin being in its proportion an aversion or turning from God, and repentance being [Page] in its whole nature a conversion to him, that act must be destroyed as it can be. Now because that which is done, cannot naturally be made undone, it must morally; that is, it must be revok'd by an act of nolition, and hatred of it, and a wishing it had never been done, for that is properly a conversion from that act of sin.

45. IV. But because in some cases a moral revocation may be like an ineffective resolution, therefore besides the inward nolition or hating of the sin, in all signal and remarked instances of sin, it is highly requisite that the sinning man do oppose an act of vertue to the act of sin in the same instance where it is capable; as to an act of gluttony, let him oppose an act of abstinence; to an act of uncleanness, an act of purity and chastity; to anger and fierce contentions, let him oppose charity and silence: for to hate sin and not to love vertue is a contradiction, and to pretend it is hypocrisie. But besides this, as the nolition or hatred of it does (if it be real) destroy the moral being of that act, so does the contrary act destroy its natural being (as far as it is capable.) And however it be, yet it is upon this account necessary. For since one act of sin deliberately chosen was an ill beginning and in let of a habit, it is necessary that there be as much done to obtain the habit of the contrary vertue, as was done towards the habit of vice; that to God as intire a restitution as can, may be made of his own right, and purchased inheritance.

46. V. Every act of sin is a displeasure to God and a provocation of an infinite Majesty, and therefore the repentance for it must also have other measures than by the natural and moral proportions. One act of sorrow is a moral revocation of one act of sin, and as much a natural deletion of it, as the thing is capable. * But there is something more in it than thus, for a single act of sin deserves an eternal Hell; and upon what account soever that be, it is fit that we do something of repentance in relation to the offence of an infinite God: and therefore let our repentance proceed towards infinite as much as it may: my meaning is, that we do not finally rest in a moral revocation of an act by an act, but that we beg for pardon all our days even for that one sin. * For besides that every sin is against an infinite God, and so ought to be wash'd off with a sorrow as near to infinite as we can; we are not certain in what periods of sorrow God will speak to us in the accents of mercy and voice of pardon: He always take of them that repent, less than he could in justice exact if he so pleased, but how much less he will take, he hath no where told us, and therefore let us make our way as secure as we can; let us still go on in repentance, and in the progression we are sure to meet with God. * But there is in it yet more. For however the act of sin be usually called and supposed to be a single act, yet if we consider how many fancies and temptations were preparatory to it, how many consentings to the sin, how many desires and acts of prosecution, what contrivances, and resistances of the holy motions of Gods Spirit and the checks of conscience, how many refusings of God and his laws, what unfitting means and sinful progressions were made to arrive thither, what criminal and undecent circumstances, what degrees of consent, and approaches to a perfect choice, what vicious hopes, and vile fears, what expence of time and mis-imployed passions were in one act of fornication or murder, oppression of the poor, or subornation of witnesses, we shall find that the proportions will be too little to oppose but one act of vertue against all these evils; especially since an act of vertue (as we order our affairs) is much more single than an act of vice is.

47. VI. Every single act of vice may and must be repented of particularly, if it be a wilful, deliberate, and observed action. A general repentance will not serve the turn in these cases. When a man hath forgotten the particulars, he must make it up as well as he can. This is the evil of a delayed repentance, it is a thousand to one but it is imperfect and lame, general and unactive; it will need arts of supply and collateral remedies, and reflex actions of sorrow, and what the effect will be is in many degrees uncertain: But if it be speedy, and particular, the remedy is the more easie, the more ready, and the more certain. But when a man is overtaken in a fault, he must be restored again as to that particular; for by that he transgressed, there he is smitten and wounded, in that instance the habit begins, and at that door the Divine judgment may enter, for his anger is there already. For although God pardons all sins or none in respect of the final sentence and eternal pain, yet God strikes particular sins with proper and specifick punishments in this life, which if they be not diverted by proper applications may break us all in pieces. And therefore Davids repentance was particularly applied to his special case, of murder and adultery: and because some sins are harder to be pardoned, and harder to be cured than others, it is certain they must be taken off by a special regard. [Page] A general repentance is never sufficient, but when there cannot be a particular ▪

48. VII. Whoever hath committed any one act of a great crime, let him take the advantage of his first shame and regret, and in the activity of that passion let him design some fasting days, as the solemnities of his repentance, which he must imploy in the bitterness of his soul, in detestation of his sin, in judging, condemning, and executing sentence upon himself; and in all the actions of repentance, which are the parts and fruits of this duty, according as he shall find them described in their proper places.

49. These are the measures of repentance for single acts of deliberate sin, when they have no other appendage, or proper Consideration.

But there are some acts of sin, which by several ways and measures pass into habits, 1 directly, or by equivalency and moral value. For 1. The repetition of acts and proceeding in the same crime is a perfect habit, which as it rises higher to obstinacy, to perseverance, to resolutions never to repent, to hardness of heart, to final impenitence, 2 so it is still more killing and damnable. 2. If a man sins often in several instances it is a habit, properly so called; for although the instances be single, yet the disobedience 3 and disaffection are united and habitual. 3. When a single act of sin is done, and the guilt remains, not rescinded by repentance, that act which naturally is but single, yet morally is habitual. Of these I shall give account in the next Chapter, where they are of proper consideration. But there are yet three ways more by which single acts do become habits by equivalency and moral value, and are here to be considered accordingly.

50. VIII. First, if a single act of sin have a permanent matter, so long as that matter remains, the sin is uncancell'd. Of this nature is theft, which cannot be cut off by a moral revocation, or an internal act: there must be something done without. For it is a contradiction to say that a man is sorry for his act of stealing, who yet rejoyces in the purchase and retains it: Every man that repents, is bound to make his sinful act as much as he can to be undone: and the moral revocation or nolition of it, is our entercourse with God only, who takes and accepts that, which is the All which can be done to him. But God takes care of our brother also, and therefore will not accept his own share unless all interested persons be satisfied as much as they ought. There is a great matter in it, that our neighbour also do forgive us, that his interest be served, that he do not desire our punishment: of this I shall afterwards give accounts; in the mean time, if the matter of our sin be not taken away, so long as it remains, so long there is a remanency and a tarrying in it, and that is a degree of habit.

51. IX. Secondly, if the single act have a continual flux or emanation from it self, it is as a habit by moral account, and is a principle of action, and is potentially many. Of this nature is every action whose proper and immediate principle is a passion. Such as hatred of our neighbour, a fearfulness of persecution, a love of pleasures. For a man cannot properly be said to have an act of hatred, an actual expression of it he may; but if he hates him in one act, and repents not of it, it is a vicious affection, and in the sence of moral Theology it is a habit; the law of God having given measures to our affections as well as to actions. In this case when we have committed one act of uncharitableness, or hatred, it is not enough to oppose against it one act of love; but the principle must be altered, and the love of our neighbour must be introduced into our spirit.

52. X. There is yet another sort of sinful action which does in some sence equal a habit, and that is an act of the greatest and most crying sins, a complicated sin. Thus for a Prince or a Priest to commit adultery; for a child to accuse his Father falsly; to oppress a widow in judgment, are sins of a monstrous proportion; they are three or four sins apiece, and therefore are to be repented of by untwining the knot, and cutting asunder every thred: He that repents of adultery, must repent of his uncleanness, and of his injustice or wrong to his neighbour, and of his own breach of faith, and of his tempting a poor soul to sin and death; and he must make amends for the scandal besides, in case there was any in it. In these, and all the like cases let no man flatter himself when he hath wept and prayed against his sin; one solemnity is not sufficient; one act of contrition is but the beginning of a repentance; and where the crime is capital by the laws of wise Nations, the greatest, the longest, the sharpest repentance is little enough in the Court of Conscience. So Pacianus; Haec est novi Testamenti tota conclusio; Paranes. ad poenitentiam. despectus in multis Spiritus sanctus haec nobis capitalis periculi conditione legavit. Reliqua peccata meliorum operum compensatione curantur:[Page]Haec verò tria crimina, ut basilisci alicujus afflatus, ut veneni calix, ut lethalis arundo me [...]uenda sunt: non enim vitiare animam, sed intercipere noverunt. Some sins do pollute, and some do kill the soul, that is, are very near approaches to death, next to the unpardonable state: and they are to be repented of, just as habits are Se [...] Chap. 5., even by a long and a laborious repentance, and by the piety and holiness of our whole ensuing life. De peccato remisso noli esse securus, said the son of Sirach. Be not secure though your sin be pardoned; when therefore you are working out and suing your pardon, be not too confident.

53. XI. Those acts of sin which can once be done and no more, as Parricide, and such which destroy the subject or person against whom the sin is committed, are to be cured by Prayer and Sorrow, and entercourses with God immediately: the effect of which because it can never be told, and because the mischief can never be rescinded so much as by fiction of Law, nor any supply be made to the injur'd person, the guilty man must never think himself safe, but in the daily and nightly actions of a holy Repentance.

54. XII. He that will repent well and truly of his single actual sins, must be infinitely careful that he do not sin after his Repentance, and think he may venture upon another single sin, supposing that an act of contrition will take it off; and so interchange his days by sin and sorrow, doing to morrow what he was ashamed of yesterday. For he that sins upon the confidence of Repentance, does not repent at all, because he repents that he may sin: and these single acts so periodically returning, do unite and become a habit. He that resolves against a sin, and yet falls when he is tempted, is under the power of sin in some proportion, and his estate is very suspicious; though he always resolved against that sin which he always commits. It is upon no other account that a single sin does not destroy a man, but because it self is speedily destroyed; if therefore it goes on upon its own strength, and returns in its proper period, it is not destroyed, but lives and indangers the man.

55. XIII. Be careful that you do not commit a single act of sin toward the latter end of your life; for it being uncertain what degrees of anger God will put on, and in what periods of time he will return to mercy, the nearer to our death such sins inter [...]ne, the more degrees of danger they have. For although the former discourse is agreeable to the analogy of the Gospel, and the Oeconomy of the Divine Mercy; yet there are sad words spoken against every single sin. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offends in one instance, he shall be guilty of all, saith S. James;Jam. 2.10. plainly affirming, that the admitting one sin, much more, the abiding in any one sin, destroys all our present possession of Gods favour. Concerning which, although it may seem strange that one prevarication in one instance should make an universal guilt, yet it will be certain and intelligible if we consider that it relates not to the formality, but to the event of things. He that commits an act of Murther is not therefore an Adulterer, but yet for being a Murtherer he shall die. He is as if he were guilty of all; that is, his innocence in the other shall not procure him impunity in this. One crime is inconsistent with Gods love and favour.

56. But there is something more in it than this. For every one that breaks a Commandment, let the instance be what it will, is a transgressor of the same bond by which he was bound to all. Non quòd omnia legis praecepta violârit, sed quòd legis Authore [...] contempserit, eóque praemio meritò careat quod legis cultoribus propositum est, saith Venerable Bede. He did not violate all the Commandments, but he offended him who is the giver of all the Commandments. It is like letting one Bead fall from a Rosary or Corone of Bugles. This, or that, or a third makes no difference, the string i [...] as much broken if he lets one to slide, as if he dropp'd twenty. It was not an ill conceit of Me [...]edemus the Eretrian, that there was but one vertue which had divers names. Aristo Chius express'd the same conceit with a little difference; affirming all vertues to be the same in reality and nature, but to have a certain diversification or rational difference by relation to their objects. As if one should call the sight when it looks upon a Crow [...], if upon a Swan [...]; so is vertue. When it moderates the affections, it is Temperance; when it balances contracts, it is Justice; when it considers what is, and what is not to be done, it is Prudence. That which they call Vertue, if we call it the grace of God, or Obedience, it is very true which they say. For the same spirit, the same grace of obedience, is Chastity, or Temperance, or Justice, according as is the subject matter. The love of God, if it be in us, is productive of all worthiness: and this is it which S. John said, This is love, that we keep his Commandments; The love of God constraineth us; It worketh all the works of God in [Page]us; It is the fulfilling of the Commandments. For this is a Catholicon, an Universal Grace. Charity gives being to all vertues, it is the life and spirit of all holy actions. Abstinence from feasts and inordination, mingled with Charity, is Temperance. And Justice is Charity, and Chastity is Charity, and Humility is still but an instance of Charity. This is that Transcendent that gives life and vertue to Alms, to Preaching, to Faith, to Miracles; it does all obedience to God, all good offices to our Neighbours: which in effect is nothing but the sentence of Menedemus and Aristo, that there is an Universal Vertue; that is, there is one soul and essence of all vertue: They call it Vertue, S. Paul calls it Charity; and this is that one thing which is necessary, that one thing which every man that sins, does violate: He that is guilty of all, is but guilty of that one, and therefore he that is guilty of that one, of the breach of Charity, is guilty of all. And upon this account it is, that no one sin can stand with the state of grace; because he that sins in once instance, sins against all goodness: not against all instances of duty, but against that which is the life of all, against Charity and Obedience.

A Prayer to be said in the days of Repentance for the commission of any great Crime.

1

O MOST glorious God, I tremble to come into thy presence, so polluted and dishonoured as I am by my soul stain of sin which I have contracted, but I must come, or I perish. O my God, I cannot help it now; Miserable man that I am, to reduce my self to so sad a state of things, that I neither am worthy to come unto thee, nor dare I stay from thee: Miserable man that I am, who lost that portion of innocence which if I should pay my life in price I cannot now recover. O dear God, I have offended thee my gracious Father, my Lord, my Patron, my Judge, my Advocate, and my Redeemer. Shame and sorrow is upon me, for so offending thee my gracious Saviour. But glory be to thee, O Lord, who art such to me who have offended thee. It aggravates my sin, that I have sinned against thee who art so excellent in thy self, who art so good to me: But if thou wert not so good to me, though my sin would be less, yet my misery would be greater. The greatness of my Crime brings me to my Remedy; and now I humbly pray thee to be merciful to my sin, for it is very great.

II.

O MY God pity me, and relieve my sad condition, which is so extremely evil, that I have no comfort but from that which is indeed my misery: My baseness is increased by my hopes; for it is thy grace and thy goodness which I have so provoked. Thou, O God, didst give me thy grace, and assist me by thy holy Spirit, and call by thy Word, and instruct me by thy Wisdom, and didst work in me to will and to do according to thy good pleasure. I knew my sin, and I saw my danger, and I was not ignorant, and I was not surpris'd: but wilfully, knowingly, basely, and sensually I gave thee away for the pleasure of a minute, for the purchase of vanity; nay I exchanged thee for shame and sorrow, and having justly forfeited thy love, am plac'd I know not where, nor in what degree of thy anger, nor in what neighbourhood of damnation.

III.

O GOD my God, what have I done? whither am I fallen? I was well and blessed, circled with thy Graces, conducted by thy Spirit, sealed up to the day of Redemption, in a hopeful way towards thee; and now I have listned to the whispers of a tempting Spirit, and for that which hath in it no good, no reason, no satisfaction, for that which is [Page] not, I have forfeited those excellencies, for the recovery of which my life is too cheap a price. I am ashamed, O God, I am ashamed. I put my mouth in the dust, and my face in darkness; and hate my self for my sin, which I am sure thou hatest. But give thy servant leave to hope, that I shall feel the gracious effluxes of thy love: I know thou art angry with me, I have deserved it. But if thou hadst not lov'd me and pitied me, thou mightest have stricken me in the act of my shame: I know the design of thy mercy and loving kindness is to bring me to repentance and pardon, to life and grace. I obey thee, O God, I humbly obey thy gracious purposes. Receive, O Lord, a returning sinner, a poor wounded person, smitten by my enemies, broken by my sin, weary and heavy laden; ease me of my burthen, and strengthen me by a mighty grace, that hereafter I may watch more carefully, resist more pertinaciously, walk more circumspectly, and serve thee without the interruptions of duty by the intervening of a sin. O let me rather die, than chuse to sin against thee any more. Only try me this once, and bear me in thy arms, and fortifie my holy purposes, and conduct me with thy grace, that thou mayest delight to pardon me, and to save me through Jesus Christ my Lord and dearest Saviour. Amen.

I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost: O seek thy servant, for I do not forget thy Commandments.

CHAP. V. Of Habitual Sins, and their manner of Eradication or Cure, and their proper Instruments of Pardon.

[Page]

SECT. I. The State of the Question.

1. BOETHVS the Epicurean being ask'd, upon occasion of the fame of Strato's Comedy, Why, it being troublesome to us to see a man furious, angry, timorous or sad, we do yet with so great pleasure behold all these passions acted with the highest, nearest, and most natural significations? In answer to the question discours'd wittily concerning the powers of Art and Reason, and how much our selves can add to our own Natures by Art and Study. Children chuse bread efform'd in the image of a Bird or Man, rather than a Loaf pluck'd rudely from the Bakers lump; and a golden Fish rather than an artless Ingot: because Reason and Art being mingled with it, it entertains more faculties, and pleases on more sides.

2. Thus we are delighted when upon a Table we see Cleopatra dying with her Aspicks, or Lucretia piercing her chaste breast. We give great prices for a Picture of S. Sebastian shot through with a shower of arrows, or S. Laurence rosting upon his Gridiron, when the things themselves would have pierc'd our eyes with horror, and rent our very hearts with pity and compassion: and the Country fellows were so taken with Parmeno's imitating the noise of Swine, that they preferr'd it before that of the Arcadian Boar, being so deceiv'd with fancy and prejudice, that they thought it more natural than that which indeed was so.

3. For first we are naturally pleas'd with imitation, and have secret desires to transcribe the copy of the Creation, and then having weakly imitated the work of God in making some kind of production from our own perfections, such as it is, and such as they are, we are delighted in the imagery, as God is in the contemplation of the world. For we see a nature brought in upon us by art and imitation. But what in natural things we can but weakly imitate, in moral things we can really effect. We can efform our nature over anew, and create our selves again, and make our selves bad when God had made us good: and what was innocent in nature, we make to be vicious by custom and evil habit; or on the contrary, what was crooked in nature, we can make straight by Philosophy, and wise notices, and severe customs; and there is nothing in nature so imperfect or vicious, but it can be made useful and regular by reason and custom, and the grace of God; and even our brute parts are obedient to these. Homer observes it of the wise Vlysses, that though he was troubled to see his wife weep for him, yet

[...].

[...]

[...].

He held the corners of his eyes as firmly as the horn of his Bow, or the iron of his Spear, and by his wit he kept his eyes from running over. Reason can make every member of the body obey; but Vse can make it obey willingly: That can command nature, but this can change it: That can make it do what it pleases, but this can make it be so.

[Page]4. For there being in man so much brutishness and inclination to forbidden actions and things, to sensual and weak fruitions, nature in many instances calls upon us to die. [...]· let me perish, for it is for my advantage: I desire to die because it is pleasant. ‘ [...].’ Nature does seem to do violence to us, and constrain us by violent inclinations to things against reason: But then when Passion supervenes, and like strong winds blow vehemently and raise a storm, we should certainly perish, if God did not give us other principles which might be as effective of his purposes, as Nature and Passion are of death and folly. Passion can be commanded by reason, but nothing hath sufficient and final effort and strength against Nature, but Custom.

[...],

[...].

For our ship is kept fast and firm in its station by Cables, and when the winds blow, we have anchors and fastnesses to secure it. Which verses Plutarch expounding, [...], saith, that the Cables which are to secure our ship in tempests are the firm and permanent judgments against that which is filthy. They secure us when the winds of passion are violent and dangerous. But then because the storm is renewed every day, and [...], Nature will revert, and for ever belonging after its own proportions, we must introduce a nature against a nature: and as passion sets nature on work, and is it self overcome by reason, so if this reason become constant, firm, and habitual, it makes nature an artless, joyntless enemy.

5. But then on the other side, if we let our evil appetites prevail, and use them to satisfaction and empire, bringing in evil customs upon our vicious and ill disposed nature, we are fallen into an evil state of things: for custom and vicious habits are like the locks and bars to Hell gates, a man cannot but do evil, and then his case is intolerable.

6. Now because this is a great state of danger, and consequently a great caution against continuing in sin, I shall put some strength to it, and rescue the whole doctrine concerning this article from the false glosses and imperfect notices of men, which hang upon the duty of repentance like shackles and fetters hindring it to begin betimes, and so to proceed to its measures by the many and just limits and steps of its progression. For the case is this:

If you ask when every man is bound to repent? I answer, as soon as ever he hath sinn'd. But how if he does not? then he adds more sin both against God and against his own soul by delaying this duty, to that he did before in the single action of which he is tied to repent. For every man is bound to repent instantly of every known sin; he sins anew if he does not, though he add no more of the same actions to his heap. But it is much worse if he sins on; not only because he sins oftner, but because if he contracts a custom or habit of sin, he superadds a state of evil to himself, distinct from the guilt of all those single actions which made the habit. This I shall endeavour to prove against the doctrine of the Roman Schools, who teach;

7. I. That no man is ordinarily bound to repent instantly of his sin; for the precept of repentance being affirmative, it does not oblige to its present or speedy performance: For it is as in the case of baptism, or prayers;Navarr. Compend. Manual. ca. 1. n. 31. to the time of the performance of which duties, the Commandment of God does not specifically bind us, now, or an hour hence, or when it is convenient, or when it becomes accidentally necessary, and determined by something else that intervenes: So it is in repentance; so it be done at all, it matters not when, as to the duty of it; when you come to die, or when you justly fear it; as in the days of the plague, or before a battel, or when the holy man comes to take his leave of his dying Parishioner, then let him look to it Vide Infidelity unmask'd, pag. 604. "It is true, the best Divines teach that a sinner is not bound to repent himself instantly of his sin, &c. De poenit. d [...]sp. 7. Sect. 5. n. 4 [...].. But else he is not obliged. For the sin that was committed ten years since, grows no worse for abiding; and of that we committed yesterday we are as deeply guilty, as of the early sins of our youth; but no single sin can increase its guilt by the putting off our repentance and amendment.

8. II. The guilt of sin which we have committed, they call habitual sin; that is, a remaining obligation to punishment for an action that is past, a guiltiness: or as [Page] Johannes de Lugo expresses it,Sic etiam Suarez. tom. 4. in 3. part. disp. 9. Sect. 4. n. 23. peccatum actuale moraliter perseverans; the actual sin morally remaining, by which a man is justly hated by God. But this habitual sin is not any real quality, or habit, but a kind of Granateus. in materiâ de peccatis tract. 8. disp. 1. Sect. 1. Moral denomination or ground thereof, which remains till it be retracted by Repentance. The person is still esteemed Infidelity unmask'd, pag. 605. injurious and obliged to satisfaction. That is all.

9. III. The frequent repetition of sinful acts will in time naturally produce a habit, a proper physical, inherent, permanent quality; but this is so natural, that it is no way voluntary but in its cause, that is, in the actions which produc'd it, and therefore it can have in it no blame, no sinfulness, no obliquity distinct from those actions that caused it,Ibid. pag. 607. and requires no particular or distinct repentance; for when the single acts of sin are repented of, the remaining habit is innocent, and the facility to sin which remains, is no sin at all.

10. IV. These habits of sin may be pardon'd without the contrary habit of vertue, even by a single act of contrition, or attrition with the Sacrament. * And the event of all is this, It is not necessary that your repentance should be so early, or so holy as to obtain by the grace of God the habits of vertue, or to root out the habit of sin; and 2. It is not necessary that it should be at all before the hour of death, unless by accident it be inferr'd and commanded.

I do suppose these propositions not only to be false, but extremely dangerous and destructive of the duty of repentance, and all its consequent hopes, and therefore I shall oppose against them these Conclusions.

1. Every man is bound to repent of his sin as soon as ever he hath committed it.

2. That a sinful habit hath in it proper evils, and a proper guiltiness of its own, besides all that which came directly by the single actions.

3. That sinful habits do require a distinct manner of repentance, and are not pardon'd but by the introduction of the contrary.

* The consequent of these propositions will be this. Our repentance must not be deferred at all, much less to our death-bed. 2. Our repentance must be so early, and so effective of a change, that it must root out the habits of sin, and introduce the habits of vertue; and in that degree in which this is done, in the same degree the repentance is perfect, more or less. For there is a latitude in this duty, as there are degrees of perfection.

SECT. II. 1. Every man is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it.

1. THAT this doctrine is of great usefulness and advantage to the necessity and perswasions of holy life, is a good probable inducement to believe it true; especially since God is so essential an enemy to sin, since he hath used such rare arts of the Spirit for the extermination of it, since he sent his holy Son to destroy it; and he is perpetually destroying it, and will at last make that it shall be no more at all, but in the house of cursing, the horrible regions of damnation. But I will use this only as an argument to all pious and prudent persons, to take off all prejudices against the severity of this doctrine. For it is nothing so much against it if we say it is severe, as it makes for it, that we understand it to be necessary. For this doctrine which I am now reproving, although it be the doctrine properly of the Roman Schools, yet it is their and our practice too. We sin with greediness, and repent at leisure.

Pars magna Italiae est, si verum admittimus, in quâ

Nemo togam sumit nisi mortuus —

No man puts on his mourning garment till he be dead. This day we seldom think it fit to repent, but the day appointed for repentance is always To morrow. Against which dangerous folly I offer these considerations.

[Page]2. I. If the duty of repentance be indispensably requir'd in the danger of death, and he that does not repent when he is arrested with the probability of so sad a change is felo de se, uncharitable to himself and a murderer of his own soul, then so is he in his proportion who puts it off one day: because every day of delay is a day of danger; and the same law of charity obliges him to repent to day if he sinn'd yesterday, lest he be dead before to morrow. The necessity indeed is not so great, and the duty is not so urgent, and the refusal is not so great a sin in health, as in sickness, and dangers imminent and visible: But there are degrees of necessity as there are degrees of danger: And he that considers how many persons die suddenly, and how many more may, and no man knows that he shall not, cannot but confess that because there is danger, there is also an obligation of duty and charity to repent speedily, and that positively, or carelesly to put it off, is a new fault and increases Gods enmity against him. He that is well, may die to morrow. He that is very sick, may recover and live many years. If therefore a periculum ne fiat, a danger lest repentance be never done, is a sufficient determination of the Divine Commandment to do it then, it is certain that it is in every instant determinately necessary; because in every instant there is danger. In all great sicknesses there is not an equal danger; yet in all great sicknesses it is a particular sin not to repent, even by the confession of all sides; it is so therefore in all the periods of an uncertain life; a sin, but in differing degrees. And therefore this is not an argument of caution only, but of duty. For therefore it is of duty, because it is of caution. It could not be a caution, unless there were a danger; and if there be a danger, then it is a duty. For he that is very sick must do it. But how if he escapes, was he obliged for all that? He was, because he knew not that he should escape. By the same reason is every one obliged, because whether he shall or shall not escape the next minute, he knows not. And certainly, it was none of the least reasons of Gods concealing the day of our death, that we might ever stand ready. And this is plainly enough taught us by our blessed Saviour, laboriously perswading and commanding us not to defer our repentance, by his parable of the rich man who promised to himself the pleasures of many years: he reprov'd that folly with a Stulte hac nocte; and it may be any mans case; for

Nemo tam felix —

Crastinum ut possit sibi polliceri.

But he adds a Precept; Let your loyns be girded about, and your lights shining, and ye your selves like men that wait for their Lord. Luke 12.35, &c. And blessed are those servants whom their Lord when he cometh shall find watching. And much more to the same purpose. Nay, that it was the reason why God concealed the time of his coming to us, that we might always expect him, he intimated in the following Parable; "This know, that if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched. Be ye therefore ready also, for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. Nothing could better have improved this argument, than these words of our blessed Saviour; we must stand in procinctu, ready girded, [...], ready for the service, always watching, as uncertain of the time, but in perpetual expectation of the day of our Lord. I think nothing can be said fuller to this purpose. But I add the words of S. Austin; Verum quidem dicis quòd Deus poenitentiae tuae indulgentiam promisit, sed huic dilationi tuae crastinum non promisit. To him that repents,In Psal. 114 God hath promised pardon, but to him that defers repentance he hath not promised the respite of one day. It is certain therefore, he intended thou shouldest speedily repent; and since he hath by words and deeds declar'd this to be his purpose, he that obeys not, is in this very delay, properly and specifically, a Transgressor.

3. II. I consider, that although the precept of repentance be affirmative, yet it is also limited, and the time sufficiently declared, even the present and none else. As soon as ever you need it, so soon you are obliged. To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. That is, defer not to hear him, this day; for every putting it off is a hardening your hearts. For he that speaks to day, is not pleased if you promise to hear him to morrow. It was Felix his case to S. Paul, Go away, I will hear thee some other time. He that calls every day, means every day that we should repent. For although to most men God gives time and leisure, and expects and perseveres to call, yet this is not because he gives them leave to defer it; but because he still forbears to strike, though their sin grows greater. Now I demand, when God calls us to repentance, is it indifferent to him whether we repent to day or no? Why does he call so [Page] earnestly, if he desires it so coldly? Or if he be not indifferent, is he displeas'd if we repent speedily? This no man thinks. But is he not displeas'd if we do not? Does not every call, and every expectation, and every message, when it is rejected, provoke Gods anger and exasperate him? Does not he in the day of vengeance smite more sorely, by how much with the more patience he hath waited? This cannot be denied. But then it follows, that every delay did grieve him and displease him, and therefore it is of it self a provocation distinct from the first sin.

4. III. But further let it be considered: If we repent to day, it is either a duty so to do, or only a counsel of perfection, a work of supererogation. If it be a duty, then to omit it is a sin. If it be a work of supererogation, then he that repents to day, does not do it in obedience to a Commandment: for this is such a work (by the confession of the Roman Schools) which if a man omits he is nevertheless in the state of grace and the Divine favour; as he that does not vow perpetual Chastity, or Poverty, is nevertheless [...]he servant of God; but he that does not repent to day of his yesterdays sin, is not Gods servant, and therefore this cannot be of the nature of Counsels, but of Precept and duty respectively. But to put it past all question: It is expresly commanded us by our blessed Saviour, Agree with thine adversary [...] quickly. For as it is amongst men of merciful dispositions, he that yields quickly obtains mercy; but he that stands out as long as he can, must expect the rigour of the law: So it is between God and us; a hasty Repentance reconciles graciously, whilest the delay and putting it off, provokes his severe anger. And this the Spirit of God was pleas'd to signifie to the Angel or Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, Remember whence thou art fallen, Rev. 2.5. and repent, and do thy first works: If thou doest not, [...], I come unto thee quickly, and will remove the Candlestick out of its place, unless thou do repent. Christ did not mean to wait long and be satisfied with their Repentance, be it when it would be; for he comes quickly, and yet our Repentance must prevent his coming. His coming here is not by death, or final judgment, but for scrutiny and inquiry: for the event of the delaying their Repentance, would have been the removing of their Candlestick. So that [...] is, I come speedily to exact of thee a speedy repentance, or to punish thee for delaying; for so the antithesis is plain, [...] and [...], I come quickly, unless thou dost repent, viz. quickly; [...], (that I may use the words of Libanius) God will condemn our actions, unless we appear before him with a speedy Repentance.

5. IV. Add to this, that though God gives time and respite to some, yet to all he does not. God takes away some in their early sins, and gives them no respite, not a month, not a week, not a day; and let any man say, whether this be not a sufficient indication not only that no man can be secure, but he alone that repents instantly, but that God does intend that every man should presently repent; for he that hath made it damnation to some for not repenting instantly, hath made it damnable to all, and therefore to repent speedily is certainly a duty. The earth does not open and swallow up all Rebels in the day of their Mutiny; but it did so once, and by that God did sufficiently consign to all ages his displeasure against Rebellion. So it is in the deferring Repentance. That some have smarted for it eternally, is for ever enough to tell us, that God is displeased with every one that does defer it; and therefore commands us not to defer it. But this consideration is sufficiently heightned upon this account: For there is no sinner dies, but he is taken away without one days respite. For though God did many times forbear him, yet now he does not, and to his last sin, or his last refusal to hear God, either he afforded no time, or no grace of Repentance.

6. S. Paul's discourse and treaty of the Corinthians, is sufficient to guide us here: he fear'd that at his coming again God would humble him, 1 Cor. 12.21. that is, afflict him with grief and sorrow to see it, that himself should be forc'd to bewail many, that is, so excommunicate, or deliver to Satan them that have sinn'd already, and have not repented. If they had repented before S. Paul's coming, they should escape that rod; but for deferring it, they were like to smart bitterly. Neither ought it to be supposed that the not repenting of sins is no otherwise than as the being discovered of theft. The thief dies for his robbery, not for his being discovered; though if he were not discovered, he should have escaped for his theft. So for their uncleanness S. Paul would have delivered them over to Satan, not for their not repenting speedily. For the case is wholly differing here. A thief is not bound at all to discover himself to the Criminal Judge; but every man is bound to repent. If therefore his repenting speedily would [Page] prevent so great a calamity as his being delivered over to Satan, besides the procuring his eternal pardon, it is clear that to repent speedily was great charity, and great necessity; which is that which was to be prov'd. Satan should have power over him to afflict him for his sin, if he did not speedily repent: but if he did repent speedily, he should wholly escape; therefore to repent speedily is a duty which God expects of us, and will punish if it be omitted.

—Hodiè, mihi credes, vivere serum est.

Ille sapit quisquis, Posthume, vixit Heri.

Think it not a hasty Commandment that we are called upon to repent to day. It was too much that yesterday past by you, it is late enough if you do it to day.

7. V. Not to repent instantly, is a great loss of our time, and it may for ought we know become the loss of all our hopes.

Nunc vivit sibi neuter, heu! bonosque

Soles effugere atque abire sentit,

Martial. ep. 20. lib. 5.

Qui nobis pereunt, & imputantur:

And this, not only by the danger of sudden death, but for want of the just measures of Repentance: Because it is a secret which God hath kept to himself only, and he only knows what degrees of Repentance himself will admit of; how much the sin provok'd him, and by what measures of sorrow and carefulness himself will be appeased. For there is in this a very great difference. To Simon Magus it was almost a desperate case, If peradventure the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven: It was worse to Esau, There was no place left for his repentance. It was so with Judas, he was not admitted to pardon, neither can any one tell, whether it was not resolved he should never be pardon'd. However it be for the particulars, yet it is certain there is a great difference in the admitting penitents. On some have compassion, others save with fear, Jude 22, 23. pulling them out of the fire. Now since for all our sins we are bound to ask pardon every day, if we do so, who dares say it is too much, that it is more than needs? But if to repent every day be not too much, who can be sure that if he puts it off one day it shall be sufficient? To some men, and at some times God is implacably angry; some men, and at some times God hath in his fury and sudden anger seis'd upon, with the apprehensions of death and saddest judgments, and broken them all in pieces: and as there is a reign and kingdome of Mercy, so there are sudden irruptions of a fierce Justice, of which God hath therefore given us examples, that we may not defer Repentance one day. But this mischief goes further. For,

8. VI. So long as we lie in the guilt of one sin unrepented of, though we do not add heaps upon heaps, and multiply instances of the same or equal crimes, yet we are in so unthriving a condition and so evil a state, that all that while we lose all the benefit of any good thing that we can do upon the interest of any principle whatsoever. For so long as we are out of Gods favour, under the seisure and arrest of eternal guilt, so long we are in a state of enmity with God, and all our actions are like the performances of Heathens, nothing to eternal life, but mispendings of our powers, and prodigalities of reason and wise discourses; they are not perfective of our being, neither do they set us forward to heaven until our state be changing. Either then we are not by a certain Law and Commandment bound every day to serve God and please him, or else we are positively and strictly bound instantly to repent of all our sins: because so long as a known sin is unrepented of, we cannot serve God, we cannot do any thing that shall be acceptable to him in Jesus Christ.

9. VII. Every delaying of Repentance is one step of progression towards final Impenitence; which is not only then esteem'd a sin against the holy Ghost when a man resolves never to repent, but if by carelesness he neglects, or out of tediousness and an irreligious spirit quite puts off, or for ever pass by, it is unpardonable; it shall never be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come. Now since final impenitence is the consummation and perfection of all sin, we are to remember, that it is nothing but a perseverance of neglecting or refusing to repent. A man is always dying, and that which we call death is but the finishing of death, the last act of it: So is final impenitence, nothing but the same sin told over so many days; it is a persevering carelesness, or resolution, and therefore it cannot be the sin of one day, unless it be by accident; it is a state of sin, begun as soon as ever the sin is acted, and grows in every [Page] day of thy negligence or forgetfulness. But if it should happen that a sinner that sinn'd yesterday should die to day, his deferring his Repentance that one day would be esteem'd so, and indeed really be a final impenitence. It follows therefore, that to put off our Repentance one day, differs only accidentally and by chance from the worst of evils, from final impenitence; it is the beginning of it, it differs from it, as an infant from a man; it is materially the same sin, and may also have the same formality.

10. VIII. The putting off our Repentance from day to day, must needs be a sin distinct from the guilt of the action whereof we are to repent, because the principle of it cannot be innocent, it must needs be distinctly Criminal. It is a rebellion against God, or hardness of heart, or the spirit of Apostasie, Presumption or Despair, or at least such a carelesness as being in the question of our souls, and in relation to God, is infinitely far from being excusable or innocent.

11. These considerations seem to me of very great moment, and to conclude the main proposition; and at least they ought to effect this perswasion upon us, that whoever hath committed a sin cannot honestly, nor prudently, nor safely defer his Repentance one hour. He that repents instantly, breaks his habit when it is in ovo in the shell, and prevents Gods anger, and his own debauchment and disimprovement:

—Qui parvis obvius ibit,

Nazian.

Is nunquam praeceps scelera in graviora feretur.

And let us consider, that if we defer our Repentance one hour, we do to our souls worse than to our bodies.

Quae laedunt oculos, festinas demere; si quid

Horat. lib. 1. ep.

Est animum, differs curandi tempus in annum?

If dirt fall into our eyes, we do not say unto the Chirurgeon, Stay Sir, and let the grit or little stone abide there till next week, but get it out presently. This similitude if it proves nothing, yet will serve to upbraid our folly, to instruct and exhort us in the duty of this Question. Remember this, that as in Gods account [...] & [...] to remit to retain a sin are opposite, so it ought to be in ours. Our retaining and keeping of a sin though but for a day, is contrary to the designs of mercy and holiness, it is against God, and against the interest of our souls.

SECT. III. A sinful habit hath in it proper evils, and a proper guiltiness of its own, besides all that which came directly by the single actions.

1. BY a sinful habit, I mean the facility and easiness, the delight and custome of sinning contracted by the repetition of the acts of the same sin; as a habit of drunkenness, a habit of swearing, and the like; that is, a quality inherent in the soul, whereby we work with pleasure: for that Aristotle calls the infallible and proper indication of habits,Ethic. Nicom. l. 2. c. 2. [...]: And so long as any man sins willingly, readily, frequently, and upon every temptation, or most commonly; so long he is an habitual sinner: when he does his actions of Religion with pain, and of his sin with pleasure, he is in the state of death, and enmity against God. And as by frequent playing upon an instrument a man gets a habit of playing; so he does in renewing the actions of the same sin, there is an evil quality produced, which affects and corrupts his soul. * But concerning the nature of a vicious habit, this also is to be added.

2. That a vicious habit is not only contracted by the repetition of acts in the same kind, but by frequency of sinning in any variety of instances whatsoever. For there are many vicious persons who have an Ambulatory impiety, and sin in all, or most of their opportunities; but their occasions are not uniform, and therefore their [Page] irregularities are irregular and by chance for the instance, but regular and certain in the prevarication. Vetuleius Pavo would be sure to be drunk at the feasts of Saturn, and take a surfeit in the Calends of January; he would be wanton at the Floralia, and bloody in the Theatres: he would be prodigal upon his birth day, and on the day of his marriage sacrifice Hecatombs to his Pertunda Dea, and he would be sure to observe all the solemnities and festivals of vice in their own particulars and instances, and thought himself a good man enough, because he could not be called a drunkard or a glutton for one act, and by sinning singly escap'd the appellatives of scorn, which are usually fix'd upon vain persons that are married to one sin. * Naturally to contract the habit of any one sin is like the entertaining of a Concubine, and dwelling upon the folly of one miserable woman. But a wandring habit is like a Libido vaga, the vile adulteries of looser persons that drink at every cistern that runs over, and stands open for them. For such persons have a supreme habit, a habit of disobedience, and may for want of opportunity or abilities, for want of pleasure, or by the influence of an impertinent humour be kept from acting always in one scene. But so long as they choose all that pleases them, and exterminate no vice, but entertain the instances of many, their malice is habitual, their state is a perfect aversation from God. For this is that which the Apostle calls, The body of sin, Rom. 7. a compagination of many parts and members; just as among the Lawyers, a flock, a people, a legion, are called bodies: and corpus civitatis, we find in Livy, corpus collegiorum in Caius, corpus regni in Virgil; and so here, this union of several sins is the body of sin, and that is, the body of death. And not only he that feeds perpetually upon raw fruit puts himself into an ill habit of body; but he also does the same thing, who to day drinks too much, and to morrow fills himself with cold fruits, and the next day with condited mushromes, and by evil orders and carelesness of diet, and accidental miscarriages heaps up a multitude of causes, and unites them in the production and causality of his death. This general disorder is indeed longer doing, but it kills as fatally and infallibly as a violent surfeit. And if a man dwells in the kingdome of sin, it is all one whether he be sick in one, or in twenty places; they are all but several rooms of the same Infirmatory, and ingredients of the same deadly poison. He that repeats his sin, whether it be in one, or in several instances, strikes himself often to the heart, with the same▪ or with several daggers.

3. Having thus premised what was necessary for the explication of the nature of vicious habits, we must consider that of vicious habits there is a threefold capacity. 1. A Natural. 2. A Moral. 3. A Relative, as it denominates a man in relation to God.

1. Of the Natural capacity of sinful habits.

4. The natural capacity of sinful habits is a facility or readiness of the faculty to do the like actions; and this is naturally consequent to the frequent repetition of sinful acts, not voluntary but in its cause, and therefore not criminal by a distinct obliquity. [...],Ethic. lib. 3. c. 8. said Aristotle. Actions are otherwise voluntary than habits. We are masters of our actions all the way, but of habits only in the beginning. But because it was in our choice to do so or otherwise, therefore the habit which is consequent is called voluntary: not then chosen, because it cannot then be hindred; and therefore it is of it self indifferent; an evil indeed, as sickness, or crookedness, thirst or famine, and as death it self to them that have repented them of that sin for which they die; but no sin, if we consider it in its meer natural capacity. * Nay so, it may become the exercise of vertue, the scene of trouble indeed or danger, of temptation and sorrow, but a field of victory. For there are here two things very considerable.

5. I. That God for the glorification of his mercy can and does turn all evil into some good, so to defeat the Devils power, and to produce honour and magnification to his own goodness.

— [...]

[...].

Aristoph. [...].

For so God uses to do, if we sin we shall smart for it, but he turns it into good: And S. Austin applies that promise, that all things shall work together for good to them [Page]that fear God, even to this particular; etiam ipsa peccata, nimirum non ex naturâ suâ, sed ex Dei virtute & sapientiâ: if all things, then sins also, not by their proper efficacy, but by the over-ruling power and wisdom of God; like that of Phocylides, ‘ [...]·’ He that will be a good man, must be often deceiv'd, that is, buy his wit at a dear rate. And thus some have been cur'd of pride by the shames of lust, and of lukewarmness by a fall into sin, being awakened by their own noddings, and mending their pace by their fall. And so also the sense of our sad infirmities introduc'd by our vicious living and daily prevarications may become an accidental fortification to our spirits, a new spur by the sense of an infinite necessity and an infinite danger.

[...]

Aristoph.

[...].

For whoever repents after such sad intervals of sorrow and sin, either must do more than other men, or they do nothing to purpose. For besides, that an ordinary care cannot secure them, who have brought tempters home to themselves; a common industry cannot root out vicious customes; a trifling mortification cannot crucifie and kill what hath so long been growing with us: besides this (for this will not directly go into the account; for this difficulty the sinner must thank himself) he must do more actions of piety to obtain his pardon and to secure it. But because they need much pardon, and an infinite care, and an assiduous watchfulness, or they perish infallibly, therefore all holy penitents are to arise to greater excellencies than if they had never sinned.

Major deceptae fama est, & gloria dextrae;

Si not erasset, fecerat illa minùs.

Scaevola's hand grew famous for being deceived, and it had been less reputation to have struck his enemy to the heart, than to do such honourable infliction upon it for missing. And thus there is in heaven more joy over one repenting sinner, than over ninety nine just persons that need it not;Vide S. Chrysost. epist. ad Theodor. there is a greater deliverance, and a mightier miracle, a bigger grace, and a prodigy of chance; it being, as S. Austin affirms, a greater thing that a sinner should be converted, than that being converted he should afterwards be saved; and this he learn'd from those words of S. Paul; But God commended his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then being now justified by his blood, Rom. 5.8, 9. we shall be saved from wrath through him. * But now the sinner is more busie in his recovery, more fearful of relapse than before his fall; Sicut ferae decipulam erumpentes cautiores facti, saith Lactantius; like wild beasts breaking from their toils, they walk more cautiously for ever after. Thus it is impossible that sin should be exalted above grace, or that the Devils malice can be superiour to the rare arts of the Divine mercy; for by his conduct, poison it self shall become medicinal, and sin like the Persian apple,

—Pomis quae Barbara Persis

Miserat, ut fama est, patriis armata venenis,

At nunc expositi parvo discrimine lethi

Ambrosios praebent succos oblita nocendi,

transplanted from its native soil to the Athenian gardens, loses its natural venome, and becomes pleasant as the rinds of Citrons, and aromatick as the Eastern spices.

6. II. Although sins in the state of penitence can by Gods grace procure an accidental advantage, yet that difficulty of overcoming and fierceness of contention, which is necessary to them who had contracted evil habits, is not by that difficulty an augmentation of the reward. As he that willingly breaks his leggs is not more commended for creeping with pain, than if he went with pleasure and ease; and the taking away our own possibility, being a destroying the grace of God, a contradiction to the arts of the Divine mercy; whatsoever proper effect that infers, as it is impious in its [Page] cause and miserable in the event, so it does nothing of advantage to the vertue, but causes great diminution of it. * For it is a high mistake crudely to affirm, that every repugnancy to an act of vertue, and every temptation to a sin, if it be overcome, increases the reward. Indeed if the temptation be wholly from without, unsought for, prayed against, inferr'd infallibly, superinduc'd by God, then the reward is greater, by how much it was the more difficult to obey. Thus for Jephthah to pay his daughter which he had vowed, and for Abraham to slay his son, were greater acts of obedience, because they were in despite of great temptations to the contrary, and there was nothing evil from within that did lessen the choice, or retard the vertue. * But when our nature is spoil'd, and our strengths diminished, when the grace of God by which we stood is despised and cancelled, when we have made it natural for us to sin, then this remaining inclination to sin, and unwillingness to obey, is so far from increasing the reward, that it is not only a state of danger, but it is an unwillingness to doe good, an abatement of the choice, a state which is still to be mortified, and the strengths to be restored, and the affections made obedient, and the will determined by other objects.

7. But if the unwillingness to obey, even after the beginnings of repentance, were, as it is pretended by the Roman Doctors, an increase of the merit or reward, then 1. It were not fit that we should go about to lessen these inclinations to sin, or to exterminate the remains of the old man, because if they go off, the difficulty being removed, the reward must be no more than ordinary.

II. It would also follow from hence, that the less men did delight in Gods service, the more pleasing they should be to him: For if the reluctancy increases, then the perfect choice would lessen the reward. And then,

III. A habit of vertue were not so good as single actions with the remains of a habit of vice, upon the same account: and a state of imperfection were better than a state of perfection, and to grow in grace, were great imprudence.

IV. It were not good to pray against entring into temptation; nay it were good we did tempt our selves, so we did not yield; to provoke our enemy, so he did not conquer us; to enter into danger, so we did not sink under it; because these increase the difficulty, and this increases the reward. All which being such strange and horrid consequences, it follows undeniably, that the remanent portion of a vicious habit after the mans conversion is not the occasion of a greater reward, is not good formally, is not good materially, but is a fomes, a nest of concupiscence, a bed of vipers, and the spawn of toads.

8. Now although this is not a sin, if it be considered in its natural capacity, as it is the physical, unavoidable consequent of actions (for an inherent quality may be considered without its appendant evil) that is, though a Philosopher may think and discourse of it as of a natural production, and so without sin, yet it does not follow from hence, that such a habit, or inherent quality is without its proper sin, or that its nature is innocent. But this is nothing else but to say, that a natural Philosopher does not consider things in their moral capacity. But just thus every sin is innocent, and an act of adultery, or the begetting a child in fornication is good; a natural Philosopher looks on it as a natural action, applying proper actives to their proportion'd passives, and operating regularly, and by the way of nature. Thus we say God concurs to every sin, that is, to the action in its natural capacity, but that is therefore innocent so far; that is, if you consider it without any relation to manners and laws, it is not unlawful. But then if you consider the whole action in its intire constitution, it is a sin. And so is a sinful habit, it is vicious and criminal in its whole nature; and when the Question is whether any thing be in its own capacity distinctly, good or bad; the answer must not be made by separating the thing from all considerations of good and bad. However it will suffice, that a habit of vice in its natural capacity is no otherwise innocent than an act of adultery or drunkenness.

2. Of the moral capacity of sinful Habits.

But then if we consider sinful Habits in their moral capacity, we shall find them to be a Lerna malorum, and we shall open Pandora's box, a swarm of evils will issue thence. In the enumerating of which, I shall make a great progress to the demonstration of the main Question.

9. I. A vicious habit adds many degrees of aversation from God, by inclining us to that which God hates. It makes us to love and to delight in sin, and easily to [Page] choose it; now by how much the more we approach to sin, by so much we are the further remov'd from God.Jer. 13.22, 25. And therefore this habitual iniquity the prophet describing, calls it, magnitudinem iniquitatis, and the punishment design'd for it, is called, thy lot, the portion of thy measures, that is, Plenitudo poenae ad plenitudinem peccatorum, a great judgment to an habitual sin, a final judgment, an exterminating Angel, when the sin is confirm'd, and of a perfect habit.

10. For till habits supervene, we are of a middle constitution, like the City that Sophocles speaks of;

[...]

[...],

It is full of joy and sorrow, it sings and weeps together, it triumphs in mourning, and with tears wets the festival Chariot. We are divided between good and evil; and all our good or bad is but a disposition towards either: but then the sin is arriv'd to its state and manhood, when the joynts are grown stiff and firm by the consolidation of a habit. So Plutarch defines a habit, [...]. A habit is a strength and confirmation to the brute and unreasonable part of man gotten by custome. [...]. The brutish passions in a man are not quickly master'd and reduc'd to reason. [...]: Custome and studies efform the soul like wax, and by assuefaction introduce a nature: To this purpose Aristotle quotes the verses of Evenus.

[...]

Stobaeus de R [...]p. Serm. 41.

[...]·

For as experience is to notices, and Tutors to children, so is Custome to the manners of men; a fixing good or evil upon the spirit: that as it was said of Alexander, when he was a man he could not easily want the vices of his Tutor Leonidas, which he suck'd into his manners and was accustom'd to in his youth; so we cannot without trouble do against our habit and common usages; Vsus Magister, use is the greatest Teacher: and the words in Jeremy 13.23. Ye which are accustomed to do evil, are commonly read, [...], Theoctist. apud Stobaeum. Quantum consuetudo poterit intelliges, si videris ferasquo (que) convictu nostro mansuescire: [...]ulli (que) immani bestia vimsuam permanere, si hominis contubernium diu passa est. Senec. de irâ lib. 3. c. 8. Ye which are taught to do evil; and what we are so taught to do we believe infinitely, and find it very hard to entertain principles of perswasion against those of our breeding and education. For what the mind of man is accustomed to, and throughly acquainted with, it is highly reconcil'd to it; the strangeness is removed, the objections are consider'd or neglected, and the compliance and entertainment is set very forward towards pleasures and union. This habit therefore when it is instanc'd in a vice, is the perfecting and improving of our enmity against God, for it strengthens the lust, as a good habit confirms reason and the grace of God.

11. II. This mischief ought to be further expressed, for it is bigger than is yet signified. Not only an aptness, but a necessity is introduc'd by Custome; because by a habit sin seises upon the will and all the affections; and the very principles of motion towards vertue are almost broken in pieces. It is therefore called by the Apostle, The law of sin. Lex enim peccati est violentia consuetudinis, quâ trahitur & tenetur animus etiam invitus. The violence of custome is the law of sin, by which such a man is over-rul'd against his will.

Nam si discedas, laqueo tenet ambitiosi

Consuetudo mali— & in aegro corde senescit.

You cannot leave it if you would. S. Austin represents himself as a sad instance of this particular.Lib. 8. Confess. c. 7. &c. 5. ‘I was afraid lest God should hear me when I prayed against my lust: As I feared death, so dreadful it was to me to change my custome.’ Velle meum tenebat inimicus, inde mihi catenam fecerat, & constrinxerat me. Quippe ex voluntate perversâ facta est libido, & dum servitur libidini facta est consuetudo, & dum consuetudini non resistitur facta est necessitas. The Devil had made a chain for him, and bound his will in fetters of darkness. His perverse will made his lust grow high, and while he serv'd his lust, he superinduc'd a custome upon himself, and that in time brought upon him a necessity. For as an old disease hath not only afflicted the part of its [Page] proper residence, and by its abode made continual diminution of his strength, but made a path also and a channel for the humours to run thither, which by continual defluxion have digg'd an open passage, and prevail'd beyond all the natural powers of resistance: So is an habitual vice; it hath debauch'd the understanding, and made it to believe foolish things, it hath abus'd the will and made it like a diseased appetite in love with filthy things; it is like an evil stomach that makes a man eat unwholsome meat against his Reason:

[...]

[...].

That's a sad calamity, when a man sees what is good and yet cannot follow it, nay that he should desire it, and yet cannot lay hold upon it; for his faculties are bound in fetters; the habit hath taken away all those strengths of Reason and Religion by which it was hindred, and all the objections by which it was disturbed, and all that tenderness by which it was uneasie, and now the sin is chosen, and believed and lov'd; it is pleasant and easie, usual and necessary, and by these steps of progression enters within the iron gates of death, seal'd up by fate and a sad decree.

12. And therefore Simplicius upon Epictetus speaking of Medea seeing and approving good things by her understanding, but yet without power to do them, says, [...]. It is to no purpose for us to think and to desire well, unless we add also deeds consonant to those right opinions and fair inclinations. But that's the misery of an evil habit; in such as have them, all may be well till you come to action. Their principles good, their discoursings right, their resolutions holy, their purposes strong, their great interest understood, their danger weighed, and the sin hated and declaimed against: for they are [...], they have begun well and are instructed, but because of the [...], [...]. Plutar [...]. Trinummus. their intemperance and softness of spirit produc'd by vile customes, there is (as Plutarch observes) [...] a fatal bestiality in the men, they sin and can neither will nor choose. They are driven to death, and they see themselves crown'd with garlands for the Sacrifice, and yet go to their ruine merry as the Minstrels, and the temptations that entertain and attend those horrid rites. Scibam ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam miser, said he in the Comedy. I knew it well enough how I should comport my self, but I was so wretched that I could not do it.

13. Now all this being the effect of a vicious habit, and not of sinful actions, it being the product and sad consequent of a quality introduc'd first by actions, so much evil cannot be caused and produc'd immediately by that which is innocent. As the fruit is, such is the tree. But let us try further.

14. III. A vicious habit makes our recovery infinitely difficult, our vertues troublesome, our restitution uncertain. In the beginnings of his return it is most visible. For even after we are entring into pardon and the favour of God, we are forced to fight for life, we cannot delight in Gods service, or feel Christs yoke so easie as of it self it is. For a vicious habit is a new Concupiscence, and superinduces such contradictions to the supernatural contentions and designs of grace, it calls back nature from its remedy and purifications of Baptism, and makes such new aptnesses, that the punishment remains even after the beginning of the sins pardon: and that which is a natural punishment of the sinful actions, is or may be morally a sin, as the lust which is produc [...]d by gluttony. And when a man hath entertain'd a holy sorrow for his sins, and made holy vows of obedience and a new life, he must be forc'd to contend for every act of duty, and he is daily tempted, and the temptation is strong, and his progression is slow; he marches upon sharp-pointed stones, where he was not us'd to go, and where he hath no pleasure. He is forc'd to do his duty, as he takes Physick, where reason and the grace of God make him consent against his inclination, and to be willing against his will. He is brought to that state of sorrow, that either he shall perish for ever, or he must do more for heaven than is needful to be done by a good man, whose body is chast, and his spirit serene, whose will is obedient, and his understanding well inform'd, whose temptations are ineffective, and his strengths great, who loves God and is reconciled to duty, who delights in Religion, and is at rest when he is doing God service. But an habitual sinner even when he begins to return, and in some measure loves God, hath yet too great fondnesses for his enemy, his repentances are imperfect, his hatred and his love mixt, nothing is pure, nothing is [Page] whole, nothing is easie: So that the bands of holiness are like a yoke shaken upon the neck, they fret the labouring Ox, and make his work turn to a disease; and (as Isaac) he marches up the hill with the wood upon his shoulders, and yet for ought he knows, himself may become the Sacrifice. S. Austin complains that it was his own case. He was so accustomed to the apertures and free emissions of his lust, so pleas'd with the entertainments, so frequent in the imployment, so satisfied in his mind, so hardned in his spirit, so ready in his choice, so peremptory in his soul determinations, that when he began to consider that death stood at the end of that life, he was amaz'd to see himself as he thought without remedy; and was not to be recover'd but by a long time, and a mighty grace, the perpetual, the daily, the nightly prayers and violent importunities of his Mother, the admirable precepts and wise deportments of S. Ambrose, the efficacy of truth, the horrible fears of damnation hourly beating upon his spirit with the wings of horrour and affrightment; and after all, with a mighty uneasiness and a discomposed spirit he was by the good hand of God dragg'd from his fatal ruine.

[...]

Sophocles in [...]edip.

[...],

[...].

Thus one folly added to another hath great labour and vexation, unquietness and difficulty for its reward. But as when our Blessed Saviour dispossess'd the little Demoniack in the Gospel, when the Devil went forth he roar'd and foam'd, he rent him with horrid Spasmes and Convulsions, and left him half dead: So is every man that recovers from a vicious habit, he suffers violence like a bird shut up in a cage, or a sick person not to be restored but by Causticks and Scarifications, and all the torments of Art, from the dangers of his Nature.

15. IV. A vicious habit makes a great sin to be swallowed up as easily as a little one.

An dubitat solitus totum con [...]are Tonantem,

Radet inaurati femur Herculis, & faciem ipsam

Neptuni, qui bracteolam de Castore ducet?

He that is us'd to it, makes nothing of Sacriledge, who before started at the defrauding his Neighbour of an uncertain right: but when he hath digested the first [...], by step and step he ventures so far till he dares to steal the Thunderbolts from Jupiter; when sin is grown up to its height and station by all its firmest measures, a great sin is not felt; and let the sin be what it will, many of the instances pass so easily, that they are not observed: as the hands and feet sometimes obey the fancy without the notice of the superiour faculties; and as we say some parts of our prayers which we are us'd to, though we attend not, and as Musicians strike many single strokes upon which they do not at all consider; which indeed is the perfection of a habit. So we see many men swear when they know not that they do so, they lie and know they lie, and yet believe themselves: They are drunk often, and at last believe it innocent, and themselves the wiser, and the action necessary, and the excess not intemperance. Peccata quamvis magna & horrenda cùm in consuetudinem venerint, aut parva aut nulla esse creduntur, Enchirid. c. 8. usque adeò ut non solùm non occultanda, verùm etiam jam praedicanda, ac diffamanda videantur, said S. Austin. At first we are asham'd of sin; but custome makes us bold and confident, apt to proclaim not to conceal our shame. For though at first it seemed great, yet every day of use makes it less, and at last, all is well, it is a very nothing.

16. This is a sad state of sin, but directly the case of a vicious habit, and of use in the illustration of this Question. For if we look upon the actions, and little or great instances of folly, and consider that they consider not, every such Oath will pass for an indeliberate folly, and an issue of infirmity. But then if we remember that it is voluntary in its principle, that this easiness of sinning comes from an intolerable cause, from a custome of prophaneness and impiety, that it was nourish'd by a base and a careless spirit, it grew up with a cursed inadvertency, and a caitiff disposition, that it could not be at all, but that the man is infinitely distant from God, it is to be reckoned like the pangs of death, which although they are not always felt, yet they are violent, and extreme, they are fatal in themselves, and full of horror to the standers by.

[Page]17. But from hence, besides that it serves perfectly to reprove the folly of habitual swearing, it also proves the main Question, viz. that in a vicious habit there is a venome and a malice beyond the guilt, and besides the sinfulness of the single actions that produce and nourish it, the quality it self is criminal. For unless it can be supposed that to swear frequently can at last bring its excuse with it, and that such a custome is only to be estimated according to the present notice and deliberation by which it is attended to▪ and that to swear often can be but a little thing, but to swear seldom shall be horrid and inexcusable; it must be certain, that the very habit it self is a state of sin, and enmity against God, besides the guilt of the many single actions: because this customary swearing cannot be accounted so bad as it is by the value and baseness of the single actions, which are scarce considered, very often not known, not noted at all, not attended to; but therefore they have their load by being effects of a cursed habit and custom. Here the habit is worse than the action, and hath an evil of its own.

18. V. A vicious habit hath in it this evil appendage, that in every instant of its abode it keeps us out of Gods favour; we are in perpetual danger, and under the eternal arrest of death, even without the actions of sin, without pleasure, or possessing any of its base [...] interests. It was a horrible foolery which Appianus tells of Lentulus, Spinther and Dolabella, that when Caesar was kill'd in the Senate they drew their swords and ran about the streets, as if they had done the fact, supposing it to be great and glorious: quibus gloriâ quidem frui non contigit, sed poenas dederunt easdem cum sontibus; they lost their hopes of same, but yet they were punished for the fact. So useless, and yet so pernicious a thing is a vicious habit; a man may pay the price of his lust when he thinks not of it, and perish for all that he was willing to enjoy, though he did not what he would. This is that by which Divines use to reconcile the justice of God with the infliction of eternal pains upon temporal and transitory actions. There is in unrepenting or habitual sinners an eternal spring or principle of evil, and they were ready for ever to have sinned; and for this preparation of mind to have sinn'd for ever, it is by them affirm'd to be just to punish them for ever. Now this is not true in the single actions and interruptions of grace by sin, but in the habitual sinner it is more reasonable. Such are they of whom the Apostle speaks, They were past feeling, and yet were given up unto uncleanness; [...], which properly signifies the beginnings or little images of lust; which as they are first in the introduction of lust, so in such persons, they are the only remains of the old man. He cannot sin as he used to do, not by his action, but he sins by his habit.

19. The summe is this. If to love God, to delight in him, to frequent holy offices, to love his service, to dwell in God, to have our conversation in heaven, to lay up our treasure, and our hopes, and our heart there, to have no thoughts, no designs, no imployment but for God and for religion, be more acceptable to God than to do single actions of a prosperous piety upon so many sudden resolutions, and the stock of an alternate and returning duty: Then by the same reason is it infinitely more displeasing to God to be a servant under Gods Enemy and our own, to be in slavery to sin, subordinate to passion, ruled by chance and company, to be weary of well doing, to delight in sin according to the inner man; this I say, must be an infinite aberration and aversion from God, a contradiction to all our hopes, and that in Theology signifies the same effect, as a vicious habit does in nature. For they are the same thing, and have only different conceptions and formal notices; as the patience of Job differs from the patience of S. Laurence, as natural vertue, from the same grace in a Christian: so does a natural habit of vice in its moral capacity differ from our aversion from God; I mean in the active sence, which if it be not a distinct state of sinfulness, distinct from the guilt of sinful actions, yet it is at least a further degree of the same guiltiness and being criminal; and either of them both do sufficiently evince the main question. As the charity and devotion of Cornelius was increased by passing into a habit of these graces; and as the piety of him a Jewish Proselyte, the habitual piety was mended by his being a Christian: So the single actions of vice pass a great guilt; but there is more contracted by the habitual vileness, and that habit is made worse by being an opposition to, and an alienation from God. But of this I am now to give more special accounts.

3. Of the relative capacity of sinful Habits, in reference to God

20. I. This is it that contains the strictness of the main Queston: For a sinful [Page] habit is a state of ungraciousness with God, and sin is possessed of our love and choice. Therefore in vain it is to think a habit innocent, because it is a natural product of many single actions. Every proper action of the will is a natural production of the will; but it is nevertheless voluntary. When the understanding hath practically determined the will, it is natural for the will to choose; but yet such a choice is imputable to the will, and if it be not good, is reckoned as a sin. So it is in vicious habits; they are natural effects of many single actions; but then it is also to be remembred that their seat is the will, and whatsoever is naturally there, is voluntary still. A habit of sinning cannot remain at all, but by consent and by delight, by love and adhesion. The habit is radicated no where but in the will, except it be by subordination, and in the way of ministeries. It follows therefore that every vicious habit is the prolongation of a sin, a continuing to love that, which to love but once is death. For every one that hath a vicious habit, chooses his sin chearfully, acts it frequently, is ready to do it in every opportunity, and at the call of every temptation; and according as these things are in every one, so is the degree of his habit. Now since every one of these which are the constituent parts of a habit, implies a readiness and apt choice of the will to sin, it follows evidently that the capacity of a vicious habit by which it relates to God, consisting of so much evil, and all of it voluntary upon the stock of its own nature and constitution, is highly and chiefly, and distinctly sinful. Although the natural facility, is naturally and unavoidably consequent to frequent sinful actions, yet it is also voluntary; for the habit is not contracted, nor can it remain but by our being willing to sin, and delighting in the ways of error.

21. II. Now if we look into the fountains of Scripture, which is admirable in the description of vertue and vice, we shall find that habitual sin is all that evil which is to be avoided by all men that have in them the hopes of life. It is the prevailing of sin, it is that by which sins come to their height, it is the debauching of the will and understanding; it is all that which can be signified by those great expressions, by which holy Scripture describes those great evils which God hates.Heb. 10. It is [...], a root of bitterness, such as was in Esau when he undid himself and repented too late: an evil heart in turning from the living Lord: Ephes. 2.2. a sear'd conscience: a walking according to the Prince of this world: enemies of the cross of Christ: [...], such as cannot cease from sin: enemies that will not have Christ, but the Devil to reign over them; for this is the true state and constitution of vicious habits. This is more than an [...] or hindrance of doing our duty; it is a direct [...], a disorder and corruption inherent in all our faculties.

22. This is signally describ'd by S. Paul, who calls it a concupiscence wrought by sin: Rom. 7.8.11.14. For sin (saith he) wrought in me all manner of concupiscence: it is called by him, a law in the members fighting against the law in my mind; and the man he calls carnal, sold under sin, dead, killed; and the sin it self, inhabitants peccatum, sin dwelling in me, and flesh in which dwelleth no good: [...], the carnal mind. These things (as is evident) cannot be spoken of the single actions of sin, but of the law, the power, the dominion, the reign, the habit of sin. It is that which was wrought by sin, viz. by the single actions of sin; and therefore he does not mean single actions, neither can he mean the remanent guilt of the past action; but he speaks of a direct state of sinfulness, which is prolifical and productive of sin. For sin wrought this concupiscence and carnal-mindedness; and this carnal-mindedness is such a propensity and desire to sin, and hath in it such easiness to act, that it bringeth forth many sins, and they bring forth death; and therefore the Apostle says expresly [...] this carnal mindedness is death and enmity against God; this is that state, in which whosoever abides cannot please God. To the same purpose are those other expressions of Scripture calling this state,Mumb. 15.30. Jud. 11. 2 Pet. 2.14. Vias Balaam, the ways of Balaam the son of Bosor, a walking perversly with God, a being sold under sin, and [...], hearts excercised or imployed and used to covetousness; and it follows, [...], sons of cursing; The fault, or charge is more than that of single actions, and the curse is greater than ordinary; as the sin is, so is the curse; the one is apportion'd to the other, and appropriate.

23. III. But I consider further. A single act of sin does not in all cases denominate a man vicious. A man is not called a drunkard for having been once drunk, but for being often, for repeating the act, or continuing the affection. Every single act provokes God to anger, but that anger can be as soon rescinded as the act is past if it remains not by something that is habitual. Indeed he is called a thief or an adulterer [Page] that does one action of those crimes; because his consent in such things is great enough to equal a habit in lesser things. The effect is notorious, the prohibition severe, the dangers infinite, the reasons of them evident; they are peccata vastantia conscientiam, & quae uno actu perimunt, as S. Austin says, they kill with one blow, and therefore God exacts them highly, and men call the criminal by the name of the vice: But the action gives denomination but in some cases, but the habit in all. No man lives without sin; and in the state of regeneration, our infirmities still press upon us, and make our hands shake, and our foot to stumble; and sometimes the enemy makes an inroad, and is presently beaten out again, and though the good man resolves against all, and contends against all, ‘Pauca tamen suberunt priscae vestigia fraudis,’ there will be something for him to be humbled at, something to contest against, to keep him watchful and upon his guard. But if he be ebriosus or petulans, if he be a drunkard, or wanton, an extortioner, or covetous; that is, if he have a habit of any sin whatsoever, then he is not the son of God, but an heir of death and hell. That therefore which in all cases denominates a man such, both before God and before men, when the actions do not, that must needs have in it a proper malignity of its own, and that's the habit.

24. IV. This we may also see evidently in the matter of smaller sins, and the trifles of our life; which though they be often repeated, yet if they be kept asunder by the intercision of the actions of repentance, do not discompose our state of grace, but if they be habitual they do, though it may be the single instances by some accident being hindred do not so often return: and this is confess'd on all hands. But then the consequent of this is, that the very being habitual, is a special irregularity.

25. V. This also appears by the nature and malignity of the greater sins. A vicious habit is a principle of evil naturally and directly. And therefore as the capital sins are worse than others, because they are an impure root, and apt to produce accursed fruits; as covetousness is the root of all evil; and pride, and envy, and idolatry: so is every habit the mother of evil, not accidentally, and by chance, but by its proper efficacy and natural germination, and therefore is worse than single actions..

26. VI. If natural concupiscence hath in it the nature of sin, and needs a laver of regeneration, and the blood of Christ to wash it off, much more shall our habitual and acquir'd concupiscence. For this is much worse, procur'd by our own act, introduc'd by our consent, brought upon us by the wrath of God which we have deserved; springing from the baseness of our own manners, the consequent of our voluntary disobedience. So that if it were unreasonable that our natural concupiscence should be charged upon us as criminal, as being involuntary; yet for the same Reason, it is most reasonable that our habitual sins, our superinduc'd concupiscence should be imputed to us as criminal, because it is voluntary in its cause which is in us, and is voluntary in the effect, that is, it is delighted in, and seated in the will. But however, this argument ought to prevail upon all that admit the article of original sin, as it is usually taught in Schools and Churches. For upon the denial of it, Pelagius also introduc'd this opinion, against which I am now disputing. And lest concupiscence might be reckon'd a sin, he affirm'd that no habitude, no disposition, nothing but an act could be a sin. But on the other side, lest concupiscence should be accounted no sin, S. Austin disputes earnestly,Lib. de peccat. orig. cap. 6. & 13. largely affirming and proving, that a sinful habit is a special sinfulness distinct from that of evil actions: malus thesaurus cordis, the evil treasure of the heart out of which proceeds all mischief, and a continual defluxion of impurities.

27. VII. And therefore as God severely forbids every single action of sin, so with greater caution he provides that we be not guilty of a sinful habit.Rom. 6.13, 20. Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies; we must not be servants of sin, not sold under sin, that sin have no dominion over us. That is, not only that we do not repeat the actions of sin, but that we be not enslaved to it, under the power of it, of such a lost liberty that we cannot resist the temptation. For he that is so, is guilty before God, although no temptation comes. Such are they whom S. Peter notes, that cannot cease from sin. And indeed we cannot but confess the reasonableness of this. For all men hate such persons whose minds are habitually averse from them; who watch for opportunities to do them evil offices, who lose none that are offer'd, who seek for more, who delight in our displeasure, who oftentimes effect what they maliciously will. Saul was Davids enemy even when he was asleep. For the evil will, and the contradicting [Page] mind, and the spiteful heart are worse than the crooked or injurious hand. And as grace is a principle of good, so is this of evil; and therefore as the one denominates the subject gracious, so the other, sinful; both of them inherent, that given by God, this introduc'd by our own unworthiness. * He that sins in a single act, does an injury to God, but he that does it habitually, he that cannot do otherwise is his essential enemy. The first is like an offending servant who deserves to be thrown away; but in a vicious habit there is an antipathy: The Man is Gods enemy, as a Wolf to the Lamb, as the Hyaena to the Dog. He that commits a single sin, hath stain'd his skin, and thrown dirt upon it; but an habitual sinner is an Ethiop, and must be stay'd alive before his blackness will disappear.Jer. 13.23.

28. VIII. A man is called just or unjust by reason of his disposition to, and preparation for an act: and therefore much more for the habit. Paratum est cor meum Deus. O God my heart is ready, my heart is ready: and S. John had the reward of Martyrdom, because he was ready to die for his Lord, though he was not permitted; and S. Austin affirms, that the continency of Abraham was as certainly crown'd as the continence of John, De bono conjugat. c. 21. it being as acceptable to God to have a chast spirit as a virgin body, that is, habitual continence being as pleasing as actual. Thus a man may be a Persecutor, or a Murtherer, if he have a heart ready to do it: and if a lustful soul be an Adulteress, because the desire is a sin, it follows that the habit is a particular state of sin distinct from the act, because it is a state of vicious desires. And as a body may be said to be lustful though it be asleep, or eating, without the sense of actual urtications and violence, by reason of its constitution: so may the soul by the reason of its habit, that is, its vicious principle and base effect of sin be hated by God, and condemn'd upon that account.

29. So that a habit is not only distinct from its acts in the manner of being, as Rhetorick from Logick in Zeno, as a fist from a palm, as a bird from the egg, and the flower from the gemm: but a habit differs from its acts, as an effect from the cause, as a distinct principle from another, as a pregnant Daughter from a teeming Mother, as a Conclusion from its Premises, as a state of aversation from God, from a single act of provocation.

30. IX. If the habit had not an irregularity in it distinct from the sin, then it were not necessary to persevere in holiness by a constant regular course, but we were to be judg'd by the number of single actions; and he only who did more bad than good actions should perish, which was affirmed by the Pharisees of old: and then we were to live or die by chance and opportunity, by actions and not by the will, by the outward and not by the inward man; then there could be no such thing necessary as the Kingdom of Grace, Christs Empire and Dominion in the soul; then we can belong to God without belonging to his Kingdom; and we might be in God, though the Kingdom of God were not in us. For without this we might do many single actions of vertue, and it might happen that these might be more than the single actions of sin, even though the habit and affection and state of sin remain. Now if the case may be so (as in the particular instance) that the mans final condition shall not be determin'd by single actions, it must be by habits, and states and principles of actions: and therefore these must have in them a proper good and bad respectively by which the man shall be judg'd, distinct from the actions by which he shall not (in the present case) be judg'd. All which considerations being put together, do unanswerably put us upon this conclusion: That a habit of sin is that state of evil by which we are enemies to God and slaves of Satan, by which we are strangers from the Covenant of Grace, and consign'd to the portion of Devils: and therefore as a Corollory of all, we are bound under pain of a new sin to rise up instantly after every fall, to repent speedily for every sin, not to let the Sun go down upon our wrath, nor rise upon our lust, nor run his course upon our covetousness or ambition. For not only every period of impenitence is a period of danger, and eternal death may enter; but it is an aggravation of our folly, a continuing to provoke God, a further aberration from the rule, a departure from life, it is a growing in sin, a progression towards final impenitence, to obduration and Apostasie, it is a tempting God, and a despising of his grace, it is all the way presumption, and a dwelling in sin by delight and obedience; that is, it is a conjugation of new evils, and new degrees of evil. As pertinacy makes error to be heresie, and impenitence makes little sins unite and become deadly, and perseverance causes good to be crowned, and evil to be unpardonable: So is the habit of viciousness, the confirmation of our danger, and solennities of death, the investiture and security of our horrible inheritance.

[Page]31. The summ is this. Every single sin is a high calamity, it is a shame and it is a danger, in one instant it makes us liable to Gods severe anger. But a vicious habit is a conjugation of many actions, every one of which is highly damnable, and besides that union which is formally an aggravation of the evils, there is superinduc'd upon the will and all its ministring faculties, a viciousness and pravity which makes evil to be belov'd and chosen, and God to be hated and despis'd. A vicious habit hath in it all the Physical, Metaphysical and Moral degrees of which it can be capable. For there is not only a not repenting, a not rescinding of the past act by a contrary nolition; but there is a continuance in it, and a repetition of the same cause of death, as if a man should marry death, the same death so many times over: it is an approving of our shame, a taking it upon us, an owning and a securing our destruction, and before a man can arrive thither, he must have broken all the instruments of his restitution in pieces, and for his recovery nothing is left, unless a Palladium fall from Heaven; the man cannot live again, unless God shall do more for him than he did for Lazarus when he raised him from the dead.

SECT. IV. Sinful habits do require a distinct manner of Repentance, and have no promise to be pardon'd but by the introduction of the contrary.

32. THIS is the most material and practical difficulty of the Question: for upon this depends the most mysterious article of Repentance, and the interest of dying penitents. For if a habit is not to be pardoned without the extirpation of that which is vicious, and the superinducing its contrary; this being a work of time, requires a particular grace of God, and much industry, caution, watchfulness, frequent prayers, many advices and consultations, constancy, severe application: and is of so great difficulty and such slow progression, that all men who have had experience of this imployment, and have heartily gone about to cure a vicious habit, know it is not a thing to be done upon our death-bed. That therefore which I intend to prove, I express in this Proposition.

A vicious habit is not to be pardon'd without the introduction of the contrary, either in kind, or in perfect affection, and in all those instances in which the man hath opportunities to work.

33. The Church of Rome, whose Chairs and Pulpits are dangerous guides in the article of Repentance, affirms, that any sin, or any habit of sin may be pardon'd by any single act of contrition; the continued sin of forty years may be wash'd off in less than forty minutes, nay by an act of attrition with the Priestly absolution: which proposition, if it be false, does destroy the interest of souls; and it cannot be true, because it destroys the interest of piety, and the necessities of a good life. The reproof of this depends upon many propositions, of which I shall give as plain accounts as the thing will bear.

34. I. Every habit of vice may be expelled by a habit of vertue naturally, as injustice by justice, gluttony by temperance, lust by chastity: but by these it is not meritoriously remitted and forgiven; because nothing in nature can remit sins, or be the immediate natural disposition to pardon. All this is the gift of God, a grace obtain'd by our holy Redeemer, the price of his bloud; but in this, the case is all one as it is in the greatest innocence of the best of men, which if it be not allowed by incorporation into Christ, and sanctified by faith, wants its proper title to Heaven: and so it is with Repentance. For nature cannot teach us this lesson, much less make it acceptable. For it depending wholly upon Gods graciousness and free forgiveness, can be taught only by him, by whom it is effectual, and this is conveyed to us by our blessed Lord, according to that saying, Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

[Page]35. II. Although a habit cannot be the meritorious cause of pardoning the contrary habit, yet to him that hath contracted a vicious habit, it is necessary in order to his pardon that he root out that habit and obtain the contrary in some degrees of prevalency, so that the scales be turned on that side where is the interest of vertue: and this depends upon the evidence of the former proposition. If to be an habitual sinner be more than to be guilty of those actual sins by which the habit was contracted: then as it is necessary to rescind the act of sin by an act of contrition and repentance: so also it is as necessary that the habit be retracted by a habit, that every wound may have its balsam, and every broken bone be bound up and redintegrate.

36. III. But in the case of habitual sins the argument is more pressing. For if the act which is past and remains not, yet must be reversed by its contrary, much rather must that be taken off which does remain, which actually tempts us, by which we are in a state exactly contrary to the state of grace. For some seldom acts of sin and in trifling instances may stand with the state of holiness, and be incident to a good man: but no vicious habit can, neither in a small matter, nor in a great; this is an [...], a destroyer, and therefore as it hath a particular obliquity, so it must have a special repentance, a repentance proper to it, that is, as an act rescinds an act, so must a habit be oppos'd to a habit, a single act of contrition to a single sin, and therefore it must be more, no less than a lasting and an habitual contrition to obtain pardon for the habit. And although a habit can meritoriously remit a habit, no more than an act can do an act, they being both equal as to that particular; yet they are also dispositions equally (at least on this hand) necessary for the obtaining pardon of their respective contraries.

37. IV. It is confessed on all sides, that every single sin which we remember, must be repented of by an act of repentance that must particularly touch that sin; if we distinctly remember it, it must distinctly be revok'd by a nolition, a sorrow, and moral revocation of it. Since therefore every habit is contracted by many single actions, every one of which if they were sinful must some way or other be rescinded by its contrary, the rescission of those will also introduce a contrary habit, and so the question will be evinc'd upon that account. For if we shall think one act of sorrow can abolish many foul acts of sin, we but deceive our selves: we must have many for one (as I have already made to appear) a multitude of sighs and prayers against every foul action that we remember: and then the consequent is plain, that upon this reckoning when a habit is contracted, the actions which were its principle cannot be rescinded but by such Repentances which will extinguish not only the formality, but the material and natural effect of that cursed production, at least in very many degrees.

38. V. A habit oppos'd to a habit hath greater effect than an act oppos'd to an act, and therefore is not only equally requisite, but the more proper remedy and instance of repentance. For an act of it self cannot naturally extinguish the guilt, nor meritoriously obtain its pardon: but neither can it destroy its natural being, which was not permanent, and therefore not to be wrought upon by an after act. But to oppose a habit to a habit, can equally in the merits of Christ be the disposition to a pardon, as an act can for an act; and is certainly much better than any one act can be, because it includes many single acts of the same nature, and it is all them and their permanent effect and change wrought by them besides. So that it is certainly the better and the surer way. But now the Question is not, whether it be the better way, but whether it be necessary, and will not the lesser way suffice? To this therefore I answer, that since no man can be acceptable to God as long as sin reigns in his mortal body, and since either sin must reign, or the Spirit of Christ must reign; for a man cannot be a Neuter in this war; it is necessary that sins kingdom be destroyed and broken, and that Christ rule in our hearts; that is, it is necessary that the first and the old habits be taken off and new ones introduc'd. For although the moral revocation of a single act may be a sufficient disposition to its pardon, because the act was transient, and unless there be a habit or something of it, nothing remains: yet the moral revocation of a sinful habit cannot be sufficient, because there is impressed upon the soul a viciousness and contrariety to God, which must be taken off, or there can be no reconciliation. For let it be but considered, that a vicious habit is a remanent aversation from God, an evil heart, the evil treasure of the heart, a carnal mindedness, an union and principle of sins; and then let it be answered, whether a man who is in this state can be a friend of God, or reconcil'd to him in his Son, who lives in a state so contrary to his holy Spirit of Grace. The guilt cannot be taken off without destroying its nature, since the nature it self is a viciousness and corruption.

[Page]39. VI. Either it is necessary to extirpate and break the habit, or else a man may be pardon'd while he is in love with sin. For every vicious habit being radicated in the will, and being a strong love, inclination and adhesion to sin, unless the natural being of this habit be taken off, the enmity against God remains. For it being a quality permanent and inherent, and its nature being an aptness and easiness, a desire to sin and longing after it, to retract this by a moral retractation, and not by a natural also, is but hypocrisie: for no man can say truly, I hate the sin I have committed, so long as the love to sin is inherent in his will; and then if God should pardon such a person, it would be to justifie a sinner remaining such, which God equally hates as to condemn the innocent: He will by no means acquit the guilty. It was part of his Name which he caused to be proclaimed in the Camp of Israel. And if this could be otherwise, a man might be in the state of sin, and the state of grace at the same time; which hitherto all Theology hath believ'd to be impossible.

40. VII. This whole Question is clear'd by a large discourse of S. Paul. For having under the person of an unregenerate man complain'd of the habitual state of prevailing sin, of one who is a slave to sin, sold under sin, captive under a law of sin,Rom. 7.14, that is, under vile inclinations, and high pronenesses and necessities of sinning, so that when he is convinc'd that he ought not to do it, yet he cannot help it; though he fain would have it help'd, yet he cannot obey his own will,19. &c. but his accursed superinduc'd necessities; and his sin within him was the ruler, that, and not his own better choice was the principle of his actions, which is the perfect character of an habitual sinner; he inquires after a remedy for all this, which remedy he calls a being delivered [...], from the body of this death. The remedy is [...], the grace of God through Jesus Christ, for by Christ alone we can be delivered. But what is to be done? the extermination of this dominion and Empire of concupiscence, the breaking of the kingdom of sin. That being the evil he complains of, and of which he seeks remedy, that is to be remov'd. But that we may well understand to what sence, and in what degree this is to be done; in the next periods he describes the contrary state of deliverance, by the parts and characters of an habit or state of holiness; which he calls, a walking after the Spirit, opposed to a walking after the flesh. It was a law in his members, a law of sin and death.Rom. 8.1, &c. Now he is to be made free by a contrary law, the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus: That is, as sin before gave him law, so now must the Spirit of God; whereas before he minded the things of the flesh, now he minds the things of the spirit; that is, the carnal-mindedness is gone, and a spiritual-mindedness is the principle and ruler of his actions. This is the deliverance from habitual sins, even no other than by habitual graces wrought in us by the spirit of life, by the grace of our Lord Jesus. And this whole affair is rarely well summ'd up by the same Apostle;Rom. 6.19. As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity, unto iniquity: even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. If ye were servants before, so ye must be now; it is but justice and reason, that at least as much be done for God as for the Devil; It is not enough morally to revoke what is past, by a wishing it had not been done, but you must oppose a state to a state, a habit to a habit. And the Author of the Book of Baruch presses it further yet; As it was your mind to go astray from God, Baruch 4.28. so being returned seek him ten times more. It ought not to be less; it must be as S. Chrysostom expresses it, A custom against a custom, a habit opposed to a habit, In Act. 4. hom▪ 10. that the evil may be driven out by the good, as one nail is by another. [...], said Procopius. Vandalic. 11. In those things where you have sinned, to profit, and to increase, and improve to their contraries, that is the more comely way to pardon.

41. VIII. Either a habit of vertue is a necessary disposition to the pardon of a habit of vice, or else the doctrine of mortification of the lusts of the flesh, of all the lusts, of all the members of the old man, is nothing but a counsel, and a caution of prudence, but it contains no essential and indispensable duty. For mortification is a long contention, and a course of difficulty; it is to be done by many arts, and much caution, and a long patience, and a diligent observation, by watchfulness and labour, the work of every day, and the employment of all the prudence, and all the advices of good men, and the whole grace of God. It is like the curing of a Hectick feaver, which one potion will not do. Origen does excellently describe it, [...]. When a word [Page]is strengthened and nourished by care and assiduity, and confirmed by opinions and wise sentences, or near to confirmation, it masters all oppositions, and breaks in pieces the concupiscence. This is the manner of mortification, there must be resolutions and discourses, assiduity and diligence, auxiliaries from reason, and wise sentences, and advices of the prudent; and all these must operate [...], unto a confirmation, or near it, and by these the concupiscence can be master'd. But this must be a work of time.

[...]

[...],

said Menander. To dissolve a long custom in a short time is a work indeed, but very hard, if not impossible, to be done by any man. A man did not suddenly come to the state of evil,S. Basil. homil. 9. from whence he is to arise. Nemo repentè fuit turpissimus. But as a man coming into a pestilential air, does not suck in death at every motion of his lungs, but by little and little the spirits are poysoned, and at last enter into their portion of death; so it is in a vicious custom. [...].Stob. The evil is not felt instantly, it begins from little things, and is the production of time and frequent actions. And therefore much less can it be supposed, that we can overcome our filthy habits, and master our fortified corruptions by a sudden dash of piety and the ex tempore gleams of repentance. Concerning this,In regul. fusiùs disput. q. 6. & 55. S. Basil discourses excellently. Sicut enim morbi corporis inveterati, &c. For as the old diseases of the body are not healed without a long and painful attendance; so must old sins be cured by a long patience, a daily prayer, and the sharpest contention of the spirit. That which is dyed with many dippings, is in grain, and can very hardly be washed out: Sic anima sanie peccatorum suppurata & in habitu constituta malitiae, vix ac multo negotio elui potest. So is the soul when it is corrupted with the poyson of sin, and hath contracted a malicious habit, it can scarce, but not without much labour be made clean.

42. Now since we say our nature is inclined to sin, and we feel it to be so in many instances, and yet that it needs time and progression to get a habit of that whither we too naturally tend; we have reason to apprehend that we need time and fierce contentions, and the long suffering of violences to take the kingdom of Heaven by force, by a state of contradiction and hostility against the tempting enemy. It is much harder to get a habit against our nature, and a prepossessing habit, than to confirm nature, and to actuate our inclinations.

43. And this does not only relate to habits in their Natural capacity, but in their Moral, and consequently their Relative capacity, as appertaining to God, in the matter of his valuation of them. Because in habits as it is in acts, although metaphysically we can distinguish the action from the irregularity, yet because they are subjected in the same person, and the irregularity is inherent in the action, in the whole composition the action is sinful; so it is in habits. For the sin adheres to the natural facility, and follows it in all its capacities. And as the natural facility of doing viciously, is cured by time, and a successive continued diligence; so is the sinfulness, because that facility is vicious and sinful. And as heat is distinguished from fire, but you cannot lessen the heat, but by decreasing the natural being of fire: so does the sin of a vicious habit pass away as the habit naturally lessens; that is, the Moral capacity changes as does the Natural, this being the subject of that, and it could not have been this habit, if it had not in it this sinfulness.*

44. Now if the parts of this argument be put together, their intention is this. A habit of sin is not gotten but by time and progression; and yet it cannot be lost so soon as it was gotten; but it is a long time before its natural being is overcome by its contrary. But the sinfulness of it does pass away with the natural being; and no otherwise; therefore the sinfulness of it cannot be removed suddenly. And therefore if mortification be a duty, and we be commanded to do it, we are commanded to do a long work and a difficult, a thing that is more than the moral retractation of it by a single act of sorrow or contrition, a duty that contains in it so much work as is proportion'd to the necessity, even to the breaking the habit of sin, and setting up the habit of vertue over it. Now then, all the question will be, whether Mortification be a Precept,Colos. 3.5. or a Counsel. Concerning which, I only appeal to the words of S. Paul, [...], Mortifie therefore your earthly members; and, If ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Mortification is the condition of life,Rom. 8.13. it is expresly commanded by the Apostle, [Page] that we make the deeds of the body to be dead; that is, the evil habits and concupiscence of the body; for that which S. Paul here calls [...] or deeds, in the same precept written to the Galatians, he calls [...],Gal. 5.24. lusts and concupiscences. And of what great necessity and effect this mortification and crucifying of our sinful customs is, we may understand best by those other words of the same Apostle; He that is dead is justified from sins, not till then, not till his habit was dead; not as soon as he morally retracts it by an act of displeasure and contrition,Rom. 6.7. but when the sin is dead, when the habit is crucified, when the concupiscence does not reign, but is overcome in all its former prevalencies, then he is pardon'd, and not before.

45. IX. Unless it be necessary to oppose a habit against a habit, a state of vertue against a state of vice; that is, if a vicious habit may be pardon'd upon one act of contrition, then it may so happen that a man shall not be obliged to do good, but only to abstain from evil, to cease from sin, but not to proceed and grow in grace: which is against the perpetual design, and analogy of the Gospel, and the nature of Evangelical righteousness, which differs from the righteousness of the law, as doing good from not doing evil. The law forbad murder, but the Gospel superadds charity. The law forbad uncleanness, but the Gospel superadds purity and mortification. The law forbad us to do wrong, but the Gospel commands us to do offices of kindness. Injustice was prohibited by the law, but revenge also of real injuries is forbidden by the Gospel, and we are commanded to do good to them that injure us; and therefore the Writers of the New Testament do frequently joyn Rom. 6.18. Ephes. 4 22. Col. 1.13. & 3.5.10.12. Titus 2.12, 13, 14. Heb. 10 22, 24. 1 Pet. 2.1, 2. & 2 Pet. 1.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. these, to be dead unto sin, and to live unto righteousness. This is that which was opposed to the righteousness of the law Rom. 3.21. & 9.30, 31. Gal. 2.16. & 3.8. Phil. 3.6, 7., and is called the righteousness of God: And a mistake in this affair was the ruine of the Jews. For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, they thought to be justified by their own righteousness which is of the law. That is, they thought it enough to leave off to sin, without doing the contrary good, and so hop'd for the promises. This was the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, to be no adulterers, no defrauders of the rights of the Temple, no Publicans or exacters of Tribute. But our blessed Saviour assur'd us that there is no hopes of Heaven for us, unless our righteousness exceed this of theirs.

46. Now then, to apply this to the present argument. Suppose a vicious person who hath liv'd an impious life, plac'd upon his death-bed, exhorted to repentance, made sensible of his danger, invited by the Sermons of his Priest to dress his soul with duty and sorrow; if he obeys, and is sorry for his sin; supposing that this sorrow does really begin that part of his duty which consists in not sinning, nay, suppose he will never sin again (which is the righteousness of the law) yet how can he in that case do that good which is required by the Gospel? Seek the kingdom of Heaven, and the righteousness thereof. The Gospel hath a peculiar righteousness of its own, proper to it self, without which there is no entrance into Heaven. But the righteousness of the law is called our own righteousness, that is, such a righteousness which men by nature know; for we all by the innate law of nature, know that we ought to abstain from doing injury to Man, from impiety to God: But we only know by revelation the righteousness of the Kingdom which consists in holiness and purity, chastity, and patience, humility, and self-denial. He that rests in the first, and thinks he may be sav'd by it (as S. Paul's expression is) he establisheth his own righteousness, that is, the righteousness of the law, and this he does, whosoever thinks that his evil habits are pardon'd without doing that good, and acquiring those graces which constitute the righteousness of the Gospel, that is, faith and holiness, which are the significations, and the vital parts of the new creature.

47. X. But because this doctrine is highly necessary, and the very soul of Christianity, I consider further, that without the superinducing a contrary state of good to the former state of evil, we cannot return, or go off from that evil condition that God hates, I mean the middle state, or the state of lukewarmness. For though all the old Philosophy consented that vertue and vice had no medium between them, but whatsoever was not evil, was good, and he that did not do evil was a good man, said the old Jews, yet this they therefore did unreprovably teach, because they knew not this secret of the righteousness of God. For in the Evangelical justice, between the natural, or legal good or evil there is a medium or a third, which of it self, and by the accounts of the Law was not evil, but in the accounts of the Evangelical righteousness is a very great one; that is, lukewarmness, or a cold, tame, indifferent, unactive Religion. Not that lukewarmness is by name forbidden by any of the laws of the Gospel, but that it is [Page] against the analogy and design of it. A lukewarm person does not do evil, but he is hated by God, because he does not vigorously proceed in godliness. No law condemns him, but the Gospel approves him not, because he does not from the heart obey this form of doctrine, which commands a course, a habit, a state and life of holiness. It is not enough that we abstain from evil, we shall not be crowned unless we be partakers of a Divine nature. For to this S. Peter enjoyns us carefully. Now then▪ we partake of a Divine nature, [...] Pet. 1.4. when the Spirit dwells in us, and rules all our faculties, when we are united unto God, when we imitate the Lord Jesus, when we are perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. Now whether this can be done by an act of contrition, needs no further inquiry, but to observe the nature of Evangelical Righteousness, the hatred God bears to lukewarmness, the perfection he requires of a Christian, the design and great example of our blessed Lord, the glories of that inheritance whither we are design'd, and of the obtaining of which, obedience to God in the faith of Jesus Christ is made the only indispensable, necessary condition.

48. For let it be considered. Suppose a man that is righteous according to the letter of the Law, of the Ten Commandments, all of which (two excepted) were Negative; this man hath liv'd innocently and harmlesly all his days, but yet uselesly, unprofitably, in rest and unactive circumstances; is not this person an unprofitable servant? The servant in the Parable was just such: he spent not his Masters talent with riotous living, like the Prodigal, but laid it up in a Napkin, he did neither good nor harm; but because he did no good, he receiv'd none, but was thrown into outer darkness.

Nec furtum feci, nec fugi, si mihi dicat

Horat.

Servus, habes pretium, loris non ureris, ajo.

Non hominem occidi, non pasces in cruce corvos.

An innocent servant amongst the Romans might scape the Furca, or the Mill, or the Wheel; but unless he was useful, he was not much made of. So it is in Christianity. For that which according to Moses was called righteousness, according to Christ is poverty and nakedness, misery and blindness, as appears in the reproof which the Spirit of God sent to the Bishop and Church of Laodicea. Rev. 3.15. He thought himself rich when he was nothing; that is, he was harmless, but not profitable, innocent according to the measures of the law, but not rich in good works. So the Pharisees also thought themselves just by the justice of the Law, that is, by their abstinence from condemned evils, and therefore they refus'd to buy of Christ the Lord, gold purified in the fire, whereby they might become rich; that is, they would not accept of the righteousness of God, the justice Evangelical, and therefore they were rejected. And thus to this very day do we. Even many that have the fairest reputation for good persons and honest men, reckon their hopes upon their innocence and legal freedoms, and outward compliances: that they are no liars nor swearers, no drunkards nor gluttons, no extortioners or injurious, no thieves nor murtherers; but in the mean time they are unprofitable servants, not instructed, not throughly prepared to every good work; not abounding in the work of the Lord, but blind, and poor, and naked; just, but as the Pharisees; innocent, but as Heathens: In the mean time they are only in that state to which Christ never made the promises of eternal life and joys hereafter.

49. Now if this be true in one period, it is true in all the periods of our life. If he that hath always liv'd thus innocently and no more, that is, a Heathen and a Pharisee, could not by their innocence and proper righteousness obtain Heaven, much less shall he who liv'd viciously and contracted filthy habits, be accepted by all that amends he can make by such single acts of contrition, by which nothing can be effected but that he hates sin and leaves it. For if the most innocent by the legal righteousness is still but unprofitable, much more is he such who hath prevaricated that and liv'd vilely, and now in his amendment begins to enter that state, which if it goes no further is still unprofitable. They were severe words which our blessed Saviour said, When ye have done all things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants;Luke 17.10. that is, when ye have done all things which are commanded [in the law] he says not [all things which I shall command you] for then we are not unprofitable servants in the Evangelical sence. For he that obeys this form of doctrine is a good servant.John 15.14, 15 He is the friend of God. If ye do whatsoever I command you, ye are my friends; and that is more than profitable servants: For I will not call you servants, but friends, saith our blessed Lord; and for you, a crown of righteousness is laid up against the day of recompences. These therefore cannot be called unprofitable servants, but friend [...], [Page] sons and heirs; for he that is an unprofitable servant shall be cast into outer darkness. * To live therefore in innocence only, and according to the righteousness of the law, is to be a servant, but yet unprofitable, and that in effect is to be no heir of the Promises; for to these, Piety, or Evangelical Righteousness is the only title. Godliness is profitable to all things, having the promise of this life, and of that which is to come. For upon this account, the works of the law cannot justifie us: for the works of the law at the best were but innocence and ceremonial performances: but we are justified by the works of the Gospel, that is, faith and obedience. For these are the righteousness of God, they are his works, revealed by his Spirit, effected by his Grace, promoted by his Gifts, encouraged by special Promises, sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and accepted through Jesus Christ to all the great purposes of Glory and Immortality.

50. Since therefore a constant innocence could not justifie us, unless we have the righteousness of God, that is, unless we superadd holiness and purity in the faith of Jesus Christ: much less can it be imagined that he who hath transgressed the righteousness of the law, and broken the Negative Precepts, and the natural humane rectitude, and hath superinduc'd vices contrary to the righteousness of God, can ever hope to be justified by those little arrests of his sin, and his beginnings to leave it upon his death-bed, and his sorrow for it, then when he cannot obtain the righteousness of God, or the holiness of the Gospel. It was good counsel that was given by a wise Heathen,

Dimidium facti qui coepit habet, sapere aude:

Incipe: qui rectè vivendi prorogat horam

Rusticus, expectat dum defluat amnis: at ille

Labitur, & labetur in omne volubilis aevum.

Horat. ep. 2. l. 1.

It is good for a man to begin. The Clown that stands by a river side expecting till all the water be run away, may stay long enough before he gets to the other side. He that will not begin to live well till he hath answered all objections, and hath no lusts to serve, no more appetites to please, shall never arrive at happiness in the other world. Be wise, and begin betimes.

SECT. V. Consideration of the objections against the former Doctrine.

51. I. BUT why may not all this be done in an instant by the grace of God? Cannot he infuse into us the habits of all the g [...]aces Evangelical? Faith cannot be obtained by natural means, and if it be procur'd by supernatural, the Spirit of God is not retarded by the measures of an enemy, and the dull methods of natural opposition. Nescit tarda molimina Spiritus sancti gratia. Without the Divine Grace we cannot work any thing of the righteousness of God; but if he gives us his grace, does not he make us chaste and patient, humble and devout, and all in an instant? For thus the main Question seems to be confessed and granted, that a habit is not remitted but by the introduction of the contrary: but when you consider what you handle, it is a cloud and nothing else; for this admission of the necessity of a habit, enjoyns no more labour nor care, it requires no more time, it introduces no active fears, and infers no particular caution, and implies the doing of no more than to the remission of a single act of one sin.

52. To this I answer, that the grace of God is a supernatural principle, and gives new aptnesses and inclinations, powers and possibilities, it invites and teaches, it supplies us with arguments, and answers objections, it brings us into artificial necessities, and inclines us sweetly: and this is the semen Dei spoken of by S. John, the seed of God thrown into the furrows of our hearts, springing up (unless we choke it) to life eternal. By these assistances we being helped can do our duty, and we can expel the habits of vice, and get the habits of vertue: But as we cannot do Gods work without Gods grace; so Gods grace does not do our work without us. For grace being [Page] but the beginnings of a new nature in us, gives nothing but powers and inclinations.Rom. 8.26. The Spirit helpeth our infirmities; so S. Paul explicates this mystery. And therefore when he had said, By the grace of God I am what I am; that is, all is owing to his grace: he also adds, I have laboured more than they all, yet not I; that is, not I alone; sed gratia Dei mecum; the grace of God that is with me. For the grace of God stands at the door and knocks; but we must attend to his voice, and open the door, and then he will enter and sup with us, and we shall be with him. The grace of God is like a graff put into a stock of another nature; it makes use of the faculties and juice of the stock and natural root, but converts all into its own nature. But,

53. II. We may as well say there can be a habit born with us, as infus'd into us. For as a natural habit supposes a frequency of action by him who hath natural abilities; so does an infus'd habit (if there were any such) it is a result and consequent of a frequent doing the works of the Spirit. So that to say that God in an instant infuses into us a habit [of Chastity, &c.] is to say that he hath in an instant infus'd into us to have done the acts of that grace frequently. For it is certain by experience, that the frequent doing the actions of any grace, increases the grace, and yet the grace or aids of Gods Spirit are as necessary for the growth, as for the beginnings of grace. We cannot either will or do without his help; he worketh both in us, that is, we by his help alone are enabled to do things above our nature. But then we are the persons enabled; and therefore we do these works as we do others, not by the same powers, but in the same manner.

54. When God raises a Cripple from his couch, and gives him strength to move, though the aid be supernatural, yet the motion is after the manner of nature. And it is evident in the matter of faith, which though it be the gift of God, yet it is seated in the Understanding, which operates by way of discourse and not by intuition: The believer understands as a Man, not as an Angel: And when Christ by miracle restor'd a blind eye, still that eye did see by reception, or else by emission of species, just so as eyes that did see naturally.Habitus infusi infunduntur p [...]r modum acquisitorum. R [...]gul. Sc [...]olast. So it is in habits. For it is a contradiction to say that a perfect habit is infus'd in an instant: For if a habit were infus'd, it must be infus'd as a habit is acquir'd; for else it is not a habit. As if a motion should be infus'd, it must still be successive as well as if it were natural.

55. But this device of infus'd habits, is a fancy without ground, and without sence, without authority, or any just grounds of confidence, and it hath in it very bad effects. For it destroys all necessity of our care and labour in the ways of godliness, all cautions of a holy life; it is apt to minister pretences and excuses for a perpetually wicked life till the last of our days, making men to trust to a late Repentance; it puts men upon vain confidences, and makes them relie for salvation upon dreams and empty notions; it destroys all the duty of man, and cuts off all entercourse of obedience and reward. But it is sufficient, that there is no ground for it in Scripture, nor in Antiquity, nor in right Reason: but it is infinitely destructive of all that wise conduct of Souls, by which God would glorifie himself by the means of a free obedience; and it is infinitely confuted by all those Scriptures which require our cooperation with the assistance of Gods holy Spirit. For all the helps that the Spirit of Grace ministers to us, is far from doing our work for us, that it only enables us to do it for our selves, and makes it reasonable that God should therefore exact it of us, because we have no excuse, and cannot plead disability. To which purpose that discourse of S. Paul is highly convincing and demonstrative: Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; Phil. 2.12, 13. for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure, [...], according to our desire: so it is better read; that is, fear not at all, but [...], throughly do your duty Magis operamini. Syrus. Augescite in opera. Arabs.; for according as you desire and pray, God will be present to you with his grace, to bear you through all your labours and temptations. And therefore our conversion, and the working our salvation, is sometimes ascribed to God, sometimes to men 1 Cor. 5.7, 8. 2 Tim. 2.21. Jam. 4.8. Eph. 4.22, 23, 24. Col. 3.9, 10.; to God as the prime and indeficient cause, to man [...], as to the fellow-worker with God; it is the expression of S. Paul. The Scripture mentions no other effect of Gods grace, but such as I have now described. But that Grace should do all our work alone, and in an instant, that which costs the Saints so much labour, and fierce contentions, so much sorrow and trouble, so many prayers and tears, so much watchfulness and caution, so much fear and trembling, so much patience and long-suffering, so much toleration and contradiction, and all this under the conduct of the Spirit, in the midst of all the greatest helps of grace, and the inhabitation of the holy Spirit of God; that all this labour and danger should be spar'd to a vile person, who hath griev'd and extinguish'd [Page] Gods holy Spirit, and a way contriv'd for him that he should enjoy the pleasures of this world, and the glories of the next, is such a device, as, if it had any ground or colourable pretence for it, would, without the miracles of another grace, destroy all piety from the face of the earth. And in earnest, it seems to me a strange thing, that the Doctors of the Church of Rome should be so loose and remiss in this Article, when they are so fierce in another that takes from such persons all manner of excuse. It is (I say) very strange that it should be so possible, and yet withal so unnecessary to keep the Commandments.

56. Obj. 2. But if a single act of contrition cannot procure pardon of sins that are habitual, then a wicked man that returns not till it be too late to root out vicious habits, must despair of salvation. I answer, That such a man should do well to ask his Physician whether it be possible for him to escape that sickness? If his Physician say it is, then the man need not despair; for if he return to life and health, it will not be too late for him by the grace of God to recover in his soul. But if his Physician say he cannot recover; first let the Physician be reproved for making his patient to despair. I am sure he hath less reason to say he cannot live, than there is to say, such a person hath no promise that he shall be saved without performing the condition. But the Physician if he be a wise man will say, So far as he understands by the rules of his art, this man cannot recover; but some secret causes of things there are, or may be, by which the event may be better than the most reasonable predictions of his art. The same answer I desire may be taken in the Question of his soul. Concerning which the Curate is to preach the rules and measures of God, but not to give a resolution concerning the secret and final sentence. 2. The case of the five foolish Virgins, if we may construe it as it is expressed, gives a sad account to such persons: and unless that part of the Parable be insignificant, which expresses their sorrow, their diligence, their desire, their begging of oyle, their going out to buy oyle before the Bridegroom came, but after it was noised that he was coming, and the insufficiency of all this, we may too certainly conclude, that much more than a single act of contrition, and a moral revocation, that is, a sorrow and a nolition of the past sins, may be done upon our death-bed without effect, without a being accepted to pardon and salvation. 3. When things are come to that sad state, let the man hope as much as he can; God forbid that I should be Author to him to despair. The purpose of this discourse is, that men in health should not put things to that desperate condition, or make their hopes so little and afflicted, that it may be disputed whether they be alive or no. 4. But this objection is nothing but a temptation and a snare; a device to make me confess that the former arguments (for fear men should despair) ought to be answered, and are not perfectly convincing. I intended them only for institution and instruction, not to confute any person or any thing, but to condemn sin, and to rescue men from danger. But truly, I do think they are rightly concluding (as moral propositions are capable;) and if the consequent of them be, that dying persons after a vicious life cannot hope (ordinarily) for pardon, I am truly sorrowful that any man should fall into that sad state of things; as I am really afflicted and sorrowful that any man should live vilely, or perish miserably; but then it ought not to be imputed to this doctrine that it makes men despair, for the purpose and proper consequent of it, is, that men are warned to live so, that they may be secur'd in their hopes, that is, that men give diligence to make their calling and election sure, that they may take no desperate courses, and fall into no desperate condition. And certainly, if any man preach the necessity of a good life, and of actual obedience, he may as well be charged to drive men to despair; for the summ of the foregoing doctrine is nothing else, but that it is necessary we should walk before God in all holy conversation and godliness. But of this I shall give a large account in the Fifth Section.

Obj. 3. But if things be thus, it is not good or safe to be a criminal Judge, and all the Discipline of War will be unlawful and highly displeasing to God. For if any one be taken in an act of a great sin, and as it happens in War, be put to death suddenly, without leisure and space of repentance, by the measures of this doctrine, the man shall perish, and consequently the power by which he falls is uncharitable.

I answer; That in an act of sin the case is otherwise than in an habit, as I have already demonstrated in its proper place: It must be a habit that must extirpate a habit; but an act is rescinded by a less violence and abode of duty: and it is possible for an act of duty to be so heroical, or the repentance of an hour to be so pungent and dolorous, and the fruits of that repentance putting forth by the sudden warmths and [Page] fervour of the spirit, be so goodly and fair, as through the mercies of God in Jesus Christ, to obtain pardon of that single sin, if that be all.

II. But it is to be considered, whether the man be otherwise a vicious person, or was he a good man, but by misfortune and carelesness overtaken in a fault? If he was a good man, his spirit is so accustomed to good, that he is soon brought to an excellent sorrow, and to his former state, especially being awakened by the sad arrest of a hasty death: and if he accepts that death willingly, making that which is necessarily inforc'd upon him, to become voluntary by his acceptation of it, changing the judgment into penance, I make no question but he shall find mercy. But if the man thus taken in a fault was otherwise a vicious person, it is another consideration. It is not safe for him to go to war; but the Officers may as charitably and justly put such a person to death for a fault, as send him upon a hard service. The doing of his duty may as well ruine him, as the doing of a fault; and if he be repriev'd a week, he will find difficulty in the doing what he should, and danger enough besides.

III. The discipline of war, if it be only administred where it is necessary, not only in the general rule, but also in the particular instance, cannot be reprov'd upon this account. Because by the laws of war sufficiently published, every man is sufficiently warned of his danger; which if he either accept, or be bound to accept, he perishes by his own fault, if he perishes at all. For as by the hazard of his imployment he is sufficiently called upon to repent worthily of all his evil life past, so is he by the same hazardous imployment, and the known laws of war, caution'd to beware of committing any great sin: and if his own danger will not become his security, then his confidence may be his ruine, and then nothing is to be blam'd but himself.

IV. But yet it were highly to be wish'd, that when such cases do happen, and that it can be permitted in the particular without the dissolution of discipline, such persons should be pitied in order to their eternal interest. But when it cannot, the Minister of justice is the Minister of God, and dispenses his power by the rules of his justice, at which we cannot quarrel, though he cuts off sinners in their acts of sin, of which he hath given them sufficient warning, and hath a long time expected their amendment: to whom that of Seneca may be applied, Vnum bonum tibi superest, repraesentabimus mortem. Nothing but death will make some men cease to sin; and therefore, quo uno modo possunt, desinant mali esse. God puts a period to the increase of their ruine and calamity, by making that wickedness shorter, which if it could would have been eternal. When men are incorrigible, they may be cut off in charity as well as justice; and therefore as it is always just, so it is sometimes pity, though a sad one, to take a sinner away with his sins upon his head. [...]. When it is impossible to have it otherwise, this is the only good that he is capable of Ingeniis talibus vitae exitus remedium est: optimúmque est abire ei qui ad se nunquam rediturus est. Senec. de Benef. 7.10., to be sent speedily to a lesser punishment than he should inherit, if he should live longer. But when it can be otherwise, it were very well it were so very often. And therefore the customs of Spain are in this highly to be commended, who to condemned criminals give so much respite till the Confessor gives them a benè discessit, and supposes them competently prepared. But if the Law-givers were truly convinced of this doctrine here taught, it is to be hoped, they would more readily practise this charity.

57. Obj. 4. But hath not God promised pardon to him that is contrite? A contrite and broken heart, Psal. 51.17. O God, thou wilt not despise. And, I said, I will confess my sins unto the Lord: and so thou forgavest the wickedness of my sin. And the prodigal was pardon'd immediately upon his confession,Psal. 32.6. and return. Coeperat dicere, & mox illum pater complectitur, Homil. de p [...] [...]it. said S. Basil; His Father embraces him when he began to speak. And S. Chrysostom, In that moment (says he) he wipes away all the sins of his life. And S. Austin upon that of David before quoted; My confession came not so far as my mouth, and God heard the voice of my heart.

58. To this I answer, first concerning the words of David. Then concerning the examples. 1. Concerning contrition, that it is a good beginning of repentance, is certain, and in its measure acceptable to God, and effective of all its proper purposes. But contrition can have but the reward of contrition, but not of other graces which are not parts but effects of it. God will not despise the broken and contrite heart; no, for he will receive it graciously, and bind up the wounds of it, and lead it on in the paths of righteousness, and by the waters of comfort.

[Page]59. II. But a man is not of a contrite heart as soon as he hath exercised one act of contrition. He that goes to break a rock, does something towards it by every blow, but every blow does not break it. A mans heart is not so easily broken; I mean broken from the love of sin, and its adherence to it. Every act of temperance does not make a man temperate; and so I fear will it be judg'd concerning contrition.

60. III. But suppose the heart be broken, and that the man is contrite, there is more to be done than so. God indeed does not despise this, but he requires more. God did not despise Ahabs repentance, but it did not do all his work for him. He does not despise patience, nor meekness, nor resignation, nor hope, nor confession, nor any thing that himself commands. But he that commands all, will not be content with one alone; every grace shall have its reward, but it shall not be crown'd alone. Faith alone shall not justifie, and repentance alone, taken in its specifical, distinctive sence, shall not suffice; but faith, and repentance, and charity, and patience, and the whole circle and rosary of graces and duties must adorn our heads.

61. IV. Those graces and duties which are commanded us, and to which God hath promised▪ glorious rewards, must not be single or transient acts, but continual and permanent graces. He that drinks of the water which I shall give him, Joh. 4.14. shall never thirst again. He that eats of this bread shall live for ever. He that believes in me, rivers of living waters shall flow from his belly. 6.58. 7.38. He that confesseth his sins and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Repent and believe, and wash away your sins. Now these words of [...], are of extended and produced signification (as Divines observe) and signifie a state of duty, such as includes patience and perseverance. Such also are these. He that doth the will of my Father abideth for ever. 1 John 2.17. 1 John 1.9. If we confess our sins, he is just and faithful to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity; and they that do such things shall possess the kingdom of Heaven. And, I will deliver him because he hath put his trust in me. And,Gal. 5.21. If ye love him he also will love us. And, Forgive and ye shall be forgiven. These and many more do not intend that any one grace alone is sufficient, much less any one act of one grace, proceeding from the Spirit of God, can be sufficient to wipe off our leprosies. But these signifie states of duty, and integrity; not transient actions, or separate graces. And besides the infinite reasonableness of the thing, this truth is consign'd to us plainly in Scripture: [God] will render to every man according to his deeds: Rom. 2.6, 7. To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life. And if men had pleased, they might as well have fallen upon this proposition, that an act of humility would have procur'd our pardon, as well as that an act of contrition will do it: because of the words of David, The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart; and will save such as be of an humble spirit. Psal. 34.17. Salvation is as much promised to humility alone, as to contrition alone; that is, to neither separately, but in the conjunction with other parts of duty.

62. V. Contrition is either taken in its proper specifick signification, and so it is but a part of repentance; and then who can say that it shall be sufficient to a full and final pardon? Repentance alone is not sufficient; There must be faith, and hope, and charity; therefore much less shall a part be sufficient, when the whole is not. But if contrition be taken in a sence comprehending more than it self, then I demand how much shall it involve? That it does include in it an act of the Divine love, and a purpose to confess, and a resolution to amend is affirmed. So far is well. But why thus far and no farther? Why shall not contrition when it is taken for a sufficient disposition to pardon and salvation, signifie as much as repentance does; and repentance signifie the whole duty of a converted sinner? Unless it does, repentance it self, that is, as it is one single grace, cannot suffice, as I proved but now: And therefore how shall contrition alone, much less, an act of contrition alone do it? For my part, I should be very glad it were so, if God so pleased; for I have as much need of mercy as any man, and have as little reason to be confident of the perfection of my repentance, as any returning sinner in the world. But I would not willingly deceive my self, nor others, and therefore I must take the surest course, and follow his measures who hath describ'd the lines and limits of his own mercy. * But it is remarkable that the manner of the Scripture is to include the consequents in the antecedents. He that is of God, heareth Gods word. That is, not only hears but keeps it. For, not the hearer, John 8.47. but the doer is blessed. So S. John in the Revelation;Apoc. 19.9. Blessed are they that are called to the marriage of the Lamb. They which are called are blessed; that is, They which being called, come, and come worthily, having on the wedding garment. For without this the meaning of the Spirit is not full. For many are called, but few are [Page]chosen. And thus also it is in the present instance: God will not despise the contrite heart; that is, the heart which being bruised with sorrow returns to duty, and lives in holiness; for in order to holiness, contrition was accepted.

But one thing I shall remark before I leave this. In the definition of Contrition all the Schools of Theologie in the world that I know of, put the love of God. Contrition is not only sorrow, but a love of God too. Now this doctrine, if they themselves would give men leave rightly to understand it, is not only an excellent doctrine, but will also do the whole business of this great Question. Without Contrition our sins cannot be pardon'd. It is not Contrition, unless the love of God be in it. Add then but these; Our love to God does not consist in an act of intuition or contemplation, nor yet directly and meerly of passion; but it consists in obedience. If ye love me, keep my Commandments: That's our love of God. So that Contrition is a detestation of our past sin, and a consequent obedience to the Divine Commandments: Only as the aversion hath been, so must be the conversion; It was not one act of disobedience only which the habitual sinner is to be contrite for, but many; and therefore so must his contrition be, a lasting hatred against sin, and an habitual love, that is, an habitual obedience to the Divine Commandment.

63. VI. But now to the instances of David and the Prodigal, and the sudden pronunciation of their pardon, there is something particular to be said. The Parable of the Prodigal can prove nothing but Gods readiness to receive every returning sinner: but neither the measures nor the times of pardon are there described. As for David, his pardon was pronounced suddenly, but it was but a piece of pardon; the sentence of death which by Moses's law he incurred, that only was remitted: but after this pardon, David repented bitterly in sackcloth and ashes, he fasted and prayed, he liv'd holily and wisely, he made amends as he could; and yet the child died that was born to him, his Son and Subjects rebelled, his Concubines were dishonoured in the face of the Sun, and the Sword never departed from his house. 2. But to both these and all other instances that are or can be of the like nature, I answer, That there is no doubt but Gods pardon is as early and speedy as the beginnings of our repentance; but then it is such a pardon as is proportionable to the Repentance, a beginning Pardon, to a beginning Repentance. It is one degree of pardon to be admitted to Repentance; To have more grace given, to have hopes of final absolution, to be continued in the work of the Lord, to be help'd in the mortification of our sins, to be invited forwards, and comforted, and defended, and blessed, still are further progressions of it, and answer to the several parts and perseverance of Repentance. And in this sence those sayings of the old Doctors are true, but in no other that I know of. To this purpose they are excellent words which were spoken by S. Austin, Nunquam Deus spernit poenitentiam, Serm. 181. de tempore, c. 16. si ei sincerè & simplicitèr offeratur; suscipit, libentèr accipit, amplectitur omnia quatenus eum ad priorem statum revocet. God never does despise repentance that is sincerely offered to him; he takes all, he embraces all, that he may bring the man to his former state.

64. Obj. 5. But against this doctrine are pretended some sentences of the Fathers, expresly affirming that a sinner returning to God in any instant may be pardoned; even in the last moment of his life, when it is certain nothing can be done, but single acts of contrition or something like it. Thus the Author of the book De coena Domini, attributed to S. Cyprian, Sed & in eodem articulo temporis cum jam anima festinat ad exitum, & egrediens ad labia expirantis emerserit, poenitentiam clementissimi Dei benignitas non aspernatur: nec serum est quod verum, nec irremissibile quod voluntarium, & quae cunque necessitas cogat ad poenitudinem, nec quantitas criminis, nec brevitas temporis, nec horae extremitas, nec vitae enormitas, si vera contritio, si pura fuerit voluptatum mutatio, excludit à veniâ, sed in amplitudine sinus sui mater charitas prodigos suscipit revertentes, & velit nolit Novatus haereticus omni tempore Dei gratia recipit poenitentes. Truly this is expresly against the severity of the former doctrine; and if S. Cyprian had been the Author of this book, I should have confess'd him to be an adversary in this question. For this Author affirms, that then when the soul is expiring, God rejects not the contrition of him who but then returns: Though the man be compelled to repentance, though the time be short, and the iniquity was long and great, yet in the last hour, if he be truly contrite, God will not refuse him. To this I say, that he that said these words was Arnoldus Abbas. one that liv'd not very long since; then, when Discipline was broken, and Piety was lost, and Charity was waxen cold; and since the mans authority is nothing, I need say no more, but that I have been reproving this opinion all this while. But there are words in S. Cyprian's book [Page] to Demetrianus, which are confessedly his, and yet seem to promise pardon to dying penitents. Nec quisquam aut peccatis retardetur aut annis, quo minus veniat ad consequendam salutem. In isto adhuc mundo manenti poenitentia nulla sera est. Patet ad indulgentiam Dei aditus, & quaerentibus atque intelligentibus veritatem facilis accessus est. Tu sub ipso licet exitu & vitae temporalis occasu pro delictis roges: & Deum qui unus & verus est, confessione & fide agnitionis ejus implores. Venia confitenti datur, & credenti indulgentia salutaris de Divinâ pietate conceditur, & ad immortalitatem sub ipsâ morte transitur. These words are indeed very expresly affirmative of the efficacy of a very late, even of a Death-bed repentance, if it should so happen. But the consideration of the person wholly alters the case, and makes it unapplicable to the case of dying Christians. For Demetrianus was then a Pagan, and a cruel Persecutor of Christians. Nec saltem contentus es dolorum nostrorum compendio, & simplici ac veloci brevitate poenarum: admoves laniandis corporibus longa tormenta. Innoxios, justos, Deo charos domo privas, patrimonio spolias, catenis premis, carcere includis, bestiis, gladio, ignibus punis. This man S. Cyprian, according to the Christian Charity which teaches to pray for our Persecutors, and to love our Enemies, exhorts passionately to believe in Christ, to become a Christian, and though he was very old, yet to repent even then would not be too late. Hujus Sacramento & signo censeamur; Hunc (si fieri potest) sequamur omnes. Let us all follow Christ; let us all be consign'd with his sign and his Sacrament. Now there is no peradventure, but new converted persons, Heathens newly giving up their Names to Christ and being baptized, if they die in an hour, and were baptized half an hour after they believe in Christ, are heirs of Salvation. And it was impossible to be otherwise; for when the Heathen world was to be converted, and the Gospel preached to all persons, old men, and dying men, it must either be effective to them also of all the Promises, or by nothing could they be called to the Religion. They who were not Christians, were not to be judged by the Laws of Christ. But yet Christians are; and that's a full account of this particular, since the Laws of our Religion require of us a holy life; but the Religion could demand of strangers nothing but to believe, and at first to promise to obey, and then to [...] it accordingly if they shall live. Now to do this, was never too late; and this is all which is affirmed by S. Cyprian.

65. S. Hierome Epist. ad Letam, & ad Paulum & Sabinianum. affirm'd, Nunquam sera est conversio, latro de cruce transiit ad Paradisum. And S. Serm. 11. de verb. Dom. & Serm. 58. de tempore. Austin, De nullo desperandum est, quamdiu patientia Dei ad poenitentiam adducit: and again, De quocunque pessimo in hâc vitâ constituto utique non est desperandum. Ne [...] pro illo imprudentèr oratur, de quo non desperatur. Concerning the words of S. Hierome, the same answer will serve which I gave to the words of S. Cyprian; because his instance is of the Thief upon the Cross, who then came first to Christ: and his case was as if a Heathen were new converted to Christianity. Baptizatus ad horam securus hinc exit, was the Rule of the Church.Vide Hist. of the life of the holy Jesus. Part 2. Disc. 9. But God requires more holiness of Christians than he did of strangers; and therefore he also expects a longer and more laborious Repentance. But of this I have given account in the case of Demetrianus. S. Austins words press not at all: All that he sayes is this, We must despair of no man, so long as the mercy of God leadeth him to repentance. It is true, we must not absolutely despair; but neither must we presume without a warrant: nay, hope as long as God calls effectually. But when the severity of God cuts him off from repentance, by allowing him no time, or not time enough to finish what is required, the case is wholly differing.

But S. Chrysostome speaks words which are not easie to be reconciled to the former doctrine. The words of S. Chrysostome are these: ‘Take heed of saying,Ad Theodorum lapsum. that there is a place of pardon onely for them that have sinn'd but little. For if you please suppose any one abounding with all maliciousness, and that hath done all things which shut men from the Kingdome; let this man be (not a Heathen, but) a Christian and accepted of God, but afterwards an Whoremonger, an Adulterer, an effeminate person, unnaturally lustfull, a thief, a drunkard, a slanderer, and one that hath diligently committed such crimes, truly I will not be to him an author of despairing, although he had persevered in these wickednesses to an extreme old age.’ Truly neither would I. But neither could he nor any man else be forward to warrant his particular. But if the remaining portion of his old age be well imployed, according as the time is, and the spending of that time, and the earnestness of the repentance, and the greatness of the grief, and the heartiness of the return, and the fulness of the restitution, and the zeal of amends, and the abundance of charity, and the largeness of the devotion, so we approach to very many degrees of hope. But there is difference between the case of an extreme old [Page] age, and a death-bed. That may have more time, and better faculties, and fitted opportunities, and a clearer choice, and a more perfect resistance between temptation and grace. But for the state of death-bed, although there is in that also some variety, yet the best is very bad, and the worst is stark naught; but concerning the event of both, God only is the Judge. Only it is of great use that Chrysostom says in the same Letters to Theodorus, Quódque est majoris facilitatis argumentum, etiamsi non omnem prae se fert poenitentiam, brevem illam & exiguo tempore factam non abnuit, sed magnâ mercede compensat. Even a dying person ought not to despair, and leave off to do those little things of which only there is then left to him a possibility; because even that imperfect Repentance, done in that little time, God rejects not, but will give to it a great reward. So he did to Ahab. And whatsoever is good, shall have a good, some way or other it shall find a recompence: but every recompence is not eternal glory, and every good thing shall not be recompensed with Heaven. To the same purpose is that of Coelestinus, reproving them that denied repentance to persons, qui obitûs sui tempore hoc animae suae cupiunt remedio subveniri, who at the time of their death desired to be admitted to it. Horremus fateor tantae impietatis aliquem reperiri, ut de Dei pietate desperet; quasi non posset ad se quovis tempore concurrenti succurrere, & periclitantem sub onere peccatorum hominem, pondere quo se expedire desiderat, liberare. I confess (saith he) we abhor that any one should be found to be of so great impiety as to despair of Gods mercy; as if he could not at any time relieve him that comes to him, and ease him that runs to be eased of the burthen of his sins. Quid hoc rogo aliud est, &c. What else is this but to add death to the dying man, and to kill his soul with cruelty, by denying that he can be absolved, since God is most ready to help, and inviting to repentance, thus promises, saying, In what day soever the sinner shall be converted, his sins shall not be imputed to him; and again, I would not the death of a sinner, but that he should be converted and live? He therefore takes salvation from a man, who denies him his hoped for repentance in the time of his death; and he despairs of the clemency of God, who does not believe it sufficient to help the dying man in a moment of time. The Thief on the Cross hanging on Christs right hand had lost his reward, if the repentance of one hour had not helped him. When he was in pain he repented and obtain'd Paradise by one discourse. Therefore the true conversion to God of dying persons, is to be accounted of by the mind rather than by time. Thus far S. Coelestine. The summ of which is this: That dying persons must not be thrust into despair: Because Gods mercy is infinite, and his power is infinite. He can do what he please, and he may do more than we know of, even more than he hath promised; and therefore they that are spiritual must not refuse to do all that they can to such miserable persons. And in all this there is nothing to be reproved, but that the good man by incompetent arguments goes about to prove what he had a mind to. If the hindring such persons to despair be all that he intends, it is well; if more be intended, his arguments will not do it.

66. Afterwards in the descending ages of the Church things grew worse, and it began to be good doctrine even in the days of S. Isidore; Nullus desperare debet veniam, etiamsi circa finem vitae ad poenitentiam convertatur. Lib. 2. c. 14. de summo bono. Vnumquemque enim Deus de suo fine, non de vitâ praeteritâ judicat. God judges a man by his end, not by his past life; and therefore no man must despair of pardon, though he be not converted till about the end of his life. But in these words there is a lenitive, Circa finem vitae] if he be converted about the end of his life; that is, in his last or declining years: which may contain a fair portion of time, like those who were called in the eleventh hour, that is, circa finem vitae, but not in fine; about, not in the end of their life. But S. Austin, or Gennadius, c. 80. or whoever is Author of the book De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, speaks home to the Question, but against the former doctrine. Poenitentiâ aboleri peccata indubitantèr credimus, etiamsi in ultimo vitae spiritu admissorum poeniteat, & publicâ lamentatione peccata prodantur, quia propositum Dei quo decrevit salvare quod perierat, stat immobile: & ideo quia voluntas ejus non mutatur, sive emendatione vitae si tempus conceditur, sive supplici confessione, si continuò vitâ exceditur, venia peccatorum fidelitèr praesumatur ab illo qui non vult mortem peccatoris, sed ut convertatur à perditione poenitendo, & salvatu [...] miseratione Domini vivat. Si quis aliter de justissimâ Dei pietate sentit, non Christianus sed Novatianus est. That sins are taken off by repentance, though it be but in the last breath of our life, we believe without doubting. He that thinks otherwise is not a Christian but a Novatian. If we have time, our sins are taken away by amendment of life; but if we die presently, they are taken off by humble confession. This is his Doctrine. And if he were infallible, there were nothing to be said against it.Lib. 50. Hom. 41. But to ballance this, we have a more sober discourse of S. Austin in these words. [If any man plac'd in the last extremity of sickness, would be admitted [Page]to repentance, and is presently reconciled, and so departs, I confess to you, we do not deny to him what he asks, but we do not presume that he goes hence well. I do not presume, I deceive you not, I do not presume. A faithful man living well, goes hence securely. He that is baptized but an hour before, goes hence securely. He that repents and afterwards lives well, goes hence securely. He that repents at last and is reconciled, whether he goes hence securely I am not secure. Where I am secure, I tell you, and give security; where I am not secure, I can admit to repentance, but I cannot give security — And a little after. Attend to what I say. I ought to explain clearly what I say, lest any one should misunderstand me. Do I say he shall be damned? I do not say it. Do I say he shall be pardon'd? I do not say it. And what say you to me? I know not. I presume not, I promise not, I know not. Will you free your self from doubt? Will you avoid that which is uncertain? Repent while thou art in health. For if you do penance while you are well, and sickness find you so doing, run to be reconciled; and if you do so, you are secure. Why are you secure? Because you repented at that time when you could have sinned. But if you repent then when you cannot sin, thy sins have left thee, thou hast not left them. But how know you that God will not forgive him? You say true. How? I know not. I know that, I know not this. For therefore I give repentance to you, because I know not. For if I knew it would profit you nothing, I would not give it you. And if I did know that it would profit you, I would not affright you. There are but these two things. Either thou shalt be pardon'd, or thou shalt not. Which of these shall be in thy portion I know not. Therefore keep that which is certain, and let go that which is uncertain. Some suppose these to have been the words of S. Ambrose, not of S. Austin. Serm. 5 [...] But S. Austin hath in his Sermons de tempore something more decretory than the former discourse. He that is polluted with the filth of sins, let him be cleansed exomologesis satisfactione, with the satisfactions of repentance. Neither let him put it off, that he do not require it till his death-bed, where he cannot perform it. For that perswasion is unprofitable. It is nothing for a sinner to repent, unless he finish his repentance. For the voice of the penitent alone is not sufficient for the amendment of his faults: for in the satisfaction for great crimes, not words, but works are look'd after. Truly repentance is given in the last, because it cannot be denied; but we cannot affirm, that they who so ask, ought to be absolved. For how can the lapsed man do penance? How shall the dying man do it? How can he repent, who cannot do works of satisfaction or amendment of life? And therefore that repentance which is required by sick men, is it self weak; that which is required by dying men, I fear lest that also die. And therefore whosoever will find mercy of God, let him do his repentance in this world, that he may be saved in the world to come. Higher yet are the words of Paulinus Bishop of Nola, to Faustus of Rhegium, inquiring what is to be done to death-bed penitents?Epist. 1. Bibl. SS. Pp tom. 3. Inimicâ persuasione mentitur, qui maculas longâ aetate contractas subitis & inutilibus abolendos gemitibus arbitratur: quo tempore confessio esse potest, satisfactio esse non potest. He lies with the perswasion of an enemy, who thinks that those stains which have been long contracting, can be suddenly wash'd off with a few unprofitable sighings, at that time when he can confess, but never make amends. And a little after; Circa exequendam interioris hominis sanitatem, non solùm accipiendi voluntas, sed agendi expectatur utilitas: And again, Hujusmodi medicina sicut ore poscenda, ita opere consummanda est. Then a man repents truly, when what he affirms with his mouth, he can finish with his hand; that is, not only declaim against sin, but also mortifie it. To which I add the words of Asterius Bishop of Amasea. At cum debitum tempus adveniet, & indeprecabile decretum corporis & animae nexum dissolvet, Homil. de Divit. & Lazar [...]. reputatio subibit eorum quae in vitâ patrata sunt, & poenitentia sera & nihil profutura. Tunc enim demum poenitentia prodest, cum poenitens emendandi facultatem habet; sublatâ verò copiâ rectè faciendi, inutilis est dolor, & irrita poenitentia. When the set time shall come, when the irrevocable decree shall dissolve the union of soul and body, then shall the memory of those things return which were done in our life time, and a late repentance that shall profit nothing. For then repentance is profitable, when the penitent can amend his fault: But when the power of doing well is taken away, grief is unprofitable, and the repentance vain. Now to the words of Gennadius before quoted, I answer, That they are a fierce reproof of the Novatian doctrine, and too great an earnestness of going so far from them, that he left also the severity which wise and good men did at that time teach, and ought always to press. He went to cure one error by another, never thinking any contradictory sufficient, unless it were against every thing that the Novatians did say, though also it was said and believed by the Orthodox. But I shall resume this discourse in the following Chapters, where upon another occasion I shall give account of the severity of the Primitive [Page] Church in this article; which at first was at least as strict as the severest part of this discourse, till by degrees it lessen'd and shrunk into the licentiousness and dissolution of the present age.

67. Obj. 6. But if it be necessary to extirpate the habits of sin, and to acquire (being help'd by Gods grace) the contrary habits of vertue; how can it fare with old and decayed men, or with men that have a lingring, tedious, protracted sickness (for I suppose their case is very near the same) who were intemperate, or unchast all their life time, and until they could be so no longer; but how can they obtain the habit of chastity, who cannot do any acts of chastity; or of temperance, who have lost their stomach, and have not any inclination or temptation to the contrary? and every vertue must be cum potentiâ ad oppositum; if it be not chosen it is not vertue, nor rewardable. And the case is almost the same to all persons young or old, who have not opportunity of acting those graces, in the matter of which they have formerly prevaricated.

68. To this I answer many things, and they are of use in the explication of this I material question. I. Old men may exercise many acts of chastity both internal and external. For if they may be unchast, they may also be chast: But S. Paul speaks of the [...], men that being past feeling, yet were given to lasciviousness; [...], half men, half boys, prurientes in sepulchro. For it is not the body but the soul that is wanton; And an evil man may sin with ineffective lusts; as he that lusts after a woman whom he cannot have, sins with his soul. Now where ever these unlawful desires can be, there also they can be mortified; and an old man can love to talk of his past vanities, or not rescind them by repentance, or desire that he were young and active in wickedness; and therefore if he chuses not to do so, and therefore avoids these and the like, out of hatred of his old impurities, he does the proper works of that grace, which he also may do the easier, because then his temptations to the contrary are not so strong: but this advantage is not worth staying for so long. They that do so, venture damnation a long time together, and may also have an evil proper to that state, greater than this little advantage I instance.

II. If there were no other act of chastity to be exercised by old persons, by reason II of their disability; yet the very accepting from the hands of God that disability, and the delighting in that circumstance of things, in which it is impossible to sin as formerly, must needs be pleasing to God, because it is a nolition of the former sins, and a desire of pleasing him.

III III. Every act of sorrow for unchastity is an act of chastity; and if this sorrow be great, and lasting, permanent, and habitual, it will be productive of much good. And if to these the penitent adds penal actions and detestations of his crimes, revenge and apt expressions of his holy anger against his sin, these do produce a quality in the soul contrary to that which made him formerly consent to lust.

IV IV. When a vicious habit is to be extirpated, and the contrary introduc'd, it is not necessary that the contrary be acted by the body, but be radicated in the soul; It is necessary that the body do not sin in that instance; but it is not always required, that contrary acts be done by the body. Suppose Origen had been a lustful person before his castration, yet he might have been habitually chast afterwards, by doing spiritual acts of a corporal chastity. And there are many sins whose scene lies in the body, to which the body afterwards cannot oppose a bodily act in the same instance; as he that by intemperate drinking once or oftner, falls into a loathing of wine; he that dismembers himself, and many others; for which a repentance is possible and necessary, but yet a contrary specifick act cannot be opposed. In these cases it is sufficient that the habit be plac'd in the soul, and a perfect contrary quality superinduc'd, which is to be done by a frequent repetition of the acts of repentance proper to the sin.

V V. There are some sins for which amends is to be made in the way of commutation, when it cannot be in the proper instance. Redime peccata tua eleemosynis, said Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 4.27. Redeem thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor. Our English Bibles read this, Break off thy sins by alms; as if alms were directly contrary to pride, or lust, or gluttony, or tyranny; and the shewing mercy to the poor a direct intercision and interruption of the sin. He that gives alms that he may keep his lust, loses his soul and his money too. But he that leaves his lust, or is driven from it, and gives alms to obtain Gods favour for his pardon, by doing something that is gracious in his eyes, this man is a good penitent; if his alms be great and proportionable, given freely and without constraint, when he can keep them, [Page] and receive and retain the temporal advantage, and be assisted by all those other acts and habits of which his present state is capable. It cannot be said, that to give alms can in all such cases be sufficient; as it will be hard to say that so many acts of the contrary grace will suffice to get a habit, or obtain a pardon; but it is true, that to give alms is a proper action of repentance in such cases, and is in order to pardon. For,

VI. As there is a supreme habit of vice, a transcendent vileness, that is, a custom and readiness to do every sin as it is presented in its proper temptation, and this is worse than the habit of any one sin: so there is a transcendent habit of grace, by which a man is so holy and just and good, that he is ready to obey God in every instance. That is malice, and this is charity. When a man hath this grace habitually, although it may be so that he cannot produce the proper specifick habit opposite to his sin for which he specially repents, yet his supreme habit does contain in it the specifick habit virtually and transcendently. An act of this charity will not do this, but the habit will. For he that does a single act of charity, may also doe a single act of malice; and he that denies this, knows not what he says, nor ever had experience of himself or any man else. For if he that does an act of charity, that is, he who by a good motion from Gods Spirit does any thing because God hath commanded, to say that this man will do every thing which is so commanded, is to say that a good man can never fall into a great sin, which is evidently untrue. But if he that does one act in obedience to God, or in love to him, (for obedience is love) will also do more, then every man that does one act to please his senses, may as well be supposed that he will do more; and then no mans life should have in it any variety, but be all of a piece, intirely good, or intirely evil. I see no difference in the instances, neither can there be, so long as a man in both states hath a power to chuse. But then it will follow, that a single act of contrition, or of charity cannot put a man into the state of the Divine favour, it must be the grace, or habit of charity; and that is a magazine of habits by equivalency, and is formally the state of grace. And upon these accounts, if old men will repent, and do what they can do, and are enabled in that state, they have no cause to be afflicted with too great fears concerning the instances of their habits, or the sins of their youth. Concerning persons that are seis'd upon by a lingring sickness, I have nothing peculiar to say, save this only, That their case is in something better than that of old men, in some things worse. It is better, because they have in many periods of their sickness more hopes of returning to health and long life, than old men have of returning to strength and youth, and a protracted age: and therefore their repentance if it be hearty, hath in it also more degrees of being voluntary, and relative to a good life. But in this their case is worse. An old man that is healthful is better seated in the station of penitents, and because he can chuse contraries, is the more acceptable if he chuses well. But the sick man though living long in that disadvantage, cannot be indifferent in so many instances as the other may: and in this case, it is remarkable what S. Austin said, Si autem vis agere poenitentiam quando jam peccare non potes, peccata te dimiserunt, non tu illa. To abstain from sin when a man cannot sin, is to be forsaken by sin, not to forsake it. At the best it is bad enough: But I doubt not but if they do what they can do, there is mercy for them, which they shall find in the day of recompences.

67. Obj. 7. But how shall any man know whether he have perform'd his repentance as he ought? For if it be necessary that he get the habits of vertue, and extirpate the habits of vice; that is, if by habits God do, and we are to make judgments of our repentance, who can be certain that his sins are pardon'd, and himself reconcil'd to God, and that he shall be sav'd? The reasons of his doubts and fears are these. 1. Because it is a long time before a habit can be lost, and the contrary obtain'd. 2. Because while one habit lessens, another may undiscernibly increase, and it may be a degree of covetousness may expel a degree of prodigality. 3. Because a habit may be lurking secretly, and for want of opportunity of acting in that instance, not betray it self, or be discover'd, or attempted to be cur'd. For he that was not tempted in that kind where he sinn'd formerly, may for ought he knows, say that he hath not sinn'd, only because he was not tempted; but if that be all, the habit may be resident, and kill him secretly,. These things must be accounted for.

70. I. But to him that inquires whether it be light or darkness, in what regions his inheritance is design'd, and whether his Repentance is sufficient, I must give rather a reproof than an answer; or at least such an answer as will tell there is no [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] need of an answer. For indeed it is not good inquiring into measures and little portions of grace. * Love God with all thy heart, and all thy strength, do it heartily, and do it always. If the thing be brought to pass clearly and discernibly, the pardon is certain, and notorious: But if it be in a middle state, between ebbe and floud, so is our pardon too, and if in that undiscerned state it be in the thing certain that thou art on the winning and prevailing side, if really thou dost belong unto God, he will take care both of thy intermedial comfort, and final interest. * But when people are too inquisitive after comfort, it is a sign their duty is imperfect. In the same proportion also it is not well when we enquire after a sign for our state of grace and holiness. If the habit be compleat and intire, it is as discernible as light, and we may as well enquire for a sign to know when we are hungry and thirsty, when you can walk, or play on the lute. The thing it self is its best indication.

71. II. But if men will quarrel at any truth, because it supposes some men to be in such a case, that they do not know certainly what will become of them in the event of things, I know not how it can be help'd; I am sure they that complain here, that is, the Roman Doctors, are very fierce Preachers of the certainty of salvation, or of our knowledge of it. But be they who they will, since all this uncertainty proceeds not from the doctrine, but from the evil state of things into which habitual sinners have put themselves, there will be the less care taken for an answer. But certainly it seems strange that men who have liv'd basely and viciously all their days, who are respited from an eternal Hell by the miracles of mercy, concerning whom it is a wonderful thing that they had not really perished long before, that these men returning at the last, should complain of hard usage, because it cannot be told to them as confidently as to new baptized Innocents, that they are certain of their salvation as S. Peter and S. Paul. * But however, both they, and better men than they, must be content with those glorious measures of the Divine mercy which are described, and upon any terms be glad to be pardon'd, and to hope and fear, to mourn and to be afflicted, to be humbled and to tremble, and then to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

72. III. But then (to advance one step further) there may be a certainty where is no evidence; that is, the thing may be certain in it self, though not known to the man; and there are degrees of hope concerning the final event of our souls: For suppose it cannot be told to the habitual sinner, that his habits of sin are overcome, and that the Spirit rules in all the regions of his soul; yet is he sure that his vicious habits do prevail? is he sure that sin does reign in his mortal body? If he be, then let him not be angry with this doctrine; for it is as bad with him, as any doctrine can affirm. But if he be not sure that sin reigns, then can he not hope that the Spirit does rule? and if so, then also he may hope that his sins are pardon'd, and that he shall be sav'd. And if he look for greater certainty than that of a holy and a humble hope, he must stay till he have a revelation, it cannot be had from the certainty of any proposition in Scripture applicable to his case and person.

73. IV. If a habit be long before it be master'd, if a part of it may consist with its contrary, if a habit may lurk secretly and undiscernibly, all these things are aggravations of the danger of an habitual sinner, and are very true, and great engagements of his watchfulness and fear, his caution and observance. But then not these nor any thing else can evacuate the former truths; nor yet ought to make the returning sinner to despair: Only this; If he fears that there may be a secret habit unmortified, let him go about his remedy. 2. If he still fears, let him put himself to the trial. 3. If either that does not satisfie him, or he wants opportunity, let him endeavour to encrease his supreme habit, the habit of Charity, or that universal grace of the love of God, which will secure his spirit against all secret undiscernible vicious affections.

74. V. This only is certain: No man needs to despair that is alive, and hath begun to leave his sins, and to whom God hath given time, and power, and holy desires. If all these be spent, and nothing remain besides the desires, that is another consideration, and must receive its sentence by the measures of the former doctrine. But for the present, a man ought not to conclude against his hopes, because he finds propensities and inclinations to the former courses remaining in him, even after his conversion. For so it will be always, more or less, and this is not only the remains of a vicious habit, but even of natural inclination in some instances.

75. VI. Then the habit hath lost its killing quality, and the man is freed from his state of ungraciousness, when the habit of vertue prevails, when he obeys frequently, [Page] willingly, chearfully. But if he sins frequently, and obeys his temptations readily; if he delights in sin, and chuses that; that is, if his sins be more than sins of infirmity (as they are described under their proper title) then the habit remains, and the man is in the state of death. But when sentence is given for God, when vertue is the greater ingredient, when all sin is hated, and labour'd, and pray'd against, the remaining evils and struglings of the Serpent are signs of the Spirits victory, but also engagements of a persevering care and watchfulness, lest they return, and prevail anew. He that is converted, and is in his contentions for Heaven, is in a good state of being; let him go forward. He that is justified, let him be justified still; but whether just now if he dies he shall be sav'd or not, we cannot answer, or give accounts of every period of his new life. In what minute or degree of Repentance his sins are perfectly pardon'd, no man can tell; and it is unreasonable to reprove a doctrine that infers a man to be uncertain, where God hath given no certain notices or measures. If a man will be certain, he must die as soon as he is worthily baptiz'd, or live according to his promises then made. If he breaks them, he is certain of nothing but that he may be sav'd if he returns speedily, and effectively does his duty. But concerning the particulars, there can no rules be given sufficient to answer every mans case before-hand. If he be uncertain how Gods judgment will be of him, let him be the more afraid, and the more humble, and the more cautious, and the more penitent. For in this case, all our security is not to be deriv'd from signs, but from duty. Duty is the best signification, and Gods infinite boundless mercy is the best ground of our Confidence.

SECT. VI. The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practice.

IT now remains that we account concerning the effect of this Doctrine; and first, concerning them that are well and vigorous. 2. Them that are old. 3. Them that are dying. All which are to have several usages and receptions, proper entertainments and exercises of Repentance.

The manner of Repentance and usage of Habitual sinners, who convert in their timely and vigorous years.

1. I. Let every man that thinks of his return, be infinitely careful to avoid every new sin; for it is like a blow to a broken leg, or a burthen to a crushed arm. Every little thing disorders the new health, and unfinish'd recovery. So that every new sin to such a person is a double damage, it pulls him back from all his hopes, and makes his labours vain, and he is as far to seek, and as much to begin again as ever, and more. For so may you see one climbing of a Rock, with a great contention and labour and danger, if when he hath got from the foot to the shoulder, he then lets his hold go, he falls lower than where he first set his foot, and sinks deeper by the weight of his own fall. So is the new converted man who is labouring to overcome the rocks and mountains of his habitual sins; every sin throws him down further, and bruises his very bones in the fall. To this purpose therefore is the wise advice of the son of Sirach, Hast thou sinn'd? do so no more, but ask pardon for thy former fault: Add not sin to sin, for in one a man shall not be unpunished.

Ergo ne pietas sit victa cupidine ventris,

Metamorp. 1 [...].

Parcite, vaticinor, cognatas caede nefandâ

Exturbare animas, ne sanguine sanguis alatur.

Let not blood touch blood, nor sin touch sin; for we destroy our souls with impious hands, when a crime follows a habit, like funeral processions in the pomps and solennities of death.

[Page]2. II. At the beginning of his recovery, let the penitent be arm'd by special cautions against the labours and difficulties of the restitution: and consider, that if sin be so pleasant, it is the habit that hath made it so; it is become easie and natural by the custom. And therefore so may vertue. And complain not that Nature helps and corroborates the habits of sin: For besides that Nature doth this mischief but in some instances, not in all; the Grace of God will as much assist the customs and labours of vertue, as Nature doth the habits of vice. And chuse whether you will. Take any institution or course of life, let it at first be never so violent, use will make it pleasant. And therefore we may make vertue as certain as vice is, as pleasing to the spirit, as hard to be removed, as perfective of our nature as the other is destructive; and make it by assuefaction as impossible to be vicious, as we now think it difficult and impossible to overcome flesh and blood. * But let him remember this also, that it will be a strange shame, that he can be in a state of sin and death from which it will be very hard to remove, and to confess our natures so caitiff and base, that we cannot as easily be united unto vertue; that he can become a Devil, and cannot be like an Angel; that he can decline to the brutishness of beasts, and yet never arise up to a participation of the excellent beauties of the intellectual world.

3. III. He that undertakes the repentance of his vicious habits, when he hath strength and time enough for the work, must do it in kind; that is, he must oppose a habit to a habit, every contrary to its contrary: as Chastity to his Wantonness, Temperance to his Gluttony or Drunkenness: The reason is, because if he had contracted the habit of a sin, especially of youthful sins, unless the habit of vertue be oppos'd to the instance of his sin, he cannot be safe, nor penitent. For while the temptation and fierce inclinations remain, it cannot be a cure to this to do acts of Charity; he must do acts of Chastity, or else he will fall or continue in his uncleanness; which in old persons will not be. Here the sin still tempts by natural inclination, and commands by the habit; and therefore as there can be no Repentance while the affections remain, so neither can there be safety as long as the habit hath a natural being. The first begins with a moral revocation of the sin; and the same hath also its progression, perfection, and security, by the extinction of the inherent quality.

4. IV. Let the penitent seek to obstruct or divert the proper principles of evil habits; for by the same by which they begin, commonly by the same they are nursed up to their ugly bulk. There are many of them that attend upon the Prince of Darkness, and minister to the filthy production. Evil examples, Natural inclinations, false propositions, evil prejudices, indulgence to our own infirmities, and many more: but especially, a cohabitation with the temptation, by which we fell and did enter into death, and by which we use to fall. * There are some men more in love with the temptation than with the sin; and because this rushes against the Conscience rudely, & they see death stand at the end of the progression, therefore they only love to stand upon Mount Ebal & view it. They resolve they will not commit the sin, they will not be overcome, but they would fain be tempted. If these men will but observe the contingencies of their own state, they shall find that when they have set the house on fire, they cannot prescribe its measures of burning. * But there is a secret iniquity in it. For he that loves to stand and stare upon the fire that burnt him formerly, is pleas'd with the warmth and splendor, and the temptation it self hath some little correspondencies to the appetite. The man dares not fornicate, but loves to look upon the beauties of a woman, or sit with her at the wine, till his heart is ready to drop asleep. He will not enter into the house, because it is infected with the plague, but he loves to stand at the door, and fain would enter if he durst; It is impossible that any man should love to abide by a temptation for a good end. There is some little sensuality in being tempted: And the very consideration concerning it, sometimes strikes the fancy too unluckily, and pleases some faculty or other, as much as the man dares admit. * I do not say, that to be tempted is always criminal, or in the neighbourhood of it; but it is the best indication of our love to God, for his sake to deny its importunity, and to overcome it: but that is only, when it is unavoidable and from without, against our wills, or at least besides our purposes. * For in the declination of sin, and overcoming temptation, there can be but these two things by which we can signifie our love to God. 1. To stand in a temptation when we could not avoid it. 2. And to run from it, when we can. This hath in it more of prudence, and the other of force and spiritual strength: and we can best signifie the sense of our weakness, and our carefulness by avoiding the occasions; but then we declare the excellency of our purposes, and pertinacious love to God, when we serve him in hard battels, when we are tempted [Page] as before, but fall not now as we did then. Indeed this is the greatest trial; and when God suffers us so to be tried, we are accepted if we stand in that day, and in such circumstances. But he that will chuse that state, and dwell near his danger, loves not to be safe; and either he is a vain person in the confidences of his own strength, or else he loves that which is like a sin, and comes as near it as he dare; and very often, the event of it is, that at last he dies like a flie about a candle. But he that hath fallen by such a neighbourhood, and still continues the cause, may as well hope to cure his feaver by full draughts of the new vintage, as return to life upon that account. * A vicious habit is maintain'd at an easie rate, but not cur'd without a mighty labour and expence: any thing can feed it, but nothing can destroy it, if there be anything near it, whereby it can be kept alive▪ If therefore you will cure a vicious habit dwell far from danger, and tempt not death with which you have been so long in love.

5. V. A vicious habit never could have come to that state and period but by impunity. If God had smitten the sinner graciously in the beginning of his evil journey, it is likely that as Balaam did, he also would have offered to go back. Now when God does not punish a sinner early, though it hath in it more of danger and less of safety, yet we may in some measure supply the want of Divine mercy smiting and hindring a sinner, by considering that impunity is no mark of innocence, but very often it is an indication of Gods extremest and final anger. Therefore be sure, ever to suspect a prosperous sin. For of it self prosperity is a temptation, and it is granted but to few persons to be prosperous and pious. The poor and the despised, the humble and necessitous; he that daily needs God with a sharpness of apprehension, that feeds upon necessity, and lives in hardships, that is never flatter'd, and is never cheated out of vertue for bread, those persons are likely to be wise and wary; and if they be not, nothing can make them so; for he that is impatient in want is impotent in plenty; for impatience is pride, and he that is proud when he is poor, if he were rich he would be intolerable; and therefore it is easier to bear poverty temperately than riches.

Securo nihil est te Naevole pejus,

Epigr. l. 4. ep. 84.

eodem

Sollicito nihil est Naevole te melius.

And Passienus said of Caligula, Nemo fuit servus melior, nemo Dominus deterior. He was the best Servant, and the worst Master that ever was. Poverty is like a girdle about our loyns, it binds hard, but it is modest and useful. But a heap of riches is a heap of temptations, and few men will escape, if it be always in their hand what can be offered to their heart. And therefore to be prosperous hath in it self enough of danger. But when a sin is prosperous and unpunished, there are left but few possibilities and arguments of resistance, and therefore it will become or remain habitual respectively. S. Paul taught us this secret, that sins are properly made habitual upon the stock of impunity. Sin taking occasion by the law wrought in me all concupiscence, Rom. 7.7. [...], apprehending impunity [...], by occasion of the Commandment, viz. so expressed and established as it was. Because in the Commandment forbidding to lust or covet, there was no penalty annexed, or threatned in the sanction or in the explication. Murder was death, and so was Adultery, and Rebellion. Theft was punished severely too; and so other things in their proportion; but the desires God left under a bare restraint, and affixed no penalty in the law. Now sin, that is, men that had a mind to sin, taking occasion hence, that is, taking this impunity for a sufficient warrant, prevail'd by frequent actions up to an evil custom and a habit, and so rul'd them who were not renewed and over-ruled by the holy Spirit of grace. [...] signifies a caution in law, or a security; so Suidas and Phavorinus. It is used also for impunity in Demosthenes, though the Grammarians note it not. But as to the thing. When ever you see a sin thrive, start back suddenly and with a trembling fear: for it does nurse the sin from a single action to a filthy habit, and that always dwells in the suburbs of the horrible regions. No man is so much to be pitied, as he that thrives and is let alone in his sin: there is evil towards that man. But then God is kind to a sinner when he makes his sin to be uneasie and troublesome.

6. VI. But in prosecution of the former observation, it is of very great use that the vigorous and healthful penitent do use corporal mortifications and austerities, by way of penance and affliction for every single act of that sin he commits, whose habit he intends to mortifie. If he makes himself smart, and never spare his sin, [Page] but still punish it, besides that it is a good act of indignation and revenge which S. Paul commends in all holy penitents, it is also a way to take off the pleasure of the sin by which it would fain make abode and seisure upon the will. A man will not so soon delight, or love to abide with that which brings him affliction in present, and makes his life miserable. This advice I learn from Maimonides. Ab inolitâ peccandi consuetudine non posse hominem avelli nisi gravibus poenis. Moreh Nevochin. 341. Nothing so good to cure an evil custom of sinning, as the inflicting great smart upon the offender. He that is going to cure his habitual drunkenness; if ever he be overtaken again, let him for the first offence fast two days with bread and water; and the next time double his smart; and let the man load himself till he groans under it, and he will be glad to take heed.

7. VII. He that hath sinn'd often, and is now returning, let him watch if ever his sin be offer'd to him by a temptation, and that temptation dressed as formerly; that he be sure not to neglect that opportunity of beginning to break his evil habit; He that hath committed fornication, and repents, if ever he be tempted again (not to seek for it, but) to act it, and may enter upon the sin with ease and readiness, then let him refuse his sin so dressed, so ready, so fitted for action, and the event will be this, that besides it is a great indication and sign of an excellent repentance, it discountenances the habit, and breaks the combination of its parts, and disturbs its dwelling; but besides it is so signal an action of repentance, and so pleasing to the Spirit of God, and of a good man, that it is apt to make him do so again, and proceed to crucifie that habit, upon which he hath had so lucky a day, and so great a victory and success. It is like giving to a person, and obliging him by some very great favour. He that does so, is for ever after ready and apt to do that obliged person still more kindness, lest the first should perish. When a man hath gotten an estate together, he is apt (saith Plutarch) to save little things, and be provident even of the smallest summ, because that now if it be sav'd will come to something, it will be seen and preserv'd in his heap. But he that is poor cannot become rich with those little arts of providence; and therefore he lets them go for his pleasure, since he cannot keep them with hopes to improve his bank: so is such an earnest and entry into piety; it is such a stock of holiness, that it is worth preserving; and to have resisted once so bravely, does add confidence to the spirit that it can overcome, and makes it probable that he may get a crown. However it falls out, it is an excellent act and signification of a hearty repentance and conversion.

Philemon.

[...]

[...].

He is a just man, not whosoever does no wrong, but he that can and will not. Maimonides saith excellently to the same purpose. For to the Question, Quaenam tandem est poenitentia perfecta? He answers, This is true and perfect repentance, Cum qui [...] ad manum habet, quo priùs peccavit, & jam penes ipsum est, idem perpetrare, recedens tamen illud non committit poenitentiae causâ, Canon. poenit. cap. 2.1. neque timore cohibitus neque defectu virium. When the power and opportunity is present, and the temptation (it may be) ready and urging, when it is in a mans hand to do the same thing, yet retiring he commits it not, only for piety or repentance sake, not being restrain'd by fear or want of powers.

8. VIII. If such opportunities of his sin be not presented, it is never the worse: The penitent need not be fond of them, for they are dangers, which prove death if they be not triumphed over; and if they be, yet the man hath escap'd a danger, and may both prove and act his repentance without it. But therefore he that is not so tried and put to it, must do all that which he is put to, and execute his fierce anger against the sin, and by proper instances of mortification endeavour the destruction of it; and although every man hath not so glorious a trial and indication of his Repentance as in the former instance, yet he that denies himself in any instance of his sin, and so in all that he can or is tempted in, does the same thing; all the same duty, and with less danger, and with less gloriousness. * But if it happen that his sin urge him not at all as formerly, or the occasion is gone, and the matter is subtracted, he is to follow the measures of old men, described in the next Section.

9. IX. Let the penitent be infinitely careful that he does not mortifie one vicious habit by a contrary vice, but by a contrary vertue. For to what purpose is it that you are cur'd of prodigality, and then die by covetousness? ‘[Page]Quid te exempta juvat spinis de millibus una?’ It is not this or that alone that is contrary to God. Every vicious habit is equally his enemy; and he that exterminates one vice and entertains another, hath destroyed the vice, but not the viciousness; he hath quitted the instance, but not the irregularity; he hath serv'd the interest of his fortune or his pleasure, his fame or his quiet, his passion or his humour, but not his vertue and relations to God. By changing his vice for another he is convinced of his first danger, but enters not into safety; He is only weary of his feaver, and changes it into the ease of a dead palsie; and it is in them as in all sharp sicknesses, that is always worst that is actually upon him; and the man dies by his imaginary cure, but real sickness.

10. X. When the mortification of a vicious habit is attempted, and is found difficult and pertinacious, not flexible or malleable by the strokes of contrition and its proper remedies, it is a safe way if the penitent will take some course to disable the sin and make it impossible to return in the former instance, provided it be done by a lawful instrument. Origen took an ill course to do it, but resolved he would mortifie his lust, and made himself an Eunuch. But a solemn vow were an excellent instrument to restrain the violences of a frequent temptation, if the person were to be trusted with it; that is, if he were a constant person, not giddy nor easie to revolt, but of a pertinacious nature, or of so tender conscience, that he durst not for the world break his vow. But this remedy is dangerous where the temptations return strongly. But there are some others which are safer. Cut off the occasion wholly. Defie the Concubine publickly, and disgrace her, make it impossible for her to consent to thee if thou shouldest ask her. If thy Lord or Master tempts thee to drunkenness, quit his service, or openly deny him. Make thy face unpleasant, and tear off the charms from thy beauty, that thou mayest not be courted any more. This is a fierceness and [...]eal of repentance, but very fit to be used when milder courses will not cure thee.

— Scelerum si benè poenitet,

Eradenda cupidinis pravi sunt elementa,

Horat.

Et tenerae nimis mentes asperioribus

Formandae studiis —

If thou repentest truly, pluck up sin by the roots, take away its principle, strangle its nurse, and destroy every thing that can foment it.

11. XI. It was not well with thee when thou didst first enter into the suburbs of Hell by single actions of sin; but they were transient and passed off sooner than the habit: But when this did supervene, a mans acts of malice were enlarged and made continual to each other; that is, joyn'd by a common term of affection and delight in sin, and perfect subjection to its accursed empire. But now in thy return consider proportionably concerning thy actions of repentance and piety, whether they be transient or permanent. Good men often say their prayers, and chuse good forms, and offices, the best they can, and they use them with an earnest and an actual devotion; but he that hath prayed long, and well, yet when he rises it may be he cannot tell all the particulars which he begg'd of God. I doubt not but those prayers which contain matter in them agreeable to his usual and constant desires, and are actually attended to in the time of their use, are recorded in Heaven, and there will abide to procure the blessing, and towards the accounts of Eternity. But then it is to be observ'd, that those transient acts of devotion, or other volatile and fugitive instances of Repentance, are not the proper and proportion'd remedy to the evil of vicious habits. There must be something more permanent. Therefore let the penitent make no sudden resolutions, but first consider them well, and imprint them upon his spirit, and renew them often, and call them to mind constantly and at certain periods; let him use much meditation upon the matter of his repentance and remedy; and let his prayers be the same, passionate, material, alike expressed, and made the business of much of our time. For our spirit by use must be made holy, and by assiduity of reading, of praying, of meditating, and acts of self-denial, be accustomed to the yoke of Jesus: for let the habit be firm as a rock, united and hard as a stone, it will be broken and made soft by a continual dropping.

[Page]The proper Repentance and usage of sinners, who return not till their old age.

12. I. Let all such penitents be reminded, that their sins will not so easily be pardoned as the sins of younger persons, whose passions are greater, and their reason less, and their observations loose, and their experience trifling. But now God hath long expected the effects of wise and sober counsels. The old man in the Comedy did so to his son.

Andria. Act. 1. Scen. 2.

Dum tempus ad eam rem tulit, sivi animum ut expleret suum.

Nunc hic dies aliam vitam adfert, alios mores postulat.

De hinc postulo, sive aequum est, te oro Dave, ut redeat jam in viam.

And God does so to us. And therefore follies of old age are upbraidings of a man, and confusions to his spirit.

— Lateranus ad illos

Thermarum calices, inscriptáque lintea vadit,

Maturus bello Armeniae —

To have a grave wise man wrangle for nutshels, and a Judge scramble for apples, is an undecency bigger than the sin, and dishonours him by the disproportion. ‘Quaedam cum primâ resecentur crimina barbâ.’ Lateranus should have gone to the Armenian wars, or been charging a Parthian horsman, when he went to the baths, and hir'd an unfortunate woman standing under the titles: And every old man should have been gray with sorrow and carefulness, and have passed many stages of his Repentance long before he now begins; and therefore he is not only straitned for want of time, but hath a greater work to do, by how much the longer he hath staid, and yet is the more unable to do it. The greatness of his need hath diminished his power; and the more need he hath of grace, the less he shall have. But however with such helps as they have, they must instantly set upon their work. ‘— Breve sit quod turpitèr audes.’ But they have abode in their sin too long; let them now therefore use such abbreviatures and hastnings of return as can be in their power.

13. II. Let every old man that repents of the sins of his evil life, be very diligent in the search of the particulars; that by drawing them into a heap, and spreading them before his eyes, he may be mightily ashamed at their number and burthen. For even a good man will have cause to be asham'd of himself, if the single sins respersed over his whole life were drawn into a body of articles, and united in the accusation; but then for a man who is grown old in iniquity, to see in one intire view the scheme of his impiety, the horrible heaps of damnation amassed together, will probably have this event, it will make him extremely asham'd, it will make himself most ready to judge and condemn himself, it will humble him to the earth, and make him cry mightily for pardon, and these are good dispositions towards it.

14. III. Let the penitent make some vigorous opposition to every kind of sin of which he hath been particularly guilty by frequent actions; as to adultery, or any kind of uncleanness, let him oppose all the actions of purity which he can in that state, which may best be done, by detestation of his former follies, by praying for pardon, by punishing himself, by sorrow and all its instruments and apt expressions. But in those instances where the material part remains, and the powers of sinning in the same kind, let him be sure to repent in kind. As if he were habitually intemperate, let him now correct and rule his appetite; for God will not take any thing in exchange for that duty which may be paid in kind.

15. IV. Although this is to be done to the kinds of sin, yet it cannot be so particularly done to the numbers of the actions; not only because it will be impossible for such persons to know their numbers, but because there is not time left to make [Page] little minute proportions: If he had fewer, all his time and all his powers would be little enough for the Repentance; and therefore having many, it is well if upon any terms, if upon the expence of all his faculties and labour, he can obtain pardon. Only this: The greater the numbers are, the more firm the habit is suppos'd; and therefore there ought in general to be made the more vigorous opposition; and let the acts of Repentance be more frequently exercised in the proper matter of that vertue which is repugnant to that proper state of evil. And let the very number be an argument to thee of a particular humiliation; let it be inserted into thy confessions, and become an aggravation of thy own misery, and of Gods loving kindness if he shall please to pardon thee.

16. V. Every old man that but then begins to repent, is tied to do more in the remaining proportions of time, than the more early penitents in so much time, because they have a greater account to make, more evil to mourn for, more pertinacious habits to rescind, fewer temptations upon the accounts of nature, but more upon their own superinduc'd account; that is, they have less excuse and a greater necessity to make hast.

Cogimur à suetis animum suspendere rebus,

Cornel. Gal.

Atque ut vivamus vivere desinimus.

He must unlearn what he had learn'd before, and break all his evil customes, doing violence to his own and to his superinduced nature. But therefore this man must not go moderately in his return, but earnestly, vigorously, zealously; and can have no other measures but to do all that he can do. For in his case every slow progression is a sign of the apprehension of his danger and necessity, but it is also a sign that he hath no affection to the business, that he leaves his sins as a Merchant does his goods in a storm, or a wounded man endures his arm to be cut off; when there is no help for it, the thing must be done, but he is not pleas'd with the imployment.

17. VI. Let every old man entring into the state of Repentance, use all the earnestness he can to heighten his affections, to fix his will and desires upon the things of God; to have no gust, no relish for the things of the world, but that all his earnestness, his whole inner man be intirely taken up with his new imployment. For since it is certain there will be a great poverty of external acts of many vertues which are necessary in his case, unless they be supplied with internal actions, and the earnestness of the Spirit, the man will go poor and blind and naked to his grave. It is the heart which in all things makes the outward act to be acceptable; and if the heart be right, it makes amends for the unavoidable omission of the outward expression. But therefore by how much the more old men are disabled from doing the outward and material actions to extirpate the natural quality and inherent mischief of vicious habits; by so much the more must they be supplyed, and the grace acted and signified by the actions of the Spirit.

18. VII. Let old men in their state of Repentance be much in alms and prayers, according to their ability, that by doing good to others, and glory to God, they may obtain the favour of God, who delights in the communications of goodness and in such sacrifices. This the Apostle expresses thus: To do good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices [...] God is well pleased;Heb. 13.16. it is like a propitiatory sacrifice, and therefore proper for this mans necessities. The proper arguments to endear this, are reckon'd in their own place; but the reason why this is most apposite to the state of an old mans repentance, is because they are excellent suppletories to their other defects, and by way of impetration obtain of God to pardon those habits of vice which in the natural way they have now no external instrument to extinguish.

19. VIII. But because every state hath some temptations proper to it self, let old men be infinitely careful to suppress their own lusts, and present inclinations to evil. If an old man out of hatred of sin does mortifie his covetous desires, [...] he hath purchas'd a good degree in the station of penitents, and hath given an excellent indication of a true Repentance, and conversion from sin to God. Let old men (if there be need) be apt to learn, and so mortifie that pride and morosity that usually do attend their age; who think their gray hairs title enough to wisdom, and sufficient notices of things. Let them be gentle to others, patient of the evil accidents of their state, bountiful and liberal, as full of good example as they can; and it is more than probable, that if they yield not to that by which they can then be tempted, they have [Page] quit all their affections to sin, and it is enough that they are found faithful in that in which they are now tried.

20. IX. Let old men be very careful that they never tell the story of their sins with any pleasure or delight; but as they must recolligere annos in amaritudine, call to mind their past years in the bitterness of their soul, so when they speak of any thing of it, they must not tell it as a merry story, lest they be found to laugh at their own damnation.

—Mutatus

Horat. lib. 4. Od. 10.

Dices, Heu! (quoties te in speculo videris alterum)

Quae mens est hodie, cur eadem non puero fuit?

Vel cur his animis incolumes non redeunt genae?

Trouble and sorrow will better become the spirit of an old sinner, because he was a fool when he was young, and weak when he is wise; that his strengths must be spent in sin, and that for God and wise courses nothing remains but weak hands, and dim eyes, and trembling knees.

21. X. Let not an old sinner and young penitent ever think that there can be a period to his Repentance, or that it can ever be said by himself that he hath done enough. No sorrow, no alms, no affliction, no patience, no Sacraments can be said to have finish'd his work, so that he may say with S. Paul, I have fought a good fight, I have finish'd my course; nothing can bring consummation to his work till the day of his death, because it is all the way an imperfect state, having in it nothing that is excellent or laudable, but only upon the account of a great necessity and misery on one side, and a great mercy on the other. It is like a man condemn'd to perpetual banishment; he is always in his passive obedience, but is a debtor to the Law until he be dead. So is this penitent; he hath not finish'd his work, or done a Repentance in any measure proportionable to his sins, but only because he can do no more; and yet he did something, even before it was too late.

22. XI. Let an old man in the mortification of his vicious habits, be curious to distinguish nature from grace, his own disability from the strengths of the Spirit; and not think that he hath extirpated the vice of uncleanness, when himself is disabled to act it any longer; or that he is grown a sober person, because he is sick in his stomach, and cannot drink intemperately, or dares not for fear of being sick. His measures must be taken by the account of his actions and oppositions to his former sins, and so reckon his comfort.

23. XII. But upon whatever account it come, he is not so much to account concerning his hopes, or the performance of his duty, by abstaining from sin, as by doing of good. For besides that such a not committing of evil may be owing to weak or insufficient principles, this not committing evil in so little a time, cannot make amends for the doing it so long together, according to the usual accounts of Repentance, unless that abstaining be upon the stock of vertue and labour, of mortification and resistance; and then every abstinence is also a doing good, for it is a crucifying of the old man with the affections and lusts. But all the good that by the grace of God he superadds, is matter of choice, and the proper actions of a new life.

24. XIII. After all this done, vigorously, holily, with fear and caution, with zeal and prudence, with diligence and an uninterrupted observation, the old man that liv'd a vile life, but repents in time, though he staid as long as he could, and much longer than he should, yet may live in hope, and die in peace and charity.Serm. 28. de temp. To this purpose they are excellent words which S. Austin said: ‘Peradventure some will think that he hath committed such grievous faults, that he cannot now obtain the favour of God. Let this be far from the conceits of all sinners. O man, whosoever thou art, that attendest that multitude of thy sins, wherefore dost thou not attend to the Omnipotency of the Heavenly Physician? For since God will have mercy because he is good, and can because he is Almighty, he shuts the gate of the Divine Goodness against himself, who thinks that God cannot or will not have mercy upon him, and therefore distrusts either his Goodness or his Almightiness.’

[Page]The proper Repentance and usage of sinners who repent not until their death-bed.

The inquiry after this Article consists in these particulars.

1. What hopes are left to a vicious ill liv'd man that repents on his death-bed and not before.

2. What advices are best, or can bring him most advantage?

25. That a good life is necessary; * that it is required by God; * that it was design'd in the whole purpose of the Gospel; * that it is a most reasonable demand, and infinitely recompensed by the very smallest portions of Eternity. * That it was called for all our life, and was exacted by the continual voice of Scripture, of Mercies, of Judgment, of Prophets. * That to this very purpose God offered the assistance of his holy Spirit; and to this ministery we were supplied with preventing, with accompanying, and persevering grace, that is, powers and assistances to begin, and to continue in well doing. * That there is no distinct Covenant made with dying men, differing from what God hath admitted between himself and living healthful persons. * That it is not reasonable to think God will deal more gently with persons who live viciously all their lives, and that at an easier rate they may expect salvation at the hands of God whom they have so provoked, than they who have serv'd him faithfully according to the measures of a man; * or that a long impiety should be sooner expiated than a short one. * That the easiness of such as promise heaven to dying penitents after a vicious life is dangerous to the very being and constitution of piety, * and scandalous to the honour and reputation, and sanctity of the Christian Religion, * that the grace of God does leave those that use it not. * That therefore the necessity of dying men increases, and their aids are lessen'd and almost extinguished. * that they have more to do than they have either time or strength to finish. * That all their vows and holy purposes are useless, and ineffective as to their natural production, and that in their case they cannot be the beginnings of a succeeding duty and piety, because for want of time it never can succeed. * That there are some conditions and states of life, which God hath determined never to pardon. * That there is a sin unto death, for which because we have no incouragement to pray, it is certain there is no hope; for it is impossible but it must be very fit to pray for all them to whom the hope of pardon is not precluded. * That there is in Scripture mention made of an ineffective repentance, and of a repentance to be repented of, and that the repentance of no state is so likely to be it as this. * That what is begun and produc'd wholly by affrigh [...]ment is not esteem'd matter of choice, nor a pleasing sacrifice to God. * That they who sow to the flesh, shall reap in the flesh, and the final judgment shall be made of every man according to his works. * That the full and perfect descriptions of repentance in Scripture are heaps and conjugations of duties which have in them difficulty, and require time, and ask labour. * That those insinuations of duty in Scripture, of the need of patience and diligence, and watchfulness, and the express precepts of perseverance, do imply, that the office and duty of a Christian is of a long time, and business, and a race. * That repentance being the renewing of a holy life, it should seem that on our death-bed the day for repentance is past, since no man can renew his life when his life is done, no man can live well, when he cannot live at all; * and therefore to place our hopes upon a death-bed repentance only, is such a religion as satisfies all our appetites, and contradicts none, and yet promises heaven at last. * These things, I say, are all either notorious and evident, or expresly affirmed in Scripture; and therefore that in the ordinary way of things, in the common expectation of events, such persons are in a very sad condition.

26. So that it remains, that in this sad condition there must be some extraordinary way found out, or else this whole inquiry is at an end. Concerning which, all that I can say is this. 1. God hath an Almighty power, and his mercy is as great as his power. He can doe miracles of mercy, as well as miracles of mightiness. And this S. Austin brings in open pretence against desperation. O homo quicunque illam multitudinem peccatorum attendis, cur & omnipotentiam coelestis medici non attendis? Thy sins are great, but Gods mercies are greater. But this does represent the mans condition at the best to be such, that God may if he will have mercy upon him; but whether he will or no, there is as yet no other certainty or probability, but that he can if he please: which proposition to an amazed timorous person that fears a hell the next hour, is so dry a story, so hopeless a proposition, that all that can be said of this, is, [Page] that it is very fit that no man should ever put it to the venture. For upon this argument, we may as well comfort our selves upon him that died without repenting at all. But the inquiry must be further.

27. II. All mankind, all the Doctors of the Church for very many ages at least, some few of the most Ancient, and of the Modern excepted, have been apt to give hopes to such persons, and no man bids them absolutely despair. Let such persons make use of this easiness of men, thereby to retain so much hope as to make them call upon God, and not to neglect what can then be done. ‘Spem retine, spes una hominem nec morte relinquit.’ As long as there is life there is hope, and when a man dies, let him not despair; for there is a life after this, and a hope proper to that; and amidst all the evils that the Ancients did fabulously report to be in Pandora's box, they wittily plac'd Hope on the utmost lip of it, and extremity. ‘Vivere spe vidi qui moriturus erat.’ And S. Cyprian exhorts old Demetrianus to turn Christian in his old age, and promises him salvation in the name of Christ: and though his case, and that of a Christian who entred into promises and Covenants of obedience, be very different; yet ad immortalitatem sub ipsâ morte transitur, a passing from such a repentance to immortality, although it cannot be hoped for upon the just accounts of express promise, yet it is not too great to hope from Gods mercy: and untill that which is infinite hath a limit, a repenting mans hopes in this world cannot be wholly at an end.

28. III. We find that in the battels which were fought by the Maccabees, some persons who fought on the Lords side, and were slain in the fight, were found having on their breasts [...], or pendants consecrate to the idols of the Jamnenses, and yet the good people of their party made oblation for them, hoping that they might be partakers of a blessed resurrection. They that repent heartily but one hour, are in a better condition than the other that died in their sin, though with the advantage of fighting in a good cause: and if good people will not leave hoping for such persons, it is not fit that themselves should.

29. IV. He that considers Gods great love to Mankind, * the infinite love that God hath to his holy Son Jesus, and yet that he sent him to die for every man; * and that the holy Jesus does now, and hath for very many ages prayed for the pardon of our sins, that he knows how horrible those pains are which are provided for perishing souls, and therefore that he is exceeding pitiful and desirous that we should escape them; * and that God did give one extraordinary example of saving a dying penitent, the Thief upon the Cross, and though that had something in it extraordinary and miraculous, yet that is it which is now expected, a favour extraordinary, a miraculous mercy. * And that Christ was pleased to speak a parable of comfort, and the Master of the Vineyard did pay salary to him that began to work at the eleventh hour; and though that was some portion of his life, the twelfth part of it, and the man was not call'd sooner, yet there may be something in it of comfort to the dying penitent, since it looks something like it, it certainly relates to old men, and can do them comfort, and possibly the merciful intention of it is yet larger; * and that since God is so well pleased with repentance, it may be he will abate the circumstance of time, Nec ad rem pertinet ubi inciperet, quod placuerat ut fieret, and he will not consider when that begins, which he loves should be done. * And that he is our Father, and paulum supplicii satis est Patri, a Father will chastise, but will not kill his son. * And that it is therefore seasonable to hope, because it is a duty, and the very hope it self God delights to reward; for so said the Apostle, Cast not away your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. Heb. 10.35. And the Church of God imitating the mercies of our gracious God and Father, hath denied to give the Sacrament of peace and mercy to none that seek it:Concil. Nicen. can. 13. Viaticum omnibus in morte positis non est negandum. And in the saddest consideration of things that can be,Concil. Aguth. c. 11. suppose it be with him as with Simon Magus, suppose that he is in the gall of bitterness, in the state of damnation, in the guilt of a sin which we know not whether God will pardon or not, yet still it is wise and pious counsell, that he should pray, if peradventure he may be forgiven. [Page] He (I say) that considers these things, will have cause to be very earnest and very busie to lose no time, to remit no labour, to quit no hope, but humbly, passionately, diligently set upon that duty of repentance, which should have long ago come to some perfection. Now because I have (as I suppose) said enough to make men afraid to put off their repentance to their death-bed, yet in behalf of those who have been unfortunately lost in their lives, or less instructed, or violently tempted, or unhappily betrayed, and are upon their death-beds, because though nothing can be ascertain'd to them, yet it is not to be suffered that they should utterly despair, I have thought fit to transcribe out of the writings of the ancient Doctors, such exhortations as may both instruct and comfort, promote duty, and give some little door of hope, but not add boldness in defiance of all the laws of holiness.

30. In an epistle of Celestine Bishop of Rome in S. Austins time, we find these words. Vera ad Deum conversio in ultimis positorum, mente potiùs aestimanda est quàm tempore.. .. Quum ergo Dominus sit cordis inspector, quovis tempore non est deneganda poenitentia postulanti, quum ille se obliget Judici, cui occulta omnia noverit revelari. True conversion is to be accounted of by the mind, rather than by time. Therefore repentance is not to be denied to him, who at any time asks it. And he despairs of the clemency of God who thinks it not sufficient, or that it cannot relieve the sinner in an instant. Donec sumus in hâc vitâ quantacunque nobis acciderint peccata, possibile est omnia ablui per poenitentiam, said S. Austin. As long as we are alive,Serm. 181. de temp. c. 16. so long it is possible that the vilest sins that are may be wash'd off by repentance. Si vulneratus es, adhibe tibi curam dum vivis, dum spiras, etiam in ipso lecto positus, etiam si dici potest animam efflans ut jam de hoc mundo exeas. Non impeditur temporis angustiâ misericordia Dei. In Psal. 50. Hom. 2. Quid enim est peccatum ad Dei misericordiam? tela araneae quae vento flante nusquam comparet. So S. Chrysostom. If thou art wounded in thy soul, take care of it while thou livest, even so long as thou canst breath, though thou beest now breathing thy last, yet take care still. The mercy of God cannot be hindred by time. For what is thy sin to Gods mercy? even as a spiders web, when the wind blows it is gone in an instant. Many more there are to the same purpose, who all speaking of the mightiness of the Divine mercy, do insinuate their meaning to be concerning a miraculous or extraordinary mercy. And therefore I shall oppose nothing against this; only say, that it is very sad when men put their hopes of being sav'd upon a miracle, and that without a miracle they must perish. But yet then to despair is entring into hell before their time, and even a course of the greatest imprudence in the world, next to that they are already guilty of, that is, a putting things to that extremity. Dandum interstitium paenitentia, said Tacitus. And, Inter vitae negotia & diem mortis oportere aliquid spatium intercedere, said Charles the Emperour. For, Nemo mortem venientem hilaris excepit, nisi qui se ad eam diu composuerat, said Seneca. Repentance must have a space of time; and from the affairs of the world to rush into the arms of death, is too quick a change for him that would fain be saved. If he can, in the midst of all these disadvantages, it is well; but he cannot with chearfulness and joy receive his death, unless he bestowed much time and care in preparations against that sad solemnity.

Now concerning these instruments of hope, I am yet to give another account, lest this either seem to be an easiness and flattery of souls, and not warrantable from any revelation from God; or if it be, that it is also a perfect destruction of all the former doctrine. For if it be inquired thus; Hath God declared that death-bed penitents shall not be saved, or that they may be saved, or hath he said nothing at all of it? If he hath said they cannot be saved, why then do I bid them hope, and so abuse them with a false perswasion? If he hath said that they may be saved, why do I dispute against it, and make them fear, where God by a just promise hath given them reason to be confident, and hath obliged them to believe they shall be saved? If he hath said nothing of it, why are not they to be comprehended within the general rules of all returning penitents? especially, since there was one case specially made for their interest, the example of the Thief upon the Cross? To this I shall give a clear and plain answer.

That God hath required such conditions of pardon, and that the duty of repentance is of such extent and burden, that it cannot be finish'd and perform'd by dying persons after a vicious life, is evident from all the former arguments: and therefore if we make dying mens accounts upon the stock of Gods usual dealing, and open revelation, their case is desperate for the preceding reasons. But why then do I bid [Page] them hope, if their case be desperate? Either God threatning death to all impenitent persons, means not to exact death of all, but of some only; or else when his holy Spirit describes Repentance in severe characters, he secretly means to take less than he says. For if it be such a work that cannot possibly be done on a death-bed, how then can dying persons be called upon to repent? for it is vain to repent, if it be impossible to hope; but if it be possible to do the work of Repentance on our death-bed, but only that it is very difficult, there is in this affirmative no great matter: Every one confesses that, and all evil men put it to the venture.

For the first part of the dilemma, I affirm nothing of it; God threatning death to all the impenitent, excepts none; Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. Neither does God exacting or describing Repentance in several lines, use any respect of persons, but with the same measures he will deal with all. For when there is a difference in the Divine mercy, it is in giving time and grace to repent, not in sparing one and condemning another, who die equally criminal and impenitent. Those little lines of hopes are not upon either of these foundations. For whatsoever is known or revealed, is against these persons, and does certainly condemn them. Why then are they bidden to hope and repent? I answer, once for all; It is upon something that we know not. And if they be not sav'd we know not how, they cannot expect to be saved by any thing that is revealed in their particular. When S. Peter had declar'd to Simon Magus that he was in the gall of bitterness; and yet made him pray, if peradventure the thought of his heart might be forgiven him: he did not by any thing that was reveal'd know that he should be pardoned; but by something that he did not know, there might be hope. It is at no hand to be dissembled out of tenderness and pity to such persons, but to be affirmed openly; there is not revealed any thing to them that may bid them be in any degree confident. But he that hath a deadly wound, whom the Chirurgeons affirm to be hopeless, yet is willing to receive Cordials, and to be dress'd.

2. If in the measures of life and death which are described in large characters, there be any lines so indefinite and comprehensive, that they who preach and declare the doctrines, do not fully take in all that God intends, upon the account of our weakness and ignorance, there may be some little rushes and twiggs to support their sinking hopes. For although the matters of duty, and the conditions of life and death are so plain and legible, that we can all understand our obligation, yet things are seldome so described, that we can give the final sentence concerning others. There is a secret in these things, which nothing shall open but the day of Judgment. No man may judge his brother; that is, no man can or ought to say, This man is damn'd; and yet we know that he that dies an impenitent Traytor, or Rebel, or adulterer, is damn'd. But yet that Adulterous Natta, or the Rebel Cinna, or the Traytor s [...]ti-line, is actually damn'd, that we know not. The reason is, because our duty is described for us to guide and walk our selves by, not to judge and sentence others. And even the judgment of the Church, who hath authority to judge and sentence, yet it is only for amendment, it is universal, it is declarative, it is conditional; not personal, final, decretory, and eternal. For otherwise does man judge, otherwise does God.

II. There is some variety in the case, and in the person, and in the degrees of Repentance. There is a period, beyond which God will not admit a man to pardon; but when it is we know not. There is a minimum Religionis, the least measure of Religion, the lowest degree of acceptability; but what it is, we cannot tell. There is also a proper measure for every one, but no man can fathom it. And the duties and parts of Repentance consist in the terms of a great distance and latitude; and we cannot tell when a man first begins to be safe, and when he is newly escaped from the regions of sin, and when he begins his state of grace. Now as God abates great measures of his wrath, and forgives all that is past if we return betimes, and live twenty years in piety and repentance; so he does if the man do so nineteen years, and eighteen, and still shortning till you come to a year, or any the least time that can do the work of Repentance, and exterminate his vicious habit. Now because Abraham begg'd for the pardon of Sodom, if there should be found fifty righteous there, and then abated five, and then five more, and then ten more, till he came to ten alone, and it is supposed that Abraham first gave out, and that God would have pardon'd the City for one righteous mans sake, if Abraham had still persevered to ask: if any man will suppose that it may be done so in the abatements of time to be made to a returning sinner; though I say it is a strange diminution to come from years to one day, yet I will say [Page] nothing against it; but that length or shortness of time makes nothing to the mercies of God, but it makes very much to the duty of man, because every action requires some time, and every habit much more: Now we have reason to say that the condition of a dying penitent after a whole wicked life, is desperate, because so far as we understand things, habits are not to be extinguish'd, and the contraries acquir'd but with long time and study. But if there be any secret way by which the Spirit of God does work faster, and produce undiscerned miracles, we ought to adore that goodness by which it is so; and they that can believe this, may hope the other: In the mean time, neither the one nor the other is revealed; and so it stands as it did in the whole Question.

IV. We find in the instance of Abrahams faith, that against hope he believed in hope; that is, that he had great arguments on both sides, and therefore that in defiance of one, he would hope in the other, because this could not fail him, but the other could. If it can be brought to pass that a dying man can hope after a wicked life, it is a hope against hope; and of this all that I can say is, that it is no contradiction in the thing, to affirm that a dying penitent who hath contracted vicious habits, hath not time left him to perform that repentance which God requires of habitual sinners under the pains of eternal death; and yet to bid such a person do what he can do, and pray, if peradventure God will be intreated. Because that little hopes which he is bid to have are not warranted, or relying upon pretence of any particular revelation, contrary to the so many expressions of severe duty and stricter conditions; but are plac'd upon the foundation of the Divine Power, and such little proportions and similitudes of things, and guesses and conjectures of kind persons, as can only be sufficient to make the dying man try what can be done.

V. The first ages of the Church did exactly use this method of Doctrine and Discipline. In some cases (whereof I shall afterwards give account) they refus'd to declare them pardon'd, to minister Gods pardon to dying penitents; but yet would not bid them despair, but refer them to the Divine judgment: which if it be reduc'd to the causes of things, if we believe they proceeded reasonably, must mean this, that they knew of no revelation concerning the pardon of such persons; but whether God would or no pardon them, they knew not, but bid them hope well. And when they did admit dying penitents to the peace of the Church, they did it de benè esse, that it might do as much good as it could. But they knew not what that was. Poenitentiam dare possumus, securitatem dare non possumus. They are S. Austins words. Now if I were to ask of him an account, it would be in the same way of objection as I am now [...]ntying. For did God promise pardon to dying penitents after a wicked life; or are there fearful threatnings in Scripture against such sinners as certainly all in their case are? or hath God said nothing at all concerning them? If God did promise pardon to such, then why did not the Church give security, as well as penance? If God did threaten fearfully all such persons, why do they admit such to repentance whom God will not admit to pardon, but hath threatned with eternal death? If he hath said nothing of them, they are to be judged by the measures of others; and truly that will too sadly ring their passing-bell. For men in health who have contracted vicious habits, cannot be pardoned so long as their vicious habit remains; and they know that to overcome and mortifie a vicious habit, is a work of time and great labour▪ and if this be the measure of dying penitents, as well as of living and healthful, they will sink in judgment that have not time to do their duty. But then why the Church of those ages, and particularly S. Austin, should hope and despair at the same time for them, that is, knew no ground of revelations upon which to fix any hope of pardon for them, and yet should exhort them to Repentance, which without hopes of pardon is to no purpose, there is no sensible account to be given but this, that for ought they knew God might do more than they knew, and more than he had promised; but whether he would or not, they knew not, but by that means they thought they fairly quit their hands of such persons.

VI. But after all this strict survey of answers, if we be called to account for being so kind, it must be confess'd that things are spoken out of charity and pity, more than of knowledge. The case of these men is sad and deplorable, and it is piety when things are come to that state and saddest event, to shew mercy by searching all the corners of revelation for comfort, that God may be as much glorified, and the dying men assisted as much as may be. I remember the Jews are reproved by some for repeating the last verse but one in the book of Isaiah, and setting it after the last of all. That being a verse of mercy, this of sorrow and threatning; as if they would be more [Page] merciful than God himself, and thought it unfit to end so excellent a book with so sad a cursing. Indeed Gods ways are best, and his measures the surest; and therefore it is not good to promise where God hath not promised, and to be kind where he is angry, and to be free of his pardon, where he hath shut up and seal'd his treasures. But if they that say God hath threatned all such sinners as dying penitents after wicked life are, and yet that they must not despair, are to be reproved as too kind; then they much more, who confidently promise heaven at last. It is indeed a compliance with humane misery, that makes it fit to speak what hopeful things we can; but if these hopes can easily be reproved, I am sure the former severity cannot so easily be confuted. That may, this cannot.

31. I. But now things being put into this constitution; the inquiry into what manner of Repentance the dying penitent is oblig'd to, will be of no great difficulty. Qui dicit omnia nihil excipit. He that is tied to all can be excus'd from none. All that he can do is too little, if God shall deal with him according to the conditions of the Gospel which are describ'd, and therefore he must not inquire into measures, but do all, absolutely all that he can in that sad period. Particularly

32. II. Let him examine his Conscience most curiously, according as his time will permit, and his other abilities; because he ought to be sure that his intentions are so real to God and to Religion, that he hath already within him a resolution so strong, a repentance so holy, a sorrow so deep, a hope so pure, a charity so sublime, that no temptation, no time, no health, no interest could in any circumstance of things ever tempt him from God and prevail.

33. III. Let him make a general confession of the sins of his whole life, with all the circumstances of aggravation; let him be mightily humbled, and hugely ashamed, and much in the accusation of himself, and bitterly lament his folly and misery; let him glorifie God and justifie him, confessing that if he perishes it is but just; if he does not, it is a glorious, an infinite mercy; a mercy not yet revealed, a mercy to be look'd for in the day of wonders, the day of judgment. Let him accept his sickness and his death humbly at the hands of God, and meekly pray that God would accept that for punishment, and so consign his pardon for the rest through the blood of Jesus. Let him cry mightily unto God, incessantly begging for pardon, and then hope as much as he can, even so much as may exalt the excellency of the Divine mercy; but not too confidently, lest he presume above what is written.

34. IV. Let the dying penitent make what amends he can possibly in the matter of [...]eal injuries and injustices that he is guilty of, though it be to the ruine of his estate; and that will go a great way in deprecation. Let him ask forgiveness, and offer forgiveness, make peace, transmit charity and provisions and piety to his relatives.

35. V. Next to these it were very fitting that the dying penitent did use all the means he can to raise up his spirit, and do internal actions of Religion with great fervour and excellency. To love God highly, to be ready to suffer whatsoever can come, to pour out his complaints with great passion and great humility; adding to these and the like, great effusions of charity, holy and prudent undertakings of severity and Religion in case he shall recover: and if he can, let him do some great thing, something that does in one little body of action signifie great affections; any heroical act, any transportation of a holy zeal in his case does help to abbreviate the work of many years. If these things be thus done, it is all that can be done at that time, and as well as it can be then done; what the event of it will be, God only knows, and we all shall know at the day of Judgment.S. Aug. & habetur de poen. dist. 7. In this case the Church can give the Sacrament, but cannot give security.

Meditations and Prayers to be used in all the foregoing cases.

CAN the Ethiopian change his skin, or the Leopard his spots? then may ye learn to do good that are accustomed to do evil.Jer. 13.23.

This is thy lot, the portion of thy measures, from me (saith the Lord) because thou hast forgotten me.Vers. 25.

Give glory to the Lord your God before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains,Ver. 16. lest while you look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.

[Page]What wilt thou say when he shall punish? shall not sorrow take thee as a woman in travel?Vers. 21.

And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore came these things upon me?Vers. 22. for the goodness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

I have seen thine adulteries, and thy neighings, the lewdness of thy whoredoms,Vers. 27. and thine abominations, Wo unto thee, wilt thou not be made clean? when shall it once be? saith the Lord God.

Thus saith the Lord unto this people, Thus have they loved to wander, they have not refrained their feet, therefore the Lord doth not accept them,Jer. 14.10. he will now remember their iniquity and visit their sins.

Then saith the Lord, Pray not for this people for their good. When they fast,Vers. 11, 12. I will not hear their cry, and when they offer an oblation, I will not accept them, but I will consume them by the sword, and by famine, and by the pestilence.

Therefore thus saith the Lord, if thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile,Jer. 15.19. thou shalt be as my mouth. I am with thee to save thee, and to deliver thee, saith the Lord.

And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked,Vers. 21. and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.

Learn before thou speak, and use Physick or ever thou be sick.Ecclus. 18.19.

Before judgment examine thy self,Vers. 20. and in the day of visitation thou shalt find mercy.

Humble thy self before thou be sick, and in the time of sins shew repentance.Vers. 21.

Let nothing hinder thee to pay thy vows in due time,Vers. 22. and defer not until death to be justified.

I made hast, and prolonged not the time to keep thy Commandments.Psal. 119.

Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings and I will cause you to dwell in this place.

Trust not in lying words, saying, The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord.

For if you throughly amend your ways, and your doings, if you throughly execute judgment;

If ye oppress not the stranger and the widow, then shall ye dwell in the land.Jer. 7.

Thus saith the Lord God, I will give you the land, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof, and all the abominations thereof from thence.Ezek. 11.18.

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you,Vers. 19. and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh.

That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them,Vers. 20. and they shall be my people and I will be their God.

But as for them whose heart walketh after their detestable things,Vers. 21. and their abominations; I will recompence their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord God.

They have seduced my people, saying, Peace, and there was no peace,Ezek. 13.10. and one built up a wall, and others dawb'd it with untemper'd morter.

Will ye pollute me among my people for handfulls of barley, and pieces of bread,Vers. 19. to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live by your lying unto my people that hear your lies?

Therefore I will judge you, ô house of Israel, every one according to your ways, saith the Lord God, repent and turn your selves from all your transgressions;Ezek. 18.30. so iniquity shall not be your ruine.

Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby you have transgressed,Vers. 31. and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, ô house of Israel?

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God:Vers. 32. wherefore turn your selves and live ye.

Ye shall remember your ways, and all your doings wherein ye have been defil'd,Ezek. 20.43. and ye shall loath your selves in your own sight for all your evils, that ye have committed.

Wo unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity,Isa. 5.18. and sin as it were with a cart-rope.

Wo unto them that justifie the wicked for a reward,Vers. 13. and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him.

And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea,Isa. 1.15. when you make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Wash ye, make ye clean, put away the evil of your doing from before mine eyes,Isa. 1.16. cease to do evil.

[Page]Learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.Vers. 17.

Vers. 18.Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord; Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow, though they be red as crimson they shall be as wooll.

Vers. 19.If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the fruit of the land.

But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.Vers. 20.

Ezek. 24.She hath wearied her self with lies, therefore have I caused my fury to light upon her.

Sow to your selves in righteousness, and reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground,Hos. 10.12. for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.

Hos. 12.6.Turn thou unto thy God; keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually.

O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, but in me is thy help.

Hos. 13.9.Return to the Lord thy God, for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Take with you words,Hos. 1.1▪ and turn to the Lord, say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. For in thee the fatherless findeth mercy. I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely, for mine anger is turned away.

Isa. 55.6.Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.

Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord,Vers. 7. and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Isa. 57.15.For thus saith the high and lofty One, that inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy, I dwell in the high and holy place; with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the Spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Vers. 16.For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.

Vers. 17.For the iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth and smote him: I hid me and was wroth, and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart.

Vers. 18.I have seen his ways and will heal him; I will lead him also, and restore comfort to him and to his mourners.

Vers. 19.I create the fruit of the lips; peace, peace to him that is afar off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord, and I will heal him.

Vers. 20.But the wicked are like the troubled sea when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

Vers. 21.There is no peace, saith my God, to the Wicked.

Lam. 3.26, 27.It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. It is good that a man should both hope, and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord.

Micah 7.18.Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the Remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and thou wilt cast all our sins into the depth of the sea.Micah 7.19.

Eccles. 12.1.Remember now thy Creator in the daies of thy youth, while the evil daies come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them.

A PSALM.

O Lord, though our iniquities testifie against us, have mercy upon us for thy Names sake: for our backslidings are many, we have sinned against thee.

O the hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldst thou be a stranger to us, and as a wayfaring-man that turneth aside to tarry for a night?

Why shouldst thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save? yet thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us, and we are called by thy name, leave us not.

We acknowledge, O Lord, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers, for we have sinned against thee.

Jer. 14.7, 8, 9.Do not abhor us for thy Names sake, do not disgrace the Throne of thy Glory; remember, break not the Covenant with us.

Jer. 15.17.I will no more sit in the assembly of mockers, nor rejoyce; I will sit alone because of thy hand, for thou hast filled me with indignation.

[Page]Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable which refused to be healed? [...]ilt thou be altogether unto me as waters that fail?Vers. 18.

O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

O Lord, correct me, but with judgment, not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing.

O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, because they have forsaken the Lord the fountain of living waters.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved:Jer. 17.13. for thou art my praise.

Be not a terror unto me, thou art my hope in the day of evil.Vers. 17.

Behold, O Lord, for I am in distress: my bowels are troubled,Lam. 1.20. mine heart is turned within me, for I have grievously rebelled.

For these thing [...] I weep; mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water,Vers. 15. because the Comforter that should relieve my soul is far from me.

Hear me, O Lord, and that soon, for my spirit waxeth faint:Psal. 143. hide not thy face from me, lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit.

O let me hear thy loving kindness betimes, for in thee is my trust; shew thou me the way that I should walk in, for I lift up my soul unto thee.

Teach me the thing that pleaseth thee, for thou art my God: let thy loving Spirit lead me forth into the land of righteousness.

Quicken me, O Lord, for thy Names sake, and for thy righteousness sake bring my soul out of trouble.

The Lord upholdeth all such as fall, and lifteth up those that be down.

I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost: O seek thy servant,Psal. 142.9 for I do not forget thy Commandments.

O do well unto thy servant, that I may live and keep thy word.

O spare me a little, that I may recover my strength, before I go hence and be no more seen.

Glory be to the Father, &c.

As it was in the beginning, &c.

A Prayer for a Sinner returning after a long impiety.

I.

O Eternal Judge of Men and Angels, Father of Mercy, and the great lover of Souls, I humbly acknowledge that the state of my soul is sad and deplorable, and by my fault, by my own grievous fault, I am in an evil condition; and if thou shouldst now enter into judgment with me, I have nothing to put in bar against the horrible sentence, nothing of my own, nothing that can ease thy anger, or abate the fury of one stroke of thy severe infliction. I do (O God) judge and condemn my self, and justifie thee, for thou art righteous, and whatsoever thou doest is good and true. But O my God, when the guilty condemns himself nothing is left for the offended party but to return to graciousness and pardon. I (O Lord) have done thy severe and angry work, I have sentenc'd a vile man to a sad suffering; and if I so perish as I have deserved, thou art just and righteous, and thou oughtest for ever to to be glorified.

II.

BVt O my God, though I know that I have deserved evils that I know not, and hope I shall never feel, yet thou art gracious and holy, and lovest more to behold thy glory reflected from the floods and springs of mercy, than to see it refracted from the troubled waters of thy angry and severe displeasure: And because thou lovest it so highly to shew mercy, and because my eternal interest is served in it, I also ought to desire what thou lovest, and to beg of thee humbly and passionately that I may not perish; and to hope with a modest confidence that thou hast mercy in store for him, to whom thou hast given grace to ask for it: for it is one degree of pardon to be admitted to the station of penitent beggers; it is another degree of pardon that thou hast given me grace to hope, and I know that in the fountains of thy own graciousness thou hast infinite arguments and inducements to move thee to pity me and to pardon.

III.

[Page]

O My God, pity me for thy Names sake, even for thy own goodness sake, and because I am miserable and need it. And because I have nothing of my own to be a ground of confidence, give thy servant leave to place my hopes on thee through Jesus Christ; thou hast commanded me to come to the Throne of Grace with boldness, that I may find mercy in time of need; and thou hast promised to give thy holy Spirit to them that ask him. O dear God, give me pardon, and give me thy Spirit, and I am full and safe, and cloathed and healed, and all that I desire to be, and all that I ought to be.

IV.

I Have spent much time in vanity, and in undoing my self; grant me thy grace, that I may recover my loss, and imploy all the remaining portion of my time in holy offices and duties of Repentance. My understanding hath been abused by false perswasions and vain confidences. But now, O God, I offer up that imperious faculty wholly to the obedience of Christ; to be govern'd by his Laws, to be instructed by his Doctrine, to be bended by all his arguments. My will hath been used to crookedness and peevish morosity in all vertuous imployments, but greedy and fierce in the election and prosecution of evil actions and designs: But now O God, I have no will but what is thine, and I will rather die than consent and choose any thing that I know displeases thee. My heart, O God, was a fountain of evil thoughts, ungracious words, and irregular actions, because my passions were not obedient nor orderly, neither temperate nor governed, neither of a fitting measure, nor carried to a right object: But now, O God, I present them unto thee, not as a fit oblation, but as the Lepers and the blind, the lame and the crooked were brought unto the holy Jesus, to be made streight and clean, useful and illuminate; and when thou hast taken into thy possession what is thine, and what I stole from thee, or detained violently, and which the Devil did usurp, then thou wilt sanctifie and save it, use it as thine own, and make it to be so for ever.

V.

BLessed God, refuse not thy returning son: I have prodigally wasted my talents, and spent my time in riotous and vain living; but I have not lost my title and relation to thee my Father. O my God, I have the sorrow of an humble penitent, the purposes of a converted sinner, the love of a pardoned person, the zeal of an obliged and redeem'd prisoner, the hope of him that feels thy present goodness, and longs for more. Reject me not, O my God, but do thou work all my works within me. My heart is in thy hands, and I know that the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps: But do thou guide me into the way of righteousness; work in me an excellent Repentance, a great caution and observance, an humble fear, a prudent and a religious hope, and a daily growing charity; work in me to will and to do of thy good pleasure: Then shall I praise thy name, and love thy excellencies, and obey thy Commandments, and suffer thy impositions, and be what thou wouldst have me to be, that I being rescued from the possession of the Devil, and the torments of perishing souls, may be admitted to serve thee, and be a minister of thy honour in the Kingdomes of Grace and Glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

A Prayer for an old person returning after a wicked life.

1

O Eternal God, give me leave to speak for my self before I die: I would fain live and be healed, I have been too long thine enemy, and would not be so for ever. My heart is broken within me, and all my fortunes are broken without; I know not how to speak, and I must not, I dare not hold my tongue.

II.

[Page]

O MY God, can yesterday be recall'd, and the flying hours be stopped? In my youth I had not the prudence and caution of old age; but is it possible that in my old age I may be restored to the hopes and opportunities of youth? Thou didst make the Sun to stand still at the prayer of Joshua, and return back at the importunity of Hezekiah. O do thou make a new account for me, and reckon not the days of my youth; but from this day reckon the beginnings of my life, and measure it by the steps of duty, and the light of the Sun of Righteousness now arising upon my heart.

III.

I AM ashamed, O God, I am ashamed that I should betray my reason, shame my nature, dishonour all my strengths, debauch my understanding, and baffle all my faculties for so base, so vile affections, so unrewarding interests. O my God, where is all that vanity which I suck'd so greedily as the wild Asses do the wind? whither is that pleasure and madness gone which so ravish'd all my senses, and made me deaf to the holy charms of thy divinest Spirit? Behold, O God, I die for that which is not; and unless thy mercy be my rescue, for ever I shall suffer torments insufferable, still to come, still to succeed, for having drunk of unsatisfying perishing waters, which had no current, no abode.

IV.

O Dear God, smite me not yet; respite me one portion of time, I dare not say how much, but even as much as thou pleasest. O stay a while, and try me but this once: It is true, O God, I have lost my strength, and given my vigorous years to that which I am asham'd to think on. But yet, O Lord, if thou pleasest, my soul can be as active, and dutiful, and affectionate, and humble, and sorrowful, and watchful as ever. Thou doest not save any for his own worthiness, but eternal life is a gift; and thou canst if thou pleasest give it unto me. But why does my soul run thither, with all its loads of sin and shame upon it? That is too great, yet to be thought of. O give me pardon, and give me sorrow, and give me a great, a mighty grace, to do the duty of a whole life in the remaining portion of my days.

V.

O MY gracious Lord, whatever thy sentence be, yet let me have the honour to serve thee. Let me contribute something to thy glory, let me converse with thy Saints and Servants in the entercourses of piety; let me be admitted to be a servant to the meanest of thy servants, to do something that thou lovest. O God my God, do what thou pleasest, so I may not for ever die in the sad and dishonourable impieties of the damned. Let me but be admitted to thy service in all the degrees of my soul, and all the days of my short life, and my soul shall have some comfort, because I signifie my love and duty to thee for whom I will not refuse to die. O my God, I will not beg of thee to give me comfort, but to give me duty and imployment. Smite me if thou pleasest, but smite me here; kill me if thou pleasest, I have deserved it, but I would fain live to serve thee, and for no other reason, but that thou mayest love to pardon and to sanctifie me.

VI.

O Blessed Jesus, do thou intercede for me; thy Father hears thee in all things, and thou knowest our infirmities, and hast felt our miseries, and didst die to snatch us from the intolerable flames of Hell; and although thou givest thy gifts in differing proportions to thy servants, yet thou dost equally offer pardon to all thy enemies that will come unto thee and beg it. O give me all faith, and all charity, and a spirit highly compunctive, highly industrious, passionate, prudent and indefatigable in holy services. Open thy fountains, gracious Lord, and bath my stained soul in thy blood. Wash the Ethiop, cleanse the Leper, dress the strangers wounds, and forgive thy enemy.

VII.

[Page]

I Will not, O my God, I dare not distrust those infinite glories of thy mercy and graciousness, by which thou art ready to save all the world. The sins of all mankind together are infinitely less than thy mercy, and thou who didst redeem the Heathen world, wilt also I hope rescue me who am a Christian. This is my glory and my shame, my sins had not been so great if I had not disgrac'd so excellent a title, and abused so mighty a grace; but yet if the grace which I have abused had not been so great, my hopes had been less. One deep, O God, calls upon another. O let the abyss of thy mercy swallow up the puddles of my impurity; let my soul no longer sink in the dead sea of Sodom, but in the laver of thy blood and my tears and sorrow; wash me who come to thee to be cleansed and purified. It is not impossible to have it done, for thy power hath no limit: It is not unusual for thee to manifest such glories of an infinite mercy; thou doest it daily. O give me a fast, a tenacious hope on thee, and a bitter sorrow for my sins, and an excellent zeal of thy glory; and let my repentance be more exemplary than my sins, that the infiniteness of that mercy which shall save me may be conspicuous to all Saints and Angels, and may endear the return of all sinners to thee the fountain of Holiness and Mercy. Mercy, dear God, pity thy servant, and do thy work of grace speedily, and mightily upon me, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Ejaculations and short Prayers to be used by Dying or Sick Penitents after a wicked life.

I.

O Almighty Father of Men and Angels, I have often been taught that thy mercies are infinite, and I know they are so; and if I be a person capable of comfort, this is the fountain of it: for my sins are not infinite, only because they could not be so, my desires were only limited by my Nature, for I would not obey the Spirit.

II.

THou, O God, gavest mercy to the Thief upon the Cross, and from pain thou didst bring him to Paradise, from sin to repentance, from shame to glory. Thou wert the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, and art still slain in all the periods of it. O be thou pleased to adorn thy Passion still with such miracles of mercy; and now in this sad conjunction of affairs, let me be made the instance.

III.

THou art angry if I despair; and therefore thou commandest me to hope: My hope cannot rest upon my self, for I am a broken reed, and an undermined wall. But because it rests upon thee, it ought not to be weak, because thou art infinite in mercy and power.

IV.

HE that hath lived best, needs mercy, and he that hath lived worst, even I, O Lord, am not wounded beyond the efficacy of thy blood, O dearest sweetest Saviour Jesus.

V.

I Hope it is not too late to say this. But if I might be suffered to live longer, I would by thy grace live better, spending all my time in duty, laying out all my passion in love and sorrow, imploying all my faculties in Religion and Holiness.

VI.

[Page]

O MY God, I am ready to promise any thing now, and I am ready to do or to suffer any thing that may be the condition of mercy and pardon to me. But I hope I am not deceived by my fears, but that I should, if I might be tried, do all that I could, and love thee with a charity, great like that mercy by which I humbly pray that I may be pardon'd.

VII.

MY comfort O God is, that thou canst if thou wilt: and I am sure thy mercy is as great as thy power, and why then may not I hope that thou wilt have mercy according to thy power? Man, only Man is the proper subject of thy mercy, and therefore only he is capable of thy mercy, because he hath sinned against thee. Angels and the inferiour creatures rejoyce in thy goodness, but only we that are miserable and sinful can rejoyce in thy mercy and forgiveness.

VIII.

I Confess I have destroyed my self; but in thee is my help; for thou gettest glory to thy name by saving a sinner, by redeeming a captive slave, by inlightning a dark eye, by sanctifying a wicked heart, by pardoning innumerable and intolerable transgressions.

IX.

O MY Father, chastise me if thou pleasest, but do not destroy me: I am a son, though an Absalom and a Cain, an unthankful, a malicious, a revengeful, uncharitable person; Thou judgest not by time, but by the measures of the Spirit. The affections of the heart are not to be weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary, nor repentance to be measured by time, but by the Spirit and by the measures of thy mercy.

X.

O MY God, Hope is a word of an uncertain sound when it is placed in something that can fail, but thou art my hope and my confidence, and thy mercies are sure mercies which thou hast revealed to man in Christ Jesus, and they cannot fail them who are capable of them.

XI.

O Gracious Father, I am as capable of mercy as I was of being created; and the first grace is always so free a grace, so undeserved on our part, that he that needs and calls, is never forsaken by thee.

XII.

BLessed Jesus, give me leave to trust in thy promises, in the letter of thy promises; this letter killeth not, for it is the letter of thy Spirit, and saveth and maketh alive. Ask and you shall have; so thou hast said, O my God, they are thy own words; and whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved.

XIII.

THere are, O blessed Jesus, many more; and one tittle of thy word shall not pass away unaccomplished: and nothing could be in vain by which thou didst intend to support our hopes. If we confess our sins, thou art just and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquities.

XIV.

[Page]

WHen David said he would confess, then thou forgavest him. When the Prodigal was yet afar off, thou didst run out to meet him, and didst receive him. When he was naked, thou didst reinvest him with a precious robe; and what O God can demonstrate the greatness of thy mercy, but such a misery as mine, so great a shame, so great a sinfulness?

XV.

BVT what am I, O God, sinful dust and ashes, a miserable and undone man, that I should plead with the great Judge of all the World? Look not upon me as I am in my self, but through Jesus Christ behold thy servant; cloath me with the robes of his righteousness, wash me in his bloud, conform me to his image, fill me with his Spirit, and give me time, or give me pardon and an excellent heroick spirit, that I may do all that can be done, something that is excellent, and that may be acceptable in Jesus Christ. If I perish, I perish; I have deserved it: but I will hope for mercy, till thy mercy hath a limit, till thy goodness can be numbred. O my God, let me not perish; thou hast no pleasure in my death, and it is impossible for man to suffer thy extremest wrath. Who can dwell with the everlasting burning? O my God, let me dwell safely in the embraces of thy sweetest mercy. Amen. Amen. Amen.

CHAP. IV. Of Concupiscence, and Original Sin, and whether or no, or how far we are bound to repent of it.

[Page]

SECT. I.

1. ORIGINAL sin is so called [...], or figuratively, meaning the sin of Adam, which was committed in the Original of mankind by our first Parent, and which hath influence upon all his posterity. Nascuntur non propriè, sed originalitèr, peccatores. De civit. lib. 16. c. 18. Epist. ad Trallian. So S. Austin; and therefore S. Ignatius calls it [...], the old impiety, that which was in the original or first Parent of mankind.

2. This sin brought upon Adam all that God threatned, but no more. A certainty of dying, together with the proper effects and affections of mortality, was inflicted on him, and he was reduced to the condition of his own nature, and then begat sons and daughters in his own likeness, that is, in the proper temper and constitution of mortal men. For as God was not bound to give what he never promised, viz. an immortal duration and abode in this life; so neither does it appear in that angry entercourse that God had with Adam, that he took from him or us any of our natural perfections, but his graces only.

3. Man being left in this state of pure Naturals, could not by his own strength arrive to a supernatural end (which was typified in his being cast out of Paradise, and the guarding it with the flaming sword of a Cherub.) For eternal life being an end above our natural proportion, cannot be acquir'd by any natural means. Neither Adam nor any of his posterity could by any actions or holiness obtain Heaven by desert, or by any natural efficiency; for it is a gift still, and it is neque currentis, neque operantis, neither of him that runneth, nor of him that worketh, but of God who freely gives it to such persons, whom he also by other gifts and graces hath dispos'd toward the reception of it.

4. What gifts and graces, or supernatural endowments God gave to Adam in his state of Innocence, we know not, God hath no where told us; and of things unrevealed we commonly make wild conjectures. But after his fall we find no sign of any thing but of a common man. And therefore as it was with him, so it is with us; our nature cannot go to Heaven, without the helps of the Divine grace; so neither could his: and whether he had them or no, it is certain we have; receiving more by the second Adam than we did lose by the first: and the sons of God are now spiritual, which he never was that we can find.

5. But concerning the sin of Adam, tragical things are spoken; it destroyed his original righteousness, and lost it to us for ever; it corrupted his nature, and corrupted ours, and brought upon him, and not him only, but on us also who thought of no such thing, an inevitable necessity of sinning, making it as natural to us to sin as to be hungry, or to be sick and die; and the con [...]equent of these things is saddest of all, we are born enemies of God, sons of wrath, and heirs of eternal damnation.

6. In the meditation of these sad stories I shall separate the certain from the uncertain, that which is reveal'd from that which is presum'd, that which is reasonable from that which makes too bold reflexions upon God [...] honour, and the reputation of his justice and his goodness. I shall do it in the words of the Apostle from whence men commonly dispute in this Question right or wrong, according as it happens.

7. By one man sin came into the world] That sin entred into the world by Adam, Rom. 5.12▪ is therefore certain, because he was the first man, and unless he had never sinn'd, it must needs enter by him for it comes in first by the first; and Death by sin, that is, Death which at first was the condition of nature, became a punishment upon that account: [Page] just as it was to the Serpent to creep upon his belly, and to the Woman to be subject to her Husband: These things were so before, and would have been so, for the Apostle pressing the duty of subjection, gives two reasons why the woman was to obey. One of them only was derived from this sin, the other was the prerogative of creation;1 Tim. 2.13. for Adam was first formed, then Eve; so that before her fall, she was to have been subject to her husband, because she was later in being; she was a minor, and therefore under subjection; she was also the weaker vessel. But it had not been a curse, and if any of them had been hindred by grace and favour, by Gods anger they were now left to fall back to the condition of their nature.

8. Death passed upon all men; That is, upon all the old world, who were drowned in the floud of the Divine vengeance; and who did sin after the similitude of Adam. And therefore S. Paul adds that for the reason. In as much as all men have sinned] If all men have sinned upon their own account (as it is certain they have) then these words can very well mean, that Adam first sinned, and all his sons and daughters sinned after him, and so died in their own sin, by a death which at first and in the whole constitution of affairs is natural, and a death which their own sins deserved, but yet, which was hastned or ascertained upon them the rather for the sin of their progenitor. Sin propagated upon that root and vicious example; or rather from that beginning, not from that cause, but dum ita peccant, & similiter moriuntur, If they sin so, then so shall they die; so S. Hierome.

9. But this is not thought sufficient, and men do usually affirm that we are formally and properly made sinners by Adam, and in him we all by interpretation sinned, and therefore think these words [...], forasmuch as all men have sinned, ought to be expounded thus, [Death passed upon all men; In whom all men have sinned] meaning that in Adam we really sinn'd, and God does truly and justly impute his sin to us, to make us as guilty as he that did it, and as much punish'd, and liable to eternal damnation. And all the great force of this fancy relies upon this exposition of [...], to signifie [in him.]

10. Concerning which there will be the less need of a laborious inquiry; if it be observed, that the words being read, [Forasmuch as all men have sinned] beat a fair and clear discourse and very intelligible; if it be rendred [In him] it is violent and hard, a distinct period by it self, without dependence or proper purpose, against the faith of all copies, who do not make this a distinct period, and against the usual manner of speaking. 2. This phrase of [...] is used in 2 Cor. 5.4. [...], Not [for that] we would be unclothed; and so it is used in Polybius, Suidas, and Varinus. [...], that is, eâ conditione, for that cause or condition; and [...], ad quid ades, are the words of the Gospel, as Suidas quotes them. 3. Although [...] may signifie the same with [...], in whom, or in him; yet it is so very seldom or infrequent, that it were intolerable to do violence to this place to force it to an unnatural signification. 4. If it did always signifie the same with [...], or in him, which it does not; yet we might very well follow the same reading we now do, and which the Apostles discourse does infer; for even [...] does divers times signifie, forasmuch, or for that, as is to be seen in Rom. 8.3. and Heb. 2.18. But 5. supposing all that can be, and that it did signifie [in whom] yet the sence were fair enough, as to the whole article; for by him, or in him, we are made sinners, that is, brought to an evil state of things usually consequent to sinners: we are us'd like sinners by him, or in him; just as when a sinner is justified, he is treated like a righteous person as if he had never sinned, though he really did sin oftentimes; and this for his sake who is made righteousness to us: so in Adam we are made sinners, that is, treated ill and afflicted, though our selves be innocent of that sin, which was the occasion of our being us'd so severely for other sins of which we were not innocent. But how this came to pass is told in the following words.

Ver. 13, 14.11. For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses] even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression] who is the figure of him that was to come.] By which discourse it appears, that S. Paul does not speak of all minkind, as if the evil occasion'd by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account; but it had a limited effect, and reach'd only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses. This death was brought upon them by Adam; that is, death which was threatned to Adam only, went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners, but not after the similitude of Adams transgression; that is, who sinn'd not so capitally as he did. For to sin like Adam, is used as a Tragical and a high expression. So it is in [Page] the Prophet [They like men have transgressed] so we read it;Hos. 6.7. but in the Hebrew it is [They like Adam have transgressed] and yet death pass'd upon them that did not sin after the similitude of Adam; for Abel, and Seth, and Abraham, and all the Patriarchs died (Enoch only excepted;) and therefore it was no wonder that upon the sin of Adam death entred upon the world, who generally sinn'd like Adam, since it passed on and reigned upon less sinners. * It reigned upon them whose sins therefore would not be so imputed as Adams was, because there was no law with an express threatning given to them as was to Adam; but although it was not wholly imputed upon their own account, yet it was imputed upon theirs and Adams. For God was so exasperated with Mankind, that being angry he would still continue that punishment even to the lesser sins and sinners, which he only had first threatned to Adam: and so Adam brought it upon them. They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it, but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam, they who sinn'd not so bad, and had not been so severely and expresly threatned, had not suffer'd so severely. * The case is this. Jonathan and Michal were Sauls children; it came to pass that seven of Sauls issue were to be hanged, all equally innocent, equally culpable. David took the five sons of Michal, for she had left him unhandsomly. Jonathan was his friend, and therefore he spar'd his son Mephibosheth. Here it was indifferent as to the guilt of the persons, whether David should take the sons of Michal, or of Jonathan; but it is likely that as upon the kindness which David had to Jonathan he spar'd his son, so upon the just provocation of Michal he made that evil to fall upon them, of which they were otherwise capable, which it may be they should not have suffered, if their Mother had been kind. Adam was to God, as Michal to David.

12. But there was in it a further design: for by this dispensation of death, Adam was made a figure of Christ: So the Apostle expresly affirms; [who is the figure of him that was to come] that as death pass'd upon the posterity of Adam, though they sinn'd less than Adam; so life should be given to the followers of Christ, though they were imperfectly righteous, that is, not after the similitude of Christs perfection.

13. But for the further clearing the Article depending upon the right understanding of these words, these two things are observable. 1. That the evil of death descending upon Adams posterity, for his sake went no further than till Moses. For after the giving of Moses's law, death passed no further upon the account of Adams transgression, but by the sanction of Moses's law, where death was anew, distinctly, and expresly threatned as it was to Adam, and so went forward upon a new score, but introduc'd first by Adam; that is, he was the cause at first, and till Moses also, he was in some sence the author, and for ever after, the precedent; and therefore the Apostle said well, In Adam we all die: his sin brought in the sentence, in him it began, and from him it passed upon all the world, though by several dispensations. 2. In the discourse of the Apostle, those that were nam'd were not consider'd simply as born from Adam, and therefore it did not come upon the account of Natural or Original corruption, but they were consider'd as Sinners; just as they who have life by Christ are not consider'd as merely children by title, or spiritual birth, and adoption, but as just and faithful. But then this is the proportion and purpose of the Apostle; as God gives to these life by Christ, which is a greater thing than their imperfect righteousness without Christ could have expected: so here also; this part of Adams posterity was punish'd with death for their own sin: but this death was brought upon them by Adam; that is, the rather for his provocation of God by his great transgression.

14. There is now remaining no difficulty but in the words of the 19. verse [By one mans disobedience many were made sinners.] Concerning which I need not make use of the word [...], or many; whom sometimes S. Paul calls [...], sometimes [...], all, and many, that is, all from Adam to Moses, but they are but many, and not all in respect of mankind; exactly answering to the All, that have life by Christ, which are only the [...], or the [...], those many that believe, and are adopted into the Covenant of believers: by this indeed it is perceivable that this was not a natural title or derivation of an inherent corruption from Adam, for that must have included All, absolutely and universally. But that which I here dwell and rely upon is this:

15. Sin is often in Scripture us'd for the punishment of sin; and they that suffer, are called sinners, though they be innocent. So it is in this case. By Adams disobedience many were made sinners; that is, the sin of Adam pass'd upon them, and sate upon their heads with evil effect, like that of Bathsheba; 1 Kings 1.21. I and my son shall be accounted sinners; that is, evil will befall us, we shall be used like sinners, like Traitors and [Page] Usurpers.Zech. 14.19. So, This shall be the sin of Egypt, said the Prophet: This shall be the punishment; so we read it. And Cain, complaining of the greatness of his punishment, said, Mine iniquity is greater than I can bear. * And to put it past all doubt, not only punishment is called sin in Scripture, but even he that bears it. Him that knew no sin, God hath made sin, 2 Cor. 5.21. that we might be the righteousness of God in him: and the Prophet Isaiah speaking of Christ,Isa. 53.10. saith, Posuit peccatum animam suam; He hath made his soul a sin, that is, obnoxious to the punishment of sin. Thus it is said, that Christ shall appear the second time without sin, Heb. 9.28. that is, without the punishment of sin unto salvation: for of sin formally or materially, he was at first as innocent as at the second time; that is, pure in both. And if Christ who bare our burthen, became sin for us in the midst of his purest innocence, that we also are by Adam made sinners, that is, suffer evil by occasion of his demerit, infers not that we have any formal guilt, or enmity against God upon that account. Facti peccatores in S. Paul, by Adam we are made sinners, answers both in the story and in the expression to Christus factus peccatum pro nobis; Christ was made sin for us, that is, was expos'd to the evil that is consequent to sin, viz. to its punishment.

16. For the further explication of which, it is observable that the word [sinner] and [sin] in Scripture is us'd for any person that hath a fault or a legal impurity, a debt, a vitiosity, defect, or imperfection. For the Hebrews use the word [...] for any obligation which is contracted by the Law without our fault. Thus a Nazarite who had touch'd a dead body, was tied to offer a sacrifice [...], for sin; and the reason is added, [...], that is, he had sinn'd concerning the dead body; and yet it was nothing but a legal impurity, nothing moral. And the offering that was made by the leprous, or the menstruous, or the diseased in profluvio seminis, is called [...], an offering for sin, and yet it might be innocent all the way.

17. Thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said, that our blessed Lord (who is compared to the High-Priest among the Jews) did offer first for his own sins;Heb. 7.27. by which word it is certain that no sin properly could be meant, for Christ was [...], he knew no sin; but it means, the state of his infirmity, the condition of his mortal body, which he took for us and our sins, and is a state of misery and of distance from Heaven; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven; whither Christ was not to go, till by offering himself he had unclothed himself of that imperfect vesture, as they that were legally impure might not go to the Temple before their offering:Rom. 6.10. and therefore when by death he quit himself of this condition, it is said [he died unto sin.] Parallel to this is that of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Hebrews, where the state of infirmity is expresly called sin.Vers. 2, 3. The High-Priest] is himself also compassed with infirmity; and by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins. This is also more expresly by S. Paul called [...],Rom. 8.3. the likeness of the sin of the flesh; and thus, Concupiscence or the first motions and inclinations to sin, is called sin, and said to have the nature of sin, that is, [...], the likeness, it may be, the material part of sin, or something by which sin is commonly known. And thus Origen observes, that an oblation was to be offered, even for new born children, [...], as if they were not clean from sin. But this being an usual expression among the Hebrews, bears its sence upon the palm of the hand, and signifies only the legal impurity in which the [...], the new born babes and their Mothers were involv'd. Even Christ himself who had no Original sin was subject to this purification. So we read in S. Luke;Luke 2.22. and when the days of [her] purification were accomplish'd: but in most books, and particular in the Kings MS. it is read, [...], the days of [their] purification. But the things of this nature being called offerings for sins, and the expression usual among the Jews, I doubt not but hath given occasion to the Christian Writers to fancy other things than were intended.

18. Having now explicated those words of S. Paul, which by being misunderstood have caused strange devices in this Article, we may now without prejudice examine what really was the effect of Adams sin, and what evil descended upon his posterity.

19. Adams sin was punish'd by an expulsion out of Paradise, in which was a Tree appointed to be the cure of diseases and a conservatory of life. There was no more told as done but this, and its proper consequents. He came into a land less blessed, a land which bore thistles and briars easily, and fruits with difficulty, so that he was forc'd to sweat hard for his bread; and this also (I cannot say did descend, but) [Page] must needs be the condition of his children who were left to live so, and in the same place; just as when young Anthony had seis'd upon Marcus Cicero's land, the Son also lost what he never had. And thus death came in, not by any new sentence or change of nature: for man was created mortal; and if Adam had not sinned, he should have been immortal by grace, that is, by the use of the Tree of life; and now being driven from the place where the Tree grew, was left in his own natural constitution, that is, to be sick and die without that remedy. [...].Cyril. adv. Anthrop. Dial adv. Tryph. He was mortal of himself, and we are mortal from him. Peccando Adam posteros morti subjecit, & universos huic delicto obnoxios reddit, said Justin Martyr. Adam by his sin made all his posterity liable to the sin, and subjected them to death. One explicates the other; and therefore S. Cyprian calls Original sin,Lib. 3. Ep. 8. Malum domesticum, contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contractum. His sin infected us with death, and this infection we derive in our birth, that is, we are born mortal. Adams sin was imputed to us unto a natural death; in him we are sinners, as in him we die. But this sin is not real and inherent, but imputed only to such a degree. So S. Cyprian affirms most expresly — infans recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundum Adam carnalitèr natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit. An infant hath not sinn'd, save only that being carnally born of Adam, in his first birth he hath contracted the contagion of the old death.

20. This evil which is the condition of all our natures, viz. to die, was to some a punishment, but to others not so. It was a punishment to all that sinn'd both before Moses and since; upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam (as I before discours'd) upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger which was threatned in Moses law. But to those who sinned not at all, as Infants and Innocents, it was merely a condition of their nature, and no more a punishment, than to be a child is. It was a punishment of Adams sin; because by his sin humane Nature became disrob'd of their preternatural immortality, and therefore upon that account they die; but as it related to the persons, it was not a punishment, not an evil afflicted for their sin, or any guiltiness of their own, properly so called.

21. We find nothing else in Scripture express'd to be the effect of Adams sin: and beyond this without authority we must not go. Other things are said, but I find no warrant for them in that sence they are usually suppos'd, and some of them in no sence at all. The particulars commonly reckoned, are, that from Adam we derive an Original ignorance, a proneness to sin, a natural malice, a fomes, or nest of sin imprinted and plac'd in our souls, a loss of our wills liberty, and nothing is left but a liberty to sin, which liberty upon the summ of affairs is expounded to be a necessity to sin: and the effect of all is, we are born heirs of damnation.

22. Concerning Original or Natural ignorance, it is true, we derive it from our Parents, I mean we are born with it; but I do not know that any man thinks that if Adam had not sinn'd that sin, Cain should have been wise as soon as his Navel had been cut. Neither can we guess at what degree of knowledge Adam had before his fall. Certainly, if he had had so great a knowledge, it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes, out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge. But concerning his posterity; indeed it is true a child cannot speak at first, nor understand; and if (as Plato said) all our knowledge is nothing but memory, it is no wonder a child is born without knowledge. But so it is in the wisest men in the world; they also when they see or hear a thing first, think it strange, and could not know it till they saw or heard it. Now this state of ignorance we derive from Adam, as we do our Nature, which is a state of ignorance and all manner of imperfection; but whether it was not imperfect, and apt to fall into forbidden instances even before his fall, we may best guess at by the event; for if he had not had a rebellious appetite, and an inclination to forbidden things, by what could he have been tempted, and how could it have come to pass that he should sin? Indeed this Nature was made worse by sin, and became devested of whatsoever it had extraordinary, and was left naked, and mere, and therefore it is not only an Original imperfection which we inherit, but in the sence now explicated, it is also an Original corruption. And this is all: As natural death by his sin became a curse, so our natural imperfection became natural corruption, and that is Original sin. Death and imperfection we derive from Adam, but both were natural to us; but by him they became actual, and penal, and by him they became worse, as by every evil act, every principle of evil is improv'd. And in this sence, this Article is affirmed by all the Doctors of the ancient Church. We are miserable really, sinners in account or effect, that properly, this improperly; and are faln [Page] into so sad a state of things which we also every day make worse, that we did need a Saviour to redeem us from it. For in Original sin we are to consider the principle, and the effects. The principle is the actual sin of Adam. This being to certain purposes by Gods absolute dominion imputed to us, hath brought upon us a necessity of dying, and all the affections of mortality; which although they were natural, yet would by grace have been hindred. Another evil there is upon us, and that is Concupiscence; this also is natural, but it was actual before the fall, it was in Adam, and tempted him. This also from him is derived to us, and is by many causes made worse, by him and by our selves. And this is the whole state of Original sin, so far as is fairly warrantable. But for the other particulars the case is wholly differing.

The sin of Adam neither made us

1. Heirs of damnation: Nor,

2. Naturally and necessarily vicious.

23. I. It could not make us Heirs of damnation. This I shall the less need to insist upon, because of it self it seems so horrid to impute to the goodness and justice of God to be author of so great a calamity to Innocents, that S. Austins followers have generally left him in that point, and have descended to this lesser proportion, that Original sin damns only to the eternal loss of the sight of Gods glorious face. But to this, I say these things.

24. I. That there are many Divines which believe this alone to be the worm that never dies, and the fire that never goeth out; that is, in effect, this, and the anguish for this is all the Hell of the damned. And unless infants remain infants in the resurrection too (which no man that I know affirms) or unless they be senseless and inapprehensive, it is not to be imagined, but that all that know they are by way of punishment depriv'd of the glorious face of God, must needs have a horrible anguish of soul to eternal ages. And this argument, besides the reasonableness of the thing, hath warrant from the words of S. Austin. Lib. 6. in Julian. c. 4. Si hoc eis non erit malum, non ergo amabunt regnum Dei tot innocentes imagines Dei? Si autem amabunt, & tantum amabunt, quantum innocentes amare debent, regnum ejus, à quo ad ipsius imaginem creantur, nihilne mali de hâc ipsâ separatione patientu [...]? Here the good man and eloquent, supposes the little babies to be innocent, to be images of God, to love the Kingdom of God, and yet to be sentenc'd to Hell: which (it may be) he did, but I do not understand; save only that in the Parable we find Dives in Hell to be very charitable to his living brethren. But that which I make use of for the present, is, that infants besides the loss of Gods presence, and the beholding his face, are apprehensive and afflicted with that evil state of things, whither their infelicity, not their fault, hath carried them.

25. II. But suppose this to be but a mere privative state, yet it cannot be inflicted upon infants as a punishment of Adams sin, and upon the same account it cannot be inflicted upon any one else. Not upon infants, because they are not capable of a law for themselves, therefore much less of a law which was given to another, here being a double incapacity of obedience. They cannot receive any law, and if they could, yet of this they never were offer'd any notice till it was too late. Now if infants be not capable of this, nor chargeable with it, then no man is; for all are infants first, and if it comes not by birth, and at first, it cannot come at all. So that although this privative Hell be less than to say they are tormented in flames besides, yet it is as unequal and unjust. There is not indeed the same cruelty, but there is the same injustice. I deny not but all persons naturally are so that they cannot arrive at Heaven, but unless some other principle be put into them, or some great grace done for them, must for ever stand separate from seeing the face of God. But this is but accidentally occasion'd by the sin of Adam. That left us in our natural state, and that state can never come to Heaven in its own strength. But this condition of all men by nature is not the punishment of our sin; for this would suppose, that were it not for this sin superinduc'd, otherwise we should go to Heaven. Now this is not true; for if Adam had not sinned, yet without something supernatural, some grace and gift, we could never go to Heaven. Now although the sin of Adam left him in his nakedness, and a mere natural man; yet presently this was supplied, and we were never in it, but were improv'd and better'd by the promise, and Christ hath died for mankind, and in so doing is become our Redeemer and Representative; and therefore this sin of Adam cannot call us back from that state of good things, into which we are put by the mercies of God in our Lord Jesus; and therefore now no infant or idiot, or man [Page] or woman shall for this alone be condemn'd to an eternal banishment from the sweetest presence of God. But this will be evinced more certainly in the following periods. For if they stand for ever banished from the presence of God, then they shall be for ever shut up in Hell, with the Devil and his Angels; for the Scripture hath mentioned no portions but of the right and left hand. Greg. Naz. and his Scholiast Nicetas did suppose that there should be a middle state between Heaven and Hell for Infants and Heathens; and concerning Infants Pope Innocent III. and some Schoolmen Ambros. Catharinus, Albert. Pighi [...]. have taken it up: but De verb. Apost. Serm. 14 S. Austin hath sufficiently confuted it; and it is sufficient that there is no ground for it but their own dreams.

26. III. But then against those that say, the flames of Hell is the portion of Adams heirs, and that Infants dying in Original sin are eternally tormented as Judas, or Dives, or Julian, I call to witness all the Oeconomy of the divine goodness, and justice, and truth. The soul that sins it shall die; As I live, saith the Lord, Ezek. 18. the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father; that is, he shall not be guilty of his crime, nor liable to his punishment.

27. IV. Is Hell so easie a pain, or are the souls of children of so cheap, so contemptible a price, that God should so easily throw them into Hell? Gods goodness which pardons many sins which we could avoid, will not so easily throw them into Hell for what they could not avoid. Gods goodness is against this.

28. V. It is suppos'd that Adam did not finally perish for that sin which himself committed; all Antiquity thought so, Tatianus only excepted, who was a heretick accounted, and the father of the Encratites. But then what equity is it that any innocents or little children should? for either God pardon'd Adam or condemn'd him. If he pardon'd him that sinn'd, it is not so agreeable to his goodness to exact it of others that did not Ex tarditate si Dii sontes praetereant, & insontes plectant, justitiam suam non sic rectè resarciunt.. For if he pardon'd him, then either God took off all that to which he was liable, or only remov'd it from him to place it somewhere else. If he remov'd it from him to his posterity, that is it which we complain of as contrary to his justice and his goodness. But if God took off all that was due, how could God exact it of others, it being wholly pardon'd? But if God did not pardon him the eternal guilt, but took the forfeiture and made him pay the full price of his sin, that is, all which he did threaten and intend, then it is not to be supposed that God should in justice demand more than eternal pains as the price to be paid by one man for one sin. So that in all sences this seems unjust.

29. VI. To be born, was a thing wholly involuntary and unchosen, and therefore it could in no sence be chosen, that we were born so, that is, born guilty of Adams sin, which we knew not of, which was done so many thousand years before we were born; which we had never heard of, if God had not been pleas'd by a supernatural way to reveal to us, which the greatest part of mankind to this day have never heard of; at which we were displeas'd as soon as we knew of it; which hath caused much trouble to us, but never tempted us with any pleasure.

30. VII. No man can perish for that of which he was not guilty; but we could not be involv'd in the guilt, unless some way or other our consent had been involv'd. For it is no matter who sins, or who is innocent, if he that is innocent may perish for what another does without his knowledge or leave, either ask'd, or given, or presum'd. * But if our consent was in it, then either it was included naturally, or by an express will of God that made it so. It can no way be imagined how our will can be naturally included, for we had no natural being. We had no life, and therefore no action, and therefore no consent. For it is impossible there should be an act of will in any sence, when there is an act of understanding in no sence. * But if by a Divine act or decree it became so, and not by our act, then we only are said to consent, because God would have it so; which, if we speak intelligibly, is to charge God with making us guilty when we were not, to say, we consented when we did not.

31. VIII. In pursuance of which argument, I consider, that whatsoever can be said to consent, must have a being either in or out of its causes. But our will was not in being or actual existence when Adam sinned; it was then in its causes. But the soul, and so the will of man hath no cause but God, it being with the soul immediately created. If therefore we sinned, we could not sin in our selves, for we were not born; nor could we sin in Adam, for he was not the cause of our will; it must therefore be that we sinn'd in God: for as was our being, so must our action be; but our being was then only in God, our will and our soul was in him only, tanquam in [...] causâ, therefore in him was our action, or consent, or what we please to call it. [Page] Which affirmative, what sence, or what piety, or what probability it can have in it, I suppose, needs not much inquiry.

32. IX. To condemn Infants to Hell for the fault of another, is to deal worse with them, than God did to the very Devils, who did not perish but for an act of their own most perfect choice.

33. X. This, besides the formality of injustice and cruelty, does add and suppose a circumstance of a strange ungentle contrivance. For because it cannot be supposed that God should damn Infants or Innocents without cause, it finds out this way, that God to bring his purposes to pass, should create a guilt for them, or bring them into an inevitable condition of being guilty by a way of his inventing.Qui vult aliquid in causâ vult effectum ex istâ causâ profluentem. For if he did make any such agreement with Adam, he beforehand knew that Adam would forfeit all, and therefore that unavoidably all his posterity should be surpris'd. This is to make pretences, and to invent justifications and reasons of his proceedings, which indeed are all one as if they were not. For he that can make a reason for an action otherwise unjust, can do it without any reason; especially when the reason it self makes the misery as fatal as a decree without a reason: And if God cannot be supposed to damn infants without just cause, and therefore he so order'd it that a cause should not be wanting, but he infallibly and irresistibly made them guilty of Adams sin; is not this to resolve to make them miserable, and then with scorn to triumph in their sad condition? For if they could not deserve to perish without a fault of their own, how could they deserve to have such a fault put upon them? If it be unjust to damn them without cause, is it not also unjust to make a cause for them whether they will or no?

34. XI. It is suppos'd and generally taught, that before the fall Adam had Original righteousness, that is, not only that he was innocent as children new born are of actual sin (which seems to be that which Divines call Original righteousness, there being no other either taught, or reasonable) but a rare rectitude of the inner man, a just subordination of the inferior faculties to the superior, an excellent knowledge and clear light: and therefore that he would sin had so little excuse, that well it might deserve such a punishment, so great as himself suffered. Indeed if he had no such rare perfections and rectitude, I can say nothing to the particular: but to the Question, this; that if Adam had it not, then he could not lose it, nor his posterity after him; as it is fiercely and mightily pretended that they did. But if he had this rectitude and rare endowments, what equity is it that his posterity who had no such helps to resist the sin, and were so far from having any helps at all to resist it, that they had no notice of it, neither of the law, nor the danger, nor the temptation, nor the action, till it was past; I say, what equity is it that his posterity should in the midst of all these imperfections be equally punished with him, who sinned against so great a light, and so mighty helps?

35. XII. Infants cannot justly perish for Adams sin, unless it be just that their wills should be included in his will, and his will justly become theirs by interpretation. Now if so, I ask, Whether before that sin of Adam were our wills free, or not free? For if we had any will at all, it must be free, or not free. If we had none at all, how could it be involv'd in his? Now if our wills were free, why are they without our act, and whether we will or no, involv'd in the will of another? If they were not free, how could we be guilty? * If they were free, then they could also dissent. If they were not free, then they could not consent; and so either they never had, or else before Adams fall they lost their liberty.

36. XIII. But if it be inquired seriously, I cannot imagine what can be answered. Could we prevent the sin of Adam? could we hinder it? were we ever ask'd? Could we, if we had been ask'd after we were born a month, have given our negative? Or could we do more before we were born than after? were we, or could we be tied to prevent that sin? Did not God know that we could not in that case dissent? And why then shall our consent be taken in by interpretation, when our dissent could not be really acted; But if at that time we could not dissent really, could we have dissented from Adams sin by interpretation? If not, then we could dissent no way, and then it was inevitably decreed that we should be ruin'd: for neither really, nor by interpretation could we have dissented. But if we could by interpretation have dissented, it were certainly more agreeable to Gods goodness, to have interpreted for us in the better sence, rather than in the worse; being we did neither, really and actually; and if God had so pleased, he rather might with his goodness have interpreted us to have dissented, than he could with justice have interpreted us to have consented: [Page] and therefore certainly he did so, or would have done, if there had been need.

37. XIV. Lastly; the Consequent of these is this. That because God is true and just and wise, and good, and merciful, it is not to be supposed that he will snatch Infants from their Mothers breasts, and throw them into the everlasting flames of Hell for the sin of Adam, that is, as to them, for their mere natural state of which himself was Author and Creator: that is, he will not damn them for being good. For God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good: and therefore so is that state of descent from Adam. God is the Author of it, and therefore it cannot be ill. It cannot be contrary to God, because it is his work.

38. Upon the account of these reasons I suppose it safe to affirm, that God does not damn any one to Hell merely for the sin of our first Father, which I summ up in the words of S. Ambrose, or whoever is the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul attributed to him; Mors autem dissolutio corporis est, In cap. 5. Rom. cum anima à corpore separatur. Est & alia mors, quae secunda dicitur, in Gehennâ, quam non peccato Adaepatimur, sed ejus occasione propriis peccatis acquiritur. Death is the dividing Soul and Body. There is also another death which is in Hell, and is called the second Death, which we do not suffer for the sin of Adam; but by occasion of it, we fall into it by our own sins.

Next we are to inquire, whether or no it does not make us infallibly, naturally, and necessarily vitious, by taking from us Original righteousness, by discomposing the order of our faculties, and inslaving the will to sin and folly, concerning which the inquiry must be made by parts.

39. For if the sin of Adam did debauch our Nature, and corrupt our will and manners, it is either by a Physical or Natural efficiency of the sin it self: or 2. Because we were all in the loins of Adam, or 3. By the sentence and decree of God.

40. I. Not by any Natural efficiency of the sin it self: Because then it must be that every sin of Adam must spoil such a portion of his Nature, that before he died, he must be a very beast. 2. We also by degeneration and multiplication of new sins must have been at so vast a distance from him at the very worst, that by this time we should not have been so wise as a flie, nor so free and unconstrain'd as fire. 3. If one sin would naturally and by physical causality destroy Original righteousness, then every one sin in the regenerate can as well destroy Habitual righteousness, because that and this differ not but in their principle, not in their nature and constitution. And why should not a righteous man as easily and as quickly fall from grace, and lose his habits, as Adam did? Naturally it is all one. 4. If that one sin of Adam did destroy all his righteousness and ours too, then our Original sin does more hurt, and is more punish'd, and is of greater malice than our actual sin. For one act of sin does but lessen and weaken the habit, but does not quite destroy it. If therefore this act of Adam (in which certainly, at least we did not offend maliciously) destroys all Original righteousness, and a malicious act now does not destroy a righteous habit, it is better for us in our own malice, than in our ignorance, and we suffer less for doing evil that we know of, than for doing that which we knew nothing of.

41. II. If it be said, that this evil came upon us because we all were in the loins of Adam: I consider, 1. That then by the same reason we are guilty of all the sins 1 which he ever committed while we were in his loins; there being no imaginable reason why the first sin should be propagated, and not the rest; and he might have sinned the second time, and have sinn'd worse. Add to this, that the later sins are commonly the worse, as being committed not only against the same law, but a greater reason, and a longer experience, and heightned by the mark of ingratitude, and deeply noted with folly, for venturing damnation so much longer: And then he that was born last should have most Original sin; and Seth should in his birth and nature be worse than Abel, and Abel be worse than Cain. 2. Upon this account all the 2 sins of all our progenitors will be imputed to us, because we were in their loins when they sinn'd them; and every lustful father must have a lustful son, and so every man, or no man will be lustful. For if ever any man were lustful or intemperate when, or before he begot his child, upon this reckoning his child will be so too, and then his grandchild, and so on for ever. 3. Sin is seated in the will, it is an action, and 3 transient; and when it dwells or abides, it abides no where but in the will by approbation and love, to which is naturally consequent a readiness in the inferior faculties to obey and act accordingly; and therefore sin does not infect our mere natural faculties, but the will only, and not that in the natural capacity, but in its moral only. 4. And indeed 4 to him that considers it, it will seem strange and monstrous, that a moral obliquity, [Page] in a single instance, should make an universal change in a natural suscipient, and in a natural capacity. When it is in nature impossible that any impression should be made but between those things that communicate in matter or capacity; and therefore if this were done at all, it must be by a higher principle, by Gods own act or sanction, and then should be referred to another principle, not this against which I am now disputing. 5 5. No man can transmit a good habit, a grace, or a vertue by natural generation; as a great Scholar's son cannot be born with learning, and the child of a Judge cannot upon his birth-day give wise sentences; and Marcus the son of Cicero was not so good an Orator as his father: and how can it be then that a naughty quality should be more apt to be disseminated than a good one; when it is not the goodness or the badness of a quality that hinders its dissemination, but its being an acquir'd and superinduc'd quality that makes it cannot descend naturally? Add to this, how can a bad quality, morally bad, be directly and regularly transmitted by an action morally good? and since neither God that is the Maker of all does amiss, and the father that begets sins not, and the child that is begotten cannot sin, by what conveyance 6 can any positive evil be derived to the posterity? 6. It is generally, now adays especially, believed, that the soul is immediately created, not generated, according to the doctrine of Aristotle, affirming [...]; that the soul is from without, and is a Divine substance; and therefore sin cannot descend by natural generation, or by our being in Adams loins. And how can it be, that the father who contributes nothing to her production, should contribute to her pollution? that he who did not transmit life, should transmit his sin? and yet if the soul were traduc'd from the parents, and begotten, yet sin could not descend, because it is not a natural, but a superinduc'd quality; and if it could, then it would follow, that we should from every vicious father derive a proper Original sin, besides the general. 7. If in him we sinned, then it were but just, that in him we should be punished: 7 for as the sin is, so ought the punishment to be. But it were unjust, or at least it seems so, that he should sin for us, and we be punished for him, or that he should sin for us and for himself, and yet be punish'd for himself alone.

42. III. But if it be said, that this happened because of the will and decree of God; then there is no more to be done, but to look into the record, and see what God threatned, and what he inflicted. He threatned death and inflicted it, with all its preparations and solemnities in men and women: hard labour in them both; which S. Chrysostome thus expresses,In 5. Rom. [...]. Adam falling, even they that did not eat of the Tree, were of him all born mortal. He and all his posterity were left in the mere natural state; that is, in a state of imperfection, in a state that was not sufficiently instructed and furnished with abilities in order to a supernatural end, whither God had secretly design'd mankind. In this state he could never arrive at Heaven, but that was to be supplied by other means; for this made it necessary that all should come to Christ, and is the great [...] and necessity for the baptism of Infants, that they being admitted to supernatural promises and assistances, may be lifted up to a state above their nature; Not only to improve their present good, as the Pelagians affirm'd,

Tam Dives verò hoc donum baptismatis esse,

Vt parvis etiam vitióque carentibus omni

Congruat, ut qui sunt geniti bene, sint meliores

Naturaeque bonum adjecto illustretur honore;

But to take off that evil state of things whither by occasion of the fall of Adam they were devolv'd, and to give them new birth, adoption into Christ, and the seeds of a new nature, so to become children of God and heirs of the promises, who in their mere naturals did inherit from Adam nothing but misery, and imperfection, and death.

Coelorum regnum sperate hoc fonte renati,

Non recipit felix vita semel genitos.

Insons esse volens isto mundare lavacro,

Seu patrio premeris crimine, seu proprio.

2 So Xistus in the Verses written upon the Fount of Constantine. But 2. It is not to be supposed that God did inflict any necessity of sinning upon Adam or his posterity, because from that time ever unto this, he by new laws hath required innocence of life, [Page] or repentance and holiness. For besides that it is a great testimony of the Divine favour that God will still imploy us, and exact more services of us, and that there is no greater argument of joy to us in the world, than that we are Gods servants, and there can be no greater testimony, that God is our God; and that of this employing us in his service, there can be no greater evidence, than the giving to us new laws: Besides this, I say, if man could not obey, it is not consistent with the wisdom of God, to require of man, what he knows man cannot do; nor with his justice to punish that in man, which he knows man cannot avoid.

43. But if it be objected, that man had strengths enough in his first Creation, but when in Adam he sinned, in him also he forfeited all his strengths; and therefore his consequent disability being his own fault, cannot be his excuse; and to whatsoever laws God shall be pleased afterwards to impose, he cannot plead his infirmity, because himself having brought it on himself, must suffer for it: It being just in God to exact the law of him, even where he is unable to keep it, because God once made him able, and he disabled himself. I answer many things.

44. I. That Adam had any more strengths than we have, and greater powers of Nature, and by his fall lost them to himself and us, being part of the question, ought 1 not to be pretended, till it be proved. Adam was a man, as his sons are, and no more; and God gave him strength enough to do his duty; and God is as just and loving to us as to him, and hath promis [...]d he will lay no more upon us, than he will make us able to bear. But 2. He that disables himself from doing his Lord service, if 2 he does it on purpose that he may not serve him, may be punished for not doing all that which was imposed upon him, because that servant did chuse his disability, that he might with some pretence refuse the service. He did disobey in all the following particulars; because out of a resolution not to obey in those particulars, he made himself unable in the general. It is all one with the case of voluntary and affected ignorance. He that refuses knowledge lest he should understand his duty, and he that disables himself that he may not do it, may be punished not only for not doing it, but for making it impossible to be done. But that was not Adams case, so far as we know; and it is certain it was not ours in the matter of his sin. 3. But if he commits 3 a fault which accidentally disables him; as if he eats too much, and be sick the next day, and fall into a fever, he may indeed, and is justly punished for his gluttony, but he is not punishable for omitting that which in his present weakness he can no ways perform. The reason is, because this disability was involuntary, and an evil accident; of it self a punishment of his sin, and therefore of it self not punishable; and this involuntariness is still the more notorious and certain, as the consequents are the more remote. 4. No man can be answerable to God for the consequent of his sin, unless it be natural, foretold, or foreseen; but for the sin it self he is; and as for the 4 consequents superinduc'd by God, he must suffer them, but not answer for them. For these being in the hands of God, are not the works of mens hands; God hath effected it upon the sinner, he is the Author of it, and by it he is directly glorified; and therefore though by it the sinner is punished, yet for it he cannot be punished again. 5. But 5 that I may come to the case of the present argument. This measure and line of justice is most evident in laws to be imposed after the disability is contracted, and not foreseen before; concerning which, there can be no pretence of justice that the breach of them should be punished. If a law be already imposed, and a man by his fault loses those assistances, without which he could not keep the law, he may nevertheless in the rigor of justice be punished for not keeping it, because the law was given him when he had strength, and he ought to have preserv'd it. For though he cannot be obliged to a new law to which he is not enabled, yet for his sin he shall not be disoblig'd from an old law to which he was enabled. Although God will not exceed his measures, or do wrong to a sinner, yet by his sin he shall receive no favour, or immunity. But in laws to be imposed afterwards, the case (I say) is otherwise. Because the persons are not capable of any such law; and God knowing they cannot perform them, cannot intend they should, and therefore cannot justly punish them, for not doing that, which himself did never heartily intend they should do, because he knew they could not. The instances will make the matter to be confessed. * Suppose a man falling into drunkenness, should by the Divine judgement fall lame; can God afterwards exact it of him that he should leap and dance in publick festivities, when he can neither go nor stand? If so, suppose yet further, that by the Divine judgment he should fall mad; Is the mad man capable of a new law? I suppose it will not be said he is: or if it be, suppose yet further, that he be taken speechless, and senseless, or [Page] die: Can God still exact of him obedience to any new Commandment? If he be dead, his day is done, he can work no more, nor be oblig'd any more; and so it is, if he be mad, or any ways disabled; the case is all one. For whatsoever the disability 6 be, the incapacity, and impossibility, and the excuse is the same. 6. When God (as it is said) punish'd the first sin with a consequent disability of doing any future services, if he also punishes the not doing what he afterwards imposes, I ask, whether this later punishment be precisely due to the later, or to the former sin? If to the later, then in vain is it laid upon the former account; and yet, if it be laid upon its own, it is high injustice; because of this law the man was not a subject capable when it was imposed, the man was dead before the law was alive: and a tree is as much capable of a law, as a man is of an impossible Commandment. But if the punishment of this later be inflicted upon the sinner for the first transgression by which he disabled himself, then in vain was the later Commandment imposed. For since the later sin was unavoidable, and the first sin deserv'd the whole damnation, what end could there be of imposing this new law, by which God could not serve any new purpose, no not for the manifestation of his justice in condemning him? For if the first sin deserv'd condemnation, there was no need to introduce a new pretence, and to seek an occasion to slay him. But if it did not, it is certain the new sin could not make it just to do what was not just before, because by this new omission there can be no new guilt contracted. But of this I shall give yet a further account when I shall discourse in what sence God can be said to punish one sin with another.

45. The consequent of the parts of this discourse is this, that since the sin of Adam did not debauch our nature by any natural efficiency of the sin it self,Idem sensit Jacobus Faber in 5. Rom. Nihil nos ex Adamo trahere nisi obligationem ad mortem. Albertus Pighius controv. 1. de peccato Orig. & Ambr. Catharinus de lapsu hominis & peccato Orig. statuunt, Peccatum Originis non habere veram peccatirationem, sed esse tan [...]m rèatum quo posteri primorum parentum propter transgressionem illorum primaevam sine aliquo vitio proprio & inhaere [...]te naturae pravitate devincti teneantur. nor by our being in the loyns of Adam, nor yet by any sentence or decree of God, we are not by Adams sin made necessarily and naturally vicious, and inclin'd to evil, but are left in our mere nature such as it was, and such as it is.

— Nec si miserum [Natura] Sinonem

Finxit, vanum etiam mendacémque improba finget.

Nature makes us miserable and imperfect,Epist. ad Magnes. but not criminal. [...]. They are the words of S. Ignatius the Martyr. If any man be a pious and a good man, he is of God; if he be impious, he is of the Devil. Not by Nature, but made so by his own proceedings. To all which I add this;

46. That in Scripture there is no signification of any corruption or depravation of our souls by Adams sin; which I shall manifest by examination of all those places which are the pretence of the contrary doctrine. For if God hath not declared in Scripture any such thing, we have the common notions of his justice, and wisdom, and goodness, and truth in prejudice of the contrary.

SECT. II. Consideration of the Objections against the former Doctrine.

Gen. 6.5.47. THE first is [Every imagination of the thoughts of mans heart are only evil continually.] I answer, it is true, they were so, but it was their own fault, not Adams; for so it is said expresly V. 12., [All flesh had corrupted his way upon earth, and the earth was filled with violence.] 2. If this corruption had been natural and unavoidable, why did God punish all the world for it, except eight persons? why did he punish those that could not help it? and why did others escape that were equally guilty? Is not this a respect of persons, and partiality to some, and iniquity towards all? which far be it from the Judge of all the world. 3. God might as well have [Page] punish'd all the world, for sleeping once in a day, or for being hungry, as for sinning, if so to do be natural and unavoidable. 4. If God in these words complain'd of their Natural and Original corruption, why did he but then, as if it were a new thing, complain of it, and repent that he had made man, since he prov'd so bad? 5. This malice and corruption was such, that God did send Noah the Preacher of righteousness to draw the world from it. But no man supposes that it was fit to send a Preacher to dehort them from being guilty of Original sin. Therefore it was good counsel,

— Denique teipsum

Concute,

Horat

numqua tibi vitiorum inseverit olim

Natura, aut etiam consuetudo mala: namque

Neglectis urenda filix innascitur agris.

Blame not nature, but thy own evil customs; for thy neglect of thy fields will make fern, and thistles to grow. It is not only because the ground is accursed, but because it is neglected, that it bears thorns. Errasti, si existimas nobiscum vitia nasci: supervenerunt, ingesta sunt, said Seneca. Thou art deceived,Epist. 94. if thou thinkest that vices are born with us. No, they are superinduc'd and come in upon us afterwards.

48. And by this we may the better understand the following words [I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake; Gen. 8.21. for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth. Concerning which, note, that these words are not two sentences. For this is not the reason why God gave over smiting, because man was corrupt from his youth. For if this had been the reason, it would have come to pass, that the same cause which 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. Psal. 51.5.] 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, John 9.34. 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. Job 31.18. 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. Isa. 48.8.] 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!

Thebaid.

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? [Page] 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, Lib. 3. Strom. e [...]trem. 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.

Ephes. 2.2, 3.50. 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:Quaest. 88. For answering those words of Scripture, There is not any one clean who is born of a woman, and there is none begotten who hath not committed sin: He says their meaning cannot extend to Christ, for he was not [...], born to sin; but he is natura ad peccandum natus, [...], by nature born to sin, who by the choice of his own will is author to himself to do what he list, whether it be good or evil. The following words are eaten out by time; but upon this ground whatever he said of Infants, must needs have been to better purposes than is usually spoken of in this Article. 2. Heirs of wrath, signifies persons liable to punishment, heirs of death. It is an usual expression among the Hebrews. So sons of death in the holy Scriptures are those that deserve death, or are condemned to die. Thus Judas Iscariot is called, The son of perdition: John 17.12. and so is that saying of David to Nathan, [The man that hath done this shall surely die. 2 Sam. 12.25.] In the Hebrew it is [He is the son of death.] And so were [Page] those Ephesians, children, or sons of wrath before their conversion; that is, they had deserv'd death. 3. By nature is here most likely to be meant that which Galen calls [...], an acquisite nature, that is, [...], customs and evil habits. And so Suidas expounds the word in this very place; not only upon the account of Grammar, and the use of the word in the best Authors, but also upon an excellent reason. His words are these: [...]. When the Apostle says, we were by nature children of wrath, he means not that which is the usual signification of nature, for then it were not their fault, but the fault of him that made them such; but it means an abiding and vile habit, a wicked and a lasting custom. [...], saith Aristotle. Arist. Rhet. l. 1. c. 11. Custom is like Nature. For often and always are not far asunder. Nature is always, Custom is almost always. To the same sence are those words of Porphyry, Lib. 4. de esu anim. [...] — The ancients who lived likest to God, and were by nature the best, living the best life, were a golden generation. 4. By nature] means not by birth and natural extraction, or any original derivation from Adam, in this place: for of this these Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else, and no more before their conversion than after; but [by nature] signifies [...], so the Greek Scholiast renders it; [really, beyond opinion] plenè & omnino, intirely, or wholly, so the Syriack; and so S. Hierome affirms that the Ancients did expound it: and it is agreeable to the usage of the same phrase, Gal. 4.8. Ye did service to them which by nature are no Gods, that is, which really are none. And as these Ephesians were before their conversion, so were the Israelites in the days of their rebellion, a wicked stubborn people, insomuch that they are by the Prophet called [children of transgression, a seed of falsehood. Isa. 27.4.] But these and the like places have no force at all but what they borrow from the ignorance of that sence and acceptation of the word in those languages which ought to be the measure of them.

51. But it is hard upon such mean accounts to reckon all children to be born enemies of God, that is, bastards and not sons, heirs of Hell and damnation, full of sin and vile corruption, when the holy Scriptures propound children as imitable for their pretty innocence and sweetness, and declare them rather heirs of Heaven than Hell. In malice be children; and, unless we become like to children, 1 Cor. 14.20. Mat. 18.3.19.14. we shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; and, their Angels behold the face of their Father which is in Heaven. Heaven is theirs, God is their Father, Angels are appropriated to them; they are free from malice, and imitable by men. These are better words than are usually given them; and signifie, that they are beloved of God, not hated, design'd for Heaven, and born to it, though brought thither by Christ, and by the Spirit of Christ, not born for Hell; that was prepared for the Devil and his Angels, not for innocent babes. This does not call them naturally wicked, but rather naturally innocent, and is a better account than is commonly given them by imputation of Adams sin.

52. But not concerning children, but of himself S. Paul complains, that his nature and his principles of action and choice are corrupted. There is a law in my members, bringing me into captivity to the law of sin; and many other words to the same purpose;Rom. 7.23. all which indeed have been strangely mistaken to very ill purposes, so that the whole Chapter so as is commonly expounded, is nothing but a temptation to evil life, and a patron of impiety. Concerning which I have in the next Chapter given account, and freed it from the common abuse. But if this were to be understood in the sence which I there reprove, yet it is to be observed in order to the present Question, that S. Paul does not say [This law in our members comes by nature, or is derived from Adam.] A man may bring a law upon himself by vicious custom, and that may be as prevalent as Nature, and more; because more men have by Philosophy and illuminated Reason cured the disposition of their nature, than have cured their vicious habits. * Add to this, that S. Paul puts this uneasiness, and this carnal law in his members wholly upon the account of being under the law, and of his not being under Christ, not upon the account of Adams prevarication, as is plain in the analogy of the whole Chapter.

53. As easie also it is to understand these words of S. Paul without prejudice to this Question [The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither indeed can he know them] meaning (as is supposed) that there is in our natures an ignorance and averseness from spiritual things, that is, a contrariety to God.1 Cor. 2.14. But it is [Page] observable, that the word which the Apostle uses is [...], which is not properly rendred [Natural] but [Animal] and it certainly means a man that is guided only by natural Reason, without the revelations of the Gospel. [...]. So Suidas. An animal man, that is, a Philosopher, or a rational man, such as were the Greek and Roman Philosophers, upon the stock and account of the learning of all their Schools, could never discern the excellencies of the Gospel mysteries; as of God incarnate, Christ dying, Resurrection of the body, and the like. For this word [...], or Animal, and another word used often by the Apostle, [...], Carnal, are opposed to [...], Spiritual; and are states of evil, or of imperfection, in which while a man remains he cannot do the work of God. For animality, which is a relying upon natural principles without revelation, is a state privatively oppos'd to the Spirit; and a man in that state cannot be sav'd, because he wants a vital part, he wants the spirit, which is a part of the constitution of a Christian in that capacity, who consists of Body, and Soul, and Spirit, and therefore Anima without Spiritus, the Soul without the Spirit is not sufficient. * For as the Soul is a sufficient principle of all the actions of life, in order to our natural end and perfection, but it can bear us no further: so there must be another principle in order to a supernatural end, and that is the Spirit; called by S. Paul, [...], the new creation, by S. Peter, a divine nature; and by this, we become renewed in the inner man: the infusion of this new nature into us is called, Regeneration; and it is the great principle of godliness, called, Grace or the Spirit, [...], The seed of God, and by it we are begotten by God, and brought forth by the Church to the hopes and beginnings of a new life, and a supernatural end. And although I cannot say, that this is a third substance distinct from Soul and Body, yet it is a distinct principle put into us by God, without which we cannot work, and by which we can; and therefore if it be not a substance, yet it is more than a Metaphor, it is a real being, permanent and inherent; but yet such as can be lessen'd and extinguish'd.

But Carnality, or the state of being in the flesh, is not only privatively oppos'd, but contrarily also to the spiritual state, or the state of Grace. But as the first is not a sin deriv'd from Adam: so neither is the second. The first is only an imperfection, or want of supernatural aids; The other is indeed a direct state of sin, and hated by God, but superinduc'd by choice, and not descending naturally. * Now to the spiritual state, nothing is in Scripture oppos'd but these two, and neither of these when it is sinful can be pretended upon the stock or argument of any Scriptures to descend from Adam; therefore all the state of opposition to Grace, is owing to our selves, and not to him. Adam indeed did leave us all in an Animal estate, but this state is not a state of enmity, or direct opposition to God, but a state insufficient and imperfect. No man can perish for being an Animal man, that is, for not having any supernatural revelations, but for not consenting to them when he hath, that is, for being Carnal as well as Animal; and that he is Carnal is wholly his own choice. In the state of animality he cannot go to Heaven; but neither will that alone bear him to Hell: and therefore God does not let a man alone in that state; for either God suggests to him what is spiritual, or if he does not, it is because himself hath superinduc'd something that is Carnal.

54. Having now explicated those Scriptures which have made some difficulty in this Question, to what Topick soever we shall return, all things are plain and clear in this Article. Noxa caput sequitur, The soul that sinneth it shall die. Neque virtutes, neque vitia parentum liberis imputantur, Epist. 3. de morte Nepotian. saith S. Hierome. Neither the vices nor the vertues of the parents are imputed to the children. And therefore when Dion Chrysostomus had reprov'd Solon's laws, which in some cases condemn the innocent posterity; he adds this in honour of Gods law, [...]; That it does not like the law of the Athenians, punish the children and kindred of the Criminal; but every man is the cause of his own misfortune. But concerning this, it will not be amiss in order to many good purposes, to observe the whole Oeconomy and dispensation of the Divine Justice in this affair.

SECT. III. How God punishes the Fathers sin upon the Children.

[Page]

55. I. GOD may and does very often bless children to reward their fathers piety; as is notorious in the famous descent of Abrahams family. But the same is not the reason of favours and punishments. For such is the nature of benefits, that he in whose power they are, may without injustice give them why, and when, and to whom he please.

56. II. God never imputes the fathers sin to the son or relative, formally making him guilty, or being angry with the innocent eternally. It were blasphemy to affirm so fierce and violent a cruelty of the most merciful Saviour and Father of mankind; and it was yet never imagined or affirm'd by any that I know of, that God did yet ever damn an innocent son, though the father were the vilest person, and committed the greatest evils of the world, actually, personally, chusingly, and maliciously: and why it should by so many, and so confidently be affirm'd in a lesser instance, in so unequal a case, and at so long a distance, I cannot suspect any reason. Plutarch in his book against Herodotus affirms, that it is not likely they would, meaning that it was unjust, to revenge an injury which the Samians did to the Corinthians three hundred years before. But to revenge it for ever, upon all generations, and with an eternal anger upon some persons, even the most innocent, cannot without trembling be spoken or imagined of God, who is the great lover of Souls. Whatsoever the matter be in temporal inflictions, of which in the next propositions I shall give account, yet if the Question be concerning eternal damnation, it was never said, never threatned by God to pass from father to the son. When God punishes one relative for the sin of another, he does it as fines are taken in our law, salvo contenemento; the principal stake being safe, it may be justice to seise upon all the smaller portions; at least it is not against justice for God in such cases to use the power and dominion of a Lord. But this cannot be reasonable to be used in the matter of eternal interest; because if God should as a Lord use his power over Innocents and condemn them to Hell, he should be Author to them of more evil than ever he conveyed good to them; which but to imagine, would be a horrible impiety. And therefore when our blessed Saviour took upon him the wrath of God due to all mankind, yet Gods anger even in that case, extended no further than a temporal death. Because for the eternal, nothing can make recompence, and it can never turn to good.

57. III. When God inflicts a temporal evil upon the son for his fathers sin, he does it as a Judge to the father, but as a Lord only of the son. He hath absolute power over the lives of all his creatures, and can take it away from any man without injustice, when he please, though neither he nor his Parents have sinned; and he may use the same right and power when either of them alone hath sinn'd. But in striking the son, he does not do to him as a Judge; that is, he is not angry with him, but with the Parent: But to the son he is a supreme Lord, and may do what seemeth good in his own eyes.

58. IV. When God using the power and dominion of a Lord, and the severity of a Judge, did punish posterity, it was but so long as the fathers might live and see it, [...],Homil. 29. in 9. Gen. said S. Chrysostom, to the third and fourth generation, no longer. It was threatned to endure no longer, in the second Commandment; and so it hapned in the case of Zimri and Jehu; after the fourth generation they prevailed not upon their Masters houses. And if it happen that the Parents die before, yet it is a plague to them that they know, or ought to fear the evil shall happen upon their posterity; quò tristiores perirent, as Alexander said of the Traitors whose sons were to die after them, They die with sorrow and fear.

59. V. This power and dominion which God used, was not exercised in ordinary cases, but in the biggest crimes only. It was threatned in the case of idolatry; and was often inflicted in the case of perjury, of which the oracle recited by Herodotus said,

[Page]

— Impete magno

Advenit, atque omnem vastat stirpémque domúmque.

And in sacriledge the anger of God uses also to be severe, of which it was observ'd even by the Heathens taught by the Delphick Priests.

Sed capiti ipsorum quíque enascuntur ab ipsis

Imminet; ínque domo cladem subit altera clades.

Those sins which the Greeks called [...], and which the Christians called crying sins, are such, in the punishment of which God did not only use his severe justice as to the offending person, but for the enlargement and extension of his justice, and the terror of the world, he used the rights of his power and dominion over their Relatives.

60. VI. Although God threatned this, and hath a right and power to do this, yet he did not often use his right, but only in such notable examples as were sufficient to all ages to consign and testifie his great indignation against those crimes, for the punishment of which he was pleased to use his right, the rights of his dominion. For although he often does miracles of mercy, yet seldom it is that he does any extraordinaries of judgment: He did it to Corah and Dathan, to Achan and Saul, to Jeroboam and Ahab; and by these and some more expressed his severity against the like crimes sufficiently to all ages.

61. VII. But his goodness and graciousness grew quickly weary of this way of proceeding. They were the terrors of the law, and God did not delight in them. Therefore in the time of Ezekiel the Prophet, he declar'd against them, and promised to use it no more, that is, not so frequently, not so notoriously, not without great necessity and charity, Ne ad parentum exempla succresceret improbitas filiorum. A [...] I live, saith the Lord, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel, The Fathers have eaten sowre grapes, Ezek. 18.3. and the childrens teeth are set on edge. The soul that sinneth it shall die.

62. VIII. The iniquity of the people, and the hardness of their heart did force God to use this harsh course, especially since that then there was no declaration, or intermination, and threatning the pains of Hell to great sinners. Duritia pop [...]li ad talia remedia compulerat, ut vel posteritatibus suis prospicientes legi Divinae obedirent, said Tertullian. Something extraordinary was then needful to be done to so vile a people to restrain their sinfulness. But when the Gospel was published, and Hell-fire threatned to persevering, and greater sinners, the former way of punishment was quite left off. And in all the Gospel there is not any one word of threatning passing beyond the person offending. Desivit uva acerba (saith Tertullian) à patribus manducata dentes filiorum obstupefacere: De Monog. unusquisque enim in suo delicto morietur. Now (that is, in the time of the Gospel) the sowre grape of the Fathers shall no more set on edge the childrens teeth, but every one shall die in his own sin.

63. Upon this account alone, it must needs be impossible to be consented to, that God should still, under the Gospel, after so many generations of vengeance, and taking punishment for the sin, after the publication of so many mercies, and so infinite a graciousness as is revealed to mankind in Jesus Christ, after the so great provisions against sin, even the horrible threatnings of damnation, still persevere to punish Adam in his posterity, and the posterity for what they never did.

64. For either the evil that falls upon us for Adams sin, is inflicted upon us by way of proper punishment, or by right of dominion. If by a proper punishment to us, then we understand not the justice of it, because we were not personally guilty; and all the world says it is unjust directly to punish a child for his fathers fault. Nihil est iniquius quàm aliquem haeredem paterni odii fieri, said Seneca; and Pausanias the General of the Grecian army would not punish the children of Attagines, who perswaded the Thebans to revolt to the Medes, [...], saying, the children were not guilty of that revolt: and when Avidius Cassius had conspired against Mark Anthony, he wrote to the Senate to pardon his wife and son in law; Et quid dico veniam, cùm illi nihil fecerint? but why (says he) should I say, pardon, when they had done nothing? But if God inflicts the evil upon Adams posterity, which we suffer for his sake, not as a punishment, that is, not making us formally guilty, but using his own right and power of dominion which [Page] he hath over the lives and fortunes of his creatures; then it is a strange anger which God hath against Adam, that he still retains so fierce an indignation, as not to take off his hand from striking after five thousand six hundred years, and striking him for that of which he repented him, and which in all reason we believe he then pardon'd, or resolv'd to pardon, when he promised the Messias to him. * To this I add this consideration; That it is not easily to be imagined how Christ reconciled the world unto his Father, if after the death of Christ, God is still so angry with mankind, so unappeased, that even the most innocent part of mankind may perish for Adams sin; and the other are perpetually punished by a corrupted nature, a proneness to sin, a servile will, a filthy concupiscence, and an impossibility of being innocent; that no faith, no Sacrament, no industry, no prayers can obtain freedom from this punishment.

65. Certain it is, the Jews knew of no such thing, they understood nothing of this Oeconomy, that the Fathers sin should be punish'd in the children by a formal imputation of the guilt; and therefore Rabbi Simeon Barsema said well, that when God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children, jure dominii, non poenae utitur. He uses the right of Empire, not of justice, of dominion, not of punishment, of a Lord, not of a Judge. And Philo blames it for the worst of institutions,Lib. de pictate. when the good sons of bad Parents shall be dishonoured by their Fathers stain, and the bad sons of good Parents shall have their Fathers honour; [...]; for the law praises every one for their own, not for the vertue of their Ancestors, and punishes not the Fathers, but his own wickedness upon every mans head. And therefore Josephus calls the contrary way of proceeding, which he had observ'd in Alexander, [...], a punishment above the measures of a man; and the Greeks and Romans did always call it injustice.

Illic immeritam maternae pendere linguae

Ovid.

Andromedam poenas injustus jusserat Ammon.

And hence it is, that all Laws forbear to kill a woman with child, lest the Innocent should suffer for the Mothers fault: and therefore this just mercy is infinitely more to be expected from the great Father of spirits, the God of mercy and comfort. And upon this account Abraham was confident with God; Wilt thou slay the righteous with the wicked? shall not the Judge of all the world do right? And if it be unrighteous to slay the righteous with the wicked, it is also unjust to slay the righteous for the wicked. Ferréine ulla civitas laborem istiusmodi legis, Cicero lib. 4. de Nat. Deor. ut condemnetur Filius aut Nepos, si Pater aut Avus deliquissent. It were an intolerable Law, and no community would be govern'd by it, that the Father or Grandfather should sin, and the Son or Nephew should be punish'd. I shall add no more testimonies, but only make use of the words of the Christian Emperors in their Laws; Pecca [...]a igitur suos te [...]eant auctores: nec ulteriùs progrediatur metus, L. Sancim [...]n. C. de poeni [...]. quàm reperiatur delictum. Let no man trouble himself with unnecessary and melancholy dreams of strange inevitable undeserved punishments, descending upon us for the faults of others. The sin that a man does shall be upon his own head only. Sufficient to every man is his own evil, the evil that he does, and the evil that he suffers.

SECT. IV. Of the Causes of the Vniversal wickedness of Mankind.

66. BUT if there were not some common natural principle of evil introduced by the sin of our Parent upon all his posterity, how should all men be so naturally inclined to be vicious, so hard and unapt, so uneasie and so listless to the practices of vertue? How is it that all men in the world are sinners, and that in many [Page] things we offend all? For if men could chuse and had freedom, it is not imaginable that all should chuse the same thing. As all men will not be Physicians, nor all desire to be Merchants. But we see that all men are sinners, and yet it is impossible that in a liberty of indifferency there should be no variety. Therefore we must be content to say, that we have only a liberty of adhesion or delight; that is, we so love sin that we all chuse it, but cannot chuse good.

67. To this I answer many things. 1. If we will suppose that there must now be a cause in our nature determining us to sin by an irresistible necessity, I desire to know why such principle should be more necessary to us than it was to Adam? what made him to sin when he fell? He had a perfect liberty, and no ignorance, no original sin, no inordination of his affections, no such rebellion of the inferior faculties against the superior as we complain of; or at least we say he had not, and yet he sinned. And if his passions did rebel against his reason before the fall, then so they may in us, and yet not be long of that fall. It was before the fall in him, and so may be in us, and not the effect of it. But the truth of the thing is this, He had liberty of choice and chose ill, and so do we: and all men say, that this liberty of chusing ill, is still left to us. But because it is left here, it appears that it was there before, and therefore is not the consequent of Original sin. But it is said, that as Adam chose ill, so do we; but he was free to good as well as to evil, but so are not we; we are free to evil, not to good; and that we are so, is the consequent of original sin. I reply, That we can chuse good, and as naturally love good as evil, and in some instances more. A man cannot naturally hate God, if he knows any thing of him. A man naturally loves his Parents. He naturally hates some sort of uncleanness. He naturally loves and preserves himself: and all those sins which are unnatural, are such which nature hates: and the law of nature commands all the great instances of vertue, and marks out all the great lines of justice. [...]. It is a law imprinted in the very substance of our natures, and incorporated in all generations of reasonable creatures, not to break or transgress the laws which are appointed by God. Here only our nature is defective; we do not naturally know, nor yet naturally love those supernatural excellencies which are appointed and commanded by God as the means of bringing us to a supernatural condition. That is, without Gods grace, and the renovation of the Spirit of God, we cannot be saved. Neither was Adams case better than ours in this particular. For that his nature could not carry him to Heaven, or indeed to please God in order to it, seems to be confessed by them who have therefore affirmed him to have had a supernatural righteousness: which is affirmed by all the Roman party. But although in supernatural instances it must needs be that our Nature is defective; so it must needs have been in Adam: and therefore the Lutherans (who in this particular dream not so probably as the other) affirming that justice was natural in Adam, do yet but differ in the manner of speaking, and have not at all spoken against this; neither can they, unless they also affirm that to arrive at Heaven was the natural end of man. For if it be not, then neither we not Adam could by Nature do things above Nature; and if God did concreate Grace with Adam, that Grace was nevertheless Grace, for being given him as soon as he was made: For even the holy Spirit may be given to a Chrysome child; and Christ, and S. John Baptist, and the Prophet Jeremy, are in their several measures and proportions, instances of it. The result of which is this; That the necessity of Grace does not suppose that our Nature is originally corrupted; for beyond Adams mere Nature, something else was necessary, and so it is to us.

68. II. But to the main objection; I answer, That it is certain there is not only one, but many common principles from which sin derives it self into the manners of all men. 1. The first great cause of an universal impiety is, that at first, God had made no promises of Heaven, he had not propounded any glorious rewards, to be as an argument to support the superior faculty against the inferior, that is, to make the will chuse the best and leave the worst, and to be as a reward for suffering contradiction. For if the inferior faculty be pleas'd with its object, and that chance to be forbidden, as it was in most instances, there had need be something to make recompence for the suffering the displeasure of crossing that appetite. I use the common manner of speaking, and the distinction of superior and inferior faculties: though indeed in nature there is no such thing; and it is but the same faculty, divided between differing objects; of which I shall give an account in the Ninth Chapter, Section 3. But here I take notice of it, that it may not with prejudice be taken to [Page] the disadvantage of this whole Article. For if there be no such difference of facultie [...] founded in Nature, then the rebellion of the inferior against the superior, is no effect of Adams sin. But the inclination to sensual objects being chastis'd by laws and prohibitions, hath made that which we call the rebellion of the inferior, that is, the adherence to sensual objects; which was the more certain to remain, because they were not at first enabled by great promises of good things to contest against sensual temptations. And because there was no such thing in that period of the world, therefore almost all flesh corrupted themselves: excepting Abel, Seth, Enos, and Enoch, we find not one good man from Adam to Noah; and therefore the Apostle calls that world, [...], the world of the ungodly.2 Pet. 2.5. It was not so much wonder that when Adam had no promises made to enable him to contest his natural concupiscence, he should strive to make his condition better by the Devils promises. If God had been pleased to have promis'd to him the glories he hath promised to us, it is not to be suppos'd he had fallen so easily. But he did not, and so he fell, and all the world followed his example, and most upon this account, till it pleas'd God after he had tried the world with temporal promises, and found them also insufficient, to finish the work of his graciousness, and to cause us to be born anew, by the revelations and promises of Jesus Christ.

69. II. A second cause of the universal iniquity of the world, is because our Nature is so hard put to it in many instances; not because Nature is originally corrupted, but because Gods laws command such things which are a restraint to the indifferent, and otherwise lawful inclinations of Nature. I instance in the matters of Temperance, Abstinence, Patience, Humility, Self-denial, and Mortification. But more particularly thus: A man is naturally inclined to desire the company of a woman whom he fancies. This is naturally no sin: for the natural desire was put into us by God, and therefore could not be evil. But then God as an instance and trial of our obedience, put fetters upon the indefinite desire, and determin'd us to one woman; which provision was enough to satisfie our need, but not all our possibility. This therefore he left as a reserve, that by obeying God in the so reasonable restraint of our natural desire, we might give him something of our own. * But then it is to be considered, that our unwillingness to obey in this instance, or in any of the other, cannot be attributed to Original sin, or natural disability deriv'd as a punishment from Adam, because the particular instances were postnate a long time to the fall of man; and it was for a long time lawful to do some things which now are unlawful. But our unwillingness and averseness came by occasion of the law coming cross upon our nature; not because our nature is contrary to God, but because God was pleas'd to superinduce some Commandments contrary to our nature. For if God had commanded us to eat the best meats, and drink the richest wines as long as they could please us, and were to be had, I suppose it will not be thought that Original sin would hinder us from obedience. But because we are forbidden to do some things which naturally we desire to do and love, therefore our nature is hard put to it; and this is the true state of the difficulty. Citò nequitia subrepit: Sen. lib. 3. Quaest. Natur. [...]. 3. virtus difficilis inventa est. Wickedness came in speedily; but vertue was hard and difficult.

70. III. But then besides these, there are many concurrent causes of evil which have influence upon communities of men, such as are, Evil Examples, the similitude of Adams transgression, vices of Princes, wars, impunity, ignorance, error, false principles, flattery, interest, fear, partiality, authority, evil laws, heresie, schism, spite and ambition, natural inclination, and other principiant causes, which proceeding from the natural weakness of humane constitution, are the fountain and proper causes of many consequent evils. Quis dabit mundum ab immundo, saith Job, Job 14.14. How can a clean thing come from an unclean? We all naturally have great weaknesses, and an imperfect constitution, apt to be weary, loving variety, ignorantly making false measures of good and evil, made up with two appetites, that is, with inclination to several objects serving to contrary interests, a thing between Angel and Beast, and the later in this life is the bigger ingredient. Hominem à Naturâ noverca in lucem edi corpore nudo, fragili atque infirmo animo, anxio ad molestias, humili ad timores, debili ad labores, proclivi ad libidines, in quo Divinus ignis sit obrutus, & ingenium, & mores. So Cicero as S. Austin quotes him.Lib. 4. contra Julianum. Nature hath like a stepmother sent man into the world with a naked boy, a frail and infirm mind, vex'd with troubles, dejected with fears, weak for labours, prone to lusts, in whom the Divine fire, and his wit, and his manners are covered and overturn'd. And when [Page] Plato had fiercely reprov'd the baseness of mens manners, by saying, that they are even naturally evil;In Sophisticâ. Homines naturâ sunt mali: & non possunt induci ut justitiam colant. lib. 2. de Rep. he reckons two causes of it, which are the diseases of the Soul, (but contracted he knew not how) Ignorance and Improbity; which he supposes to have been the remains of that baseness they had before they entred into bodies, whither they were sent as to a prison. This is our natural uncleanness and imperfection, and from such a principle we are to expect proper and proportion'd effects; and therefore we may well say with Job, What is man that he should be clean, and he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous? Job 15.14. That is, our imperfections are many, and we are with unequal strengths call'd to labour for a supernatural purchase; and when our spirit is very willing, even then our flesh is very weak: And yet it is worse if we compare our selves, as Job does, to the purities and perfections of God; in respect of which, as he says of us men in our imperfect state, so he says also of the Angels, or the holy Ones of God, and of the Heaven it self, that it is also unclean and impure: for the cause and verification of which, we must look out something besides Original sin. * Add to this, that vice is pregnant and teeming, and brings forth new instances, numerous as the spawn of fishes; such as are inadvertency, carelesness, tediousness of spirit, and these also are causes of very much evil.

SECT. V. Of liberty of Election remaining after Adams fall.

UPON this account, besides that the causes of an universal impiety are apparent without any need of laying Adam in blame for all our follies and miseries, or rather without charging them upon God, who so order'd all things as we see and feel; the universal wickedness of man is no argument to prove our will servile, and the powers of election to be quite lost in us (excepting only that we can chuse evil.) For admitting this proposition, that there can be no liberty where there is no variety; yet that all men chuse sin, is not any testimony that there is no variety in our choice. If there were but one sin in the world, and all men did chuse that, it were a shrewd suspicion that they were naturally determin'd or strongly precipitated. But every man does not chuse the same sin, nor for the same cause; neither does he chuse it always, but frequently declines it, hates it, and repents of it: many men even among the Heathens did so. So that the objection hinders not, but that choice and election still remains to a man, and that he is not naturally sinful, as he is naturally heavy, or upright, apt to laugh, or weep. For these he is always, and unavoidable.

72. And indeed the contrary doctrine is a destruction of all laws, it takes away reward and punishment, and we have nothing whereby we can serve God. And precepts of holiness might as well be preached to a Wolf as to a Man, if man were naturally and inevitably wicked. ‘Improbitas nullo flectitur obsequio.’ There would be no use of reason or of discourse, no deliberation or counsel: and it were impossible for the wit of man to make sence of thousands of places of Scripture, which speak to us as if we could hear and obey, or could refuse. Why are promises made, and threatnings recorded? Why are Gods judgments registred? to what purpose is our reason above, and our affections below, if they were not to minister to, and attend upon the will? But upon this account, it is so far from being true that man after his fall did forfeit his natural power of election, that it seems rather to be encreased. For as a mans knowledge grows, so his will becomes better attended and ministred unto. But after his fall his knowledge was more than before; he knew what nakedness was, and had experience of the difference of things, he perceiv'd the evil and mischief of disobedience and the Divine anger; he knew fear and flight, [Page] new apprehensions, and the trouble of a guilty conscience: by all which, and many other things, he grew better able, and instructed with arguments to obey God, and to refuse sin for the time to come. And it is every mans case; a repenting man is wiser, and hath oftentimes more perfect hatred of sin than the innocent, and is made more wary by his fall. But of this thing God himself is witness. Ecce homo tanquam singularis, ex se ipso habet scire bonum & malum: So the Chaldee Paraphrase reads Gen. 3.22. Our Bibles read thus: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Now as a consequent of this knowledge, God was pleased by ejecting him out of Paradise, to prevent his eating of the Tree of Life: Ne fortè mittat manúm suam in arborem vitae. Meaning, that now he was grown wise and apt to provide himself, and use all such remedies as were before him. He knew more after his fall than before; therefore ignorance was not the punishment of that sin: and he that knows more, is better enabled to choose, and lest he should choose that which might prevent the sentence of death put upon him, God cast him from thence where the remedy did grow. Upon the authority of this place Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon hath these words: Potestas libera unicui (que) data est. Si vult inclinare se ad bonum & esse jus [...]us, penes ipsum est: Sin vult se ad malum inclinare & esse impius, & hoc ipsum penes est. Hoc illud est quod in lege scribitur, Ecce homo tanquam singularis, ex seipso habet scire bonum & malum. To every man is given a power that he may choose and be inclined to good if he please; or else if he please to do evil. For this is written in the Law, Behold, the man is as a single one, of himself now he knows good and evil: as if he had said, Behold, mankind is in the world without its like, and can of his own counsel and thought know good and evil, in either of these doing what himself shall choose. Si lapsus es, poteris surgere, In utramvis partem habes liberum arbitrium, In 50. Psal. Hom. 2. saith S. Chrysostome. If thou hast fallen, thou mayest rise again. That which thou art commanded to do, thou hast power to do. Thou mayest choose either.

73. I might be infinite in this; but I shall only add this one thing, That to deny to the will of man powers of choice and election, or the use of it in the actions of our life, destroys the immortality of the Soul. [...], said Hierocles. Humane Nature is in danger to be lost, if it diverts to that which is against Nature. For if it be immortal, it can never die in its noblest faculty. But if the will be destroyed, that is, disabled from choosing (which is all the work the will hath to do) then it is dead. For to live, and to be able to operate, in Philosophy is all one. If the will therefore cannot operate, how is it immortal? And we may as well suppose an understanding that can never understand, and passions that can never desire or refuse, and a memory that can never remember, as a will that cannot choose. Indeed all the faculties of the soul that operate by way of nature can be hindred in individuals; but in the whole species never. But the will is not impedible, it cannot be restrained at all, if there be any acts of life; and when all the other faculties are weakest, the will is strongest, and does not at all depend upon the body. Indeed it often follows the inclination and affections of the body, but it can choose against them, and it can work without them. And indeed since sin is the action of a free faculty, it can no more take away the freedome of that faculty, than vertue can; for that also is the action of the same free faculty. If sin be considered in its formality, as it is an inordination or irregularity, so it is contrary to vertue; but if you consider it as an effect or action of the will it is not at all contrary to the will, and therefore it is impossible it should be destructive of that faculty from whence it comes.

74. Now to say that the will is not dead, because it can choose sin, but not vertue, is an escape too slight. For besides that it is against an infinite experience, it is also contrary to the very being and manner of a man, and his whole Oeconomy in this world. For men indeed sometimes by evil habits, and by choosing vile things for a long time together, make it morally impossible to choose and to love that good in particular which is contrary to their evil customes.Stob. [...]. Custome is the Devil that brings in new natures upon us; for nature is innocent in this particular. Nulli nos vitio natura conciliat: Senec. ep. 94▪ nos illa integros ac liberos genuit. Nature does not ingage us upon a vice. She made us intire, she left us free, but we make our selves prisoners and slaves by vicious habits; or as S. Cyril expresses it, [...].Catech. 9. We came into the world without sin, (meaning, without sin properly so called) but now we sin by choice, and by election bring a kind of necessity upon us. But this is not so in all men, and scarcely in any man in all instances; and as it is, it is but an approach to that state in which men [Page] shall work by will without choice, or by choice without contrariety of objects. In heaven and hell men will do so. The Saints love God so fully, that they cannot hate him, nor desire to displease him. And in hell the accursed spirits so perfectly hate him that they can never love him. But in this life which is status viae, a middle condition between both, and a passage to one of the other, it cannot be supposed to be so, unless here also a man be already sav'd or damn'd.

75. But then I consider this also, that since it is almost by all men acknowledged to be unjust that infants should be eternally tormented in the flames of Hell for Original sin; yet we do not say that it is unjust that men of age and reason should so perish, if they be vicious and disobedient. Which difference can have no ground but this, That infants could not choose at all, much less, that which not they, but their Father did long before they were born: But men can choose, and do what they are commanded, and abstain from what is forbidden. For if they could not, they ought no more to perish for this, than infants for that.

76. And this is so necessary a truth, that it is one of the great grounds and necessities of obedience and holy living; and if after the fall of Adam it be not by God permitted to us to choose or refuse, there is nothing left whereby man can serve God, or offer him a sacrifice. It is no service, it is not rewardable, if it could not be avoided, nor the omission punishable if it could not be done. All things else are determined, and fixed by the Divine providence, even all the actions of men. But the inward act of the will is left under the command of laws only, and under the arrest of threatnings, and the invitation of promises. And that this is left for man can no ways impede any of the Divine decrees, because the outward act being overruled by the Divine providence, it is strange if the Schools will leave nothing to man, whereby he can glorifie God.

77. I have now said something to all that I know objected, and more than is necessary to the Question, if the impertinencies of some Schools, and their trifling arrests had not so needlesly disturb'd this article. There is nothing which from so slight grounds hath got so great, and till of late, so unquestioned footing in the perswasions of men. Origen said enough to be mistaken in the Question. [...].Contra Celsum lib. 4. Adams curse is common to all. And there is not a woman on earth to whom may not be said those things which were spoken to this woman [Eve.] Him S. Ambrose did mistake, and followed the error about explicating the nature of Original sin, and set it something forward. But S. Austin gave it complement and authority by his fierce disputing against the Pelagians, whom he would overthrow by all means. Indeed their capital error was a great one, and such against which all men while there was need ought to have contended earnestly, but this might and ought to have been done by truth. For error is no good confuter of error, as it is no good conversion that reforms one vice with another. But his zeal against a certain error, made him take in auxiliaries from an uncertain or less discerned one, and caused him to say many things which all antiquity before him disavowed, and which the following ages took up upon his account. * And if such a weak principle as his saying, could make an error spread over so many Churches, for so many ages, we may easily imagine that so many greater causes as I before reckoned might infect whole Nations, and consequently mankind, without crucifying our Patriarch or first Parent, and declaiming against him (poor man) as the Author of all our evil. Truth is, we intend by laying load upon him to excuse our selves, and which is worse, to entertain our sins infallibly, and never to part with them, upon pretence that they are natural, and irresistible.

SECT. VI. The Practical Question.

[Page]

78. AND now if it be inquired, whether we be tied to any particular repentance relative to this sin, the answer will not be difficult. I remember a pretty device of Hierome of Florence a famous Preacher not long since, who used this argument to prove the Blessed Virgin Mary to be free from Original sin. Because it is more likely, if the Blessed Virgin had been put to her choice, she would rather have desired of God to have kept her free from venial actual sin than from Original. Since therefore God hath granted her the greater, and that she never sinn'd actually, it is to be presum'd God did not deny to her the smaller favour, and therefore she was free from Original. Upon this many a pretty story hath been made, and rare arguments fram'd, and fierce contestations, whether it be more agreeable to the piety and prudence of the Virgin Mother to desire immunity from Original sin that is deadly, or from a venial actual sin that is not deadly. This indeed is voluntary, and the other is not; but the other deprives us of grace, and this does not. God was more offended by that, but we offend him more by this. The dispute can never be ended upon their accounts; but this Gordian knot I have now untied as Alexander did, by destroying it, and cutting it all in pieces. But to return to the Question.

79. S. Austin was indeed a fierce Patron of this device, and one of the chief inventers and finishers of it;Cap. 3. homil. 50. and his sence of it is declared in his Boook De peccatorum medicinâ, where he endeavours largely to prove that all our life time we are bound to mourn for the inconveniences, and evil consequents deriv'd from Original sin. I dare say, every man is sufficiently displeased that he is liable to sickness, weariness, displeasure, melancholy, sorrow, folly, imperfection, and death, dying with groans, and horrid spasmes and convulsions. In what sence these are the effects of Adams sin, and though of themselves natural, yet also upon his account made penal; I have already declar'd, and need no more to dispute; my purpose being only to establish such truths as are in order to practice and a holy life, to the duties of repentance and amendment. But our share of Adams sin, either being in us no sin at all, or else not to be avoided or amended, it cannot be the matter of repentance. Neminem autem rectè ita loqui poenitere sese quòd natus sit, aut poenitere quòd mortalis sit, aut quòd ex offenso fortè vulneratóque corpore dolorem sentiat, Li. 17. c. 1 said A. Gellius. A man is not properly said to repent that he was born, or that he shall die, or that he feels pain when his leg is hurt; he gives this reason, Quando istiusmodi rerum nec consilium sit nostrum, nec arbitrium. As these are besides our choice so they cannot fall into our deliberation; and therefore as they cannot be chosen, so neither refused, and therefore not repented of; for that supposes both; that they were chosen once, and now refused. * As Adam was not bound to repent of the sins of all his posterity, so neither are we tied to repent of his sins. Neither did I ever see in any ancient Office or forms of prayer, publick or private, any prayer of humiliation prescrib'd for Original sin. They might deprecate the evil consequents, but never confess themselves guilty of the formal sin.

80. Add to this. Original sin is remitted in Baptism by the consent of those Schools of learning, who teach this article; and therefore is not reserved for any other repentance: and that which came without our own consent, is also to be taken off without it. That which came by the imputation of a sin, may also be taken off by the imputation of righteousness, that is, as it came without sin, so it must also go away without trouble.

But yet because the Question may not render the practice insecure, I add these Rules by way of advice and caution.

SECT. VII. Advices relating to the matter of Original Sin.

[Page]

81. I. IT is very requisite that we should understand the state of our own infirmity, the weakness of the flesh, the temptations and diversions of the spirit, that by understanding our present state we may prevent the evils of carelesness and security. * Our evils are the imperfections and sorrows inherent in, or appendant to our bodies, our souls, our spirits.

82. * In our bodies we find weakness, and imperfection, sometimes crookedness sometimes monstrosity; filthiness, and weariness, infinite numbers of diseases, and an uncertain cure, great pain, and restless night, hunger and thirst, daily necessities, ridiculous gestures, madness from passions, distempers and disorders, great labour to provide meat and drink, and oftentimes a loathing when we have them; if we use them they breed sicknesses, if we use them not, we die; and there is such a certain healthlesness in many things to all, and in all things to some men and at some times, that to supply a need, is to bring a danger: and if we eat like beasts only of one thing, our souls are quickly weary; if we eat variety, we are sick, and intemperate; and our bodies are inlets to sin, and a stage of temptation. If we cherish them, they undo us; if we do not cherish them, they die: we suffer illusion in our dreams, and absurd fancies when we are waking; our life is soon done, and yet very tedious; it is too long, and too short; darkness and light are both troublesome; and those things which are pleasant, are often unwholsome. Sweet smells make the head ach, and those smells which are medicinal in some diseases, are intolerable to the sense. The pleasures of our body are bigger in expectation, than in the possession; and yet while they are expected, they torment us with the delay, and when they are enjoyed, they are as if they were not, they abuse us with their vanity, and vex us with their volatile and fugitive nature. Our pains are very frequent alone, and very often mingled with pleasures to spoil them; and he that feels one sharp pain, feels not all the pleasures of the world, if they were in his power to have them. We live a precarious life, begging help of every thing, and needing the repairs of every day, and being beholding to beasts and birds, to plants and trees, to dirt and stones, to the very excrements of beasts, and that which dogs and horses throw forth. Our motion is slow and dull, heavy and uneasie; we cannot move but we are quickly tired, and for every days labour, we need a whole night to recruit our lost strengths; we live like a lamp, unless new materials be perpetually poured in, we live no longer than a fly; and our motion is not otherwise than a clock; we must be pull'd up once or twice in twenty four hours; and unless we be in the shadow of death for six or eight hours every night, we shall be scarce in the shadows of life the other sixteen. Heat and cold are both our enemies; and yet the one always dwells within, and the other dwells round about us. The chances and contingencies that trouble us, are no more to be numbred than the minutes of eternity. The Devil often hurts us, and men hurt each other oftner, and we are perpetually doing mischief to our selves. The stars do in their courses fight against some men, and all the elements against every man; the heavens send evil influences, the very beasts are dangerous, and the air we suck in does corrupt our lungs: many are deformed, and blind, and ill coloured; and yet upon the most beauteous face is plac'd one of the worst sinks of the body; and we are forc'd to pass that through our mouths oftentimes, which our eye and our stomach hates. Pliny did wittily and elegantly represent this state of evil things. Itaque foelicitèr homo natus jacet manibus pedibúsque devinctis, Lib. 6. Prooem. flens, animal caeteris imperaturum, & à suppliciis vitam auspicatur, unam tantum ob culpam quia natum est. A man is born happily, but at first he lies bound band and foot by impotency and cannot stir; the creature weeps that is born to rule over all other creatures, and begins his life with punishments, for no fault, but that he was born. In short; The body is a region of diseases, of sorrow and nastiness, and weakness and temptation. Here is cause enough of being humbled.

83. Neither is it better in the soul of man, where ignorance dwells and passion rules. [...]. After death came in, there entred [Page] also a swarm of passions. And the will obeys every thing but God. Our judgment is often abused in matters of sense,Fertur equis Auriga, neque audi [...] currus habenas. and one faculty guesses at truth by confuting another; and the error of the eye is corrected by something of reason or a former experience. Our fancy is often abus'd, and yet creates things of it self, by tying disparate things together, that can cohere no more than Musick and a Cable, than Meat and Syllogisms: and yet this alone does many times make credibilities in the understandings. Our Memories are so frail, that they need instruments of recollection, and laborious artifices to help them; and in the use of these artifices sometimes we forget the meaning of those instruments: and of those millions of sins which we have committed, we scarce remember so many as to make us sorrowful, or ashamed. Our judgments are baffled with every Sophism, and we change our opinion with a wind, and are confident against truth, but in love with error. We use to reprove one error by another, and lose truth while we contend too earnestly for it. Infinite opinions there are in matters of Religion, and most men are confident, and most are deceiv'd in many things, and all in some; and those few that are not confident, have only reason enough to suspect their own reason. We do not know our own bodies, not what is within us, nor what ails us when we are sick, nor whereof we are made; nay we oftentimes cannot tell what we think, or believe, or love. We desire and hate the same thing, speak against and run after it. We resolve, and then consider; we bind our selves, and then find causes why we ought not to be bound, and want not some pretences to make our selves believe we were not bound. Prejudice and Interest are our two great motives of believing; we weigh deeper what is extrinsical to a question, than what is in its nature; and oftner regard who speaks, than what is said. The diseases of our soul are infinite; [...],Eccles. Hier. c. 3. Part. 3. said Dionysius of Athens. Mankind of old fell from those good things which God gave him, and now is fallen into a life of passion, and a state of death. In summ; it follows the temper or distemper of the body, and sailing by such a Compass, and being carried in so rotten a vessel, especially being empty, or filled with lightness, and ignorance, and mistakes, it must needs be exposed to the dangers and miseries of every storm; which I choose to represent in the words of Cicero. Ex humanae vitae erroribus & aerumnis fit, ut verum sit illud quod est apud Aristotelem, sic nostros animos cum corporibus copulatos, In Hortens. ut vivos cum mortuis esse conjunctos. The soul joyned with the body, is like the conjunction of the living and the dead; the dead are not quickned by it, but the living are afflicted and die.

But then if we consider what our spirit is, we have reason to lie down flat upon our faces, and confess Gods glory and our own shame. When it is at the best, it is but willing, but can do nothing without the miracle of Grace. Our spirit is hindred by the body, and cannot rise up whither it properly tends, with those great weights upon it. It is foolish and improvident; large in desires, and narrow in abilities; naturally curious in trifles, and inquisitive after vanities; but neither understands deeply, nor affectionately relishes the things of God; pleas'd with forms, cousen'd with pretences, satisfied with shadows, incurious of substances and realities. It is quick enough to find doubts, and when the doubts are satisfied, it raises scruples, that is, it is restless after it is put to sleep, and will be troubled in despite of all arguments of peace. It is incredibly negligent of matters of Religion, and most solicitous and troubled in the things of the world. We love our selves, and despise others; judging most unjust sentences, and by peevish and cross measures; Covetousness and Ambition, Gain and Empire are the proportions by which we take account of things. We hate to be govern'd by others, even when we cannot dress our selves; and to be forbidden to do or have a thing, is the best art in the world to make us greedy of it. The flesh and the spirit perpetually are at [...]. Macar. hom. 2 [...] strife; the spirit pretending that his ought to be the dominion, and the flesh alleaging that this is her state, and her day. We hate our present condition, and know not how to better our selves, our changes being but like the tumblings and tossings in a Feaver, from trouble to trouble, that's all the variety. We are extreamly inconstant, and always hate our own choice: we despair sometimes of Gods mercies, and are confident in our own follies; as we order things, we cannot avoid little sins, and do not avoid great ones. We love the present world, though it be good for nothing, and undervalue infinite treasures, if they be not to be had till the day of recompences. We are peevish, if a servant does but break a glass, and patient when we have thrown an ill cast for eternity▪ [Page] throwing away the hopes of a glorious Crown for wine, and dirty silver. We know that our prayers, if well done, are great advantages to our state, and yet we are hardly brought to them, and love not to stay at them, and wander while we are saying them, and say them without minding, and are glad when they are done, or when we have a reasonable excuse to omit them. A passion does quite overturn all our purposes, and all our principles, and there are certain times of weakness in which any temptation may prevail, if it comes in that unlucky minute.

84. This is a little representment of the state of man; whereof a great part is a natural impotency, and the other is brought in by our own folly. Concerning the first when we discourse, it is as if one describes the condition of a Mole, or a Bat, an Oyster, or a Mushrome, concerning whose imperfections, no other cause is to be inquired of, but the will of God, who gives his gifts as he please, and is unjust to no man, by giving or not giving any certain proportion of good things: And supposing this loss was brought first upon Adam, and so descended upon us, yet we have no cause to complain, for we lost nothing that was ours. Praeposterum est (said Paulus the Lawyer) antè nos locupletes dici quàm acquisterimus. We cannot be said to lose what we never had; and our fathers goods were not to descend upon us, unless they were his at his death. If therefore they be confiscated before his death, ours indeed is the inconvenience too, but his alone is the punishment, and to neither of us is the wrong.

But concerning the second, I mean that which is superinduc'd, it is not his fault alone, nor ours alone, and neither of us is innocent; we all put in our accursed Symbol for the debauching of our spirits, for the besotting our souls, for the spoiling our bodies.S. Chrys. in cap. 6. Ephes. Ille initium induxit debiti, nos foenus auximus posterioribus peccatis, &c. He began the principal, and we have increas'd the interest. This we also find well expressed by Justin Martyr; for the Fathers of the first ages spake prudently and temperately in this Article, as in other things. ‘Christ was not born or crucified because himself had need of these things, but for the sake of mankind.’ [...]:Dial. cum Tryph. which from Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent, besides the evil which every one adds upon his own account. And it appears in the greatest instance of all, even in that of natural death; which though it was natural, yet from Adam it began to be a curse, just as the motion of a Serpent upon his belly, which was concreated with him, yet upon this story was changed into a malediction and an evil adjunct. But though Adam was the gate, and brought in the head of death, yet our sins brought him in further, we brought in the body of death. Our life was left by Adam a thousand years long almost; but the iniquity of man brought it quickly to 500 years, from thence to 250, from thence to 120, and at last to seventy; and then God would no more strike all mankind in the same manner, but individuals and single sinners smart for it, and are cut off in their youth, and do not live out half their days. And so it is in the matters of the soul and the spirit. Every sin leaves an evil upon the soul; and every age grows worse, and adds some iniquity of its own to the former examples. And therefore Tertullian calls Adam mali traducem; he transmitted the original and exemplar, and we write after his copy. Infirmitatis ingenitae vitium; so Arnobius calls our natural baseness, we are naturally weak, and this weakness is a vice or defect of Nature, and our evil usages make our natures worse; like Butchers being used to kill beasts, their natures grow more savage and unmerciful; so it is with us all. If our parents be good, yet we often prove bad, as the wild olive comes from the branch of a natural olive, or as corn with the chaff come from clean grain, and the uncircumcised from the circumcised. But if our parents be bad, it is the less wonder if their children are so; a Blackamore begets a Blackamore, as an Epileptick son does often come from an Epileptick father, and hereditary diseases are transmitted by generation; so it is in that viciousness that is radicated in the body, for a lustful father oftentimes begets a lustful son; and so it is in all those instances where the soul follows the temperature of the body. And thus not only Adam, but every father may transmit an Original sin, or rather an Original viciousness of his own. For a vicious nature, or a natural improbity when it is not consented to, is not a sin, but an ill disposition: Philosophy and the Grace of God must cure it; but it often causes us to sin, before our reason and our higher principles are well attended to. But when we consent to, and actuate our evil inclinations, we spoil our natures and make them worse, making evil still more natural. For it is as much in our nature to be pleased with our artificial delights as with our natural. And this is the doctrine [Page] of S. Austin, speaking of Concupiscence. Modo quodam loquendi vocatur peccatum quòd peccata facta est, & peccati si vicerit facit reum. Lib. 1. de nupt. & Concup. c. 23. Concupiscence or the viciousness of our Nature is after a certain manner of speaking called sin; because it is made worse by sin, and makes us guilty of sin when it is consented to. It hath the nature of sin; so the article of the Church of England expresses it; that is, it is in eâdem materiâ, it comes from a weak principle, à naturae vitio, from the imperfect and defective nature of man, and inclines to sin.Lib. 2. ad Julian. But (that I may again use S. Austins words) Quantum ad nos atti [...]et, sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum, si ei nunquam consentiremus ad malum. Although we all have concupiscence, yet none of us all should have any sin, if we did not consent to this concupiscence unto evil. Concupiscence is Naturae vitium, but not peccatum, a defect or fault of nature, but not formally a sin: which distinction we learn from S. Austin; Ibid. Non enim talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt. Concupiscence is an evil as a weak eye is, but not a sin, if we speak properly, till it be consented to; and then indeed it is the parent of sin. [...]: so S. James▪ it brings forth sin.

85. This is the vile state of our natural viciousness and improbity, and misery, in which Adam had some, but truly not the biggest share; and let this consideration sink as deep as it will in us to make us humble and careful, but let us not use it as an excuse to lessen our diligence, by greatning our evil necessity. For death and sin were both born from Adam, but we have nurs'd them up to an ugly bulk and deformity. But I must now proceed to other practical rules.

86. II. It is necessary that we understand that our natural state is not a state in which we can hope for heaven. Natural agents can effect but natural ends, by natural instruments: and now supposing the former doctrine, that we lost not the Divine favour by our guilt of what we never did consent to, yet we were born in pure naturals, and they some of them worsted by our forefathers, yet we were at the best, born but in pure naturals, and we must be born again; that as by our first birth we are heirs of death, so by our new birth we may be adopted into the inheritance of life and salvation.

87. III. It is our duty to be humbled in the consideration of our selves, and of our natural condition. That by distrusting our own strengths we may take sanctuary in God through Jesus Christ, praying for his grace, entertaining and caressing of his holy Spirit, with purities and devotions, with charity and humility, infinitely fearing to grieve him, lest he leaving us, we be left as Adam left us, in pure naturals, but in some degrees worsted by the nature of sin in some instances, and the anger of God in all, that is, in the state of flesh and blood, which shall never inherit the Kingdome of Heaven.

88. IV. Whatsoever good work we do, let us not impute it to our selves, or our own choice. For God is the best estimator of that: he knows best what portion of the work we did, and what influence our will had into the action, and leave it to him to judge and recompense. But let us attribute all the glory to God, and to Gods grace, for without him we can do nothing. But by him that strengthens us, that works in us to will and to do of his good pleasure, by him alone we are saved. Giving all glory to God, will take nothing of the reward from us.

89. V. Let no man so undervalue his sin, or over-value himself, as to lessen that, and to put the fault any where, but where it ought to be. If a man accuses himself with too great a rigour, it is no more than if he holds his horse too hard when he is running down a hill. It may be, a less force would stop his running; but the greater does so too, and manifests his fear: which in this case of his sin and danger is of it self rewardable.

90. VI. Let no man when he is tempted, say that he is tempted of God. Not only because (as S. James affirms most wisely) every man is tempted, Jam. 1.13. when he is led away by his own concupiscence; but because he is a very evil speaker that speaks evil things of God. Think it not therefore in thy thought, that God hath made any necessities of sinning. He that hath forbidden sin so earnestly, threatned it so deeply, hates it so essentially, prevents it so cautiously, dissuades us from it so passionately, punishes it so severely, arms us against it so strongly, and sent his Son so piously and charitably to root out sin (so far as may be) from the face of the earth; certainly it cannot be thought that he hath made necessities of sinning. For whatsoever he hath made necessary, is as innocent as what he hath commanded; it is his own work, and he hateth nothing that he hath made, and therefore he hath not made sin. And no man shall dare to say at Doomsday unto God, that he made him to sin, or made it unavoidable. There [Page] are no two cases of Conscience, no two duties in any case so seemingly contradictory, that whichsoever a man choose he must sin: and therefore much less is any one state a state of necessary unavoidable enmity against God.

91. VII. Use thy self to holy company, and pious imployment in thy early days: follow no evil example, live by rule, and despise the world; relieve the usual necessities of thy life, but be not sensual in thy appetite; accustom thy self to Religion and spiritual things, and then much of that evil nature thou complainest of, will pass into vertuous habits.Arist. 2. Topic. [...] [...]. 3. It was the saying of Xenocrates in Aristotle, [...]. Happy is he that hath a diligent studious soul: for that is every mans good Angel, and the principle of his felicity.

92. VIII. Educate thy children and charges strictly and severely. Let them not be suffered to swear before they can pray, nor taught little revenges in the Cradle, nor pride at School, nor fightings in company, nor drinkings in all their entertainments, nor lusts in private. Let them be drawn from evil company, and do thou give them holy example, and provide for them severe and wise Tutors; and what Alexander of Ales said of Bonaventure, Adam non peccavit in Bonaventurâ, will be as truly said of young men and maidens. Impiety will not peep out so soon. It was wisely observed by Quintilian, [...]. 1. c. 2. who was an excellent Tutor for young Gentlemen, that our selves with ill breeding our children are the Authors of their evil nature. Antè palatum eorum quàm os instituimus. Gaudemus si quid licentiùs dixerint. Verba ne Alexandrinis quidem permittenda deliciis, risu & osculo excipimus. We teach their palate before we instruct the tongue. And when the tongue begins first to pratle, they can efform wantonness before words; and we kiss them for speaking filthy things. Fit ex his consuetudo, deinde natura. Discunt haec miseri antequam sciunt vitia esse. The poor wretches sin before they know what it is; and by these actions a custom is made up, and this custom becomes a nature.

SECT. VIII. Rules and Measures of Deportment when a curse doth descend upon Children for their Parents fault, or when it is feared.

93. I. IF we fear a curse upon our selves or family for our fathers sin, let us do all actions of piety or religion, justice or charity, which are contrary to that crime which is suspected to be the enemy; in all things being careful that we do not inherit the sin. Si quis paterni vitii nascitur haeres; nascitur & poenae. The heir of the Crime must possess the revenue of punishment.

94. II. Let the children be careful not to commend, not to justifie, not to glory in their fathers sin, but be diligent to represent themselves the more pious, by how much their fathers were impious; for by such a contrariety and visible distance, they will avoid their fathers shame. [...].Isocrat. ep. ad Tim. For most men love not to honour and praise the sons of good men so much as the sons of wicked men, when they study to represent themselves better, and unlike their wicked parents. Therefore,

95. III. Let no child of a wicked father be dejected and confounded in his spirit, because his fathers were impious. For although it is piety to be troubled for their fathers regard, and because he died an enemy to God; yet in reference to themselves they must know, that God puts upon every head his own punishment. [...], said Plato. For every one is submitted to his own fortune by his own act. The fathers crime and the fathers punishment make no real permanent blot upon the son. No man is forc'd to succeed in his fathers crime; said Callistratus the Lawyer.

[Page]96. IV. Every evil that happens to a son for his fathers fault, hath an errand of its own to him. For as God is a just Judge to his father; so he is an essential enemy to sin, and a gracious Lord to the suffering person. When God sent blindness upon the man in the Gospel, neither for his parents sins, nor his own, yet he did it for his own glory. Let the afflicted person study by all ways to advance Gods glory in the sufferance, and the sharpness of the evil will be taken off.

97. V. Let not a son retain the price of his fathers sin, the purchase of his iniquity. If his father entred into the fields of the fatherless, let not the son dwell there. If his ancestors were sacrilegious, let not the son declaim against the crime and keep the lands, but cast off that which brings the burthen along with it. And this is to be observed in all those sins, the evil consequent and effect of which remains upon the posterity or successors of the injur'd person; for in those sins very often the curse descends with the wrong. So long as the effect remains, and the injury is complained of, and the title is still kept on foot, so long the son is tied to restitution. But even after the possession is setled, yet the curse and evil may descend longer than the sin; as the smart and the aking remains after the blow is past. And therefore even after the successors come to be lawful possessors, it may yet be very fit for them to quit the purchase of their fathers sin, or else they must resolve to pay the sad and severe rent-charge of a curse.

98. VI. In such cases in which there cannot be a real, let there be a verbal and publick disavowing their fathers sin which was publick, scandalous, and notorious. We find this thing done by Andronicus Palaeologus, the Greek Emperor,Gregoras, lib. 5. c. 81. who was the son of a bad Father; and it is to be done, when the effect was transient, or irremediable.

99. VII. Sometimes no piety of the children shall quite take off the anger of God from a family or nation: as it hapned to Josiah, who above all the Princes that were before or after him turned to the Lord. Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, 2 Kings 23.26 because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. In such a case as this we are to submit to Gods will, and let him exercise his power, his dominion, and his kingdom as he pleases, and expect the returns of our piety in the day of recompences: and it may be, our posterity shall reap a blessing for our sakes, who feel a sorrow and an evil for our fathers sake.

100. VIII. Let all that have children endeavour to be the beginners, and the stock of a new blessing to their family; by blessing their children, by praying much for them, by holy education and a severe piety, by rare example, and an excellent religion. And if there be in the family a great curse, and an extraordinary anger gone out against it, there must be something extraordinary done in the matter of religion, or of charity, that the remedy be no less than the evil.

101. IX. Let not the consideration of the universal sinfulness and corruption of mankind, add confidence to thy person, and hardness to thy conscience, and authority to thy sin; but let it awaken thy spirit, and stir up thy diligence, and endear all the watchfulness in the world for the service of God; for there is in it some difficulty, and an infinite necessity.

[...],

[...],

Eurip. Or [...]st.

said Electra in the Tragedy. Our nature is very bad in it self; but very good to them that use it well.

Prayers and Meditations.

THE first Adam bearing a wicked heart transgressed and was overcome: and so be all they that are born of him. Thus infirmity was made permanent:Esdras 2.3.21.22. And the law also in the heart of the people with the malignity and root, so that the good departed away, and the evil abode still.

[Page] Eccl. 7.29.Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright: but they have sought many inventions.

Ver. 20.For there is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Purge me with hysop,Psal. 51.5, 7, 10. and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow: create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God, they are corrupt, they have done abominable works,Psal. 14.1, 2, 3. there is none that doth good: The Lord looked down from Heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek after God. They are all gone aside, they are all become filthy: There is not one that doth good, no not one. V. 7. O that the salvation of Israel were come out of Sion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoyce, and Israel shall be glad.

Man dieth and wasteth away, yea man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? For now thou numbrest my steps:Job 14.10, &c. Dost thou not watch over my sin? my transgression is seal'd up in a bag, and thou sewest up iniquity. Thou destroyest the hope of man: Thou prevailest against him for ever, and he passeth: thou changest his countenance, and sendest him away. But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.

What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous?Job 15.14. Behold, he putteth no trust in his Saints, yea the Heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man which drinketh iniquity like water?

V. 24.Trouble and anguish shall make him afraid. They shall prevail against him as a King ready to battel. For he stretcheth out his hand against God, and strengthneth himself against the Almighty.

Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity, for vanity shall be his recompence. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing?V. 31. no not one.

Job 16.15.I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin, and defiled my horn in the dust. My face is foul with weeping, and on my eye-lids is the shadow of death. Not for any injustice in my hand: also my prayer is pure.

Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death! I thank God [I am delivered] through Jesus Christ our Lord.Rom. 7.24.

6.22.But now being made free from sin, and become servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life: For the wages of sin is death: But the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. For sin shall not have dominion over you:V. 12, 14. for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

The PRAYER.

1

O Almighty God, great Father of Men and Angels, thou art the preserver of men, and the great lover of souls; thou didst make every thing perfect in its kind, and all that thou didst make was very good: only we miserable creatures sons of Adam have suffered the falling Angels to infect us with their leprosie of pride, and so we entred into their evil portion, having corrupted our way before thee, and are covered with thy rod, and dwell in a cloud of thy displeasure; behold me the meanest of thy servants, humbled before thee, sensible of my sad condition, weak and miserable, sinful and ignorant, full of need, wanting thee in all things, and neither able to escape death without a Saviour, nor to live a life of holiness without thy Spirit. O be pleas'd to give me a portion in the new birth: break off the bands and fetters of my sin, cure my evil inclinations, correct my indispositions, and natural averseness from the severities of Religion; let me live by the measures of thy law, not by the evil example and disguises of the world; Renew a right spirit within me, and cast me not away from thy presence, lest I should retire to the works of darkness, and enter into those horrible regions, where the light of thy countenance never shineth.

II.

[Page]

I AM ashamed, O Lord, I am ashamed that I have dishonoured so excellent a Creation. Thou didst make us upright, and create us in innocence. And when thou didst see us unable to stand in thy sight, and that we could never endure to be judged by the Covenant of works, thou didst renew thy mercies to us in the new Covenant of Jesus Christ; and now we have no excuse, nothing to plead for our selves, much less against thee; but thou art holy and pure, and just and merciful. Make me to be like thee, holy as thou art holy, merciful as our Heavenly Father is merciful, obedient as our holy Saviour Jesus, meek and charitable, temperate and chaste, humble and patient according to that holy example, that my sins may be pardoned by his death, and my spirit renewed by his Spirit, that passing from sin to grace, from ignorance to the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, I may pass from death to life, from sorrow to joy, from Earth to Heaven, from the present state of misery and imperfection, to the glorious inheritance prepar'd for the Saints and Sons of light, the children of the new birth, the brethren of our Lord and Brother, our Judge and our Advocate, our Blessed Saviour and Redeemer JESVS. Amen.

A Prayer to be said by a Matron in behalf of her Husband and Family, that a blessing may descend upon their posterity.

I.

O Eternal God, our most merciful Lord, and gracious Father, thou art my guide, the light of mine eyes, the joy of my heart, the author of my hope, and the object of my love and worshippings, thou relievest all my needs, and determin'st all my doubts, and art an eternal fountain of blessing, open and running over to all thirsty and weary souls that come and cry to thee for mercy and refreshment. Have mercy upon thy servant, and relieve my fears and sorrows, and the great necessities of my family, for thou alone, O Lord, canst do it.

II.

FIT and adorn every one of us with a holy and a religious spirit, and give a double portion to thy servant my dear Husband: Give him a wise heart, a prudent, severe, and indulgent care over the children which thou hast given us. His heart is in thy hand, and the events of all things are in thy disposition. Make it a great part of his care to promote the spiritual and eternal interest of his children, and not to neglect their temporal relations and necessities; but to provide states of life for them in which with fair advantages they may live chearfully, serve thee diligently, promote the interest of the Christian family in all their capacities, that they may be always blessed, and always innocent, devout and pious, and may be graciously accepted by thee to pardon, and grace, and glory, through Jesus Christ. Amen.

III.

BLESS (O Lord) my Sons with excellent understandings, love of holy and noble things, sweet dispositions, innocent deportment, diligent souls, chaste, healthful and temperate bodies, holy and religious spirits, that they may live to thy glory, and be useful in their capacities to the servants of God, and all their neighbours, and the Relatives of their conversation. Bless my Daughters with a humble and a modest carriage, and excellent meekness, a great love of holy things, a severe chastity, a constant, holy and passionate Religion. O my God, never suffer them to fall into folly, and the sad effects of a wanton, loose and indiscreet spirit: possess their fancies with holy affections, be thou the covering of their eyes, and the great object of their hopes, and all their desires. Blessed Lord, thou disposest all things sweetly by thy providence, thou guidest them excellently by thy wisdom, thou unitest all circumstances and changes wonderfully by thy power, [Page] and by thy power makest all things work for the good of thy servants; Be pleased so to dispose my Daughters, that if thou shouldest call them to the state of a married life, they may not dishonour their Family, nor grieve their Parents, nor displease thee, but that thou wilt so dispose of their persons, and the accidents and circumstances of that state, that it may be a state of holiness to the Lord, and blessing to thy servants. And until thy wisdom shall know it fit to bring things so to pass, let them live with all purity, spending their time religiously and usefully. O most blessed Lord, enable their dear father with proportionable abilities and opportunities of doing his duty and charities towards them, and them with great obedience and duty toward him, and all of us with a love toward thee above all things in the world, that our portion may be in love and in thy blessings, through Jesus Christ our dearest Lord, and most gracious Redeemer.

IV.

O MY God, pardon thy servant, pity my infirmities, hear the passionate desires of thy humble servant; in thee alone is my trust, my heart and all my wishes are towards thee. Thou hast commanded me to pray to thee in all needs, thou hast made gracious promises to hear and accept me; and I will never leave importuning thy glorious Majesty, humbly, passionately, confidently, till thou hast heard and accepted the prayer of thy servant. Amen, dearest Lord, for thy mercy sake hear thy servant. Amen.

TO The Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN WARNER, D.D. and late Lord Bishop of Rochester.

[Page]

MY LORD,

I NOW see cause to wish that I had given to your Lordship the trouble of reading my papers of Original Sin, before their publication; for though I have said all that which I found material in the Question, yet I perceive that it had been fitting I had spoken some things less material, so to prevent the apprehensions that some have of this doctrine, that it is of a sence differing from the usual expressions of the Church of England. However, my Lord, since your Lordship is pleased to be careful not only of truth, and Gods glory, but desirous also that even all of us should speak the same thing, and understand each other without Jealousies, or severer censures, I have now obeyed your Counsel, and done all my part towards the asserting the truth, and securing charity, and unity: Professing with all truth and ingenuity, that I would rather die than either willingly give occasion or countenance to a Schism in the Church of England; and I would suffer much evil before I would displease my dear Brethren in the service of Jesus, and in the ministeries of the Church. But as I have not given just cause of offence to any, so I pray that they may not be offended unjustly, lest the fault lie on them, whose persons I so much love, and whose eternal interest I do so much desire may be secured and advanced.

Now, my Lord, I had thought I had been secured in the Article, not only for the truth of the Doctrine, but for the advantages and comforts it brings. I was confident they would not, because there was no cause any men should, be angry at it; For it is strange to me that any man should desire to believe God to be more severe, and less gentle: That men should be greedy to find out inevitable ways [Page] of being damned, that they should be unwilling to have the vail drawn away from the face of Gods goodness, and that they should desire to see an angry countenance; and be displeased at the glad tidings of the Gospel of peace; It is strange to me that men should desire to believe that their pretty Babes which are strangled at the gates of the womb or die before Baptism, should for ought they know, die eternally and be damned, and that themselves should consent to it, and to them that invent Reasons to make it seem just; They might have had not only pretences but reasons to be troubled, if I had represented God to be so great a hater of Mankind, as to damn millions of millions for that which they could not help, or if I had taught that their infants might by chance have gone to Hell, and as soon as ever they came for life descend to an eternal death; If I had told them evil things of God and hard measures, and evil portions to their children, they might have complained; but to complain because I say God is just to all, and merciful and just to infants, to fret and be peevish because I tell them, that nothing but good things are to be expected from our good God, is a thing that may well be wondred at. My Lord, I take a great comfort in this, that my doctrine stands on that side, where Gods justice and goodness and mercy stand apparently: and they that speak otherwise in this Article, are forced by convulsions and violences to draw their doctrine to comply with Gods justice, and the reputation of his most glorious Attributes. And after great and laborious devices, they must needs do it pitifully and jejunely; but I will prejudice no mans opinion; I only will defend my own, because in so doing I have the honour to be an advocate for God, who will defend and accept me, in the simplicity and innocency of my purposes and the profession of his truth.

Now my Lord, I find that some believe this doctrine ought not now to have been published: Others think it not true. The first are the wise and few: the others are the many who have been taught otherwise, and either have not leisure, or abilities to make right judgments in the question. Concerning the first I have given what accounts I could, to that excellent man the Lord Bishop of Sarum, who out of his great piety and prudence and his great kindness to me was pleased to call for accounts of me. Concerning the other, your Lordship in great humility, and in great tenderness to those who are not perswaded of the truth of this doctrine hath called upon me to give all those just measures of satisfaction, which I could [Page] be obliged to, by the interest of any Christian vertue. In obedience to this pious care and prudent counsel of your Lordship, I have published these ensuing Papers, hoping that God will bless them to the purposes whither they are designed: however I have done all that I could, and all that I am commanded, and all that I was counselled to. And as I submit all to Gods blessing, and the events of his providence and Oeconomy, so my doctrine I humbly submit to my holy Mother the Church of England, and rejoyce in any circumstances by which I can testifie my duty to her and my obedience to your Lordship.

CHAP. VII. A further EXPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Original Sin.

[Page]

[Page]

SECT. I. Of the Fall of Adam, and the Effects of it upon Him and Vs.

IT was well said of S. Augustine in this thing, (though he said many others in it less certain) Nihil est peccato Originali ad praedicandum no [...]ius, nihil ad intelligendum secretius. The article we all confess; but the manner of explicating it, is not an apple of knowledge, but of contention. Having therefore turned to all the ways of Reason and Scripture; I at last apply my self to examine how it was affirmed by the first and best Antiquity. For the Doctrine of Original sin (as I have explicated it) is taxed of Singularity and Novelty; and though these words are very freely bestowed upon any thing we have not learned, or consented to; and that we take false measures of these Appellatives; reckoning that new that is but renewed; and that singular that is not taught vulgarly, or in our own Societies: Yet I shall easily quit the proposition from these charges; and though I do confess, and complain of it, that the usual affirmations of Original sin, are a popular error; yet I will make it appear that it is no Catholick doctrine, that it prevailed by prejudice, and accidental authorities; but after such prevailing, it was accused and reproved by the Greatest and most Judicious persons of Christendom.

And first that judgment may the better be given of the Allegations I shall bring from authority, I shall explicate and state the Question, that there may be no impertinent allegations of Antiquity for both sides, nor clamours against the persons interested in either perswasion, nor any offence taken by error and misprision. It is not therefore intended, nor affirmed, that there is no such thing as Original sin; for it is certain, and affirmed by all Antiquity, upon many grounds of Scripture, That Adam sinned, and his sin was Personally his, but Derivatively ours; that is, it did great hurt to us, to our bodies directly, to our souls indirectly and accidentally.

2. For Adam was made a living soul, the great representative of Mankind, and the beginner of a temporal happy life; and to that purpose he was put in a place of temporal happiness, where he was to have lived as long as he obeyed God, (so far as he knew nothing else being promised to him, or implied) but when he sinned, he [Page] was thrown from thence, and spoiled of all those advantages by which he was enabled to live and be happy. This we find in the story; the reasonableness of the parts of which, teaches us all this doctrine. To which if we add the words of S. Paul, the case is clear.1 Cor. 15.45, &c. The first Adam was made a living soul; The last Adam was made a quickning Spirit. Howbeit, that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second man is the Lord from Heaven. As is the earthly, such are they that are earthly; and as is the Heavenly, such are they also that are Heavenly; and as we have born the image of the Earthly, we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly: Now this I say, That flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. This Discourse of the Apostle hath in it all these propositions, which clearly state this whole Article. There are two great heads of Mankind, the two Adams; the first and the second. The first was framed with an earthly body, the second had viz. (after his resurrection, when he had died unto sin once) a spiritual body. The first was Earthly, the second is Heavenly: From the first we derive an Earthly life, from the second we obtain a Heavenly; all that are born of the first are such as he was naturally, but the effects of the Spirit came only upon them who are born of the second Adam: From him who is earthly, we could have no more than he was, or had; the spiritual life, and consequently the Heavenly, could not be derived from the first Adam, but from Christ only. All that are born of the first, by that birth inherit nothing but temporal life, and corruption; but in the new birth only we derive a title to Heaven. For flesh and blood; that is, whatsoever is born of Adam, cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. And they are injurious to Christ, who think, that from Adam we might have inherited immortality. Christ was the Giver and Preacher of it; he brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel. It is a singular benefit given by God to mankind, through Jesus Christ.

3. Upon the affirmation of these premises, it follows, That if Adam had stood, yet from him we could not have by our natural generation obtained a title to our spiritual life, nor by all the strengths of Adam have gone to Heaven: Adam was not our representative to any of these purposes, but in order to the perfection of a temporal life. Christ only is and was from eternal ages designed to be the head of the Church, and the fountain of spiritual life. And this is it which is affirmed by some very eminent persons in the Church of God; particularly by Junius and Tilenus, that Christus est fundamentum totius praedestinationis; all that are, or ever were predestinated, were predestinated in Christ: Even Adam himself was predestinated in him, and therefore from him, (if he had stood) though we should have inherited a temporal happy life, yet the Scripture speaks nothing of any other event. Heaven was not promised to Adam himself, therefore from him we could not have derived a title thither. And therefore that inquity of the School-men [Whether if Adam had not sinned, Christ should have been incarnate] was not an impertinent Question, though they prosecuted it to weak purposes, and with trifling arguments; Scotus and his Scholars were for the affirmative; and though I will not be decretory in it, because the Scripture hath said nothing of it, nor the Church delivered it; yet to me it seems plainly the discourse of the Apostle now alledged, That if Adam had not sinned, yet that by Christ alone we should have obtained everlasting life. Whether this had been dispensed by his Incarnation, or some other way of oeconomy, is not signified.

4. But then, if from Adam, we should not have derived our title to Heaven, (though he had stood) then neither by his Fall can we be said to have lost Heaven. Heaven and Hell were to be administred by another method. But then, if it be enquired what evil we thence received? I answer, That the principal effect was the loss of that excellent condition in which God placed him, and would have placed his posterity, unless sin had entred. He should have lived a long and lasting life, till it had been time to remove him, and very happy. Instead of this, he was thrown from those means which God had designed to this purpose, that is, Paradise and the trees of life; he was turned into a place of labour and uneasiness, of briars and thorns, ill air and violent chances, & nova febrium terris incubuit cohors; the woman was condemned to hard labour and travel, and (that which troubled her most) obedience to her Husband; his body was made frail, and weak, and sickly; that is, it was le [...]t such as it was made, and left without remedies, which were to have made it otherwise. For that Adam was made mortal in his nature, is infinitely certain, and proved by his very eating and drinking, his sleep and recreation; by ingestion and egestion, by breathing and generating his like, which immortal substances never do; and [Page] by the very tree of life, which had not been needful, if he should have had no need of it to repair his decaying strength and health.

5. The effect of this consideration is this, that all the product of Adam's sin, was by despoiling him, and consequently us, of all the superadditions and graces brought upon his nature. Even that which was threatned to him, and in the narrative of that sad story expressed to be his punishment, was no lessening of his nature, but despoiling him of his supernaturals: And therefore Manuel Pelaeologus calls it [...], the common driness of our nature; and he adds, [...], by our Fathers sin we fell from our Fathers graces. Now according to the words of the Apostle, As is the earthly, such are they that are earthly; that is, all his posterity must be so as his nature was left; in this there could be no injustice. For if God might at first, and all the way have made man with a necessity as well as a possibility of dying, though men had not sinned; then so also may he do, if he did sin; and so it was; but this was effected by disrobing him of all the superadded excellencies with which God adorned and supported his natural life. But this also I add, that if even death it self came upon us without the alteration or diminution of our nature, then so might sin, because death was in re naturali, but sin is not, and therefore need not suppose that Adam's nature was spoiled to introduce that.

6. As the sin of Adam brought hurt to the body directly, so indirectly it brought hurt to the soul. For the evils upon the body, as they are only felt by the soul; so they grieve, and tempt, and provoke the soul to anger, to sorrow, to envy; they make weariness in religious things; cause desires for ease, for pleasure; and as these are by the body always desired, so sometimes being forbidden by God, they become sins, and are always apt to it; because the body being a natural agent, tempts to all it can feel, and have pleasure in. And this is also observed and affirmed by S. Chrysostom, and he often speaks it, as if he were pleased in this explication of the Article, [...].Ad 7. Rom. Homil. 13. Together with death entred a whole troop of affections or passions. For when the body became mortal, then of necessity it did admit desires, or lust, and anger, and grief, and all things else which need great constancy and wisdom; lest the storm should drown reason in us, in the gulf of sin. For these affections or passions were not sin, but the excess of them, not being bridled did effect this. The same he affirms in Homl. 11. ad 6. Rom. and the 12. Homil. on Rom. 7. And not much unlike this was that excellent discourse of Lactantius, in his seventh Book de Divino praemio, cap. 5. But Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Romans follows the same discourse exactly. And this way of explicating the entrance and facility of sin upon us, is usual in antiquity; affirming, that because we derive a miserable and an afflicted body from Adam, upon that stock sin enters.

Quae quia materiam peccati ex fomite carnis

Consociata trahit, nec non simul ipsa sodali

Prudentius in Apotheosi.

Est incentivum peccaminis, implicat ambas

Vindex poena reas, peccantes mente sub unâ

Peccandíque cremet socias cruciatibus aequis.

Because the soul joyned to the body draws from the society of the flesh incentives and arguments to sin; therefore both of them are punished, as being guilty by consociation. But then thus it was also before the fall: For by this it was that Adam fell. So the same Prudentius:

Haec prima est natura animae, sic condita simplex

Decidit in vitium per sordida foedera carnis.

The soul was created simple and pure, but fell into vice by the evil combination with the flesh. But if at first the appetites, and necessities, and tendencies of the body, when it was at ease, and health, and blessed, did yet tempt the soul to forbidden instances; much more will this be done, when the body is miserable and afflicted, uneasie and dying. For even now we see by a sad experience, that the afflicted and the miserable are not only apt to anger and envy, but have many more desires, and [Page] more weaknesses, and consequently more aptnesses to sin in many instances, than those who are less troubled. And this is that which was said by Arnobius, Proni ad culpas, Lib. 1. advers. gentes. & ad libidinis varios appetitus vitio sumus infirmitatis ingenitae: By the fault of our natural infirmity, we are prone to the appetites of lust and sins.

7. From hence it follows, that naturally a man cannot do or perform the Law of God; because being so weak, so tempted by his body; and this life being the bodies day, that is, the time in which its appetites are properly prevailing; to be born of Adam, is to be born under sin, that is, under such inclinations to it, that as no man will remain innocent, so no man can of himself keep the Law of God; Vendidit se prior, In cap. 7. Rom. ac per hoc omne semen subjectum est peccato. Quamobrem infirmum esse hominem ad praecepta legis servanda; said the Author of the Commentary on S. Paul's Epistles, usually attributed to S. Ambrose.

But beyond this there are two things more considerable; the one is, that the soul of man being devested by Adam's fall, (by way of punishment) of all those supernatural assistances, which God put into it; that which remained was a reasonable soul fitted for the actions of life, and of reason, but not of any thing that was supernatural. For the soul being immerged in flesh, feeling grief by participation of evils from the flesh, hath and must needs have discourses in order to its own ease and comfort, that is, in order to the satisfaction of the bodies desires; which because they are often contradicted, restrained and curbed, and commanded to be mortified and killed, by the laws of God, must of necessity make great inlets for sin; for while reason judges of things in proportion, to present interests, and is less apprehensive of the proportions of those good things which are not the good things of this life, but of another; the reason abuses the will, as the flesh abuses the reason. And for this there is no remedy but the grace of God, the holy Spirit, to make us be born again, to become spiritual; that is, to have new principles, new appetites, and new interests.

The other thing I was to note is this; That as the Devil was busie to abuse mankind, when he was fortified by many advantages and favours from God: So now that man is naturally born naked, and devested of those graces and advantages, and hath an infirm sickly body, and enters upon the actions of life through infancy, and childhood, and youth, and folly, and ignorance; the Devil (it is certain) will not omit his opportunities, but will with all his power possess and abuse mankind; and upon the apprehension of this, the Primitive Church used in the first admission of infants to the entrance of a new birth to a spiritual life, pray against the power and frauds of the Devil; and that brought in the ceremony of Exsufflation, for ejecting of the Devil. The ceremony was fond and weak, but the opinion that introduced them, was full of caution and prudence. For as Optatus Milevitanus said, Neminem fugit, Lib. 4. contr. Parmen. quod omnis homo qui nascitur, quamvis de Christianis parentibus nascitur, sine Spiritu immundo esse non possit; quem necesse sit ante salutare lavacrum ab homine excludi ac separari. It is but too likely the Devil will take advantages of our natural weaknesses, and with his temptations and abuses enter upon children as soon as they enter upon choice, and indeed prepossess them with imitating follies, that may become customs of sinfulness before they become sins; and therefore with rare wisdom it was done by the Church, to prevent the Devils frauds and violences, by an early Baptism, and early offices.

8. As a consequent of all this, it comes to pass, that we being born thus naked of the Divine grace, thus naturally weak, thus incumbred with a body of sin, that is, a body apt to tempt to forbidden instances, and thus assaulted by the frauds and violences of the Devil; all which are helped on by the evil guises of the world, it is certain, we cannot with all these disadvantages and loads soar up to Heaven; but in the whole constitution of affairs, are in sad dispositions to enter into the Devils portion, and go to Hell: Not that if we die before we consent to evil, we shall perish; but that we are evilly disposed to do actions that will deserve it, and because if we die before our new birth, we have nothing in us that can, according to the revelations of God, dispose us to Heaven; according to these words of the Apostle, In me, that is, in my flesh, Rom. 7. dwelleth no good thing.

But this infers not, that in our flesh, or that in our soul, there is any sin properly inherent, which makes God to be our present enemy; that is, the only or the principal thing I suppose my self to have so much reason to deny. But that the state of the body is a state not at all fitted for Heaven, but too much disposed to the ways that lead to Hell. For even in innocent persons, in Christ himself it was [Page] a hinderance or a state of present exclusion from Heaven; he could not enter into the second Tabernacle, (that is, into Heaven) so long as the first tabernacle of his body was standing; the body of sin, that is, of infirmity, he was first to lay aside, and so by dying unto sin once, he entred into Heaven; according to the other words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 15. Heb. 9.8. & 7.27. & 5.2, 3. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, it is a state of differing nature and capacity; Christ himself could not enter thither, till he had first laid that down, as the Divine Author to the Hebrews rarely and mysteriously discourses.

9. This is the whole summ of Original sin, which now I have more fully explicated than formerly; it being then only fitting to speak of so much of it, as to represent it to be a state of evil, which yet left in us powers enough to do our duty, and to be without excuse, (which very thing the Belgick Confession in this Article acknowledges) and that not God but our selves are authors of our eternal death in case we do perish.

But now though thus far I have admitted as far as can be consonant to Antiquity, and not unreasonable, though in Scripture so much is not expressed; yet now I must be more restrained, and deny those superadditions to this Doctrine, which the ignorance, or the fancy, or the interest, or the laziness of men have sewed to this Doctrine.

SECT. II. Adam's Sin is in us no more than an imputed Sin, and how it is so.

10. ORIGINAL sin is not our sin properly, not inherent in us, but is only imputed to us, so as to bring evil effects upon us: For that which is inherent in us, is a consequent only of Adam's sin, but of it self no sin; for there being but two things affirmed to be the constituent parts of Original sin, the want of Original righteousness, and concupiscence, neither of these can be a sin in us, but a punishment and a consequent of Adam's sin they may be: For the case is thus:

One half of Christians that dispute in this Article; particularly, the Roman Schools, say that Concupiscence is not a sin, but a consequent of Adam's sin: The other half of Christians (I mean in Europe) that is, the Protestants, generally say, That the want of original righteousness is a consequent of Adam's sin, but formally no sin. The effect of these is this, That it is not certain amongst the Churches, that either one or the other is formally our sin, or inherent in us; and we cannot affirm either, without crossing a great part of Christendom in their affirmative.

There have indeed been attempts made to reconcile this difference; and therefore in the conference at Wormes, and in the book offered at Ratisbon to the Emperor; and in the interim it self they jumbled them both together; saying, that Originale peccatum est carentia justitiae originalis, cum concupiscentiâ. But the Church of England defines neither, but rather inclines to believe that it consists in concupiscence, as appears in the explication of the Article which I have annexed. But because she hath not determined that either of them is formally a sin, or inherent in us, I may with the greater freedom discourse concerning the several parts.

The want of original righteousness is not a thing, but the privation of a thing, and therefore cannot be inherent in us; and therefore if it be a sin at all to us, it can only be such by imputation. But neither can this be imputed to us as a sin formally, because if it be at all, it is only a consequent or punishment of Adam's sin, and unavoidable by us: For though Scotus is pleased to affirm, that there was an obligation upon humane nature, to preserve it; I doubt not but as he intended it, he said false. Adam indeed was tied to it, for if he lost it for himself and us, then he only was bound to keep it for himself and us; for we could not be obliged to keep it, unless we had received it; but he was, and because he lost it, we also missed it; that is, are punished, and feel the evil effects of it. But besides all this, the matter of Original righteousness is a thing framed in the School Forges, but not at all spoken of [Page] in Scripture, save only that God made man upright; that is, he was brought innocent into the world, he brought no sin along with him, he was created in the time and stature of reason and choice; he entred upon action when his reason was great enough to master his passion, all which we do not: It is that which as Prosper describes it, made a man expertem peccati, & capacem Dei; for by this is meant that he had grace and helps enough, if he needed any, besides his natural powers; which we have not by nature, but by another dispensation.

11. Add to all this, that they who make the want of ORIGINAL Righteousness to be a sin formally in us, when they come to explicate their meaning by material or intelligible events, tell us it is an aversion from God; that is, in effect a turning to the creature, and differs no otherwise from concupiscence, than going from the West directly does from going directly to the East; that is, just nothing. It follows then, that if concupiscence be the effect of Adam's sin, then so must the want of original righteousness, because they are the same thing in real event: and if that be no sin in us, because it was only the punishment of his sin, then neither is the other a sin, for the same reason.

But then for Concupiscence, that this is no sin, before we consent to it appears by many testimonies of Antiquity, and of S. Austin himself; Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato semper essemus donec sanaretur hoc malum, si nunquam consentiremus ad malum. Lib. 2. ad Julianum. And it is infinitely against reason it should; for in infants the very actions and desire of concupiscence are no sins, therefore much less is the principle; if the little emanations of it in them be innocent, although there are some images of consent, much more is that principle innocent, before any thing of consent at all is applied to it.

By the way, I cannot but wonder at this, that the Roman Schools, affirming the first motions of concupiscence to be no sin, because they are involuntary, and not consented to by us, but come upon us whether we list or no, yet that they should think Original sin to be a sin in us really and truly, which it is certain, is altogether as involuntary and unchosen as concupiscence. But I add this also, that concupiscence is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin; if it were, then it would follow, that if Adam had not sinned we should have no concupiscence, that is, no contrary appetites; which is infinitely confuted by the experience of Adam's fall: For by the Rebellion and prevailing of his concupiscence it was that he fell, and that which was the cause, could not be the effect of the same thing: as no child can beget his own Father, nor any thing, which it leads and draws in after it self. Indeed it is True that by Adam's sin this became much worse, and by the evils of the body, and its infirmities, and the nakedness of the soul as well as the body, and new necessities and new Emergencies, [...], as Macarius said; an entire contrariety both manifest and secret came in upon us from the transgression of Adam;Homil. 5. This I say became much worse, and more inordinate and tempted and vexed, and we were more under the Devils power, because we had the loss of our own.

12. The result is this, that neither the one nor the other, is our sin formally, but by imputation only, that is, we are not sinners but we are afflicted for his sin, and he is punished in us, and that it cannot be our sin properly, but metonymically, that is, our misery only; appears to me demonstratively certain upon this account: For how can that in another be our sin when it is in us involuntary, when our own acts if involuntary, are not sins?

If it be asked how can we have the punishment unless we also have the fault? I return this answer that S. Augustine and some others,Lib. 4. contra duas epist. Pelag. c. 4. who make this objection, have already given answer themselves, and Delirant reges plectuntur Achivi, is an answer enough; as Saul sinned and his seven sons were hanged; and all that evil which is upon us, being not by any positive infliction, but by privative, or the taking away gifts and blessings and graces from us, which God not having promised to give, was neither naturally nor by covenant obliged to give, it is certain, he could not be obliged to continue that to the sons of a sinning Father, which to an innocent Father he was not obliged to give.

But these things which are only evils and miseries to us upon Adam's account, become direct punishments upon our own account, that is, if we sin. But then as to the argument it self: Certainly it were more probable to say, we had not the fault, we did not do the sin which another did: therefore the evil that we feel is our misery, but not our punishment; rather than to say we are punished therefore we are guilty. For let [Page] what will happen to us, it is not true that we are guilty of what we never did; and what ever comes upon us by the way of Empire and Dominion, nothing can descend upon us by the way of Justice, as relating to our own fault.

But thus it was, that in him we are all sinners, that is, his sin is reckoned to us so as to bring evil upon us; because we were born of him, and consequently put into the same natural state where he was left after his sin (No otherwise than as children born of a bankrupt father) are also miserable, not that they are guilty of their fathers sin, or that it is imputed so as to involve them in the guilt, but it is derived upon them and reckoned to evil events; the very nature of birth and derivation from him infers it.

13. And this it is that S. Augustine once said, Nascimur non propriè, De Civ. Dei. lib. 18. sed originaliter peccatores ▪ that is, Adam's sin is imputed to us, but we have none of our own born with us: and this expression of having Adam's sin imputed to us, is followed by divers of the Modern Doctours: by S. Bernard Serm. 11. de Dominicâ prima post 8. Epiph. by Lyr [...] in 5. cap. Rom. by Cajetan ibidem: by Bellarmine tom. 3. de amiss. gratiae lib. 5. cap. 17. by Dr. Whitaker lib. 1. de peccato Originali cap. 7. & 9. by Paraeus in his animadversions upon Bellar. lib. 5. de amiss. gratiae cap. 16. by Dr. George Charleton lib. de consensu Ecclesiae Catholicae contra Tridentinos Controvers. 4. which is the 5. chapter of Grace in these words: either we must with Pelagius wholly deny Original sin, or it must be by the imputation of the injustice that was in Adam that we are made sinners because Original sin is an imputed sin. The effect of this is that therefore it is not formally ours, and it is no sin inherent in us; and then the imputation means nothing but that it brought evils upon us; Our dying, our sorrow, and the affections of mortality, and concupiscence are the consequents of Adam's sin, and the occasion of ours, and so we are in him and by him, made sinners: and in this there can be no injustice, for this imputation brings nothing upon us as in relation to Adam's sin, but what by his power and justice he might have done without such Relation; And what is just, if done absolutely, must needs be just if done Relatively, and because there is no other way to reconcile this with God's Justice, it follows, that there is no other sence of imputation than what is now explicated.

SECT. III. The Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers was, that Free-will remained in Vs after the Fall.

14. ADAM's sin did not destroy the liberty of our election, but left it naturally as great as before the Fall.

And here I observe that the Fathers before S. Augustine, generally maintained the Doctrine of Man's liberty remaining after the Fall; the consequents of which are incompossible and inconsistent with the present Doctrines of Original sin.

That the Doctrine of Mans liberty remaining was general and Catholick, appears by these few testimonies in stead of very many. Justin Martyr in his second apology for the Christians hath these words, [...]. Christ hath declared that the Devil and his Angels and men that follow him shall be tormented in Hell for ever, which thing is not yet done for the sake of Mankind, because God foresees that some by repentance shall obtain salvation, even some that are not yet born: and from the beginning be created Mankind, so that he should be endued with understanding, and by the power of his free will should obtain choice to follow truth and to do well: wherefore all men are wholly left without excuse and defence before God; for they are created by him reasonable and fit for contemplation.

S. Cyrillus lib. 4. in Johan. 1.7. Non possumus secundum Ecclesiae veritatisque dogmata liberam potestatem hominis, quod liberum arbitrium appellatur, ullo modo negare.

S. Hieronymus epist. ad Ctesiphontem extrem. Frustra blasphemas & ignorantiam auribus ingeris, nos liberum arbitrium condemnare. Damnetur ille qui damnat.

Author Hypognosticôn lib. 3. Ipsum liberum arbitrium in hominibus esse certâ fide credimus [Page] & praedicamus indubitantèr [& infra] est igitur liberum arbitrium: quod quisquis negaverit Catholicus non est.

Gregor. Nyssenus the great Divine saith, lib. 7. de philosoph. c. 2. Concupiscere & [...] concupiscere, mentiri & non mentiri, & quaecunque talia in quibus consistunt virtutis & vitii opera, haec sunt in nostro libero arbitrio.

B. Macarius Aegyptius hom. 15. Caeterúmve semel & omninò resonet, & permanea [...] delectus & arbitrii libertas quam primitus homini dedit Deus, ea propter dispensatione suâ res administrantur, & corporum solutio sit, ut in voluntate hominis situm sit, ad bonum, vel malum converti.

Marcus Heremita lib. de Baptismo, ultra medium, speaks more home to the particular question: Haec & similia, cum sciat scriptura in nostrâ potestate positum esse, ut haec agamus nec ne, propterea non Satanam, neque peccatum Adae sed nos increpat. [& infra] Primam conceptionem habemus ex dispensatione quemadmodum & ille, & perinde ac ille pro arbitrio possumus obtemperare vel non obtemperare.

Julius Firmicus de erroribus profanarum religionum cap. 29. Liberum te Deus fecit: in tuâ manu est, ut aut vivas aut pereas, quia te per abrupta praecipitas.

S. Ambros. in exposit. Psalm. 40. Homini dedit eligendi arbitrium quod sequatur, ante hominem vita & mors; si deliqueris, non natura in culpa est, sed eligentis affectus.

Gaudentius Brixianus tertio tractat. super Exod. Horum concessa semel voluntatis libertas non aufertur ne nihil de eo judicare possit, qui liber non fuerit in agendo.

Boetius libro de consolatione philosophiae. Quae cum ita sint, manet intemerata mortalibus libertas arbitrii.

Though it were easie to bring very many more testimonies to this purpose, yet I have omitted them because the matter is known to all learned Persons, and have chosen these because they testifie that our liberty of choice remains after the fall: that if we sin the fault is not in our Nature but in our Persons and Election: that still it is in our powers to do good or evil; that this is the sentence of the Church: that he who denies this is not a Catholick believer.

15. And this is so agreeable to nature, to experience, to the sentence of all wise men, to the nature of laws, to the effect of reward, and punishments, that I am perswaded no man would deny it, if it were not upon this mistake; For many wise and learned men dispute against it, because they find it affirmed in H. Scripture every where, that grace is necessary, that we are servants of sin, that we cannot come to God unless we be drawn, and very many more excellent things to the same purpose. Upon the account of which they conclude that therefore our free will is impaired by Adam's fall, since without the grace of God we cannot convert our selves to Godliness, and being converted, without it we cannot stand, and if we stand, without it we cannot go on, and going on, without it we cannot persevere. Now though all this be very true, yet there is a mistake in the whole Question. For when it is affirmed that Adam's sin did not, could not impair our liberty, but all that freedom of election which was concreated with his reason, and is essential to an understanding creature, did remain inviolate, there is no more said: but that after Adam's fall, all that which was natural remained, and that what Adam could naturally do, all that he and we can do afterwards. But yet this contradicts not all those excellent discourses which the Church makes of the necessity of Grace, of the necessity and effect of which I am more earnestly perswaded, and do believe more things, than are ordinarily taught in the Schools of Learning: But when I say, that our will can do all that it ever could, I mean all that it could ever do naturally, but not all that is to be done supernaturally.

But then this I add, that the things of the Spirit, that is, all that belongs to spiritual life, are not naturally known, not naturally discerned; but are made known to us by the Spirit; and when they are known, they are not naturally amiable as being in great degrees, and many regards contradictory to natural desires; but they are made amiable by the proposition of spiritual rewards, and our will is moved by God in wayes not natural, and the active and passive are brought together by secret powers; and after all this our will being put into a supernatural order, does upon these presuppositions choose freely, and work in the manner of Nature. Our will is after Adam naturally as free as ever it was, and in spiritual things it's free, when it is made so by the Spirit; for Nature could never do that: according to that saying of Celestine. Nemo nisi per Christum libero arbitrio benè utitur. Omnis sancta cogitatio & motus bonae voluntatis ex Deo est. A man before he is in Christ hath free-will, but cannot use it well. He hath motions and operations of will; but without God's grace they do not delight in holy things.

[Page]But then in the next place there is another mistake also, when it is affirmed in the writings of some Doctors, that the will of man is depraved; men presently suppose that Depravation is a Natural or Physical effect, and means a diminution of powers; whereas it signifies nothing but a being in love with, or having chosen an evil object, and not an impossibility or weakness to do the contrary: but only because it will not; For the powers of the will cannot be lessened by any act of the same faculty, for the act is not contrary to the faculty, and therefore can do nothing towards its destruction.

III. As a consequent of this I infer that there is no natural necessity of sinning; that is, there is no sinful action to which naturally we are determined; but it is our own choice that we sin. This depending upon the former, stands or falls with it. But because God hath super-induced so many Laws, and the Devil super-induces temptations upon our weak nature, and we are to enter into a supernatural state of things; therefore it is that we need the Helps of supernatural grace to enable us to do a supernatural duty in order to a divine end; so that the necessity of sinning which we all complain of, though it be greater in us than it was in Adam before his fall, yet is not absolute in either, nor meerly natural, but accidental and super-induced; and in remedy to it, God also hath superinduced and promised his Holy Spirit to them that ask Him.

SECT. IV. Adam's Sin is not imputed to us to our Damnation.

16. BUT the main of all is this; that this sin of Adam is not imputed unto us to Eternal Damnation. For Eternal Death was not threatned to Adam for his sin, and therefore could not from him come upon us for that which was none of ours. Indeed the Socinians affirm that the death which entered into the World by Adam's sin was Death Eternal; that is, God then decreed to punish sinners with the portion of Devils. It is likely he did so, but that this was the death introduced for the sin of Adam upon all Man-kind, is not at all affirmed in Scripture: but temporal death is the effect of Adam's sin; in Adam we all die, and the Death that Adam's sin brought in, is such as could have a remedy or recompence by Christ; but Eternal Death hath no recompence, and shall never be destroyed; but temporal death shall. But that which I say is this; that for Adam's sin alone, no man but himself is or can justly be condemned to the bitter pains of Eternal Fire.

This depends also upon the former accounts, because meer Nature brings not to Hell, but choice. Nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas, said S. Bernard; and since Original sin is not properly ours, but only by imputation, if God should impute Adam's sin so as to damn any one for it, all our good we receive from God is much less than that evil; and we should be infinitely to seek for justifications of God's justice and glorifications of his mercy, or testimonies of his goodness.

But now the matter is on this side so reasonable in it self, that let a man take what side he will, he shall have parties enough, and no prejudices, or load of a consenting authority, can be against him, but that there shall be on the side of reason as great and leading persons, as there are of those who have been abused by errour and prejudice. In the time of S. Augustine, Vincentius, Victor, and some others, did believe that Infants dying without Baptism should never the less be saved, although he believed them guilty of Original sin: Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Calvin, affirmed the same of the children of faithful Parents, but Zuinglius affirmed it of all, and that no Infant did lose Heaven for his Original stain and corruption.

Something less than this was the Doctrine of the Pelagians; who exclude Infants unbaptized, from the Kingdom of Heaven: but promised to them an eternal and a natural beatitude,Lib. de h [...]res [...] ▪ c. 18. and for it S. Augustine reckons them for Hereticks as indeed being impatient of every thing almost which they said. But yet, the opinion was imbraced lately by Ambrosius Catherinus, Albertus Pighius, and Hieronymus Savanarola. And though S. Augustine sometimes calls as good Men as himself by the Name of Pelagians, [Page] calling all them so that assign a third place or state to Infants, yet besides these now reckoned,Orat. in sanctum baptis. Quaest. 114. in cap. 5. Rom. S. Gregory Nazianzen and his Scholiast Nicetes did believe and reach it; and the same is affirmed also by S. Athanasius, or whoever is the Author of the Questions to Antiochus usually attributed to him, and also by S. Ambrose, or the Author of the Commentaries on S. Paul's Epistles, who lived in the time of Pope Damasus, that is, before 400. Years after Christ: and even by S. Augustine himself expresly in his third Book de libero arbitrio, cap. 23. But when he was heated with his disputations against the Pelagians, he denied all, and said that a middle place or state was never heard of in the Church.

De verb. Apost. Serm. 25. Lib. 3. decretat. tit. de bapt. & ejus [...]ffectu: cap. majores.For all this, the opinion of a middle state for unbaptized Infants continued in the Church, and was expresly affirmed by Pope Innocent the third; who although he says, Infants shall not see the face of God, yet he expresly denies that they shall be tormented in Hell: and he is generally followed by the Schoolmen; who almost universally teach that Infants shall be deprived of the Vision Beatifical; but shall not suffer Hell torments; but yet they stoop so much towards S. Augustin's harsh and fierce Opinion that they say, this deprivation is a part of Hell, not of torment, but of banishment from God, and of abode in the place of torment. Among these, they are also divided, some affirming that they have some pain of sense, but little and light: others saying they have none, even as they pleased to fancy; for they speak wholly without ground, and meerly by chance and interest; and against the consent of Antiquity as I have already instanced. But Gregorius Ariminensis, Driedo, Luther, Melancthon, and Tilmanus Heshusius, are fallen into the worst of S. Augustine's opinion, and sentence poor Infants to the flames of Hell for Original sin if they die before Baptism.

To this I shall not say much more than what I have said otherwhere: But that no Catholick Writer for 400. Years after Christ did ever affirm it, but divers affirmed the contrary. And indeed if the Unavoidable want of Baptism should damn Infants, for the fault which was also unavoidable, I do not understand how it can in any sence be true, that Christ died for all, if at least the Children of Christian Parents shall not find the benefit of Christ's Death, because that without the fault of any man they want the ceremony. Upon this account some good men observing the great sadness and the injustice of such an accident are willing upon any terms to admit Infants to Heaven, even without Baptism, if any one of their Relatives desire it for them, or if the Church desires it; which in effect admits all Christian infants to Heaven; Of this opinion were Gerson, Biel, Cajetan, and some others. All which to my sence seems to declare that if men would give themselves freedom of judgment,17 Tom. 3. serm. de Nativ. B. Mariae. in Concit. const. lib. 4. dist. 4. q. 2. in 3. Thom. q. 68. Act. 1.2.11. and speak what they think most reasonable, they would speak honour of God's mercy, and not impose such fierce and unintelligibe things concerning his justice and goodness, since our blessed Saviour concerning infants and those only who are like infants affirms that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. But now in the midst of this great variety of Opinions it will be hard to pick out any thing that is certain. For my part I believe this only as certain, That Nature alone cannot bring them to Heaven; and that Adam left us in a state in which we could not hope for it; but this I know also, that as soon as this was done, Christ was promised, and that before there was any birth of Man or Woman; and that God's Grace is greater and more communicative than sin, and Christ was more Gracious and effective than Adam was hurtful; and that therefore it seems very agreeable to God's goodness to bring them to happiness by Christ, who were brought to misery by Adam, and that he will do this by himself alone in ways of his own finding out.

And yet if God will not give them Heaven by Christ, he will not throw them into Hell by Adam: if his goodness will not do the first, his Goodness and his Justice will not suffer him to do the second: and therefore I consent to Antiquity and the Schoolmens opinion thus far; that the destitution or loss of God's sight is the effect of Original sin, that is, by Adam's sin we were left so as that we cannot by it go to Heaven. But here I differ: Whereas they 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 [Page] 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,S. Ignatius. [...]. 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:Dionysius Areopag. cap. 3. part. 3. [...] [Page] [...]. 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.Justin Martyr.

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. Quest. 88. 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 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, Quest. 88. 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.Theophilus Antiochenus ad Autolycum. l. 2. [...]. 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.

Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromat. lib. 6.20. 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 [Page] [...] 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. Stromat. lib 4. pag. 535. edit▪ Morellianae. 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;pag. 506. for else there can be no antithesis or opposition in the parts of his distinction [ [...] 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:pag. 468. [...]. 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 interpret [...] 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 the [...] 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 V [...]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,Tertullian. 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 eo usque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur. Peccatrix a. quia immunda, Lib. de animâ, cap. 39, 40. recipiens ignominiam suam ex carnis societate. And this which he here calls a reproach, he otherwhere calls an imperfection or a shame, saying,Lib. de testimon. anim. adv. G [...]ntes, c. 3. by Sathan man at first was circumvented, and therefore given up unto Death, and from thence all the kind was from his seed infected, he made a traduction of his sentence or damnation: to wit, unto death, which was his condemnation; and therefore speaking of the woman, he says, the sentence remaining upon her in this life, it is necessary that the guilt also should remain;De habitu muliebri, c. 1. which words are [Page] rough and hard to be understood, because after Baptism the guilt does not remain; but by the following words we may guess that he means, that women still are that which Eve was, even snares to men, gates for the Devil to enter, and that they (as Eve did) dare and can prevail with men, when the Devil by any other means cannot. I know nothing else that he says of this Article,Lib. de animâ, c. 20. save only, that according to the constant sence of antiquity he affirms, that the natural faculties of the Soul were not impaired. Omnia naturalia animae, ut substantiva ejus ipsi inesse, & cum ipsâ procedere atque proficere. And again,Cap. 9. Hominis anima velut surculus quidam ex Matrice Adam in propaginem deducta, & genitalibus foeminae foveis commendata, cum omni sua paratura pullulabi [...], tam in intellectu quam in sensu. The soul like a sprig from Adam derived into his offspring and put into the bed of its production shall with all its appendages spring or increase both in sence and understanding. And that there is liberty of choice ( [...] which supposes liberty) he proved against Marcion and Hermogenes, as himself affirms in the 21 Chap. of the same Book.Cap. 21.

S. Cyprian. lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum.S. Cyprian proving the effect of Baptism upon all, and consequently the usefulness to Infants, argues thus, If pardon of sins is given to the greatest sinners and them that before sinned much against God, and afterwards believed, and none is forbidden to come to baptism and grace, how much more must not an infant be forbidden, qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit, qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit, quod illi remittuntur, non propria sed aliena peccata, Who being new born hath not sinned at all ▪ but only being born carnally of Adam, he hath in his first birth, contracted the contagion of the old death: which comes to the remission of sin the more easily, because not his own sins, but the sins of another are forgiven him. In which it is plainly affirmed that the Infant is innocent, that he hath not sinned himself, that there is in him no sin inherent, that Adam's sin therefore only is imputed, that all the effect of it upon him, is the contagion of death, that is, mortality, and its affections; and according as the sins are, so is the remission, they are the infants improperly and metonymically, therefore so is the remission.

But Arnobius speaks yet more plainly; Omne peccatum corde concipitur, & [...]re consummatur. Arnobius. Hic autem qui nascitur sententiam Adae habet, Peccatum verò suum non habet. In comment. in Psal. 50. He that is born of Adam hath the sentence of Adam upon him, but not the sin, that is, he hath no sin inherent but the punishment inflicted by occasion of it.

S. Ambros.The author of the short commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed to S. Ambrose speaks so much, that some have used the authority of this writer, to prove that there is no Original sin: as Sixtus Senensis relates. His words are these, Mors autem dissolutio corporis est, Lib. 6. biblioth. sanct. annot. 136. cum anima à corpore separatur: est & alia mors que secunda dicitur, in gehenna; quam non peccato Adae patimur, sed ejus occasione propri [...] peccatis acquiritur. Death is the dissolution of the Body, when the Soul is separated from it. There is also another death in Hell which is called the second death, which we suffer not from Adam's sin, but by occasion of it, it is acquired by our own sins. These words need no explication, for when he had in the precedent words affirmed that we all sinned in the Mass of Adam, this following discourse states the Question right, and declares, that though Adam's sin be imputed to us, to certain purposes, yet no man can be damned to the second Death for it, it is a testimony so plain for the main part of my affirmation in this Article, that as there is not any thing against it within the first 400 years; so he could not be accounted a Catholick author, if the contrary had been the sence or the prevailing Opinion of the Church.

22. To these I shall add the clearest testimonies of S. Chrysostome [It seems to have in it no small Question, S. Chrysostom homil. 10. in Rom. that it is said that by the disobedience of one, many become sinners. For sinning and being made mortal, it is not unlikely that they which spring from him should be so too. But that another should be made a sinner by his disobedience, what agreement or consequent I beseech you can it have? what therefore doth this word [Sinner] in this place signifie? It seems to me to signifie the same that [lyable to punishment, guilty of Death] does signifie, because Adam dying, all are made mortal by him. And again, Hom. 17. in 1 Cor. Thou sayest what shall I do? by him, that is, by Adam I perish. No not for him. For hast thou remained without sin? For though thou hast not committed the same sin, yet another thou hast. And in the 29 Homily upon the same Epistle, he argues thus: What therefore, tell me, are all dead in Adam by the death of sin? How then was Noah a just man in his generation? How was Abraham and Job? If this be to be understood of the body, the sentence will be certain, Ibid. hom. 29. but if it be understood of justice and sin it will not. But to sum up all; he answers the great Argument used by S. Austin to prove infants to be in a [Page] state of damnation and sin properly, because the Church baptizes them, and Baptism is for the remission of sins. Thou seest how many benefits there are of Baptism; Homil. ad Neophyt [...]s. But many think that the grace of baptism consists only in the remission of sins: But we have reckoned [...] honours of baptism. For this cause we baptize infants, although they are not polluted with sin, to wit, that to them may be added sanctity, justice, adoption, inheritance, and the fraternity of Christ: Divers other things might be transcribed to the same purposes out of S. Chrysostome, but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that I have said nothing new in this Article.

Theodoret does very often consent with S. Chrysostome, Theodoret. in 5. Rom. even when he differs from others, and in this Article he consents with him and the rest now reckoned; when God made Adam and adorned him with reason, he gave him one commandement that he might exercise his reason: he being deceived broke the commandement and was exposed to the sentence of death, and so he begat Cain and Seth and others: but all these as being begotten of him had a mortal nature. This kind of Nature wants many things, meat and drink and cloaths, and dwelling and divers arts: the use of these things often-times provokes to excess; and the excess begets sin. Therefore the divine Apostle saith that when Adam had sinned and was made mortal for his sin, both came to his stock, that is, death and sin, for death came upon all inasmuch as all men have sinned. For every man suffers the decree of death, not for the sin of the first man, but for his own. Much more to the same purpose he hath upon the same Chapter: but this is enough to all the purposes of this Question.

Now if any man thinks that though these give testimony in behalf of my explication of this Article, yet that it were easie to bring very many more to the contrary.Vide eundem [...]n exposit. Psal. 50. I answer and profess ingenuously, that I know of none till about S. Austin's time; for that the first Ages taught the doctrine of Original sin I do no ways doubt, but affirm it all the way, but that it is a sin improperly, that is, a stain and a reproach rather than a sin, that is, the effect of one sin and the cause of many, that it brought in sickness and death, mortality and passions, that it made us naked of those supernatural aides, that Adam had, and so more lyable to the temptations of the Devil; this is all I find in antiquity, and sufficient for the explication of this question, which the more simply it is handled, the more true and reasonable it is. But that I may use the words of Solomon according to the Vulgar translation. Hoc inveni, quod fecerit Deus hominem rectum, & ipse se infinitis miscuerit quaestionibus, God made man upright, and he hath made himself more deformed than he is, by mingling with innumerable questions.

23. I think I have said enough to vindicate my sentence from Novelty, and though that also be sufficient to quit me from singularity, yet I have something more to add as to that particular, and that is, that it is very hard for a man to be singular in this Article, if he would. For first, in the Primitive Church, when Valentinus and Marcion, Tatianus, Julius Cassianus, and the Encratites condemned marriage upon this account, because it produces that only which is impure, many good men and right believers, did to justifie marriages, undervalue the matter of Original sin; this begat new questions in the manner of speaking, and at last, real differences were entertained, and the Pelagian Heresie grew up upon this stock. But they changed their Propositions so often, that it was hard to tell what was the Heresie: But the first draught of it was so rude, so confused, and so unreasonable, that when any of the followers of it, spake more warily, and more learnedly, yet by this time, the name Pelagian was of so ill a sound, that they would not be believed if they spake well, nor trusted in their very recantations, nor understood in their explications, but cryed out against in all things right or wrong: and in the fierce prosecution of this, S. Austin and his followers, Fulgenti [...], Prosper, and others did excedere in dogmate, & pati aliquid humanum. S. Austin called them all Pelagians who were of the middle opinion concerning infants, and yet many Catholicks both before and since his time do profess it. The Augustan confession calls them Pelagians, who say that concupiscence is only the effect of Adam's sin, and yet all the Roman Churches say it confidently: and every man that is angry in this Question calls his Enemy Pelagian, if he be not a Stoic, or a Manichee, a Valentinian, or an Encratite. But the Pelagians say so many things in their Controversie, that like them that [...]lk much, they must needs say some things well, though very many things amiss: but if every thing which was said against S. Austin in these controversies be Pelagianism, then all Antiquity were Pelagians and himself besides; For he before his disputes in these Questions said much against what he said after, as every learned man knows. But yet it is certain, that even after the Pelagian Heresie was conquered, there were many good men, who (because they from every part take the good and leave the poyson) were called Pelagians by them that were angry at them for being of [Page] another opinion, in some of their Questions. Cassian was a good and holy man, and became the great rule of Monastines, yet because he spake reason in his exhortations to Piety, and justified God, and blamed man, he is called Pelagian: and the Epistle ad Demetriadem, and the little commentary on S. Paul's Epistles were read and commended highly by all men, so long as they were supposed to be S. Hierom's, but when some fancied that Faustus was the author, they suspect the writings for the Man's sake; and how-ever S. Austin was triumphant in the main Article against those Hereticks, and there was great reason he should, yet that he took in too much, and confuted more than he should, appears in this, that though the World followed him in the condemnation of Pelagianisme, yet the World left him in many things which he was pleased to call Pelagianisme. And therefore when Arch-Bishop Bradwardin wrote his Books de causâ Dei, against the liberty of will, and for the fiercer way of absolute decrees; he complains in his Preface, that the whole World was against him, and gone after Pelagius in causa liberi arbitrii. Not that they really were made so, but that it is an usual thing to affright men from their reasons by Names and words, and to confute an argument by slandering him that uses it.

Now this is it that I and all men else ought to be troubled at, if my doctrine be accused of singularity, I cannot acquit my self of the charge, but by running into a greater. For if I say that one Proposition is taught by all the Roman Schools; and therefore I am not singular in it; They reply, it is true, but then it is Popery which you defend. If I tell, that the Lutherans defend another part of it, then the Calvinists hate it therefore because their enemies avow it. Either it is Popery, or Pelagianisme; you are an Arminian, or a Socinian. And either you must say that which no body sayes, and then you are singular: or if you do say as others say, you shall feel the reproach of the party that you own, which is also disowned by all but it self.

That therefore which I shall choose to say is this, that the doctrine of Original sin as I explicate it, is wholly against the Pelagians, for they wholly deny Original sin, affirming that Adam did us no hurt by his sin, except only by his example. These Men are also followed by the Anabaptists, who say that death is so natural, that it is not by Adam's fall, so much as made actual. The Albigenses were of the same opinion. The Socinians affirm that Adam's sin was the occasion of bringing eternal death into the World, but that it no way relates to us, not so much as by imputation. But I having shewed in what sence Adam's sin is imputed to us, am so far either from agreeing with any of these,Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 17. de amiss. gratiae & or from being singular, that I have the acknowledgment of an adversary, even of Bellarmine himself, that it is the doctrine of the Church; and he laboriously endeavours to prove that Original sin is meerly ours by imputation. Add to this that he also affirms that when Zuinglius says that Original sin is not properly a sin, but metonymically, that is, the effect of one sin, and the cause of many, that in so saying he agrees with the Catholicks. Now these being the main affirmatives of my discourse, it is plain that I am not alone, but more are with me, than against me. Now though he is pleased afterwards to contradict himself, and say it is veri nominis peccatum, yet because I understood not how to reconcile the opposite parts of a contradiction,Ibid. c. 2. sect. sect. unum hoc loco. & ex hi [...] tribus. or tell how the same thing should be really a sin, and yet be so but by a figure onely, how it should be properly a sin, and yet onely metonymically, and how it should be the effect of sin, and yet that sin whereof it is an effect, I confess here I stick to my reason and my proposition, and leave Bellarmine and his Catholicks to themselves.

25. And indeed they that say Original sin is any thing really, any thing besides Adam's sin imputed to us to certain purposes, that is, effecting in us certain evils, which dispose to worse, they are, according to the nature of error, infinitely divided, and agree in nothing but in this, that none of them can prove what they say. Anselme, Bonaventure, Gabriel and others say that Original sin is nothing but a want of Original righteousness. Others say that they say something of truth, but not enough; for a privation can never be a positive sin, and if it be not positive it cannot be inherent: and therefore that it is necessary that they add indignitatem habendi; a certain unworthiness to have it being in every man, that is, the sin. But then if it be asked what makes them unworthy, if it be not the want of Original righteousness? and that then they are not two things but one, seemingly, and none really, they are not yet agreed upon an answer. Aquinas and his Scholars say, Original sin is a certain spot upon the soul. Melancthon considering that concupiscence or the faculty of desiring, or the tendency to an object could not be a sin, fancied Original sin to be an actual depraved desire. Illyrious says it is the substantial image of the Devil. Scotus and Durandus say it is nothing [Page] but a meer guilt, that is, an obligation passed upon us, to suffer the evil effects of it: which indeed is most moderate of all the opinions of the School, and differs not at all, or scarce discernibly from that of Albertus Pighius, and Catharinus, who say that Original sin is nothing, but the disobedience of Adam imputed to us. But the Lutherans affirm it to be the depravation of humane nature without relation to the sin of Adam, but a vileness that is in us; The Church of Rome of late sayes that besides the want of Original righteousness with an habitual aversion from God; it is a guiltiness and a spot; but it is nothing of Concupiscence, that being the effect of it only. But the Protestants of Mr. Calvin's perswasion affirm that concupiscence is the main of it, and is a sin before and after Baptism; but amongst all this infinite uncertainty, the Church of England speaks moderate words apt to be construed to the purposes of all peaceable men that desire her communion.

26. Thus every one talks of Original sin, and agree that there is such a thing, but what it is, they agree not: and therefore in such infinite Variety, he were of a strange imperious spirit that would confine others to his particular fancy; For my own part now that I have shown what the Doctrine of the purest Ages was, what uncertainty there is of late in the Question, what great consent there is in some of the main parts of what I affirm, and that in the contrary particulars Men cannot agree, I shall not be ashamed to profess what company I now keep in my opinion of the Article; no worse Men than Zuinglius, Stapulensis, the great Erasmus, and the incomparable Hugo Grotius, Lib. de Bapt. tract. 3. in cap. 5. hom. who also says there are multi in Gallia qui eandem sententiam magnis same argumentis tuentur, many in France which with great argument defend the same sentence; that is, who explicate the article intirely as I do; and as S. Chrysostome and Theodoret did of old in compliance with those H. Fathers that went before them: with whom although I do not desire to erre, yet I suppose their great names are guard sufficient against prejudices and trifling noises, and an amulet against the Names of Arminian, Socinian, Pelagian, and I cannot tell what Monsters of appellatives; But these are but Boyes tricks, and arguments of Women; I expect from all that are wiser, to examine whether this Opinion does not, or whether the contrary does better explicate the truth, with greater reason, and to better purposes of Piety; let it be examined which best glorifies God, and does honour to his justice and the reputation of his Goodness; which does with more advantage serve the interest of holy living, and which is more apt to patronize carelesness and sin: These are the measures of wise and good men; the other are the measures of Faires and Markets; where fancy and noise do govern.

SECT. VI. An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original sin; according to Scripture and Reason.

27. AFter all this, it is pretended and talked of, that my Doctrine of Original sin is against the Ninth Article of the Church of England; and that my attempt to reconcile them was ineffective. Now although this be nothing to the truth or falshood of my Doctrine, yet it is much concerning the reputation of it. Concerning which, I cannot be so much displeased that any man should so undervalue my reason, as I am highly content that they do so very much value her Authority. But then to acquit my self and my Doctrine from being contrary to the Article, all that I can do is to expound the Article, and make it appear that not only the words of it, are capable of a fair construction, but also that it is reasonable they should be expounded so 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 [Page] 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, [...]. Aug. 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.

[Page] 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 subjected in humane Nature, for if it were otherwise, then an universal should be more particular than that which is Individual, and a whole should be less than a part; actiones sunt suppositorum, and so for omissions; now every sin is either one or other: and therefore it is impossible that this which is an affection of an universal, viz. of humane Nature, can be a sin, for a sin is a breach of some Law, to which not Natures, but Persons are obliged, and which Natures cannot break, because not Natures, but persons only do or neglect.

30. That Naturally is engendred of the off-spring of Adam.

This clause is inserted to exclude Christ from the participation of Adams sin. But if concupiscence which is in every mans Nature be a sin, it is certain Christ had no concupiscence or natural desires, for he had no sin. But if he had no concupiscence or natural desires, how he should be a man, or how capable of law, or how he should serve God with choice, where there could be no potentia ad oppositum, I think will be very hard to be understood: Christ felt all our infirmities, yet without sin: All our infirmities are the effects of the sin of Adam, and part of that which we call Original sin, therefore all these our infirmities which Christ felt, as in him they were for ever without sin, so as long as they are only Natural, & Unconsented to, must be in us without sin. For whatsoever is Naturally in us is Naturally in him; but a man is not a man without Natural desires, therefore these were in him, in him without sin, and therefore so in us, without sin, I mean, properly, really, and formally.

But there's a Catachresis also in these words, or an [...], Naturally engendred of the off-spring of Adam] Cain, and Abel, and Seth, and all the sons of Adam, who were the first off-spring, and not engendred of the off-spring of Adam, were as guilty as we: But they came from Adam, but not from Adams off-spring, therefore the Articles is to be expounded to the sence of these words, Naturally engendred [or are] of the off-spring of Adam.

31. Whereby Man is very far gone from Original Righteousness.

That is, men are devolved to their Natural condition, devested of all those gifts and graces which God gave to Adam, in order to his supernatural end, and by the help of which he stood in Gods favour, and innocent until the fatal period of his fall: This Original Righteousness or innocence, we have not Naturally, for our Natural innocence is but Negative, that is, we have not consented to sin. The Righteousness he had before his fall I suppose was not only that, but also his doing many actions of obedience, and intercourse with God, even all which passed between God and himself till his eating the forbidden fruit: For he had this advantage over us. He was created in a full use of reason; we his descendents enter into the world in the greatest imperfection, and are born under a law, which we break before we can understand, and it is imputed to us as our understanding increases: And our desires are strongest when our Understanding is weakest: and therefore by this very Oeconomy which is natural to us, we must needs in the Condition of our nature be very far from Adams Original Righteousness, who had perfect reason before he had a law, and had understanding [Page] assoon as he had desires. This clause thus understood is most reasonable and true, but the effect of it can be nothing in prejudice of the main business, and if any thing else be meant by it, I cannot understand it to have any ground in Scripture or Reason; and I am sure our Church does not determine for it.

32. And is inclined to evil.

That every Man is inclined to evil, some more, some less, but all in some instances, is very true: and it is an effect or condition of nature, but no sin properly. Because that which is unavoidable is not a sin. 2. Because it is accidental to nature, not intrinsecal and essential. 3. It is superinduc'd to Nature, and is after it, and comes by reason of the laws which God made after he made our Nature; he brought us laws to check our Nature, to cross and displease, that by so doing we may prefer God before our selves: this also with some variety; for in some laws there is more liberty than in others, and therefore less Natural inclination to disobedience. 4. Because our Nature is inclined to good and not to evil in some instances, that is, in those which are according to nature, and there is no greater Endearment of vertue, than the Law and Inclination of Nature in all the Instances of that Law. 5. Because that which is intended for the occasion of vertue and reward, is not Naturally and essentially the principle of Evil. 6. In the instances in which Naturally we incline to evil, the inclination is naturally good, because it is to its proper object, but that it becomes morally evil, must be personal, for the law is before our persons; it cannot be Natural, because the law by which that desire can become evil is after it.

33. So that the flesh lusteth against the spirit.

This clause declares what kind of inclination to evil is esteemed criminal; That which is approved, that which passeth to act, that which is personally delighted in, in the contention which is after regeneration or reception of the Holy Spirit; For the flesh cannot lust against the spirit in them that have not the spirit: unless both the principles be within, there can be no contention between them, as a man cannot fight a duel alone, so that this is not the sin of Nature, but of persons, for though potentially it is sin, yet actually and really it is none, until it resist the spirit of God, which is the principle put into us to restore us to as good a state at least, as that was which we were receded from in Adam. By the way it is observable that the Article makes only concupiscence or lusting to be the effect of Adams sin, but affirms nothing of the loss of the wills liberty, or diminution of the understanding or the rebellion of the passions against reason, but only against the spirit, which certainly is Natural to it, and in Adam did rebel against Gods Commandments when it was the in-let to the sin, and therefore could not be a punishment of it.

And therefore] The illative conjunction expresly declares that the sence of the Church of England is, that this corruption of our Nature in no other sence, and for no other reason is criminal, but because it does resist the Holy spirit: therefore it is not evil till it does so, and therefore if it does not, it is not evil. For if the very inclination were a sin, then when this inclination is contested against, at the same time, and in the same things the man sins and does well, and he can never have a temptation but he offends God, and then how we should understand S. James's rule, that we should count it all joy when we enter into temptation, is beyond my reach and apprehension. The Natural inclination hath in it nothing moral, and g. as it is good in Nature, so it is not ill in manners; the supervening consent or dissent makes it morally good or evil.

34. In every person born into the world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation.

Viz. When it is so consented to, when it resists and overcomes the spirit of grace. For we being devested of the grace given to the first Adam, are to be renewed by the spirit of grace, the effect of the second Adam; which grace when we resist, we do as Adam did, and reduce our selves back into the state where Adam left us. That was his sin, and not ours, but this is our sin and not his; both of them deserve Gods wrath and damnation, but by one he deserved it, and by the other we deserve it. But then it is true, that this corrupted Nature deserves Gods wrath, but we and Adam deserve not in the same formality, but in the same material part we do. He left our Nature naked, and for it he deserved Gods wrath, if we devest our Nature of the new grace we return to the same state of Nature, but then we deserve Gods wrath; so that still the object of Gods wrath is our mere Nature so as left by Adam, but though he sinned in the first disrobing, and we were imperfect by it, yet we sin not till the second disrobing, and then we return to the same imperfection, and make it worse. But I consider, that although some Churches in their confessions express [Page] 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 [Page] 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 that, but it takes away the formality of it, it is not a punishment to such but a Condition of Nature, as it is to Infants; For, that even to them also there is no condemnation for their Original Concupiscence, is Undeniable and demonstratively Certain upon this account. Because, even the actual desires and little Concupiscences of children are innocent, and therefore, much more their natural tendencies and inclinations. For if a principle be criminal, if a faculty be a sin, much more are the acts of that faculty also a sin, but if these be innocent, then much more is that.

40. Yet the Apostle does confess, that Concupiscence and Lust hath of it self the Nature of sin.

Of it self] that is, it is in the whole kind to be reproved, it is not a sin to all persons, not to unconsenting persons: for if it be no sin to them that resist, then, neither is it a sin to them that cannot consent. But it hath the Nature of sin, that is, it is the material part of sin, a principle and root from whence evil may spring, according to S. Austins words, Modo quodam loquendi vocatur peccatum quod peccato factum est, & peccati, si vicerit, facit reum. S. Aug. lib. 1. de nup. & Concup. c. 23. Just as if a Man have a Natural thirst, it may tempt him, and is apt to incline him to drunkenness; if he be of a sanguine disposition it disposes him to lust, if cholerick, to anger; and is so much a sin as the fuel is a part of the fire; but because this can be there, where damnation shall not enter, this Nature of sin is such as does not make a proper Guiltiness; for it is a contradiction to say, the sin remains and the guilt is taken away: For he that hath a sin is guilty of punishment, for that is, he is liable to it, if God pleases: he may pardon if he please, but if he pardons he takes away the sin: For in the justified no sin can be inherent or habitual, Quomodo justificati, & sanctificati sumus, si peccatum aliquod in nobis relinquitur? Hieron. ad Oceanum. If Concupiscence be an inherent sin in us before baptism, it must either be taken away by baptism, or imputed to us after baptism: for if the malice remains, the guilt cannot go away; for God will by no means justifie the remaining sinner.

41. These things I have chose to say and publish, because I find that the usual doctrines about Original sin are not only false and presum'd without any competent proof, but because, as they are commonly believ'd, they are no friends to piety, but pretences of idleness, and dishonourable to the reputation of Gods goodness and justice, for which we ought to be very zealous, when a greater indifference would better become us in the matter of our opinion, or the doctrine of our sect; and therefore it is not to be blam'd in me, that I move the thoughts of men in the proposition; for it is not an useless one, but hath its immediate effects upon the Honour of God, and the next, upon the lives of men. And therefore this hath in it many degrees of necessary doctrine, and the fruits of it must needs do more than make recompence for the trouble I put them to, in making new inquiries into that doctrine, concerning which they were so long at ease.

But if men of a contrary judgment can secure the interests and advantages of piety, and 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 they may please to consider that there is in Holy Scripture no sign of it, nor intimation, that at the day of Judgment Christ shall say to any; Go ye cursed sons of Adam into everlasting fire, because your Father sinn'd, and though I will pardon millions of sins which men did chuse and delight in, yet I will severely exact this of you, which you never did chuse, nor could delight in: this I say is not likely to be in the event of things, and in the wise and merciful dispensation of God, especially since Jesus Christ himself (so far as appears) never spake one word of it, there is not any tittle of it in all the four Gospels; it is a thing of which no warning was or could be given to any of Adams children, it is not mention'd in the old Testament, (for that place of David in the 51. Psalm, Clemens Alexandrinus and others of the Fathers snatch from any pretence to it) and that one time where it is spoken of in the New Testament there is nothing said of it, but that it is imputed to us to this purpose only, that it brought in death temporal: and why such Tragedies should be made of it, and other places of Scripture drawn by violence to give countenance to it, and all the systemes of Divinity of late made to lean upon this Article, which yet was never thought to be fundamental, or belonging to the foundation, was never [Page] put into the Creed of any Church, but is made the great support of new and strange propositions, even of the fearful decree of absolute reprobation, and yet was never consented in, or agreed upon what it was, or how it can be conveyed, and was (in the late and modern sence of it) as unknown to the Primitive Church, as it was to the Doctors of the Jews, that is, wholly unknown to them both; why (I say) men should be so fierce in their new sence of this Article, and so impatient of contradiction, it is not easie to give a reasonable account.

For my own particular, I hope I have done my duty, having produced Scriptures, and Reasons, and the best Authority against it. Qui potest capere capiat.

For— I had a good spirit, yea rather being good I came into a body undefiled. Wisd. 8.19, 20.

CHAP. VIII. Of Sins of Infirmity.

[Page]

SECT. I.

1. ALL Mankind hath for ever complain'd of their irremediable calamity, their propensity to sin. For though by the dictates of Nature all people were instructed in the general notices of vertue and vice, right reason being our rule: insomuch that the old Philosophers (as Plutarch reports) said that vertue was nothing else but [...], [...]. a disposition and force of reason. And this reason having guided the wisest, was form'd into laws for others; yet this reason serv'd to little other purposes, but to upbraid our follies and infelicities, and to make our actions punishable, by representing them to be unreasonable: for they did certainly sin, and they could no more help it, than they could prevent their being sick, or hungry, or angry, or thirsty. Nature had made organs for some, and senses for others, and conversation and example brought in all. So that if you reprov'd a Criminal, he heard and understood you, but could not helpt it: as Laius in the Tragedy;

[...],

[...].

Reason taught him well, but Nature constrain'd him to the contrary; his affections were stronger than his reason.

2. And it is no wonder that while flesh and blood is the prevailing ingredient, while men are in the state of conjunction, and the soul serves the body, and the necessities of this are more felt than the discourses of that, that men should be angry and lustful, proud and revengeful, and that they should follow what they lust after, not what they are bidden to do. For passions and affections are our first governours, and they being clearly possessed of all mankind in their first years, have almost secured to themselves the soul of man, before reason is heard to speak: And when she does speak, she speaks at first so little and so low, that the common noises of fancy and company drown her voice. This I say is the state of Nature. And therefore Lactantius brings in a Pagan complaining,Lib. 4. Instit. c. 24. Volo equidem non peccare, sed vincor. Indutus enim sum carne fragili, & imbecillâ. Haec est quae concupiscit, quae irascitur, quae dolet, quae mori timet. Itáque ducor incertus, & pecco non quia volo, sed quia cogor. Sentio me & ipse peccare; sed necessitas fragilitatis impellit, cui repugnare non possum. ‘I would fain avoid sin, but I am compelled. I am invested with a frail and weak flesh: This is it which lusteth, which is angry, which grieves, which fears to die. Therefore I am led uncertainly, and I sin, not because I will, but because I am constrained. I perceive that I do ill, but the necessity of my weakness drives me on, and I cannot resist it.’

Medea apud Eurip.

[...],

[...].

[Page] I know well and perceive the evils that I go upon, and they are horrid ones, but my anger is greater than my reason. So Medea in the Tragedy. This is the state of a natural man in his meer naturals, especially as they are made worse by evil customs, and vile usages of the world.

3. Now this is a state of infirmity; and all sins against which there is any reluctancy and contrary desires of actual reason, are sins of infirmity. But this infirmity excuses no man▪ for this state of infirmity is also a state of death; for by this S. Paul expressed that state from which Christ came to redeem us: [...], when we were yet in infirmity, or without strength, in due time Christ died for us; that is, when when we were [...], impious, or sinners, Rom. 5.6. such as the world was before it was redeemed, before Christ came. These are the sick and weak whom Christ the great Physician of our souls came to save. This infirmity is the shadow of death; and it signifies that state of mankind which is the state of nature, not of original and birth, but in its whole constitution, as it signifies not only the natural imperfection, but the superinduc'd evil from any principle; all that which is oppos'd to Grace.

4. To this state of Nature being so pitiable, God began to find a remedy, and renewed the measures of vertue, and by a law made them more distinct and legible, and impos'd punishments on the transgressors. For by little and little the notices of natural reason were made obscure, some were lost, some not attended to, all neglected some way or other; till God by a law made express prohibition of what was unreasonable, forbidding us to desire what before was unfit and unnatural, and threatning them that did things unlawful. But this way, by reason of the peevishness of men, succeeded not well, but men became worse by it. For what the law did forbid without the threatning of any penalty, they took for an advice only, and no severe injunction: And those Commandments which were established with a threatning to the transgressors, they expounded only by the letter, and in the particular instance, and in the outward act.

5. Before the Law, men allowed to themselves many impieties, which reason indeed mark'd out to be such, but no law had forbidden them in express letter. They thought it lawful to seduce and tempt another mans wife, and invite her to his house and conjugation, so he did not steal, or force her away: but if they found a coldness between her and her husband, they would blow the coals, and enkindle an evil flame. It is supposed that Herod did so to Herodias his brother Philip's wife, even after the law. They would not by violence snatch the estate from a young prodigal heir, but if he were apt, they would lend him money, and nurse his vice, and intangle his estate, and at last devour it. They would not directly deny to pay the price of a purchase; but they would detain it or divert it, or pay it in trifling summs, or in undesir'd commodities. This was Concupiscere rem alienam. They did not steal, but coveted it, and so entred indirectly: and this God seeing, forbad it by a law: For I had not known lust or desires to be a sin (saith S. Paul) but that the law said, Rom. 7.7. Thou shalt not covet.

6. But because the law only forbad lustings, but imposed no penalty, they despis'd it; and those things which were forbidden with an appendent penalty, they would act them privately. For if they avoided the notice of the Criminal Judge, they fear'd not the face of an angry God: and this Lactantius observ'd of them. Metus legum non scelera comprimebat, sed licentiam submovebat. Poterant enim leges delicta punire, conscientiam munire non poterant. Itaque quae antè palàm fiebant, clam fieri coeperunt: circumscribi etiam jura. ‘For all the threatnings of the Law they were wicked still, though not scandalous; vile in private, and wary in publick; they did circumscribe their laws, and thought themselves bound only to the letter, and obliged by nothing but the penalty, which if they escaped they reckoned themselves innocent.’ Thus far the law instructed them, and made them afraid. But for the first, they grew the more greedy to do what now they were forbidden to desire. The prohibition of the law being like a damm to the waters, the desire swells the higher for being check'd; and the wisdom of Romulus in not casting up a bank against parricide had this effect, that until the end of the second Punick war, which was almost DC. years, there was no example of one that kill'd his Father. Lucius Ostius was the first. And it is certain that the Easterlings neither were nor had they reason to be fond of Circumcision; it was part of that load which was complain'd of by the Apostles in behalf of the Jewish Nation, which neither they nor their Fathers could bear; and yet as soon as Christ took off the yoke, and that it was forbidden to his Disciples, the Jews were as fond of it, as of their pleasures; and fifteen Bishops of [Page] Jerusalem in immediate 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:Rom. 7.15, 19. 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, V. 15. 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. V. 18. 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,1 John 4.4. 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, Serm. 43. & 45. de tempore. 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 [Page]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. Rom. 7.1 [...]. 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;Verse 23. and he who is a servant of sin is not a servant of, but freed from righteousness. Rom. 6.20. 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 and ordinarily, and, the evil which I hate, I do avoid; sometimes indeed I am surpris'd, and when I do neglect to use the aids and strengths of the spirit of grace, I fall; but this is because I will not, and not because I cannot help it; and in this case the man is not a servant or captive of sin, but a servant of Christ, though weak and imperfect. But if it means, I do it commonly, or constantly, or frequently, which is certainly the complaint here made, then to be a regenerate person is to be a vile person, sold under sin, and not Gods servant. For if any man shall suppose these words to mean only thus; I do not do so much good as I would, and do sometimes fall into evil, though I would fain be intirely innocent, indeed this man teaches no false doctrine as to the state or duty of the regenerate, which in this life will for ever be imperfect; but he speaks not according to the sence and design of the Apostle here. For his purpose is to describe that state of evil in which we are by nature, and from which we could not be recovered by the law, and from which we can only be redeemed by the grace of Jesus Christ; and this is a state of death, of being killed by sin, of being captivated and sold under sin, after the manner of slaves; as will further appear in the sequel.

12. III. Every regenerate man, and servant of Christ hath the Spirit of Christ. But where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty; therefore no slavery;Rom. 8.9▪ 2 Cor. 3.17. therefore sin reigns not there. Both the propositions are the words of the Apostle; The conclusion therefore infers that the man whom S. Paul describes in this Chapter, is not the regenerate man, for he hath not liberty, but is in captivity to the law of sin, from which every one that is Christs, every one that hath the Spirit of Christ, is freed.Rom. 7.23.

13. IV. And this is that which S. Paul calls being under the law, that is, a being carnal, and in the state of the flesh; not but that the law it self is spiritual; but that we being carnal of our selves, are not cured by, the law,Rom. 7.13, 14. & 8.3. but by reason of the infirmity of the flesh made much worse; curbed, but not sweetly won; admonished, but assisted by no spirit but the spirit of bondage and fear. This state is opposed to the spiritual state. The giving of the law is called the ministery of death;2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8. the Gospel is called the ministery of the Spirit, and that is the ministration of life; and therefore if we be led by the Spirit, we are not under the law: but if we be under the law, we are dead,Gal. 5.18. Rom. 7.9. and sin is revived; and sin by the law brings forth fruit unto death. From hence the argument of the Apostle is clear. The man whom he here describes, is such a one who is under the law; but such a man is dead by reason of sin, and therefore hath not in him the Spirit of God, for that is the ministration of life. A regenerate person is alive unto God; he lives the life of righteousness: but he that is under the law is killed by sin; and such is the man that is here described, as appears verse 9. and I shall in the sequel further prove▪ therefore this man is not the regenerate.

14. V. To which for the likeness of the argument I add this; That the man who can say, I do that which I hate, is a man in whom sin is not mortified, and therefore he lives after the flesh: but then he is not regenerate; for if ye live after the flesh ye [Page]shall die, Rom. 8.13. (saith S. Paul) but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

These arguments are taken from consideration of the rule and dominion of sin in the man whom S. Paul describes, who therefore cannot be a regenerate person. To the same effect and conclusion are other expressions in the same Chapter.

15. VI. The man whom S. Paul here describes, who complains, [That he does not the good which he would, but the evil that he would not] is such a one in whom sin does inhabit: Verse 20. It is no more I, but sin that dwelleth in me. But in the regenerate sin does not inhabit: My Father and I will come unto him, and make our abode with him. So Christ promised to his servants;John 14.23. Rom. 8.11. 2 Cor. 6.16. Eph. 3.17. & 2.22. 2 Tim. 1.14. to them who should be regenerate; and the Spirit of God dwelleth in them; the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead; and therefore the Regenerate are called the habitation of God through the Spirit. Now if God the Father, if Christ, if the Spirit of Christ dwells in a man, there sin does not dwell. The strong man that is armed keeps possession; but if a stronger than he comes, he dispossesses him. If the Spirit of God does not drive the Devil forth, himself will leave the place. They cannot both dwell together. Sin may be in the regenerate, and grieve Gods Spirit, but it shall not abide or dwell there, for that extinguishes him. One or the other must depart. And this also is noted by S. Paul in this very place;Ver. 17, 18. sin dwelleth in me, and, no good thing dwelleth in me: If one does, the other does not; but yet as in the unregenerate there might be some good, such as are, good desires, knowledge of good and evil, single actions of vertue, beginnings and dispositions to grace, acknowledging of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, some lightnings and flashes of the holy Ghost, a knowing of the way of righteousness; but sanctifying, saving good does not dwell, that is, does not abide with them, and rule; so in the regenerate there is sin, but because it does not dwell there, they are under the Empire of the Spirit and in Christs Kingdom; or, as S. Paul expresses it,Gal. 2.20. Christ liveth in them: and that cannot be unless sin be crucified and dead in them. The summ of which is thus in S. Paul's words:Rom. 6.11, 12, 14. Reckon your selves indeed to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. For sin shall not have dominion over you, because we are not under the law, but under grace.

16. VII. Lastly, the man whom S. Paul describes is carnal, but the regenerate is never called carnal in the Scripture,Rom. 7.14. but is spiritual oppos'd to carnal. A man not only in pure naturals, but even plac'd under the law, is called carnal; that is, until he be redeemed by the Spirit of Christ, he cannot be called spiritual, but is yet in the flesh. Now that the regenerate cannot be the carnal man, is plain in the words of S. Paul: The carnal mind is enmity against God; and, they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom. 8.7. To which he adds, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. V. 8. But the Spirit of God does dwell in all the servants of God,V. 9. in all the regenerate. For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Now as these are in Scripture distinguished in their appellatives and in their character, so also in their operations. They that are carnal, [...], according to the flesh, V. 5. do mind, or relish the things of the flesh: They that are after the Spirit, Gal. 5.24. do mind the things of the Spirit. And, they that are Christs, have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Now they that have crucified the flesh, cannot in any sence of Scripture or Religion be called Carnal. That there is something of carnality in the regenerate is too true, because our regeneration and spirituality in this life is imperfect. But when carnal and spiritual are oppos'd in Scripture; and the Question is, Whether of these two is to be attributed to the servants and sons of God, to the Regenerate? It is certain by the analogy of the thing, and the perpetual manner of speaking in Scripture, that by this word Carnal, the Spirit of God never means the sons of God, or the spiritual; that is, the Regenerate: The sons of God are led by the Spirit of God;Rom. 8. therefore not by the flesh, which they have crucified. Whatsoever is essential to regeneration, to new birth, to the being the sons of God, all that is in the regenerate; for they cannot be that thing, of which they want an essential part: as a thing cannot be a body unless it be divisible, nor a living creature if it have not life. Therefore regeneration is perfect in respect of its essentials or necessary parts of constitution. But in the degrees there is imperfection, and therefore the abatement is made by the intermixture of carnality. For it is in our new and spiritual [Page] birth, as in our natural. The child is a man in all essential parts, but he is as a beast in some of his operations; he hath all the faculties of a man, but not the strengths of a man, but grows to it by the progression and encrease of every day. So is the spiritual man regenerate in his mind, his will, his affections; and therefore when carnal and spiritual are oppos'd in their whole nature and definitions, the spiritual man is not the carnal, though he still retain some of the weaknesses of the flesh, against which he contends every day. To this purpose are those words of S. Leo. Quamvis spe salvi facti sumus, & corruptionem adhuc carnémque mortalem gestamus; D [...] resur. Dom. rectè tamen dicimur in carne non esse, si carnales nobis non dominentur affectus; & meritò ejus deponimus [...]uncupationem, cujus non sequimur voluntatem. We are not to be called Carnal, though we bear about us flesh and its infirmities; yet if carnal affections do not rule over us, well are we to quit the name, when we do not obey the thing. Now if any man shall contend that a man may be called Carnal, if the flesh strives against the Spirit, though sin does not rule; I shall not draw the Saw of Contention with him, but only say that it is not usually so in Scripture; and in this place of which we now dispute the sence and use, it is not so: for by Carnal S. Paul means such a person, upon whom sin reigns. I am carnal, sold under sin, therefore this person is not the spiritual,V. 14. not the regenerate, or the son of God.1 Cor. 3.1, 2, 3. S. Paul uses the word Carnal in a comparative locution; for babes and infants, or unskilful persons in the Religion; but then this carnality he proves to be in them, wholly by their inordinate walking, by their strifes and contentions, by their being Schismaticks; and therefore he reproves them, which he had no reason to do, if himself also had been carnal in that sence which he reproves.

17. The Conclusion from all these premises is, I suppose, sufficiently demonstrated; that S. Paul does not in the seventh Chapter to the Romans describe the state of himself really, or of a regenerate person, neither is this state [of doing sin frequently, though against our will] a state of unavoidable infirmity, but a state of death and unregeneration.

SECT. III.

18. SAint Austin did for ever reject that interpretation, and indeed so did the whole Primitive Church; but yet he having once expounded this Chapter of the unregenerate, or a man under the law, not redeemed by the Spirit of Christ from his vain conversation, he retracted this Exposition,Ver. 15. & 19. and constru'd those words in question thus; Non ergo quod vult agit Apostolus, quia vult non concupiscere, & tamen concupiscit, ideo non quod vult agit. The Apostle does not do what he would, Serm. 43. & 45. de temp. because he would fain not desire; but yet because he desires, he does what he would not. Did that desire lead him captive to fornication? God forbid: He did strive, but was not mastered; but because he would not have had that concupiscence left, against which he should contend, therefore he said, What I would not, that I do; meaning, I would not lust, but I do lust. The same also I find in Epiphanius; Nam quod dictum est, Quod operor non cognosco, Haeres. 64. contra Origen. & facio quod odio habeo, non de eo quod operati sumus ac perfecimus malum accipiendum est, sed de eo quod solum cogitavimus. Now this interpretation hath in it no impiety as the other hath; for these Doctors allow nothing to be unavoidable, or a sin of infirmity, and consistent with the state of grace and regeneration, but the mere ineffective, unprocured, desirings or lustings after evil things, to which no consent is given, and in which no delight is taken; extraneae cogitationes quas cogitavimus aliquando, Ibid. & non volentes & non scientes ex quâ causâ, as Epiphanius expresses this Article. But S. Austin may be thought to have had some design in chusing this sence, as supposing it would serve for an argument against the Pelagians and their sence of Free will. For by representing the inevitability of sin, he destroyed their doctrine of the sufficiency of our natural powers in order to Heaven, and therefore by granting that S. Paul complains thus of his own infirmity, he believed himself to have concluded firmly for the absolute necessity of Gods grace to help us. But by limiting this inevitability of sinning to the matter of desires or concupiscence, he gave no allowance or pretence to any man to speak any evil words, or to delight or consent to any evil thoughts, or to [Page] commit any sinful actions, upon the pretence of their being sins of an unavoidable infirmity. So that though he was desirous to serve the ends of his present question, yet he was careful that he did not disserve the interests of Religion and a holy life. But besides that the holy Scriptures abound in nothing more than in affirming our needs, and the excellency of the Divine grace, and S. Austin needed not to have been put to his shifts in this Question, it is considerable that his first Exposition had done his business better. For if these words of S. Paul be (as indeed they are) to be expounded of an unregenerate man, one under the law, but not under grace; nothing could more have magnified Gods grace, than that an unregenerate person could not by all the force of nature, nor the aids of the law, nor the spirit of fear, nor temporal hopes, be redeem'd from the slavery and tyranny of sin; and that from this state there is no redemption but by the Spirit of God, and the grace of the Lord Jesus; which is expresly affirmed and proved by S. Paul, if you admit this sence of the words. And therefore Irenaeus who did so, cites these words to the same effect, viz. for the magnifying the grace of God:Lib. 3. c. 22. 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; Rom. 7.15. [...]. 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, Ver. 18. [...], 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, Ver. 11. 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, James 1.15. and sin when it is finished brings forth death: which is the just parallel to what S. Paul says in this very Chapter:Ver. 5. 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 [Page] 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,Verse 18 to desire well is present with me, but to do this I find not; that is, if S. Austins interpretation be true, though I do desire well, yet I do lust, and do not desire well, for still concupisco; I lust, and I lust not, I have concupiscence, and I have it not: which is a contradiction.

23. Many more things might be observed from the words of the Apostle to overthrow this exposition; but the truth when it is proved will sufficiently reprove what is not true: and therefore I shall apply my self to consider the proper intention and design of the Apostle in those so much mistaken periods.

SECT. IV.

24. COncerning which, these things are to be cleared, upon which the whole issue will depend. 1. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person, as an Apostle, or a Christian, a man who is regenerate; but in the person of a Jew, one under the law, one that is not regenerate. 2. That this state which he describes, is the state of a carnal man, under the corruption of his nature, upon whom the law had done some change, but had not cured him. 3. That from this state of evil we are redeemed by the Spirit of Christ, by the Grace of the Gospel; and now, a Child of God cannot complain this complaint.

25. I. That he puts on the person of another, by a [...], or translation (as was usual with S. Paul in 1 Cor. 10.29.30. & 4.6. & 6.1 [...]. & 13 2. Gal. 2.18 very many places of his Epistles) is evident by his affirming that of the man whom he here describes, which of himself were not true. Ver. 9. I was alive without the law once. Of S. Paul's own person this was not true; for he was bred and born under the law, circumcised the eighth day, an Hebrew of the Hebrews, as touching the law a Pharisee: he never was alive without the law. But the Israelites were, whom he therefore represents indefinitely under a single person; the whole Nation, before and under the law: I was alive once without the law; but when the Commandment came, that is, when the law was given, sin revived, and I died; that is, by occasion of the law, sin grew stronger and prevailed. 2. But concerning the Christian and his present condition, he expresly makes it separate from that of being under the law, and consequently under sin. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. We are delivered: It is plain that some sort of men are freed from that sad condition of things of which he there complains; and if any be, it must be the regenerate. And so it is. For the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is to represent, and prove that salvation is not to be had by the law, but by Jesus Christ; and that by that discipline men cannot be contain'd in their duty, and therefore that it was necessary to forsake the law, and to come to Christ. To this purpose he brings in a person complaining that under the discipline of the law, he was still under the power of sin. Now if this had been also true of a regenerate person, of a Christian renewed by the Spirit of grace, then it had been no advantage to have gone from the Law to Christ, as to this argument; for still the Christian would be under the same slavery, which to be the condition of one under the law, S. Paul was to urge as an argument to call them from Moses to Christ.

26. II. That this state which he now describes, is the state of a carnal man, under the corruption of his nature, appears,Ver. 8. by his saying that sin had wrought in him all manner of concupiscence; that sin revived, and he died; that the motions of sin which were by the law, did work in the members to bring forth fruit unto death;9. Ver. 5.14. and that this was when we were in the flesh; that he is carnal, sold under sin; that he is carried [Page]into captivity to the law of sin;20. that sin dwells in him; and is like another person, doing or constraining him to do things against his mind; that it is a State, and a Government,23. a Law, and a Tyranny; For that which I do I allow not: plainly saying, that this doing what we would not, that is, doing against our conscience upon the strength of passion, and in obedience to the law of sin, was the state of them who indeed were under the law, but the effect of carnality, and the viciousness of their natural and ungracious condition. Here then is the description of a natural and carnal man. He sins frequently, he sins against his conscience, he is carnal and sold under sin, sin dwells in him, and gives him laws, he is a slave to sin, and led into captivity. Now if this could be the complaint of a regenerate man, from what did Christ come to redeem us? how did he take away our sins? did he only take off the punishment, and still leave us to wallow in the impurities, and baser pleasures, perpetually to rail upon our sins, and yet perpetually to do them?Acts 3.26. How did he come to bless us in turning every one of us from our iniquity? How and in what sence could it be true which the Apostle affirms;1 Pet. 2.24. He did bear our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead unto sin should live unto righteousness? But this proposition I suppose my self to have sufficiently proved in the reproof of the first exposition of these words in question: only I shall in present add the concurrent testimony of some Doctors of the Primitive Church.

Tertullian hath these words: Nam etsi habitare bonum in carne suâ negavit, sed secundum legem literae in quâ fuit, Lib. de pudicit. c. 17. secundum autem legem Spiritus cui nos annectit, liberat ab infirmitate carnis. Lex enim (inquit) Spiritus vitae manumisit te à lege delinquentiae & mortis. Licet enim ex parte, ex Judaismo disputare videatur, sed in nos dirigit integritatem & plenitudinem disciplinarum, propter quos laborantes in lege per carnem miserit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis delinquentiae, & propter delinquentiam damnaverit delinquentiam in carne. ‘Plainly he expounds this Chapter to be meant of a man under the law, according to the law of the letter, under which himself had been, he denied any good to dwell in his flesh; but according to the law of the Spirit under which we are plac'd, he frees us from the infirmity of the flesh: for he saith, the law of the Spirit of life, hath freed us from the law of sin and death.’

In cap. 7. ad Rom. Origen affirms, that when S. Paul says, I am carnal, sold under sin, Tanquam Doctor Ecclesiae personam in semetipsum suscipit infirmorum; he takes upon him the person of the infirm, that is, of the carnal, and says those words which themselves by way of excuse or apology use to speak. But yet (says he) this person which S. Paul puts on, although Christ does not dwell in him, neither is his body the Temple of the holy Ghost, yet he is not wholly a stranger from good, but by his will, and by his purpose he begins to look after good things. But he cannot yet obtain to do them. For there is such an infirmity in those who begin to be converted (that is, whose mind is convinc'd, but their affections are not master'd) that when they would presently do all good, yet an effect did not follow their desires.

S. Chrysostom hath a large Commentary upon this Chapter, and his sence is perfectly the same: Propterea & subnexuit dicens, Ego verò carnalis sum, hominem describens sub lege, & ante legem degentem. S. Paul describes not himself, but a man living under and before the law, and of such a one he says, but I am carnal. Who please to see more authorities to the same purpose may find them in Lib. 1. de Baptism. & in moral. sum. 23. c. 2. & quaest. 16. quaest. expl. compend. S. Basil, In hunc locum, & in cap 8. ad Rom. Theodoret, Contra Julian. lib. 3. & de rectâ fide ad Regin. lib. 1. & in epist. prior. ad Successum. S. Cyril, Homil. 1. Macarius, In hunc locum. S. Ambrose, In cap. 9. Dan. S. Hierom, and In hunc locum. Theophylact; The words of the Apostle, the very purpose and design, the whole Oeconomy and Analogy of the sixth, seventh, and eighth Chapters do so plainly manifest it, that the heaping up more testimonies cannot be useful in so clear a case. The results are these.

I. The state of men under the law, was but a state of carnality and of nature better instructed, and soundly threatned and set forward in some instances by the spirit of fear only, but not cured, but in many men made much worse accidentally.

II. That to be pleased in the inner man, that is, in the Conscience to be convinc'd, and to consent to the excellency of vertue, and yet by the flesh, that is, by the passions of the lower man, or the members of the body to serve sin, is the state of Unregeneration.

III. To do the evil that I would not, and to omit the good that I fain would do▪ when it is in my hand to do, what is in my heart to think, is the property of [Page] a carnal, unregenerate man. And this is the state of men in nature, and was the state of men under the law. For to be under the law, and not to be led by the Spirit, are all one in S. Paul's account; For if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law, saith he: And therefore to be under the law,Gal. 5.18. being a state of not being under the Spirit, must be under the government of the flesh; that is, they were not then sanctified by the Spirit of grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, they were not yet redeemed from their vain conversation. Not that this was the state of all the sons of Israel, of them that liv'd before the law, or after; but that the law could do no more for them, or upon them; Gods Spirit did in many of them work his own works, but this was by the grace of Jesus Christ, who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world: this was not by the works of the law, but by the same instruments and grace, by which Abraham, and all they who are his children by promise were justified. But this is the consequent of the third proposition which I was to consider.

27. III. From this state of evil we are redeemed by Christ, and by the Spirit of his grace. Wretched man that I am, quis liberabit? who shall deliver me from the body of this death? He answers, I thank God through Jesus Christ; so S. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, S. Hierom, the Greek Scholiast, and the ordinary Greek copies do commonly read the words; in which words there is an [...], and they are thus to be supplied, I thank God through Jesus Christ we are delivered, or there is a remedy found out for us. But Irenaeus, Origen, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and S. Hierom himself at another time, and the Vulgar Latin Bibles, instead of [...], read [...], Gratia Domini Jesu Christi, the grace of God through Jesus Christ. That is our remedy, he is our deliverer, from him comes our redemption. For he not only gave us a better law, but also the Spirit of grace, he hath pardon'd all our old sins, and by his Spirit enables us for the future that we may obey him in all sincerity, in heartiness of endeavour, and real events. From hence I draw this argument. That state from which we are redeemed by Jesus Christ, and freed by the Spirit of his grace, is a state of carnality, of unregeneration, that is, of sin and death: But by Jesus Christ we are redeemed from that state in which we were in subjection to sin, commanded by the law of sin, and obeyed it against our reason, and against our conscience; therefore this state, which is indeed the state S. Paul here describes, is the state of carnality and unregeneration, and therefore not competent to the servants of Christ; to the elect people of God, to them who are redeemed and sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. The parts of this argument are the words of S. Paul, and proved in the foregoing periods. From hence I shall descend to something that is more immediately practical, and cloth'd with circumstances.

SECT. V. How far an Vnregenerate man may go in the ways of Piety and Religion.

28. TO this inquiry it is necessary that this be premised. That between the regenerate and a wicked person there is a middle state: so that it is not presently true, that if the man be not wicked, he is presently Regenerate. Between the two states of so vast a distance, it is impossible but there should be many intermedial degrees; between the Carnal and Spiritual man there is a Moral man; not that this man shall have a different event of things if he does abide there, but that he must pass from extreme to extreme by this middle state of participation. The first is a slave of sin; the second is a servant of righteousness; the third is such a one as liveth according to Natural reason, so much of it as is left him, and is not abused; that is, lives a probable life, but is not renewed by the Spirit of grace: one that does something, but not all; not enough for the obtaining salvation. For a man may have gone many steps from his former baseness and degenerous practices, and yet not arrive at godliness, or the state of pardon; like the children of Israel, who were not presently in Canaan, as soon as they were out of Egypt, but abode long in the wilderness: [Page] [...], they begin to be instructed, that is their state. Thou art not far from the Kingdom of Heaven, said our blessed Saviour to a well disposed person; but he was not arrived thither: he was not a subject of the Kingdom. These are such whom our blessed Lord calls, The weary and the heavy laden, that is such, who groan under the heavy pressure of their sins, whom therefore he invites to come to him to be eased. Such are those whom S. Paul here describes to be under the law; convinced of sin, pressed, vexed, troubled with it, complaining of it, desirous to be eased. These the holy Scripture calls [...], ordained, disposed to life eternal,Acts 13.48. but these were not yet the fideles or believers, but from that fair disposition became believers upon the preaching of the Apostles.

29. In this third state of men, I account those that sin and repent, and yet repent and sin again; for ever troubled when they have sinn'd, and yet for ever or most frequently sinning, when the temptation does return: [...], They sin, and accuse, and hate themselves for sinning. Now because these men mean well, and fain would be quit of their sin at their own rate, and are not scandalous and impious, they flatter themselves, and think all is well with them, that they are regenerate, and in the state of the Divine favour, and if they die so, their accounts are ballanc'd, and they doubt not but they shall reign as Kings for ever. To reprove this state of folly and danger, we are to observe, that there are a great many steps of this progression, which are to be passed through, and the end is not yet; the man is not yet arrived at the state of regeneration.

30. I. An unregenerate man may be convinc'd and clearly instructed in his duty, and approve the law, and confess the obligation, and consent that it ought to be done: which S. Paul calls a consenting to the law that it is good, and a being delighted in it according to the inward man; even the Gentiles which have not the law, yet shew the work of the law written in their hearts: Rom. 2.14. their thoughts in the mean time accusing or excusing one another. 17. The Jews did more, they did rest in the law, and glory in God, knowing his will, and approving the things that are more excellent. And there are too many who being called Christians know their Masters will, and do it not: and this consenting to the law and approving it, is so far from being a sign of regeneration, that the vilest and the basest of men are those who sin most against their knowledge, and against their consciences. In this world a man may have faith great enough to remove mountains, and yet be without charity: and in the world to come some shall be rejected from the presence of God, though they shall alledge for themselves, that they have prophesied in the name of Christ. * This delight in the law which is in the unregenerate, is only in the understanding. The man considers what an excellent thing it is to be vertuous, the just proportions of duty, the fitness of being subordinate to God, the rectitude of the soul, the acquiescence and appendent peace: and this delight is just like that which is in finding out proportions in Arithmetick and Geometry, or the rest in discovering the secrets of a mysterious proposition: a man hath great pleasure in satisfactory notices, and the end of his disquisition. So also it is in moral things: a good man is belov'd by every one; and there is a secret excellency and measure, a musick and proportion between a mans mind and wise counsels, which impious and profane persons cannot perceive, because they are so full of false measures and weak discourses, and vile appetites, and a rude inconsideration of the reasonableness and wisdom of sobriety and severe courses. But ‘— virtus laudatur & alget,’ this is all that some men do, and there is in them nothing but a preparation of the understanding to the things of God, a faith seated in the rational part, a conviction of the mind; which as it was intended to lead on the will to action, and the other faculties to obedience, so now that the effect is not acquired, it serves only to upbraid the man for a knowing and discerning Criminal, he hath not now the excuse of ignorance. He that complies with an Usurper out of fear and interest, in actions prejudicial to the lawful Prince, and tells the honest party, that he is right in his heart, though he be forc'd to comply, helps the other with an argument to convince him that he is a false man. He that does it heartily, and according to a present conscience, hath some excuse; but he that confesses that he is right in his perswasion, and wrong in his practice, is [...], condemn'd by himself, and professes himself a guilty person, a man whom interest and not conscience governs. Better is it not to know at [Page] all, than not to pursue the good we know. They that know not God, are infinitely far from him; but they who know him, and yet do not obey him, are sometimes the nearer for their knowledge, sometimes the further off, but as yet they are not arrived whither it is intended they should go.

31. II. An unregenerate man may with his will delight in goodness, and desire it earnestly. For in an unregenerate man there is a double appetite, and there may be the apprehension of two amabilities. The things of the Spirit please his mind, and his will may consequently desire that this good were done, because it seems beauteous to the rational part, to his Mind: but because he hath also relishes and gusts in the flesh, and they also seem sapid and delightful, he desires them also. So that this man fain would and he would not; and he does sin willingly and unwillingly at the same time. We see by a sad experience, some men all their life time stand at gaze, and dare not enter upon that course of life which themselves by a constant sentence judge to be the best, and of the most considerable advantage. But as the boy in the Apologue listned to the disputes of Labour and Idleness, the one perswading him to rise, the other to lie in bed; but while he considered what to do, he still lay in bed and considered: so these men dispute and argue for vertue and the service of God, and stand beholding and admiring it, but they stand on the other side while they behold it. There is a strife between the law of the mind, and the law of the members. But this prevails over that. For the case is thus: There are in men three laws; 1. The law of the members. 2. The law of the mind. 3. The law of the spirit. 1. The law of the members, that is the habit and proneness to sin, the dominion of sin, giving a law to the lower man, and reigning there as in its proper seat. This law is also called by S. Paul, [...] and [...], the mind of the flesh Ah Hebr. [...] anima sensitiva., the wisdom,Col. 2.18. Rom. 8.7. the relish, the gust and savour of the flesh, that is, that deliciousness and comport, that inticing and correspondencies to the appetite by which it tempts and prevails; all its own principles and propositions which minister to sin and folly. This subjects the man to the law of sin, or is that principle of evil by which sin does give us laws. 2. To this law of the flesh, the law of the mind [...] Grae. Hebrais [...] is opposed, and is in the regenerate and unregenerate indifferently: and it is nothing else but the conscience of good and evil, subject to the law of God, which the other cannot be. This accuses and convinces the unregenerate, it calls upon him to do his duty, it makes him unquiet when he does not; but this alone is so invalidated by the infirmity of the flesh, by the Oeconomy of the law, by the disadvantages of the world, that it cannot prevail, or free him from the captivity of sin. But 3. The law of the Spirit, is the grace of Jesus Christ, and this frees the man from the law of the members, from the captivity of sin,Rom. 8.2. from 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:Rom. 7.22, 23. 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 [Page] whole mind together with its affections, Mat. 26.4. and Acts 19.21. But in this Question, the word Rom. 7.22, 23. & 8.5, 7, 9. 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,Gal. 5.16, 17, 18. 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: Ver. 13. 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 clear, ready, and a prepared will, he dies and disputes not. 2. An animal man, or a mere moral man, that is, one under the law, one instructed and convinced by the letter, but not sanctified by the Spirit, he sins willingly, because he considers and chuses it; but he also sins unwillingly, that is, his inclinations to vice, and his first choices are abated, and the pleasures allayed, and his peace disturbed, and his sleeps broken; but for all that, he sins on when the next violent temptation comes. The contention in him is between Reason and Passion, the law of the mind and the law of the members, between conscience and sin, that weak, this prevailing. 3. But the Regenerate hath the same contention within him, and the temptation is sometimes strong within him, yet he overcomes it, and seldom fails in any material and considerable instances. Because the Spirit is the prevailing ingredient in the [Page] new Creature, in the constitution of the regenerate, and will prevail. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world, 1 John 5.4, 5. and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even your faith; that is, by the faith of Jesus Christ, by him you shall have victory and redemption; and again, Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you; for he that is within you is stronger than he that is in the world; and,Jam. 4.7. 1 John 4. Eph. 6.11, 13. Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may stand against the snares of the Devil, that ye may resist in the evil day, and having done all, to stand; for, All things are possible to him that believes;Mark 9.23. and, Through Christ that strengthens me I can do all things;Phil. 4.13. Eph. 3.20. Rom. 8.13.5.37. and therefore in all these things we are more than conquerors: for, God is able to do above all that we can ask or think; he can keep us from all sin, and present us unblameable in the sight of his glory. So that to deny the power of the Spirit, in breaking the tyranny, and subduing the lusts of the flesh, besides that it contradicts all these and divers other Scriptures, it denies the Omnipotency of God, and of the Spirit of his grace,Jude 24. making sin to be stronger than it, and if grace abound, to make sin superabound: but to deny the willingness of the Spirit to redeem us from the captivity of sin, is to lessen the reputation of his goodness, and to destroy the possibility, and consequently the necessity of living holily.

34. But how happens it then that even the regenerate sins often, and the flesh prevails upon the ruine, or the declensions of the Spirit? I answer, It is not because that holy principle which is in the regenerate cannot or will not secure him, but because the man is either prepossess'd with the temptation, and overcome before he begins to oppose the arms of the Spirit, that is, because he is surpris'd, or incogitant, or it may be, careless; the good man is asleep, and then the enemy takes his advantage and sows tares; for if he were awake, and considering, and would make use of the strengths of the Spirit, he would not be overcome by sin. For there are powers enough, that is, arguments and endearments, helps and sufficient motives to enable us to resist the strongest temptation in the world; and this one alone, of resurrection to eternal life, which is revealed to us by Jesus Christ, and ministred in the Gospel, is an argument greater than all the promises and inticements of sin, if we will attend to its efficacy and consequence. But if we throw away our arms, and begin a fight in the Spirit, and end it in the flesh, the ill success of the day is to be imputed to us, not to the Spirit of God, to whom if we had attended we should certainly have prevailed. * The reliques and remains of sin are in the regenerate; but that is a sign that sin is overcome, and the kingdom of it broken; and that is a demonstration, that when ever sin does prevail in any single instances, it is not for want of power, but of using that power; for since the Spirit hath prevailed upon the flesh in its strengths, and hath crucified it, there is no question but it can also prevail upon all its weaknesses.

35. For we must be curious to avoid a mistake here: The dominion of the Spirit, and the remains of the flesh may consist together in the regenerate; as some remains of cold with the prevailing heat; but the dominion of one and the other, are in every degree inconsistent; as both cold and heat cannot in any sence be both said to be the prevailing ingredient. A man cannot be said to be both free from sin, and a slave to sin; If he hath prevailed in any degree upon sin, then he is not at all a servant of that portion from whence he is set free; but if he be a captive of any one sin, or regular degree of it, he is not Gods freed man; for the Spirit prevails upon all as well as upon one; and that is not an infinite power that cannot redeem us from all our slavery: But to be a slave of sin, and at the same time to be a servant of righteousness, is not only against the analogy of Scripture, and the express signification of so many excellent periods, but against common sence; it is as if one should say, that a man hath more heat than cold in his hand, and yet that the cold should prevail upon, and be stronger than the heat; that is, that the weaker should overcome the stronger, and the less should be greater, than that which is bigger than it.

36. But as the choice of vertue is abated, and (as the temptation grows more violent, and urges more vehemently) is made less pleasant in the regenerate person; so is the choice of vice in the Moral, or Animal man. The contention abates the pleasure in both their choices; but in the one it ends in sin, in the other it ends in victory. So that there is an unwillingness to sin in all but in the impious and profane person, in the far distant stranger. But the unwillingness to sin, that is in the Animal, or Moral man, is nothing else but a serving sin like a grumbling servant, or like the younger son of the Farmer in the Gospel; he said he would not, but did it for all his angry words. And therefore that the unregenerate man acts the sin against his [Page] mind, and after a long contention against it, does not in all cases lessen it, but sometimes increases it.Caus. 24. q. 1. C. Schisma. Nec leviat crimen eorum, magis verò auget, quòd eos diù restitisse dixistis, said Pope Pelagius. To resist long, and then to consent, hath in it some aggravations of the crime, as being a conviction of the mans baseness, a violence to reason, a breach of former resolutions, a recession from fair beginnings, and wholly without excuse. * But if ever it comes to pass, that in the contention of flesh and spirit, the regenerate man does sin, he does it unwillingly, that is, 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 [Page] 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, 1 Cor. 2.14. 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,

Prudent.

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,John 14.17. 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: 2 Pet. 2.21. Such are they of whom S. Paul says, They detain the truth in unrighteousness. Now concerning this man,Rom. 1.18. 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 to their own deception, that by quitting one or two lusts, they may have some kind of peace in all the rest, and think all is well. These men sometimes would fain obey the law, but they will not crucifie the flesh; any thing that does not smart. Their temper and constitution will allow them easily to quit such superinduc'd follies which out of a gay or an impertinent spirit they have contracted, or which came to them by company or by chance, or confidence, or violence; but if they must mortifie the flesh to quit a lust, that's too hard and beyond their powers, which are in captivity to the law of sin. * Some men will commute a duty; and if you will allow them covetousness, they will quit their lust, or their intemperance, according as it happens. Herod did many things at the preaching of John the Baptist, and heard him gladly. Balaam did some things handsomely; though he was covetous and ambitious, yet he had a limit; he would obey the voice of the Angel, and could not be tempted to speak a curse, when God spake a blessing. Ahab was an imperfect penitent; he did some things, but not enough. And if there be any root of bitterness, there is no regeneration; Colloquintida, and Death is in the pot.

39. V. An unregenerate man may leave some sins not only for temporal interest, but out of reverence of the Divine law, out of fear and reverence. Under the law there were many such: and there is no peradventure but that many men who like Felix have trembled at a Sermon, have with such a shaking fit left off something that was fit to be laid aside. To leave a sin out of fear of the Divine judgment is not sinful, or totally unacceptable. All that left sin in obedience and reverence to the law, did it in fear of punishment, because fear was the sanction of the law: and even under the Gospel, to obey out of fear of punishment, though it be less perfect, yet it is not criminal, nay, rather on the other side; The worse that men are, so much the [Page] less they are afraid of the Divine anger and judgments. To abstain out of fear, is to abstain out of a very proper motive: and God when he sends a judgment with a design of emendation, or threatens a criminal, or denounces woes and cursings, intends that fear should be the beginning of wisdom. Knowing therefore the terrors of the Lord, we perswade men, 2 Cor. 5.11. saith S. Paul. And the whole design of delivering criminals over to Satan, was but a pursuance of this argument of fear; that by feeling something, they might fear a worse, and for the present be affrighted from their sin. And this was no other than the argument which our blessed Saviour used to the poor Paralytick: Go and sin no more, lest a worse thing happen to thee. But besides that this good fear may work much in an unregenerate person, or a man under the law, such a person may do some things in obedience to God, or thankfulness, and perfect, mere choice. So Jehu obeyed God a great way: but there was a turning, and a high stile, beyond which he would not go, and his principles could not carry him through. Few women can accuse themselves of adultery; in the great lines of chastity they chuse to obey God, and the voice of honour; but can they say that their eye is not wanton, that they do not spend great portions of their time in vanity, that they are not idle, and useless, or busie-bodies, that they do not make it much of their imployment to talk of fashions and trifles, or that they do make it their business to practise religion, to hear and attend to severe and sober counsels? If they be under the conduct of the Spirit, he hath certainly carried them into all the regions of duty. But to go a great way, and not to finish the journey is the imperfection of the unregenerate. For in some persons, fear or love of God is not of it self strong enough to weigh down the scales; but there must be thrown in something from without, some generosity of spirit, or revenge, or gloriousness and bravery, or natural pity, or interest; and so far as these, or any of them go along with the better principle, this will prevail; but when it must go alone, it is not strong enough. But this is a great way off from the state of sanctification or a new birth.

40. VI. An unregenerate man, besides the abstinence from much evil, may also do many good things for Heaven, and yet never come thither. He may be sensible of his danger and sad condition, and pray to be delivered from it; and his prayers shall not be heard, because he does not reduce his prayers to action, and endeavour to be what he desires to be. Almost every man desires to be sav'd: but this desire is not with every one of that perswasion and effect as to make them willing to want the pleasures of the world for it, or to perform the labours of charity and repentance. A man may strive and contend in or towards the ways of godliness, and yet fall short. Many men pray often, and fast much, and pay tithes, and do justice, and keep the Commandments of the second Table with great integrity; and so are good moral men, as the word is used in opposition to, or rather in destitution of religion. Some are religious and not just: some want sincerity in both: and of this, the Pharisees were a great example. But the words of our blessed Saviour are the greatest testimony in this article;Luke 13.14. Many shall strive to enter in, and shall not be able. Either they shall contend too late like the five foolish Virgins, and as they whom S. Paul by way of caution likens to Esau; or else they contend with incompetent and insufficient strengths: they strive, but put not force enough to the work. An unregenerate man hath not strength enough; that is, he wants the spirit and activity, and perfectness of resolution. Not that he wants such aids as are necessary and sufficient, but that himself hath not purposes pertinacious, and resolutions strong enough. All that is necessary to his assistance from without, all that he hath or may have; but that which is necessary on his own part he hath not; but that's his own fault; that he might also have; and it is in his duty, and therefore certainly in his power to have it. For a man is not capable of a law which he hath not powers sufficient to obey: he must be free and quit from all its contraries, from the power and dominion of them; or at least must be so free, that he may be quit of them if he please. For there can be no liberty, but where all the impediments are remov'd, or may be if the man will.

41. VII. An unregenerate man may have received the Spirit of God, and yet be in a state of distance from God. For to have received the holy Ghost, is not an inseparable propriety of the regenerate. The Spirit of God is an internal agent; that is, the effects and graces of the Spirit by which we are assisted, are within us before they operate. For although all assistances from without are graces of God, the effects of Christs passion, purchased for us by his blood and by his intercession; and all good company, wise counsels, apt notices, prevailing arguments, moving objects, and opportunities and endearments of vertue are from above, from the Father of lights: [Page] yet the Spirit of God does also work more inwardly, and creates in us aptnesses and inclinations, consentings, and the acts of conviction and adherence, working in us to will and to do according to our desire, or according to Gods good pleasure: yet this holy Spirit is oftentimes grieved, sometimes provoked, and at last extinguish'd, which because it is done only by them who are enemies of the Spirit, and not the servants of God, it follows that the Spirit of God by his aids and assistances, is in them that are not so, with a design to make them so: and if the holy Spirit were not in any degree or sence in the unregenerate, how could a man be born again by the Spirit? for since no man can be regenerate by his own strengths, his new birth must be wrought by the Spirit of God; and especially in the beginnings of our conversion is his assistance necessary: which assistance, because it works within as well, and rather than without, must needs be in a man before he operates within. And therefore to have received the holy Spirit, is not the propriety of the regenerate; but to be led by him, to be conducted by the Spirit in all our ways and counsels, to obey his motions, to entertain his doctrine, to do his pleasure: This is that which gives the distinction and the denomination. And this is called by S. Paul, The inhabitation of the Spirit of God in us; in opposition to the inhabitants peccatum, Rom. 8.9. the sin that dwelleth in the unregenerate. The Spirit may be in us, calling and urging us to holiness; but unless the Spirit of God dwell in us, and abide in us, and love to do so, and rule, and give us laws, and be not griev'd and cast out, but entertain'd, and cherish'd, and obey'd, unless (I say) the Spirit of God be thus in us, Christ is not in us; and if Christ be not in us, we are none of his.

SECT. VI. The Character of the Regenerate Estate, or Person.

42. FROM hence it is not hard to describe what are the proper indications of the Regenerate. 1. A regenerate person is convinc'd of the goodness of the law, and meditates in it day and night. His delight is in Gods law,Psal. 1.2. Psal. 119.77.103. not only with his mind approving, but with his will chusing the duties and significations of the law.

II. The Regenerate not only wishes that the good were done which God commands, but heartily sets about the doing of it.

III. He sometimes feels the rebellions of the flesh, but he fights against them always; and if he receive a fall, he rises instantly, and fights the more fiercely, and watches the more cautelously, and prays the more passionately, and arms himself more strongly, and prevails more prosperously. In a regenerate person there is flesh and Spirit, but the Spirit only rules. There is an outward and an inward man, but both of them are subject to the Spirit. There was a law of the members, but it is abrogated and cancell'd; the law is repeal'd, and does not any more inslave him to the law of sin. Nunc quamdiu concupiscit caro adversus spiritum, & spiritus adversus carnem, Aug. l. de. Contin. c. 2. sat est nobis non consentire malis quae sentimus in nobis. Every good man shall always feel the flesh lusting against the Spirit; that contention he shall never be quit of, but it is enough for us if we never consent to the suggested evils.

IV. A regenerate person does not only approve that which is best, and desire to do it, but he does it actually, and delights to do it; he continues and abides in it, which the Scripture calls a walking in the Spirit, and a living after it: for he does his duty by the strengths of the Spirit; that is, upon considerations Evangelical, in the love of God, in obedience to Christ, and by the aids he hath receiv'd from above beyond the powers of nature and education, and therefore he does his duty upon such considerations as are apt to make it integral and persevering. For,

V. A regenerate man does not only leave some sins but all, and willingly entertains none. He does not only quit a lust that is against his disposition, but that which he is most inclin'd to, he is most severe against, and most watchful to destroy it; he plucks out his right eye, and cuts off his right hand, and parts with his biggest interest, [Page] rather than keep a lust: and therefore consequently chuses vertue by the same method, by which he abstains from vice. Nam ipsa continentia cum fraenat, cohibétque libidines simul & appetit bonum, S. Aug. ibid. ad cujus immortalitem tendimus: & respuit malum cum quo in hâc mortalitate contendimus; that is, ‘He pursues all vertue, as he refuses all vice; for he tends to the immortality of good, as he strives against evil in all the days of his mortality.’ And therefore he does not chuse to exercise that vertue only that will do him reputation, or consist with his interest, or please his humour, but entertains all vertue, whether it be with him or against him, pleasing or displeasing; he chuses all that God hath commanded him, because he does it for that reason.

VI. A regenerate person doth not only contradict his appetite in single instances, but endeavours to destroy the whole body of sin; he does not only displease his fond appetite, but he mortifies it, and never entertains conditions of peace with it; for it is a dangerous mistake, if we shall presume all is well, because we do some acts of spite to our dearest lust, and sometimes cross the most pleasing temptation, and oppose our selves in single instances against every sin. This is not it; the regenerate man endeavours to destroy the whole body of sin, and having had an opportunity to contest his sin, and to contradict it this day, is glad he hath done something of his duty, and does so again to morrow and ever, till he hath quite killed it; and never entertains conditions of peace with it, nor ever is at rest till the flesh be quiet and obedient. * For sometimes it comes to pass that the old man being used to obey, at last obeys willingly, and takes the conditions of the Gibeonites; it is content to do drudgery and the inferior ministeries, if it may be suffered to abide in the land.

43. So that here is a new account upon which the former proposition is verifiable; viz. It is not the propriety of the regenerate to feel a contention within him concerning doing good or bad. For it is not only true, that the unregenerate oftentimes feel the fight, and never see the triumph; but it is also true, that sometimes the regenerate do not feel this contention. They did once with great violence and trouble; but when they have gotten a clear victory, they have also great measures of peace. But this is but seldom, to few persons, and in them but in rare instances, in carnal sins and temptations: for in spiritual, they will never have an intire rest till they come into their Country. It is Angelical perfection to have no flesh at all, but it is the perfection of a Christian to have the flesh obedient to the spirit always, and in all things. But if this contention be not a sign of regeneration, but is common to good and bad, that which can only distinguish them, is victory, and perseverance; and those sins which are committed at the end of such contentions, are not sins of a pitiable and excusable infirmity; but the issues of death and direct emanations from an unregenerate estate. Therefore,

44. VII. Lastly; The regenerate not only hath received the Spirit of God, but is wholly led by him, he attends his motions, he obeys his counsels, he delights in his Commandments, and accepts his testimony, and consents to his truth, and rejoyces in his comforts, and is nourish'd by his hopes up to a perfect man in Christ Jesus. This is the only condition of being the sons of God,Rom. 8.14. and being sav'd. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. None else. And therefore if ye live after the flesh ye shall die, 13. but if through the Spirit ye do mortifie the deeds of the body, ye shall live. This is your characteristick note. Our obedience to the Spirit, our walking by his light, and by his conduct. This is the Spirit that witnesseth to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. That is, if the Spirit be obeyed, if it reigns in us, if we live in it,Rom. 8.16. if we walk after it, if it dwells in us, then we are sure that we are the sons of God. There is no other testimony to be expected, but the doing of our duty. All things else (unless an extraregular light spring from Heaven and tells us of it) are but fancies and deceptions, or uncertainties at the best.

SECT. VII. What are properly and truly sins of Infirmity, and how far they can consist with the Regenerate Estate.

[Page]

45. WE usually reckon our selves too soon to be in Gods favour. While the War lasts, it is hard telling who shall be the Prince. When one part hath fought prosperously, there is hopes of his side: and yet if the adversary hath reserves of a vigorous force, or can raise new, and not only pretends his title, but makes great inrodes into the Country, and forrages, and does mischief, and fights often, and prevails sometimes, the inheritance is still doubtful as the success. But if the Usurper be beaten, and driven out, and his forces quite broken, and the lawful Prince is proclaim'd, and rules, and gives laws, though the other rails in prison, or should by a sudden fury kill a single person, or plot an ineffective treason, no man then doubt▪ concerning the present possession.

46. But men usually think their case is good, so long as they are fighting, so long as they are not quite conquered, and every step towards grace, they call [...]t pardon and salvation presently. As soon as ever a man begins heartily to mortifie his [...]n▪ his hopes begin, and if he proceeds they are certain. But if in this sight he b [...] overcome, he is not to ask, Whether that ill day, and that deadly blow, can consist with the state of life? He that fights, and conquers not, but sins frequently, and [...]o yield or be killed is the end of the long contentions, this man is not yet alive. But when he prevails regularly and daily over his sin, then he is in a state of regeneration; but let him take heed, for every voluntary, or chosen sin is a mortal wound.

47. But because no man in this world hath so conquer'd, but he may be smitten, and is sometimes struck at; and most good men have cause to complain of their calamity, that in their understandings there are doubtings, and strange mistakes, which because after a great confidence they are sometimes discovered, there is cause to suspect there are some there still which are not discovered; that there are in the will evil inclinations to forbidden instances; that in the appetite there are carnal desires; that in their natural actions there are sometimes too sensual applications; that in their good actions there are mighty imperfections; it will be of use that we separate the certain from the uncertain, security from danger, the apology from the accusation, and the excuse from the crime, by describing what are, and what are not sins of Infirmity.

48. For most men are pleased to call their debaucheries sins of infirmity, if they be done against their reason, and the actual murmur of their consciences, and against their trifling resolutions, and ineffective purposes to the contrary. Now although all sins are the effects of infirmity Natural or Moral, yet because I am to cure a popular mistake, I am also to understand the word as men do commonly, and by sins of Infirmity to mean,

49. Such sins which in the whole, and upon the matter, are unavoidable, and therefore excusable: Such which can consist with the state of grace, that is, such which have so much irregularity in them as to be sins, and yet so much excuse and pity, as that by the Covenant and Mercies of the Gospel, they shall not be exacted in the worst of punishments, or punished with eternal pains, because they cannot with the greatest moral diligence wholly be avoided. Concerning these so described, we are to take accounts by the following measures.

50. I. Natural imperfections, and evil inclinations, when they are not consented to or delighted in, either are no sins at all, or if they be, they are but sins of infirmity. That in some things our nature is cross to the Divine Commandment, is not always imputable to us, because our natures were before the Commandment; and God hath therefore commanded us to do violence to our nature, that by such preternatural contentions we should offer to God a service that costs us something. But that in some things we are inclin'd otherwise than we are suffered to act, is so far from offending God, that it is that opportunity of serving him, by which we can most [Page] endear him. To be inclined to that whither nature bends, is of it self indifferent, but to love, to entertain, to act our inclinations, when the Commandment is put between, that is the sin; and therefore if we resist them, and master them, that is our obedience. For it is equally certain; no man can be esteemed spiritual for his good wishes and desires of holiness, but for his actual and habitual obedience: so no man is to be esteemed carnal or criminal for his natural inclinations to what is forbidden. But that good men complain of their strange propensities to sin, it is a declaration of their fears, of their natural weakness, of the needs of grace, and the aids of Gods Spirit. But because these desires, even when they are much restrained, do yet sometimes insensibly go too far; therefore it is, that such are sins of infirmity, because they are almost unavoidable. This remain is like the image of the Ape which Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria left after the breaking of the other Idols; a testimony of their folly; but as that was left for no other purpose but to reprove them, so is this to humble us, that we may not rely upon flesh and blood, but make God to be our confidence.

51. II. Sins of infirmity are rather observed in the imperfection of our duty, than in the commission of any criminal action. For in this it was that our blessed Saviour instanc'd these words,Mat. 26.41. The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak; The body is weary, the eyes heavy, the fancy restless, diversions many, businesses perpetually intervene, and all the powers of discourse and observation cannot hinder our mind from wandring in our prayers,

— Odi artus, fragilémque hunc corporis usum

Desertorem animi —

But this being in the whole unavoidable, is therefore in many of its parts and instances very excusable, if we do not indulge to it; if we pray and strive against it; that is, so long as it is a natural infirmity. For although we cannot avoid wandring thoughts, yet we can avoid delighting in them, or a careless and negligent increasing them. For if they once seise upon the will, they are sins of choice and malice, and not of infirmity. So that the great scene of sins of infirmity, is in omission of degrees and portions of that excellency of duty which is required of us. We are imperfect, and we do imperfectly, and if we strive towards perfection, God will pity our imperfection. There is no other help for us; but blessed be God, that is sufficient for our need, and proportionable to our present state.

52. III. But in actions and matters of commission, the case is different. For though a man may forget himself against his will, or sleep, or fall, yet without his will he cannot throw himself down, or rise again. Every action is more or less voluntary, but every omission is not. A thing may be let alone upon a dead stock, or a negative principle, or an unavoidable defect, but an action cannot be done without some command or action of the will; therefore although sins of defect are in many cases pitied and not exacted, yet sinful actions have not so easie a sentence; but they also have some abatements. Therefore,

53. IV. Imperfect actions, such which are incomplete in their whole capacity, are sins of infirmity, and ready and prepar'd for pity: of this sort are rash, or ignorant actions, done by surprise; by inconsideration and inadvertency; by a sudden and great fear, in which the reason is in very many degrees made useless, and the action cannot be considered duly. In these there is some little mixture of choice, so much as to make the action imputable, if God should deal severely with us; but yet so little that it shall not be imputed under the mercies of the Gospel; although the man that does them cannot pretend he is innocent, yet he can pretend that he does stand fair in the eye of mercy. A good man may sometimes be unwary, or he may speak, or be put to it to resolve or do before he can well consider. If he does a thing rashly when he can consider and deliberate, he is not excused: but if he does it indiscreetly, when he must do it suddenly, it is his infirmity, and he shall be relieved at the Chancery of the throne of Grace. For it is remarkable that Gods justice is in some cases [...], exact, full and severe: in other cases it is [...], full of equity, gentleness, and wisdom, making abatement for infirmities, performing promises, interpreting things to the most equal and favourable purposes. So Justice is taken in S. John, [If we confess our sins, he is righteous or just to forgive our sins] that is, Gods justice is such as to be content with what we can do, and not to exact all that is possible to be imposed. He is as just in forgiving the penitent, as in punishing the refractory; [Page] as just in abating reasonably, as in weighing scrupulously: such a justice it is, which in the same case, David calls Mercy. For thou Lord art merciful, for thou rewardest every man according to his works. And if this were not so, no man could be saved.Lib. 6.13. Mortalis enim conditio non patitur esse hominem ab omni maculâ purum, said Lactantius. For in many things we offend all: and our present state of imperfection will not suffer it to be otherwise: [...], said Philo. De agriculturá. For as a runner of races at his first setting forth rids his way briskly, and in a breath measures out many spaces; but by and by his spirit is saint, and his body is breathless, and he stumbles at every thing that lies in his way: so is the course of a Christian; fierce in the beginnings of repentance, and active in his purposes; but in his progress remiss and hindred, and starts at every accident, and stumbles at every scandal and stone of offence, and is sometimes listless, and without observation at other times, and a bird out of a bush that was not look'd for, makes him to start aside, and decline from the path and method of his journey. But then if he that stumbles mends his pace, and runs more warily, and goes on vigorously, his error, or misfortune shall not be imputed; for here Gods justice is equity, it is the justice of the Chancery; we are not judged by the Covenant of works, that is, of exact measures, but by the Covenant of faith and remission, or repentance. But if he that falls, lies down despairingly or wilfully, or if he rises, goes back, or goes aside, not only his declination from his way, but every error or fall, every stumbling and startling in that way shall be accounted for. For here Gods justice is [...], exact and severe; it is the justice of the Law, because he refused the method and conditions of the Gospel.

54. V. Every sinful action that can pretend to pardon by being a sin of infirmity must be in a small matter. The imperfect way of operating alone, is not sufficient for excuse and pardon, unless the matter also be little and contemptible; because if the matter be great, it cannot ordinarily be, but it must be considered and chosen. He that in a sudden anger strikes his friend to the heart, whom he had lov'd as passionately as now he smote him, is guilty of murder, and cannot pretend infirmity for his excuse; because in an action of so great consequence and effect, it is supposed, he had time to deliberate all the foregoing parts of his life, whether such an action ought to be done or not; or the very horror of the action was enough to arrest his spirit, as a great danger, or falling into a river, will make a drunken man sober; and by all the laws of God and Man, he was immur'd from the probability of all transports into such violences; and the man must needs be a slave of passion, who could by it be brought to go so far from reason, and to do so great evil. * If a man in the careless time of the day, when his spirit is loose, with a less severe imployment, or his heart made more open with an innocent refreshment, spies a sudden beauty that unluckily strikes his fancy; it is possible that he may be too ready to entertain a wanton thought, and to suffer it to stand at the doors of his first consent; but if the sin passes no further, the man enters not into the regions of death; because the Devil entred on a sudden, and is as suddenly cast forth. But if from the first arrest of concupiscence, he pass on to an imperfect consent, from an imperfect consent, to a perfect and deliberate, and from thence to an act, and so to a habit, he ends in death; because long before it is come thus far, The salt water is taken in. The first concupiscence is but like rain water, it discolours the pure springs, but makes them not deadly. But when in the progression the will mingles with it, it is like the [...], or waters of brimstone, and the current for ever after is unwholsome, and carries you forth into the dead Sea, the lake of Sodom, which is to suffer the vengeance of Eternal fire: But then the matter may be supposed little till the will comes. For though a man may be surprised with a wanton eye, yet he cannot sight a duel against his knowledge, or commit adultery against his will. A man cannot against his will contrive the death of a man; but he may speak a rash word, or be suddenly angry, or triflingly peevish, and yet all this notwithstanding, be a good man still. These may be sins of Infirmity, because they are imperfect actions in the whole; and such, in which as the man is for the present surpris'd, so they are such against which no watchfulness was a sufficient guard, as it ought to have been in any great matter, and might have been in sudden murders. A wise and a good man may easily be mistaken in a nice question, but can never suspect an article of his Creed to be false: a good man may have many fears and doubtings in matters of smaller moment, but he never doubts of Gods goodness, of his truth, of his mercy, or of any of his communicated perfections: he may fall into melancholy, [Page] and may suffer indefinite fears, of he knows not what himself, yet he can never explicitely doubt of any thing which God hath clearly revealed, and in which he is sufficiently instructed. A weak eye may at a distance mistake a man for a tree; but he who sailing in a storm, takes the Sea for dry land, or a mushrome for an oak, is stark blind. And so is he who can think adultery to be excusable, or that Treason can be duty, or that by persecuting Gods Prophets, he does God good service, or that he propagates Religion by making the Ministers of the Altar poor, and robbing the Churches. A good man so remaining cannot suffer infirmity in the plain and legible lines of duty, where he can see, and reason, and consider.

I have now told which are sins of infirmity; and I have told all their measures. For as for those other false opinions by which men flatter themselves into Hell, by a pretence of sins of infirmity, they are as unreasonable as they are dangerous; and they are easily reproved upon the stock of the former truths. Therefore,

55. VI. Although our mere natural inclination to things forbidden, be of it self a natural and unavoidable infirmity, and such which cannot be cured by all the precepts and endeavours of perfection; yet this very inclination, if it be heightned by carelesness or evil customs, is not a sin of infirmity. Tiberius the Emperor being troubled with a fellow that wittily and boldly pretended himself to be a Prince, at last when he could not by questions, he discovered him to be a mean person by the rusticity and hardness of his body: not by a callousness of his feet, or a wart upon a finger, but [...], His whole body was hard and servile, and so he was discovered. The natural superfluities, and excrescencies that inevitably adhere to our natures, are not sufficient indications of a servile person, or a slave to sin; but when our natures are abused by choice and custom, when the callousness is spread by evil and hard usages, when the arms are brawny by the services of Egypt, then it is no longer infirmity, but a superinduc'd viciousness, and a direct hostility. When nature rules, grace does not. When the flesh is in power, the spirit is not. Therefore it matters not from what corner the blasting wind does come, from whence soever it is, it is deadly. Most of our sins are from natural inclinations; and the negative precepts of God, are for the most part, restraints upon them. Therefore to pretend nature, when our selves have spoil'd it, is no excuse, but that state of evil, from whence the Spirit of God is to rescue and redeem us.

56. VII. Yea, but although it be thus in nature, yet it is hop'd by too many, that it shall be allowed to be infirmity, when the violence of our passions or desires overcomes our resolutions. Against this, I oppose this proposition: When violence of desire or passion engages us in a sin, whither we see and observe our selves entring, that violence or transportation is not our excuse, but our disease: and that resolution is not accepted for innocence or repentance: but the not performing what we did resolve is our sin, and the violence of passion was the accursed principle.

57. For to resolve is a relative and imperfect duty, in order to something else. It had not been necessary to resolve, if it had not been necessary to do do it: and if it be necessary to do it, it is not sufficient to resolve it. And for the understanding of this the better, we must observe, that to resolve, and to endeavour, are several things. To resolve, is to purpose to do what we may if we will; some way or other the thing is in our power; either we are able of our selves, or we are help'd. No man resolves to carry an Elephant, or to be as wise as Solomon, or to destroy a vast Army with his own hands. He may endeavour this; for, To endeavour sometimes supposes a state of excellency, beyond our power, but not beyond our aims. Thus we must endeavour to avoid all sin, and to master all our infirmities; because to do so is the nobleness of a Christian courage, and that design which is the proper effect of Charity, which is the best of Christian graces. But we cannot resolve to do it, because it is beyond all our powers; but may endeavour it, and resolve to endeavour it, but that's all we can do. But if to resolve, be a duty, then to perform it is a greater; and if a man cannot be the child of God without resolving against all the habits of sin, then neither can he be his child, unless he actually quit them all.

58. But then if from acting our resolution we be hindred by passion and violent desires, we are plainly in the state of immortification. Passion is the Ruler: and as the first step of victory is to keep those passions and appetites from doing any Criminal action abroad: so the worst they can do, is to engage and force the man to sin, and that against his will, even whether he list or no. But concerning [Page] this Article, we are intirely determin'd by the words of S. Paul, Gal. 5.24. He that is in Christ hath crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts; that is, the passions and desires of the flesh are mortified in all the regenerate: and therefore a state of passion is a state of death. But whatever the principle be, yet we must be infinitely careful we do not mistake a broken resolution for an intire piety. He that perpetually resolves, and yet perpetually breaks his resolution, does all the way sin against his conscience, and against his reason, against his experience, and against his observation; and it will be a strange offer at an excuse, for a man to hope for, or to pretend to pardon, because be sinned against his Conscience.

59. There is in this Article some little difference in the case of young persons, the violence of whose passions as it transports them infallibly to evil, so it helps to excuse some of it; but this is upon a double account: 1. Because part of it is natural, naturale vitium aetatis, the defect and inherent inclination of their age. 2. And because their passions being ever strongest when their reason is weakest, the actions of young men are imperfect and incomplete. For deliberation being nothing else but an alternate succession of appetites, it is an unequal entercourse that a possessing, natural, promoted passion should contest against a weak, over-born, beginning, unexperienc'd, uninstructed reason: this alternation of appetites is like the dust of a ballance weighing against a rock; the deliberation it self must needs be imperfect, because there is no equality. And therefore the Roman Lawyers did not easily upon a man under twenty five years of age inflict punishment, at least not extreme. They are the words of Tryphonius: In delictis autem minor annis xxv. non meretur in integr [...] restitutionem, utique atrocioribus; L. Auxil. Sect. in delictis [...]ff. de minoribus. nisi quatenus interdum miseratio aetatis ad mediocrem poenam judicem produxerit. This I say is only a lessening of their fault, not imputing it. God is ready to pity every thing that is pitiable, and therefore is apt to instruct them more, and to forbear them longer, and to expect and to assist their return, and strikes them not so soon, nor so severely, but what other degrees of pardon God will allow to their infirmities, he hath no where told us. For as to the whole, it is true in all laws Divine and Humane:L. Vnicâ Cod. si adversus delictum. In criminibus quidem aetatis suffragio minores non juvantur: etenim malorum mores infirmitas animi non excusat. Infirmity of mind does not excuse evil manners: and therefore in criminal actions, young persons are not excus'd by their age. In delictis aetate neminem excusari constat, said Diocletian and Maximianus. The age excuses not; well may it lessen, but it does not quite extinguish the guilt.

60. VIII. The greatness or violence of a temptation does not excuse our sin, or reconcile it to the state of grace and an actual consistence with Gods favour. The man that is highly tempted and so falls, cannot say it was by an unavoidable infirmity. For God never suffers any man to be tempted above his strength; and therefore when he suffers him to fall into a great trial, he hath before-hand prepared him with great aids: and a temptation is not such a formidable thing to a considering Christian. All that it can say is nothing, but that sin is pleasant: and suppose that true; yet so is drink to an hydropick person, and salt meats to a phantastick stomach, and yet they that are concerned do easily abstain from these temptations, and remember that it is a greater pleasure to be in health, than with a little cold water, or a broil'd fish to please their palate: and therefore a temptation which can be overcome by an argument from so small an interest, cannot stand the shock of a Noble and a Christian resolution and discourse. But every temptation puts on its strength as the man is. Sometimes a full meal will not prejudice our health; and at another time half so much would be a surfeit: and some men take cold with leaving off a half-shirt, who at another time might leave off half their clothes. The indisposition is within: and if men did not love to be tempted, it would not prevail at all. Wine is no temptation to an abstemious man, nor all the beauties of Potiphars wife to Joseph, the Devil could not prevail with such trifles; but half such an offer would overthrow all the trifling purposes of the effeminate. To say that such a temptation is great, is to say, that you love the sin too well to which you are tempted. For temptations prevail only by our passions and our appetites: leave to love the sin, and the temptation is answered; but if you love it, then complain of nothing but thy self, for thou makest the temptation great, by being in love with life and sin, by preferring vanity before eternal pleasures.Bibl. PP. tom. 9. p. 286. In the Apophthegms of the Egyptian Anachorets, I read of one who had an apparition in the likeness of Christ. A vain and a proud person would have hugg'd himself, and entertain'd the illusion. But he shutting his eyes, said, I shall see Christ in Heaven, it is enough for me to hope and [Page]to believe while I am on earth. This or the like did and did not prevail by our weaknesses, not by their own strength: and to pretend the strength of a temptation, is to say, we are to be excused, because we love sin too well, and are too much delighted with baser objects, and we cannot help it, because we love to die.

61. IX. The smallest instance, if it be observed, ceases to be a sin of infirmity; because by being observ'd, it loses its pretence and excuse, for then it is done upon the account of the will. For here the Rule is general, and it summs up this whole Question.

62. X. A mans will hath no infirmity, but when it wants the grace of God; that is, whatsoever the will chuses is imputed to it for good or bad. For the will can suffer no violence; it is subject to nothing, and to no person, but to God and his laws, and therefore when ever it does amiss, it sins directly against him. The will hath no necessity, but what God and her self imposes; for it can chuse in despight of all arguments and notices from the understanding. For if it can despise an argument from reason, it can also despise an argument from sense; if it can refuse a good argument, it can also refuse a foolish one: if it can chuse and not yield to religion, it can also chuse and not yield to interest. If it can reject profit, it can reject pleasure; if it can refuse every argument, it can refuse all, and will because it will; it can as well be malicious as do unreasonably: and there could be no sin at all, if the will never did amiss but when it were deceived: and even when the will chuses pleasure before Heaven, it is not because that seems better, but because it will chuse against all reason, only upon its own account. For it is certain, he that chuses any thing upon that which he knows is but a seeming and a fallacious reason, may if he please do it without all reason: and so the will can do, against reason, in despight of powers, and hopes, and interest, and threatning. * And therefore whatsoever is voluntarily chosen, let it be taken care of, that it be good; for if it be not, there can no excuse come from thence.

63. The will is the only fountain, and proper principle of sin, insomuch as the fact is no sin, if it be involuntary; but the willing is a sin, though no act follows. Latro est etiam antequam inquinet manus, said Seneca: Fecit enim quisquam quantum voluit. If he hath will'd it, he hath done it before God. To this purpose is that saying of Tertullian. Voluntas sacti origo est, quae ne tunc quidem liberatur cùm aliqua difficultas perpetrationem ejus intercepit. Ipsa enim sibi imputatur, nec excusari poterit per illam perficiendi infelicitatem, operata quod suum fuerat. Want of power excuses every thing but the will, because this always hath power to do its own work, and what cannot be done besides, as it is nothing to the will, so it is nothing to its excuse. To will is the formality of sin, and therefore whatever action had its commission from thence, is not a sin of infirmity. For nothing is a sin of infirmity, but what is in some sence involuntary.

64. The summ is this. Sin puts on its excuse, and becomes a sin of infirmity upon no account, but upon the account of ignorance, or something analogical to it, such as are inadvertency, or surprise, which are to ignorance as acts are to habits. The weak brother, Rom. 14.1, 10. in S. Paul's dialect, is he that hath no knowledge. For since nothing leads the will, but the understanding, unless it goes alone, and moves by its own act or principle; if the understanding be inculpably misled, the will may be in error, but not in sin, it is abused, but shall not be condemned. For no man can be tied to do more or better than he understands, for that would be to do more than he can. If the understanding abuse the will, there is evil in it, but no sin: but if the will abuse the understanding, then it is criminal. That is, where the man understands not, or cannot consider, or deliberate, all his actions by being less humane are less imputable. [...].Comoed. vet. Gr. But where there is no knowledge, there is no power, and no choice, and no sin. They increase and decrease by each others measures. S. James his rule is the full measure of this discourse: To him that knoweth to do good, and doth it not, James 4.17. to him it is sin. The same with that of Philo. [...]. To him that sins ignorantly pardon is given, that is, easily: but he who sins knowingly, hath no excuse. And therefore the Hebrews use to oppose [...] sin, to [...] ignorance; that is, the issues of a wicked from the issues of a weak mind: according to that saying of our blessed Saviour, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; that is, no great or very unpardonable sin. Ignorance,John 10.41. where of it self it is no sin, keeps the action innocent; but as the principle is polluted, so also is the emanation.

SECT. VIII. Practical Advices to be added to the foregoing Considerations.

[Page]

65. I. SINCE our weak nature is the original of our imperfections and sinful infirmities, it is of great concernment that we treat our natures so, as to make them aptly to minister to religion, but not to vice. Nature must be preserved as a servant, but not indulged to as a Mistress; for she is apt to be petulant, and after the manner of women.

— quae faciunt graviora coactae

Imperio sexus —

She will insult impotently, and rule tyrannically. Natures provisions of meat and drink are to be retrench'd and moderate, that she may not be luxuriant and irregular: but she ought to be refreshed so as to be useful, and healthful, and chearful, even in the days of expiation and sorrow. For he that fasts to kill his lust, and by fasting grows peevish, which to very many men is a natural effect of fasting, and was sadly experimented in S. Hierome, hath only altered the signification of his evil: and it is not easily known, whether the beast that is wanton, or the beast that is curst be aptest to goar; and if in such cases the first evil should be cured, yet the man is not.

66. But there are in nature some things which are the instruments of vertue and vice too: some things which of themselves indeed are culpable, but yet such which do minister to glorious events, and such which as they are not easily corrigible, so they are not safe to be done away. Dabo maximae famae viros, A. Gellius 19▪ 12. & 17.15. & inter admiranda propositos, quos si quis corrigit delet. Sic enim vitia virtutibus immixta sunt, ut illas sicum tractura sint. If the natural anger of some men be taken off, you will also extinguish their courage, or make them unfit for government. Vice and vertue sometimes go together: in these cases that which we call vicious is in many degrees of it a natural infirmity, and must be tempered as well as it can: but it neither can, nor indeed ought to be extinguished: and therefore as we must take care that nature run not into extravagancies; so for the unalterable portions of infirmity, they ought to be the matter of humility, and watchfulness, but not of scruple and vexation. However, we must be careful that nature be not Gods enemy; for if a vice be incorporated into our nature, that is, if our natural imperfections be chang'd into evil customs; it is a threefold cord that is not easily broken: it is a legion of Devils, and not to be cast out without a mighty labour, and all the arts and contentions of the Spirit of God.

67. II. In prosecution of this, propound to thy self as the great business of thy life to fight against thy passions. We see that sin is almost unavoidable to young men, because passion seises upon their first years. The days of our youth is the reign of passion; and sin rides in triumph upon the wheels of desire, which run infinitely, when the boy drives the chariot. But the religion of a Christian is an open war against passion; and by the grace of meekness, if we list to study and to acquire that, hath plac'd us in the regions of safety.

68. III. Be not uncertain in thy resolutions, or in chusing thy state of life: because all uncertainties of mind, and vagabond resolutions leave a man in the tyranny of all his follies and infirmities: every thing can transport him, and he can be forc'd by every temptation, and every fancy, or new accident can ruine him. He that is not resolv'd and constant, is yet in a state of deliberation, and that supposes contrary appetites to be yet in the ballance, and sin to be as strong as grace. But besides this, there are in every state of life many little things to be overcome, and objections to be master'd, and proper infirmities adherent, which are to be cured in the progression and growth of a man, and after experiment had of that state of life in which we are ingaged; but therefore it is necessary that we begin speedily, lest we have no time to begin that work which ought in some measure to be finish'd before we die. ‘[Page]Dum quid sis dubitas, jam potes esse nihil.’ He that is uncertain what to do, shall never do any thing well; and there is no infirmity greater, than that a man shall not be able to determine himself what he ought to do.

69. IV. In contentions against sin and infirmities, let your force and your care be applied to that part of the wall that is weakest, and where it is most likely the enemy will assault thee, and if he does, that he will prevail. If a lustful person should bend all his prayers and his observations against envy, he hath cur'd nothing of his nature and infirmity. Some lusts our temper or our interest will part withal; but our infirmities are in those desires which are hardest to be master'd: that is, when after a long dispute, and perpetual contention, still there will abide some pertinacious string of an evil root; when the lust will be apt upon all occasions to revert, when every thing can give fire to it, and every heat can make it stir; that is the scene of our danger, and ought to be of greatest warfare and observation.

70. V. He that fights against that lust which is the evil spring of his proper infirmities, must not do it by single instances, but by a constant and universal, mortal fight. He that does single spights to a lust; as he that opposes now and then a fasting day against carnality, or some few alms against oppression or covetousness, will find that these single acts (if nothing else be done) can do nothing but cosen him: they are apt to perswade easie people that they have done what is in them to cure their infirmity, and that their condition is good; but it will not do any thing of that work whither they are design'd. We must remember that infirmities are but the reliques and remains of an old lust, and are not cured but at the end of a lasting war. They abide even after the conquest, after their main body is broken, and therefore cannot at all be cured by those light velitations and pickqueerings of single actions of hostility.

71. VI. When a violent temptation assaults thee, remember that this violence is not without, but within. Thou art weak, and that makes the burden great. Therefore whatever advices thou art pleased to follow in opposition to the temptation without, be sure that thou place the strongest guards within, and take care of thy self. And if thou dost die, or fall foully, seek not an excuse from the greatness of the temptation; for that accuses thee most of all: the bigger the temptation is, it is true that oftentimes thou art the more to blame; but at the best, it is a reproof of thy imperfect piety. He whose religion is greater than the temptation of a 100. l. and yet falls in the temptation of a 1000. l. sets a price upon God and upon Heaven; and though he will not sell Heaven for a 100. l. yet a 1000. l. he thinks is a worthy purchase.

72. VII. Never think that a temptation is too strong for thee, if thou givest over fighting against it: for as long as thou didst continue thy contention, so long it prevail'd not: but when thou yieldest basely, or threwest away thy arms, then it forraged, and did mischief, and slew thee, or wounded thee dangerously. No man knows, but if he had stood one assault more, the temptation would have left him. Be not therefore pusillanimous in a great trial: It is certain thou canst do all that which God requires of thee, if thou wilt but do all that thou canst do.

73. VIII. Contend every day against that which troubles thee every day. For there is no peace in this war; and there are not many infirmities, or principles of failing, greater than weariness of well doing; for besides that it proclaims the weakness of thy resolution, and the infancy of thy piety, and thy undervaluing religion, and thy want of love, it is also a direct yielding to the Enemy: for since the greatest scene of infirmities lies in the manner of our piety, he that is religious only by uncertain periods, and is weary of his duty, is not arriv'd so far as to plead the infirmities of willing people; for he is in the state of death and enmity.

74. IX. He that would master his infirmities, must do it at Gods rate, and not at his own: he must not start back when the burden pinches him; nor refuse his repentances because they smart, nor omit his alms because they are expensive: for it is vain to propound to our selves any end, and yet to decline the use of those means, and instruments, without which it is not to be obtained. He that will buy must take it at the sellers price; and if God will not give thee safety or immunity, but upon the exchange of labour, and contradictions, fierce contentions, and mortification of our appetites, we must go to the cost, or quit the purchase·

[Page]75. X. He that will be strong in grace, and triumph in good measures over his infirmities, must attempt his remedy by an active prayer. For prayer without labour is like 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,Enchir. c. 28. [...]. 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 [Page] 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 servile will, and a commanding lust: for he that is so miserable is in a state of infirmity and death; and will have a perpetual need of something to hide his folly, or to excuse it, but shall find nothing. He shall be forc'd to break his resolution, to sin against his conscience, to do after the manner of fools, who promise and pay not, who resolve and do not, who speak and remember not, who are fierce in their pretences and designs, but act them as dead men do their own Wills. They make their Will, but die and do nothing themselves.

82. XVII. Endeavour to do what can never be done: that is, to cure all thy infirmities. For this is thy victory for ever to contend: and although God will leave a remnant of Canaanites in the land to be thy daily exercise, and endearment of care and of devotion; yet you must not let them alone, or entertain a treaty of peace with them. But when you have done something, go on to finish it: It is infinite pity that any good thing should be spent or thrown away upon a lust: But if we sincerely endeavour to be masters of every action, we shall be of most of them; and for the rest, they shall trouble thee, but do thee no other mischief. We must keep the banks, that the Sea break not in upon us; but no man can be secure against the drops of rain that fall upon the heads of all mankind: but yet every man must get as good shelter as he can.

The PRAYER.

I.

O Almighty God, the Father of Mercy and Holiness, thou art the fountain of grace and strength, and thou blessest the sons of men by turning them from their iniquities; shew the mightiness of thy power and the glories of thy grace, by giving me strength against all my enemies, and victory in all temptations, and watchfulness against all dangers, and caution in all difficulties, and hope in all my fears, and recollection of mind in all distractions of spirit and fancy, that I may not be a servant of chance or violence, of interest or passion, of fear or desire, but that my will may rule the lower man, and my understanding may guide my will, and thy holy Spirit may conduct my understanding, that in all contentions thy Spirit may prevail, and in all doubts I may chuse the better part, and in the midst of all contradictions, and temptations, and infelicities, I may be thy servant infallibly and unalterably. Amen.

II.

[Page]

BLessed Jesu, thou art our High-priest, and encompassed with infirmities, but always without sin, relieve and pity me, O my gracious Lord, who am encompassed with infirmities, but seldom or never without sin. O my God, my ignorances are many, my passions violent, my temptations ensnaring and deceitful, my observation little, my inadvertencies innumerable, my resolutions weak, my dangers round about me, my duty and obligations full of variety, and the instances very numerous; O be thou unto me wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. Thou hast promised thy holy Spirit to them that ask him, let thy Spirit help my infirmities, give to me his strengths, instruct me with his notices, encourage me with his promises, affright me with his terrors, confirm me with his courage, that I being readily prepared and furnished for every good work, may grow with the increase of God to the full measure of the stature and fulness of thee my Saviour; that though my outward man decay and decrease, yet my inner man may be renewed day by day; that my infirmities may be weaker, and thy grace stronger, and at last may triumph over the decays of the old man. O be thou pleased to pity my infirmities, and pardon all those actions which proceed from weak principles; that when I do what I can, I may be accepted, and when I fail of that, I may be pitied and pardoned, and in all my fights and necessities may be defended and secured, prospered and conducted to the regions of victory and triumph, of strength and glory, through the mercies of God, and the grace of our Lord Jesus, and the blessed communication of the Spirit of God and our Lord Jesus. Amen.

CHAP. IX. Of the Effect of Repentance, viz. Remission of Sins.

[Page]

SECT. I.

1. THE Law written in the Heart of man is a Law of Obedience, which because we prevaricated, we are taught another, which (S. Austin says) is written in the Heart of Angels: Lib. 6. contr. Julian. c. 9. Vt nulla sit iniquitas impunita, nisi quam sanguis Mediatoris expiaverit. For God the Father spares no sinner, but while he looks upon the face of his Son: but that in him our sins should be pardon'd, and our persons spared, is as necessary a consideration as any.S. Ambr. de poenit. l. 1. c. 2. Nemo enim potest benè agere poenitentiam, nisi qui speraverit indulgentiam. To what purpose does God call us to Repentance, if at the same time he does not invite us to pardon? It is the state and misery of the damned, to repent without hope; and if this also could be the state of the penitent in this life, the Sermons of Repentance were useless and comfortless, Gods mercies were none at all to sinners, the institution and office of preaching and reconciling penitents were impertinent, and man should die by the laws of Angels, who never was enabled to live by their strength and measures; and consequently, all mankind were infinitely and eternally miserable, lost irrecoverably, perishing without a Saviour, tied to a Law too hard for him, and condemned by unequal and intolerable sentences.

2. Tertullian considering that God threatens all impenitent sinners, argues demonstratively:Lib. 2. de poenit. Neque enim comminaretur non poenitenti, si non ignosceret delinquenti. If men repent not, God will be severely angry; it will be infinitely the worse for us if we do not, and shall it be so too if we do repent? God forbid. Frustra mortuus est Christus, S. Hierom. Epist. ad Ocean. si aliquos vivificare non potest. Mentitur Johannes Baptista, & digito Christum & voce demonstrans, Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi, si sunt adhuc in saeculo quorum Christus peccata non tulerit. ‘In vain did Christ die, if he cannot give life to all. And the Baptist deceiv'd us when he pointed out Christ unto us, saying, Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, if there were any in the world whose sins Christ hath not born.’

3. But God by the old Prophets called upon them who were under the Covenant of works in open appearance, Exod. 34.6. Psal. 103. per totum & 128. Isa. 55.7, 8. Jer. 18.7, 8. Ezek. 18.21, 22. & 33.11. Dan. 4.27. Mal. 3.7. Joel 2.13. Jonah 4.2. & 3.9. that they also should repent, and by antedating the mercies of the Gospel, promised pardon to the penitent; He promised mercy by Moses and the Prophets; He proclaimed his Name to be Mercy and Forgiveness; He did solemnly swear he did not desire the death of a sinner, but that he should repent and live; and the holy Spirit of God hath respersed every book of holy Scripture with great and legible lines of mercy, and Sermons of Repentance. In short, It was the summ of all the Sermons which were made by those whom God sent with his word in their mouths, that they should live innocently, or when they had sinned they should repent and be sav'd from their calamity.

4. But when Christ came into the world, he open'd the fountains of mercy, and broke down all the banks of restraint, he preach'd Repentance, offer'd health, gave life, call'd all wearied and burthen'd persons to come to him for ease and remedy, he glorified his Fathers mercies, and himself became the great instrument and channel of its emanation. He preach'd and commanded mercy by the example of God; he made his Religion that he taught to be wholly made up of doing and receiving good, this by Faith, that by Charity. He commanded an indefinite and unlimited forgiveness of our brother, repenting after injuries done to us seventy times seven times: and though there could be little question of that, yet he was pleased to signifie to us, that [Page] as we needed more, so we should have and find more mercy at the hands of God. And therefore he hath appointed a whole order of men, whom he maintains at his own charges, and furnishes with especial commissions;Mat. 18.15, 16. John 20.23. 2 Cor. 7.10. Gal. 6.1. Jam 1.15, 16, 19, 20. 1 John 2.11. & 1.9. Rev. 2.5. & 3.1, 2, 3, 19, 20. and endues with a lasting power, and imploys on his own errand, and instructs with his own Spirit, whose business is to remit and retain, to exhort and to restore sinners by the means of Repentance, and the word of their proper Ministery. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; that's their Authority: and their Office is, to pray all men in Christs stead to be reconciled to God. And after all this, Christ himself labours to bring it to effect; not only assisting his Ministers with the gifts of an excellent Spirit, and exacting of them the account of Souls, but that it may be prosperous and effectual, himself intercedes in Heaven before the Throne of Grace, doing for sinners the office of an Advocate and a Reconciler. If any man sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, and he is the propitiation for all our sins, and for the sins of the whole world: 1 John 2.2, 3. and therefore it is not only the matter of our hopes, but an Article of our Creed, that we may have forgiveness of our sins by the blood of Jesus. Qui nullum excepit, in Christo donavit omnia. God hath excepted none, and therefore in Christ pardons all.

5. For there is not in Scripture any Catalogue of sins set down for which Christ died, and others excluded from that state of mercy. All that believe and repent shall be pardon'd, if they go and sin no more. Deus distinctionem non facit, qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus, Lib. 1. de poenit. c. 2. & relaxandi licentiam sacerdotibus suis sine ullâ exceptione concessit, said S. Ambrose. God excepts none, but hath given power to his Ministers to release all, absolutely all. And S. Bernard argues this Article upon the account of those excellent examples which the Spirit of God hath consign'd to us in holy Scripture.In solenni Petri & Pauli Ser. 3. ‘If Peter after so great a fall did arrive to such an eminence of sanctity, hereafter who shall despair, provided that he will depart from his sins?’ For that God is ready to forgive the greatest Criminals if they repent, appears in the instances of Ahab and Manasses, of Mary Magdalen and S. Paul, of the Thief on the Cross and the deprehended Adulteress, and of the Jews themselves, who after they had crucified the Lord of life, were by messengers of his own invited, passionately invited to repent, and be purified with that blood which they had sacrilegiously and impiously spilt. But concerning this, who please may read S. Austin discoursing upon those words, Mittet Crystallum suum sicut buccellas; which, saith he, mystically represent the readiness of God to break and make contrite even the hearts of them that have been hardened in impiety. Quo loco consistent poenitentiam agentes, ibi justi non poterunt stare, said the Doctors of the Jews.Gemara de Synedrio, c. 11. The just and innocent persons shall not be able to stand in the same place where the penitent shall be. Pacem, pacem remoto & propinquo, ait Dominus, ut sanem eum. Peace to him that is afar off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord, that I may heal him. Praeponit remotum: That's their observations; He that is afar off is set before the other; that is, he that is at great distance from God, as if God did use the greater earnestness to reduce him. Upon which place their gloss adds; Magna est virtus eorum qui poenitentiam agunt, ita ut nulla Creatura in septo illorum consistere queat. So great is the vertue of them that are true penitents, that no creature can stand within their inclosure. And all this is far better expressed by those excellen [...] words of our blessed Saviour,Luke 15.7. There is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety nine just persons that need no repentance.

6. I have been the longer in establishing and declaring the proper foundation of this Article, upon which every one can declaim, but every one cannot believe it in the day of temptation; because I guess what an intolerable evil it is to despair of pardon, by having felt the trouble of some very great fears. And this were the less necessary, but that it is too commonly true, that they who repent least, are most confident of their pardon, or rather least consider any reasons against their security: but when a man truly apprehends the vileness of his sin, he ought also to consider the state of his danger, which is wholly upon the stock of what is past; that is, his danger is this, that he knows not when, or whether, or upon what terms God will pardon him in particular. But of this I shall have a more apt occasion to speak in the following periods. For the present, the Article in general is established upon the testimonies of the greatest certainty.

SECT. II. Of Pardon of Sins committed after Baptism.

[Page]

7. BUT it may be our easiness of life, and want of discipline, and our desires to reconcile our pleasures and temporal satisfactions with the hopes of Heaven, hath made us apt to swallow all that seems to favour our hopes. But it is certain that some Christian Doctors have taught the Doctrine of Repentance with greater severity than is intimated in the premises. For all the examples of pardon consign'd to us in the Old Testament, are nothing to us who live under the New, and are to be judged by other measures. And as for those instances which are recorded in the New Testament, and all the promises and affirmations of pardon, they are sufficiently verified in that pardon of sins which is first given to us in Baptism, and at our first Conversion to Christianity. Thus when S. Stephen prayed for his persecutors, and our blessed Lord himself on his uneasie death-bed of the Cross, prayed for them that Crucified him, it can only prove, that these great sins are pardonable in our first access to Christ, because they for whom Christ and his Martyr S. Stephen prayed, were not yet converted, and so were to be saved by Baptismal Repentance. Then the Power of the Keys is exercised, and the gates of the Kingdom are opened, then we enter into the Covenant of mercy and pardon, and promise faith and perpetual obedience to the laws of Jesus; and upon that condition, forgiveness is promised and exhibited, offer'd and consign'd, but never after: for it is in Christianity for all great sins, as in the Civil Law for theft. Qui eâ mente alienum quid contrectavit ut lucrifaceret, L. 65. D. de furtis, & l. 1. D. de Aedilitio edicto. tametsi mutato consilio id Domino postea reddidit, fur est: nemo enim tali peccato poenitentiâ suâ nocens esse desinit, said Vlpian, and Gaius. Repentance does not here take off the punishment, nor the stain. And so it seems to be in Christianity, in which every baptized person having stipulated for obedience, is upon those terms admitted to pardon, and consequently if he fails of his duty, he shall fail of the grace.

8. But that this objection may proceed no further, it is certain that it is an infinite lessening of the mercy of God in Jesus Christ to confine pardon of sins only to the Font. For that even lapsed Christians may be restored by repentance, and be pardoned, appears in the story of the incestuous Corinthian, and the precept of S. Paul to the spiritual man, or the Curate of souls. If any man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such a man in the spirit of meekness, Gal. 6.1. considering thy self lest thou also be tempted. The Christian might fall, and the Corinthian did so, and the Minister himself, he who had the ministery of restitution and reconciliation, was also in danger:James 5.15. and yet they all might be restored. To the same sence is that of S. James, Is any man sick among you? let him send for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him. [...], although he was a doer of sins, they shall be forgiven him. For there is an [...], a sin that is not unto death. And therefore when S. Austin in his first Book de Sermone Dei, had said that there is some sin so great that it cannot be remitted, he retracts his words with this clause, addendum fuit, &c. ‘I should have added, If in so great perverseness of mind he ends his life.’ For we must not despair of the worst sinner, we may not despair of any, since we ought to pray for all.

9. For it is beyond exception or doubt, that it was the great work of the Apostles, and of the whole new Testament, to engage men in a perpetual repentance. For since all men do sin, all men must repent, or all men must perish. And very many periods of Scripture are directed to lapsed Christians, baptized persons fallen into grievous crimes,Acts 8.22. calling them to repentance. So Simon Peter to Simon Magus, [...], Repent of thy wickedness; and to the Corinthian Christians S. Paul urges the purpose of his legation, We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God. The Spirit of God reprov'd some of the Asian Churches for foul misdemeanours, and even some of the Angels, Apocal. 2.16. the Asian Bishops, calling upon them to return to their first love, and to repent and to do their first works;Ver. 5. Ver. 21. and to the very Gnosticks, and filthiest Hereticks he gave space to repent, and threatned extermination to them if they did not do it speedily. For,

[Page]10. Baptism is [...], the admission of us to the Covenant of Faith and Repentance, or as Mark the Anchoret call'd it, [...], the introduction to repentance, or that state of life that is full of labour and care, and amendment of our faults; for that is the best life that any man can live: and therefore repentance hath its progress after baptism, as it hath its beginning before: for first repentance is unto baptism, and then baptism unto repentance. And if it were otherwise, the Church had but ill provided for the state of her sons and daughters by commanding the baptism of Infants. For if repentance were not allowed after, then their early baptism would take from them all hopes of repentance, and destroy the mercies of the Gospel, and make it now to all Christendom a law of works in the greater instances; because since in our infancy we neither need, nor can perform repentance,Vide Great Exemplar, Part 1. Disc. of Baptism, pag. 175. &c. if to them that sin after baptism, repentance be denied, it is in the whole denied to them for ever to repent. But God hath provided better things for us, and such which accompany salvation.

11. For besides those many things which have been already consider'd, our admission to the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is a perpetual entertainment of our hopes: because then and there is really exhibited to us the body that was broken, and the blood that was shed for remission of sins: still it is applied, and that application could not be necessary to be done anew, if there were not new necessities; and still we are invited to do actions of repentance, to examine our selves and so to eat: all which (as things are order'd) would be infinitely useless to mankind, if it did not mean pardon to Christians falling into foul sins even after baptism.

12. I shall add no more but the words of S. Paul to the Corinthians; Lest when I come again, my God will humble me among you, 2 Cor. 12.21. and that I shall bewail many who have sinn'd already, and have not repented of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness, which they have committed. Here is a fierce accusation of some of them, for the foulest and the basest crimes; and a reproof of their not repenting, and a threatning them with censures Ecclesiastical. I suppose this article to be sufficiently concluded from the premises. The necessity of which proof they only will best believe, who are severely penitent, and full of apprehension and fear of the Divine anger, because they have highly deserved it. However, I have serv'd my own needs in it, and the need of those whose consciences have been, or shall be so timorous as mine hath deserved to be. But against the universality of this doctrine there are two grand objections; The one is the severer practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, denying repentance to some kind of sinners after baptism. The other, the usual discourses and opinions concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost. Of these I shall give account in the two following Sections.

SECT. III. Of the Difficulty of obtaining Pardon: The Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church in this Article.

13. NOvatianus and Novatus said, that the Church had not power to minister pardon of sins except only in Baptism: which proposition when they had well digested and considered, they did thus explicate. That there are some capital sins, crying and clamorous, into which if a Christian did fall after baptism, the Church had nothing to do with him, she could not absolve him.

14. This opinion of theirs, was a branch of the elder Heresie of Montanus, De pud [...] &c. 9. which had abus'd Tertullian, who fiercely declaims against the decree of Pope Zephyrinus, because against the custom of his Decessors he admitted adulterers to repentance, while at the same time he refus'd idolaters and murderers. And this their severity did not seem to be put upon the account of a present necessity, or their own zeal, or for the avoiding scandal, or their love of holiness; but upon the nature of the thing it self, and the sentences of Scripture. An old man of whom Irenaeus makes mention, said; Non debemus superbi esse, neque reprehendere veteres, ne fortè post agnitionem Dei agentes aliquid quod non placet Deo, remissionem non habeamus ultrà delictorum, Lib. 4. c. & excludamur à regno ejus. ‘We must not be proud and reprove our Fathers, lest [Page] after the knowledge of God, we doing something that does not please God, we may no more have remission of our sins, but be excluded from his Kingdom.’ To the same purpose is that Canon made by the Gallic Bishops against the false accusers of their brethren; ut ad exitum ne communicent: that they should not be admitted to the Communion or peace of the Church, no not at their death. And Pacianus Bishop of Barcinona gives a severe account of the doctrine of the Spanish Churches even in his time, and of their refusing to admit idolaters, murderers, and adulterers to repentance. ‘Other sins may be cured by the exercise of good works. But these three kill like the breath of a Basilisk, and are to be feared like a deadly arrow. They that were guilty of such crimes did despair.Paran. ad poenit. What have I done to you? was it not in your power to have let it alone? Did no man admonish you? Did none foretel the event? Was the Church silent? Did the Gospels say nothing? Did the Apostles threaten nothing? Did the Priest intreat nothing of you? why do you seek for late comforts? Then you might have sought for them, when they were to be had. But they that pronounce such men happy do but abuse you.’

15. This opinion and the consequent practice, had its fate in several places to live longer or die sooner. And in Africa the decree of Zephyrinus for the admission of penitent adulterers,S. Cyprian. ep. 52. was not admitted even by the Orthodox and Catholicks; but they dissented placidly and modestly, and governed their own Churches by the old severity. For there was then no thought of any necessity that other Churches should obey the sanctions of the Pope, or the decrees of Rome, but they retain'd the old Discipline. But yet the piety and the reasonableness of the decree of Zephyrinus prevail'd by little and little, and adulterers were admitted; but the severity stuck longer upon idolaters or apostates: for they were not to be admitted to the peace of the Church, although they should afterwards suffer martyrdom for the name of Christ: and for this they pretended the words of S. Paul, Non possunt admitti secundum Apostolum, Heb. 6.4, 5.6. Vbi supra. as S. Cyprian expresly affirms; and the same is the sentence of the first Canon of the Council of Eliberis.

16. When they began to remit of this rigor (which they did in or about S. Cyprians time) they did admit these great criminals to repentance. Once, but, no more; as appears in De poenit. Tertullian, the Council of Can. 7. Eliberis, the Synod at Syde in Pamphylia against the Messalians, Lib. 2. de poenit. c. 10. S. Ambrose, Ep. 54. S. Austin, and Ep. 53. Hom. 15. in 25. cap. Levit. Macedonius; which makes it suspicious that the words of Origen are interpolated, saying, In gravioribus criminibus semel tantùm vel rarò poenitentiae conceditur locus. But once or but seldom; so the words are now; but the practice of that age was not so remiss, for they gave once and no more: as appears in the foregoing Authors, and in the eleventh Canon of the third Council of Toledo. Stromat. lib. 2. For as S. Clemens of Alexandria affirms, Apparet, sed non est poenitentia saepe petere de iis quae saepe peccantur. It is but a seeming repentance, that falls often after a frequent return.

17. But this gentleness (for it was the greatest they then had) they ministred to such only as desir'd it in their health, and in the days in which they could live the lives of penitents, and make amends for their folly. For if men had liv'd wickedly, and on their death-bed desir'd to be admitted to repentance and pardon, they refus'd them utterly;Epist. 52. as appears in that excellent Epistle of S. Cyprian to Antonianus: Prohibendos omnino censuimus à specommunionis & pacis, si in infirmitate atque periculo coeperint deprecari; at no hand are those to be admitted to Church communion, who repent only in their danger and weakness, because not repentance of their fault, but the hasty warning of instant or approaching death compell'd them: neither is he worthy in death to receive the comfort, who did not think he was to die. And consequently to this severity, in his Sermon de lapsis, he advises that every man should confess his sin, while his confession can be admitted, while his satisfaction may be acceptable, and his pardon ratified by God. The same was decreed by the Fathers in the Synod of Arles. Arelat. 1. c. 23.

18. This was severe, if we judge of it by the manners and propositions of the present age. But iniquity did so abound, and was so far from being cured by this severe discipline, that it made this discipline to be intolerable and useless. And therefore even from this also they did quickly retire.Innocent. epist. ad Exuper. For in the time of Innocentius and S. Austin they began not only to impose penances on dying penitents, but even after a wicked life to reconcile them. They then first began to do it; but as it usually happens in first attempts, and insolent actions, they were fearful, and knew not the event, and would warrant nothing. To hinder them that are in peril of death from the use of the last remedy, is hard and impious; but to promise any thing in so late a cure [Page]is temerarious. So Salvian: and S. Chrysostome to Theodorus would not have such persons despaired, so neither nourish'd up by hope: only it is better,Salvian. nihil inexpertum relinquere quàm morientem nolle curare, to try every way, rather than that the dying penitent should fail for want of help. But Isidore said plainly, He who living wickedly, repents in the time of his death, as his damnation is uncertain, so his pardon is doubtful.

19. This was the most dangerous indulgence, and easiness of doctrine, that had as yet entred into the Church; but now it was tumbling, and therefore could not stop here, but presently, down went all severity. All sinners, and at all times, and as often as they would, might be admitted to repentance and pardon; whether they could or could not perform the stations and injunctions of the penitents; and this took off the edge of publick and Ecclesiastical repentance; and to this succeeded private repentance, where none but God and the Priest were witnesses; and because this was a recession from the old discipline, and of it self an abuse, or but the reliques of discipline at the best, and therefore not necessary because it was but an imperfect supply of something that was better, this also is in some places [...]aid aside, in others too much abus'd. But of that in its place.

20. But now that I may give an account concerning the first severity: Concerning their not admitting those three sorts of Criminals to repentance, but denying it to none else, I consider, 1. That there is no place of Scripture that was pretended to exclude those three Capital sins from hopes of pardon. For one of them there was, of which I shall give account in the following periods Sect. 4: but for murder and adultery there were very many authorities of Scripture to prove them pardonable, but none to prove them unpardonable. 2. What can be pretended why idolatry, murder, and adultery, should be less pardonable (if repented of) than Incest, Treason, Heresie, Sodomy, or Sacriledge? These were not denied; and yet some of them are greater Criminals than some that were: but the value is set upon crimes as men please. 3. That even in these three cases the Church did allow Repentance in the very beginning, appears beyond exception in Irenaeus, Lib. 1. c. 9. Hae saepissime conversae ad Ecclesiam Dei confessae sunt, & secundum corpus exterminatas se ab eo, velut cupidine, &c. who writes concerning the women seduced by the Heretick Marck, and so guilty of both Adulteries, carnal and spiritual, that they were admitted to repentance. 4. S. Clemens of Alexandria affirms indefinitely, concerning all persons lapsed after Baptism, that they may be restored and pardon'd. Strom. 4. [...]. They that fall into sins after Baptism, must be chastened. For those things which were committed before Baptism are pardoned, but they which are committed afterwards, are to be purged. For it is certain, that God did not shut up the fountain which he opened in Baptism. Then he smote the Rock, and the stream flowed out, and it became a river, and ran in dry places. 5. It is more than probable that in Egypt it was very ordinary to admit lapsed persons, and even Idolaters [...]o repentance, because of the strange levity of the Nation, and that even the Bishops did at the coming of Hadrianus the Emperor devote themselves to Serapis. Illi qui Serapim colunt Christiani sunt: & devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi Episcopos dicunt. So the Emperor testifies in his letters to Servianus. Apud Spartian. For it is not to be suppos'd that it was part of their perswasion that they might lawfully do it, or that it was solemn and usual so to do; but that to avoid persecution they did chuse rather to seem unconstant and changeable than to be kill'd, especially in that Nation, which was tota levis & pendula, & ad omnia famae momenta volans (as these letters say) light and inconstant, tossed about with every noise of fame and variety. These Bishops after the departure of Caesar, without peradventure did many of them return to their charges, and they and their Priests pardon'd each other; just as the Libellatici and the Thurificati did in Carthage and all Africa, as S. Cyprian relates. 6. In Ephrem Syrus there is a form of Confession and of Prayer for the pardon of foul sins: [...]. Have mercy on my sins, my injustices, my covetousness, (which some render) unnatural lusts, my adulteries and fornications, my idle and filthy speakings. If these after Baptism are pardonable, Quid non speremus? the former severity must be understood not to be their Doctrine but their Discipline.

21. And the same is to be said concerning their giving Repentance but to those whom they did admit after Baptism, we find it expresly affirm'd by the next ages, that the purpose of their Fathers was only for Discipline and caution. So S. Austin; The Church did cautiously and healthfully provide, that penitents should but once be admitted, Epist. 54 lest a [Page]frequent remedy should become contemptible; yet who dares say, Why do ye again spare this man, who after his first repentance is again intangled in the snares of sin?

22. So that whereas some of them use to say of certain sins, that after Baptism, or after the first relapse they are unpardonable, we must know, that in the style of the Church, Vnpardonable signified such to which by the Discipline and Customs of the Church pardon was not ministred. They were called Vnpardonable, not because God would not pardon them, but because he alone could: this we learn from those words of Tertullian, Salvâ illâ poenitentiae specie post fidem quae aut levioribus delicti [...] veniam ab Episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus & irremissibilibus à Deo solo. The lighter or lesser sins might obtain pardon from the Ministery of the Bishop, ‘Hoc satis est, ipsi caetera mando Deo,’ The greatest and the Vnpardonable could obtain it of God alone: So that when they did deny to absolve some certain Criminals after Baptism, or after a relapse, they did not affirm the sins to be unpardonable, as we understand the word. Novatus himself did not,Lib. 4. cap. 14. for (as Socrates reports) he wrote to all the Churches every where, that they should not admit them, that had sacrificed, to the Mysteries, [...], but to exhort them to repentance, and yet to leave their pardon and absolution to him who is able, and hath authority to forgive sins. And the same also was the doctrine of Acesius his great Disciple, for which Constantine in Eusebius reprov'd him. Some single men have despair'd, but there was never any Sect of men that seal'd up the Divine Mercy by the locks and bars of Despair, much less did any good Christians ever do it.

23. And this we find expresly verified by the French Bishops in a Synod there held about the time of Pope Zephyrinus. Poenitentia ab his qui daemonibus Sacrificant, po [...]iùs legend. sanctificant agenda ad diem mortis, non sine spetamen remissionis, quam ab eo planè sperare debebunt qui ejus largitatem & solus obtinet, & tam dives misericordiae est ut nemo desperet. Although the Criminal must do penance to his dying day, that is, the Church will not absolve, or admit him to her communion, yet he must not be without hope of pardon, which yet is not to be hop'd for from the Church, but from him, who is so rich in mercy,Epist. 31. Quos separatos à nobis derelinquimus, &c. that no man may despair: and not long after this, S. Cyprian said, ‘Though we leave them in their separation from us, yet we have and do exhort them to repent, if by any means they can receive indulgence from him who can perform it.’

24. Now if it be enquired, what real effect this had upon the persons or souls of the offending, relapsing persons; the consideration is weighty and material. For to say the Church could not absolve such persons, in plain speaking seems to mean, that since the Church ministers nothing of her own, but is the Minister of the Divine mercy, she had no commission to promise pardon to such persons. If God had promised pardon to such Criminals, it is certain the Church was bound to preach it; but if she could not declare, preach, or exhibite any such promise, then there was no such promise; and therefore their sending them to God was but a put off, or a civil answer, saying, that God might do it if he please, but he had not signified his pleasure concerning them, and whether they who sinn'd so foully after Baptism, were pardonable, was no where revealed; and therefore all the Ministers of Religion were bound to say, they were unpardonable, that is, God never said he would pardon them, which is the full sence of the word Vnpardonable. For he that says, any sin is unpardonable, does not mean that God cannot pardon it, but that he will not, or that he hath not said, he will.

25. And upon the same account it seem'd unreasonable to S. Ambrose, that the Church should impose penances, and not release the penitents. He complain'd of the Novatians for so doing;Lib. 1. de poenit. c. 2. Cùm utique veniam negando incentivum auferant poenitentiae, The penitents could have little encouragement to perform the injunctions of their Confessors, when after they had done them they should not be admitted to the Churches communion. And indeed the case was hard, when it should be remembred that whatsoever the Church did bind on Earth was bound in Heaven, and if they retain'd them below, God would do so above; and therefore we find in Scripture that [...], to give repentance, being the purpose of Christ's coming, and the grace of the Gospel, does mean, to give the effect of Repentance, that is, pardon. And since Gods method is such, by giving the grace, and admitting us to do the duty, he consequently brings to that mercy, which is the end of that duty, it is fit, that should also be the method of the Church.

[Page]26. For the ballancing of this Consideration, we are further to consider, that though the Church had power to pardon in all things where God had declar'd he would, yet because in some sins the malice was so great, the scandal so intolerable, the effect so mischievous, the nature of them so contradictory to the excellent laws of Christianity, the Church many times could not give a competent judgment, whether any man that had committed great sins, had made his amends, and done a sufficient penance: and the Church not knowing whether their Repentance was worthy and acceptable to God, she could not pronounce their pardon, that is, she could not tell them whether upon those terms God had, or would pardon them in the present disposition.

27. For after great crimes, the state of a sinner is very deplorable by reason of his uncertain pardon; not that it is uncertain whether God will pardon the truly penitent, but that it is uncertain who is so; and all the ingredients into the judgment that is to be made, are such things which men cannot well discern, they cannot tell in what measures God will exact the Repentance, what sorrow is sufficient, what fruits acceptable, what is expiatory, and what rejected; according to the saying of Solomon, Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? Prov. 20.9. they cannot tell how long God will forbear, at what time his anger is final, and when he will refuse to hear, or what aggravations of the crime God looks on; nor can they make an estimate which is greater, the example of the sin, or the example of the punishment. And therefore in such great cases the Church had reason to refuse to give pardon, which she could minister neither certainly, nor prudently, nor (as the case then stood) safely or piously.

28. But yet she enjoyn'd Penances, that is, all the solemnities of Repentance, and to them the sinners stood bound in Earth, and consequently in Heaven (according to the words of our blessed Saviour) but she bound them no further. She intended charity and relief to them, not ruine and death eternal. On this she had no direct power, and if the penitent were obedient to her Discipline, then neither could they be prejudic'd by her indirect power, she sent them to God for pardon, and made them to prepare themselves accordingly. Her injunction of Penances was medicinal, and her refusing to admit them to the Communion, was an act of caution fitted to the present necessities of the Church. Nonnullae ideò poscunt poenitentiam, S. Ambros. lib. 2. de poenit. c. 9▪ ut statim sibi reddi communionem velint. Hae non tam se solvere cupiunt, quàm sacerdotem ligare. Some demand penances, that they may have speedy communion. These do not so much desire themselves to be loosed, as to have the Priest bound; that is, such hasty proceedings do not any good to the penitent, but much hurt to him that ministers. This the Primitive Church avoided; and this was the whole effect which that Discipline had upon the souls of the penitents. But for their Doctrine S. Austin is a sufficient witness: Sed neque de ipsis [...]riminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis, in Sanctâ Ecclesiâ Dei desperanda est misericordia agentibus poenitentiam secundum modum sui cujusque peccati. Ench [...]r. 6. They ought not to despair of Gods mercy, even to the greatest sinners, if they be the greatest penitents, that is, if they repent according to the measure of their sins. Only in the making their judgments concerning the measures of Repentance they differ'd from our practices. Ecclesiastical Repentance, and Absolution was not only an exercise of the duty, and an assisting of the penitent in his return, but it was also a warranting or ensuring the pardon; which because in many cases the Church could not so well do, she did better in not undertaking it; that is, in not pronouncing Absolution.

29. For the pardon of sins committed after Baptism, not being described in full measures; and though it be sufficiently signifi'd that any sin may be pardon'd, yet it not being told upon what conditions this or that great one shall, the Church did well and warily not to be too forward: for as S. Paul said, I am conscious to my self in nothing, yet I am not hereby justified: so we may say in Repentance, I have repented, and do so, but I am not hereby justified; because that is a secret which until the day of Judgment we shall not understand: for every repenting is not sufficient. He that repents worthily (let his sin be what it will) shall certainly be pardon'd; but after great crimes who does repent worthily, is a matter of harder judgment than the manners of the present age will allow us to make; and so secret, that they thought it not amiss very often to be backward in pronouncing the Criminal absolved.

30. But then all this whole affair must needs be a mighty arrest to the gayeties of this sinful age. For although Christs blood can expiate all sins, and his Spirit can sanctifie all sinners, and his Church can restore all that are capable; yet if we consider [Page] 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.

Ad Dan.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, 1 Tim. 5.22. 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.

[Page]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, Heb. 6.4, 5, 6. 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, Heb. 10.26, 27. 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 Tulli [...]s umbris,

Et te defendat Regulus ipse licèt:

Mart. Ep. l. 4, Ep. 16.

Non potes absolvi:—

[Page] 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 [...],Heb. 10.26. 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;1 John 3.9. 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. Gal. 5.17. 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. [...].Dial. contr. Tryph. 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, Mat. 12.32. 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 [Page] 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 the Son are easily pardon'd in baptism. I shall not need to refute this fond opinion, as being already done by S. Athanasius in a Book purposely written on this subject; and it falls alone; for that to sin against the Holy Ghost is not proper to Christians, appears in this, that Christ charg'd it upon the Pharisees: and that every sin of Christians is not this sin against the Holy Ghost, appears, because Christians are perpetually called upon to repent: for to what purpose should any man be called from his sin, if by returning he shall not escape damnation? or if he shall, then that sin is not against the Holy Ghost, or if it be, that sin is not unpardonable; either of which destroys their fond affirmative.

42. S. Austin makes final impenitence to be it: against which opinion, though many things may be oppos'd, yet it is openly confuted in being charged upon the Pharisees, who were not then guilty of final impenitence. But the instance clears the article. The Pharisees saw the light of Gods Spirit manifestly shining in the miracles which Christ did, and they did not only despise his Person and persecute it, which is speaking against the Son of Man, that is, sinning against him (for speaking against, is sinning or doing against it, in the Jews manner of expression) but they also spightfully and maliciously blasphemed that Spirit, and that power of God, by which they were convinc'd, and by which such Miracles were done. And this was that [...], that idle and unprofitable word spoken of in the following verses, by which Christ said they should be judged at the last day;Vers. 36. such which whosoever should speak, he should give account thereof in that day.

43. Now this was ever esteemed a high and an intolerable Crime; for it was not new, but an old Crime; only it was manifested by an appellative relating to a power and a name now more used than formerly. This was the sin for which Corah and his Company died, who did despise and reproach the works of God, his power and the mightiness of his hand manifested in his servant Moses. It is called sinning with a high hand, that is, with an hand lift up on high against God. Corah and his Company committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, for they spake against that Spirit and power, which God had put into Moses, and prov'd by the demonstration of mighty effects▪ It is a denying that great argument of Credibility, by which God goes about to verifie any mission of his, to prove by mighty effects of Gods Spirit, that God hath sent such a man. When God manifests his holy Spirit by signs and wonders extraordinary, not to revere this good Spirit, not to confess him, but to revile him, or to reproach the power, is that which God ever did highly punish.

44. Thus it happened to Pharaoh; he also sinn'd against the Holy Ghost, the good Spirit of God: for when his Magicians told him that the finger of God was there, yet he hardned his heart against it, and then God went on to harden it more till he overthrew him; for then his sin became unpardonable in the sence I shall hereafter explicate. And this pass'd into a law to the children of Israel, and they were warned of it with the highest threatning, that is, of a capital punishment, [The soul that doth ought presumptuously (or with an high hand) the same reproacheth the Lord, Numb. 15.30▪ that soul shall be cut off from among his people: and this is translated into the New Testament, They that do despite to the Spirit of Grace, shall fall into the hands of the living God. That's the sin against the Holy Ghost.

45. Now this sin must in all reason be very much greater under the Gospel than under the Law. For when Christ came he did such miracles which never any man did, and preach'd a better Law, and with mighty demonstrations of the Spirit, that is, of the power and Spirit of God, prov'd himself to have come from God, and therefore men were more convinc'd; and he that was so, and yet would oppose the Spirit, that is, defie all his proofs, and hear none of his words, and obey none of his laws, and at last revile him too, he had done the great sin; for this is to do the worst thing we can, we dishonour God in that in which he intended most to glorifie himself.

46. Two instances of this we find in the New Testament, though not of the highest degree, yet because done directly against the Spirit of God, that is, in despite or in disparagement of that Spirit by which so great things were wrought, it grew intolerable. Ananias did not revere the Spirit of God, so mightily appearing in S. Peter and the other Apostles, and he was smitten and died. Simon Magus took the Spirit of God for a vendible commodity, for a thing less than money, and fit to serve secular ends; and he instantly fell into the gall of bitterness, that is, a sad bitter calamity: and S. Peter knew not whether God would forgive him or no.

[Page]47. But it is remarkable, that the holy Scriptures note various degrees of this malignity; grieving the holy Spirit, resisting him, quenching him, doing despite to him: all sin against the Holy Ghost, but yet they that had done so, were all called to repentance. S. Stephens Sermon was an instance of it, and so was S. Peters, and so was the prayer of Christ upon the Cross, for the malicious Jews, the Pharisees, his betrayers and murtherers. But the sin it self is of an indefinite progression, and hath not physical limits and a certain constitution, as is observable in carnal crimes, Theft, Murther, or Adultery: for though even these are increased by circumstances, and an inward consent and degrees of love and adhesion; yet of the crime it self we can say, this is Murther, and this is Adultery, and therefore the punishment is proper and certain. But since there are so many degrees of the sin against the Holy Ghost, and it consists not in an indivisible point, but according to the nature of internal and spiritual sins, it is like time or numbers, of a moveable being, of a flux, unstable, immense constitution, and may be always growing, not only by the repetition of acts, but by its proper essential increment; and since in the particular case the measures are uncertain, the nature secret, the definition disputable, and so many sins are like it, or reducible to it, apt to produce despair in timorous consciences, and to discourage Repentance in lapsed persons, it will be an intolerable proposition that affirms the sin against the Holy Ghost to be absolutely unpardonable.

48. That the sin against the Holy Ghost is pardonable, appears in the instance of the Pharisees; to whom, even after they had committed the sin, God was pleased to afford preaching, signs and miracles, and Christ upon the Cross prayed for them; but in what sence also it was unpardonable, appears in their case; for they were so far 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, 1 Sam. 2.15. 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 [Page] 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 Vide infra numb. 66. 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 supposition the man does not repent.Quaest. 71. to 2▪ [...], said S. Athanasius. God did not say to him that blasphemes and repents, it shall not be forgiven, but to him that blasphemes and remains in his blasphemy: for there is no sin which God will not pardon to them that holily and worthily repent, S. Chrysost. in 1 Cor. hom. 8. [...]. To be wounded is not so grievous; but it is intolerable when the wounded man refuses to be cured. For it is considerable,

55. Whoever can repent may hope for pardon, else he could not be invited to repentance. I do not say, whoever can be sorrowful may hope for pardon: for there is a sorrow too late, then commencing when there is no time left to begin, much less to finish [...], as Athanasius calls it, a holy and a worthy repentance, and of such Philo affirmed, [...],In allegor. Some unhappy souls would fain be admitted to repentance, but God permits them not, that is, their time is past, and either they die before they can perform it, or if they live they return to their old impieties like water from a rock. But whoever can repent worthily, and leave their sin, and mortifie it, and make such amends as is required, these men ought not to despair of pardon: they may hope for mercy: and if they may hope they must hope, for not to do it, were the greatest crime of despair. For despair is no sin, but there to hope is a duty.

[Page]56. But if this be all, then the sin against the Holy Ghost hath no more said against it than any other sin; for if we repent not of theft, or adultery, it shall neither be forgiven us in this world, nor in the world to come, and if we do repent of the sin against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be exacted of us, but shall be pardoned. So that to say it is unpardonable without repentance, is to say nothing peculiar of this.

57. To this I answer, that pardonable and unpardonable have no definite signification, but have a latitude and increment, and a various sence; but seldom signifie in the absolute supreme sence. Sins of infirmity; such, I mean, which in any sence can properly be called sins, must in some sence or other be repented of; and they are unpardonable without repentance, that is, without such a repentance as does disallow them and contend against them. But these are also pardonable without repentance, by some degrees of pardon, that is, God pities our sins of ignorance and winks at them, and upon the only account of his own pity does bring such persons to better notices of things. And they are pardonable without repentance, if by repentance we mean an absolute dereliction of them, for we shall never be able to leave them quite; and therefore either they shall never be pardoned, or else they are pardoned without such a repentance as signifies dereliction or intire mastery over them.

58. II. But sins which are wilfully and knowingly committed, as theft, adultery, murder, are unpardonable without repentance, that is, without such a repentance as forsakes them actually and intirely, and produces such acts of grace as are proper for their expiation: but yet even these sins require not such a repentance as sins against the Holy Ghost do: These must have a greater sorrow, and a greater shame, and a more severe amends, and a more passionate lasting prayer, and a bigger fear, and a more publick amends, and a sharper infliction, and greater excellency of grace than is necessary in lesser sins. But in this difference of sins it is usual to promise pardon to the less and not to the greater, when the meaning is, that the smaller sins are only pardon'd upon easier terms:Vid. etiam Caesar. Arelat. hom. 42. quaedam ad hans rem spectantia. an example of this we have in Clemens Alexandrin [...], [...]: Sins committed before Baptism are pardon'd, but sins after it must be purged, that is, by a severe repentance; which the others needed not, and yet without repentance baptism would nothing avail vicious persons. So we say concerning those sins which we have forgotten, they may be pardon'd without repentance, meaning without a special repentance, but yet no [...] without a general. Thus we find it in the Imperial Law, that they that had fallen into Heresie or strange superstitions, they were to be pardon'd if they did repent: but if they did relapse,L. 4. Cod. Theod. ne sacrum baptisma iteretùr. they should not be pardon'd; but they mean, Venia eodem modo praestari non potest: so Gratian, Valens and Valentinian expressed it. So that by denying pardon, they only mean that it shall be harder with such persons, their pardon shall not be so easily obtained, but as they repeat their sins, so their punishment shall increase, and at last if no warning will serve, it shall destroy them.

59. For it is remarkable, that in Scripture Pardonable and Vnpardonable signifies no more than Mortal and Venial in the writings of the Church; of which I have given accounts in its proper place. But when a sin is declared deadly, or killing, and damnation threatned to such persons, we are not therefore if we have committed any such, to lie down under the load, and die; but with the more earnestness depart from it, lest that which is of a killing, damning nature, prove so to us in the event. For the sin of Adultery is a damning sin, and Murther is a killing sin, and the sin against the Holy Ghost is worse; and they are all Vnpardonable, that is, condemning; they are such in their cause, or in themselves, but if they prove so to us in the event, or effect, it is because we will not repent.1 Cor. 11.27. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; that's as high an expression as any; and yet there are several degrees and kinds of eating and drinking unworthily, and some are more unpardonable than others; but yet the Corinthians who did eat unworthily, some of them coming to the holy Supper drunk, and others schismatically, were by S. Paul admitted to repentance. Some sins are like deadly potions, they kill the man, unless he speedily take an Antidote, or unless by strength of nature he work out the poison and overcome it; and others are like a desperate disease, or a deadly wound, the Iliacal passions, the Physicians give him over, it is a Miserere mei Deus; of which though men despair, yet some have been cured. Thus also in the capital and great sins, many of them are such which the Church will not absolve, or dare not promise cure.

[Page]

Non est in medico semper relevetur ut aeger;

Interdum doctâ plus valet arte malum.

But then these persons are sent to God, and are bid to hope for favour from thence, and may find it. But others there are whom the Church will not meddle withall, and sends them to God, and God will not absolve them, that is, they shall be pardon'd neither by God nor the Church, neither in this world nor in the world to come. But the reason is not, because their sin is in all its periods of an unpardonable nature, but because they have persisted in it too long, and God in the secret Oeconomy of his mercies hath shut the everlasting doors; the olive doors of mercy shall not be open'd to them. And this is the case of too many miserable persons. They who repent timely, and holily, are not in this number, whatsoever sins they be which they have committed. But this is the case of them whom God hath given over to a reprobate mind, and of them who sin against Gods holy Spirit, when their sin is grown to its full measure: So we find it express'd in the Proverbs, Turn ye at my reproof, Prov. 1.23, 26, 28. I will pour out my Spirit unto you; and then it follows, Because I have called and ye refused, I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh. But this is not in all the periods of our refusing to hear God calling by his Spirit; but when the sin of the Amalekites is full, then it is unpardonable, not in the thing, but to that man, at that time. And besides all the promises, this is highly verified in the words of our blessed Saviour taken out of the Prophet Isaiah; where it is affirmed, that when people are so obstinate and wilfully blind,Mat. 12.15. that God then leaves to give them clearer testimony and a mighty grace, lest they should hear and see and understand; it follows, and should be converted, and I should heal them; plainly telling us, that if even then they should repent, God could not but forgive them; and therefore because he hath now no love left to them by reason of their former obstinacy, yet where ever you can suppose Repentance, there you may more than suppose a pardon. But if a man cannot, or will not repent, then it is another consideration: In the mean time, nothing hinders but that every sin is pardonable to him that repents.

60. But thus we find that the style of Scripture and the expressions of holy persons is otherwise in the threatning and the edict, otherwise in the accidents of persons and practice. It is necessary that it be severe when duty is demanded; but of lapsed persons it uses not to be exacted in the same dialect. It is as all laws are. In the general they are decretory, in the use and application they are easier. In the Sanction they are absolute and infinite, but yet capable of interpretations, of dispensations and relaxation in particular cases. And so it is in the present Article; Impossible, and Vnpardonable, and Damnation, and shall be cut off, and nothing remains but fearful expectation of judgment, are exterminating words and phrases in the law, but they do not effect all that they there signifie, to any but the impenitent; according to the saying of Mark the Hermite, [...]. No man is ever justified but he that carefully repents, and no man is condemned but he that despises repentance. [...], said S. Basil. The eye of God, who is so great a lover of souls, cannot deny the intercessions and Litanies of Repentance.

SECT. VI. The former Doctrines reduc'd to Practice.

61. I. ALthough the doors of Repentance open to them that sin after Baptism, and to them that sin after Repentance, yet every relapse does increase the danger, and make the sin to be less pardonable than before. For,

62. I. A good man falling into sin does it without all necessity; he hath assistances great enough to make him conqueror, he hath reason enough to disswade him, he hath sharp senses of the filthiness of sin, his spirit is tender, and is crush'd with the uneasi [...] load, he sighs and wakes, and is troubled and distracted; and if he sins, he sins with pain [Page] and shame and smart; and the less of mistake there is in his case, the more of malice is ingredient, and a greater anger is like to be his portion.

63. II. It is a particular unthankfulness when a man that was once pardon'd shall relapse. And when obliged persons prove enemies, they are ever the most malicious; as having nothing to protect or cover their shame, but impudence. ‘ [...].’ So did the Greeks treat Agamemnon ill, because he used them but too well. Such persons are like Travellers who in a storm running to a fig-tree, when the storm is over they beat the branches and pluck the fruit, and having run to an Altar for sanctuary, they steal the Chalice from the holy place, and rob the Temple that secur'd them. And God does more resent it, that the Lambs which he feeds at his own table, which are as so many sons and daughters to him, that daily suck plenty from his two breasts of Mercy and Providence, that they should in his own house make a mutiny, and put on the fierceness of Wolves, and rise up against their Lord and Shepherd.

64. III. Every relapse after repentance, is directly and in its proper principle a greater sin. Our first faults are pitiable, and we do pati humanum, we do after the manner of men; but when we are recovered, and then die again, we do facere Diabolicum, we do after the manner of Devils. For from ignorance to sin, from passion and youthful appetites to sin, from violent temptations and little strengths, to fall into sin, is no very great change; it is from a corrupted nature to corrupted manners: But from grace to return to sin, from knowledge and experience, and delight in goodness and wise notices, from God and his Christ to return to sin, to foolish actions, and non-sence principles, is a change great as was the fall of the morning stars when they descended cheaply and foolishly into darkness; Well therefore may it be pitied in a child to chuse a bright dagger before a warm coat, but when he hath been refreshed by this and smarted by that, if he chuses again, he will chuse better. But men that have tried both states, that have rejoyced for their deliverance from temptation, men that have given thanks to God for their safety and innocence, men that have been wearied and ashamed of the follies of sin, that have weighed both sides and have given wise sentence for God and for religion, if they shall chuse again, and chuse amiss, it must be by something by which Lucifer did in the face of God chuse to defie him, and desire to turn Devil, and be miserable and wicked for ever and ever.

65. IV. If a man repents of his repentances and returns to his sins, all his intermedial repentance shall stand for nothing: the sins which were marked for pardon shall break out in guilt, and be exacted of him in fearful punishments, as if he never had repented. For if good works crucified by sins are made alive by repentance, by the same reason, those sins also will live again, if the repentance dies; it being equally just that if the man repents of his repentance, God also should repent of his pardon.

66. For we must observe carefully that there is a pardon of sins proper to this life, and another proper to the world to come. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and what ye bind on Earth, Vide supra Num. 53. shall be bound in Heaven. That is, there are two remissions, One here, the other hereafter; That here is wrought by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, by faith and obedience, by moral instruments and the Divine grace; all which are divisible and gradual, and grow, or diminish, ebbe or flow, change or persist, and consequently grow on to effect, or else fail of the grace of God, that final Grace which alone is effective of that benefit which we here contend for. Here in proper speaking our pardon is but a disposition towards the great and final pardon; a possibility and ability to pursue that interest, to contend for that absolution: and accordingly, it is wrought by parts, and is signified and promoted by every act of grace that puts us in order to Heaven, or the state of final pardon: God gives us one degree of pardon when he forbears to kill us in the act of sin, when he admits, when he calls, when he smites us into repentance, when he invites us by mercies and promises, when he abates or defers his anger, when he sweetly engages us in the ways of holiness, these are several parts and steps of pardon: For if God were extremely angry with us as we deserve, nothing of all this would be done unto us: and still Gods favours increase, and the degrees of pardon multiply, as our endeavours are prosperous, as we apply our selves to religion and holiness, & make use of the benefits of the Church, the ministery of the Word and Sacraments, and as our resolutions pass into acts and habits of vertue. But then in this world we are to expect no other pardon, but a fluctuating, [Page] alterable, uncertain pardon, as our duty is uncertain. Hereafter it shall be finished, if here we persevere in the parts and progressions of our repentance: But as yet it is an Embryo, in a state of conduct and imperfection; here we always pray for it, always hope it, always labour for it; but we are not fully and finally absolved till the day of sentence and judgment; until that day we hope and labour. * The purpose of this discourse is to represent in what state of things our pardon stands here; and that it is not only conditional, but of it self a mutable effect, a disposition towards the great pardon, and therefore if it be not nurs'd and maintain'd by the proper instruments of its progression, it dies like an abortive conception, and shall not have that immortality whither it was designed.

[...]

[...].

For it was not ill said of old; he that remits of his severity and interrupts his course, does also break it, and then he breaks his hopes, and dissolves the golden chain which reached up to the foot of the throne of grace.

67. II. Here therefore the advice is reasonable and necessary: he that would ensure his pardon must persevere in duty; and to that purpose must make a full and perfect work in his mortifications and fights against sin; he must not suffer any thing to remain behind which may ever spring up and bear the apples of Sodom. It is the advice of Dion Prusaeensis: He that goes to cleanse his soul from lusts like a wild desert from beasts of prey, unless he do it thoroughly, in a short time will be destroyed by the remaining portions of his concupiscence: For as a Fever whose violence is abated, and the malignity lessened, and the man returns to temper and reason, to quiet nights, and chearful days, if yet there remains any of the unconquered humour, it is apt to be set on work again by every cold, or little violence of chance, and the same disease returns with a bigger violence and danger: So it is in the eradication of our sins; that which remains behind, is of too great power to effect all the purposes of our death, and to make us to have fought in vain, and lose all our labours and all our hopes, and the intermedial piety being lost, will exasperate us the more, and kill us more certainly than our former vices; as cold water taken to cool the body inflames it more, and makes cold to be the kindler of a greater fire.

68. III. Let no man be too forward in saying his sin is pardoned, for our present perswasions are too gay and confident; and that which is not repentance sufficient for a lustful thought, or one single act of uncleanness, or intemperance, we usually reckon to be the very porch of Heaven, and expiatory of the vilest and most habitual crimes: It were well if the Spiritual and the Curates of Souls, were not the authors or incouragers of this looseness of confidence and credulity. To confess and to absolve is all the method of our modern repentance, even when it is the most severe. Indeed in the Church of England I cannot so easily blame that proceeding; because there are so few that use the proper and secret ministery of a spiritual guide, that it is to be supposed he that does so, hath long repented and done some violence to himself and more to his sins, before he can master himself so much as to bring himself to submit to that ministery. But there where the practice is common, and the shame is taken off, and the duty returns at certain festivals, and is frequently performed, to absolve as soon as the sinner confesses, and leave him to amend afterwards if he please, is to give him confidence and carelesness, but not absolution Vide Cyprian. lib. 3. ep. 14. & l. 3. ep. 15. & 16. & de laps [...]s..

69. IV. Do not judge of the pardon of thy sins by light and trifling significations, but by long, lasting and material events. If God continues to call thee to repentance there is hopes that he is ready to pardon thee; and if thou dost obey the Heavenly calling, and dost not defer to begin, nor stop in thy course, nor retire to thy vain conversation, thou art in the sure way of pardon, and mayest also finish it. But if thou dost believe that thy sins are pardon'd, remember the words of our Lord concerning Mary Magdalen; much is forgiven her, and she loved much. If thou fearest thy sins are not pardon'd, pray the more earnestly, and mortifie thy sin with the more severity; and be no more troubled concerning the event of it, but let thy whole care and applications be concerning thy duty. I have read of one that was much afflicted with fear concerning his final state; and not knowing whether he should persevere in grace, and obtain a glorious pardon at last, cried out, O si scirem, &c. Would to God I might but know whether I should persevere or no! He was answered, What wouldest thou do if thou wert sure? Wouldest thou be careless, or more curious [Page] of thy duty? If that knowledge would make thee careless, desire it not; but if it would improve thy diligence, then what thou wouldest do in case thou didst know, do that now thou dost not know; and whatever thy notice or perswasion be, the thing in it self will be more secure, and thou shalt find it in the end. But if any mad is curious of the event, and would fain know of the event of his soul, let him reveal the state of his soul to a godly and a prudent Spiritual Guide; and he, when he hath search'd diligently, and observ'd him curiously, can tell him all that is to be told, and give him all the assurance that is to be given, and warrant him, as much as himself hath receiv'd a warrant to do it. Unless God be pleased to draw the Curtains of his Sanctuary, and open the secrets of his eternal Counsel, there is no other certainty of an actual pardon, but what the Church does minister, and what can be prudently derived from our selves. For to every such curious person, this only is to be said, Do you believe the promises? That if we confess our sins and forsake them, if we believe and obey, we shall be pardoned and saved. If so, then enquire whether or no thou dost perform the conditions of thy pardon. How shall I know? Examine thy self, try thy own spirit, and use the help of a holy and a wise guide. He will teach thee to know thy self. If after all this, thou answerest, that thou canst not tell whether thy heart be right, and thy duty acceptable; then sit down and hope the best, and work in as much light and hope as thou hast; but never enquire after the secret of God, when thou dost not so much as know thy self; and how canst thou hope to espy the most private Counsels of Heaven, when thou canst not certainly perceive what is in thy own hand and heart. But if thou canst know thy self, you need not enquire any further. If thy duty be performed, you may be secure of all that is on Gods part.

70. V. When ever repentance begins, know that from thence-forward the sinner begins to live; but then never let that repentance die. Do not at any time say, I have repented of such a sin, and am at peace for that; for a man ought never to be at peace with sin, nor think that any thing we can do is too much: Our repentance for sin is never to be at an end, till faith it self shall be no more; for Faith and Repentance are but the same Covenant; and so long as the just does live by faith in the Son of God, so long he lives by repentance; for by that faith in him our sins are pardoned, that is, by becoming his Disciples we enter into the Covenant of Repentance. And he undervalues his sin, and overvalues his sorrow, who at any time fears he shall do too much, or make his pardon too secure, and therefore sets him down and says, Now I have repented.

71. VI. Let no man ever say he hath committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, or the unpardonable sin; for there are but few that do that, and he can best confute himself, if he can but tell that he is sorrowful for it, and begs for pardon and hopes for it, and desires to make amends; this man hath already obtained some degrees of pardon: and S. Paul's argument in this case also is a demonstration; If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Rom. 5.10. That is, if God to enemies gives the first grace, much more will he give the second, if they make use of the first. For from none to a little is an infinite distance; but from a little to a great deal is not so much. And therefore since God hath given us means of pardon and the grace of Repentance, we may certainly expect the fruit of pardon: for it is a greater thing to give repentance to a sinner, than to give pardon to the penitent. Whoever repents hath not committed the great sin, the Unpardonable. For it is long of the man, not of the sin, that any sin is unpardonable.

72. VII. Let every man be careful of entring into any great states of sin, lest he be unawares guilty of the great offence: Every resisting of a holy motion calling us from sin, every act against a clear reason or revelation, every confident progression in sin, every resolution to commit a sin in despite of conscience, is an access towards the great sin or state of evil. Therefore concerning such a man, let others fear since he will not, and save him with fear, plucking him out of the fire; but when he begins to return, that great fear is over in many degrees; for even in Moses's law there were expiations appointed not only for error, but for presumptuous sins.

The PRAYER.

[Page]

I.

O Eternal God, gracious and merciful, I adore the immensity and deepest abysse of thy Mercy and Wisdom, that thou dost pity our infirmities, instruct our ignorances, pass by thousands of our follies, invitest us to repentance, and dost offer pardon, because we are miserable, and because we need it, and because thou art good, and delightest in shewing mercy. Blessed be thy holy Name, and blessed be that infinite Mercy which issues forth from the fountains of our Saviour, to refresh our weariness, and to water our stony hearts, and to cleanse our polluted souls. O cause that these thy mercies may not run in vain, but may redeem my lost soul, and recover thy own inheritance, and sanctifie thy portion, the heart of thy servant and all my faculties.

II.

BLessed Jesus, thou becamest a little lower than the Angels, but thou didst make us greater, doing that for us which thou didst not do for them. Thou didst not pay for them one drop of blood, nor endure one stripe to recover the fallen stars, nor give one groan to snatch the accursed spirits from their fearful prisons; but thou didst empty all thy veins for me, and gavest thy heart to redeem me from innumerable sins and an intolerable calamity. O my God, let all this heap of excellencies and glorious mercies be effective upon thy servant, and work in me a sorrow for my sins, and a perfect hatred of them, a watchfulness against temptations, severe and holy resolutions, active and effective of my duty. O let me never fall from sin to sin, nor persevere in any, nor love any thing which thou hatest; but give me thy holy Spirit to conduct and rule me for ever, and make me obedient to thy good Spirit, never to grieve him, never to resist him, never to quench him. Keep me, O Lord, with thy mighty power from falling into presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me: so shall I be innocent from the great offence. Let me never despair of thy mercies by reason of my sins, nor neglect my repentance by reason of thy infinite loving kindness; but let thy goodness bring me and all sinners to repentance, and thy 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.

[Page]

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 [Page] 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 it, before a sinner can be tied to it. For to have displeased God is a great evil, but what is it to me, if it will bring no evil to me; It is a Metaphysical and a Moral evil; but unless it be also naturally and sensibly so, it is not the object of a natural and proper grief. It follows therefore that the state of a repenting person must have in it some more causes of sorrow than are usually taught, or else in vain can they be called upon to weep and mourn for their sins. Well may they wring their faces and their hands, and put on black, those disguises of passion and curtains of joy, those ceremonies and shadows of rich widows, and richer heirs, by which they decently hide their secret smiles: well may they rend their garments, but upon this account they can never rend their hearts.

7. For the stating of this Article it is considerable, that there are several parts or periods of sorrow, which are effected by several principles. In the beginning of our repentance sometimes we feel cause enough to grieve. For God smites many into repentance; [Page] either a sharp sickness does awaken us, or a calamity upon our house, or the death of our dearest relative; and they that find sin so heavily incumbent, and to press their persons or fortunes with feet of lead, will feel cause enough, and need not to be disputed into a penitential sorrow. They feel Gods anger, and the evil effects of sin, and that it brings sorrow, and then the sorrow is justly great because we have done that evil which brings so sad a judgment.

8. And in the same proportion, there is always a natural cause of sorrow, where there is a real cause of fear; and so it is ever in the beginning of repentance, and for ought we know it is for ever so, and albeit the causes of fear lessen as the repentance does proceed, yet it will never go quite off, till hope it self be gone and passed into charity, or at least into a [...], into that fulness of confidence which is given to few as the reward of a lasting and conspicuous holiness. And the reason is plain. For though it be certain in religion, that whoever repents shall be pardoned, yet it is a long time before any man hath repented worthily; and it is as uncertain in what manner and in what measures, and in what time God will give us pardon. It is as easie to tell the very day in which a man first comes to the use of reason, as to tell the very time in which we are accepted to final pardon; The progressions of one being as divisible as the other, and less discernible. For reason gives many fair indications of it self, whereas God keeps the secrets of this mercy in his sanctuary, and draws not the curtain till the day of death or judgment.

9. Add to this, that our very repentances have many allays and imperfections, and so hath our pardon.

And every one that sins hath so displeased God, that he is become the subject of the Divine anger. Death is the wages; what death God please, and therefore what evil soever God will inflict, or his mortality can suffer: and he that knows this, hath cause to fear, and he that fears hath cause to be grieved that he is fallen from that state of divine favour in which he stood secured with the guards of Angels, and covered with Heaven it self as with a shield, in which he was beloved of God and heir of all his glories.

10. But they that describe repentance in short and obscure characters, and make repentance and pardon to be the children of a minute, and born and grown up quickly as a fly, or a mushrome, with the dew of a night, or the tears of a morning, making the labours of the one, and the want of the other to expire sooner than the pleasures of a transient sin, are so insensible of the sting of sin, that indeed upon their grounds it will be impossible to have a real godly sorrow. For though they have done evil, yet by this doctrine they feel none, and there is nothing remains as a cause of grief, unless they will be sorrowful for that they have been pleased formerly, and are now secured, nothing remains before them or behind, but the pleasure that they had and the present confidence and impunity: and that's no good instrument of sorrow. Securitas delicti etiam libido est ejus. Sin takes occasion by the law it self, if there be no penalty annexed.

11. But the first in-let of a godly sorrow, which is the beginning of repentance, is upon the stock of their present danger and state of evil into which by their sin they are fallen, viz. when their guilt is manifest, they see that they are become sons of death, expos'd to the wrath of a provoked Deity whose anger will express it self when and how it please, and for ought the man knows it may be the greatest, and it may be intolerable: and though his danger is imminent and certain, yet his pardon is a great way off, it may be Yea, it may be No, it must be hop'd for, but it may be missed, for it is upon conditions, and they are, or will seem very hard. ‘Sed ut valeas multa dolenda feres:’ So that in the summ of affairs, however that the greatest sinner and the smallest penitent, are very apt, and are taught by strange doctrines to flatter themselves into confidence and presumption, yet he will have reason to mourn and weep, when he shall consider that he is in so sad a condition, that because his life is uncertain, it is also uncertain whether or no he shall not be condemned to an eternal prison of flames: so that every sinner hath the same reason to be sorrowful, as he hath who from a great state of blessings and confidence, is fallen into great fears and great dangers, and a certain guilt and liableness of losing all he hath, and suffering all that is insufferable. They who state repentance otherwise, cannot make it reasonable that a penitent should shed a tear. And therefore it is no wonder, that we so easily observe a great [Page] dulness and indifferency, so many dry eyes and merry hearts, in persons that pretend repentance, it cannot more reasonably be attributed to any cause, than to those trifling and easie propositions of men, that destroy the causes of sorrow, by lessening and taking off the opinion of danger. But now that they are observed and reproved, I hope the evil will be lessened. But to proceed.

12. II. Having now stated the reasonableness and causes of penitential sorrow; the next inquity is into the nature and constitution of that sorrow. For it is to be observed, that penitential sorrow is not seated in the affections directly, but in the understanding, and is rather Odium than Dolor, it is hatred of sin, and detestation of it, a nolition, a renouncing and disclaiming it, whose expression is a resolution never to sin, and a pursuance of that resolution, by abstaining from the occasions, by praying for the Divine aid, by using the proper remedies for its mortification. This is essential to repentance, and must be in every man in the highest kind. For he that does not hate sin so as rather to chuse to suffer any evil, than to do any, loves himself more than he loves God, because he fears to displease himself rather than to displease him, and therefore is not a true penitent.

13. But although this be not grief, or sorrow properly, but hatred, yet in hatred there is ever a sorrow, if we have done or suffered what we hate; and whether it be sorrow or no, is but a speculation of Philosophy, but no ingredient of duty. It is that which will destroy sin, and bring us to God, and that is the purpose of repentance.

14. For it is remarkable that sorrow is indeed an excellent instrument of repentance, apt to set forward many of its ministeries, and without which men ordinarily will not leave their sins; but if the thing be done, though wholly upon the discourses of reason, upon intuition of the danger, upon contemplation of the unworthiness of sin, or only upon the principle of hope, or fear, it matters not which is the beginning of repentance. For we find fear reckoned to be the beginning of wisdom, that is, of repentance, of wise and sober counsels, by Solomon. We find sorrow to be reckoned as the beginning of repentance by S. Paul; Godly sorrow worketh repentance not to be repented of. So many ways as there are, by which God works repentance in those whom he will bring unto salvation, to all the kinds of these there are proper apportion'd passions: and as in all good things there is pleasure, so in all evil there is pain, some way or other: and therefore to love and hatred, or which is all one, to [...]leasure and displeasure, all passions are reducible, as all colours are to black and white. So that though in all repentances there is not in every person felt that sharpness of sensitive compunction and sorrow that is usual in sad accidents of the world, yet if the sorrow be upon the intellectual account, though it be not much perceived by inward sharpnesses▪ but chiefly by dereliction and leaving of the sin, it is that sorrow which is possible, and in our power, and that which is necessary to repentance.

15. For in all inquiries concerning penitential sorrow, if we will avoid scruple and vexatious fancies, we must be careful not to account of our sorrow by the measures of sense, but of religion. David grieved more for the sickness of his child, and the rebellion of his son, so far as appears in the story: and the Prophet Jeremy in behalf of the Jews, for the death of their glorious Prince Josiah, and S. Paula Romana at the death of her children, were more passionate and sensibly afflicted than for their sins against God; that is, they felt more sensitive trouble in that than this, and yet their repentances were not to be reproved; because our penitential sorrow is from another cause, and seated in other faculties, and fixed upon differing objects, and works in other manners, and hath a divers signification, and is fitted to other purposes, and therefore is wholly of another nature. It is a displeasure against sin which must be expressed by praying against it, and fighting against it; but all other expressions are extrinsecal to it, and accidental, and are no parts of it, because they cannot be under a command, as all the parts and necessary actions of repentance are most certainly.

16. Indeed some persons can command their tears, so Gellia in the Epigram, ‘Si quis adest, jussae prosiliunt lachrymae;’ She could cry when company was there to observe her weeping for her Father: and so can some Orators, and many Hypocrites: and there are some that can suppress their tears by art, and resolution; so Vlysses did when he saw his wife weep; he pitied her, but

[Page]

Intra palpebras ceu cornu immota tenebat

Lumina, vel ferrum, lachrymas astúque premebat,

he kept his tears within his eye-lids, as if they had been in a phial, which he could pour forth or keep shut at his pleasure. But although some can do this at pleasure, yet all cannot. And therefore S. John Climacus speaks of certain penitents, [...], who because they could not weep, expressed their Repentance by beating their breasts: and yet if all men could weep when they list, yet they may weep and not be sorrowful; and though they can command tears, yet sorrow is no more to be commanded than hunger, and therefore is not a part or necessary duty of Repentance, when sorrow is taken for a sensitive trouble.

17. But yet there is something of this also to be added to our duty. If our constitution be such as to be apt to weep, and sensitively troubled upon other intellectual apprehensions of differing objects, unless also they find the same effect in their Repentances, there will be some cause to suspect, that their hatred of sin, and value of obedience, and its rewards, are not so great as they ought to be. The Masters of spiritual life give this rule: Sciat se culpabiliter durum, qui deflet damna temporis vel mortem amici, dolorem verò pro peccatis lachrymis non ostendit. He that weeps for temporal losses, and does not in the same manner express his sorrow for his sins, is culpably obdurate: which proposition though piously intended is not true. For tears are emanations of a sensitive trouble or motion of the heart, and not properly subject to the understanding; and therefore a man may innocently weep for the death of his friend, and yet shed no tears when he hath told a lie, and still be in that state of sorrow and displeasure, that he had rather die himself than chuse to tell another lie. Therefore the rule only hath some proportions of probability, in the effect of several intellectual apprehensions. As he that is apt to weep when he hath done an unhansome action to his friend, who yet will never punish him; and is not apt to express his sorrow in the same manner, when he hath offended God: I say, he may suspect his sorrow not to be so great or so real, but yet abstractedly from this circumstance, to weep or not to weep is nothing to the duty of Repentance, save only that it is that ordinary sign by which some men express some sort of sorrow. And therefore I understand not the meaning of that prayer of S. Austin, Domine dagratiam lachrymarum; Lord give me the grace of tears; for tears are no duty, and the greatest sorrow oftentimes is the driest; and excepting that there is some sweetness and ease in shedding tears, and that they accompany a soft and a contemplative person, an easie and a good nature, and such as is apt for religious impressions, I know no use of them, but to signifie in an apt and a disposed nature what kind of apprehensions and trouble there is within. For weeping upon the presence of secular troubles, is more ready and easie, because it is an effect symbolical, and of the same nature with its proper cause. But when there is a spiritual cause, although its proper effect may be greater and more effective of better purposes; yet unless by the intermixture of some material and natural cause, it be more apportion'd to a material and natural product, it is not to be charged with it, or expected from it. Sin is a spiritual evil, and tears is the sign of a natural or physical sorrow. Smart, and sickness, and labour, are natural or physical evils; and hatred and nolition is a spiritual or intellectual effect. Now as every labour and every smart is not to be hated or rejected, but sometimes chosen by the understanding, when it is mingled with a good that pleases the understanding, and is eligible upon the accounts of reason: So neither can every sin which is the intellectual evil, be productive of tears or sensitive sorrow, unless it be mingled with something which the sense and affections, that is, which the lower man hates, and which will properly afflict him; such as are, fear, or pain, or danger, or disgrace, or loss. The sensitive sorrow therefore which is usually seen in new penitents, is upon the account of those horrible apprehensions which are declared in holy Scriptures to be the consequent of sins; but if we shall so preach Repentance, as to warrant a freedom and a perfect escape instantly from all significations of the wrath of God, and all dangers for the future upon the past and present account. I know not upon what reckoning he that truly leaves his sin can be commanded to be sorrowful, and if he were commanded, how he can possibly obey.

18. But when repentance hath had its growth and progression, and is increased into a habit of piety, sorrow and sensitive trouble may come in upon another account; for great and permanent changes of the mind, make great impressions upon the [Page] lower man. When we love an object intensely, our very body receives comfort in the presence of it: and there are friendly Spirits which have a natural kindness and cognation to each other, and refresh one another, passing from eye to eye, from friend to friend: and the Prophet David felt it in the matter of Religion; My flesh and my heart rejoyce in the living Lord. For if a grief of mind is a consumption of the flesh, and a chearful spirit is a conservatory of health, it is certain that every great impression that is made upon the mind and dwells there, hath its effect upon the body, and the lower affections. And therefore all those excellent penitents who consider the baseness of sin, * their own danger though now past in some degrees, * the offence of God, * the secret counsels of his Mercy, * his various manners of dispensing them, * the fearful judgments which God unexpectedly sends upon some men, * the dangers of our own confidence, * the weakness of our Repentance, * the remains of our sin, * the aptnesses and combustible nature of our Concupiscence, * the presence of temptation, and the perils of relapsing, * the evil state of things which our former sins leave us in, * our difficulty in obeying, and our longings to return to Egypt, * and the fearful anger of God which will with greater fierceness descend if we chance to fall back: Those penitents (I say) who consider these things frequently and prudently, will find their whole man so wrought upon, that every faculty shall have an enmity against sin; and therefore even the affections of the lower man must in their way contribute to its mortification, and that is by a real and effective sorrow.

19. But in this whole affair the whole matter of question will be in the manner of operation, or signification of the dislike. For the duty is done if the sin be accounted an enemy; that is, whether the dislike be only in the intellectual and rational appetite, or also in the sensitive. For although men use so to speak and distinguish superior from inferior appetites; yet it will be hard in nature to find any real distinct faculties, in which those passions are subjected, and from which they have emanation. The intellectual desire, and the sensual desire are both founded in the same faculty; they are not distinguished by their subjects, but by their objects only: they are but several motions of the will to or from several objects. When a man desires that which is most reasonable, and perfective, or consonant to the understanding, that we call an intellectual, or rational appetite; but if he desires a thing that will do him hurt in his soul, or to his best interest, and yet he desires it because it pleases him, this is fit to be called a sensitive appetite, because the object is sensitive, and it is chosen for a sensual reason. But it is rather appetitio than appetitus, that is, an act rather than a principle of action. The case is plainer, if we take two objects of several interests, both of which are proportion'd to the understanding. S. Anthony in the desart, and S. Bernard in the Pulpit were tempted by the spirit of pride: they resisted and overcame it, because pride was unreasonable and foolish as to themselves, and displeasing to God. If they had listned to the whispers of that spirit, it had been upon the accounts of pleasure, because pride is that deliciousness of spirit which entertains a vain man, making him to delight in his own images and reflexions; and therefore is a work of the flesh, but yet plainly founded in the understanding. And therefore here it is plain, that when the flesh and the spirit fight, it is not a fight between two faculties of the soul, but a contest in the soul concerning the election of two objects. It is no otherwise in this than in every deliberation, when arguments from several interests contest each other. Every passion of the man is nothing else but a proper manner of being affected with an object, and consequently a tendency to or an aversion from it, that is, a willing or a nilling of it; which willing and nilling when they produce several permanent impressions upon the mind and body, receive the names of divers passions: The object it self first striking the fancy or lower apprehensions by its proper energy, makes the first passion or tendency to the will, that is, the inclination or first concupiscence; but when the will upon that impression is set on work, and chuses the sensual object, that makes the abiding passion, the quality. As if the object be displeasing, and yet not present, it effects fear or hatred; if good and not present, it is called desire; but all these diversifications are meerly natural effects; as to be warm is before the fire, and cannot be in our choice directly and immediately. That which is the prime and proper action of the will, that only is subject to a command; that is, to chuse or refuse the sin. The passion, that is, the proper effect or impress upon the fancy or body, that is, natural, and is determin'd to the particular by the mixture of something natural with the act of the will; as if an apprehension of future evils be mingled with the refusing sin, that is, [Page] if it be the cause of it: then fear is the passion that is effected by it. If the feeling some evil be the cause of the nolition, then sorrow is the effect; and fear also may produce sorrow. So that the passion, that is, the natural impress upon the man cannot be the effect of a Commandment, but the principle of that passion is, we are commanded to refuse sin, to eschew evil, that's the word of the Scripture: but because we usually do feel the evils of sin, and we have reason to fear worse, and sorrow is the natural effect of such a feeling, and such a fear, therefore the Scripture calling us to repentance, that is, a new life, a dying unto sin, and a living unto righteousness, expresses it by sorrow, and mourning, and weeping; but these are not the duty, but the expressions, or the instruments of that which is a duty. So that if any man who hates sin and leaves it, cannot yet find the sharpness of such a sorrow as he feels in other sad accidents, there can nothing be said to it, but that the duty it self is not clothed with those circumstances which are apt to produce that passion; it is not an eschewing of sin upon considerations of a present or a feared trouble, but upon some other principle; or that the consideration is not deep and pressing, or that the person is of an unapt disposition to those sensible effects. The Italian and his wife who by chance espied a Serpent under the shade of their Vines, were both equal haters of the little beast; but the wise only cried out, and the man kill'd it, but with as great a regret and horror at the sight of it as his wife, though he did not so express it. But when a little after they espied a Lizard, and she cried again, he told her, That he perceiv'd her trouble was not always deriv'd from reasonable apprehensions, and that what could spring only from images of things and fancies of persons, was not considerable by a just value. This is the case of our sorrowing. Some express it by tears, some by penances and corporal inflictions, some by more effective and material mortifications of it: but he that kills it is the greatest enemy. But those persons who can be sorrowful and violently mov'd for a trifling interest, and upon the arrests of fancy, if they find these easie meltings and sensitive afflictions upon the accounts of their sins, are not to please themselves at all, unless when they have cried out, they also kill the Serpent.

20. I cannot therefore at all suspect that mans repentance who hates sin, and chuses righteousness and walks in it, though he do not weep, or feel the troubles of a mother mourning over the hearse of her only son; but yet such a sensitive grief is of great use to these purposes.

I. If it do not proceed from the present sense of the Divine judgment, yet it supplies that, and feels an evil from its own apprehension, which is not yet felt from the Divine infliction.

II. It prevents Gods anger, by being a punishment of our selves, a condemnation of the sinner, and a taking vengeance of our selves, for our having offended God. And therefore it is, consequently to this, agreed on all hands, that the greater the sorrow is, the less necessity there is of any outward affliction; ‘Virg.Vt possit lachrymis aequare labores.’ According to the old rule of the Penitentiaries.

Sitque modus culpae justae moderatio poenae,

Quae tanto levior quanto contritio major.

Which general measure of repentances, as it is of use in the particular of which I am now discoursing, so it effects this perswasion, that external mortifications and austerities are not any part of original and essential duty, but significations of the inward repentance, unto men; and suppletories of it before God; that when we cannot feel the trouble of mind, we may at least hate sin upon another account, even upon the superinduc'd evils upon our bodies; for all affliction is nothing but sorrow; Gravis animi poena est, quem post factum poenitet, said Publius. To repent is a grievous punishment; and the old man in the Comedy calls it so.

Cur meam senectam hujus sollicito amentiâ

Andriâ.

Pro hujus ego ut peccatis supplicium sufferam?

Why do I grieve my old age for his madness, that I should suffer punishment for his sins? grieving was his punishment.

[Page]3. This sensitive sorrow is very apt to extinguish sin, it being of a symbolical nature to the design of God, when he strikes a sinner for his amendment: it makes sin to be uneasie to him; and not only to be displeasing to his spirit, but to his sense, and consequently that it hath no port to enter any more.

4. It is a great satisfaction to an inquisitive conscience, to whom it is not sufficient that he does repent, unless he be able to prove it by signs and proper indications.

21. The summ is this. No man can in any sence be said to be a true penitent, unless he wishes he had never done the sin. 2. But he that is told that his sin is presently pardon'd upon repentance, that is, upon leaving it, and asking forgiveness; and that the former pleasure shall not now hurt him, he hath no reason to wish that he had never done it. 3. But to make it reasonable to wish that the sin had never been done, there must be the feeling or fear of some evil.

Conscia mens ut cuique sua est, ita concipit intra

Pectora pro meritis, spémque metúmque suis.

4. According as is the nature of that evil fear'd or felt, so is the passion effected, of hatred, or sorrow. 5. Whatever the passion be it must be totally exclusive of all affection to sin, and produce enmity and fighting against it until it be mortified. 6. In the whole progression of this mortification, it is more than probable that some degrees of sensitive trouble will come in at some angle or other. 7. Though the duty of penitential sorrow it self be completed in nolitione peccati, in the hating of sin, and our selves for doing it, yet the more penal that hate is, the more it ministers to many excellent purposes of repentance.

22. But because some persons do not feel this sensitive sorrow, they begin to suspect their repentance, and therefore they are taught to supply this want by a reflex act, that is, to be sorrowful because they are not sorrowful. This I must needs say is a fine device, where it can be made to signifie something that is material. But I fear it will not often. For how can a man be sorrowful for not being sorrowful? For either he hath reason at first to be sorrowful, or he hath not. If he hath not, why should he be sorrowful for not doing an unreasonable act? If he hath reason, and knows it, it is certain he will be as sorrowful as that cause so apprehended can effect: but he can be no more, and so much he cannot chuse but be. But if there be cause to be sorrowful and the man knows it not, then he cannot yet grieve for that; for he knows no cause, and that is all one as if he had none. But if there be indeed a cause which he hath not considered, then let him be called upon to consider that, and then he will be directly, and truly sorrowful when he hath considered it; and hath reason to be sorrowful because he had not considered it before, that is, because he had not repented sooner; but to be sorrowful because he is not sorrowful, can have no other good meaning but this: We are to endeavour to be displeased at sin, and to use all the means we can to hate it, that is, when we find not any sensitive sorrow or pungency of spirit, let us contend to make our intellectual sorrow as great as we can. And if we perceive or suspect we have not true repentance, let us beg of God to give it; and let us use the proper means of obtaining the grace; and if we are uncertain concerning the actions of our own heart, let us supply them by prayer, and holy desires; that if we cannot perceive the grace in the proper shape, and by its own symptoms and indications, we may be made in some measure, humbly confident by other images and reflexions; by seeing the grace in another shape, so David, Concupivi desiderare justificationes tuas, I have desired to desire thy justifications; that is, either I have prayed for that grace, or I have seen that I have that desire, not by a direct observation, but by some other signification. But it is certain, no man can be sorrowful for not being sorrowful, if he means the same kind and manner of sorrow; as there cannot be two where there is not one, and there cannot be a reflex ray where there was not a direct.

23. But if there be such difficulty in the questions of our own sorrow, it were very well that even this part of repentance should be conducted as all the other ought, by the ministery of a spiritual man, that it may be better instructed, and prudently managed, and better discerned, and led on to its proper effects. But when it is so help'd forward, it is more than Contrition, it is Confession also; of which I am yet to give in special accounts.

SECT. III. Of the Natures and Difference of Attrition and Contrition.

[Page]

24. ALL the passions of the irascible faculty are that sorrow in some sence or other which will produce repentance. Repentance cannot kill sin, but by withdrawing the will from it: and the will is not to be withdrawn, but by complying with the contrary affection to that which before did accompany it in evil. Now whatever that affection was, pleasure was the product, it was that which nurs'd or begot the sin: Now as this pleasure might proceed from hope, from possession, from sense from fancy, from desire, and all the passions of the concupiscible appetite; so whe [...] there is a displeasure conceived, it will help to destroy sin, from what passion soever, of what faculty soever, that displeasure can be produced.

25. If the displeasure at sin proceeds from any passion of the irascible faculty, it is that which those Divines who understand the meaning of their own words of art commonly call Attrition, that is, A resolving against sin, the resolution proceeding from any principle that is troublesome and dolorous: and in what degree of good that is, appears in the stating of this Question, it is acceptable to God; not an acceptable repentance, for it is not so much; but it is a good beginning of it, an acceptable introduction to it, and must in its very nature suppose a sorrow, or displeasure, in which although according to the quality of the motives of attrition, or the disposition of the penitent, there is more or less sensitive trouble respectively, yet in all there must be so much sorrow or displeasure, as to cause a dereliction of the sin, or a resolution, at least, to leave it.

26. But there are some natures so ingenuous, and there are some periods of repentance so perfect, and some penitents have so far proceeded in the methods of holiness, and pardon, that they are fallen out with sin upon the stock of some principles proceeding from the concupiscible appetite; such are Love and Hope; and if these have for their object God, or the Divine promises, it is that noblest principle of repentance or holy life, which Divines call Contrition. For hope cannot be without love of that which is hoped for; if therefore this hope have for its object, temporal purchases, it is o [...] may be a sufficient cause of leaving sin, according as the power and efficacy of the hope shall be; but it will not be sufficient towards pardon, unless in its progression, it joyn with some better principle of a spiritual grace. Temporal Hope and temporal Fear may begin Gods work upon our spirits; but till it be gone farther, we are not in the first step of an actual state of grace. But as attrition proceeds from the motives of those displeasing objects, which are threatned by God to be the evil consequents of sin, relating to eternity; so Contrition proceeds from objects and motives of desire, which are promises and benefits, received already, or to be received hereafter. But these must also be more than temporal good things: for hopes and fear relating to things (though promised or threatned in holy Scripture) are not sufficient incentives of a holy and acceptable repentance, which because it is not a transient act, but a state of holiness, cannot be supported by a transitory and deficient cause, but must wholly rely upon expectation and love of things that are eternal and cannot pass away. Attrition begins with fear, Contrition hath hope and love in it. The first is a good beginning, but it is no more; before a man can say he is pardoned, he must be gone beyond the first, and arrived at this. The reason is plain; because although in the beginnings of Repentance there is a great fear, yet the causes of this fear wear away and lessen, according as the repentance goes on, and are quite extinguished, when the penitent hath mortified his sin, and hath received the spirit of adoption, the [...], the confidence of the sons of God; but because repentance must be perfect, and must be perpetual during this life, it must also be maintained, and supported by something that is lasting, and will not wear off,Serm. 7. de tempor. and that is hope and love; according to that of S. Austin, Poenitentiam certam non facit nisi odium peccati & amor Dei. Hatred of sin, and the love of [Page] God make repentance firm and sure; nothing else can do it: but this is a work of time, but such a work that without it be done, our pardon is not perfect.

27. Now of this Contrition relying upon motives of pleasure and objects of amability, being the noblest principle of action, and made up of the love of God, and holy things, and holy expectations, the product is quite differing from that of Attrition, or the imperfect repentance; for that commencing upon fear or displeasure, is only apt to produce a dereliction or quitting of our sin, and all the servile affections of frighted or displeased persons. But this would not effect an universal obedience; which only can be effected by love and the affection of sons; which is also the product of those objects, which are the incentives of the Divine love, and is called Contrition; that is, a hatred against sin as being an enemy to God, and all our hopes of enjoying God, whom because this repenting man loves and delights in, he also hates whatsoever God hates, and is really griev'd, for ever having offended so good a God, and for having endangered his hopes of dwelling with him whom he so loves, and therefore now does the quite contrary.

28. Now this is not usually the beginning of repentance, but is a great progression in it; and it contains in it obedience. He that is attrite leaves his sin; but he that is contrite obeys God, and pursues the interests and acquists of vertue: so that Contrition is not only a sorrow for having offended God; whom the penitent loves; that is but one act or effect of Contrition; but Contrition loves God and hates sin, it leaves this, and adheres to him, abstains from evil and does good; dies to sin, and lives to righteousness, and is a state of pardon and acceptable services.

29. But then there is a sorrow also proper to it; For as this grace comes from the noblest passions and apprehensions, so it does operate in the best manner, and to the noblest purposes. It hates sin upon higher contemplations, than he that hates it upon the stock of fear: he hates sin as being against God and Religion, and right reason, that is, he is gone farther from sin: He hates it for it self.

Poenitet, ô si quid miserorum creditur ulli,

Poenitet, & facto torqueor ipse meo.

Cúmque sit exilium, magis est mihi culpa dolori;

Estque pati poenam quàm meruisse minus.

That is, not only the evil effect to himself, but the irregularity and the displeasure to Almighty God are the incentives of his displeasure against sin; and because in all these passions and affective motions of the mind, there is a sorrow under some shape or other, this sorrow or displeasure is that which is a very acceptable signification, and act of repentance, and yet it is not to be judged of by sense, but by reason, by the caution and enmity against sin: to which this also is to be added:

30. That if any man enquires, whether or no his hatred against sin proceed from the love of God or no; that is, whether it be Attrition or Contrition? he is only to observe whether he does endeavour heartily and constantly to please God by obedience; for this is love that we keep his Commandments: and although sometimes we may tell concerning our love as well as concerning our fear; yet when the direct principle is not so evident, our only way left to try, is by the event: That is Contrition which makes us to exterminate and mortifie sin, and endeavour to keep the Commandments of God. For that is sorrow proceeding from love.

31. And now it is no wonder if to Contrition pardon be so constantly annexed, in all the Discourses of Divines; but unless Contrition be thus understood, and if a single act of something like it, be mistaken for the whole state of this grace, we shall be deceived by applying false promises to a real need, or true promises to an incompetent and uncapable state of things. But when it is thus meant, all the sorrows that can come from this principle are signs of life. ‘His lachrymis vitam damus, & miserescimus ultró.’ No man can deny pardon to such penitents, nor cease to joy in such tears.

32. The summ of the present enquiry is this: Contrition is sometimes used for a part of repentance, sometimes taken for the whole duty. As it is a part, so it is that displeasure at sin, and hatred of it, which is commonly expressed in sorrow, but for ever in the leaving of it. It is sometimes begun with fear, sometimes with shame, and sometimes with kindness, with thankfulness and love; but Love and Obedience are ever at the latter [Page] end of it, though it were not at the beginning: and till then it is called Attrition. But when it is taken for the whole duty it self, as it is always when it is effective of pardon, then the elements of it, or parts of the constitution are fides futuri saeculi & Judicii, fides in promissis & passionibus Christi, timor Divinae majestatis, amor misericordiae, dolor pro peccatis, spes veniae, petitio pro gratiâ. Faith in the promises, and sufferings of Christ, an assent to the Article of the day of Judgment, and the world to come; with all the consequent perswasions and practices effected on the spirit, fear of the Divine Majesty, love of his mercy, grief for our sins, begging for grace, hope of pardon, and in this sence it is true, Cor contritum Deus non despiciet, God will never refuse to accept of a heart so contrite.

SECT. IV. Of Confession.

33. THE modern Schoolmen make Contrition to include in it, a resolution to submit to the Keys of the Church; that is, that Confession to a Priest is a part of Contrition, as Contrition is taken for a part of Repentance: for it is incomplete till the Church hath taken notice of it, but by submission to the Church Tribunal, it is made complete, and not only so, but that which was but Attrition, is now turned into Contrition, or perfect Repentance. In the examining of this, I shall, because it is reasonable so to do, change their manner of speaking, that the inquiry may be more material and intelligible. That Contrition does include in it a resolution to submit to the Church Tribunal, must either mean, that godly sorrow does in its nature include a desire of Confession to a Priest, and then the very word confutes the thing; or else by Contrition they meaning so much of Repentance as is sufficient to pardon, mean also that to submit to the Keys, or to confess to a Priest is a necessary or integral part of that Repentance, and therefore of Contrition. Concerning the other part of their affirmative, that Attrition is by the Keys chang'd into Contrition; this being turned into words fit for men to speak, such men (I mean) that would be understood, signifies plainly this: That the most imperfect Repentance towards God, is sufficient if it be brought before the Church; that is, a little on the penitent mans part, and a little on the Priests part, is disposition enough to the receiving of a pardon: So that, provided you do all that the Church commands you, you may make the bolder to leave out something of Gods command, which otherwise you might not do. The Priest may do half the work for you. These thus represented, I shall consider apart.

34. I. Confession is an act of Repentance highly requisite to its perfection, and in that regard particularly called upon in holy Scripture. But concerning this, and all the other great exercises, actions or general significations of Repentance, every word singly is used indefinitely for the whole duty of Repentance. Thus Contrition is used by David; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou shalt not despise; that is, a penitent heart God will not reject. The same also is the usage of Confession by S. John; If we confess our sins, 1 John 1.9. he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness; that is, if we repent, God hath promised us pardon and his holy Spirit, that he will justifie us, and that he will sanctifie us. And in pursuance of this, the Church called Ecclesiastical Repentance by the name of Exomologesis, which though it was a Greek word, yet both Greeks and Latines used it. Exomologesis est humiliandi hominis disciplina. So Tertullian. Confession is the discipline of humiliation for a man for his sins: and S. Ambrose calls Confession poenarum compendium, the summ or abbreviature of penance. De Abel & Cain, l. 2. c. 9. And this word was sometimes chang'd, and called Satisfaction: which although the Latine Church in the later ages use only for corporal austerities, which by way of appropriation they are pleased also to call Penances, yet it was anciently used for the whole course and offices of Ecclesiastical Repentance; as appears in the Council of Lib. 1. c. ult. Paris, of Cap 37. Agatho, and the Cap. 11. third Council of Toledo. The result and effect of this observation is, that no more be put upon one part or action of Repentance than upon another, to serve ends. For pardon of sins [Page] is promis'd to the penitent under single words; under Contrition, under Sorrow, under Alms, under judging our selves, under Confession; but no one of these alone is sufficient for pardon: and when pardon is promised to any one, they must mean the whole duty; for when the whole effect is ascribed to a part, that part stands for the whole, and means more than a part.

35. II. But concerning Confession as it is a special act of Repentance, the first thing that is to be said of it, is, that it is due only to God; for he is the person injured, sin is the prevarication of his laws, he is our Judge, and he only can pardon, as he only can punish eternally. Non tibi dico ut tua peccata tanquam in pompam in publicum proferas, neque ut te accuses, sed ut pareas Prophetae dicenti, Revela Domino viam tuam. Apud Deum ea confitere, apud Judicem confitere peccata tua, orans si non linguâ, Psal. 36.5. saltem memoriâ, & ita roga ut tui misereatur. ‘I do not enjoyn thee to betray thy self to the publick ear, bringing thy sins as into a Theatre, but obey the Prophet, saying, Reveal thy way unto the Lord. Confess to God, confess to thy Judge; praying if not with thy tongue, yet at least with thy mind, and pray so that thou mayest be heard.’ So S. Chrysostome. And upon those words of S. Paul, Let a man examine himself, he saith, Non revelavit ulcus, non in commune Theatrum accusationem produxit, In Ep. ad Heb. h [...]m. 31. &c. He did not reveal his ulcer, he did not bring his accusation into the common Theatre; he made none witness of his sins, but in his conscience, none standing by, God only excepted who sees all things. And again, upon that of the Psalm, My sin is always against me; if thou art ashamed to speak it to any one, say them daily in thy mind: I do not say that thou confess them to thy fellow servant who may upbraid thee; say them to God. [...]. Let this judicatory be without assessors or witnesses, let God alone see thy confession. Quod si verecundiâ retrahente, revelare ea coram hominibus erubescis, illi quem latere non possunt confiteri ea jugi supplicatione non desinas, ac dicere, Iniquitatem meam agnosco, &c. qui & absque ullius verecundiae publicatione curare, & sine improperio peccata donare consuevit. So Cassian in the imitation of S. Ambrose In Lucae cap. 22. & Serm. 46.. ‘If bashfulness call thee back,Collat. 20. c. 8. and thou art asham'd to reveal them before men, cease not by a continual supplication to confess them to him from whom they cannot be conceal'd, who without any pressing upon our modesty is wont to cure, and without upbraiding to forgive us our sins.’ And the Fathers of the Council of Cabaillon advanc'd this duty by divers sentences of Scripture; — itae duntaxat ut & Deo qui remissor est peccatorum confite [...]r peccata nostra, & cum David dicamus, Delictum meum cognitum tibi feci, Cap. 33. & habetur de poenit. dist. 1. cap. 90. & injustitiam meam non abscondi: Dixi, confitebor adversum me injustitias meas Domino, & tu remisisti impietatem peccati mei, &c. ‘God is the pardoner of sins, and therefore let us confess to him, and say with David, I have made my sin known unto thee, and mine unrighteousness have I not hid; I said, I will confess mine iniquity unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the wickedness of my sin.’ But this thing is press'd most earnestly by Laurentius Novarriensis, who because he was a Father of the Fifth Age, his words are of more use, by being a testimony that the Ecclesiastical repentance which we find to be now press'd by some as simply necessary, was not the doctrine of those times. "From that day in which thou goest out of the Font, thou becomest to thy self a continual Font, and a daily remission. De poe [...]it. h [...]in. 1. Biblioth. pp. tom. 2. There is no (absolute) necessity of the Priests right hand: from thence forward God hath appointed thee to be thy own judge, thy own arbiter, and hath given thee knowledge whereby of thy self thou mayest discern good and evil; and because while thou remainest in the body, thou canst not be free from sin, God hath after baptism plac'd thy remedy within thy self; he hath plac'd pardon within thy own choice, so that thou art not in the day of thy necessity (indispensably) tied to seek a Priest; but thou thy self as if thou wert a most skilful Doctor and Master, mayest amend thy error within thee, and wash away thy sin by repentance. The fountain is never dry, the water is within thee, absolution is in thy choice, sanctification is in thy diligence, pardon is within the dew of thine own tears. Do not thou therefore look neither for John nor Jordan, be thou thy own baptist, viz. in the baptism of repentance. Thou art defiled after thou art washed, thy bowels are defiled, thy soul is polluted; plunge thy self in the waters of repentance, cleanse thy self by abundance of tears, let compunction be plentifully in thy bowels, — and the Lord himself shall baptize thee with the Holy Ghost and with fire, and shall heap the fruits of repentance, and lay them up like wheat, but the chaff of thy sins he shall burn with unquenchable fire. Many testimonies out of Antiquity to the same purpose are to be seen ready collected by Gratian under the title De poenitentiâ.

36. Now if any one shall inquire to what purpose it is that we should confess our sins to God who already knows them all, especially since to do so can be no part of [Page] mortification to the mans spirit: For if I steal in the presence of my brother, afterwards to tell him who saw me, that I did that which he saw me do, is no confusion of face. That which will be an answer to this, and make it appear necessary to confess to God, will also make it appear, not to be necessary to confess to men, in respect, I say, of any absolute necessity of the thing, or essential obligation of the person.

I answer, that Confession of sins as it is simply taken for enumeration of the actions and kinds of sin, can signifie nothing as to God, for the reasons now mention'd in the inquiry. But when we are commanded to confess our sins, it is nothing else but another expression or word for the Commandment of Repentance. For, Confess your sins, means, acknowledge that you have done amiss, that you were in the wrong way, that you were a miserable person, wandring out of the paths of God, and the methods of Heaven and happiness, that you ought not to have done so, that you have sinn'd against God, and broken his holy laws, and therefore are liable and expos'd to all that wrath of God which he will inflict upon you, or which he threatned. Confession of sins, is a justification of God, and a sentencing of our selves. This is not only certain in the nature of the thing it self; but apparent also in the words of David; Against thee only have I done this evil; ut tu justificeris, that thou mightest be justified in thy saying, Psal. 51.4. and clear when thou art judged. That is, if I be a sinner, then art thou righteous and just in all the evils thou inflictest. So that Confession of sins is like Confession of faith, nothing but a signification of our conviction; it is a publication of our dislike of sin, and a submission to the law of God, and a deprecation of the consequent evils. Confessio erroris, professio est desinendi, said S. Hilary: A confession of our sin, In Psal. 135. is a profession that we will leave it; and again, Confessio peccati ea est, ut id quod à te gestum est per confessionem peccati confitearis esse peccatum. That is confession of sins, not that we enumerate the particulars, and tell the matter of fact to him that remembers them better than we can, but it is a condemning of the sin it self, an acknowledging that we have done foolishly, a bringing it forth to be crucified and killed. This is apparent also in the case of Achan, who was sufficiently convict of the matter of fact by the Divine disposing of lots, which was one of the ways by which God answered the secret inquiries of the Jews; but when he was brought forth to punishment, Joshua said unto him, My son, give I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, Joshua 7.19. and make confession unto him; that is, acknowledge the answer of God to be true, and his judgment upon us not to be causless. To this answers that part of Achans reply;20. Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel. There God was justified, and the glory was given to him, that is, the glory of his Truth and his Justice; but then Joshua adds, and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me. Here it was fit he should make a particular enumeration of the fact; and so he did to Joshua, saying, Thus and thus have I done. For to confess to man, is another thing than to confess to God. Men need to be informed, God needs it not; but God is to be justified and glorified in the sentence and condemnation of the sin or the sinner: and in order to it, we must confess our sin, that is, condemn it, confess it to be a sin, and our selves guilty, and standing at Gods mercy. S. Chrysostom upon those words of S. Paul, If we would judge our selves, we should not be judged, hath these words, He saith not, In 1 Cor. hom. 28. if we would chastise our selves, if we would punish our selves, but only, if we would acknowledge our sins, if we would condemn our selves, if we would give sentence against our sins, we should be freed from that punishment which is due both here and there. For he that hath condemned himself, appeases God upon a double account, both because he hath acknowledged the sins past, and is more careful for the future. To this confession of sins is opposed, the denying our sin, our hiding it from God as Adam did, that is, either by proceeding in it, or by not considering it, or by excusing it, or by justifying it, or by glorying in it: all these are high provocations of Gods anger; but this anger is taken off by confession. Praeveniamus faciem ejus in confessione, said the Psalmist: Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving;Psal. 95.2. so we read it; Let us prevent his anger, or, Let us go before his face with confession, so the old Latin Bibles: which is a doing as the Prodigal did, I will go unto my Father, and say unto him, Father I have sinned against Heaven and against thee: and this is the first act of exterior repentance; but it is of that repentance that is indispensably necessary to salvation; this is Repentance towards God, Acts 20.21. which the Apostles preach'd in the first publication of Christianity.

38. But then besides this, there is a Repentance towards men, and a Confession in order to it. If I have sinn'd against my brother, I must ask his pardon and confess my error, that is, I must repent or confess to him; for he that is the injur'd person hath a right over me; I am his debtor, and oblig'd; and he can forgive me if he [Page] please, and he may chuse: that is, I must pay him the debt I owe him, unless he will be pleased to remit it. For God in his infinite wisdom and goodness, and justice hath taken care to secure every mans interest; and he that takes any thing from me, is bound by Gods law to restore it, and to restore me to that state of good things from whence he forc'd me. Now because for the injury which I have already suffered, he cannot make me equal amends, because whatever he does to me for the future, still it is true that I did suffer evil from him formerly; therefore it is necessary that I do what I can to the reparation of that; but because what is done and past cannot be undone, I must make it up as well as I can; that is, I must confess my sin, and be sorry for it, and submit to the judgment of the offended party, and he is bound to forgive me the sin; and I am bound to make just and prudent amends according to my power; for here every one is bound to do his share. If the offending person hath done his part of duty, the offended must do his, that is, he must forgive him that wrong'd him; if he will not, God will untie the penitent man, and with the same chain fast bind him that is uncharitable.

39. But my brother may be hurt by me, though I have taken nothing from him, nor intended him injury. He may be scandalized by my sin, that is, tempted to sin, incouraged in his vileness, or discontented and made sorrowful for my unworthiness and transgression. In all these cases it is necessary that we repent to them also; that is, that we make amends not only by confession to God, but to our brethren also. For when we acknowledge our folly, we affright them from it; and by repentance we give them caution, that they may not descend into the same state of [...]. And upon this account all publick criminals were tied to a publick Exo [...]ologesis or Repentance in the Church, who by confession of their sins, acknowledged their error, and entred into the state of repentance; and by their being separate from the participation and communion of the mysteries, were declared unworthy of a communion with Christ, and a participation of his promises, till by repentance, and the fruits worthy of it, they were adjudged capable of Gods pardon.

40. At the first this was as the nature of the thing exacted it, in case of publick and notorious crimes, such which had done injury, and wrought publick scandal: and so far was necessary, that the Church should be repaired if she have been injured: if publick satisfaction be demanded, it must be done; if private be required only, then that is sufficient; though in case of notorious crimes it were very well, if the penitent would make his repentance as exemplary as Modesty, and his own and the publick circumstances can permit.

41. In pursuance of this in the Primitive Church, the Bishop and whom he deputed, did minister to these publick satisfactions and amends; which custom of theirs admitted of variety and change according as new scandals or new necessities did arise. For though by the nature of the thing, they only could be necessarily and essentially obliged, who had done publick and notorious offences; yet some observing the advantages of that way of repentance, the prayers of the Church, the tears of the Bishop, the compassion of the faithful, the joy of absolution and reconciliation, did come in voluntarily, and to do that by choice, which the notorious criminals were to do of necessity.

Then the Priests which the penitents had chosen, did publish or enjoyn them to publish their sins in the face of the Church, but this grew intolerable, and was left off, because it grew to be a matter of accusation before the criminal Judge, and of upbraiding in private conversation, and of confidence to them that fought for occasion and hardness of heart and face, and therefore they appointed one only Priest to hear the cases, and receive the addresses of the penitents; and he did publish the sins of them that came, only in general, and by the publication of their penances, and their separation from the mysteries; and this also changed into the more private; and by several steps of progression dwindled away into private repentance towards men, that is, confession to a Priest in private, and private satisfactions, or amends and fruits of repentance: and now, Auricular Confession is nothing else but the publick Exomologesis, or Repentance Ecclesiastical reduced to ashes; it is the reliques of that excellent Discipline, which was in some cases necessary (as I have declared) and in very many cases useful, until by the dissolution of manners, and the extinction of charity it became unsufferable, and a bigger scandal than those which it did intend to remedy. The result is this. That to enumerate our sins before the Holy man that ministers in holy things, that is, Confession to a Priest is not virtually included in the duty of Contrition; for it not being necessary by the nature of the thing, nor the Divine Commandment, [Page] is not necessary absolutely, and properly, in order to pardon; and therefore is no part of Contrition, which without this may be a sufficient disposition towards pardon, unless by accident, as in the case of scandal, the criminal come to be obliged. Only this one advantage is to be made of their doctrine who speak otherwise in this Article. The Divines in the Council of Trent Sess. 14. c. 4. affirm, That they that are contrite are reconciled to God before they receive the Sacrament of Penance, (as they use to speak) that is, before Priestly absolution. If then a man can be contrite before the Priest absolves him, as their saying supposes, and as it is certain they may, and if the desire of absolution be as they say included in Contrition, and consequently that nothing is wanting to obtain pardon to the penitent even before the Priest absolves him; it follows that the Priests absolution following this perfect disposition, and this actual pardon, can effect nothing really; the man is pardon'd before-hand, and therefore his absolution is only declarative. God pardons the man, and the Priest by his office is to tell him so, when he sees cause for it, and observes the conditions completed. Indeed if absolution by the Minister of the Church were necessary, then to desire it also would be necessary, and an act of duty and obedience; but then if the desire (in case it were necessary to desire it) would make Contrition to be complete and perfect, and if perfect contrition does actually procure a pardon, then the Priestly absolution is only a solemn and legal publication of Gods pardon already actually past in the Court of Heaven. For an effect cannot proceed from causes which are not yet in being; and therefore the pardon of the sins for which the penitent is contrite, cannot come from the Priests ministration which is not in some cases to be obtain'd, but desir'd only, and afterwards when it can be obtain'd, comes when the work is done. God it may be accepts the desire, but the Priests ministery afterwards is not, cannot be the cause, why God did accept of that desire; because the desire is accepted, before the absolution is in being.

42. But now although this cannot be a necessary duty for the reasons before reckon'd, because the Priest is not the injur'd person, and therefore cannot have the power of giving pardon properly, and sufficiently, and effectively; and confession is not an amends to him, and the duty it self of Confession is not an enumeration of particulars, but a condemnation of the sin, which is an humiliation before the offended party; yet confession to a Priest, the minister of pardon and reconciliation, the Curate of souls, and the Guide of Consciences is of so great use and benefit to all that are heavy laden with their sins, that they who carelesly and causlesly neglect it, are neither lovers of the peace of consciences, nor are careful for the advantages of their souls.

43. For the publication of our sins to the minister of holy things, [...],Regul. Brev. 229. said Basil, Is just like the manifestation of the diseases of our body to the Physician, for God hath appointed them as spiritual Physicians; [...], to heal sinners by the antidote of repentance, said the Fathers in the first Roman Council under Simplicius. Their office is to comfort the comfortless, to instruct the ignorant, to reduce the wanderers, to restore them that are overtaken in a fault, to reconcile the penitent, to strengthen the weak, and to incourage their labours, to advise remedies against sins, and to separate the vile from the precious, to drive scandals far from the Church, and as much as may be to secure the innocent lambs from the pollutions of the infected. Now in all these regards, the penitent may have advantages from the Ecclesiastical ministrations. There are many cases of conscience, which the penitent cannot determine, many necessities which he does not perceive, many duties which he omits, many abatements of duty which he ignorantly or presumptuously does make; much partiality in the determination of his own interests; and to build up a soul requires so much wisdom, so much severity, so many arts, such caution and observance, such variety of notices, great learning, great prudence, great piety; that as all Ministers are not worthy of that charge, and secret imployment, and conduct of others in the more mysterious and difficult parts of Religion; so it is certain, there are not many of the people that can worthily and sufficiently do it themselves: and therefore although we are not to tell a lie for a good end, and that it cannot be said that God hath by an express law required it, or that it is necessary in the nature of things; yet to some persons it hath put on so many degrees of charity and prudence, and is so apt to minister to their superinduc'd needs; that although to do it is not a necessary obedience, yet it is a necessary charity; it is not necessary in respect of a positive express Commandment, yet it is in order to certain ends which cannot be so well provided for by any other instrument: [Page] it hath not in it an absolute, but it may have a relative and a superinduc'd necessity.

Coelestique viro, quis te deceperit error,

Ovid. Lib. 1. Trist. [...]leg. 3.

Dicito, pro culpâ ne scelus esse putet.

Now here a particular enumeration is the confession that is proper to this ministery; because the minister must be instructed first in the particulars; which also points out to us the manner of his assistances, and of our obligation; it is that we may receive helps by his office and abilities, which can be better applied, by how much more minute and particular the enumeration or confession is; and of this circumstance there can be no other consideration: excepting that the enumeration of shames and follies before a holy man is a very great restraint to the gayeties of a confident, or of a tempted person: For though a man dares sin in the presence of God, yet he dares not let his friend or his enemy see him do a foul act:

Tam facile & pronum est superos contemnere testes,

Si mortalis idem nemo sciat —

And therefore that a reverend man shall see his shame, and with a severe and a broad eye look and stare upon his dishonour, must needs be a great part of Gods restraining grace, and of great use to the mortification and prevention of sin.

44. One thing more there is which is highly considerable in this part or ministery of repentance; It is a great part of that preparation which is necessary for him who needs, and for him who desires absolution Ecclesiastical. Some do need, and some do desire it; and it is of advantage to both. They that need it, and are bound to seek it, are such, who being publickly noted by the Church, are bound by her Censures and Discipline: that is, such who because they have given evil example to all, and encouragement in evil to some, to them that are easie and apt to take; are tied by the publication of their repentance, their open return, and publick amends to restore the Church so far as they can to that state of good things from whence their sin did or was apt to draw her. This indeed is necessary, and can in no regard be excused, if particular persons do not submit themselves to it, unless the Church her self will not demand it, or advise it; and then if there be an error, or a possibility to have it otherwise, the Governours of the Church are only answerable. And in this sence are those decretory sayings, and earnest advices of the ancient Doctors to be understood. Laicus si peccet, ipse suum non potest auferre peccatum, sed indiget Sacerdote ut possit remissionem peccatorum accipere, said Origen. ‘If any of the people sin,Hom. 10. in Num. himself cannot take away his own sin, but must shew himself to the Priest, that he may obtain pardon.’ For they who are spotted with sins, unless they be cured with the Priestly authority, cannot be in the bosome of the Church, said Fabianus Martyr. And as express are those words of S. Basil;Regul. [...]us. e [...] plic. & Regul. brev. 228. [...]. And, [...]. It behoveth every one that is under authority, to keep [...]o motion of their hearts secret, but to lay the secrets of their heart naked before them who are intrusted to take care of them that are weak or sick. That is, the [...], the publick penitents, who are placed in the station of the mourners, must not do their business imperfectly, but make a perfect narrative of their whole case to the penitentiary Minister: and such persons who are under discipline, or under notorious sins, must make their Exomologesis, that is, do Ecclesiastical repentance before them who are the Trustees and Stewards of the mysteries of God: Quâ sine nullus remissione potietur, said a Father to S. John de Gradibus: without which Exomologesis, or publick Ecclesiastical confession, or amends, no man shall obtain pardon: meaning, the peace of the Church. For to this sence we are to understand the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and we learn it from S. Austin. Enchirid. c. 6 [...]. Rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae praesunt tempora poenitentiae, ut fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae, in quâ remittuntur ipsa peccata. Extra eam quippe non remittuntur. The times of penance are with great reason appointed by Ecclesiastical Governours, that the Church in whose communion sins are forgiven, may be satisfied. For out of her, there is no forgiveness.

45. For in this case the Church hath a power of binding, and retaining sins and sinners; that is, a denying to them the priviledges of the faithful, till they by publick [Page] repentance and satisfaction have given testimony of their return to Gods favour and service. The Church may deny to pray publickly for some persons, and refuse to admit them into the society of those that do pray, and refuse till she is satisfied concerning them, by such signs and indications as she will appoint and chuse. For it appears in both Testaments, that those who are appointed to pray for others, to stand between God and the people, had it left in their choice sometimes, and sometimes were forbidden to pray for certain criminals. Thus God gave to the Prophet charge concerning Ephraim: Jer. 7.16. Pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession for them, for I will not hear thee. Like to this was that of S. John; There is a sin unto death. I say not that ye pray for him that sins unto death; that is, do not admit such persons to the communion of prayers and holy offices; at least the Church may chuse whether she will or no.

46. The Church in her Government and Discipline had two ends, and her power was accordingly, apt to minister to these ends; 1. By condemning and punishing the sin, she was to do what she could to save the criminal; that is, by bringing him to repentance and a holy life, to bring him to pardon: 2. And if she could, or if she could not effect this, yet she was to remove the scandal, and secure the flock from infection; This was all that was needful, this was all that was possible to be done. In order to the first, the Apostles had some powers extraordinary, which were indeed necessary at the beginning of the Religion, not only for this, but for other ministrations. The Apostles had power to bind sinners; that is, to deliver them over to Satan, and to sad diseases, or death it self: and they had power to loose sinners, that is, to cure their diseases, to unloose Satans bands, to restore them to Gods favour and pardon.

47. This manner of speaking was used by our blessed Saviour in this very case of sickness and infirmity: Ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, loe these eighteen years, be loosed from this band on the Sabbath day? The Apostles had this power of binding and loosing; and that this is the power of remitting and retaining sins, appears without exception, in the words of our blessed Saviour to the Jews, who best understood the power of forgiving sins by seeing the evil which sin brought on the guilty person taken away. That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins; He saith to the man sick of the Palsie, Arise, take up thy bed and walk. For there is a power in Heaven, and a power on Earth to forgive sins. The power that is in Heaven, is the publick absolution of a sinner at the day of Judgment. The power on Earth to forgive sins, is a taking off those intermedial evils which are inflicted in the way; sicknesses, temporal death, loss of the Divine grace, and of the priviledges of the faithful; These Christ could take off when he was upon Earth, and his Heavenly Father sent him to do all this, to heal all sicknesses, and to cure all infirmities, and to take away our sins, and to preach glad tidings to the poor, and comfort to the afflicted, and rest to the weary and heavy laden. The other judgment is to be perform'd by Christ at his second coming.

48. Now as God the Father sent his Son, so his holy Son sent his Apostles, with the same power on Earth to bind and loose sinners, to pardon sins by taking away the material evil effects which sin should superinduce; or to retain sinners by binding them in sad and hard bands to bring them to reason, or to make others afraid. Thus S. Peter sentenc'd Ananias and Saphira to a temporal death: and S. Paul stroke Elymas with blindness, and deliver'd over the incestuous Corinthian to be beaten by an evil spirit, and so also he did to Hymenaeus and Alexander.

49. But this was an extraordinary power, and not to descend upon the succeeding ages of the Church: but it was in this as in all other ministeries; something miraculous and extraordinary was for ever to consign a lasting truth and ministery in ordinary. The preaching of the Gospel, that is, faith it self▪ at first, was prov'd by miracles; and the Holy Ghost was given by signs and wonders, and sins were pardon'd by the gifts of healing; and sins were retained by the hands of an Angel, and the very visitation of the sick was blessed with sensible and strange recoveries; and every thing was accompanied with a miracle, excepting the two Sacraments, in the administration of which we do not find any mention of any thing visibly miraculous in the records of holy Scripture; and the reason is plain, because these two Sacraments were to be for ever the ordinary ministeries of those graces which at first were consign'd by signs and wonders extraordinary. For in all ages of the Church reckoning exclusively from the days of the Apostles, all the graces of the Gospel, all the promises of God were conveyed, or consign'd, or fully ministred by these Sacraments, and by [Page] nothing else, but what was in order to them. These were the inlets and doors by which all the faithful were admitted into the outer Courts of the Lords Temple, or into the secrets of the Kingdom; and the solemnities themselves were the Keys of these doors; and they that had the power of ministration of them, they had the power of the Keys.

50. These then being the whole Ecclesiastical power, and the summ of their ministrations, were to be dispensed according to the necessities and differing capacities of the sons and daughters of the Church. The Thessalonians who were not furnished with a competent number of Ecclesiastical Governours, were commanded to abstain from the company of the brethren that walk'd disorderly. S. John wrote to the Elect Lady, that she should not entertain in her house false Apostles: and when the former way did expire of it self, and by the change of things, and the second advice was not practicable and prudent, they were reduced to the only ordinary ministery of remitting and retaining sins, by a direct admitting, or refusing and deferring to admit criminals to their ministeries of pardon, which were now only left in the Church, as their ordinary power and ministration. For since in this world all our sins are pardon'd by those ways and instruments which God hath constituted in the Church; and there are no other external rites appointed by Christ but the Sacraments, it follows, that as they are worthily communicated or justly denied, so the pardon is or is not ministred.

And therefore when the Church did bind any sinner by the bands of Discipline, she did remove him from the mysteries, and sometimes enjoyn'd external or internal acts of repentance, to testifie and to exercise the grace, and so to dispose them to pardon; and when the penitents had given such testimonies which the Church demanded, then they were absolved, that is, they were admitted to the mysteries. For in the Primitive records of the Church, there was no form of absolution judicial, nothing but giving them the holy Communion, admitting them to the peace of the Church, to the society and priviledges of the faithful. For this was giving them pardon, by vertue of those words of Christ, Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted; that is, if ye who are the Stewards of my family, shall admit any one to the Kingdom of Christ on Earth, they shall be admitted to the participation of Christs Kingdom in Heaven; and what ye bind here, shall be bound there; that is, if they be unworthy to partake of Christ here, they shall be accounted unworthy to partake of Christ hereafter; if they separate from Christs members, they also shall be separate from the head; and this is the full sence of the power given by Christ to his Church concerning sins and sinners, called by S. Paul, The word of reconciliation.

For as for the other later and superinduc'd Ministery of pardon in judicial forms of absolution; that is wholly upon other accounts, of good use indeed, to all them that desire it by reason of their present perswasions and scruples, fears and jealousies concerning the event of things. For sometimes it happens what one said of old; Mens nostra difficillimè sedatur; Deus faciliús. God is sooner at peace with us, than we are at peace with our own minds; and because our repentances are always imperfect; and he who repents the most excellently, and hates his sin with the greatest detestation, may possibly by his sence of the foulness of his sin, undervalue his repentance, and suspect his sorrow, and because every thing is too little to deserve pardon, he may think it is too little to obtain it; and the man may be melancholy, and melancholy is fearful, and fear is scrupulous, and scruples are not to be satisfied at home, and not very easily abroad, in the midst of these and many other disadvantages, it will be necessary that he whose office it is to separate the vile from the precious, and to judge of leprosie, should be made able to judge of the state of this mans repentance, and upon notice of particulars, to speak comfort to him or some thing for institution. For then if the Minister of holy things shall think fit to pronounce absolution, that is, to declare that he believes him to be a true penitent and in the state of grace, it must needs add much comfort to him and hope of pardon, not only upon the confidence of his wisdom and spiritual learning, but even from the prayers of the holy man, and the solemnity of his ministration; To pronounce absolution in this case, is to warrant him so far as his case is warrantable: That is, to speak comfort to him that is in need: to give sentence in a case which is laid before him; in which the party interested, either hath no skill, or no confidence, or no comfort. Now in this case to dispute whether the Priest, power be Judicial, or Optative, or Declarative, is so wholly to no purpose; that this sentence is no part of any power at all; but it is his office to do it, and is an effect of wisdom, not of power; it is like the answering of a question, which indeed ought to be askt of him; as every man prudently is to inquire in every matter of concernment, from him who is skill'd and experienced, and profest [Page] in the faculty. But the Priests proper power of absolving, that is, of pardoning (which is in no case communicable to any man who is not consecrated to the Ministery) is a giving the penitent the means of eternal pardon, the admitting him to the Sacraments of the Church, and the peace and communion of the faithful; because that is the only way really to obtain pardon of God; there being in ordinary no way to Heaven but by serving God in the way which he hath commanded us by his Son, that is, in the way of the Church, which is his body, whereof he is Prince and Head. The Priest is the Minister of holy things; he does that by his Ministery, which God effects by real dispensation; and as he gives the Spirit not by authority and proper efflux, but by assisting and dispensing those rites, and promoting those graces which are certain dispositions to the receiving of him: just so he gives pardon; not as a King does it; nor yet as a Messenger; that is, not by way of authority and real donation; nor yet only by declaration: but as a Physician gives health; that is, he gives the remedy which God appoints; and if he does so, and if God blesses the medicines, the person recovers, and God gives the health.

52. For it is certain that the holy man who ministers in repentance hath no other proper power of giving pardon than what is now described. Because he cannot pardon them who are not truly penitent, and if the sinner be, God will pardon him, whether the Priest does or no; and what can be the effect of these things, but this; that the Priest does only minister to the pardon, as he ministers to repentance? He tells us upon what conditions God does pardon, and judges best when the conditions are performed, and sets forward those conditions by his proper ministery, and ministers to us the instruments of grace, but first takes accounts of our souls, and helps us who are otherwise too partial, to judge severe and righteous judgment concerning our eternal interest, and he judges for us, and does exhort or reprove, admonish or correct, comfort or humble, loose or bind. So the Minister of God is the Minister of reconciliation: that is, he is the Minister of the Gospel; for that is the Word of Reconciliation which S. Paul affirms to be intrusted to him: in every office by which the holy man ministers to the Gospel, in every of them he is the Minister of pardon.

53. But concerning that which we call Absolution, that is, a pronouncing the person to be absolved; it is certain that the forms of the present use, were not used for many ages of the Church: In the Greek Church they were never used; and for the Latin Church in Thomas Aquinas his time they were so new that he put it into one of his Quaestiones disputatae, whether form were more fit, the Optative or the Judicial; whether it were better to say; [God of his mercy pardon thee] or [by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee] and in Peter Lombards days when it was esteemed an innocent doctrine to say that the Priests power was only declarative, it is likely the form of absolution would be according to the power believed; which not being then universally believed to be Judicial, the Judicial form could not be of universal use; and in the Pontifical there is no Judicial form at all; but only Optative or by way of prayer. But in this affair, besides what is already mentioned; I have two great things to say which are a sufficient determination of this whole Article.

54. I. The first is, that in the Primitive Church there was no such thing as a judicial absolution of sins used in any Liturgy, or Church, so far as can appear; but all the absolution of penitents which is recorded, was the mere admitting them to the mysteries and society of the faithful in religious offices, the summ and perfection of which was the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper. So the fourth Council of Carthage Can. 76. makes provision for a penitent that is near death; reconcilietur per manus impositionem, & infundatur ori ejus Eucharistia: Let him be reconciled by the imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be poured into his mouth: that was all the solemnity; even when there was the greatest need of the Churches ministery; that is, before their penances and satisfactions were completed. The Priest or Bishop laid his hands upon him, and prayed, and gave him the Communion. For that this was the whole purpose of imposition of hands, we are taught expresly by S. Austin, who being to prove that imposition of hands,Lib. 3. de baptism. cap. 16. viz. in repentance, might be repeated, though baptism might not; uses this for an argument, Quid enim est aliud nisi oratio super hominem? It is nothing else but a Prayer said over the man. And indeed this is evident and notorious in matter of fact; for in the beginning and in the progression, in the several periods of publick repentance, and in the consummation of it, the Bishop or the Priest did very often impose hands, that is, pray over the penitent; as appears in Is. Ling. from the authority of the Gallican Councils:Tertio tomo con. Gall. c. 8. & 11. Omni tempore jejuniis manus poenitentibus à Sacerdotibus imponantur: And again, Criminalia peccata [Page]multis jejuniis, & crebris manus sacerdotum impositionibus, eorúmque supplicationibus juxta Canonum statuta placuit purgari. Criminal, that is, great sins must according to the Canons be purged with much fasting and frequent impositions of the Priests hands, and their supplications. In every time or period of their fast, let the Priests hands be laid upon the penitents: that is, let the Priests frequently pray with him, and for him, or over him. The same with that which he also observes out of the Nicene Council;Cap. 16. & 17. Vultu & capite humiliato humilitèr & ex corde veniam postulent, & pro se orare exposcant: that's the intent of imposition of hands; let the penitent humbly ask pardon, that is, desire that the holy man and all the Church would pray for him: This in every stage or period of repentance was a degree of reconciliation: for as God pardons a sinner when he gives him time to repent; he pardons him in one degree, that is, he hath taken off that anger which might justly and instantly crush him all in pieces; and God pardons him yet more when he exhorts him to repentance, and yet more when he inclines him, and as he proceeds, so does God, but the pardon is not full, and final till the repentance is so too: So does the Minister of repentance and pardon: Those only are in the unpardoned state who are cut off from all entercourse in holy things, with holy persons, in holy offices; when they are admitted to do repentance, they are admitted to the state of pardon; and every time the Bishop, or Minister prays for him, he still sets him forwarder towards the final pardon; but then the penitent is fully reconciled on Earth, when having done his repentance towards men, that is, by the commands of the Church, he is admitted to the holy Communion; and if that be sincerely done on the penitents part, and this be maturely and prudently done on the Priests part; as the repentance towards men was a repentance also towards God: so the absolution before men is a certain indication of absolution before God. But as to the main question; Then the Church only did reconcile penitents when she admitted them to the Communion; and therefore in the second Council of Carthage, absolution is called,Can. 4. reconciliari Divinis altaribus, a being reconciled to the Altar of God: and in the Council of Eliberis, Communione reconciliari, a being reconciled by receiving the Communion, opposite to which in the same Canon is, Communionem non accipiat;Can. 72. he may not receive the Communion, that is, he shall not be absolved. The same is to be seen in the eighth Canon of the Council of Ancyra, in the second Canon of the Council of Laodicea, in the 85 Epistle of P. Leo; and the first Epistle of P. Vigilius, and in the third Council of Toledo, Can. 11. we find the whole process of binding and loosing described in these words: Because we find that in certain Churches of Spain men do not according to the Canons, but unworthily repent them of their sins, that so often as they please to sin, so often they desire of the Priest to be reconciled: therefore for the restraining so execrable a presumption; it is commanded by the holy Council that repentance should be given according to the form of the ancient Canons; that is, that he who repents him of his doings, being first suspended from the Communion, he should amongst the other penitents often run to the imposition of hands, that is, to the Prayers of the Bishop and the Church: but when the time of his satisfaction is completed, according as the Priests prudence shall approve, let him restore him to the Communion. That's the absolution, as the rejecting him from it was the binding him; It was an excommunication; from which when he was restored to the Communion, he was loosed: And this was so known, so universal a practice, and process of Ecclesiastical repentance, that without any alteration (as to the main inquiry) it continued so in the Church to very many ages succeeding, and it was for a long while together the custom of penitent people in the beginning of Lent to come voluntarily to receive injunctions of discipline and penitential offices from the Priest, and to abstain from the holy Communion till they had done their penances, and then by ceremonies and prayers to be restored to the Communion at Easter; without any other form of Judicial absolution, as is to be seen in Albinus and in the Roman Pontifical. De divers. offi [...]. c. 13. & 16. To which this consideration may be added; That the reconciling of penitents in the Primitive Church, was not done by the Bishop or Priest only; but sometimes by Deacons, as appears in Saint Cyprian; and sometimes by the people,Lib. 3. Ep. 17. 2 Cor. 2.10. de Consecrat. dist. 4. cap. Sanctum. as it was allowed by S. Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian; and was frequently permitted to the Confessori in the times of persecution; and may be done by an unbaptized Catechumen, as S. Austin affirms. The result of which is, that this absolution of penitents in the Court Christian, was not an act of Priestly power incommunicably; it was not a dispensation of the proper power of the Keys, but to give, or not to give the Communion; that was an effect of the power of the Keys; that was really, properly, and in effect, the Ecclesiastical absolution; for that which the Deacons, or Confessors, the Laicks or [Page] Catechumens did, was all that, and only that which was of rite or ceremony before the giving the Communion: therefore that which was besides this giving the Communion was no proper absolution; it was not a Priestly act indispensably; it might be done by them that were no Priests: but the giving of the Communion, that was a sacerdotal act, I mean the consecration of it; though the tradition of it, was sometimes by Deacons, sometimes by themselves at home: This therefore was the dispensation of the Keys; this was the effect of the powers of binding and loosing, of remitting, or retaining sins, according as the sence and practice of the Church expounded her own power. The prayers of the Priest going before his ministration of the Communion were called absolution; that is, the beginning, and one of the first portions of it:Isaac Lin. tit. 1. c. 16. absolutio Sacerdotalium precum; so it was called in ancient Councils; the Priest imposed hands, and prayed; and then gave the Communion. This was the ordinary way. But there was an extraordinary.

55. For in some cases the imposition of hands was omitted; that is, when the Bishop or Priest was absent; and the Deacon prayed, or the Confessor: but this was first by the leave of the Bishop or Priest, for to them it belong'd in ordinary. And 2. this was nothing else but a taking them from the station of the penitents and a placing them amongst the faithful communicants; either by declaring that their penances were performed, or not to be exacted.

56. For by this we shall be clear of an objection which might arise from the case of dying penitents; to whom the Communion was given, and they restored to the peace of the Church, that is, as they supposed, to Gods mercy and the pardon of sins; for they would not chuse to give the Communion to such persons whom they did not believe God had pardoned: but these persons though communicated; non tamen se credant absolutos sine manus impositione si supervixerint, Can. 78. were not to suppose themselves absolved if they recovered that sickness without imposition of hands; said the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Carthage, by which it should seem, absolution was a thing distinct from giving the Communion.

57. To this I answer, that the dying penitent was fully absolved, in case he had receiv'd the first imposition of hands for repentance, that is, if in his health he submitted himself to penance, and publick amends, and was prevented from finishing the impositions, they supposed that desire and endeavour of the penitent man was a worthy disposition to the receiving the holy Communion, and both together sufficient for pardon, but because this was only to be in the case of such intervening necessity, and God will not accept of the will for the deed, but in such cases where the deed cannot be accomplished, therefore they bound such penitents to return to their first obligation in case they should recover, since God had taken off their necessity, and restored them to their first capacity. And by this we understand the meaning of the third Canon of the first Arausican Council. They who having received penance depart from the body, it pleases that they shall be communicated sine reconciliatoriâ manus impositione, without the reconciling imposition of hands; that is, because the penitential imposition of hands was imposed upon them, and they did what they could, though the last imposition was not, though the last hand was not put upon them, declaring that they had done their penances, and completed their satisfactions, yet they might be communicated, that is, absolved; Quod morientis sufficit consolationi, This is enough to the comfort of the dying man according to the definition of the Fathers who conveniently enough called such a Communion their Viaticum, their Passe-port or provision for their way. For there were two solemn impositions of hands in repentance; The first and greatest was in the first admission of them and in the imposition of the Discipline or manner of performing penances: and this was the Bishops office; and of great consideration amongst the holy Primitives; and was never done but by the superior Clergy, as is evident in Ecclesiastical story. The second solemn imposition of hands was immediately before their absolution or Communion; and it was a holy prayer and publication that he was accepted and had finished that processe: This was the less solemn, and was ordinarily done by the superior Clergy; but sometimes by others, as I have remonstrated: other intermedial impositions there were, as appears by the Creber recursus mentioned in the third Council of Toledo above cited; the penitents were often to beg the Bishops pardon, or the Priests prayers, and the advocations and intercessions of the faithful; but the peace of the Church, that is, that pardon which she could minister, and which she had a promise that God would confirm in Heaven, was the Ministery of pardon in the dispensation of the Sacrament of that body that was broken, and that blood that was poured forth for the remission of our sins.

[Page]58. The result is; That the absolution of sins which in the later forms and usages of the Church is introduced, can be nothing but declarative; the office of the preacher and the guide of souls; of great use to timorous persons, and to the greatest penitents, full of comfort, full of usefulness, and institution; and therefore although this very declaration of pardon may truly and according to the style of Scripture be called pardon; and the power and office of pronouncing the penitents pardon is in the sence of the Scripture and the Church, a good sence and signification of power; as the Pharisees are said [...]o justifie God, when they declare his justice; and as the preacher that converts a sinner is said [...], to save a soul from death; yet if we would speak properly, and as things are in their own nature and institution, this declarative absolution is only an act of preaching, or opening and reading the Commission; an effect of the Spirit of prudence and government entring upon the Church; but the power of the Keys is another thing; it is the dispensing all those rites and ministeries by 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,In 16. Mat. 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 [Page] 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 fears Hell, but does not love God. If it be said that absolution changes fear into love, attrition into contrition, a Saul into a David, a Judas into a John, a Simon Magus into Simon Peter; then the greatest conversions and miracles of change, may be wrought in an instant by an ordinary ministery; and when Simon Magus was affrighted by S. Peter about the horror of his sin, and told that he was in the gall of bitterness, and thereupon desired the Apostle to pray for him, if S. Peter had but absolved him, which he certainly might upon that affright he put the Sorcerer in; he had made him a Saint presently, and needed not to have spoken so uncertainly concerning him; Pray, if peradventure the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. For without peradventure he might have made a quicker dispatch, and a surer work, by giving him absolution upon his present submission, and the desire of his prayers, and his visible apparent fear of being in the gall of bitterness, all which must needs be as much or more than the Roman Schools define Attrition to be. But,

65. II. The Priest pardons upon no other terms than those upon which God pardons; for if he does, then he is not the minister of God, but the supreme lord, and must do it by his own measures, if he does it not by the measures of God. For God [Page] does never pardon him that is only attrite; and this is confessed, in that they require the man to go to the Priest, that he may be made contrite: which is all one, as if he were bidden to go to the Priest to be made chast, or liberal, temperate or humble in an instant.

66. III. And if it be said, that although God does not pardon him that is attrite, unless it be together with the Keys, that is, unless the Priest absolves him; but then, it being all that God requires in that case, the Priest does no more than God warrants; it is done by Gods measures; the attrition or imperfect repentance of the penitent, and the Keys of the Church being all which God requires: this indeed if it could be proved were something, but there is no tittle of it in Scripture or Antiquity; it being no where said, that attrition and absolution alone are sufficient, and is an unreasonable dream but of yesterday.

67. IV. For if attrition be good of it self, and a sufficient disposition to receive pardon from the Church, then it is also sufficient to obtain pardon of God without the Church, in case of necessity. For unless it be for him in case of necessity sufficient to desire absolution, then the outward act does more than the inward, and the ceremony were more than the grace, and the Priest could do more than God would; for the Priest would and could pardon him, whom God would not pardon without the Priest; and the will could not be accepted for the deed, when the deed were impossible to be done; and God would require of us more than we have, more than he hath given us; and a man should live or die not by himself, but should be judged by the actions of others. All which contain in them impossible affirmatives, and therefore proceed from a false principle.

68. V. But then if Attrition in some cases without the Sacrament were good, it is as good to all intents and purposes of pardon, as Contrition; for Contrition (say the Roman Schools) is not sufficient of it self without the Keys; that is, unless it contain in it a resolution to confess and beg absolution. Now this resolution is no resolution, unless it be reduced to act when it can; it is a mockery if it does not; and it is to be excused in no case, but in that of necessity. And just so it is in attrition, as I have proved. In vain therefore it is for any good man to perswade his penitent to heighten his repentance, and to be contrite; for he may at a cheaper rate be assured of his pardon, if he makes the Priest his friend: but as for Contrition, by this doctrine, it is more than needs.

69. VI. But then it is strange, that Attrition which of it self is insufficient, shall yet do the work of pardon with the Priests absolution; and yet that that which is sufficient (as Contrition is affirmed to be in the Council of Trent) shall not do it without absolution, in act or desire; that is in act always, unless it be impossible:Sess. 14. c. 4. This incourages the imperfect, and discourages the perfect, tying them both to equal laws, whether they need it, or need it not.

70. VII. But I demand; Can the Priest hearing of a penitent mans confession, whom he justly and without error perceives only to be attrite, can he (I say) refuse to absolve him, can he retain his sins, till he perceives him to be contrite? certainly in the Primitive Church when they deferr'd to give him the peace of the Church for three, for seven, for ten, for thirteen years together, their purpose then was to work in him contrition, or the most excellent Repentance. But however, if he can refuse to absolve such a man, then it is because absolution will not work for him what is defective in him; it will not change it into contrition, for if it could, then to refuse to absolve him, were highly uncharitable and unreasonable. But if he cannot refuse to absolve such a person, it is because he is sufficiently disposed, he hath done all that God requires of him to dispose himself to it; and if so, then the Sacrament (as they call it) that is, the Priests absolution does nothing to the increasing his disposition, it is sufficient already. Add to this, if in the case of attrition the Priest may not deny to absolve the imperfect penitent, then it is certain God will absolve him, in case the Priest does not; for if the Priest be bound and refuses to do it, this ought not, it cannot prejudice the penitent, but himself only. He therefore shall not perish for want of the Priests absolution; and if it could be otherwise, then the Parishioner might be damned for the Curates fault, which to affirm were certain blasphemy and heresie. What the Priest is bound to do, God will do, if the Priest will not. The result is this. That if this imperfect repentance, which they call attrition, be a sufficient disposition to absolution, then the Priests ministery is not operative for the making it sufficient; and indeed it were strange it should, that absolution should make contrition, and yet contrition be necessary in order to absolution; that the form [Page] should make the matter, that one essential or integral part should make another; that what is to be before, must be made by that which comes after. But if this attrition be not a sufficient disposition to absolution, then the Priest may not absolve such imperfect penitents. So that the Priest cannot make it sufficient, if of it self it be insufficient; and if it be of it self sufficient, then his absolution does but declare it so, it effects it not.

71. VIII. And after all, it is certain that the words of absolution effect no more than they signifie. If therefore they do pardon the sin, yet they do not naturally change the disposition or the real habit of the sinner. And if the words can effect more, they may be changed to signifie what they do effect; for to signifie is less than to effect. Can therefore the Church use this form of absolution? I do by the power committed unto me, change thy Attrition into Contrition. The answer to this is not yet made; for their pretence is so new, and so wholly unexamined, that they have not yet considered any thing of it. It will therefore suffice for our institution in this useful, material and practical question, that no such words were instituted by Christ, nor any thing like them; no such were used by the Primitive Church, no such power pretended. And as this new doctrine of the Roman Church contains in it huge estrangements, and distances from the spirit of Christianity, is another kind of thing than the doctrine and practice of the Apostolical and succeeding ages of the Church did publish or exercise: so it is a perfect destruction to the necessity of holy life, it is a device only to advance the Priests office, and to depress the necessity of holy dispositions; it is a trick to make the graces of Gods holy Spirit to be bought and sold; and that a man may at a price become holy in an instant, just as if a Teacher of Musick should undertake to convey skill to his Scholar, and fell the art and transmit it in an hour; it is a device to make dispositions by art, and in effect requires little or nothing of duty to God, so they pay regard to the Priest. But I shall need to oppose no more against it, but those excellent words, and pious meditation of Salvian. Non levi agendum est contritione, ut debita illa redimantur quibus mors aeterna debetur, nec transitoriâ opus est satisfactione pro malis illis propter quae paratus est ignis aeternus. It is not a light contrition, by which those debts can be redeem'd to which eternal death is due; neither can a transitory satisfaction serve for those evils, for which God hath prepared the vengeance of eternal fire.

SECT. VI. Of Penances, or Satisfactions.

72. IN the Primitive Church, the word Satisfaction, was the whole word for all the parts and exercises of repentance; according to those words of Lactantius, Poenitentiam proposuit, ut si peccata nostra confessi Deo satisfecerimus, veniam consequamur. He propounded repentance, that if we confessing our sins to God, make amends or satisfaction, we may obtain pardon. Where it is evident, that Satisfaction does not signifie in the modern sence of the word, a full payment to the Divine Justice; but by the exercises of repentance a deprecation of our fault, and a begging pardon. Satisfaction and pardon are not consistent, if satisfaction signifie rigorously. When the whole debt is paid, there is nothing to be forgiven. The Bishops and Priests in the Primitive Church would never give pardon till their satisfactions were performed. To confess their sins, to be sorrowful for them, to express their sorrow, to punish the guilty person, to do actions contrary to their former sins, this was their amends or Satisfaction; and this ought to be ours. So we find the word used in best Classick Authors. So Plautus brings in Alcmena angry with Amphitruo.

—Quin ego illum aut deseram

Aut satisfaciat mihi, atque adjuret insuper

Nolle esse dicta, quae in me insontem protulit.

[Page] i. e. I will leave him, unless he give me satisfaction, and swear that he wishes that to be unsaid, which he spake against my innocence: for that was the form of giving satisfaction, to wish it undone, or unspoken, and to add an oath that they believe the person did not deserve that wrong: as we find it in Terence Adelph. Ego vestra haec novi: nollem factum: jusjurandum dabitur, esse te indignum injuriâ hâc. Concerning which, who please to see more testimonies of the true sence and use of the word Satisfactions, may please to look upon Lambinus in Plauti Amphitr. and Laevinus Torrentius upon Suetonius in Julio.

Exomologesis, or Confession was the word which (as I noted formerly) was of most frequent use in the Church. Si de exomologesi retractas, gehennam in corde considera quam tibi exomologesis extinguet. He that retracts his sins by confessing and condemning them, extinguishes the flames of Hell. So Tertullian. The same with that of S. Cyprian, Deo patri, & misericordi precibus & operibus suis satisfacere possunt. De poenit. c. 12. They may satisfie God our Father and merciful, by prayers and good works: that is, they may by these deprecate their fault, and obtain mercy and pardon for their sins: Peccatum suum satisfactione humili & simplici confitentes; So Cyprian, De lapsis. confessing their sins with humble and simple satisfaction: plainly intimating, that Confession or Exomologesis was the same with that which they called Satisfaction. And both of them were nothing but the publick exercise of repentance (according to the present usages of their Churches) as appears evidently in those words of Gennadius; L. de degm. Eccl [...]s. Poenitentiae satisfactionem esse causas peccatorum exscindere, nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere. To cut off the causes of sins, and no more to entertain their whispers and temptations, is the satisfaction of repentance: and like this is that of Lactantius, Potest reduci & liberari si eum poeniteat actorum, & ad meliora conversus satisfaciat Deo. The sinner may be brought back and freed, if he repents of what is done, and satisfies or makes amends to God by being turned to better courses. And the whole process of this is well described by Tertullian. Exomologesis est quâ delictum Domino nostrum confitemur, De poenit. c. 9. non quidem ut ignaro, sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur, confessione poenitentia nascitur, penitentiâ Deus mitigatur: we must confess our sins to God, not as if he did not know them already, but because our satisfaction is dispos'd and order'd by confession; by confession our repentance hath birth and production, and by repentance God is appeased.

73. Things being thus, we need not immerge our selves in the trifling controversies of our later Schools, about the just value of every work, and how much every penance weighs, and whether God is so satisfied with our penal works, that in justice he must take off so much as we put on, and is tied also to take our accounts. Certain it is, if God should weigh our sins with the same value as we weigh our own good works, all our actions and sufferings would be found infinitely too light in the balance. Therefore it were better that we should do what we can, and humbly beg of God to weigh them both with vast allowances of mercy. All that we can do, is to be sorrowful for our sins, and to leave them, and to endeavour to obey God in the time to follow; and to take care, ut aliquo actu administretur poenitentia, Tertul. de poenit. that our repentance be exercised with certain acts proper to it. Of which these are usually reckoned as the principal.

Sorrow and Mourning.

74. So S. Cyprian. Satisfactionibus & lamentationibus justis peccata redimuntur. Serm. de lapsis. Our sins are redeem'd or wash'd off by the satisfactions of just sorrow or mourning. And Pacianus gives the same advice, Behold, Paran. ad Poenit. I promise that if you return to your Father by a true satisfaction, wandring no more, adding nothing to your former sins, and saying something humble and mournful [We have sinn'd in thy sight, O Father, we are not worthy of the name of sons] presently the unclean beast shall depart from thee, and thou shalt no longer be fed with the filthy nourishment of husks. Hom. in die Ciner. And S. Maximus calls this mourning and weeping for our sins, moestam poenitentiae satisfactionem, the sorrowful amends or satisfaction of repentance. The meaning of this is; That when we are grieved for our sins and deplore them, we hate them, and go from them, and convert to God who only can give us remedy.

Corporal Afflictions.

[Page]

75. Such as are, Fastings, watchings, hair-cloth upon our naked bodies, lyings upon the ground, journeys on foot, doing mean offices, serving sick and wounded persons, solitariness, silence, voluntary restraints of liberty, refusing lawful pleasure, chusing at certain times the less pleasing meats, laborious postures in prayer, saying many and devout prayers with our arms extended, in the fashion of Christ hanging on the Cross, which indeed is a painful and afflictive posture, but safe and without detriment to our body: add to these the austerities used by some of the Ancients in their Ascetick devotions, who sometimes rolled themselves naked upon Nettles, or Thorns, shut themselves in Tombs, bound themselves to Pillars, endured heats and colds in great extremity, chastisements of the body, and all ways of subduing it to the Empire of the Soul. Of which Antiquity is infinitely full; and of which at last they grew so fond and enamoured, that the greatest part of their Religion was self-affliction; but I chuse to propound only such prudent severities as were apt to signifie a godly sorrow, to destroy sin, and to deprecate Gods anger in such ways of which they had experience, or warrant express, or authentick precedents; their Exomologesis being, as Tertullian describes it,De poenit. c. 9. a discipline of humbling and throwing a man down, conversationem injungens misericordiae illicem, enjoyning a life that will allure to pity: de ipso quoque habitu atque victu mandat, sacco & cineri incubare, corpus sordibus obscurare. Penitential sorrow expresses it self in the very clothes and gestures of the body; that is, a great sorrow is apt to express it self in every thing, and infects every part of a man with its contact. Vt Alexandrum Regem videmus, qui cum interemisset Clytum familiarem suum, Vide Ciceron. Tuscul. 4. vix à se abstinuit manus: tanta vis fuit poenitendi. When Alexander had kill'd his friend Clytus, he scarce abstained from killing himself: so great is the effort and violence of repentance: and this is no other thing than what the Apostle said, If one member of the body is afflicted, all the rest suffer with it: and if the heart be troubled, he that is gay in any other part goes about to lessen his trouble, and that takes off, it does not promote repentance.

76. But the use of this is material; It is a direct judging of our selves, and a perverting the wrath of God; not that these penances are a payment for the reserve of the temporal guilt, remaining after the sin is pardoned. That's but a dream, for the guilt and the punishment are not to be distinguished in any material event: so long as a man is liable to punishment, so long he is guilty: and so long he is unpardoned, as he is obnoxious to the Divine anger. God cannot, will not punish him that is innocent; and he that is wholly pardoned, is in the place and state of a guiltless person. Indeed God punishes as he pleases, and pardons as he pleases, by parts, and as he is appeased, or as he inclines to mercy; but our general measure is, As our repentance is, so is our pardon, and every action of repentance does something of help to us, and this of self-affliction, when it proceeds from a hearty detestation of sin, and indignation against our selves for having provoked God, is a very good exercise of repentance; of it self it profits little, but as it is a fruit of repentance, in the vertue of it it is accepted towards its part of expiation, and they that have refused this, have felt worse; ‘Et qui non tulerat verbera, tela tulit.’ But when God sees us smite our selves in indignation for our sins, because we have no better way to express and act our repentances, God hath accepted it, and hath himself forborn to smite us, and we have reason to believe he will do so again. For these expressions extinguish the delicacies of the flesh, from whence our sins have too often had their spring: and when the offending party accuses himself first, and smites first, and calls for pardon, there is nothing left to the offended person to do, but to pity and pardon. For we see that sometimes God smites a sinner with a temporal curse, and brings the man to repentance, and pardons all the rest; and therefore much rather will he do it, when we smite our selves. For this is the highest process of confession. God is pleased that we are ashamed of our sin, that we justifie God, and give sentence against our selves, that we accuse our selves and acknowledge our selves worthy of his severest wrath: If therefore we go on and punish the sinner too, it is all, it is the greatest thing we can do: and although it be not necessary in any one instance to be done, unless where the authority of our superior does intervene; yet it is accepted in every instance, if the principle be good, that is, if it proceeds from our indignation [Page] against sin, and if it be not rested in as a thing of it self, and singly a service of God, which indeed he hath no where in particular required; and lastly, if it be done prudently and temperately. If these cautions be observed in all things else, it is true that the most laborious repentance, if other things be answerable, is the best, for it takes off the softness of the flesh, and the tenderness of the lower man, it abates the love of the world, and enkindles the love of Heaven, it is ever the best token of sincerity and an humble repentance, and does promote it too, still in better degrees effecting what it doth signifie. As musick in a banquet of Wine, and caresses and indications of joy and festivity are seasonable and proper expressions at a solemnity of joy: so are all the sad accents and circumstances, and effects and instruments of sorrow proper in a day of mourning. All Nations weep not in the same manner, and have not the same interjections of sorrow: but as every one of us use to mourn in our greatest losses, and in the death of our dearest relatives, so it is fit we should mourn in the dangers and death of our souls; that they may being refreshed by such salutary and medicinal showers spring up to life eternal.

77. In the several Ages of the Church they had several methods of these satisfactions; and they requiring a longer proof of their repentance than we usually do, did also by consequent injoyn and expect greater and longer penitential severities: Concerning which these two things are certain.

78. The one is, that they did not believe them simply necessary to the procuring of pardon from God; which appears in this, that they did absolve persons in the Article of death, though they had not done their satisfactions. They would absolve none that did not express his repentance some way or other; but they did absolve them that could do no exterior penances, by which it is plain that they made a separation of that which was useful and profitable only from that which is necessary.

79. The other thing which I was to say is this. That though these corporal severities were not esteemed by them simply necessary, but such which might in any and in every instance be omitted in ordinary cases, and commuted for others more fit and useful; yet they chose these austerities as the best signification of their repentance towards men, such in which there is the greatest likelihood of sincerity & a hearty sorrow, such which have in them the least objection, such in which a man hath the clearest power and the most frequent opportunity, such which every man can do, which have in them the least inlet to temptation, and the least powers to abuse a man; and they are such which do not only signifie, but effect and promote repentance. But yet they are acts of repentance, just as beating the breasts, or smiting the thigh, or sighing, or tears, or tearing the hair, or refusing our meat, are acts of sorrow: if God should command us to be sorrowful, this might be done (when it could be done at all) though none of these were in the expression and signification. The Jews did in all great sorrows or trouble of mind rent their garments. As we may be as much troubled as they, though we do not tear our clothes, so we may be as true penitents as were the holy Primitives, though we do not use that [...], that hardship which was then the manner of their penitential solemnities. But then the repentance must be exercised by some other acts proper to the grace.

Prayers.

80. Preces undique & undecunque lucrum, says one. Prayers are useful upon all occasions; but especially in repentances and afflictive duties or accidents. Is any man afflicted? let him pray, (saith S. James) and since nothing can deserve pardon, all the good works in the world done by Gods enemy, cannot reconcile him to God; but pardon of sins is as much a gift, as eternal life is, there is no way more proper to obtain pardon, than a devout, humble, persevering prayer. And this also is a part of repentance. ‘—poenaeque genus vidisse precantem,’ When we confess our sins, and when we pray for pardon, we concentre many acts of vertue together. There is the hatred of sin, and the shame for having committed it; there is the justification of God, and the humiliation of our selves; there is confession of sins, and hope of pardon; there is fear and love, sense of our infirmity, and confidence of the Divine goodness, sorrow for the past, and holy purposes and desires and vows of living better in time to come. Unless all this be in it, the prayers are not worthy fruits of [Page] a holy repentance. But such prayers are a part of amends, it is a satisfaction to God in the true and modest sence of the word: So S. Cyprian affirms: speaking of the three children in the fiery Furnace, Domino satisfacere nec inter ipsa gloriosa virtutum suarum martyria destiterunt. Serm. de lapsis. They did not cease to satisfie the Lord in the very midst of their glorious martyrdoms. For so saith the Scripture. Stans Azarias precatus est, Azarias standing in the flames did pray, and made his exomologesis, or penitential confession to God with his two partners. Thus also Tertullian describes the manner of the Primitive repentance:De poenit. c. 9. Animum moeroribus dejicere, illa quae peccavit, tristi tractatione mutare, caeterum pastum & potum pura nosse, non ventris scil. sed animae causâ: plerumque verò jejuntis preces alere, ingemiscere, lachrymari, & mugire dies noctésque ad Dominum Deum suum: presbyteris advolvi & caris Dei adgeniculari: omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injungere, ‘To have our minds cast down with sorrow, to change our sins into severity, to take meat and drink without art, simple and pure, viz. bread and water, not for the bellies sake, but for the soul; to nourish our prayers most commonly with fasting, to sigh and cry, and roar to God [...] Lord day and night; to be prostrate before the Ministers and Priests, to kneel before all the servants of God, and to desire all the brethren to pray to God for them.’ Oportet orare impensiùs & rogare; so S. Cyprian, we must pray and beg more earnestly, and as Pacianus adds according to the words of Tertullian before cited, multorum precibus adjuvare; we must help our prayers with the assistance of others. Pray to God, said Simon Peter to Simon Magus, if peradventure the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee: Pray for me, said Simon Magus to S. Peter, that the things which thou hast spoken may not happen to me. And in this case, the prayers of the Church, and of the holy men that minister to the Church as they are of great avail in themselves, so they were highly valued and earnestly desir'd and obtain [...]d by the penitents in the first Ages of the Church.

Alms.

81. Alms and Fasting are the wings of prayer, and make it pierce the clouds; That is, humility and charity are the best advantages and sanctification of our desires to God. This was the counsel of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar; Eleemosynis peccata tua redime;Dan. 4. redeem thy sins by Alms, so the Vulgar Latin reads it; Not that money can be the price of a soul, for we are not redeemed with silver and gold, but that the charity of Alms is that which God delights in, and accepts as done to himself, and procures his pardon,Prov, 16.6. according to the words of Solomon; In veritate & misericordia expiatur iniquitas; In truth and mercy iniquity is pardoned: that is, in the confession and Alms of a penitent there is pardon: for water will quench a flaming fire; and Alms maketh an attonement for sin;Ecclus. 3.30. 1 Pet. 4.8. Tob. 12.9. This is that love, which, as S. Peter expresses it, hideth a multitude of sins. Alms deliver from death, and shall purge away every sin. Those that exercise Alms and righteousness shall be filled with life, said old Tobias; which truly explicates the method of this repentance. To give Alms for what is past, and to sin no more, but to work righteousness, is an excellent state and exercise of repentance; For he that sins and gives Alms, spends his money upon sin, not upon God, and like a man in a Calenture drinks deep of the Vintage even when he bleeds for cure.

82. But this command and the affirmation of this effect of Alms we have best from our blessed Saviour. Give Alms, and all things are clean unto you: Repentance does [...],Luke 11.41. it cleanses that which is within; for to that purpose did our blessed Saviour speak that parable to the Pharisees of cleansing cups and platters. The parallel to it is here in S. Luke. Alms do also cleanse the inside of a man; for it is an excellent act and exercise of repentance.Vide Rule of Holy Dying, c. 2. Sect. 3. [...]act. l. 6. Magna est misericordiae merces, cui Deus pollicetur se omnia peccata remissurum. Great is the reward of mercy, to which God hath promised that he will forgive all sins. To this of Alms is reduced all actions of piety, and a zealous kindness, [...], the labour of love, all studious endearing of others, and obliging them by kindness, a going about seeking to do good; such which are called in Scripture, opera justitiae, the works of righteousness, that is, such works in which a righteous and good man loves to be exercised and imployed. But there is another instance of mercy besides Alms, which is exceeding proper to the exercise of Repentance, and that is,

Forgiving Injuries.

[Page]

83. Vt absolva [...]i [...] ignosce; Pardon thy brother that God may pardon thee: Forgive, and thou shalt be forgiven: so says the Gospel, and this Christ did press with many words and arguments, because there is a great mercy and a great effect consequent to it, he put a great emphasis and earnestness of commandment upon it. And there is in it a grea [...] necessity; for we all have need of pardon, and it is impudence to ask pardon, if we refuse to give pardon to them that ask it of us: and therefore the Apostles to whom Christ gave so large powers of forgiving or retaining sinners, were also qualified for such powers by having given them a deep sense and a lasting sorrow, and a perpetual repentance for and detestation of their sins; their repentance lasting even after their sin was dead. Therefore S. Paul calls himself the chiefest or first of sinners; and in the Epistle of S. Barnabas, the Apostle affirms, [...], That Jesus chose for his own Apostles men more wicked than any wickedness, and by such humility and apprehensions of their own needs of mercy, they were made sensible of the needs of others, and fitted to a merciful and prudent dispensation of pardon.

Restitution.

84. This is an act of repentance indispensably necessary; integral part of it: if it be taken for a restitution of the simple, or orginal theft or debt: for it is an abstinence from evil, or a leaving off to commit a sin: The crime of theft being injurious by a continual efflux and emanation; and therefore not repented of, till the progression of it be stopped. But then there is a restitution also, which is to be reckoned amongst the fruits of repentance, or penances and satisfactions. Such as was that of Zacheus, If I have wronged any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. In the law of Moses thieves convicted by law were tied to it; but if a thief, or an injurious person did repent before his conviction, and made restitution of the wrong; he was tied only to the payment of one fifth part above the principal, by way of amends for the injury; and to do this, is an excellent fruit of repentance, and a part of self judicature, a judging our selves that we be not judged of the Lord: and if the injured person be satisfied with the simple restitution, then this fruit of repentance is to be gathered for the poor.

85. These are the fruits of repentance, which grow in Paradise, and will bring health to the Nations, for these are a just deletery to the state of sin, they oppose a good against an evil; against every evil; they make amends to our Brother exactly; and to the Church competently, and to God acceptably, through his mercy in Jesus Christ. These are all we can do in relation to what is past; some of them are parts of direct obedience, and consequently of return to God, and the others are parts, and exercises, and acts of turning from the sin. Now although, so we turn from sin, it matters not by what instruments so excellent a conversion is effected; yet there must care be taken that in our return, there be ¹ hatred of sin, and ² love of God, and ³ love of our brother. The first is served by all or any penal duty internal or external: but sin must be confessed, and it must be left. The second is served by future obedience, by prayer, and by hope of pardon; and the last by alms and forgiveness: and we have no liberty or choice but in the exercise of the penal or punitive part of repentance: but in that every man is left to himself, and hath no necessity upon him, unless where he hath first submitted to a spiritual guide; or is noted publickly by the Church. But if our sorrow be so trifling, or our sins so slightly hated, or our flesh so tender, or our sensuality so unmortified, that we will endure nothing of exterior severity to mortifie our sin, or to punish it, to prevent Gods anger, or to allay it; we may chance to feel the load of our sins in temporal judgments, and have cause to suspect the sincerity of our repentance, and consequently to fear the eternal. We feel the bitter smart of this rod and scourge [of God] because there is in us neither care to please him with our good deeds, nor to satisfie him, or make amends for our evil;S. Cypria [...]. ep [...]st. 8. & epist. 26. that is, we neither live innocently, nor penitently. Let the delicate, and the effeminate do their penances in scarlet, and Tyrian Purple and fine Linen, and faring deliciously every day; but he that passionately desires pardon, and with sad apprehensions fears the event of his sins and Gods displeasure, will not refuse to suffer any thing that may procure a mercy, and endear Gods favour to him; no man is a [Page] true penitent, but he that upon any terms is willing to accept his pardon. I end this with the words of S. Austin; It suffices not to change our life from worse to better, unless we make amends, Homil. 50. c. 15. and do our satisfactions for what is past. That is, no man shall be pardon'd but he that turns from sin, and mortifies it, that confesses it humbly and forsakes it; that accuses himself and justifies God; that prays for pardon, and pardons his offending brother; that will rather punish his flesh, than nurse his sin; that judges himself, that he may be acquitted by God: so these things be done, let every man chuse his own instruments of mortification, and the instances and indications, of his penitential sorrow.

SECT. VII. The former Doctrine reduc'd to Practice.

86. HE that will judge of his repentance by his sorrow, must not judge of his sorrow by his tears, or by any one manner of expression. For sorrow puts on divers shapes, according to the temper of the body, or the natural, or accidental affections of the mind, or to the present consideration of things. Wise men and women do not very often grieve in the same manner, or signifie the trouble of intellectual apprehensions by the same indications. But if sin does equally smart, it may be equally complain'd of in all persons whose natures are alike que [...]ulous, and complaining; that is, when men are forc'd into repentance, they are very apprehensive of their present evils, and consequent dangers, and past follies; but if they repent more wisely, and upon higher considerations than the affrights of women and weak persons, they will put on such affections, as are the proper effects of those apprehensions by which they were moved. But although this be true in the nature, and secret, and proportion'd causes of things, yet there is no such simplicity and purity of apprehensions in any person, or any instance whatsoever, but there is something of sense mingled with every tittle of reason, and the consideration of our selves mingle [...] with our apprehensions of God; and when Philosophy does something, our interest does more; and there are so few that leave their sins upon immaterial speculations, that even of them that pretend to do it, there is oftentimes no other reason inducing them to believe they do so, than because they do not know the secrets of their own hearts, and cannot discern their intentions: and therefore when there is not a material, sensible grief in penitents, there is too often a just cause of suspecting their repentances; it does not always proceed from an innocent or a laudable cause, unless the penitent be indisposed in all accidents to such effects and impresses of passion.

87. II. He that cannot find any sensitive and pungent material grief for his sins, may suspect himself, because so doing, he may serve some good ends: but on no wise may we suspect another upon that account: for we may be judges of our selves, but not of others; and although we know enough of our selves to suspect every thing of our selves, yet we do not know so much of others, but that there may (for ought we know) be enough to excuse or acquit them in their inquiries after the worthiness of their repentance.

88. III. He that inquires after his own repentance, and finds no sharpnesses of grief or active sensitive sorrow, is only so far to suspect his repentance, that he use all means to improve it; which is to be done by a long, serious, and lasting conversation with arguments of sorrow, which like a continual dropping, will intenerate the spirit, and make it malleable to the first motives of repentance. No man repents but he that fears some evil to stand at the end of his evil course; and whoever feareth, unless he be abused by some collateral false perswasion, will be troubled for putting himself into so evil a condition and state of things: and not to be moved with sad apprehensions, is nothing else but not to have considered, or to have promised to himself pardon upon easier conditions than God hath promised. Therefore let the penitent often meditate of the four last things, Death and the day of Judgment; the portion of the godly, and the sad intolerable portion of accursed souls; of the greatness and extension of the duty of repentance, and the intension of its acts, or the spirit and manner of its performance; of the uncertainty of pardon in respect of his [Page] own secret, and sometimes undiscerned defects; the sad evils that God hath inflicted sometimes even upon penitent persons; the volatile nature of pleasure, and the shame of being a fool in the eyes of God and good men; the unworthy usages of our selves, and evil returns to God for his great kindnesses; let him consider that the last nights pleasure is not now at all, and how infinite a folly it is to die for that which hath no being; that one of the greatest torments of Hell will be the very indignation at their own folly, for that foolish exchange which they have made; and there is nothing to allay the misery, or to support the spirit of a man who shall so extremely suffer, for so very a nothing; that it is an unspeakable horror, for a man eternally to be restless in the vexations of an everlasting fever, and that such a fever is as much short of the eternal anger of God, as a single sigh is of that fever; that a man cannot think what eternity is, nor suffer with patience for one minute the pains which are provided for that eternity; and to apply all this to himself, for ought every great sinner knows, this shall be in his lot; and if he dies before his sin is pardon'd, he is too sure it shall be so: and whether his sin is pardon'd or no, few men ever know till they be dead; but very many men presume, and they commonly, who have the least reason. He that often and long considers these things, will not have cause to complain of too merry a heart: But when men repent only in feasts, and company, and open house, and carelesness, and inconsideration, they will have cause to repent that he hath not repented.

89. IV. Every true penitential sorrow is rather natural than solemn; that is, it is the product of our internal apprehensions, rather than outward order and command. He that repents only by solemnity, at a certain period, by the expectation of to morrows Sun, may indeed act a sorrow, but cannot be sure that he shall then be sorrowful. Other acts of repentance may be done in their proper period, by order, and command, upon set days, and indicted solemnities; such as is, fasting, and prayer, and alms, and confession, and disciplines, and all the instances of humiliation: but sorrow is not to be reckoned in this account, unless it dwells there before. When there is a natural abiding sorrow for our sins, any publick day of humiliation can bring it forth, and put it into activity; but when a sinner is gay and intemperately merry upon Shrove-Tuesday, and resolves to mourn upon Ash-Wednesday; his sorrow hath in it more of the Theatre, than the Temple, and is not at all to be relied upon by him that resolves to take severe accounts of himself.

90. V. In taking accounts of our penitential sorrow, we must be careful that we do not compare it with secular sorrow, and the passions effected by natural or sad accidents. For he that measures the passions of the mind by disproportionate objects, may as well compare Musick and a Rose, and measure weights by the bushel, and think that every great man must have a great understanding, or that an Ox hath a great courage because he hath a great heart. He that finds fault with his repentance, because his sorrow is not so great in it, as in the saddest accidents of the world, should do well to make them equal if he can; if he can, or if he cannot, his work is done. If he can, let it be done, and then the inquiry, and the scruple is at an end. If he cannot, let him not trouble himself; for what cannot be done, God never requires of us to do.

91. VI. Let no man overvalue a single act of sorrow, and call it Repentance, or be at rest as soon as he hath wip'd his eyes. For to be sorrowful (which is in the Commandment) is something more than an act of sorrow; it is a permanent effect, and must abide as long as its cause is in being; not always actual and pungent, but habitual and ready, apt to pass into its symbolical expressions upon all just occasions, and it must always have this signification, viz.

92. VII. No man can be said ever truly to have griev'd for his sins, if he at any time after does remember them with pleasure. Such a man might indeed have had an act of sorrow, but he was not sorrowful, except only for that time; but there was no permanent effect, by which he became an enemy to sin; and when the act is past, the love to sin returns, at least in that degree, that the memory of it is pleasant. No man tells it as a merry story that he once broke his leg; or laughs when he recounts the sad groans and intolerable sharpnesses of the stone. If there be pleasure in the telling it, there is still remaining too much kindness towards it, and then the sinner cannot justly pretend that ever he was a hearty enemy to it: for the great effect of that is to hate it [...], to leave it, and to hate it. Indeed when the penitent inquires concerning himself, and looks after a sign that he may discern whether he be as he thinks he is, really a ha [...]er of sin; the greatest and most infallible mark which we have to judge [Page] by, is, the leaving it utterly. But yet in this thing there is some difference. For,

93. Some do leave sin, but do not hate it; They will not do it, but they wish it were lawful to do it; and this, although it hath in it a great imperfection, yet it is not always directly criminal; for it only supposes a love to the natural part of the action, and a hatred of the irregularity. The thing they love, but they hate the sin of it. But others are not so innocent in their leaving of sin; They leave it, because they dare not do it, or are restrain'd by some over-ruling accident; but like the heifers that drew the Ark, they went lowing after their Calves left in their s [...]lls; so do these, leave their heart behind, and if they still love the sin, their leaving it is but an imperfect and unacceptable service, a Sacrifice without a heart. Therefore sin must be hated too, that is, it must be left out of hatred to it; and consequently must be used as naturally we do what we do really hate: that is, do evil to it, and always speak evil of it, and secretly have no kindness for it.

94. VIII. Let every penitent be careful that his sorrow be a cure to his soul, but no disease to his body: an enemy to his sin, but not to his health.

— Exigit autem

Interdum ille dolor, plus quàm lex ulla dolori

Concessit —

For although no sorrow is greater than our sin, yet some greatness of sorrow may destroy those powers of serving God, which ought to be preserved to all the purposes of charity and religion. This caution was not to be omitted, although very few will have use of it: because if any should be transported into a pertinacious sorrow, by great considerations of their sin, and that sorrow meet with an ill temper of body, apt to sorrow and afflictive thoughts, it would make Religion to be a burden, and all passions turn into sorrow, and the service of God to consist but of one duty, and would naturally tend to very evil consequents. For whoever upon the conditions of the Gospel can hope for pardon, he cannot maintain a too great actual sorrow long upon the stock of his sins. It will be allayed with hope, and change into new shapes, and be a sorrow in other faculties than where it first began, and to other purposes than those to which it did then minister. But if his sorrow be too great, it is because the man hath little or no hope.

95. IX. But if it happens that any man falls into an excessive sorrow, his cure must be attempted, not directly, but collaterally; not by lessening the consideration of his sins, nor yet by comparing them with the greater sins of others; like the grave man in the Satyr,

Si nullum in terris tam detestabile factum

Sat. 13.

Ostendis, taceo, nec pugnis caedere pectus

Te veto, nec planâ faciem contundore palmâ:

Quandoquidem accepto claudenda est janua damno.

For this is but an instance of the other, this lessens the sin indirectly: but let it be done by heightning the consideration of the Divine mercy and clemency; for even yet this will far exceed, and this is highly to be taken heed of. For besides that there is no need of taking off his opinion from the greatness of the sin; it is dangerous to teach a man to despise a sin at any hand. For if after his great sorrow he can be brought to think his sin little, he will be the sooner brought to commit it again, and think it none at all: and when he shall think his sorrow to have been unreasonable, he will not so soon be brought to an excellent repentance another time. But the Prophets great comfort may safely be applied, Misericordia Dei praevalitura est super omnem malitiam hominis; Gods mercy is greater than all the malice of men, and will prevail over it. But this is to be applied so as to cure only the wounds of a conscience that ought to be healed, that is, so as to advance the reputation and glories of the Divine mercy: but at no hand to create confidences in persons incompetent. If the man be worthy, and capable, and yet tempted to a prevailing and excessive sorrow; to him, in this case, and so far the application is to be made. In other cases there is no need, but some danger.

[Page]96. X. Although sorrow for sin must be constant and habitual, yet to particular acts of sin, when a special sorrow is apportion'd, it cannot be expected to be of the same manner and continuance, as it ought to be in our general repentances for our many sins, and our evil habits. For every single solly of swearing rashly, or vainly, or falsly, there ought to be a particular sorrow, and a special deprecation; but it may be another will intervene, and a third will steal in upon you, or you are surpriz'd in another instance; or you are angry with your self for doing so, and that anger transports you to some undecent expression, and as a wave follows a wave, we shall find instances of folly croud in upon us. If we observe strictly we shall prevent some, but we shall observe too many to press us; If we observe not, they will multiply without notice and without number. But in either case it will be impossible to attend to every one of them with a special lasting sorrow: and yet one act of sorrow is too little for any one chosen sin (as I have proved formerly.) In this case when we have prayed for pardon of each, confess'd it, acknowledged the folly of it, deprecated the punishment, suffe [...]'d the shame, and endur'd the sorrow, and begg'd for aids against it, and renewed our force; it will fall into the heap of the state and generality of repentance; that is, it will be added to the portentous number of follies, for which in general and indefinite comprehensions we must beg for pardon humbly and earnestly all the days of our life. And I have no caution to be added here, but this only: viz. That we be not too hasty to put it into the general heap, but according to the greatness, or the danger, or its mischief, or its approach towards a habit, so it is to be kept in fetters by it self alone. For he that quickly passes it into the general heap, either cares too little for it, or is too soon surpriz'd by a new one, which would not so easily have happened, if he had been more severe to the first.

97. XI. It is a great matter, that in our inquiries concerning our penitential sorrow, we be able to discern what is the present motive and incentive of it: whether fear or love, whether it be attrition or contrition. For by this we can tell best in what state or period of pardon we stand. I do not say, we are to enquire what motive began our sorrow: for fear begins most commonly; but we are to regard what is the present inducement, what continues the hatred; that is, whither our first fears have born us? If fear only be the agent, at the best it is still imperfect; and our pardon a great way off from being finished; and our repentance, or state of reformation nothing promoted. But of these things I have in the former doctrine given accounts. To which I only add this, as being an advice or caution flowing from the former discourses.

98. XII. He that upon any pretence whatsoever puts off his repentances to the last or the worst of his days, hath just reason to suspect, that even when he doth repent, he hath not the grace of Contrition, that is, that he repents for fear, not for love: and that his affections to sin remains. The reason is, because [...]hat proceeds from an intolerable and a violent cause, as repentance in sickness and danger of death, or in the day of our calamity does; is of it self for the present defective in a main part, and cannot arrive at pardon, till the love of God be in it: so Christ said of Mary Magdalen; Much hath been forgiven her, because she loved much; but from a great fear to pass into love is a work of time, the effect of a long progression in repentance, and is not easie to be done in those straitnesses of time and grace, which is part of the evil portion of dying sinners. Therefore besides those many and great considerations which I have before represented; upon this account alone repentance must not be put off to our death-bed, because our fear must pass into love, before our sins are taken off by pardon.

— proponimus illic

Ire, fatigatas ubi Daedalus exuit alas.

We have a great way to go, a huge progression to make, a mighty work to be done, to which, time is as necessary as labour and observation; and therefore we must not put it off till what begins in fear cannot pass into love, and therefore is too likely to end in sorrow; their fears overtake such men; it is too much to be feared, that what they fear will happen to them.

99. XIII. And after all, it is to be remembred, that sorrow for sins is not repentance, but a sign, an instrument of it, an inlet to it; without which indeed, repentance cannot be supposed; as manhood must suppose childhood; perfect supposes that it was imperfect: but repentance is after sin, of the same extent of signification, and contains [Page] more duties and labour to the perfection of its parts, than Innocence. Repentance is like the Sun, which enlightens not only the tops of the Eastern hills, or warms the wall-fruits of Italy; it makes the little Balsam-tree to weep precious tears with staring upon its beauties; it produces rich spices in Arabia, and warms the cold Hermit in his grot, and calls the religious man from his dorter in all the parts of the world where holy religion dwells; at the same time it digests the American gold, and melts the snows from the Riphaean mountains, because he darts his rays in every portion of the Air, and the smallest Atome that dances in the Air, is tied to a little thread of light, which by equal emanations fills all the capacities of every region: so is repentance; it scatters its beams and holy influences; it kills the lust of the eyes, and mortifies the pride of life; it crucifies the desires of the flesh, and brings the understanding to the obedience of Jesus: the fear of it bids war against the sin, and the sorrow breaks the heart of it: the hope that is mingled with contrition, enkindles our desires to return; and the love that is in it procures our pardon, and the confidence of that pardon does increase our love, and that love is obedience, and that obedience is sanctification, and that sanctification supposes the man to be justified before; and he that is justified must be justified still; and thus repentance is a holy life. But the little drops of a beginning sorrow, and the pert resolution to live better, never passing into act and habit; the quick and rash vows of the newly returning man, and the confusion of face espied in the convicted sinner, if they proceed no further, are but like the sudden fires of the night, which glare for a while within a little continent of Air big enough to make a fire-ball, or the revolution of a minutes walk. These when they are alone, and do not actually, and with effect minister to the wise counsels and firm progressions of a holy life, are as far from procuring pardon, as they are from a life of piety and holiness.

SECT. VIII.

100. XIV. IN the making Confession of our sins, let us be most careful to do it so, as may most glorifie God, and advance the reputation of his wisdom, his justice and his mercy. For if we consider it, in all Judicatories of the world, and in all the arts and violences of men which have been used to extort confessions, their purposes have been that justice should be done, that the publick wisdom and authority should not be dishonoured; that publick criminals should not be defended or assisted by publick pity, or the voice of the people sharpned against the publick rods and axes, by supposing they have smitten the innocent. Confession of the crime prevents all these evils, and does well serve all these good ends.

Gnossius haec Rhadamanthus habet durissima regna,

Castigátque audítque dolos, subigítque fateri:

So the Heathens did suppose was done in the lower regions. The Judge did examine and hear their crimes and crafts, and even there compell'd them to confess, that the eternal Justice may be publickly acknowledg'd; for all the honour that we can do to the Divine attributes, is publickly to confess them, and make others so to do; for so God is pleased to receive honour from us. Therefore repentance being a return to God, a ceasing to dishonour him any more, and a restoring him (so far as we can) to the honour we depriv'd him of; it ought to be done with as much humility and sorrow, with as clear glorifications of God, and condemnations of our selves as we can. To which purpose,

101. XV. He that confesseth his sins, must do it with all sincerity and simplicity of spirit, not to serve ends, or to make Religion the minister of design; but to destroy our sin, to shame and punish our selves, to obtain pardon and institution; always telling our sad story just as it was in its acting, excepting where the manner of it and its nature or circumstances require a veil; and then the sin must not be concealed, nor yet so represented as to keep the first immodesty alive in him that acted it, or to become a new temptation in him that hears it. But this last caution is only of use [Page] in our confessions to the Minister of holy things; for our confession to God as it is to other purposes, so must be in other manners: but I have already given accounts of this. I only add, that

102. XVI. All our confessions must be accusations of our selves, and not of others. For if we confess to God, then to accuse another may spoil our own duty, but it can serve no end; for God already knows all that we can say to lessen, or to aggravate the sin: if we confess to men, then to name another, or by any way to signifie or reveal him, is a direct defamation; and unless the naming of the sin do of it self declare the assisting party, it is at no hand to be done, or to be inquired into: But if a man hath committed incest, and there is but one person in the world with whom he could commit it; in this case the confessing his sin, does accuse another; but then such a Guide of souls is to be chosen to whom that person is not known; but if by this or some other expedient the fame of others be not secured, it is best to confess that thing to God only, and so much of the sin as may aggravate it to an equal height with its own kind in special, may be communicated to him of whom we ask comfort, and counsel, and institution. If to confess to a Priest were a Divine Commandment, this caution would have in it some difficulty, and much variety; but since the practice is recommended to us wholly upon the stock of prudence, and great charity; the doing it, ought not in any sence to be uncharitable to others.

103. XVII. He that hath injur'd his neighbour must confess to him; and he that hath sinn'd against the Church, must make amends and confess to the Church, when she declares her self to be offended. For when a fact is done which cannot naturally be undone, the only duty that can remain is to rescind it morally, and make it not to be any longer or any more. For as our conservation is a continual creation, so is the perpetuating of a sin a continuation of its being and actings, and therefore to cease from it, is the death of the sin for the present and sor the future; but to confess it, [...]o hate it, to wish it had never been done, is all the possibility that is left to annihilate the act which naturally can never be undone; and therefore to all persons that are injur'd, to confess the sin, must needs be a duty, because it is the first part of amends, and sometimes all that is left; but it is that which God and man requires, before they are willing to pardon the offender. For until the erring man confesses, it does not appear who is innocent, and who is guilty, or whether the offended person have any thing to forgive. And this is the meaning of these preceptive words of S. James, Jam. 5.16. Confess your sins one to another; that is, to the Church who are scandalized, and who can forgive and pray for the repenting sinner; and confess to him that is injur'd, that you may do him right, that so you may cease to do wrong, that you may make your way for pardon, and offer amends. This only, and all of this is the meaning of the precept. [...], say the Greek Commentaries upon Acts 19.18. Every faithful man must declare or confess his sins, and must stand in separation that he may be reproved, and that he may promise he will not do the same again, according to that which is said, Do thou first declare thy sins, that thou mayest be justified; nad again, A just man in the beginning of his speech is an accuser of himself. No man is a true penitent, if he refuses or neglects to confess his sins to God in all cases, or to his brother if he have injur'd him, or to the Church if she be offended, or where she requires it; for wheresoever a man is bound to repent, there he is bound to Confession; which is an acknowledgement of the injury, and the first instance and publication of repentance. In other cases, Confession may be of great advantage; in these it is a duty.

104. XVIII. Let no man think it a shame to confess his sin; or if he does, yet let not that shame deterr him from it. There is indeed a shame in confession, because nakedness is discovered; but there is also a glory in it, because there is a cure too: there is repentance and amendment. This advice is like that which is given to persons giving their lives in a good cause, requiring th [...] not to be afraid; that is, not to suffer such a fear, as to be hindred from dying. For if they suffer a great natural fear, and yet in despite of that fear die constantly and patiently, that fear as it increases their suffering, may also accidentally increase their glory, provided that the fear be not criminal it its cause, nor effective of any unworthy comportment. So is the shame in confession; a great mortification of the man, and highly punitive of the sin; and such that unless it hinders the duty, is not to be directly reproved: but it must be taken care of that it be a shame only for the sin, which by how much greater it is, by so much the more earnestly the man ought to fly to all the means of remedy [Page] and instruments of expiation: and then the greater the shame is which the sinne [...] suffers, the more excellent is the repentance which suffers so much for the extinction of his sin. But at no hand let the shame affright the duty; but let it be remembred, that this confession is but the memory of the shame, which began when the sin was acted, and abode but as a handmaid of the guilt, and goes away with it: Confession of sins opens them to man, but draws a veil before them, that God will the less behold them. And it is a material consideration, that if a man be impatient of the shame here, when it is revealed but to one man, who is also by all the ties of Religion, and by common Honesty oblig'd to conceal them; or if he account it intolerable that a sin publick in the scandal and the infamy, should be made publick by solemnity to punish and to extinguish it, the man will be no gainer by refusing to confess, when he shall remember that sins unconfessed are most commonly unpardon'd; and unpardon'd sins will be made publick before all Angels, and all the wise and good men of the world, when their shame shall have nothing to make it tolerable.

105. XIX. When a penitent confesses his sin, the holy man that ministers to his Repentance, and hears his Confession, must not without great cause lessen the shame of the repenting man; he must directly encourage the duty, but not add confidence to the sinner. For whatsoever directly lessens the shame, lessens also the hatred of sin, and his future caution, and the reward of his repentance; and takes off that which was an excellent defensative against the sin. But with the shame, the Minister of Religion is to do as he is to do with the mans sorrow: so long as it is a good instrument of repentance, so long it is to be permitted and assisted, but when it becomes irregular, or dispos'd to evil events, it is to be taken off. And so must the shame of the penitent man, when there is danger, lest the man be swallowed up by too much sorrow and shame, or when it is perceiv'd, that the shame alone is a hinderance to the duty. In these cases, if the penitent man can be perswaded directly and by choice, for ends of piety and religion to suffer the shame, then let his spirit be supported by other means; but if he cannot, let there be such a confidence wrought in him, which is deriv'd from the circumstances of the person, or the universal calamity and iniquity of man, or the example of great sinners like himself, that have willingly undergone the yoke of the Lord, or from consideration of the Divine mercies, or from the easiness and advantages of the duty, but let nothing be offer'd to lessen the hatred, or the greatness of the sin; lest a temptation to sin hereafter be sowed in the furrows of the present Repentance.

106. XX. He that confesseth his sins to the Minister of Religion, must be sure to express all the great lines of his folly and calamity; that is, all that by which he may make a competent judgment of the state of his soul. Now if the man be of a good life, and yet in his tendency to perfection, is willing to pass under the method and discipline of greater sinners, there is no advice to be given to him, but that he do not curiously tell those lesser irregularities which vex his peace, rather than discompose his conscience: but what is most remarkable in his infirmities, or the whole state, and the greatest marks and instances, and returns of them he ought to signifie, for else he can serve no prudent end in his confession.

107. But secondly, if the man have committed a great sin, it is a high prudence, and an excellent instance of his repentance, that he confess it, declaring the kind of it, if it be of that nature that the spiritual man may conceal it. But if upon any other account he be bound to reveal every notice of the fact, let him transact that affair wholly between God and his own soul. And this of declaring a single action as it is of great use in the repentance of every man, so it puts on some degrees of necessity, if the man be of a sad, amazed and an afflicted conscience. For there are some unfortunate persons who have committed some secret facts of shame and horror, at the remembrance of which they are amazed, of the pardon of which they have no sign, for the expiation of which they use no instrument, and they walk up and down like distracted persons, to whom reason is useless, and company is unpleasant, and their sorrow is not holy, but very great, and they know not what to do, because they will not ask. I have observed some such; and the only remedy that was fit to be prescribed to such persons, was to reveal their sin to a spiritual man, and by him to be put into such a state of remedy and comfort as is proper for their condition. It is certain that many persons have perished for want of counsel and comfort, which were ready for them if they would have confessed their sin; for he that concealeth his sin, non dirigetur, saith Solomon, he shall not be counselled or directed.

[Page]108. And it is a very great fault amongst a very great part of Christians, that in their inquiries of Religion, even the best of them, ordinarily ask but these two questions: Is it lawful? Is it necessary? If they find it lawful, they will do it without scruple or restraint; and then they suffer imperfection, or receive the reward of folly. For it may be lawful, and yet not fit to be done. It may be it is not expedient. And he that will do all that he can do lawfully, would, if he durst, do something that is not lawful. And as great an error is on the other hand in the other question. He that too strictly inquires of an action whether it be necessary or no, would do well to ask also whether it be good? whether it be of advantage to the interest of his soul? For if a Christian man or woman; that is, a redeemed, blessed, obliged person, a great beneficiary, endeared to God beyond all the comprehensions of a mans imagination, one that is less than the least of all Gods mercies, and yet hath received many great ones and hopes for more, if he should do nothing but what is necessary, that is, nothing but what he is compell'd to; then he hath the obligations of a son, and the affections of a slave, which is the greatest undecency of the world in the accounts of Christianity. If a Christian will do no more than what is necessary, he will quickly be tempted to omit something of that also. And it is highly considerable that in the matter of souls, Necessity is a divisible word, and that which in disputation is not necessary, may be necessary in practice: it may be but charity to one and duty to another, that is, when it is not a necessary duty, it may be a necessary charity. And therefore it were much the better if every man without further inquiry would in the accounts of his soul consult a spiritual Guide, and whether it be necessary or no, yet let him do it because it is good; and even they who will not for Gods sake do that which is simply the best, yet for their own sakes they will, or ought to do that which is profitable, and of great advantage. Let men do that which is best to themselves; for it is all one to God, save only that he is pleas'd to take such instances of duty and forwardness of obedience, as the best significations of the best love. And of this nature is Confession of sins to a Minister of Religion, it is one of the most charitable works in the world to our selves; and in this sence we may use the words of David, If thou dost well unto thy self, men [and God] will speak good of thee, and do good to thee. He that will do every thing that is lawful, and nothing but what is necessary, will be an enemy when he dares, and a friend when he cannot help it.

109. But if the penitent person hath been an habitual sinner, in his confessions he is to take care that the Minister of Religion understand the degrees of his wickedness, the time of his abode in sin, the greatness of his desires, the frequency of his acting them, not told by numbers, but by general significations of the time, and particular significations of the earnestness of his choice. For this transaction being wholly in order to the benefit and conduct of his soul, the good man that ministers, must have as perfect moral accounts as he can, but he is not to be reckon'd withal by natural numbers and measures, save only so far as they may declare the violence of desires, and the pleasures and choice of the sin. The purpose of this advice is this; that since the transaction of this affair is for counsel and comfort, in order to pardon, and the perfections of repentance, there should be no scruple in the particular circumstances of it; but that it be done heartily and wisely; that is, so as may best serve the ends to which it is designed; and that no man do it in despite of himself, or against his will, for the thing it self is not a direct service of God immediately enjoyn'd, but is a service to our selves to enable us to do our duty to God, and to receive a more ready and easie and certain pardon from him. They indeed who pretend it as a necessary duty, have by affixing rules and measures to it of their own, made that which they call necessary, to be intolerable and impossible. Indeed it is certain that when God hath appointed a duty, he also will describe the measures, or else leave us to the conduct of our own choice and reason in it. But where God hath not described the measures, we are to do that which is most agreeable to the analogy of the commandment, or the principal duty, in case it be under a command: but if it be not, then we are only to chuse the particulars so as may best minister to the end which is designed in the whole ministration.

110. XXI. It is a very pious preparation to the holy Sacrament, that we confess our sins to the Minister of Religion: for since it is necessary that a man be examined, and a self-examination was prescrib'd to the Corinthians in the time of their lapsed discipline, that though there were divisions amongst them, and no established Governours, yet from this duty they were not to be excus'd, and they must in destitution of a publick Minister do it themselves (but this is in case only of such necessity) the other [Page] is better; that is, it is of better order, and more advantage that this part of Repentance and holy preparation be perform'd under the conduct of a spiritual Guide. And the reason is pressing. For since it is life or death that is there administred, and the great dispensation of the Keys is in that Ministery, it were very well if he that ministers did know whether the person presented were fit to communicate or no; and if he be not, it is charity to reject him, and charity to assist him that he may be fitted. There are many sad contingencies in the constitution of Ecclesiastical affairs, in which every man that needs this help, and would fain make use of it, cannot; but when he can meet with the blessing, it were well it were more frequently used, and more readily entertain'd. I end these advices with the words of Origen: Extra veniam est qui peccatum cognovit, In Psal. 36. Hom. 1. nec cognitum confitetur. Confitendum autem semper est, non quòd peccatum supersit ut semper sit confitendum; sed quia peccati veteris & antiqui utilis [...] indefessa confessio. He shall have no pardon, who knows his sin and confesses it not: But we must confess always, not that the sin always remains, but that of an old sin an unwearied confession is useful and profitable. But this is to be understood of a general accusation, or of a confession to God. For in confessions to men, there is no other usefulness of repeating our confessions, excepting where such repetition does aggravate the fault of relapsing and ingratitude, in case the man returns to those sins for which he hop'd that before he did receive a pardon.

SECT. IX.

BUT because in all repentances there is something penal, it is not amiss that there be some inquiries after the measures and rules of acting that part of repentance which consists in corporal austerities, and are commonly called Penances.

111. I. He that hath a great sorrow, need neither be invited nor instructed in the matter of his austerities. For a great sorrow and its own natural expressions and significations, such as are Fastings, and abstinence, and tears, and indignation, and restlesness of mind, and prayers for pardon, and mortification of the sin, are all that which will perfect this part of repentance. Only sometime they need caution for the degrees. Therefore,

112. II. Let the penitent be careful that he do not injure his health, or oppress his spirit, by the zeal of this part of repentance. Sic enim peccata compescenda sunt, ut supersint quos peccasse poeniteat. For all such fierce proceedings are either superstitious, or desperate, or indiscreet, or the effect of a false perswasion concerning them; that they are a direct service of God, that they are simply necessary, and severely enjoyn'd. All which are to be rescinded, or else the penances will be of more hurt than usefulness. Those actions are to minister to repentance; and therefore if they contradict any duty, they destroy what they pretend to serve. For penances as they relate to the sin that is committed, is just to be measured as penitential sorrow is, of which it is a signification and expression. When the sorrow is natural, sensitive, pungent, and material, the penances will be so too. A great sorrow refuses to eat, to sleep, to be chearful, to be in company, according as the degree is, and as the circumstances of the persons are. But sometimes sorrow is to be chosen, and invited by arts, and ministred to by external instruments, and arguments of invitation; and just so are the penances, they are then to be chosen, so as may make the person a sorrowful mourner, to make him take no delight in sin, but to conceive, and to feel a just displeasure: For if men feel no smart, no real sorrow or pain for their sins, they will be too much in love with it: impunity is [...], the occasion and opportunity of sin, as the Apostle intimates: and they use to proceed in finishing the methods of sin and death, who ‘Non unquam reputant quantum sibi gaudia constant,’ reckon their pleasures, but never put any smart, or danger, or fears, or sorrows into the balance. But the injunction or susception of penances is a good instrument of repentance, [Page] because a little evil takes off the pleasure of the biggest sin in many instances, and we are too apprehensive of the present, that this also becomes a great advantage to this ministery: we refuse great and infinite pleasures hereafter, so we may enjoy lit [...]le▪ and few, and inconsiderable ones at present; and we fear not the horrible pains of Hell, so we may avoid a little trouble in our persons, or our interest. Therefore it is to be supposed, that this way of undertaking a present punishment and smart for our sins (unless every thing when it becomes religious is despoil'd of all its powers which it had in nature, and what is reason here, is not reason there) will be of great effect and power against sin, and be an excellent instrument of repentance. But it must be so much, and it must be no more; for penances are like fire and water, good so long as they are made to serve our needs; but when they go beyond that, they are not to be endured. For since God in the severest of his anger does not punish one sin with another, let not us do worse to our selves than the greatest wrath of God in this world will inflict upon us. A sin cannot be a punishment from God. For then it would be that God should be the Author of sin, for he is of punishment. If then any punishment be a sin, that sin was unavoidable, deriv'd from God; and indeed it would be a contradiction to the nature of things to say, that the same thing can in the same formality be a punishment and a sin, that is, an action, and a passion, voluntary as every sin is, and involuntary as every punishment is; that it should be done by us, and yet against us, by us and by another, and by both intirely: and since punishment is the compensation or the expiation of sin, not the aggravation of the Divine anger; it w [...]re very strange,Vide Chap. 6. n. 42. if God by punishing us should more provoke himself, and instead of satisfying his justice, or curing the man, make his own anger infinite, and the pati [...]nt much the worse. Indeed it may happen that one sin may cause o [...] procure another, not by the efficiency of God, or any direct action of his: but 1. Withdrawing those assistances which would have restrain'd a sinful progression. 2. By suffering him to fall into evil temptation, which is too hard for him consisting in his present voluntary indisposition. 3. By the nature of sin it self, which may either ¹ effect a sin by accident; as a great anger may by the withdrawing Gods restraining grace be permitted to pass to an act of murder; or ² it may dispose to others of like nature, as one degree of lust brings in another; or ³ it may minister matter of fuel to another sin, as intemperance to uncleanness: or ⁴ one sin may be the end of another, a [...] covetousness may be the servant of luxury. In all these ways, one sin may be effected by another; but in all these, God is only conniving, or at most, takes off some of those helps which the man hath forfeited, and God was not obliged to continue. Thus God hardned Pharaohs heart, even by way of object and occasion; God hardned him, by shewing him a mercy, by taking off his fears when he remov'd the judgment; and God ministred to him some hope that it be so still. But God does not inflict the sin: The mans own impious hands do that, not because he cannot help it, but because he chuses and delights in it. * Now if God in justice to us will not punish one sin directly by another: let not us in our penitential inflictions commit a sin in indignation against our sin; for that is just as if a man out of impatience of pain in his side, should dash his head against a wall.

113. III. But if God pleases to inflict a punishment, let us be careful to exchange i [...] into a penance, by kissing the rod, and entertaining the issues of the Divine justice by approbation of Gods proceeding, and confession of our demerit and justification of God. It was a pretty accident and mixture of providence and penance, that hapned to the three accusers of Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem; They accused him falsly of some horrid crimes, but in verification of their indictment bound themselves by a curse: The first, that if his accusation were false, he might be burn'd to death: The second, that he might die of the Kings Evil: The third, that he might be blind.Euseb. li. 6. c. [...] God in his anger found out the two first, and their curse hapned to them that delighted in [...] and l [...]es. The first was burnt alive in his own house: and the second perished by the loathsome disease. Which when the third espied, and found Gods anger so hasty and so heavy, so pressing and so certain, he ran out to meet the rod of God; and repented of his sin so deeply, and wept so bitterly, so continually, that he became blind with weeping: and the anger of God became an instance of repentance; the judgment was sanctified, and so passed into mercy and a pardon: he did indeed meet with his curse, but by the arts of repentance the curse became a blessing. And so it may be to us, Praeveniamus faciem ejus in confessione; let us prevent his anger by sentencing our selves: or if we do not, let us follow the sad accents of the angry voice of God, and imitate his justice, by condemning that which God condemns, [Page] and suffering willingly what he imposes; and turning his judgments into voluntary executions, by applying the suffering to our sins, and praying it may be sanctified. For since God smites us that we may repent, if we repent then, we serve the end of the Divine judgment: and when we perceive God smites our sin, if we submit to it, and are pleased that our sin is smitten, we are enemies to it, after the example of God; and that is a good act of repentance.

114. IV. For the quality or kind of penances, this is the best measure; Those are the best which serve most ends; not those which most vex us, but such which will most please God. If they be only actions punitive and vindictive, they do indeed punish the man, and help so far as they can to destroy the sin; but of these alone, S. Paul said well, Bodily exercise profiteth but little; but of the latter sort, he added, but Godliness is profitable to all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come: and this indeed is our exactest measure. Fastings alone, lyings upon the ground, disciplines and direct chastisements of the body, which have nothing in them but toleration and revenge, are of some use; they vex the body, and crucifie the sinner, but the sin lives for all them: but if we add prayer, or any action symbolical, as meditation, reading, solitariness, silence, there is much more done towards the extinction of the sin. But he that adds Alms, or something that not only is an act contrary to a former state of sin, but such which is apt to deprecate the fault, to obey God, and to do good to men, he hath chosen the better part, which will not easily be taken from him. Fasting, prayer, and alms together are the best penances, or acts of exterior repentance in the world. If they be single, fasting is of the least force, and alms done in obedience and the love of God is the best.

115. V. For the quantity of penances, the old rule is the best that I know, but that it is too general and indefinite. It is S. Cyprian's, Quàm magna deliquimus, tam granditèr defleamus. If our sins were great, so must our sorrow or penances be. As one is, so must be the other. For sorrow and penances I reckon as the same thing in this question; save only that in some instances of corporal inflictions, the sin is opposed in its proper matter; as intemperance is by fasting; effeminacy by suffering hardships; whereas sorrow opposes it only in general: and in some other instances of penances, there is a duty distinctly and directly serv'd, as in prayer and alms. But although this rule be indefinite and unlimited, we find it made more minute by Hugo de S. Victore. Si in correctione minor est afflictio quàm in [...] culpâ fuit delectatio, non est dignus poenitentiae tuae fructus. Our sorrow either in the direct passion, or in its voluntary expressions, distinctly or conjunctly, must at least equal the pleasure we took in the committing of a sin. And this rule is indeed very good, if we use it with these cautions. First, that this be understood principally in our repentances for single sins; for in these only the rule can be properly and without scruple applied, where the measures can be best observed. For in habitual and long courses of sin, there is no other measures but to do very much, and very long, and until we die, and never think our selves safe, but while we are doing our repentances. Secondly, that this measure be not thought equal commutation for the sin, but be only used as an act of deprecation and repentance, of the hatred of sin, and opposition to it; For he that sets a value upon his punitive actions of repentance, and rests in them, will be hasty in finishing the repentance, and leaving it off even while the sin is alive: For in these cases it is to be regarded▪ that penances, or the punitive actions of repentance, are not for the extinction of the punishment immediately, but for the guilt. That is, there is no remains of punishment after the whole guilt is taken off: but the guilt it self goes away by parts, and these external actions of repentance have the same effect in their proportion which is wrought by the internal. Therefore as no man can say that he hath sufficiently repented of his sins by an inward sorrow and hatred: so neither can he be secure that he hath made compensation by the suffering penances; for if one sin deserves an eternal Hell, it is well if upon the account of any actions, and any sufferings, we be at last accepted and acquitted.

116. VI. In the performing the punitive parts of external repentance, it is prudent, that we rather extend them than intend them: that is, let us rather do many single acts of several instances, than dwell upon one with such intension of spirit as may be apt to produce any violent effects upon the body or the spirit. In all these cases, prudence and proportion to the end is our best measures. For these outward significations of repentance, are not in any kind or instance necessary to the constitution of repentance; but apt and excellent expressions, and significations, exercises and ministeries of repentance. Prayer and Alms are of themselves distinct duties, [Page] and therefore come not in their whole nature to this reckoning: but the precise acts of corporal punishment are here intended. And that these were not necessary parts of repentance, the Primitive Church believed, and declared, by absolving dying persons, though they did not survive the beginnings of their publick repentance. But that she enjoyn'd them to suffer such severities in case they did recover, she declar'd that these were useful and proper exercises and ministeries of the Grace it self. And although inward repentance did expiate all sins, even in the Mosaical Covenant, yet they had also a time and manner of its solemnity, their day of expiation, and so must we have many. But if any man will refuse this way of repentance, I shall only say to him the words of S. Paul to them who rejected the Ecclesiastical customs and usages: We have no such Custom, neither the Churches of God. But let him be sure that he perform his internal repentance with the more exactness; as he had need look to his own strengths, that refuses the assistance of auxiliaries. But it is not good to be too nice and inquisitive, when the whole Article is matter of practice. For what doth God demand of us but inward sincerity of a returning, penitent, obedient heart, and that this be exercised and ministred unto by fit and convenient offices to that purpose? This is all, and from this we are to make no abatements.

The PRAYER.

1

O Eternal God, Gracious and Merciful, the fountain of pardon and holiness, hear the cries, and regard the supplications of thy servant. I have gone astray all my days, and I will for ever pray unto thee and cry mightily for pardon. Work in thy servant such a sorrow that may be deadly unto the whole body of sin, but the parent of an excellent repentance. O suffer me not any more to do an act of shame; nor to undergo the shame and confusion of face, which is the portion of the impenitent and persevering sinners at the day of sad accounts. I humbly confess my sins to thee, do thou hide them from all the world; and while I mourn for them, let the Angels rejoyce; and while I am killing them by the aids of thy Spirit, let me be written in the book of life, and my sins be blotted out of the black registers of death, that my sins being covered and cured, dead and buried in the grave of Jesus, I may live to thee my God a life of righteousness, and grow in it till I shall arrive at a state of glory.

II.

I Have often begun to return to thee; but I turn'd short again, and look'd back upon Sodom, and lov'd to dwell in the neighbourhood of the horrible regions. Now, O my God, hear; now let me finish the work of a holy repentance. Let thy grace be present with me, that this day I may repent acceptably, and to morrow, and all my days; not weeping over my returning sins, nor deploring new instances; but weeping bitterly for the old; loathing them infinitely, denouncing war against them hastily, prosecuting that war vigorously; resisting them every hour, crucifying them every day, praying perpetually, watching assiduously, consulting spiritual guides and helps frequently, obeying humbly, and crying mightily, I may do every thing by which I can please thee, that I may be rescued from the powers of darkness, and the sad portions of eternity which I have deserved.

III.

O Give unto thy servant intentions so real, a resolution so strong, a repentance so holy, a sorrow so deep, a hope so pure, a charity so sublime, that no temptation or time, no health or sickness, no accident or interest may be able in any circumstance of things or persons to tempt me from thee and prevail. Work in me a holy and an unreprovable faith whereby I may overcome the world, and crucifie the flesh, and quench the fiery darts of the Devil; and let this faith produce charity, and my sorrow cause amendment, [Page] and my fear produce caution, and that caution beget a holy hope: let my repentance be perfect and acceptable, and my affliction bring forth joy, and the pleasant fruit of righteousness. Let my hatred of sin pass into the love of God, and this love be obedience, and this obedience be universal, and that universality be lasting and perpetual; that I may rejoyce in my recovery, and may live in health, and proceed in holiness, and abide in thy favour, and die with a blessing, the death of the righteous, and may rest in the arms of the Lord Jesus, and at the day of judgment may have my portion in the resurrection of the just, and may enter into the joy of my Lord, to reap from the mercies of God in the harvest of a blessed eternity, what is here sown in tears and penitential sorrow, being pardoned and accepted, and sav'd by the mercies of God in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Amen.

‘ [...].’

THE END.

§

§

[Page]

DEVS JVSTIFICATVS, OR, A VINDICATION OF THE Glory of the DIVINE ATTRIBUTES, In the Question of ORIGINAL SIN: Against the Presbyterian Way of Understanding it.

In a Letter to a Person of Quality.

LUCRETIUS.

Nam neque tam facilis res ulla est, quin ea primum,

Difficilis magis ad credendum constet—

The Third Edition.

ALSO An ANSWER to a LETTER Written by the R. R. The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: Concerning the Chapter of ORIGINAL SIN, IN THE VNVM NECESSARIVM.

By JER. TAYLOR, Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First, and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent Majesty, 1673.

TO THE Right Honourable and Religious Lady, THE LADY CHRISTIAN, Countesse Dowager of DEVONSHIRE.

[Page]

[Page]

MADAM,

WHEN I reflect upon the infinite disputes which have troubled the publick meetings of Christendom concerning Original Sin, and how impatient and vext some men lately have been, when I offered to them my endeavours and conjectures concerning that Question, with purposes very differing from what were seen in the face of other mens designs, and had handled it so, that GOD might be glorified in the Article, and men might be instructed and edified in order to good life; I could not but think that wise Heathen said rarely well in his little adagie, relating to the present subject; [...]. Mankind was born to be a riddle, and our nativity is in the dark; for men have taken the liberty to think what they please, and to say what they think; and they affirm many things, and can prove but few things; and take the sayings of men for the Oracles of GOD, and bold affirmatives for convincing arguments; and S. Paul's Text must be understood by S. Austin's commentary, and S. Austin shall be heard in all, because he spake against such men who in some things were not to be heard; and after all, because his Doctrine was taken for granted by ignorant Ages, and being received so long, was incorporated into the resolved Doctrine of the Church, with so great a firmness; it became almost a shame to examine what the world believed so unsuspectingly; and he that shall first attempt it, must resolve to give up a great portion of his reputation to be torn in pieces by the ignorant and by the zealous, by some of the Learned, and by all the Envious; and they who love to [Page] teach in quiet, being at rest in their Chairs and Pulpits will be froward when they are awakened, and rather than they will be suspected to have taught amiss, will justifie an error by the reproaching of him that tells them truth, which they are pleased to call new.

If any man differs from me in opinion, I am not troubled at it, but tell him that truth is in the Vnderstanding, and charity is in the Will, and is or ought to be there, before either his or my opinion in these controversies can enter, and therefore that we ought to love alike, though we do not understand alike; but when I find that men are angry at my Ingenuity and openness of discourse, and endeavour to hinder the event of my labours, in the ministery of Souls, and are impatient of contradiction or variety of explication, and understanding of Questions, I think my self concerned to defend the truth which I have published, to acquit it from the suspicion of evil appendages, to demonstrate not only the truth, but the piety of it, and the necessity, and those great advantages which by this Doctrine so understood may be reaped, if men will be quiet and patient, void of prejudice and not void of Charity.

This (Madam) is reason sufficient why I offer so many justifications of my Doctrine, before any man appears in publick against it; but because there are many who do enter into the houses of the rich and the honourable, and whisper secret oppositions and accusations rather than arguments against my Doctrine; the good Women that are zealous for Religion, and make up in the passions of one faculty what is not so visible in the actions and operations of another, are sure to be affrighted before they be instructed, and men enter caveats in that Court before they try the cause: But that is not all; For I have found, that some men, to whom I gave and designed my labours, and for whose sake I was willing to suffer the persecution of a suspected truth, have been so unjust to me, and so unserviceable to your self (Madam) and to some other excellent and rare personages, as to tell stories, and give names to my proposition, and by secret murmurs hinder you from receiving that good which your wisdom and your piety would have discerned there, if they had not affrighted you with telling, that a Snake lay under the Plantane, and that this Doctrine which is as wholsome as the fruits of Paradise, was enwrapped with the infoldings of a Serpent, subtile and fallacious.

Madam, I know the arts of these men; and they often put me in mind of what was told me by M. Sackvill the late Earl of Dorsets [Page] Vncle; that the cunning Sects of the World (he named the Jesuits and the Presbyterians) did more prevail by whispering to Ladies, than all the Church of England and the more sober Protestants could do by fine force and strength of argument. For they by prejudice or fears, terrible things, and zealous nothings, confident sayings and little stories, governing the Ladies Consciences, who can perswade their Lords, their Lords will convert their Tenants, and so the World is all their own. I should wish them all good of their profits and purchases if the case were otherwise than it is: but because they are questions of Souls, of their interest and advantages; I cannot wish they may prevail with the more Religious and Zealous Personages: and therefore (Madam) I have taken the boldness to write this tedious Letter to you, that I may give you a right understanding and an easie explication of this great Question; as conceiving my self the more bound to do it to your satisfaction, not only because you are Zealous for the Religion of this Church, and are a person as well of Reason as of Religion, but also because you have passed divers obligations upon me, for which all my services are too little a return.

DEVS JVSTIFICATVS, OR, A VINDICATION OF THE Glory of the DIVINE ATTRIBUTES, In the Question of ORIGINAL SIN.

[Page]

[Page]

IN Order to which, I will plainly describe the great lines of difference and danger, which are in the errors and mistakes about this Question.

2. I will prove the truth and necessity of my own, together with the usefulness and reasonableness of it.

3. I will answer those little murmurs, by which (so far as I can yet learn) these men seek to invade the understandings of those who have not leisure or will to examine the thing it self in my own words and arguments.

4. And if any thing else falls in by the by, in which I can give satisfaction to a Person of Your great Worthiness, I will not omit it, as being desirous to have this Doctrine stand as fair in your eyes, as it is in all its own colours and proportions.

But first (Madam) be pleased to remember that the question is not whether there be any such thing as Original Sin; for it is certain, and confessed on all hands almost. For my part, I cannot but confess that to be which I feel, and groan under, and by which all the World is miserable.

Adam turned his back upon the Sun, and dwelt in the dark and the shadow; he sinned, and fell into Gods displeasure, and was made naked of all his supernatural endowments, and was ashamed and sentenced to death, and deprived of the means of long life, and of the Sacrament and instrument of Immortality, I mean the Tree of Life; he then fell under the evils of a sickly body, and a passionate, ignorant, uninstructed soul; his sin made him sickly, his sickness made him peevish, his sin left him ignorant, his ignorance made him foolish and unreasonable: His sin left him to his nature, and by his nature, who ever was to be born at all, was to be born a child, and to do before he could understand, and be bred under Laws, to which he was always bound, but which could not always be exacted; and he was to chuse, when he could not [...]eason, and had passions most strong, when he had his understanding most weak, and was to ride a wild horse without a bridle, and the more need he had of a curb, the less strength he had to use it, and this being the case of all the World, what was every mans evil, became all mens greater evil; and though alone it was very bad, yet when they came together it was made much worse; like Ships in a storm, every one alone hath enough to do to out-ride it; but when they meet, besides the evils of the storm, they find the intolerable calamity of their mutual concussion, and every Ship that is ready to be oppressed with the tempest, is a worse tempest to every vessel, against which it is violently dashed. So it is in mankind, every man hath evil enough of his own; and it is hard for a man to live soberly, temperately, and religiously; [Page] but when he hath Parents and Children, Brothers and Sisters, Friends and Enemies, Buyers and Sellers, Lawyers and Physicians, a Family and a Neighbourhood, a King over him, or Tenants under him, a Bishop to rule in matters of Government spiritual, and a People to be ruled by him in the affairs of their Souls; then it is that every man dashes against another, and one relation requires what another denies; and when one speaks, another will contradict him; and that which is well spoken, is sometimes innocently mistaken, and that upon a good cause produces an evil effect, and by these, and ten thousand other concurrent causes, man is made more than most miserable.

But the main thing is this; when God was angry with Adam, the man fell from the state of grace; for God withdrew his grace, and we returned to the state of mere nature, of our prime creation. And although I am not of Petrus Diaconus his mind, who said, that when we all fell in Adam, we fell into the dirt, and not only so, but we fell also upon a heap of stones; so that we not only were made naked, but defiled also, and broken all in pieces; yet this I believe to be certain, that we by his fall received evil enough to undo us, and ruine us all; but yet the evil did so descend upon us, that we were left in powers and capacities to serve and glorifie God; Gods service was made much harder, but not impossible; mankind was made miserable, but not desperate, we contracted an actual mortality, but we were redeemable from the power of Death; sin was easie and ready at the door, but it was resistable; our Will was abused, but yet not destroyed; our Understanding was cosened, but yet still capable of the best instructions; and though the Devil had wounded us, yet G [...]d sen [...] his Son, who like the good Samaritan poured Oyl and Wine into our wounds, and we were cured before we felt the hurt, that might have ruined us upon that Occasion. It is sad enough, but not altogether so intolerable, and decretory, as some would make it, which the Sibylline Oracle describes to be the effect of Adam's sin.

[...],

[...]

[...].

Man was the work of God, fram'd by his hands,

Him did the Serpent cheat, that to deaths bands

He was subjected for his sin: for this was all,

He tasted good and evil by his fall.

But to this we may superadd that which Plutarch found to be experimentally true, Mirum quod pedes moverunt ad usum rationis, nullo autem fraeno passiones: The foot moves at the command of the Will and by the Empire of reason, but the passions are stiff even then when the knee bends, and no bridle can make the Passions regular and temperate. And indeed (Madam) this is in a manner the summ total of the evil of our abused and corrupted nature; Our soul is in the body as in a Prison; it is there tanquam in alienâ domo, it is a sojourner, and lives by the bodies measures, and loves and hates by the bodies Interests and Inclinations; that which is pleasing and nourishing to the body, the soul chuses and delights in: That which is vexatious and troublesome, it abhorrs, and hath motions accordingly; for Passions are nothing else but acts of the Will, carried to or from material Objects, and effects and impresses upon the man, made by such acts; consequent motions and productions from the Will. It is a useless and a groundless proposition in Philosophy, to make the Passions to be the emanations of distinct faculties, and seated in a differing region; for as the reasonable soul is both sensitive and vegetative, so is the Will elective and passionate, the region both of choice and passions, that is, When the Object is immaterial, or the motives such, the act of the Will is so merely intellectual, that it is then spiritual, and the acts are proper and Symbolical, and the act of it we call election or volition, but if the Object is material or corporal, the acts of the Will are passion, that is adhesion and aversation, and these it receives by the needs and inclinations of the body: An Object can diversifie an act; but never distinguish faculties: And if we make it one faculty that chuses a reasonable object, and another that chuses the sensual; we may as well assign a third faculty for the supernatural and religious: and when to chuse a sensual object is always either reasonable or unreasonable, and every adherence to pleasure, and mortification or refusing of it, is subject to a command and the matter of duty, it will follow that even the passions also are issues of the Will: [Page] by passions meaning the actions of prosecution or refusal of sensitive objects, the acts of the Concupiscible and Irascible appetite, not the impresses made by these upon the body, as trembling, redness, paleness, heaviness, and the like: and therefore to say, the passions rule the will, is an improper saying; but it hath no truth in its meaning but this; that the Will is more passionate than wise; it is more delighted with Bodily pleasures than Spiritual: but as the understanding considers both, and the disputation about them is in that faculty alone; so the choice of both is in the will alone: Now because many of the bodies needs are naturally necessary, and the rest are made so by being thought needs, and by being so naturally pleasant, and that this is the bodies day, and it rules here in its own place and time, therefore it is that the will is so great a scene of passion, and we so great servants of our bodies.

This was the great effect of Adams sin, which became therefore to us a punishment, because of the appendant infirmity that went along with it; for Adam being spoiled of all the rectitudes and supernatural heights of grace, and thrust back to the form of nature, and left to derive grace to himself by a new Oeconomy, or to be without it; and his posterity left just so as he was left himself; he was permitted to the power of his enemy that betray'd him, and put under the power of his body whose appetites would govern him; and when they would grow irregular could not be mastered by any thing that was about him, or born with him, so that his case was miserable and naked, and his state of things was imperfect and would be disordered.

But now Madam, things being thus bad, are made worse by the superinduced Doctrines of men, which when I have represented to your Ladiship, and told upon what accounts I have reproved them, you will find that I have reason.

There are one sort of Calvin's Scholars, whom we for distinctions sake call Supralapsarians, who are so fierce in their sentences of predestination and reprobation, that they say God looked upon mankind, only, as his Creation, and his slaves, over whom he having absolute power, was very gracious that he was pleased to take some few, and save them absolutely; and to the other greater part he did no wrong, though he was pleased to damn them eternally, only because he pleased; for they were his own; and Qui jure suo utitur nemini facit injuriam, says the Law of reason, every one may do what he please with his own. But this bloody and horrible opinion is held but by a few; as tending directly to the dishonour of God, charging on Him alone that He is the cause of mens sins on Earth, and of mens eternal torments in Hell; it makes God to be powerful, but his power not to be good; it makes him more cruel to men, than good men can be to Dogs and Sheep; it makes him give the final sentence of Hell without any pretence or colour of justice; it represents him to be that which all the World must naturally fear, and naturally hate, as being a God delighting in the death of innocents; for so they are when he resolves to damn them: and then most tyrannically cruel, and unreasonable; for it says that to make a postnate pretence of justice, it decrees that men inevitably shall sin, that they may inevitably, but justly, be damned; like the Roman Lictors, who because they could not put to death Sejanus's daughters as being Virgins, defloured them after sentence, that by that barbarity they might be capable of the utmost Cruelty; it makes God to be all that for which any other thing or person is or can be hated; for it makes him neither to be good, nor just, nor reasonable; but a mighty enemy to the biggest part of mankind; it makes him to hate what himself hath made, and to punish that in another which in himself he decreed should not be avoided: it charges the wisdom of God with solly, as having no means to glorifie his justice, but by doing unjustly, by bringing in that which himself hates, that he might do what himself loves: doing as Tiberius did to Brutus and Nero the Sons of Germanicus; Sue [...]on. in vi [...] liber. c. 54. Variâ fraude induxit ut concitarentur ad convitia, & concitati perderentur; provoking them to rail, that he might punish their reproachings. This opinion reproaches the words of the Spirit of Scripture, it charges God with Hypocrisie and want of Mercy, making him a Father of Cruelties, not of Mercy, and is a perfect overthrow of all Religion, and all Laws, and all Government; it destroys the very being, and nature of all Election, thrusting a man down to the lowest form of Beasts and Bird [...], to whom a Spontaneity of doing certain actions is given by God, but it is in them so natural, that it is unavoidable. Now concerning this ho [...]rid opinion, I for my part shall say nothing but this; That he that says there was no such man as Alexander, would tell a horrible lie, and be injurious to all story, and to the memory and same of that great Prince; but he that should say, It is true there was such a man as Alexander, but he was a Tyrant, and a Blood-sucker, cruel and injurious, false and dissembling, an enemy of mankind, and [Page] for all the reasons of the world to be hated and reproached, would certainly dishonour Alexander more, and be his greatest enemy: So I think in this, That the Atheists who deny there is a God, do not so impiously against God, as they that charge him with foul appellatives, or maintain such sentences, which if they were true, God could not be true. But these men (Madam) have nothing to do in the Question of Original Sin, save only, that they say that God did decree that Adam should fall, and all the sins that he sinned, and all the world after him are no effects of choice, but of predestination, that is, they were the actions of God, rather than man.

But because these men even to their brethren seem to speak evil things of God, therefore the more wary and temperate of the Calvinists bring down the order of reprobation lower; affirming that God looked upon all mankind in Adam as fallen into his displeasure, hated by God, truly guilty of his sin, liable to Eternal damnation, and they being all equally condemned, he was pleased to separate some, the smaller number far, and irresistibly bring them to Heaven; but the far greater number he passed over, leaving them to be damned for the sin of Adam, and so they think they salve Gods Justice; and this was the design and device of the Synod of Dort.

Now to bring this to pass, they teach concerning Original Sin.

1. That by this sin our first Parents fell from their Original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties, and parts of soul and body.

2. That whatsoever death was due to our first Parents for this sin, they being the root of all mankind, and the guilt of this sin being imputed, the same is conveyed to all their posterity by ordinary generation.

3. That by this Original corruption we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil; and that from hence proceed all actual transgressions.

4. This corruption of nature remains in the regenerate, and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both it self and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

5. Original sin being a transgression of the righteous Law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the Law, and so made subject to death with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal. These are the sayings of the late Assembly at Westminster.

Against this heap of errors and dangerous propositions I have made my former discoursings, and statings of the Question of Original sin. These are the Doctrines of the Presbyterian, whose face is towards us, but it is over-against us in this and many other questions of great concernment. ‘Nemo tam propè proculque nobis.’ He is nearest to us and furthest from us; but because I have as great a love to their persons, as I have a dislike to some of their Doctrines; I shall endeavour to serve truth and them, by reproving those propositions which make truth and them to stand at distance.

Now I shall first speak to the thing in general and its designs, then I shall make some observations upon the particulars.

1. This device of our Presbyterians and of the Synod of Dort is but an artifice to save their proposition harmless, and to stop the out-cries of Scripture and reason, and of all the World against them. But this way of stating the Article of reprobation is as horrid in the effect as the other. For,

1. Is it by a natural consequent that we are guilty of Adams sin, or is it by the decree of God? Naturally it cannot be; for then the sins of all our forefathers, who are to their posterity the same that Adam was to his, must be ours; and not only Adams first sin, but his others are ours upon the same account. But if it be by the Decree of God,Instit. l. 3. c. 23. S [...]ct. 7 Vi [...]d. Grat. l. 1. p. d [...] gres. 4. c. 3. by his choice and constitution, that it should be so (as Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twisse (that I may name no more for that side) do expresly teach) it follows, that God is the Author of our Sin; So that I may use Mr. Calvins words; ‘How is it that so many Nations with their Children should be involved in the fall without remedy, but because God would have it so?’ And if that be the matter, then to God, as to the cause, must that sin, and that damnation be accounted.

[Page]And let it then be considered, whether this be not as bad as the worst; For the Supralapsarians say, God did decree that the greatest part of mankind should perish, only because he would: The Sublapsarians say, that God made it by his decree necessary, that all we who were born of Adam should be born guilty of Original Sin, and he it was who decreed to damn whom he pleased for that sin, in which he decreed they should be born; and both these he did for no other consideration, but because he would. Is it not therefore evident, that he absolutely decreed Damnation to these Persons? For he that decrees the end, and he that decrees the only necessary and effective means to the end, and decrees that it shall be the end of that means, does decree absolutely alike; though by several dispensations: And then all the evil consequents which I reckoned before to be the monstrous productions of the first way; are all Daughters of the other; and if Solomon were here, he could not tell which were the truer Mother.

Now that the case is equal between them, [...] of their own chiefest do confess, so Dr. Twisse. If God may ordain Men to Hell for Adam's sin, which is derived unto them by Gods only constitution: He may as well do it ab [...]olutely without any such constitutions: The same also is affirmed by Maccovius, and by Mr. Calvin: Disp. 18. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 23. And the reason is plain; for he that does a thing for a reason which himself makes, may as well do it without a reason, Or he may make his own Will to be the reason, because the thing, and the motive of the thing, come in both cases, equally from the same principle, and from that alone.

Now (Madam) be pleased to say, whether I had not reason and necessity for what I have taught: You are a happy Mother of a fair and hopeful Posterity, your Children and Nephews are dear to you as your right eye, and yet you cannot love them so well as God loves them, and it is possible that a Mother should forget her Children, yet God even then will not, cannot; but if our Father and Mother forsake us, God taketh us up: Now, Madam, consider, could you have found in your heart when the Nurses and Midwives had bound up the heads of any of your Children, when you had born them with pain and joy upon your knees, could you have been tempted to give command that murderers should be brought to stay them alive, to put them to exquisite tortures, and then in the midst of their saddest groans, throw any one of them into the flames of a fierce fire, for no other reason, but because he was born at London, or upon a Friday, when the Moon was in her prime, or for what other reason you had made, and they could never avoid? Could you have been delighted in their horrid shrieks and out-cries, or have taken pleasure in their unavoidable and their intolerable calamity? Could you have smiled, if the hangman had snatched your eldest Son from his Nurses breasts, and dashed his brains out against the pavement; and would you not have wondred that any Father or Mother could espy the innocence and pretty smiles of your sweet babes, and yet tear their limbs in pieces, or devise devilish artifices to make them roar with intolerable convulsions? Could you desire to be thought good, and yet have delighted in such cruelty? I know I may answer for you; you would first have died your self. And yet I say again, God loves mankind better than we can love one another, and he is essentially just, and he is infinitely merciful, and he is all goodness, and therefore though we might possibly do evil things, yet he cannot, and yet this doctrine of the Presbyterian reprobation, says he both can and does things, the very apprehension of which hath caused many in despair to drown or hang themselves.

Now if the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation be so horrid, so intolerable a proposition, so unjust and blasphemous to God, so injurious and cruel to men, and that there is no colour or pretence to justifie it, but by pretending our guilt of Adams sin, and damnation to be the punishment: Then because from truth nothing but truth can issue; that must needs be a lie, from which such horrid consequences do proceed. For the case in short is this; If it be just for God to damn any one of Adam's Posterity for Adam's sin, then it is just in him to damn all; for all his Children are equally guilty; and then if he spares any, it is Mercy: And the rest who perish have no cause to complain. But if all these fearful consequences which Reason and Religion so much abhor do so certainly follow from such doctrines of Reprobation, and these doctrines wholly [...]ely upon this pretence, it follows, that the pretence is infinitely false and intolerable; and that (so far as we understand the rules and measures of justice.) it cannot be just for God to damn us for being in a state of calamity, to which state we entred no way out by his constitution and decree.

[Page]You see, Madam, I had reason to reprove that doctrine, which said, It was just in God to damn us for the sin of Adam.

Though this be the main error; yet there are some other collateral things which I can by no means approve, such is that, 1. That by the Sin of Adam our Parents became wholly defiled in all the faculties and Powers of their souls and bodies. And 2. That by this we also are disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. And 3. That from hence proceed all actual transgressions. And 4. That our natural corruption in the regenerate still remains, though it be pardoned and mortified, and is still properly a sin.

Against this, I opposed these Propositions; That the effect of Adams sin was in himself bad enough; for it devested him of that state of grace and favour where God placed him; it threw him from Paradise, and all the advantages of that place, it left him in the state of Nature; but yet his nature was not spoiled by that sin; he was not wholly inclined to all evil, neither was he disabled and made opposite to all good; only his good was imperfect, it was natural and fell short of Heaven; for till his nature was invested with a new nature, he could go no further than the design of his first Nature, that is, without Christ, without the Spirit of Christ, he could never arrive at Heaven, which is his supernatural condition; But 1. There still remained in him a natural freedom of doing good or evil. 2. In every one that was born, there are great inclinations to some good. 3. Where our Nature was a verse to good, it is not the direct sin of Nature, but the imperfection of it, the reason being, because God superinduced Laws against our natural inclination, and yet there was in nature nothing sufficient to make us contradict our nature in obedience to God; all that being to come from a supernatural and Divine principle. These I shall prove together, for one depends upon another.

1. And first, That the liberty of will did not perish to mankind by the fall of Adam is so evident, that S. Austin, who is an adversary in some parts of this Question, but not yet, by way of Question and confidence asks, Quis autem nostrûm dicat quod primi hominis peccato perierit liberum arbitrium de humano genere? Lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 2. Which of us can say, That the liberty of our Will did perish by the sin of the first Man? And he adds a rare reason; for it is so certain, that it did not perish in a sinner, that this thing only is it by which they do sin, especially when they delight in their sin, and by the love of sin, that thing is pleasing to them which they list to do.] And therefore when we are charged with sin, it is worthy of inquiry, whence it is that we are sinners? Is it by the necessity of Nature, or by the liberty of our Will? If by nature and not choice, then it is good and not evil; for whatsoever is our Nature, is of Gods making, and consequently is good; but if we are sinners by choice and liberty of will, whence had we this liberty? If from Adam, then we have not lost it; but if we had it not from him, then from him we do not derive all our sin; for by this liberty alone we sin.

If it be replied, that we are free to sin, but not to good; it is such a foolery, and the cause of the mistake so evident, and so ignorant, that I wonder any man of Learning or common sence should own it. For if I be free to evil; then I can chuse evil, or refuse it; If I can refuse it, then I can do good; for to refuse that evil is good, and it is in the Commandment [Eschew evil] but if I cannot chuse or refuse it, how am I free to evil? For Voluntas and Libertas, Will and Liberty in Philosophy are not the same: I may will it, when I cannot will the contrary; as the Saints in Heaven, and God himself wills good; they cannot will evil; because to do so is imperfection and contrary to felicity; but here is no liberty: for liberty is with power, to do, or not to do; to do this or the contrary; and if this liberty be not in us, we are not in the state of obedience, or of disobedience; which is the state of all them who are alive, who are neither in Hell nor Heaven. For it is to many purposes useful that we consider that in natural things to be determined shews a narrowness of being; and therefore liberty of action is better, because it approaches nearer to infinity. But in moral things, liberty is a direct imperfection, a state of weakness, and supposes weakness of reason and weakness of love; the imperfection of the Agent, or the unworthiness of the object; Liberty of will is like the motion of a Magnetick needle toward the North, full of trepidation till it be fixt where it would fain dwell for ever. Either the object is but good in one regard, or we have but an uncertain apprehension, or but a beginning love to it, or it could never be that we could be free to chuse, that is, to love it or not to love it. And therefore it is so far from being true, that by the fall of Adam we lost our liberty, that it is more likely to be the [Page] consequent of it; as being a state of imperfection; proper indeed to them who are to live under Laws, and to such who are to work for a reward, and may fail of it; but cannot go away till we either lose all hopes of good by descending into Hell, or are past all fear or possibility of evil by going to Heaven. But that this is our case, if I had no other argument in the world, and were never so prejudicate and obstinate a person, I think I should be perfectly convinced by those words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.37. The Apostle speaks of a good act tending not only to the keeping of a Precept, but to a Counsel of perfection; and concerning that, he hath these words; Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his Virgin, doth well; The words are plain, and need no explication. If this be not a plain liberty of choice, and a power of will, those words mean nothing, and we can never hope to understand one anothers meaning. But if sin be avoidable, then we have liberty of choice. If it be unavoidable, it is not imputable by the measures of Laws and Justice; what it is by Empire and Tyranny, let the Adversaries inquire and prove: But since all Theology, all Schools of learning consent in this, that an invincible or unavoidable ignorance does wholly excuse from sin; why an invincible and an unavoidable necessity shall not also excuse, I confess I have not yet been taught.

But if by Adam's sin we be so utterly indisposed, disabled, and opposite to all good, wholly inclined to evil, and from hence come all actual sins, that is, That by Adam we are brought to that pass, that we cannot chuse but sin: it is a strange severity, that this should descend upon Persons otherwise most innocent, and that this which is the most grievous of all evils; For prima & maxima peccantium poena est peccâsse, (said Seneca) To be given over to sin, is the worst calamity, the most extreme anger, never inflicted directly at all for any sin,Doctr. and Pract. of Repent. as I have other-where proved, and not indirectly, but upon the extremest anger; which cannot be supposed, unless God be more angry with us for being born Men, than for chusing to be sinners.

The Consequent of these Arguments is this; That our faculties are not so wholly spoiled by Adams fall, but that we can chuse good or evil, that our nature is not wholly disabled and made opposite to all good: But to nature are left and given as much as to the handmaid Agar; nature hath nothing to do with the inheritance, but she and her sons have gifts given them; and by nature we have Laws of Vertue and inclinations to Vertue, and naturally we love God, and worship him, and speak good things of him, and love our Parents, and abstain from incestuous mixtures, and are pleased when we do well, and affrighted within when we sin in horrid instances against God; all this is in Nature, and much good comes from Nature, Neque enim quasi lassa & effaeta natura est, ut nihil jam laudabile pariat; Nature is not so old,Plinius Ep. 12. lib. so obsolete and dried a trunk as to bring no good fruits upon its own stock; and the French-men have a good proverb, Bonus sanguis non mentitur, a good blood never lies; and some men are naturally chast, and some are abstemious, and many are just and friendly, and noble and charitable: and therefore all actual sins do not proceed from this sin of Adam; for if the sin of Adam left us in liberty to sin, and that this liberty was before Adams fall; then it is not long of Adams fall that we sin; by his fall it should rather be according to their principles that we cannot chuse but do this or that, and then it is no sin: But to say that our actual sins should any more proceed from Adams fall, than Adams fall should proceed from it self, is not to be imagined, for what made Adam sin when he fell? If a fatal decree made him sin, then he was nothing to blame.

Fati ista culpa est,

Nemo fit fato nocens.

No guilt upon mankind can lie

For what's the fault of destiny.

And Adam might with just reason lay the blame from himself, and say as Agamem [...]on did in Homer,

— [...]

[...].

[Page] It was not I that sinned, but it was fate or a fury, it was God and not I, it was not my act, but the effect of the Divine decree, and then the same decree may make us sin, and not the sin of Adam be the cause of it. But if a liberty of will made Adam sin, then this liberty to sin being still left us, this liberty and not Adams sin is the cause of all our actual.

Concerning the other clause in the Presbyterian Article, that our natural corruption in the regenerate still remains, and is still a sin, and properly a sin: I have (I confess) heartily opposed it, and shall besides my arguments, confute it with my blood, if God shall call me; for it is so great a reproach to the spirit and power of Christ, and to the effects of Baptism, to Scripture and to right reason, that all good people are bound in Conscience to be zealous against it.

For when Christ came to reconcile us to his Father, he came to take away our sins, not only to pardon them, but to destroy them; and if the regenerate, in whom the spirit of Christ rules, and in whom all their habitual sins are dead, are still under the servitude and in the stocks of Original sin, then it follows, not only that our guilt of Adams sin is greater than our own actual, the sin that we never consented to, is of a deeper grain than that which we have chosen and delighted in, and God was more angry with Cain that he was born of Adam, than that he kill'd his Brother; and Judas by descent from the first Adam contracted that sin which he could never be quit of, but he might have been quit of his betraying the second Adam, if he would not have despaired; I say not only these horrid consequences do follow, but this also will follow; that Adams sin hath done some mischief that the grace of Christ can never cure; and generation stains so much, that regeneration cannot wash it clean. Besides all this, if the natural corruption remains in the regenerate, and be properly a sin, then either God hates the regenerate, or loves the sinner, and when he dies he must enter into Heaven, with that sin, which he cannot lay down but in the grave: as the vilest sinner lays down every sin; and then an unclean thing can go to Heaven, or else no man can; and lastly, to say that this natural corruption, though it be pardoned and mortified, yet still remains, and is still a sin, is perfect non-sence; for if it be mortified, it is not, it hath no being; if it is pardoned, it was indeed, but now is no sin; for till a man can be guilty of sin without obligation to punishment, a sin cannot be a sin that is pardoned; that is, if the obligation to punishment or the guilt be taken away, a man is not guilty. Thus far (Madam) I hope you will think I had reason.

One thing more I did and do reprove in their Westminster Articles; and that is, that Original sin, meaning, our sin derived from Adam, is contrary to the law of God, and doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner; binding him over to Gods wrath, &c. that is, that the sin of Adam imputed to us is properly, formally, and inherently a sin. If it were properly a sin in us, our sin, it might indeed be damnable; for every transgression of the Divine Commandment is so: but because I have proved it cannot bring eternal damnation, I can as well argue thus: This sin cannot justly bring us to damnation, therefore it is not properly a sin: as to say; this is properly a sin, therefore it can bring us to damnation. Either of them both follow well: but because they cannot prove it to be a sin properly, or any other ways but by a limited imputation to certain purposes; they cannot say it infers damnation. But because I have proved, it cannot infer damnation, I can safely conclude, it is not formally, properly, and inherently a sin in us.

Nec placet ô superi vobis cum vertere cuncta

Propositum, nostris erroribus addere crimen.

Nor did it please our God, when that our state

Was chang'd, to add a crime unto our fate.

I have now (Madam) though much to your trouble quitted my self of my Presbyterian opponents, so far as I can judge fitting for the present: but my friends also take some exceptions; and there are some objections made, and blows given me as it happened to our Blessed Saviour, In domo illorum qui diligebant me; in the house of my Mother and in the societies of some of my Dearest Brethren. For the case is this.

They joyn with me in all this that I have said; viz. That Original sin is ours only by imputation; that it leaves us still in our natural liberty, and though it [Page] hath devested us of our supernaturals, yet that our nature is almost the same, and by the grace of Jesus as capable of Heaven as it could ever be, by derivation of Original righteousness from Adam. In the conduct and in the description of this Question, being usually esteemed to be only Scholastical, I confess they (as all men else) do usually differ; for it was long ago observed, that there are sixteen several famous opinions in this one Question of Original sin. But my Brethren are willing to confess that for Adams sin alone no man did or shall ever perish. And that it is rather to be called a stain than a sin. If they were all of one mind and one voice in this Article, though but thus far, I would not move a stone to disturb it, but some draw one way and some another, and they that are aptest to understand the whole secret, do put fetters and bars upon their own understanding by an importune regard to the great names of some dead men, who are called masters upon earth, and whose authority is as apt to mislead us into some propositions, as their learning is useful to guide us in others: but so it happens, that because all are not of a mind, I cannot give account of every disagreeing man; but of that which is most material, I shall. Some learned persons are content I should say no man is damned for the sin of Adam alone; but yet that we stand guilty in Adam, and redeemed from this damnation by Christ; and if that the Article were so stated, it would not intrench upon the justice or the goodness of God; for his justice would be sufficiently declared, because no man can complain of wrong done him when the evil that he fell into by Adam is taken off by Christ; and his goodness is manifest in making a new Census for us, taxing and numbring us in Christ, and giving us free Redemption by the blood of Jesus: but yet that we ought to confess that we are liable to damnation by Adam, and saved from thence by Christ; that Gods justice may be glorified in that, and his goodness in this, but that we are still real sinners till washed in the blood of the Lamb; and without God, and without hopes of Heaven, till then: and that if this Article be thus handled, the Presbyterian fancy will disappear; for they can be confuted without denying Adams sin to be damnable; by saying it is pardoned in Christ, and in Christ all men are restored, and he is the head of the Predestination; for in him God looked upon us when he designed us to our final state; and this (say they) is much for the honour of Christs Redemption.

To these things (Madam) I have much to say, something I will trouble your Ladiship withal at this time, that you and all that consider the particulars may see, I could not do the work of God and truth if I had proceeded in that method. For,

1. It is observable that those wiser persons, who will by no means admit that anyone is or ever shall be damned for Original sin, do by this means hope to salve the justice of God; by which they plainly imply, that to damn us for this, is hard and intolerable; and therefore they suppose they have declared a remedy. But then this also is to be considered, if it be intolerable to damn children for the sin of Adam, then it is intolerable to say it is damnable; If that be not just or reasonable, then this is also unjust and unreasonable, for the sentence and the execution of the sentence are the same emanation and issue of justice, and are to be equally accounted of. For,

2. I demand, had it been just in God to damn all mankind to the eternal pains of Hell for Adams sin, committed before they had a being, or could consent to it, or know of it? If it could be just, then any thing in the world can be just, and it is no matter who is innocent, or who is criminal directly and by choice, since they may turn Devils in their mothers bellies; and it matters not whether there be any laws or no, since it is all one that there be no law, and that we do not know whether there be or no; and it matters not whether there be any judicial process, for we may as well be damned without judgment, as be guilty without action: and besides, all those arguments will press here which I urged in my first discourse. Now if it had been unjust actually to damn us all for the sin of one, it was unjust to sentence us to it; for if he did give sentence against us justly, he could justly have executed the sentence; and this is just, if that be. But,

3. God did put this sentence in execution; for if that be true which these learned men suppose, that by Adams sin we fell into a damnable condition, but by Christ we are rescued from an actual damnation for it; then it will follow, that when he sent the holy Jesus into the world, to die for us, and to redeem us, he satisfied his Fathers Anger for Original Sin as well as for actual, he paid for our share as well as for Adams, for our share of that sin which he committed, as well as for those which we committed [Page] and not he; he paid all the price of that as well as of this damnation; and the horrible sentence was bought off: and God was so satisfied that his justice had full measure for the damnation to which we stood liable. God I say had full measure for all; for so all men say who speak the voice of the Church in the matter of Christs satisfaction: so that now, although there was the goodness of God in taking the evil from us; yet how to reconcile this process with his justice, viz. That for the sin of another, God should sentence all the world to the portion of Devils to eternal age [...], and that he would not be reconciled to us, or take off this horrible sentence, without a full price to be paid to his justice by the Saviour of the world, this, this is it that I require may be reconciled to that Notion which we have of the Divine justice.

4. If no man shall ever be damned for the sin of Adam alone, then I demand whether are they born quit from the guilt? or when are they quitted? If they be born free, I agree to it: but then they were never charged with it, so far as to make them liable to damnation. If they be not born free, when are they quitted? By Baptism, before or after? He that says before or after, must speak wholly by chance, and without pretence of Scripture or tradition, or any sufficient warrant; and he cannot guess when it is. If in Baptism he is quitted, then he that dies before Baptism, is still under the Sentence, and what shall become of him? If it be answered, that God will pardon him some way or other, at some time or other, I reply, yea, but who said so? For if the Scriptures have said that we are all in Adam guilty of sin and damnation, and the Scriptures have told us no ways of being quit of it, but by Baptism and Faith in Christ; Is it not plainly consequent that till we believe in Christ, or at least till in the faith of others we are baptized into Christ, we are reckoned still in Adam, not in Christ, that is, still we are under damnation, and not heirs of Heaven but of wrath only?

5. How can any one bring himself into a belief that none can be damned for Original sin, if he be of this perswasion that it makes us liable to damnation; for if you say as I say, that it is against Gods justice to damn us for the fault of another, then it is also against his justice to sentence us to that suffering which to inflict is injustice. If you say it is believed upon this account, because Christ was promised to all mankind, I reply, that yet all mankind shall not be saved; and there are conditions required on our part, and no man can be saved but by Christ, and he must come to him, or be brought to him, or it is not told us, how any one can have a part in him, and therefore that will not give us the confidence is looked for. If it be at last said that we hope in Gods goodness that he will take care of Innocents, and that they shall not perish, I answer, that if they be Innocents, we need not appeal to his goodness▪ for his justice will secure them. If they be guilty and not Innocents, then it is but vain to run to Gods goodness, which in this particular is not revealed; when to condemn them is not against his justice which is revealed, and to hope God will save them whom he hates, who are gone from him in Adam, who are born heirs of his wrath, slaves of the Devil, servants of sin (for these Epithets are given to all the Children of Adam, by the opponents in this Question) is to hope for that against which his justice visibly is engaged, and for which hope there is no ground, unless this instance of Divine goodness were expressed in revelation; For so even wicked persons on their death-bed are bidden to hope without rule, and without reason or sufficient grounds of trust. But besides, that we hope in Gods goodness in this case is not ill, but I ask, Is it against Gods goodness that any one should perish for Original sin? if it be against Gods goodness, it is also against his justice; for nothing is just that is not also good. Gods goodness may cause his justice to forbear a sentence, but whatsoever is against Gods goodness, is against God, and therefore against his justice also; because every attribute in God is God himself: For it is not always true to say [This is against Gods goodness] because [the contradictory is agreeable to Gods goodness] Neither is it always false to say that two contradictories may both be agreeable to Gods goodness: Gods goodness is of such a latitude that it may take in both parts of the contradiction: Contradictories cannot both be against Gods goodness, but they may both be in with it; Whatsoever is against the goodness of God is essentially evil: But a thing may be agreeable to Gods goodness, and yet the other part not be against it. For example, It is against the goodness of God to hate fools and Ideots: and therefore he can never hate them. But it is agreeable to Gods goodness to give Heaven to them and the joys beatifical: and if he does not give them so much, yet if he does no evil to them hereafter, it is also agreeable to his goodness: [Page] To give them Heaven, or not to give them Heaven, though they be contradictories, yet are both agreeable to his goodness. But in contraries the case is otherwise: For though not to give them Heaven is consistent with the Divine goodness, yet to send them to Hell is not. The reason of the difference is this. Because to do contrary things must come from contrary principles, and whatsoever is contrary to the Divine goodness is essentially evil. But to do or not to do, supposes but one positive principle; and the other negative, not having a contrary cause, may be wholly innocent as proceeding from a negative: But to speak more plain, Is it against Gods goodness that Infants should be damned for Original sin? then it could never have been done, it was essentially evil, and therefore could never have been decreed or sentenced. But if it be not against Gods goodness that they should perish in Hell, then it may consist with Gods goodness; and then to hope that Gods goodness will rescue them from his justice, when the thing may agree with both, is to hope without ground; God may be good, though they perish for Adams sin; and if so, and that he can be just too, upon the account of what attribute shall these innocents be rescued, and we hope for mercy for them?

6. If Adams posterity be only liable to damnation, but shall never be damned for Adams sin, then all the children of Heathens dying in their Infancy, shall escape as well as baptized Christian Children: which if any of my disagreeing Brethren shall affirm, he will indeed seem to magnifie Gods goodness, but he must fall out with some great Doctors of the Church whom he would pretend to follow; and besides, he will be hard put to it, to tell what advantage Christian Children have over Heathens, supposing them all to die young; for being bred up in the Christian Religion is accidental, and may happen to the children of unbelievers, or may not happen to the children of believers; and if Baptism adds nothing to their present state, there is no reason Infants should be baptized; but if it does add to their present capacity (as most certainly it does very much) then that Heathen Infants should be in a condition of being rescued from the wrath of God, as well as Christian Infants, is a strange unlookt for affirmative, and can no way be justified or made probable, but by affirming it to be against the justice of God to condemn any for Adams sin. Indeed if it be un [...]ust (as I have proved it is) then it will follow that none shall suffer damnation by it. But if the hopes of the salvation of Heathen Infants be to be derived only from Gods goodness, though Gods goodness cannot fail, yet our Argument may fail; for it will not follow, because God is good, therefore Heathen Infants shall be saved; for it might as well follow, God is good, therefore Heathens shall be no Heathens, but all turn Christians; These things do not follow affirmatively, but negatively they do. For if it were against Gods goodness that they should be reckoned in Adam unto eternal death, then it is also against his Justice, and against God all the way; and then they who affirm they were so reckoned, must shew some revelation to assure us, that although it be just in God to damn all Heathens, yet that he is so good that he will not. For so long as there is no revelation of any such goodness, there is this principle to con [...]est against it, I mean, their affirming that they are in Adam justly liable to damnation; and therefore without disparagement to the infinite goodness of God, Heathen Infants may perish: for it is never against Gods goodness to throw a sinner into Hell.

7. But to come yet closer to the Question, some good men and wise suppose, that the Sublapsarian Presbyterians can be confuted in their pretended grounds of absolute reprobation, although we grant that Adams sin is damnable to his posterity, provided we say, that though it was damnable, yet it shall never damn us. Now though I wish it could be done, that they and I might not differ so much as in a circumstance, yet first it is certain that the men they speak of can never be confuted upon the stock of Gods Justice, because as the one says, It is just that God should actually damn all for the sin of Adam: So the other says, It is just that God should actually sentence all to damnation; and so there the case is equal: Secondly, They cannot be confuted upon the stock of Gods goodness; because the emanations of that are wholly arbitrary, and though there are negative measures of it, as there is of Gods Infinity, and we know Gods goodness to be inconsistent with some things, yet there are no positive measures of this goodness; and no man can tell how much it will do for us: and therefore without a revelation, things may be sometimes hoped, which yet may not be presumed; and therefore here also they are not to be confuted: and as for the particular Scriptures, unless we have the advantage of essential reason taken from the Divine Attributes, they will oppose Scripture to Scripture, and have as much advantage to [Page] expound the opposite places, as the Jews have in their Questions of the Messias; an [...] therefore si meos ipse corymbos necterem, if I might make mine own arguments in their Society, and with their leave; I would upon that very account suspect the usual discourses of the effects and Oeconomy of Original sin.

8. For where will they reckon the beginning of Predestination? will they reckon it in Adam after the Fall, or in Christ immediately promised? If in Adam, then they return to the Presbyterian way, and run upon all the rocks before reckoned, enough to break all the world in pieces. If in Christ they reckon it (and so they do) then thus I argue. If we are all reckoned in Christ before we were born, then how can we be reckoned in Adam when we are born, (I speak as to the matter of Predestination to salvation or damnation;) For as for the intermedial temporal evils and dangers spiritual, and sad infirmities, they are our nature, and might with Justice have been all the portion God had given to Adam, and therefore may be so to us, and consequently not at all to be reckoned in this enquiry: But certainly as to the main.

9. If God looks upon us all in Christ, then by him we are rescued from Adam, so much is done for us before we were born. For if this is not to be reckoned till after we were born, then Adams sin prevailed really in some periods, and to some effects for which God in Christ had provided no remedy: for it gave no remedy to children till after they were born, but irremediably they were born children of wrath; but if a remedy were given to Children before they were born, then they are born in Christ not in Adam: but if this remedy was not given to Children before they were born, then it follows, that we were not at first looked upon in Christ, but in Adam, and consequently he was caput praedestinationis, the head of predestination, or else there were two, the one before we were born, the other after. So that haere [...]le [...]h [...] lis arundo: The arrow sticks fast and it cannot be pulled out, unless by other instruments than are commonly in fashion. However it be, yet methinks this a very good probable Argument.

As Adam sinned before any child was born, so was Christ promised before; and that our Redeemer shall not have more force upon children, that they should be born beloved and quitted from wrath, than Adam our Progenitor shall have to cause that we be born hated and in a damnable condition, wants so many degrees of probability, that it seems to dishonour the mercy of God, and the reputation of his goodness and the power of his redemption.

For this serves as an Antidote, and Antinomy of their great objection pretended by these learned persons: for whereas they say, they the rather affirm this, because it is an honour to the redemption which our Saviour wrought for us, that it rescued us from the sentence of damnation, which we had incurred. To this I say, that the honour of our blessed Saviour does no way depend upon our imaginations and weak propositions: and neither can the reputation and honour of the Divine goodness borrow aids and artificial supports from the dishonour of his Justice; and it is no reputation to a Physician to say he hath cured us of an evil which we never had: and shall we accuse the Father of mercies to have wounded us for no other reason but that the Son may have the Honour to have cured us? I understand not that. He that makes a necessity that he may find a remedy, is like the Roman whom Cato found fault withall; he would commit a fault that he might beg a pardon; he had rather write bad Greek, that he might make an apology, than write good Latin, and need none. But however, Christ hath done enough for us, even all that we did need; and since it is all the reason in the world we should pay him all honour; we may remember that it is a greater favour to us that by the benefit of our blessed Saviour, who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, we were reckoned in Christ, and born in the accounts of the Divine favour; I say, it is a greater favour that we were born under the redemption of Christ, than under the sentence and damnation of Adam, and to prevent an evil is a greater favour than to cure it; so that if to do honour to Gods goodness and to the graces of our Redeemer, we will suppose a need, we may do him more honour to suppose that the promised seed of the woman did do us as early a good, as the sin of Adam could do us mischief; and therefore that in Christ we are born, quitted from any such supposed sentence, and not that we bring it upon our shoulders into the world with us. But this thing relies only upon their suppositions.

For if we will speak of what is really true and plainly revealed; From all the sins of all mankind Christ came to redeem us: He came to give us a supernatural birth: to tell us all his Fathers will; to reveal to us those glorious promises upon the expectation [Page] of which we might be enabled to do every thing that is required: He came to bring us grace, and life, and spirit; to strengthen us against all the powers of Hell and Earth; to sanctifie our afflictions, which from Adam by Natural generation descended on us; to take out the sting of death, to make it an entrance to immortal life; to assure us of resurrection, to intercede for us, and to be an advocate for us, when we by infirmity commit sin; to pardon us when we repent. Nothing of which could be derived to us from Adam by our natural generation; Mankind now taken in his whole constitution and design, is like the Birds of Paradise which travellers tell us of in the Molucco Islands; born without legs; but by a celestial power they have a recompence made to them for that defect; and they always hover in the air, and feed on the dew of Heaven: so are we birds of Paradise, but cast out from thence, and born without legs, without strength to walk in the Laws of God, or to go to Heaven; but by a power from above, we are adopted in our new birth to a celestial conversation, we feed on the dew of Heaven, The just does live by faith, and breaths in this new life by the spirit of God. For from the first Adam nothing descended to us but an infirm body, and a naked soul, evil example and a body of death, ignorance and passion, hard labour and a cursed field, a captive soul and an imprisoned body, that is, a soul naturally apt to comply with the appetites of the body, and its desires whether reasonable or excessive; and though these things were not direct sins to us in their natural abode and first principle, yet they are proper inherent miseries and principles of sin to us in their emanation. But from this state Christ came to redeem us all by his grace, and by his spirit, by his life and by his death, by his Doctrine and by his Sacraments, by his Promises and by his Revelations, by his Resurrection and by his Ascension, by his Interceding for us and Judging of us; and if this be not a conjugation of glorious things great enough to amaze us, and to merit from us all our services, and all our love, and all the glorifications of God, I am sure nothing can be added to it by any supposed need of which we have no revelation: There is as much done for us as we could need, and more than we could ask,

Nempe quod optanti Divûm promittere nemo

Auderet, volvenda dies en attulit ultro!

Vivite foelices animae quibus est fortuna peracta

Jam sua —

The meaning of which words I render, or at least recompence with the verse of a Psalm,

To thee, O Lord, I'le pay my vow,

Psal. 56. by Bp. King.

My knees in thanks to thee shall bow,

For thou my life keep'st from the grave,

And dost my feet from falling save,

That with the living in thy sight

I may enjoy eternal light.

For thus what Ahasuerus said to Ester, Veteres literas muta, Change the old Letters, is done by the birth of our Blessed Saviour. Eva is changed into Ave, and although it be true what Bensirach said, From the woman is the beginning of sin, and by her we all die, yet it is now changed by the birth of our Redeemer, From a woman is the beginning of our restitution, and in him we all live; Thus are all the four quarters of the World renewed by the second Adam, [...], The East, West, North, and South, are represented in the second Adam as well as the first, and rather, and to better purposes, because if sin did abound, Grace shall super-abound.

I have now, Madam, given to you such accounts, as I hope being added to my other Papers, may satisfie not only your Ladiship, but those to whom this account may be communicated. I shall only now beg your patience, since you have been troubled with Questions and enquiries, and objections, and little murmurs, to hear my answers to such of them as have been brought to me.

1. I am complained of, that I would trouble the World with a new thing; which let it be never so true, yet unless it were very useful, will hardly make recompence for the trouble I put the world to, in this inquiry.

I answer, that for the newness of it, I have already given accounts that the Opinions which I impugne, as they are no direct parts of the Article of Original sin, so [Page] they are newer than the truth which I have asserted. But let what I say seem as new as the Reformation did, when Luther first preached against Indulgences, the pretence of Novelty did not, and we say, ought not to have affrighted him; and therefore I ought also to look to what I say, that it be true, and the truth will prove its age. But to speak freely, Madam, though I have a great reverence for Antiquity, yet it is the prime antiquity of the Church; the Ages of Martyrs and Holiness, that I mean; and I am sure that in them my opinion hath much more warrant than the contrary; But for the descending Ages I give that veneration to the great names of them that went before us, which themselves gave to their Predecessors; I honour their memory, I read their Books, I imitate their piety, I examine their arguments; for therefore they did write them, and where the reasons of the Moderns and theirs seem equal, I turn the balance on the elder side, and follow them; but where a scruple or a grain of reason is evidently in the other balance, I must follow that; Nempe qui ante nos ista moverunt, non Domini nostri, sed Duces sunt, Seneca Ep. 33. They that taught of this Article before me, are good guides, but no Lords and Masters; for I must acknowledge none upon earth; for so am I commanded by my Master that is in Heaven; and I remember what we were taught in Palingenius, when we were boys.

Quicquid Aristoteles, vel quivis dicat eorum,

Dicta nihil moror, à vero cum fortè recedunt:

Saepe graves magnosque viros, famâque verendos

Errare & labi contingit, plurima secum

Ingenia in tenebras consueti nominis alti

Authores ubi connivent deducere easdem.

If Aristotle be deceiv'd, and say that's true,

What nor himself, nor others ever knew,

I leave his text, and let his Scholars talk

Till they be hoarse or weary in their walk:

When wise men erre, though their fame ring like Bells,

I scape a danger when I leave their spells.

For although they that are dead some Ages before we were born, have a reverence due to them, yet more is due to truth that shall never die; and God is not wanting to our industry any more than to theirs; but blesses every Age with the understanding of his truths. Aetatibus omnibus, omnibus hominibus communis sapientia est, nec illam ceu peculium licet antiquitati gratulari, All Ages, and all men have their advantages in their enquiries after truth; neither is wisdom appropriate to our Fathers. And because even wise men may be deceived, and therefore that when I find it, or suppose it so (for that's all one as to me and my duty) I must go after truth where-ever it is; certainly it will be less expected from me to follow the popular noises and the voices of the people, who are not to teach us, but to be taught by us: and I believe my self to have reason to complain when men are angry at a doctrine because it is not commonly taught; that is, when they are impatient to be taught a truth, because most men do already believe a lie; Recti apud nos locum tenet error ubi publicus factus est, so Seneca (Epist. 123.) complained in his time: it is a strange title to truth which error can pretend, for its being publick; and we refuse to follow an unusual truth, Quasi honestius sit quiafrequentius, and indeed it were well to do so in those propositions which have no truth in them but what they borrow from mens opinions, and are for nothing tolerable, but that they are usual.

Object. 2. But what necessity is there in my publication of this doctrine, supposing it were true; for all truths are not to be spoken at all times; and if a truth gives offence, it is better to let men alone, than to disturb the peace.

I answer with the labouring mans Proverb, a Penny-worth of ease is worth a Penny at any time; and a little truth is worth a little Peace, every day of the week: and caeteris paribus, Truth is to be preferred before Peace, not every trifling truth to a considerable peace: But if the truth be material, it makes recompence, though it brings a great noise along with it; and if the breach of Peace be nothing but that men talk in Private, or declaim a little in publick; truly (Madam) it is a very pitiful little proposition, the discovery of which in truth will not make recompence for the pratling of disagreeing Persons. Truth and Peace make an excellent yoke, but [Page] the truth of God is always to be preferred before the Peace of men, and therefore our Blessed Saviour came not to send Peace, but a Sword; That is, he knew his Doctrine would cause great divisions of heart, but yet he came to perswade us to Peace and Unity. Indeed if the truth be clear, and yet of no great effect in the lives of men, in government, o [...] in the honour of God, then it ought not to break the Peace: That is, it may not run out of its retirement, to disquiet them, to whom their rest is better than that knowledge. But if it be brought out already, it must not be deserted positively, though peace goes away in its stead. So that Peace is rather to be deserted, than any truth should be renounced or denied: but Peace is rather to be procured or continued, than some Truth offered. This is my sence (Madam) when the case is otherwise than I suppose it to be at present. For as for the present case, there must be two when there is a falling out, or a peace broken; and therefore I will secure it now: for let any man dissent from me in this Article, I will not be troubled at him; he may do it with liberty, and with my charity. If any man is of my opinion, I confess I love him the better; but if he refuses it, I will not love him less after than I did before: but he that dissents, and reviles me, must expect from me no other kindness but that I forgive him, and pray for him, and offer to reclaim him, and that I resolve nothing shall ever make me either hate him, or reproach him: And that still in the greatest of his difference, I refuse not to give him the Communion of a Brother; I believe I shall be chidden by some or other for my easiness, and want of fierceness, which they call Zeal, but it is a fault of my nature; a part of my Original sin:

Vnicuique dedit vitium Natura Creato,

Mî Natura aliquid semper amare dedit.

Propert.

Some weakness to each man by birth descends,

To me too great a kindness Nature lends.

But if the peace can be broken no more than thus; I suppose the truth which I publish will do more than make recompence for the noise that in Clubs and Conventicles is made over and above. So long as I am thus resolved, there may be injury done to me, but there can be no duel, or loss of Peace abroad. For a single anger, or a displeasure on one side, is not a breach of Peace on both; and a War cannot be made by fewer, than a bargain can; in which always there must be two at least.

Object. 3. But as to the thing. If it be inquired [...]; what profit, what use, what edification is there, what good to souls, what honour to God by this new explication of the Article? I answer; That the usual Doctrines of Original sin are made the great foundation of the horrible proposition concerning absolute Reprobation; the consequences of it reproach God with injustice, they charge God foolishly, and deny his goodness and his Wisdom in many instances: And whatsoever can upon the account of the Divine Attributes be objected against the fierce way of Absolute Decrees; all that can be brought for the reproof of their usual Propositions concerning Original sin. For the consequences are plain; and by them the necessity of my Doctrine, and its usefulness may be understood.

For 1. If God decrees us to be born sinners; Then he makes us to be sinners, and then where is his goodness?

2. If God does damn any for that, he damns us for what we could not help, and for what himself did, and then where is his Justice?

3. If God sentence us to that Damnation, which he cannot in justice inflict, where is his Wisdom?

4. If God for the sin of Adam brings upon us a necessity of sinning; where is our liberty? where is our Nature? what is become of all Laws, and of all Vertue and vice? How can Men be distinguished from Beasts: or the Vertuous from the vicious?

5. If by the fall of Adam, we are so wholly ruined in our faculties, that we cannot do any good, but must do evil; how shall any man take care of his ways? or how can it be supposed he should strive against all vice, when he can excuse so much upon his Nature? or indeed how shall he strive at all? For if all actual sins are derived from the Original, and which is unavoidable, and yet an Unresistible cause, then no man can take care to avoid any actual sin, whose cause is natural, and not to be declined. And then where is his Providence and Government?

[Page]6. If God does cast Infants into Hell for the sin of others, and yet did not condemn Devils, but for their own sin; where is his love to mankind?

7. If God chuseth the death of so many Millions of Persons who are no sinners upon their own stock, and yet swears that he does not love the death of a sinner, viz. sinning with his own choice; how can that he credible, he should love to kill Innocents, and yet should love to spare the Criminal? Where then is his Mercy, and where is his Truth?

8. If God hath given us a Nature by derivation, which is wholly corrupted, then how can it be that all which God made is good? For though Adam corrupted himself, yet in propriety of speaking, we did not; but this was the Decree of God; and then where is the excellency of his providence and Power, where is the glory of the Creation?

Because therefore that God is all goodness, and justice, and wisdom, and love, and that he governs all things, and all men wisely and holily, and according to the capacities of their Natures and Persons; that he gives us a wise Law, and binds that Law on us by promises and threatnings; I had reason to assert these glories of the Divine Majesty, and remove the hinderances of a good life; since every thing can hinder us from living well, but scarcely can all the Arguments of God and man, and all the Powers of Heaven and Hell perswade us to strictness and severity.

Qui serere ingenuum volet agrum,

Liberet arva priùs fruticibus

Falce rubos, silicemque resecet,

Vt novâ fruge gravis Ceres eat.

Boeth. lib. 3. Metr. 1.

He that will sow his field with hopeful 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 Bap [...]ism Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God; which I desire to be observed in opposition to [Page] the Pelagian Heresie, who did suppose Nature to be so perfect, Vide August. de Gestis Pal [...] stin. & lib. de Natur. & grat. c. 21. opus impe [...]f. in Julian. l. 1. c. 54. & lib. de peccat. Orig. c. 21. 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;1 King. 1.21. Zech. 14.19. 2 Cor. 5.21. Isai. 53.10. Heb. 9.28. 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. 1 King. 1.21. 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 [Page] 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 ci [...]r [...] reprehensionem, says Laurentius Valla; It is like an exprobration, but short of a reproo [...]; so Quintilian. Imputas nobis propitios ventos, & secundum mare, ac civitatis opulen [...]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 [Page] 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, d [...]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 cleare [...]; 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 [Page] [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; so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended, yet the river here rises far higher than the fountain; and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ, but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin, so very much more good is done to mankind by the incarnation of the Son of God.

16.

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

And the first disparity and excess is in this particular: for the judgment was [...], & [...], by one man sinning one sin; that one sin was imputed; but by Christ, not only one sin was forgiven freely, but many offences were remitted unto justification; and secondly, a vast disparity there is in this; that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature, his own real natural production, and they sinned (though not so bad, yet) very much, and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatned to Adam, and not to his Children, should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them. But in the other part the case is highly differing; for Christ being our Patriarch in a supernatural birth, we fall infinitely short of him, and are not so like him as we were to Adam, and yet that we in greater unlikeness should receive a greater favour, this was the excess of the comparison, and this is the free gift of God.

17.

For if by one offence [so it is in the Kings MS. or,] if by one mans offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ.

And this is the third degree, or measure of excess of efficacy on Christs part, over it was on the part of Adam. For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world, who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God, though not after the similitude of Adams transgression: much [Page] more shall we who not only receive the aids of the spirit of grace, but receive them also in an abundant measure, receive also the effect of all this, even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ.

18.

Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation: Even so by the righteousness of one; the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began; although I have shown the great excess and abundance of grace by Christ, over the evil that did descend by Adam; yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one, and life from the other; [judgment unto condemnation] that is, the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one; even so, by a like Oeconomy and dispensation, God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace, as he did before of judgment: and as that judgment was to condemnation by the offence of one: so the free gift, and the grace came upon all to justification of life, by the righteousness of one.

19.

For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The summ of all is this, By the disobedience of one man, [...], many were constituted or put into the order of sinners, they were made such by Gods appointment, that is, not that God could be the Author of a sin to any, but that he appointed the evil which is the consequent of sin, to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner: and so it shall be on the other side; for by the obedience of one, even of Christ, many shall be made, or constituted righteous. But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before, that there was a vast difference; for we are made much more righteous by Christ, than we were sinners by Adam; and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater than the death by Adam; and the graces we derive from Christ, shall be more and mightier than the corruption and declination by Adam; but yet as one is the head, so is the other: one is the beginning of sin and death, and the other of life and righteousness.

It were easie to add many particulars out of S. Paul, but I shall chuse only to recite the Aethiopick version of the New Testament translated into Latin by that excellent Linguist and worthy Person Dr. Dudly Loftus: The words are these: ‘And therefore, as by the iniquity of one man sin entred into the world, and by THAT SIN death came upon all men,Rom. 5.12, &c. therefore because THAT SIN IS IMPUTED TO ALL MEN, even those who knew not what that sin was. Until the Law came sin remained in the world not known what it was, when sin was not reckoned, because as yet at that time the Commandment of the Law was not come. Nevertheless death did after reign from Adam until Moses, as well in those that did sin, as in those that did not sin by that sin of Adam, because every one was created in the similitude of Adam, and because Adam was a type of him that was to come. But not according to the quantity of our iniquity was the grace of God to us. If for the offence of one man many are dead, how much more by the grace of God, and by the gift of him who did gratifie us, by one man, to wit, Jesus Christ, life hath abounded upon many? Neither for the measure of the sin which was of one man, was there the like reckoning or account of the grace of God. For if the condemnation of sin proceeding from one man, caus'd that by that sin all should be punished, how much rather shall his grace purifie us from our sins, and give to us eternal life? If the sin of one made death to reign, and by the offence of one man death did rule in us, how much more therefore shall the grace of one man Jesus Christ and his gift justifie us and make us to reign in life eternal? And as by the offence of one man many are condemned: Likewise also by the righteousness of one man shall every son of man be justified and live. And as by one man many are made sinners (or as the Syriack Version renders it) there were many sinners: In like manner again many are made righteous.’ * Now this reddition of the Apostles discourse in this Article is a very great light to the Understanding of the words, which not the nature of the thing but the popular glosses have made difficult. But here it is plain that all the notice of this Article which those Churches derived from these words of Saint Paul was this: That the sin of Adam brought death into the world: [Page] 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 thi [...] 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 Abe [...] 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 [Page] 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 m [...]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 believed by the same simplicity it is taught: when we do not call that a mystery which we are not able to prove, and tempt our faith to swallow that whole, which reason cannot chew.

One thing I am to observe more, before I leave considering the words of the Apostle. The Apostle here having instituted a comparison between Adam and Christ; that as death came by one, so life by the other; as by one we are made sinners, so by the other we are made righteous; some from hence suppose they argue strongly to the overthrow of all that I have said, thus: Christ and Adam are compared, therefore as by Christ we are made really righteous: so by Adam we are made really Sinners: our righteousness by Christ is more than imputed, and therefore so is our unrighteousness by Adam; to this, besides what I have already spoken in my humble addresses to that wise and charitable Prelate the Lord Bishop of Rochester, delivering the sence and objections of others; in which I have declared my sence of the imputation of Christs righteousness; and besides, that although the Apostle offers a similitude, yet he finds himself surprised, and that one part of the similitude does far exceed the other, and therefore nothing can follow hence; but that if we receive evil from Adam, we shall much more receive good from Christ; besides this I say, I have something very material to reply to the form of the argument, which is a very trick and fallacy. For the Apostle argues thus, As by Adam we are made sinners, so by Christ we are made righteous; and that is very true, and much more; but to argue from hence [as by Christ we are made really righteous, so by Adam we are made really sinners] is to invert the purpose of the Apostle, (who argues from the less to the greater) and to make it conclude affirmatively from the greater to the less in matter of power, is as if one should say; If a child can carry a ten pound weight, much more can a man: and therefore whatsoever a man can do, that also a child can do. For though I can say, If this thing be done in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? yet I must not say therefore, If this be done in the dry tree, what shall be done in the green? For the dry tree of the Cross could do much more than the green tree in the Garden of Eden. It is a good argument to say; If the Devil be so potent to do a shrewd turn, much more powerful is God to do good: but we cannot conclude from hence, but God can by his own mere power and pleasure save a soul; therefore the Devil can by his power ruine one: In a similitude, the first part may be, and often is, less than the second; but never greater: and therefore though the Apostle said, As by Adam, &c. So by Christ, &c. Yet we cannot say as by Christ, so by Adam: We may well reason thus; As by Nature there is a reward to evil doers; so much more is there by God; but we cannot by way of conversion, reason thus; As by [Page] God there is an eternal reward appointed to good actions; so by Nature there is an eternal reward for evil ones. And who would not deride this way of arguing? As by our Fathers we receive temporal good things; so much more do we by God: but by God we also receive an immortal Soul; therefore from our Fathers we receive an immortal Body. For not the consequent of a hypothetical proposition, but the antecedent is to be the assumption of the Syllogism; This therefore is a fallacy, which when those wise persons, who are unwarily perswaded by it, shall observe, I doubt not but the whole way of arguing will appear unconcluding.

Object. 6. But it is objected that my Doctrine is against the ninth Article in the Church of England; and that I hear, Madam, does most of all stick with you.

Of this, Madam, I should not now have taken notice, because I have already answered it in some additional papers, which are already published; but that I was so delighted to hear and to know that a person of your interest and piety, of your zeal and prudence, is so earnest for the Church of England, that I could not pass it by, without paying you that regard and just acknowledgment which so much excellency deserves. But then, Madam, I am to say, that I could not be delighted in your zeal for our excellent Church, if I were not as zealous my self for it too: I have oftentimes subscribed that Article, and though if I had cause to dissent from it, I would certainly do it in those just measures which my duty on one side, and the interest of truth on the other would require of me; yet because I have no reason to disagree, I will not suffer my self to be supposed to be of a Differing judgment from my Dear Mother, which is the best Church of the world. Indeed, Madam, I do not understand the words of the Article as most men do; but I understand them as they can be true, and as they can very fairly signifie, and as they agree with the word of God and right reason. But I remember that I have heard from a very good hand, and there are many alive this day that may remember to have heard it talk'd of publickly, that when Mr. Thomas Rogers had in the year 1584. published an exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles, many were not only then, but long since very angry at him, that he by his interpretation had limited the charitable latitude which was allowed in the subscription to them. For the Articles being framed, in a Church but newly reformed, in which many complied with some unwillingness, and were not willing to have their consent broken by too great a straining, and even in the Convocation it self so many being of a differing judgment, it was very great prudence and piety to secure the peace of the Church by as much charitable latitude as they could contrive; and therefore the Articles in those things which were publickly disputed at that time, even amongst the Doctors of the Reformation (such were the Articles of Predestination, and this of Original sin) were described, with incomparable wisdom and temper; and therefore I have reason to take it ill, if any man shall deny me liberty to use the benefit of the Churches wisdom; For I am ready a thousand times to subscribe the Article, if there can be just cause to do it so often; but as I impose upon no man my sence of the Article, but leave my reasons and him to struggle together for the best, so neither will I be bound to any one man, or any company of men but to my lawful Superiors, speaking there where they can and ought to oblige. Madam, I take nothing ill from any man, but that he should think I have a less zeal for our Church than himself, and I will by Gods assistance be all my life confuting him; and though I will not contend with him, yet I will die with him in behalf of the Church if God shall call me; but for other little things and trifling arrests and little murmurs I value none of it.

Quid verum atque decent curo, & rogo, & omnis in hoc sum;

Condo & compono quod mox depromere possim,

Nullius addictus jurare in verba Magistri:

Quo me cunque rapit tempestas deferor —

I could translate these also into bad English verse as I do the others; but that now I am earnest for my liberty, I will not so much as confine my self to the measures of feet. But in plain English I mean by rehearsing these Latin Verses, that although I love every man, and value worthy persons in proportion to their labours and abilities, whereby they can and do serve God and Gods Church, yet I inquire for what is fitting, not what is pleasing; I search after ways to advantage souls, not to comply with humors, and Sects, and interests; and I am tied to no mans private opinion any more than he is to mine; if he will bring Scripture and right reason from any topick, he may govern me and perswade me, else I am free, as he is: but I hope I am before-hand with him in this question.

[Page]But one thing more I am willing to add. By the confession of all the Schools of learning, it is taught that Baptism hath infallibly all that effect upon Infants which God design'd and the Church intends to them in the ministery of that Sacrament: because Infants cannot ponere obicem, they cannot impede the gift of God, and they hinder not the effect of Gods Spirit. Now all hinderances of the operation of the Sacrament is sin; and if sin, before the ministration be not morally rescinded, it remains, and remaining, is a disposition contrary to the effect of the Sacrament. Every inherent sin is the obex, bars the gates that the grace of the Sacrament shall not enter. Since therefore Infants do not bar the gates, do not hinder the effect of the Sacrament, it follows they have no sin inherent in them but imputed only. If it be replied that Original sin though it be properly a sin, and really inherent, yet it does not hinder the effect of the Sacrament; I answer, then it follows that Original sin is of less malignity than the least actual sin in the world; and if so, then either by it no man is hated by God to eternal damnation, no man is by it an enemy of God, a son of wrath, an heir of perdition; or if he be, then at the same time he may be actually hated by God, and yet worthily disposed for receiving the grace and Sacrament of Baptism; and that sin which of all the sins of the world is supposed to be the greatest, and of most universal and parmanent mischief, shall do the least harm, and is less opposed to Gods grace, and indisposes a man less than a single wanton thought, or the first consent to a forbidden action; which he that can believe, is very much in love with his own proposition, and is content to believe it upon any terms. I end with the words of Lucretius.

Desine quapropter novitate exterritus ipsâ

Expuere ex animo rationem, sed magis acri

Judicio perpende, & si tibi vera videtur,

Dede manus, aut si falsa est, accingere contrá.

Fear not to own what's said, because 'tis new,

Weigh well and wisely if the thing be true.

Truth and not conquest is the best reward;

'Gainst falshood only stand upon thy guard.

§

Madam,

I Humbly beg you will be pleased to entertain these Papers, not only as a Testimony of my Zeal for Truth and Peace below, and for the Honour of God above; but also of my readiness to seize upon every occasion whereby I may express my self to be

Your most obliged and most Humble Servant in the Religion of the H. Jesus, JER. TAYLOR.

An ANSWER to a LETTER Written by the R. R. The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: Concerning the Chapter of ORIGINAL SIN, IN THE VNVM NECESSARIVM.

[Page]

[Page]

R. R. Father and my good Lord,

YOUR Lordships Letter Dated July 28. I received not till Septemb. 11. it seems R. Royston detained it in his hands, supposing it could not come safely to me while I remain a prisoner now in Chepstow-Castle. But I now have that liberty, that I can receive any Letters, and send any; for the Gentlemen under whose custody I am, as they are careful of their charges, so they are civil to my person. It was necessary I should tell this to your Lordship, that I may not be under a suspicion of neglecting to give accounts in those particulars, which with so much prudence and charity you were pleased to represent in your Letter concerning my discourse of Original Sin. My Lord, In all your Exceptions, I cannot but observe your candor and your paternal care concerning me. For when there was nothing in the Doctrine, but your greater reason did easily see the justice and the truth of it, and I am perswaded could have taught me to have said many more material things in confirmation of what I have taught; yet so careful is your charity of me, that you would not omit to represent to my consideration what might be said by captious and weaker persons; or by the more wise and pious who are of a different judgment.

But my Lord, First you are pleased to note that this discourse runs not in the ordinary channel. True; for if it did, it must nurse the popular error: but when the disease is Epidemical, as it is so much the worse, so the extraordinary remedy must be acknowledg'd to be the better. And if there be in it some things hard to be understood, as it was the fate of S. Paul's Epistles (as your Lordship notes out of S. Peter) yet this difficulty of understanding proceeds not from the thing it self, nor from the manner of handling it, but from the indisposition and prepossession of mens minds to the contrary, who are angry when they are told that they have been deceived: for it is usual with men to be more displeased, when they are told they were in error, than to be pleased with them who offer to lead them out of it.

But your Lordship doth with great advantages represent an objection of some captious persons, which relates not to the material part of the Question, but to the rules of art. If there be no such thing as Original Sin transmitted from Adam to his posterity, then all that Sixth Chapter is a strife about a shadow, a Non ens. Ans. It is true my Lord, the Question as it is usually handled, is so. For when the Franciscan and Dominican do eternally dispute about the conception of the Blessed Virgin, whether it was with, or without Original Sin, meaning by way of grace and special exemption, [Page] this is de non ente; for there was no need of any such exemption: and they supposing that commonly it was otherwise, troubled themselves about the exception of a Rule, which in that sence which they suppos'd it, was not true at all: she was born as innocent from any impurity or formal guilt as Adam was created, and so was her Mother, and so was all her family. * When the Lutheran and the Roman dispute, whether justice and Original righteousness in Adam was Natural or by Grace, it is de non ente: for it was positively neither, but negatively only; he had Original righteousness till he sinn'd, that is, he was righteous till he became unrighteous. * When the Calvinist troubles himself and his Parishioners with fierce declamations against natural inclinations or concupiscence, and disputes whether it remains in baptized persons, or whether it be taken off by Election, or by the Sacrament, whether to all Christians or to some few; this is a [...]; for it is no sin at all in persons baptiz'd or unbaptiz'd, till it be consented to.

My Lord, when I was a young man in Cambridge, I knew a learned professor of Divinity, whose ordinary Lectures in the Lady Margarets Chair for many years together, Nine as I suppose, or thereabouts, were concerning Original Sin, and the appendant questions: This indeed could not chuse but be Andabatarum conflictus. But then my discourse representing that these disputes are useless, and as they discourse usually to be de non ente, is not to be reprov'd. For I profess to evince that many of those things, of the sence of which they dispute, are not true at all in any sence, I declare them to be de non ente, that is, I untie their intricate knots by cutting them in pieces. For when a false proposition is the ground of disputes, the process must needs be infinite, unless you discover the first error. He that tells them they both fight about a shadow, and with many arguments proves the vanity of their whole process, they (if he says true) not he is the [...]. * When S. Austin was horribly puzled about the traduction of Original Sin, and thought himself forc'd to say that either the Father begat the soul, or that he could not transmit sin which is subjected in the soul, or at least he could not tell how it was transmitted: he had no way to be relieved but by being told that Original Sin was not subjected in the Soul, because properly and formally it was no real sin of ours at all; but that it was only by imputation, and to certain purposes, not any inherent quality, or corruption: and so in effect all his trouble was de non ente. * But now some wits have lately risen in the Church of Rome, and they tell us another story. The soul follows the temperature of the body, and so Original Sin comes to be transmitted by contact: because the constitution of the body is the fomes or nest of the sin, and the souls concupiscence is deriv'd from the bodies lust▪ But besides that this fancy disappears at the first handling, and there would be so many Original Sins as there are several constitutions, and the guilt would not be equal, and they who are born Eunuchs should be less infected by Adam's pollution, by having less of concupiscence in the great instance of desires, [and after all, concupiscence it self could not be a sin in the soul, till the body was grown up to strength enough to infect it] [and in the whole process it must be an impossible thing, because the instrument which hath all its operations by the force of the principal agent, cannot of it self produce a great change and violent effect upon the principal agent] Besides all this, (I say) while one does not know how Original Sin can be derived, and another who thinks he can, names a wrong way, and both the ways infer it to be another kind of thing than all the Schools of learning teach: does it not too clearly demonstrate, that all that infinite variety of fancies agreeing in nothing but in an endless uncertainty, is nothing else but a being busie about the quiddities of a dream, and the constituent parts of a shadow? But then, My Lord, my discourse representing all this to be vanity and uncertainty, ought not to be call'd or suppos'd to be a [...]: as he that ends the question between two Schoolmen disputing about the place of Purgatory, by saying they need not trouble themselves about the place; for that which is not, hath no place at all; ought not to be told he contends about a shadow, when he proves that to be true, which he suggested to the two trifling Litigants.

But as to the thing it self: I do not say there is no such thing as Original Sin, but it is not that which it is supposed to be: it is not our sin formally, but by imputation only; and it is imputed so, as to be an inlet to sickness, death and disorder: but it does not introduce a necessity of sinning, nor damn any one to the flames of Hell. So that Original Sin is not a Non ens, unless that be nothing which infers so many real mischiefs.

[Page]The next thing your Lordship is pleas'd to note to me, is that in your wisdom you foresee, some will argue against my explication of the word Damnation, in the Ninth Article of our Church, which affirms that Original Sin deserves damnation. Concerning which, My Lord, I do thus (and I hope fairly) acquit my self.

1. That it having been affirmed by S. Austin, that Infants dying unbaptized are damn'd, he is deservedly called Durus pater Infantum, and generally forsaken by all sober men of the later ages: and it will be an intolerable thing to think the Church of England guilty of that which all her wiser sons, and all the Christian Churches generally abhor. I remember that I have heard that King James reproving a Scottish Minister, who refus'd to give private Baptism to a dying Infant, being askt by the Minister, if he thought the child should be damn'd for want of Baptism? answered, No, but I think you may be damn'd for refusing it: and he said well. But then, my Lord, If Original Sin deserves damnation, then may Infants be damn'd if they die without Baptism. But if it be a horrible affirmative, to say that the poor babes shall be made Devils, or enter into their portion, if they want that ceremony, which is the only gate, the only way of salvation that stands open; then the word [Damnation] in the Ninth Article must mean something less, than what we usually understand by it: or else the Article must be salved by expounding some other word to an allay and lessening of the horrible sentence; and particularly the word [Deserves] of which I shall afterwards give account. Both these ways I follow. The first is the way of the School-men.

For they suppose the state of unbaptized Infants to be a poena damni; and they are confident enough to say that 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 poenase [...]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. [Page] 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 design [...]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 [Page] 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 quàm 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 [Page] 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, [Page] 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 it: and in opposition to this, [...] is to be rendred, that is, guilty, criminal persons, really and properly.’ This is all which the wit of man can say from this place of S. Paul, and if I make it appear that this is invalid, I hope I am secure.

To this then I answer: That the Antithesis in these words here urg'd, (for there is another in the Chapter) and this whole argument of S. Paul is full and intire without descending to minutes. Death came in by one man, much more shall life come by one man; if that by Adam, then much more this by Christ: by him to condemnation, by this man to justification. This is enough to verifie the argument of S. Paul, though life and death did not come in the same manner to the several relatives; as indeed they did not: of which afterwards. But for the present, it runs thus: By Adam we were made sinners; by Christ we are made righteous: As certainly one as the other, though not in the same manner of dispensation. By Adam [...], death reigned; by this man the reign of death shall be destroyed, and life set up in stead of it; by him we were us'd as sinners, for in him we died: but by Christ we are justified, that is, us'd as just persons, for by him we live. This is sufficient for the Apostles argument, and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners in Adam any more than by imputation: for we are by Christ made just no otherwise than by imputation.

In the proof or perswasion I will use no indirect arguments, as to say, that to deny us to be just by imputation is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the Socinian Conventicles, but expresly dislik'd by all the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zuinglian Churches, and particularly by the Church of England, and indeed by the whole Harmony of Confessions: This, I say, I will not make use of; not only because I my self do not love to be press'd by such prejudices rather than arguments; but because the question of the imputation of righteousness is very much mistaken and misunderstood on all hands. They that say that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification, do it upon this account, because they know all that we do is imperfect, therefore they think themselves constrain'd to flie to Christ's righteousness, and think it must be imputed to us, or we perish. The other side, considering that this way would destroy the necessity of holy living; and that in order to our justification, there were conditions requir'd on our parts, think it necessary to say that we are justified by inherent righteousness. Between these the truth is plain enough to be read. Thus:

[Page]Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us for justification directly and immediately; neither can we be justified by our own righteousness: but our Faith and sincere endeavours are through Christ accepted in stead of legal righteousness: that is, we are justified through Christ, by imputation, not of Christs, nor our own righteousness; but of our faith and endeavours of righteousness, as if they were perfect: and we are justified by a Non-imputation, viz. of our past sins, and present unavoidable imperfections: that is, we are handled as if we were just persons and no sinners. So faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness; not that it made him so, legally, but Evangelically, that is, by grace and imputation.

And indeed, My Lord, that I may speak freely in this great question: when one man hath sinn'd, his descendants and relatives, cannot possibly by him, or for him, or in him be made sinners properly and really. For in sin there are but two things imaginable: the irregular action, and the guilt, or obligation to punishment. Now we cannot in any sence be said to have done the action which another did, and not we: the action is as individual as the person; and Titius may as well be Cajus, and the Son be his own Father, as he can be said to have done the Fathers action; and therefore we cannot possibly be guilty of it: for guilt is an obligation to punishment for having done it: the action and the guilt are relatives; one cannot be without the other: something must be done inwardly or outwardly, or there can be no guilt. * But then for the evil of punishment, that may pass further than the action. If it passes upon the innocent, it is not a punishment to them, but an evil inflicted by right of Dominion; but yet by reason of the relation of the afflicted to him that sinn'd, to him it is a punishment. But if it passes upon others that are not innocent, then it is a punishment to both; to the first principally; to the Descendents or Relatives, for the others sake; his sin being imputed so far.

How far that is in the present case, and what it is, the Apostle expresses thus: It was [...]; vers. 18. or [...], vers. 16. a curse unto condemnation, or a judgment unto condemnation, that is, a curse inherited from the principal; deserv'd by him, and yet also actually descending upon us after we had sinn'd, [...] or [...]; that is the judgment passed upon Adam; the [...] or [...] was on him; but it prov'd to be a [...], or a through condemnation when from him it passed upon all men that sinn'd. [...] and [...] sometimes differ in degrees: so the words are used by S. Paul otherwhere (1 Cor. 11.32.) [...]; a judgment to prevent a punishment, or a less to fore-stall a greater in the same kind: so here the [...] pass'd further; the [...] was fulfilled in his posterity passing on further, viz. that all who sinn'd should pass under the power of death as well as he: but this became formally and actually a punishment to them only who did sin personally: to them it was [...].

This [...] or [...], is the [...], vers. 17. the reign of death; this is called [...], verse 21. the reign of sin in death: that is, the effect which Adams sin had, was only to bring in the reign of death, which is already broken by Jesus Christ, and at last shall be quite destroyed. But to say that sin here is properly transmitted to us from Adam, formally, and so as to be inherent in us, is to say that we were made to do his action, which is a perfect contradiction.

Now then your Lordship sees that what you note of the meaning of [...] I admit, and is indeed true enough, and agreeable to the discourse of the Apostle, and very much in justification of what I taught. [...] signifies a punishment for sin, and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes. I easily subscribe to it: but then take in the words of S. Paul, [...], by one sin, or by the sin of one, the curse passed upon all men unto condemnation; that is, the curse descended from Adam; for his sake it was propagated [...] to a real condemnation, viz. when they should sin. For though this [...] or the curse of death was threatned only to Adam, yet upon Gods being angry with him, God resolved it should descend: and if men did sin as Adam, or if they did sin at all, though less than Adam, yet the [...] or the curse threatned to him should pass, [...], unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him, that is, it should actually bring them under the reign of death.

But then, my Lord, I beseech you let it be considered, if this [...] must suppose a punishment for sin, for the sin of him, his own sin that is so condemn'd, as your Lordship proves perfectly out of Ezek. 18. how can it be just that the [...] condemnation should pass upon us for Adam's sin, that is, not for his own sin who [Page] is so condemn'd, but for the sin of another? S. Paul easily resolves the doubt, if there had been any. The [...], the reign of death passed upon all men, [...], in as much as all men have sinned. And now why shall we suppose that we must be guilty of what we did not, when without any such [...] there is so much guilt of what we did really and personally? Why shall it be that we die only for Adam's sin, and not rather as S. Paul expresly affirms, [...], in as much as all men have sinned, since by your own argument it cannot be in as much as all men have not sinned; this you say cannot be, and yet you will not confess this which can be, and which S. Paul affirms to have been indeed: as if it were not more just and reasonable to say, That from Adam the curse descended unto the condemnation of the sins of the world, than to say the curse descended without consideration of their sins; but a sin must be imagined to make it seem reasonable and just to condemn us. [Now I submit it to the judgment of all the world, which way of arguing is most reasonable and concluding: You, my Lord, in behalf of others argue thus. [...] or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own: Therefore every man is truly guilty of Adam's sin, and that becomes his own. Against this I oppose mine. [...] or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own: therefore it did not pass upon man for Adam's sin; because Adam's sin was Adam's, not our own: But we all have sinned, we have sins of our own, therefore for these the curse pass'd from Adam to us. To back mine, besides that common notices of sense and reason defend it, I have the plain words of S. Paul; Death passed upon all men, for as much as all men have sinned; all men, that is, the generality of mankind, all that liv'd till they could sin, the others that died before, died in their nature, not in their sin, neither Adam's nor their own, save only that Adam brought it in upon them, or rather left it to them, himself being disrobed of all that which could hinder it.

Now for the word [...], which your Lordship renders [clear from sin] I am sure no man is so justified in this world, as to be clear from sin; and if we all be sinners, and yet healed as just persons, it is certain we are just by imputation only, that is, Christ imputing our faith, and sincere, though not unerring obedience to us for righteousness: And then the Antithesis must hold thus; By Christ comes justification to life, as by Adam came the curse or the sin to the condemnation of death: But our justification which comes by Christ is by imputation and acceptilation, by grace and favour: not that we are made really, that is, legally and perfectly righteous, but by imputation of faith and obedience to us, as if it were perfect: And therefore Adam's sin was but by imputation only to certain purposes; not real, or proper, not formal or inherent. For the grace by Christ is more than the sin by Adam: if therefore that was not legal and proper, but Evangelical and gracious, favourable and imputative, much more is the sin of Adam in us improperly, and by imputation. * And truly, my Lord, I think that no sound Divine of any of our Churches will say that we are [...] or [...] in any other sence: not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us, but that our imperfect services, our true faith and sincere endeavours of obedience are imputed to us for righteousness through Jesus Christ: and since it is certainly so, I am sure the Antithesis between Christ and Adam can never be salved by making us sinners really by Adam, and yet just or righteous by Christ only in acceptation and imputation. For then sin should abound more than grace; expresly against the honour of our blessed Saviour, the glory of our redemption, and the words of S. Paul. But rather on the contrary is it true, That though by Christ we were really and legally made perfectly righteous, it follows not that we were made sinners by Adam in the same manner and measure: for this similitude of S. Paul ought not to extend to an equality in all things; but still the advantage and prerogative, the abundance and the excess must be on the part of Grace: for if sin does abound, grace does much more abound; and we do more partake of righteousness by Christ, than of sin by Adam. Christ and Adam are the several fountains of emanation, and are compar'd aequè, but not aequaliter. Therefore this argument holds redundantly, since by Christ we are not made legally righteous, but by imputation only; much less are we made sinners by Adam. This in my sence is so infinitely far from being an objection, that it perfectly demonstrates the main question; and for my part I mean to relie upon it.

As for that which your Lordship adds out of Rom. 5.19. That [...] signifies sinners, not by imitation, as the Pelagians dream, but sinners really and effectively; I shall not need to make any other reply; but that 1. I do not approve of that gloss [Page] of the Pelagians, that in Adam we are made sinners by imitation; and much less of that which affirms, we are made so properly and formally. But [made sinners] signifies, us'd like sinners; so as [justified] signifies healed like just persons: In which interpretation I follow S. Paul, not the Pelagians; they who are on the other side of the question, follow neither. And unless men take in their opinion before they read; and resolve not to understand S. Paul in this Epistle, I wonder why they should fancy that all that he says sounds that way which they commonly dream of: But as men fancy, so the Bells will ring. But I know your Lordships grave and wiser judgment, sees not only this that I have now opened, but much beyond it, and that you will be a zealous advocate for the truth of God, and for the honour of his justice, wisdom and mercy.

That which follows makes me believe your Lordship resolv'd to try me, by speaking your own sence in the line, and your temptation in the interline. For when your Lordship had said that ‘[My arguments for the vindication of Gods goodness and justice are sound and holy] your hand run it over again and added [as abstracted from the case of Original Sin.]’ But why should this be abstracted from all the whole Oeconomy of God, from all his other dispensations? Is it in all cases of the world unjust for God, to impute our fathers sins to us unto eternal condemnation; and is it otherwise in this only? Certainly a man would think this were the more favourable case; as being a single act, done but once, repented of after it was done, not consented to by the parties interested, not stipulated by God that it should be so, and being against all laws and all the reason of the world: therefore it were but reason that if any where, here much rather Gods justice and goodness should be relied upon as the measure of the event. * And if in other cases laws be never given to Ideots and Infants and persons uncapable, why should they be given here? But if they were not capable of a Law, then neither could they be of Sin; for where there is no law, there is no transgression. And is it unjust to condemn one man to Hell for all the sin of a thousand of his Ancestors actually done by them? And shall it be accounted just to damn all the world for one sin of one man? But if it be said, that it is unjust to damn the innocent for the sin of another; but the world is not innocent, but really guilty in Adam. Besides that this is a begging of the question, it is also against common sence, to say that a man is not innocent of that which was done before he had a being; for if that be not sufficient, then it is impossible for a man to be innocent. And if this way of answer be admitted, any man may be damned for the sin of any Father; because it may be said here as well as there, that although the innocent must not perish for anothers fault, yet the Son is not innocent as being in his Fathers loyns when the fault was committed, and the law calls him and makes him guilty. And if it were so indeed, this were so far from being an excuse, to say that the Law makes him guilty, that this were absolute tyranny, and the thing that were to be complain'd of.

I hope, by this time your Lordship perceives, that I have no reason to fear that I prevaricate S. Paul's rule: [...]. I only endeavour to understand S. Paul's words, and I read them, [...], in proportion to, and so as they may not intrench upon, the reputation of Gods goodness and justice: that's [...], to be wise unto sobriety. But they that do so [...], as to resolve it to be so, whether God be honour'd in it, or dishonour'd, and to answer all arguments, whether they can or cannot be answered, and to efform all their Theology to the air of that one great proposition, and to find out ways for God to proceed in, which he hath never told of, [...], ways that are crooked and not to be insisted in, ways that are not right, if these men do not [...], then I hope I shall have less need to fear that I do, who do none of these things.

And in proportion to my security here, I am confident that I am unconcern'd in the consequent threatning. If any man shall Evangelize, [...], any other doctrine than what ye have received, something for Gospel which is not Gospel, something that ye have not received, let him be accursed. My Lord, if what I teach were not that which we have received, that God is just, and righteous, and true: that the soul that sins, the same shall die: that we shall have no cause to say, The Fathers have eaten sowre Grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge: that God is a gracious Father, pardoning iniquity, and therefore not exacting it where it is not: that Infants are from their Mothers wombs beloved of God their Father: that of such is the Kingdom of God: that he pities those souls who cannot discern the right hand [Page] from the left, as he declar'd in the case of the Ninevites: that to Infants there are special Angels appointed, who always behold the face of God: that Christ took them in his arms and blessed them, and therefore they are not hated by God, and accursed heirs of Hell, and coheirs with Satan: that the Messias was promis [...]d before any children were born; as certainly as that Adam sinn'd before they were born: that if sin abounds, grace does superabound; and therefore children are with greater effect involv'd in the grace than they could be in the sin: and the sin must be gone before it could do them mischief: if this were not the doctrine of both Testaments, and if the contrary were, then the threatning of S. Paul might well be held up against me: but else, my Lord, to shew such a Scorpion to him that speaks the truth of God in sincerity and humility, though it cannot make me to betray the truth and the honour of God, yet the very fear and affrightment which must needs seize upon every good man that does but behold it, or hear the words of that angry voice, shall and hath made me to pray not only that my self be preserved in truth, but that it would please God to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived.

My Lord, I humbly thank your Lordship for your grave and pious Counsel, and kiss the hand that reaches forth so paternal a rod. I see you are tender both of truth and me: and though I have not made this tedious reply to cause trouble to your Lordship, or to steal from you any part of your precious time, yet because I see your Lordship was perswaded induere personam, to give some little countenance to a popular error out of jealousie against a less usual truth, I thought it my duty to represent to your Lordship such things, by which as I can, so I ought to 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 Dr. TAYLOR, WITH AN Account of the particulars there given in Charge.

[Page]

[Page]

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 [...]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 obnoxi [...]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 [Page] 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.

§

[Page]

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 [...][Page]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 most eminent writers of the Primitive Christ; I need not trouble my self with citations of many of them, since Calvin (lib. 3. Instit. c. 3. Sect. 10.) confesses that S. Austin hath collected their testimonies, and is of their opinion, that Concupiscence is not a sin, but an infirmity only. But I will here set down the words of S. Chrysostome (Homil. 13. in Epist. Rom.) because they are very clear; Ipsae passiones in se peccatum non sunt: Effraenata verò ipsarum immoderantia peccatum operata est. Concupiscentia quidem peccatum non est; quando verò egressa modum foras eruperit, tunc demum adulterium fit, non à concupiscentia sed à nimio & illicito illius luxu.

By the way I cannot but wonder why men are pleased, where-ever they find the word Concupiscence in the New Testament, presently to dream of Original Sin, and make that to be the summ total of it; whereas Concupiscence, if it were the product of Adam's fall, is but one small part of it; [Et ut exempli gratia unam illarum tractem] said S. Chrysostome in the forecited place; Concupiscence is but one of the passions, and in the utmost extension of the word, it can be taken but for one half of the passion; for not only all the passions of the Concupiscible faculty can be a principle of sin, but the Irascible does more hurt in the world; that is more sensual, this is more devillish. The reason why I note this, is because upon this account it will seem, that concupiscence is no more to be called a sin than anger is, and as S. Paul said, Be angry, but sin not; so he might have said, Desire, or lust, but sin not. For there are some lustings and desires without sin, as well as some Angers; and that which is indifferent to vertue and vice, cannot of it self be a vice; To which I add, that if Concupiscence taken for all desires be a sin, then so are all the passions of the Irascible faculty. Why one more than the other is not to be told, but that Anger in the first motions is not a sin, appears, because it is not always sinful in the second; a man may be actually angry, and yet really innocent: and so he may be lustful and full of desire, and yet he may be not only that which is good, or he may overcome his desires to that which is bad. I have now considered what your Lordship received from others, and gave me in Charge your self, concerning Concupiscence.

Your next Charge is concerning Antiquity, intimating, that although the first antiquity is not clearly against me, yet the second is. For thus your Lordship is pleased to write their objection [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, &c.

That the Fathers of the first Four Hundred years did speak plainly and fully of it, is so evident as nothing more, and I appeal to their testimonies as they are set down in the Papers annexed in their proper place; and therefore that must needs be one of the little arts by which some men use to escape from the pressure of that authority, by which because they would have other men concluded, sometimes upon strict inquiry they find themselves entangled. Original Sin as it is at this day commonly explicated, was not the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; but when Pelagius had [Page] pudled the stream, S. Austin was so angry that he stampt and disturb'd it more: And truly my Lord, I do not think that the Gentlemen that urg'd against me S. Austin's opinion, do well consider that I profess my self to follow those Fathers who were before him; and whom S. Austin did forsake as I do him in the question. They may as well press me with his authority in the Article of the damnation of Infants dying unbaptized, or of absolute predestination. In which Article, S. Austin's words are equally urged by the Jansenists and Molinists, by the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants, and they can serve both, and therefore cannot determine me. But then (my Lord) let it be remembred, that they are as much against S. Chrysostome as I am against S. Austin, with this only difference; that S. Chrysostome speaks constantly in the argument, which S. Austin did not, and particularly in that part of it which concerns Concupiscence. For in the inquiry, whether it be a sin or no; he speaks so variously, that though Calvin complains of him, that he calls it only an infirmity, yet he also brings testimonies from him to prove it to be a sin, and let any man try if he can tie these words together. (De peccator. mer. & remission. l. 1. c. 3.) Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est, quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis. Which are the words your Lordship quotes: Concupiscence is a sin, because it is a disobedience to the Empire of the spirit. But yet in another place; (lib. 1. de civit. Dei cap. 25.) Illa Concupiscentialis inobedientia quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis? It is a sin and it is no sin, it is criminal, but is without fault; it is culpable because it is a disobedience, and yet this disobedience without actual consent is not culpable. If I do believe S. Austin, I must disbelieve him; and which part soever I take, I shall be reproved by the same authority. But when the Fathers are divided from each other, or themselves, it is indifferent to follow either; but when any of them are divided from Reason and Scripture, then it is not indifferent for us to follow them, and neglect these; and yet if these who object S. Austin's authority to my Doctrine, will be content to subject to all that he says, I am content they shall follow him in this too, provided that they will give me my liberty, because I will not not be tied to him that speaks contrary things to himself, and contrary to them that went before him; and though he was a rare person, yet he was as fallible as any of my brethren at this day. He was followed by many ignorant ages, and all the world knows by what accidental advantages he acquired a great reputation: but he who made no scruple of deserting all his predecessors, must give us leave upon the strength of his own reasons to quit his authority.

All that I shall observe is this, that the Doctrine of Original Sin as it is explicated by S. Austin, had two parents; one was the Doctrine of the Encratites, and some other Hereticks, who forbad Marriage, and supposing it to be evil, thought they were warranted to say, it was the bed of sin, and children the spawn of vipers and sinners. And S. Austin himself, and especially S. Hierome (whom your Lordship cites) speaks some things of marriage, which if they were true, then marriage were highly to be refused, as being the increaser of sin rather than of children, and a semination in the flesh, and contrary to the spirit, and such a thing which being mingled with sin, produces univocal issues, the mother and the daughter are so like that they are the worse again. For if a proper inherent sin be effected by chaste marriages, then they are in this particular equal to adulterous embraces, and rather to be pardoned than allowed; and if all Concupiscence be vicious, then no marriage can be pure. These things it may be have not been so much considered, but your Lordship I know remembers strange sayings in S. Hierome, in Athenagoras, and in S. Austin, which possibly have been countenanced and maintained at the charge of this opinion. But the other parent of this is the zeal against the Pelagian Heresie, which did serve it self by saying too little in this Article, and therefore was thought fit to be confu [...]ed by saying too much; and that I conjecture right in this affair, I appeal to the words which I cited out of S. Austin in the matter of Concupiscence; concerning which he speaks the same thing that I do, when he is disingaged; as in his books De civitate Dei: but in his Tractate de peccatorum meritis & remissione, which was written in his heat against the Pelagians, he speaks quite contrary. And who-ever shall with observation read his one book of Original Sin against Pelagius, his two books de Nuptiis & Concupiscentia to Valerius, his three books to Marcellinus, de peccatorum meritis & remissione, his four books to Boniface, contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, his six books to Claudius against Julianus, and shall think himself bound to believe all that this excellent man wrote, will not only find it impossible he should, [Page] but will have reason to say, that zeal against an error is not always the best instrument to find out truth. The same complaint hath been made of others; and S. Jerome hath suffer'd deeply in the infirmity. I shall not therefore trouble your Lordship with giving particular answers to the words of S. Jerome and S. Ambrose, because (besides what I have already said) I do not think that their words are an argument fit to conclude against so much evidence, nor against a much less than that which I have every where brought in this Article, though indeed their words are capable of a fair interpretation, and besides the words quoted out of S. Ambrose are none of his; and for Aquinas, Lombard, and Bonaventure, your Lordship might as well press me with the opinion of Mr. Calvin, Knox, and Buchannan, with the Synod of Dort, or the Scots Presbyteries: I know they are against me, and therefore I reprove them for it, but it is no disparagement to the truth, that other men are in error. And yet of all the School-men, Bonaventure should least have been urg'd against me, for the proverbs sake: for, Adam non peccavit in Bonaventura; Alexander of Hales would often say, that Adam never sinn'd in Bonaventure. But it may be he was not in earnest: no more am I.

The last thing your Lordship gives to me in Charge in the behalf of the objectors, is, that I would take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam, as relating to his posterity.

To this I answer, That I know of no such thing; God made a Covenant with Adam indeed, and us'd the right of his dominion over his posterity, and yet did nothing but what was just; but I find in Scripture no mention made of any such Covenant as is dreamt of about the matter of Original Sin: only the Covenant of works God did make with all men till Christ came; but he did never exact it after Adam; but for a Covenant that God should make with Adam, that if he stood, all his posterity should be I know not what; and if he fell, they should be in a damnable condition, of this (I say) there is nec vola nec vestigium in holy Scripture, that ever I could meet with: if there had been any such Covenant, it had been but equity that to all the persons interessed it should have been communicated, and caution given to all who were to suffer, and abilities given to them to prevent the evil: for else it is not a Covenant with them, but a decree concerning them; and it is impossible that there should be a Covenant made between two, when one of the parties knows nothing of it.

I will enter no further into this enquiry, but only observe, that though there was no such Covenant, yet the event that hapned might without any such Covenant have justly entred in at many doors. It is one thing to say that God by Adam's sin was moved to a severer entercourse with his posterity, for that is certainly true; and it is another thing to say that Adam's sin of it self did deserve all the evil that came actually upon his children; Death is the wages of sin, one death for one sin; but not 10000 millions for one sin; but therefore the Apostle affirms it to have descended on all, in as much as all men have sinn'd; But if from a sinning Parent a good child descends; the childs innocence will more prevail with God for kindness, than the fathers sin shall prevail for trouble. Non omnia parentum peccata dii in liberos convertunt, sed siquis de malo nascitur bonus, tanquam benè affectus corpore natus de morboso, is generis poenâ liberatur, tanquam ex improbitatis domo, in aliam familiam datus: qui verò morbo in similitudinem generis refertur atque redigitur vitiosi, ei nimirum convenit tanquam haeredi debitas poenas vitii persolvere, said Plutarch (De iis qui serò à Numine puniuntur. ex interpr. Cluserii.) God does not always make the fathers sins descend upon the children. But if a good child is born of a bad father, like a healthful body from an ill-affected one, he is freed from the punishment of his stock, and passes from the house of wickedness into another family. But he who inherits the disease, he also must be heir of the punishment; Quorum natura amplexa est cognatam malitiam, hos Justitia similitudinem pravitatis persequens supplicio affecit, if they pursue their kindreds wickedness, they shall be pursued by a cognation of judgment.

Other ways there are by which it may come to pass that the sins of others may descend upon us. He that is Author or the perswader, the minister or the helper, the approver or the follower, may derive the sins of others to himself, but then it is not their sins only, but our own too, and it is like a dead Taper put to a burning light and held there, this derives light and flames from the other, and yet then hath it of its own, but they dwell together and make one body. These are the ways by which punishment can enter, but there are evils which are no punishments, and they may come upon more accounts, by Gods Dominion, by natural consequence, by infection, by destitution [Page] and dereliction, for the glory of God, by right of authority, for the institution or exercise of the sufferers, or for their more immediate good.

But that directly and properly one should be punish'd for the sins of others was indeed practised by some Common-wealths; Vtilitatis specie saepissimè in repub. peccari, said Cicero, they do it sometimes for terror, and because their ways of preventing evil is very imperfect: and when Pedianus secundus the Pretor was kill'd by a slave, all the family of them was kill'd in punishment; this was secundum veterem morem, said Tacit. (Annal. 14.) for in the slaughter of Marcellus the slaves fled for fear of such usage; it was thus, I say, among the Romans, but habuit aliquid iniqui, and God forbid we should say such things of the fountain of Justice and mercy. But I have done, and will move no more stones, but hereafter carry them as long as I can, rather than make a noise by throwing them down; I shall only add this one thing: I was troubled with an objection lately; for it being propounded to me, why it is to be believed that the sin of Adam could spoil the nature of man, and yet the nature of Devils could not be spoiled by their sin which was worse; I could not well tell what to say, and therefore I held my peace.

THE END.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΕΚΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ, Or, A DISCOURSE OF The Liberty of Prophesying, With its just Limits and Temper; SHEWING The Vnreasonableness of prescribing to other mens Faith, and the Iniquity of persecuting differing Opinions.

By JEREM. TAYLOR, D. D.

The Third Edition, Corrected and Enlarged.

DANIEL

S. IOHN

[...].

1 Cor. 14.31.

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to his most Sacred MAJESTY.

To the Right Honourable Christopher Lord Hatton, Baron HATTON of Kirby, Comptroller of His Majestie's Houshold, and one of His Majestie's most Honourable Privie Council.

[Page]

[Page]

MY LORD,

IN this great Storm which hath dasht the Vessel of the Church all in pieces I have been cast upon the Coast of Wales, and in a little Boat thought to have enjoyed that rest and quietness which in England in a greater I could not hope for. Here I cast Anchor, and thinking to ride safely, the Storm followed me with so impetuous violence, that it broke a Cable, and I lost my Anchor: And here again I was exposed to the mercy of the Sea, and the gentleness of an Element that could neither distinguish things nor persons. And but that he who stilleth the raging of the Sea, and the noise of his Waves, and the madness of his people, had provided a Plank for me, I had been lost to all the opportunities of content or study. But I know not whether I have been more preserved by the courtesies of my friends, or the gentleness and mercies of a noble Enemy: [...]. And now since I have come ashore I have been gathering a few sticks to warm me, a few books to entertain my thoughts, and divert them from the perpetuall Meditation of my private Troubles and the publick Dyscrasy: but those which I could obtain were so few and so impertinent, and unusefull to any great purposes, that I began to be sad upon a new stock, and full of apprehension that I should live unprofitably, and die obscurely, and be forgotten, and my bones thrown into some common charnell-house, without any name or note to distinguish me from those who onely served their Generation by filling the number of Citizens, and who could pretend to no thanks or reward from the Publick beyond jus trium liberorum. While I was troubled with these thoughts, and busie to find an opportunity of doing some good in my small proportion, still the cares of the publick did so intervene, that it was as impossible to separate my design from relating to the present, as to exempt myself from the participation of the common calamity; still half my thoughts was (in despite of all my diversions and arts of avocation) fixt upon and mingled with the present concernments; so that besides them I could not go. Now because the great Question is concerning Religion, and in that also my Scene lies, I resolved here to fix my considerations; especially when I observed the ways of promoting the several Opinions which now are busie to be such, as besides that they were most troublesome to me, and such as I could by no means be friends withall, they were also such as to my understanding did the most apparently disserve their ends whose design in advancing their own Opinions was pretended for Religion. For as contrary as cruelty is to mercy, as tyranny to charity, so is war and bloudshed to the meekness and gentleness of Christian Religion. And however that there are some exterminating spirits who think God to delight in humane sacrifices, as if that Oracle— [...] had come from the Father of Spirits: yet if they were capable of cool and tame Homilies, or would hear men of other opinions [Page] give a quiet account without invincible resolutions never to alter their perswasions, I am very much perswaded it would not be very hard to dispute such men into mercies and compliances and Tolerations mutuall, such, I say, who are zealous for Jesus Christ, then whose Doctrine never was any thing more mercifull and humane, whose lessons were softer then Nard or the juice of the Candian Olive. Vpon the first apprehension, I design'd a Discourse to this purpose with as much greediness as if I had thought it possible with my Arguments to have perswaded the rough and hard-handed Souldiers to have disbanded presently: For I had often thought of the Prophecy that in the Gospell our Swords should be turned into plow-shares, and our Spears into pruning-hooks; I knew that no tittle spoken by God's Spirit could return unperform'd and ineffectual, and I was certain that such was the excellency of Christ's Doctrine, that if men could obey it, Christians should never war one against another. In the mean time I considered not that it was praedictio consilii, non eventûs, till I saw what men were now doing, and ever had done since the heats and primitive fervours did cool, and the love of interests swell'd higher then the love of Christianity: but then on the other side I began to fear that whatever I could say would be as ineffectual as it could be reasonable. For if those excellent words which our Blessed Master spake could not charm the tumult of our spirits, I had little reason to hope that one of the meanest and most ignorant of his servants could advance the end of that which he calls his great, and his old, and his new Commandment, so well as the excellency of his own Spirit and discourses could. And yet since he who knew every event of things, and the success and efficacy of every Doctrine, and that very much of it to most men, and all of it to some men, would be ineffectuall, yet was pleased to consign our duty, that it might be a direction to them that would, and a conviction and a Testimony against them that would not obey; I thought it might not misbecome my duty and endeavours to plead for peace and charity, and forgiveness and permissions mutuall: although I had reason to believe that such is the iniquity of men, and they so indisposed to receive such impresses, that I had as good plow the Sands, or till the Air, as perswade such Doctrines which destroy mens interests, and serve no end but the great end of a happy eternity, and what is in order to it. But because the events of things are in God's disposition, and I knew them not, and because if I had known my good purposes would be totally ineffectuall as to others, yet my own designation and purposes would be of advantage to myself, who might from God's mercy expect the retribution which he is pleased to promise to all pious intendments; I resolved to encounter with all Objections, and to doe something to which I should be determined by the consideration of the present Distemperatures and necessities, by my own thoughts, by the Questions and Scruples, the Sects and names, the interests and animosities which at this day and for some years past have exercised and disquieted Christendom.

Thus far I discours'd myself into imployment, and having come thus far I knew not how to get farther; for I had heard of a great experience, how difficult it was to make Brick without Straw▪ and here I had even seen my design blasted in the bud, and I despaired in the Calends of doing what I purposed in the Ides before. For I had no Books of my own here, nor any in the voicinage; and but that I remembred the result of some of those excellent Discourses I had heard your Lordship make when I was so happy as in private to gather up what your [Page] temperance and modesty forbids to be publick, I had come in praelia inermis, and like enough might have far'd accordingly. I had this onely advantage besides, that I have chosen a subject in which, if my own reason does not abuse me, I needed no other books or aids then what a man carries with him on horseback, I mean, the common principles of Christianity, and those [...] which men use in the transactions of the ordinary occurrences of civil society: and upon the strength of them and some other collateral assistances I have run through it utcunque, and the sum of the following Discourses is nothing but the sense of these words of Scripture, That since we know in part, 1 Cor. 13. and prophesie in part, and that now we see through a glass darkly, we should not despise or contemn persons not so knowing as ourselves,Rom. 14. but him that is weak in the faith we should receive, but not to doubtfull disputations; therefore certainly to charity, and not to vexations, not to those which are the idle effects of impertinent wranglings. And provided they keep close to the foundation, which is Faith and Obedience, let them build upon this foundation matter more or less precious, yet if the foundation be intire, they shall be saved with or without loss. And since we profess ourselves servants of so meek a Master, and Disciples of so charitable an Institute,Ephes. 4.2, 3. Let us walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; for this is the best endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit, when it is fast tied in the bond of peace. And although it be a duty of Christianity, that we all speak the same thing, 1 Cor. 1.10. that there be no divisions among us, but that we be perfectly joyned together in the same mind, and in the same judgement; yet this unity is to be estimated according to the unity of Faith, in things necessary, in matters of Creed, and Articles fundamental: for as for other things, it is more to be wished then to be hoped for. There are some doubtfull Disputations, and in such the Scribe, Rom. 14. the Wise, the Disputer of this world, are most commonly very far from certainty, and many times from truth. There are diversity of perswasions in matters adiaphorous, as meats and drinks, and holy days, &c. and both parties, the affirmative and the negative, affirm and deny with innocence enough; for the observer and he that observes not intend both to God; and God is our common Master, we are all fellow-servants, and not the judge of each other in matters of conscience or doubtfull Disputation; and every man that hath faith must have it to himself before God, but no man must either in such matters judge his brother or set him at nought: but let us follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie another. And the way to doe that is not by knowledge, but by charity; for knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 1 Cor. 8.1. And since there is not in every man the same knowledge, Vers. 7. but the consciences of some are weak; 1 Cor. 10.29. as my liberty must not be judged of another man's weak conscience, so must not I please myself so much in my right opinion, but I must also take order that his weak conscience be not offended or despised: for no man must seek his own, but every man another's wealth. Ibid. v. 33. And although we must contend earnestly for the Faith, yet above all things we must put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And therefore this contention must be with arms fit for the Christian warfare, the sword of the Spirit, Colos. 3.14 and the shield of Faith, and preparation of the Gospel of peace in stead of shoes, and a helmet of salvation; but not with other arms: for a Church-man must not be [...], a striker; for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual, [Page] and the persons that use them ought to be gentle, and easie to be intreated; and we must give an account of our faith to them that ask us with meekness and humility, for so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. These and thousands more to the same purpose are the Doctrines of Christianity, whose sense and intendment I have prosecuted in the following Discourse, being very much displeased that so many Opinions and new Doctrines are commenc'd among us; but more troubled that every man that hath an Opinion thinks his own and other mens Salvation is concern'd in its maintenance; but most of all, that men should be persecuted and afflicted for disagreeing in such Opinions which they cannot with sufficient grounds obtrude upon others necessarily, because they cannot propound them infallibly, and because they have no warrant from Scripture so to doe. For if I shall tie other men to believe my Opinion, because I think I have a place of Scripture which seems to warrant it to my understanding, why may not he serve up another dish to me in the same dress, and exact the same task of me to believe the contradictory? And then, since all the Hereticks in the world have offered to prove their Articles by the same means by which true Believers propound theirs, it is necessary that some separation, either of Doctrine or of persons, be clearly made, and that all pretences may not be admitted, nor any just Allegations be rejected; and yet that in some other Questions, whether they be truly or falsly pretended, if not evidently or demonstratively, there may be considerations had to the persons of men and to the Laws of charity, more then to the triumphing in any Opinion or Doctrine not simply necessary. Now because some Doctrines are clearly not necessary, and some are absolutely necessary, why may not the first separation be made upon this difference, and Articles necessary be onely urged as necessary, and the rest left to men indifferently, as they were by the Scripture indeterminately? And it were well if men would as much consider themselves as the Doctrines, and think that they may as well be deceived by their own weakness, as perswaded by the Arguments of a Doctrine which other men as wise call inevident. For it is a hard case that we should think all Papists and Anabaptists and Sacramentaries to be fools and wicked persons; certainly among all these Sects there are very many wise men and good men, as well as erring. And although some zeals are so hot, and their eyes so inflamed with their ardours, that they do not think their Adversaries look like other men; yet certainly we find by the results of their discourses, and the transactions of their affairs of civil society, that they are men that speak and make Syllogisms, and use Reason, and reade Scripture: and although they do no more understand all of it then we do; yet they endeavour to understand as much as concerns them, even all that they can, even all that concerns repentance from dead works, and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore methinks this also should be another consideration distinguishing the persons: for if the persons be Christians in their lives, and Christians in their profession, if they acknowledge the Eternall Son of God for their Master and their Lord, and live in all relations as becomes persons making such professions, why then should I hate such persons whom God loves, and who love God, who are partakers of Christ, and Christ hath a title to them, who dwell in Christ, and Christ in them, because their understandings have not been brought up like mine, have not had the same Masters, they have not met with the same books, nor the same company, or have not the same interest, or are not so wise, or else are wiser, that is, (for some reason or other which I neither do understand nor ought to blame,) [Page] have not the same Opinions that I have, and do not determine their School-Questions to the sense of my Sect or interest?

But now I know before-hand, that those men who will endure none but their own Sect will make all manner of attempts against these purposes of charity and compliance, and say I or doe I what I can, will tell all their Proselytes that I preach indifferency of Religion, that I say it is no matter how we believe, nor what they profess, but that they may comply with all Sects, and doe violence to their own Consciences, that they may be saved in all Religions, and so make way for a colluvies of Heresies, and by consequence destroy all Religion. Nay, they will say worse then all this; and, but that I am not used to their phrases and forms of declamation, I am perswaded I might represent fine Tragedies before-hand. And this will be such an Objection, that although I am most confident I shall make it apparent to be as false and scandalous as the Objectors themselves are zealous and impatient; yet besides that, I believe the Objection will come where my Answers will not come, or not be understood, I am also confident that, in defiance and incuriousness of all that I shall say, some men will persist pertinaciously in the accusation, and deny my conclusion in despite of me. Well, but however I will try.

And first I answer, that whatsoever is against the foundation of Faith, or contrary to good life and the laws of obedience, or destructive to humane society, and the publick and just interests of bodies politick, is out of the limits of my Question, and does not pretend to compliance or Toleration: So that I allow no indifferency, nor any countenance to those Religions whose principles destroy Government, nor to those Religions (if there be any such) that teach ill life, nor do I think that any thing will now excuse from belief of a fundamental Article, except stupidity or sottishness and natural inability. This alone is sufficient answer to this vanity, but I have much more to say.

Secondly, The intendment of my Discourse is, that permissions should be in Questions speculative, indeterminable, curious and unnecessary; and that men would not make more necessities then God made, which indeed are not many. The fault I find and seek to remedy is, that men are so dogmaticall and resolute in their Opinions, and impatient of others disagreeings in those things wherein is no sufficient means of union and determination; but that men should let Opinions and Problems keep their own forms, and not be obtruded as Axioms, nor Questions in the vast collection of the systeme of Divinity be adopted into the family of Faith. And I think I have reason to desire this.

Thirdly, It is hard to say that he who would not have men put to death, or punished corporally, for such things for which no humane Authority is sufficient either for cognizance or determination, or competent for infliction, that he perswades to an indifferency, when he refers to another Judicatory which is competent, sufficient, infallible, just, and highly severe. No man or company of men can judge or punish our thoughts or secret purposes whilest they so remain: and yet it will be unequal to say, that he who owns this Doctrine preaches it lawfull to men for to think or purpose what they will. And so it is in matters of doubtfull disputation, (such as are the distinguishing Articles of most of the Sects of Christendome;) so it is in matters intellectual, (which are not cognoscible by a secular power,) in matters spiritual, (which are to be discerned by spiritual Authority, which cannot make corporal inflictions,) and in Questions indeterminate, (which are doubtfully propounded or obscurely, and therefore [Page] may be in utramque partem disputed or believed:) for God alone must be Judge of these matters, who alone is Master of our Souls, and hath a dominion over humane Vnderstanding. And he that says this does not say that indifferency is perswaded, because God alone is judge of erring persons.

Fourthly, No part of this Discourse teaches or encourages variety of Sects and contradiction in Opinions, but supposes them already in being: and therefore since there are, and ever were, and ever will be, variety of Opinions, because there is variety of humane understandings, and uncertainty in things, no man should be too forward in determining all Questions, nor so forward in prescribing to others, nor invade that liberty which God hath left to us intire by propounding many things obscurely, and by exempting our souls and understandings from all power externally compulsory. So that the restraint is laid upon mens tyranny, but no licence given to mens Opinions; they are not considered in any of the Conclusions, but in the Premisses onely as an Argument to exhort to charity. So that if I perswade a licence of discrediting any thing which God hath commanded us to believe, and allow a liberty where God hath not allowed it, let it be shewn, and let the Objection press as hard as it can: but to say that men are too forward in condemning where God hath declared no sentence, nor prescribed any Rule, is to disswade from tyranny, not to encourage licentiousness; is to take away a licence of judging, not to give a licence of dogmatizing what every one please, or as may best serve his turn. And for the other part of the Objection;

Fifthly, This Discourse is so far from giving leave to men to profess any thing, though they believe the contrary, that it takes order that no man shall be put to it: for I earnestly contend that another man's Opinion shall be no rule to mine, and that my Opinion shall be no snare and prejudice to myself, that men use one another so charitably and so gently, that no errour or violence tempt men to Hypocrisie; this very thing being one of the Arguments I use to perswade permissions, lest compulsion introduce Hypocrisie, and make sincerity troublesome and unsafe.

Sixthly, If men would not call all Opinions by the name of Religion, and superstructures by the name of fundamental Articles, and all fancies by the glorious appellative of Faith, this Objection would have no pretence or footing: so that it is the disease of the men, not any cause that is ministred by such precepts of charity, that makes them perpetually clamorous. And it would be hard to say that such Physicians are incurious of their Patients, and neglectfull of their health, who speak against the unreasonableness of such Empiricks that would cut off a man's head if they see but a Wart upon his cheek, or a dimple upon his chin, or any lines in his face to distinguish him from another man: the case is altogether the same, and we may as well decree a Wart to be mortal as a various Opinion in re alioqui non necessaria to be capital and damnable.

For I consider that there are but few Doctrines of Christianity that were ordered to be preached to all the world, to every single person, and made a necessary Article of his explicite belief: Other Doctrines which are all of them not simply necessary, are either such as are not clearly revealed, or such as are. If they be clearly revealed, and that I know so too, or may, but for my own fault, I am not to be excused: but for this I am to be left to God's judgement, unless my fault be externally such as to be cognoscible and punishable in humane Judicatory. But then, if it be not so revealed but that wise men and good men differ [Page] in their opinions, it is a clear case it is not inter dogmata necessaria simpliciter, and then it is certain I may therefore safely disbelieve it, because I may be safely ignorant of it. For if I may with innocence be ignorant, then to know it or believe it is not simply obligatory: ignorance is absolutely inconsistent with such an obligation, because it is destructive and a plain negative to its performance: and if I doe my honest endeavour to understand it, and yet do not attain it, it is certain that it is not obligatory to me so much as by accident; for no obligation can press the person of a man if it be impossible, no man is bound to doe more then his best, no man is bound to have an excellent understanding, or to be infallible, or to be wiser then he can, for these are things that are not in his choice, and therefore not a matter of a Law, nor subject to reward and punishment. So that where ignorance of the Article is not a sin, there disbelieving it in the right sense, or believing it in the wrong, is not a breach of any duty essentially or accidentally necessary, neither in the thing itself nor to the person; that is, he is neither bound to the Article, nor to any endeavours or antecedent acts of volition and choice: and that man who may safely be ignorant of the Proposition is not tied at all to search it out; and if not at all to search it, then certainly not to find it. All the obligation we are capable of is, not to be malicious or voluntarily criminal in any kind: and then if by accident we find out a Truth, we are obliged to believe it; and so will every wise or good man doe; indeed he cannot doe otherwise. But if he disbelieves an Article without malice, or design, or involuntarily, or unknowingly, it is a contradiction to say it is a sin to him who might totally have been ignorant of it: for that he believes it in the wrong sense, it is his ignorance; and it is impossible that where he hath heartily endeavoured to find out a Truth, that this endeavour should make him guilty of a sin, which would never have been laid to his charge if he had taken no pains at all. His ignorance in this case is not a fault at all; possibly it might, if there had been no endeavour to have cur'd it.

So that there is wholly a mistake in this Proposition. For true it is, there are some Propositions which if a man never hear of they will not be required of him; and they who cannot reade might safely be ignorant that Melchisedeck was King of Salem: but he who reads it in the Scripture may not safely contradict it, although before that knowledge did arrive to him he might safely have been ignorant of it. But this, although it be true, is not pertinent to our Question: For in sensu diviso this is true, that which at one time a man may be ignorant of at some other time he may not disbelieve; but in sensu conjuncto it is false; for at what and in what circumstance soever it is no sin to be ignorant, at that time and in that conjuncture it is no sin to disbelieve. And such is the nature of all Questions disputable, which are therefore not required of us to be believed in any one particular sense, because the nature of the thing is such as not to be necessary to be known at all simply and absolutely, and such is the ambiguity and cloud of its face and representment as not to be necessary so much as by accident, and therefore not to the particular sense of any one person.

And yet such is the iniquity of men, that they suck in Opinions as wild Asses do the wind, without distinguishing the wholsome from the corrupted air; and then live upon it at a venture: and when all their confidence is built upon zeal and mistake, yet therefore because they are zealous and mistaken, they are impatient of contradiction.

[Page]But besides that against this I have laid prejudice enough from the dictates of Holy Scripture, it is observable that this with its appendant degrees, I mean restraint of Prophesying, imposing upon other mens understanding, being masters of their Consciences, and lording it over their Faith, came in with the retinue and train of Antichrist, that is, they came as other abuses and corruptions of the Church did, by reason of the iniquity of times, and the cooling of the first heats of Christianity, and the encrease of interest, and the abatements of Christian simplicity, when the Churche's fortune grew better, and her Sons grew worse, and some of her Fathers worst of all. For in the first three hundred years there was no sign of persecuting any man for his Opinion, though at that time there were very horrid Opinions commenced, and such which were exemplary and parallel enough to determine this Question: for they then were assaulted by new Sects which destroyed the common principles of nature, of Christianity, of innocence and publick society: and they who used all the means Christian and Spiritual for their disimprovement and conviction, thought not of using corporal force, otherwise then by blaming such proceedings. And therefore I do not onely urge their not doing it as an Argument of the unlawfulness of such proceeding, but their defying it and speaking against such practices, as unreasonable and destructive of Christianity. For so Tertullian is express, Humani juris & naturalis potestatis, Ad Scapul. unicuique quod putaverit colere; sed nec religionis est cogere religionem, quae suscipi debet sponte, non vi. The same is the Doctrine of S. Cyprian, Lactantius, S. Hilary, Minutius Felix, Sulpitius Severus, S. Chrysostome, S. Hierom, S. Austin, Damascen, Theophylact, Socrates Scholasticus, and S. Bernard, as they are severally referred to and urged upon occasion in the following Discourse.

To which I adde, that all wise Princes, till they were overborn with faction, or solicited by peevish persons, gave Toleration to differing Sects whose Opinions did not disturb the publick interest. But at first there were some hereticall persons that were also impatient of an Adversary, and they were the men who at first entreated the Emperours to persecute the Catholicks: but till four hundred years after Christ no Catholick persons, or very few, did provoke the Secular arm or implore its aid against the Hereticks, save onely that Arius behaved himself so seditiously and tumultuarily, that the Nicene Fathers procured a temporary Decree for his relegation; but it was soon taken off, and God left to be his Judge; who indeed did it to some purpose when he was trusted with it, and the matter wholly left to him.

But as the Ages grew worse, so men grew more cruel and unchristian, and in the Greek Church Atticus, and Nestorius of Constantinople, Theodosius of Synada, and some few others who had forgotten the mercies of their great Master and their own duty, grew implacable and furious and impatient of contradiction. It was a bold and an arrogant speech which Nestorius made in his Sermon before Theodosius the younger, Da mihi, O Imperator, terram ab haereticis repurgatam, & ego tibi vicissim coelum dabo: Disperde mecum haereticos, & ego tecum disperdam Persas. It was as groundless and unwarrantable as it was bloudy and inhumane.

And we see the contrary events prove truer then this groundless and unlearned promise: for Theodosius and Valentinian were prosperous Princes, and have to all Ages a precious memory, and the reputation of a great piety; but they were so far from doing what Nestorius had suggested, that they restrained [Page] him from his violence and immanity; and Theodosius did highly commend the good Bishop Proclus for his sweetness of deportment towards erring persons, far above the cruelty of his Predecessor Atticus. And the experience which Christendom hath had in this last Age is Argument enough, that Toleration of differing Opinions is so far from disturbing the publick peace, or destroying the interest of Princes and Commonwealths, that it does advantage to the publick, it secures peace, because there is not so much as the pretence of Religion left to such persons to contend for it, being already indulged to them. When France fought against the Huguenots, the spilling of her own bloud was argument enough of the imprudence of that way of promoting Religion; but since she hath given permission to them, the world is witness how prosperous she hath been ever since. But the great instance is in the differing temper, Government and success which Margaret of Parma and the Duke of Alva had. The clemency of the first had almost extinguished the flame: but when she was removed, D' Alva succeeded, and managed the matter of Religion with fire and sword; he made the flame so great, that his Religion and his Prince too have both been almost quite turned out of the Countrey. Pelli è medio sapientiam, quoties vires agitur, said Ennius: and therefore the best of men and the most glorious of Princes were alwaies ready to give Toleration, but never to make executions for matters disputable. Eusebius in his second Book of the life of Constantine reports these words of the Emperour, Parem cum fidelibus ii qui errant pacis & quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant: Ipsa siquidem communicationis & societatis restitutio ad rectam etiam veritatis viam perducere potest. Nemo cuiquam molestus sit, quisque quod animo destinat hoc etiam faciat.

And indeed there is great reason for Princes to give Toleration to disagreeing persons whose Opinions by fair means cannot be altered. For if the persons be confident, they will serve God according to their perswasions; and if they be publickly prohibited, they will privately convene: and then all th [...]se inconveniences and mischiefs which are Arguments against the permission of Conventicles are Arguments for the publick permissions of differing Religions, because the denying of the publick worship will certainly produce private Conventicles, against which all wise Princes and Commonwealths have upon great reasons made Edicts and severe Sanctions. Quicquid enim agitur absente Rege, in caput ejus plerumque redundat, say the Politicks. For the face of a man is as the face of a Lion, and scatters all base machinations, which breath not but in the dark. It is a proverbial saying, quôd nimia familiaritas servorum est conspiratio adversùs Dominum: and they who for their security run into grots and cellars and retirements, think that, they being upon the defensive, those Princes and those Laws that drive them to it are their enemies, and therefore they cannot be secure, unless the power of the one and the obligation of the other be lessened and rescinded; and then the being restrained and made miserable endears the discontented persons mutually, and makes more hearty and dangerous Confederations. King James of blessed memory, in his Letters to the States of the Vnited Provinces, dated 6. March 1613. thus wrote,—Magis autem è re fore si sopiantur authoritate publicâ, ità ut prohibeatis Ministros vestros nè eas disputationes in suggestum aut ad plebem ferant, ac districtè imperetis ut pacem colant se invicem tolerando in ista opinionum ac sententiarum discrepantia —Eóque justiùs videmur vobis hoc ipsum suadere debere, [Page]quòd neutram comperimus adeò deviam ut non possint & cum fidei Christianae veritate & cum animarum salute consistere, &c. The like counsel in the divisions of Germany at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperour Ferdinand, and his excellent Son Maximilian. For they had observed that violence did exasperate, was unblessed, unsuccessfull and unreasonable; and therefore they made Decrees of Toleration, and appointed tempers and expedients to be drawn up by discreet persons, and George Cassander was design'd to this great work, and did something towards it. And Emanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, repenting of his war undertaken for Religion against the Pedemontans, promised them Toleration, and was as good as his word. As much is done by the Nobility of Polonia. So that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities: but it is known that the first Persecutions of disagreeing persons were by the Arians, by the Circumcellians and Donatists; and from them they of the Church took examples, who in small numbers did sometime perswade it, sometime practise it. And among the Greeks it became a publick and authorized practice, till the Question of Images grew hot and high: for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empress Irene, who put her son's eyes out for making an Edict against Images, began to be as cruel as they were deceived; especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome, who then blew the coals to some purpose.

And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affair in the Church of Rome, it is remarkable, that till the time of Justinian the Emperour, A.D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome itself; but the Bishops of Rome, whose interest was much concerned in it, spoke much against it, and laboured the eradication of the Novatians, and at last, when they got power into their hands, they served them accordingly: but it is observed by Socrates, that when the first Persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent I. at the same instant the Goths invaded Italy, and became Lords of all; it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true belief, who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds do persecute an errour less material in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common Faith. And I have heard it observed as a blessing upon S. Austin, (who was so mercifull to erring persons, as the greatest part of his life in all senses, even when he had twice changed his minde, yet to tolerate them, and never to endure they should be given over to the Secular power to be killed) that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it he died and went to God, being (as a reward of his mercifull Doctrine) taken from the miseries to come. And yet that very thing was also a particular issue of the Divine Providence upon that City, who not long before had altered their profession into truth by force, and now were falling into their power who afterward by a greater force turned them to be Arians.

But in the Church of Rome the Popes were the first Preachers of force and violence in matters of Opinion, and that so zealously, that Pope Vigilius suffered himself to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperour Justinian, rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons. But as yet it came not so far as Death. The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick, the Founder of the Begging Orders of Friers, the [Page] Friers Preachers; in memory of which the Inquisition is intrusted onely to the Friers of his Order. And if there be any force in Dreams, or truth in Legends, (as there is not much in either,) this very thing might be signified by his Mother's dream, who the night before Dominick was born dreamed she was brought to bed of a huge Dog with a fire-brand in his mouth. Sure enough, however his Disciples expound the dream, it was a better sign that he should prove a rabid, furious Incendiary then any thing else: whatever he might be in the other parts of his life, in his Doctrine he was not much better; as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses, against whom he so preached, adeo quidem ut centum haereticorum millia ab octo millibus Catholicorum fusa & interfecta fuisse perhibeantur, saith one of him; and of those who were taken 180 were burnt to death,B. Bruno Berengarines è sua d [...]oe [...]eh expulit, non morti au [...] supplic [...]is corporalibus tradidit. because they would not abjure their Doctrine. This was the first example of putting erring persons to death that I find in the Roman Church. For about 170 years before Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they called Heresie, and recanted, and relapsed, and recanted again, and fell again two or three times, saith Gerson, writing against Romant of the Rose, and yet he died sicca morte, his own natural death, and with hope of Heaven, and yet Hildebrand was once his Judge: which shews that at that time Rome was not come to so great heights of bloudshed. In England, although the Pope had as great power here as any-where, yet there were no executions for matter of Opinion known till the time of Henry the fourth, who (because he usurped the Crown) was willing by all means to endear the Clergy by destroying their enemies, that so he might be sure of them to all his purposes. And indeed it may become them well enough who are wiser in their generations then the children of light, it may possibly serve the policies of evil persons, but never the pure and chast d [...]signs of Christianity, which admits no bloud but Christ's, and the imitating bloud of Martyrs, but knows nothing how to serve her ends by persecuting any of her erring Children.

By this time I hope it will not be thought reasonable to say, he that teaches mercy to erring persons teaches indifferency in Religion; unless so many Fathers, and so many Churches, and the best of Emperours, and all the world (till they were abused by Tyranny, Popery and Faction) did teach indifferency. For I have shewn that Christianity does not punish corporally persons erring spiritually, but indeed Popery does: the Donatists, and Circumcellians, and Arrians, and the Itaciani, they of old did: in the middle Ages the patrons of Images did, and the Papists at this day doe, and have done ever since they were taught it by their St. Dominick.

Seventhly, And yet after all this, I have something more to exempt my self from the clamour of this Objection. For let all Errours be as much and as zealously suppressed as may be, (the Doctrine of the following Discourse contradicts not that) but let it be done by such means as are proper instruments of their suppression, by Preaching and Disputation, (so that neither of them breed disturbance) by charity and sweetness, by holiness of life, assiduity of exhortation, by the word of God and prayer.

For these ways are most natural, most prudent, most peaceable and effectual. Onely let not men be hasty in calling every dislik'd Opinion by the name of Heresie; and when they have resolved that they will call it so, let them use the erring person like a brother, not beat him like a dog, or convince him with a gibbet, or vex him out of his understanding and perswasions.

[Page]And now if men will still say I perswade to indifferency, there is no help for me, for I have given reasons against it; I must bear it as well as I can; I am not yet without remedy, as they are; for patience will help me, and reason will not cure them, let them take their course, and I'le take mine.

Only I will take leave to consider this (and they would do well to do so too) that unless Faith be kept within its own latitude, and not call'd out to patrocinate every less necessary Opinion, and the interest of every Sect or peevish person; and if damnation be pronounced against Christians believing the Creed, and living good lives, because they are deceived, or are said to be deceived, in some Opinions less necessary; there is no way in the world to satisfie unlearned persons in the choice of their Religion, or to appease the unquietness of a scrupulous Conscience. For suppose an honest Citizen, whose imployment and parts will not enable him to judge the disputes and arguings of great Clerks, sees Factions commenced and managed with much bitterness by persons who might on either hand be fit enough to guide him; when if he follows either, he is disquieted and pronounced damned by the other, (who also, if he be the most unreasonable in his Opinion, will perhaps be more furious in his sentence) what shall this man do? where shall he rest the soal of his foot? Vpon the Doctrine of the Church where he lives? Well, but that he hears declaimed against perpetually, and other Churches claim highly and pretend fairly for truth, and condemn his Church. If I tell him that he must live a good life, and believe the Creed, and not trouble himself with their disputes, or interest himself in Sects and Factions, I speak reason; because no Law of God ties him to believe more then what is of essential necessity, and whatsoever he shall come to know to be revealed by God: Now if he believes his Creed, he believes all that is necessary to all, or of it self; and if he do his moral endeavour beside, he can do no more toward finding out all the rest, and then he is secured. But then, if this will secure him, why do men press farther, and pretend every Opinion as necessary, and that in so high a degree, that if they all said true, or any two indeed of them, in 500 Sects which are in the world, (and for ought I know there may be 5000) it is 500 to one but that every man is damned; for every Sect damns all but itself, and that is damn'd of 499, and it is excellent fortune then if that escape. And there is the same reason in every one of them, that is, it is extreme unreasonableness in all of them to pronounce damnation against such persons against whom clearly and dogmatically Holy Scripture hath not. In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur, in favoribus quod est maximum, saith the Law; and therefore we should say any thing, or make any excuse that is in any degree reasonable, rather then condemn all the world to Hell; especially if we consider these two things, that we ourselves are as apt to be deceived as any are; and that they who are deceived, when they used their moral industry that they might not be deceived, if they perish for this, they perish for what they could not help.

But however, if the best security in the World be not in neglecting all Sects and subdivisions of men, and fixing ourselves on points necessary and plain, and on honest and pious endeavours according to our several capacities and opportunities for all the rest, if I say, all this be not through the mercies of God the best security to all unlearned persons, and learned too, where shall we fix? where shall we either have peace or security? If you bid me follow your Doctrine, you must tell me why; and perhaps when you have, I am [Page] not able to judge; or if I be as able as other people are, yet when I have judged I may be deceived too, and so may you, or any man else you bid me follow; so that I am not whit the nearer truth or peace.

And then if we look abroad, and consider how there is scarce any Church but is highly charg'd by many adversaries in many things, possibly we may see a reason to charge every one of them in some things; and what shall we doe then? The Church of Rome hath spots enough, and all the world is inquisitive enough to find out more, and to represent these to her greatest disadvantage. The Greek Churches denies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son: If that be false Doctrine, she is highly to blame; if it be not, then all the Western Churches are to blame for saying the contrary. And there is no Church that is in prosperity but alters her Doctrine every Age, either by bringing in new Doctrines, or by contradicting her old; which shews that none are satisfied with themselves, or with their own Confessions. And since all Churches believe themselves fallible, that only excepted which all other Churches say is most of all deceived, it were strange if in so many Articles which make up their several bodies of Confessions they had not mistaken every one of them in some thing or other. The Lutheran Churches maintain Consubstantiation, the Zuinglians are Sacramentaries, the Calvinists are fierce in the matters of absolute Predetermination, and all these reject Episcopacy; which the Primitive Church would have made no doubt to have called Heresie. The Socinians profess a portentous number of strange Opinions; they deny the Holy Trinity, and the Satisfaction of our Blessed Saviour. The Anabaptists laugh at Paedo-baptism: the Ethiopian Churches are Nestorian. Where then shall we fix our confidence, or joyn Communion? To pitch upon any one of these is to throw the Dice, if Salvation be to be had onely in one of them, and that every errour that by chance hath made a Sect, and is distinguished by a name, be damnable.

If this consideration does not deceive me, we have no other help in the midst of these distractions and dis-unions, but all of us to be united in that common term, which as it does constitute the Church in its being such, so it is the Medium of the Communion of Saints; and that is the Creed of the Apostles, and in all other things an honest endeavour to find out Clem. Alex. stromat. 1. ait Philosophiam liberam esse praestantissimam, quae scil. versatur in perspicaciter seligendis dogmatis omnium Sectarum. Polamo Alexdrimus philosophatus est, ut ait Laertius in Proaemio, unde cognominatus est, [...], scil. [...]. what Truths we can, and a charitable and and mutual permission to others that disagree from us and our Opinions. I am sure this may satisfie us, for it will secure us; but I know not any thing else that will: and no man can be reasonably prswaded or satisfied in any else, unless he throws himself upon chance, or absolute predestination, or his own confidence; in every one of which it is two to one at least but he may miscarry.

Thus far I thought I had reason on my side, and I suppose I have made it good upon its proper grounds in the pages following. But then if the result be, that men must be permitted in their Opinions, and that Christians must not persecute Christians; I have also as much reason to reprove all those oblique Arts which are not direct Persecutions of mens persons, but they are indirect proceedings, ungentle and unchristian, servants of faction and interest, provocations to zeal and animosities, and destructive of learning and ingenuity. And these are, suppressing all the monuments of their Adversaries, forcing them to recant, and burning their Books.

For it is a strange industry and an importune diligence that was used by our [Page] fore-fathers; of all those Heresies which gave them battel and imployment we have absolutely no Record or Monument, but what themselves who are adversaries have transmitted to us; and we know that Adversaries, especially such who observed all opportunities to discredit both the persons and Doctrines of the Enemy, are not alwaies the best records or witnesses of such transactions. We see it now in this very Age, in the present Distemperatures, that parties are no good Registers of the actions of the adverse side: And if we cannot be confident of the truth of a story now, now I say that it is possible for any man, and likely that the interessed adversary will discover the imposture, it is far more unlikely that after-Ages should know any other truth but such as serves the ends of the representers. I am sure such things were never taught us by Christ and his Apostles: and if we were sure that our selves spoke truth, or that truth were able to justifie herself, it were better if, to preserve a Doctrine, we did not destroy a Commandment, and out of zeal pretending to Christian Religion lose the glories and rewards of ingenuity and Christian simplicity.

Of the same consideration is mending of Authors, not to their own mind, but to ours, that is, to mend them so as to spoil them; forbidding the publication of Books in which there is nothing impious or against the publick interest, leaving out clauses in Translations, disgracing mens persons, charging disavowed Doctrines upon men, and the persons of the men with the consequents of their Doctrine, which they deny either to be true or to be consequent, false reporting of Disputations and Conferences, burning Books by the hand of the hang-man, and all such Arts, which shew that we either distrust God for the maintenance of his truth, or that we distrust the cause, or distrust our selves and our abilities. I will say no more of these, but only concerning the last I shall transcribe a passage out of Tacitus in the life of Julius Agricola, who gives this account of it: Veniam non petissem nisi incursaturus tam saeva & infesta virtutibus tempora. Legimus, cùm Aruleno Rustico Paetus Thrasea, Herennio Senecioni Priscus Helvidius laudati essent, capitale fuisse, neque in ipsos modo authores, sed in libros quoque eorum, saevitum, delegato Triumviris ministerio ut monumenta clarissimorum ingeniorum in comitio ac foro urerentur: scil. illo igne vocem populi Rom. & libertatem Senatus & conscientiam generis humani aboleri arbitrabantur, expulsis insuper sapientiae professoribus, atque omni bona arte in exilium acta, ne quid usquam honestum occurreret. It is but an illiterate policy to think that such indirect and uningenuous proceedings can among wise and free men disgrace the Authors, and disrepute their Discourses. And I have seen that the price hath been trebled upon a forbidden or a condemn'd Book; and some men in policy have got a prohibition, that their impression might be the more certainly vendible, and the Author himself thought considerable.

The best way is to leave tricks and devices, and to fall upon that way which the best Ages of the Church did use. With the strength of Argument, and Allegations of Scripture, and modesty of deportment, and meekness and charity to the persons of men, they converted misbelievers, stopped the mouths of Adversaries, asserted Truth, and discountenanced errour; and those other stratagems and Arts of support and maintenance to Doctrines, were the issues of Heretical brains. The old Catholicks had nothing to secure themselves but the [...] of truth and plain dealing.

[Page]

Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus,

Ut quisque lingua est nequior.

Solvunt ligantque quaestionum vincula

Per syllogismos plectiles.

Vae captiosis Sycophantarum strophis,

Vae versipelli astutiae.

Nodos tenaces recta rumpit regula

Infesta discertantibus:

Idcirco mundi stulta deligit Deus,

Ut concidant Sophistica.

And, to my understanding, it is a plain art and design of the Devil, to make us so in love with our own Opinions as to call them Faith and Religion, that we may be proud in our understanding: and besides that by our zeal in our Opinions, we grow cool in our piety and practical duties; he also by this earnest contention does directly destroy good life, by engagement of Zealots to do any thing rather then be overcome and lose their beloved Propositions. But I would fain know, why is not any vitious habit as bad or worse then a false Opinion? Why are we so zealous against those we call Hereticks, and yet great friends with drunkards, fornicatours, and swearers, and intemperate and idle persons? Is it because we are commanded by the Apostle to reject a Heretick after two admonitions, and not bid such a one God speed? It is good reason why we should be zealous against such persons, provided we mistake them not. For those of whom these Apostles speak, are such as deny Christ to be come in the flesh, such as deny an Article of Creed; and in such odious things it is not safe nor charitable to extend the Gravamen and punishment beyond the instances the Apostles make, or their exact parallels. But then also it would be remembred that the Apostles speak as fiercely against communion with Fornicatours, and all disorders practical, as against communion with Hereticks: If any man that is called a brother be a Fornicatour, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one no not to eat. I am certain that a drunkard is as contrary to God, and lives as contrary to the Laws of Christianity, as an Heretick; and I am also sure that I know what drunkenness is: but I am not sure that such an Opinion is Heresie; neither would other men be so sure as they think for, if they did consider it aright, and observe the infinite deceptions, and causes of deceptions, in wise men, and in most things, and in all doubtful Questions, and that they did not mistake confidence for certainty.

But indeed I could not but smile at those jolly Friers; two Franciscans offered themselves to the fire to prove Savonarola to be a Heretick;Commin. l. [...]. c. 19. but a certain Jacobine offered himself to the fire to prove that Savonarola had true Revelations, and was no Heretick: in the mean time Savonarola preacht, but made no such confident offer, nor durst he venture at that new kind of fire Ordeal. And put case all four had past through the fire, and died in the flames, what would that have proved? Had he been a Heretick or no Heretick, the more or less, for the confidence of these zealous Ideots? If we mark it, a great many Arguments whereon many Sects rely, are no better probation then this comes to. Confidence is the first, and the second, and the third part of a very great many of their propositions.

But now if men would a little turn the Tables, and be as zealous for a good [Page] life and all the strictest precepts of Christianity, (which is a Religion the most holy, the most reasonable, and the most consummate that ever was taught to man) as they are for such Propositions in which neither the life nor the ornament of Christianity is concerned, we should find that, as a consequent of this piety, men would be as carefull as they could to find out all Truths, and the sence of all Revelations which may concern their duty; and where men were miserable and could not, yet others that lived good lives too would also be so charitable, as not to adde affliction to this misery: and both of them are parts of good life. To be compassionate, and to help to bear one another's burthens, not to destroy the weak, but to entertain him meekly, that's a precept of charity; and to edeavour to find out the whole will of God, that also is a part of the obedience, the choice and the excellency of Faith: and he lives not a good life that does not doe both these.

But men think they have more reason to be zealous against Heresie then against a vice in manners, because Heresie is infectious and dangerous, and the principle of much evil. Indeed if by an Heresie we mean that which is against an Article of Creed, and breaks part of the Covenant made between God and man by the mediation of Jesus Christ, I grant it to be a very grievous crime, a calling God's veracity into question, and a destruction also of good life, because upon the Articles of Creed obedience is built, and it lives or dies, as the effect does by its proper cause, for Faith is the moral cause of obedience. But then Heresie, that is such as this, is also a vice, and the person criminal, and so the sin is to be esteemed in its degrees of malignity; and let men be as zealous against it as they can, and employ the whole Arsenal of the spiritual armour against it: such as this is worse then adultery or murther, inasmuch as the Soul is more noble then the Body, and a false Doctrine is of greater dissemination and extent then a single act of violence or impurity. Adultery or murther is a duel; but Heresie (truly and indeed such) is an unlawful war, it slays thousands. The losing of Faith, is like digging down a foundation; all the superstructures of hope and patience and charity fall with it. And besides this, Heresie of all crimes is the most inexcusable, and of least temptation: for true Faith is most commonly kept with the least trouble of any grace in the world; and Heresie of itself hath not onely no pleasure in it, but is a very punishment: because Faith, as it opposes heretical or false Opinions, and distinguishes from charity, consists in mere acts of believing; which, because they are of true Propositions, are natural and proportionable to the understanding, and more honourable then false. But then concerning those things which men now a-days call Heresie, they cannot be so formidable as they are represented; and if we consider that drunkenness is certainly a damnable sin, and that there are more drunkards then Hereticks, and that drunkenness is parent of a thousand vices, it may better be said of this vice then of most of those opinions which we call Heresies, it is infectious and dangerous, and the principle of much evil, and therefore as fit an object for a pious zeal to contest against, as is any of those Opinions which trouble mens ease or reputation, for that is the greatest of their malignity.

But if we consider that Sects are made and Opinions are called Heresies upon interest, and the grounds of emolument, we shall see that a good life would cure much of this mischief. For First, the Church of Rome, which is the great Dictatrix of dogmatical Resolutions, and the declarer of Heresie, and calls Heretick more then all the world besides, hath made that the rule of Heresie [Page] which is the conservatory of interest and the ends of men. For to recede from the Doctrine of the Church, with them makes Heresie; that is, to disrepute their Authority, and not to obey them, not to be their subjects, not to give them the empire of our Conscience, is the great [...] of Heresie.

So that with them Heresie is to be esteemed clearly by humane ends, not by Divine Rules; that is formal Heresie which does materially disserve them. And it would make a suspicious man a little inquisitive into their particular Doctrines, and when he finds that Indulgences, and Jubilees, and Purgatories, and Masses, and Offices for the dead, are very profitable; that the Doctrine of Primacy, of Infallibility, of Superiority over Councils, of indirect power in temporals, are great instruments of secular honour; he would be apt enough to think that if the Church of Rome would learn to lay her honour at the feet of the Crucifix, and despise the world, and prefer Jerusalem before Rome, and Heaven above the Lateran, that these Opinions would not have in them any native strength to support them against the perpetual assaults of 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.

[Page]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.

Aristoph. in Pluto.

[...],

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 [...],2 Tim. 2. (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, Retinuítque (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 [Page] 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 Lordship knows your own: for out of your Mines I have digg'd the Mineral; onely I have stampt it with my own image, as you may perceive by the deformities which are in it. But your great Name in letters will adde so much value to it, as to make it obtain its pardon amongst all them that know how to value you, and all your relatives and dependants by the proportion of relation. For others I shall be incurious, because the number of them that honour you is the same with them that honour Learning and Piety, and they are the best Theatre and the best Judges; amongst which the world must needs take notice of my ambition, to be ascribed by my publick pretence to be what I am in all heartiness of devotion, and for all the reason of the world,

My Honoured Lord,

Your Lordship's most faithfull and most affectionate Servant, JER. TAYLOR.

ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΕΚΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ, Or, A DISCOURSE OF THE Liberty of Prophesying, With its just Limits and Temper.

[Page]

[Page]

THe infinite variety of Opinions in matters of Religion as they have troubled Christendome with Interests, Factions and partialities, so have they caused great divisions of the heart, and variety of thoughts and designs amongst pious and prudent men. For they all seeing the inconveniences which the Disunion of Perswasions and Opinions have produced directly or accidentally, have thought themselves obliged to stop this inundation of mischiefs, and have made attempts accordingly. But it hath hapned to most of them as to a mistaken Physician, who gives excellent physick, but mis-applies it, and so misses of his cure: so have these men, their attempts have therefore been ineffectual: for they put their help to a wrong part; or they have endeavoured to cure the symptoms, and have let the disease alone till it seem'd incurable. Some have endeavoured to re-unite these fractions by propounding such a Guide which they were all bound to follow; hoping that the Unity of a Guide would have perswaded Unity of mindes; but who this Guide should be at last became such a Question, that it was made part of the fire that was to be quenched, so far was it from extinguishing any part of the flame. Others thought of a Rule, and this must be the means of Union, or nothing could doe it. But supposing all the World had been agreed of this Rule, yet the interpretation of it was so full of variety, that this also became part of the disease for which the cure was pretended. All men resolv'd upon this, that though they yet had not hit upon the right, yet some way must be thought upon to reconcile differences in Opinion, thinking so long as this variety should last, Christ's Kingdom was not advanced, and the work of the Gospell went on but slowly. Few men in the mean time considered, that so long as men had such variety of principles, such several constitutions, educations, tempers and distempers, hopes, interests and weaknesses, degrees of light and degrees of understanding, it was impossible all should be of one mind. And what is impossible to be done is not necessary it should be done. And therefore although variety of Opinions was impossible to be cured, (and they who attempted it did like him who claps his shoulder to the ground to stop an earth-quake;) yet the inconveniences arising from it might possibly be cured, not by uniting their beliefs, that was to be despair'd of, but by curing that which caus'd these mischiefs, and accidental inconveniences of their disagreeings. For although these inconveniences which every man sees and feels were consequent to this diversity of Perswasions, yet it was but accidentally and by chance, inasmuch as we see that in many things, and they of great concernment, men allow to themselves and to each other a liberty of disagreeing, and no hurt neither. And certainly if diversity of Opinions were of itself the cause of mischiefs, it would be so ever, that is, regularly and universally: but that we see it is not. For there are disputes in Christendome concerning matters of greater concernment then most of those Opinions that distinguish Sects and make Factions; and yet because men are permitted to differ in those great matters, such evils are not consequent to such differences, as are to the uncharitable managing of smaller and more inconsiderable Questions. It is of greater consequence to believe right in the Question of the validity [Page] or invalidity of a death-bed repentance, then to believe aright in the Question of Purgatory; and the consequences of the Doctrine of Predetermination are of deeper and more material consideration then the products of the belief of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of private Masses: and yet these great concernments, where a liberty of Prophesying in these Questions hath been permitted, have made no distinct Communion, no Sects of Christians, and the others have; and so have these too in those places where they have peremptorily been determined on either side. Since then, if men are quiet and charitable in some dis-agreeings, that then and there the inconvenience ceases; if they were so in all others where lawfully they might, (and they may in most,) Christendome should be no longer rent in pieces, but would be redintegrated in a new Pentecost. And although the Spirit of God did rest upon us in divided tongues; yet so long as those tongues were of fire not to kindle strife, but to warm our affections, and inflame our charities, we should find that this variety of Opinions in several persons would be lookt upon as an argument onely of diversity of Operations, while the Spirit is the same: and that another man believes not so well as I, is onely an argument that I have a better and a clearer illumination then he, that I have a better gift then he, received a special grace and favour, and excell him in this, and am perhaps excelled by him in many more. And if we all impartially endeavour to find a truth, since this indeavour and search onely is in our power, that we shall find it being ab extra, a gift and an assistance extrinsecal, I can see no reason why this pious endeavour to find out truth shall not be of more force to unite us in the bonds of charity, then the misery in missing it shall be to dis-unite us. So that since a union of perswasion is impossible to be attained, if we would attempt the cure by such remedies as are apt to enkindle and encrease charity, I am confident we might see a blessed peace would bee the reward and crown of such endeavours.

But men are now adays and indeed always have been, since the expiration of the first blessed Ages of Christianity, so in love with their own Fancies and Opinions, as to think Faith and all Christendome is concern'd in their support and maintenance, and whoever is not so fond and does not dandle them like themselves, it grows up to a quarrel, which because it is in materiâ theologiae is made a quarrel in Religion, and God is entitled to it; and then if you are once thought an enemy to God, it is our duty to persecute you even to death, we do God good service in it; when if we should examine the matter rightly, the Question is either in materiâ non revelata, or minus evidenti, or non necessariâ, either it is not revealed, or not so clearly, but that wise and honest men may be of different mindes, or else it is not of the foundation of faith, but a remote super-structure, or else of mere speculation, or perhaps when all comes to all, it is a false Opinion, or a matter of humane interest, that we have so zealously contended for; for to one of these heads most of the Disputes of Christendome may be reduced; so that I believe the present fractions (or the most) are from the same cause which S. Paul observed in the Corinthian Schism, when there are divisions among you, are ye not carnal? It is not the differing Opinions that is the cause of the present ruptures, but want of charity; it is not the variety of understandings, but the disunion of wills and affections; it is not the several principles, but the several ends that cause our miseries; our Opinions commence, and are upheld according as our turns are served and our interests are preserved, and there is no cure for us, but Piety and Charity. A holy life will make our belief holy, if we consult not humanity and its imperfections in the choice of our Religion, but search for truth without designes, save onely of acquiring heaven, and then be as careful to preserve Charity, as we were to get a point of Faith; I am much perswaded we shall find out more truths by this means; or however (which is the main of all) we shall be secured though we miss them; and then we are well enough.

For if it be evinced that one heaven shall hold men of several Opinions, if the unity of Faith be not destroyed by that which men call differing Religions, and if an unity of Charity be the duty of us all even towards persons that are not perswaded of every proposition we believe, then I would fain know to what purpose are all those stirrs, and great noises in Christendome; those names of Faction, the several Names of Churches not distinguished by the division of Kingdomes, ut Ecclesia sequatur Imperium, which was the Primitive Optat. lib. 3. Rule and Canon, but distinguished by Names of Sects and men; these are all become instruments of hatred, thence come Schisms and parting of Communions, and then persecutions, and then warrs and Rebellion, and then the dissolutions of all Friendships and Societies. All these mischiefs proceed not from this, that all men are not of one mind, for that is neither necessary nor [Page] possible, but that every Opinion is made an Article of Faith, every Article is a ground of a quarrel, every quarrel makes a faction, every faction is zealous, and all zeal pretends for God, and whatsoever is for God cannot be too much; we by this time are come to that pass, we think we love not God except we hate our Brother, and we have not the vertue of Religion, unless we persecute all Religions but our own; for lukewarmness is so odious to God and Man, that we proceeding furiously upon these mistakes; by supposing we preserve the body, we destroy the soul of Religion, or by being zealous for faith, or which is all one, for that which we mistake for faith, we are cold in charity, and so lose the reward of both.

All these errours and mischiefs must be discovered and cured, and that's the purpose of this Discourse.

SECT. I. Of the nature of Faith, and that its duty is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed.

1. FIrst then it is of great concernment to know the nature and integrity of Faith: For there begins our first and great mistake; for Faith, although it be of great excellency, yet when it is taken for a habit intellectual, it hath so little room and so narrow a capacity, that it cannot lodge thousands of those Opinions which pretend to be of her Family.

2. For although it be necessary for us to believe whatsoever we know to be revealed of God, and so every man does, that believes there is a God: yet it is not necessary, concerning many things, to know that God hath revealed them, that is, we may be ignorant of, or doubt concerning the propositions, and indifferently maintain either part, when the Question is not concerning Gods veracity, but whether God hath said so or no: That which is of the foundation of Faith, that only is necessary; and the knowing or not knowing of that, the believing or dis-believing it, is that only which in genere credendorum, is in immediate and necessary order to salvation or damnation.

3. Now all the reason and demonstration of the World convinces us, that this foundation of Faith, or the great adequate object of the Faith that saves us, is that great mysteriousness of Christianity which Christ taught with so much diligence, for the credibility of which he wrought so many miracles; for the testimony of which the Apostles endured persecutions; that which was a folly to the Gentiles, and a scandal to the Jews, this is that which is the object of a Christians Faith: All other things are implicitely in the belief of the Articles of Gods veracity, and are not necessary in respect of the Constitution of faith to be drawn out, but may there lie in the bowels of the great Articles without danger to any thing or any person, unless some other accident or circumstance makes them necessary: Now the great object which I speak of, is Jesus Christ crucified; Constitui enim apud vos nihil scire praeter Jesum Christum & hunc crucifixum; so said St. Paul to the Church of Corinth: This is the Article upon the Confession of which Christ built his Church, viz. only upon St. Peters Creed, which was no more but this simple enunciation,Matth. 16.19. We believe and are sure that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God: And to this salvation particularly is promised, as in the case of Martha's Creed, John 11.27. To this the Scripture gives the greatest Testimony, and to all them that confess it;1 John 4.2, 15. For every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And whoever confesseth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God: The believing this Article is the end of writing the four Gospels: For all these things are written, that ye might believe, John 20.31. that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and then that this is sufficient follows, and that believing, viz. this Article (for this was only instanced in) ye might have life through his name: This is that great Article which in genere credendorum, is sufficient disposition to prepare a Catechumen to Baptism, as appears in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, whose Creed was only this, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and upon this confession (saith the story) they both went into the water, and the Ethiop was washed, and became as white as snow.

[Page]4. In these particular instances, there is no variety of Articles, save only that in the annexes of the several expressions, such things are expressed, as besides that Christ is come, they tell from whence, and to what purpose: And whatsoever is expressed, or is to these purposes implyed, is made articulate and explicate, in the short and admirable mysterious Creed of St. Paul, Rom. 10.1. This is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: This is the great and entire complexion of a Christian's faith, and since salvation is promised to the belief of this Creed, either a snare is laid for us, with a purpose to deceive us, or else nothing is of prime and original necessity to be believed, but this, Jesus Christ our Redeemer; and all that which is the necessary parts, means, or main actions of working this redemption for us, and the honour for him is in the bowels and fold of the great Article, and claims an explicite belief by the same reason that binds us to the belief of its first complexion, without which neither the thing could be acted, nor the proposition understood.

5. For the act of believing propositions, is not for it self, but in order to certain ends; as Sermons are to good life and obedience; for (excepting that it acknowledges Gods veracity, and so is a direct act of Religion) believing a revealed proposition hath no excellency in its self, but in order to that end for which we are instructed in such revelations. Now Gods great purpose being to bring us to him by Jesus Christ, Christ is our medium to God, obedience is the medium to Christ, and Faith the medium to obedience, and therefore is to have its estimate in proportion to its proper end, and those things are necessary, which necessarily promote the end, without which obedience cannot be encouraged, or prudently enjoyned: So that those articles are necessary, that is, those are fundamental points, upon which we build our obedience; and as the influence of the Article is to the perswasion or engagement of obedience, so they have their degrees of necessity. Now all that Christ, when he preached, taught us to believe, and all that the Apostles in their Sermons propound, all aim at this, that we should acknowledge Christ for our Law-giver and our Saviour; so that nothing can be necessary by a prime necessity to be believed explicitely, but such things which are therefore parts of the great Article, because they either encourage our services, or oblige them, such as declare Christs greatness in himself, or his goodness to us: So that although we must neither deny nor doubt of any thing, which we know our great Master hath taught us: yet salvation is in special and by name annexed to the belief of those Articles only, which have in them the endearments of our services, or the support of our confidence, or the satisfaction of our hopes, such as are; Jesus Christ the Son of the living God, the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, forgiveness of sins by his bloud, Resurrection of the dead, and life eternal, because these propositions qualifie Christ for our Saviour and our Law-Giver, the one to engage our services, the other to endear them; for so much is necessary as will make us to be his servants, and his Disciples; and what can be required more? This only. Salvation is promised to the explicite belief of those Articles, and therefore those only are necessary, and those are sufficient; but thus, to us in the formality of Christians, which is a formality superadded to a former capacity, we before we are Christians are reasonable creatures, and capable of a blessed eternity, and there is a Creed which is the Gentiles Creed, which is so supposed in the Christians Creed, as it is supposed in a Christian to be a man, and that is, oportet accedentem ad Deum credere Deum esse, & esse remuneratorem quaerentium eum.

If any man will urge farther, that whatsoever is deducible from these Articles by necessary consequence, is necessary to be believed explicitely: I answer. It is true, if he sees the deduction and coherence of the parts, but it is not certain that every man shall be able to deduce whatsoever is either immediately, or certainly deducible from these premises; and then since salvation is promised to the explicite belief of these, I see not how any man can justifie the making the way to heaven narrower than Jesus Christ hath made it, it being already so narrow, that there are few that find it.

7. In the pursuance of this great truth, the Apostles or the holy men, their Contemporaries and Disciples, composed a Creed, to be a Rule of Faith to all Christians, as appears in Irenaeus, Apol. contr. Gent. c. 47. de veland. virg. c. 1. Tertullian, In exposit. Symbol. St. Cyprian, Serm. 5. de tempore, c. 2. St. Austin, In Symbol. apud Cyprian. Ruffinus, and divers Omnes Orthodoxi Patres affirmant Symbolum ab ipsis Apostolis conditum, Sext. Senensis, lib. 2. bibl. 5. vide Genebr. l. 3. de Trin. others; which Creed unless it had contained all the intire object of Faith, and the foundation of Religion, it cannot be imagined to what purpose it should serve; and that it was so esteemed by the whole Church of God in all Ages, appears in this, that since Faith is a necessary pre-disposition to Baptism in all persons capable of the use of reason, all Catechumens in the Latine Church coming to Baptism, were interrogated [Page] concerning their faith, and gave satisfaction in the recitation of this Creed. And in the East they professed exactly the same faith, something differing in words, but of the same matter, reason, design, and consequence; and so they did at Hierusalem, so at Aquileia: This was that [...]. These articles were [...]. L. 5. Cod. de S. Trinit. ad fid. Cath. Cùm recta. Now since the Apostles and Apostolical men and Churches in these their Symbols, did recite particular Articles to a considerable number, and were so minute in their recitation, as to descend to circumstances, it is more than probable that they omitted nothing of necessity; and that these Articles are not general principles, in the bosom of which many more Articles equally necessary to be believed explicitely and more particular, are infolded; but that it is as minute an explication of those prima credibilia I before reckoned, as is necessary to salvation.

And therefore Tertullian calls the Creed Regulam fidei, quâ salvâ & formâ ejus manente in suo ordine, possit in Scriptura tractari & inquiri si quid videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari. Cordis signaculum & nostrae militiae Sacramentum, S. Ambrose calls it, lib. 3. de velandis virgin. Comprehensio fidei nostrae atque perfectio, by S. Austin, Serm. 115. Confessio, expositio, regula fidei, generally by the Ancients: The profession of this Creed, was the exposition of that saying of Saint Peter, [...], The answer of a good conscience towards God. For of the recitation and profession of this Creed in Baptism, it is that Tertullian de resur. carnis says, Anima non lotione, sed responsione sancitur. And of this was the prayer of Hilary, lib. 12. de Trinit. Conserva hanc conscientiae meae vocem ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo baptizatus in Patre, Filio, Spir. S. professus sum semper obtineam. And according to the rule and reason of this Discourse (that it may appear that the Creed hath in it all Articles primò & per se, primely and universally necessary) the Creed is just such an explication of that Faith which the Apostles preached, viz. the Creed which St. Paul recites, as contains in it all those things which entitle Christ to us in the capacities of our Law-giver and our Saviour, such as enable him to the great work of redemption, according to the predictions concerning him, and such as engage and encourage our services. For, taking out the Article of Christs descent into Hell (which was not in the old Creed, as appears in some of the Copies I before referred to, in Tertullian, Ruffinus, and Irenaeus; and indeed was omitted in all the Confessions of the Eastern Churches, in the Church of Rome, and in the Nicene Creed, which by adoption came to be the Creed of the Catholick Church) all other Articles are such as directly constitute the parts and work of our redemption, such as clearly derive the honour to Christ, and enable him with the capacities of our Saviour and Lord. The rest engage our services by proposition of such Articles which are rather promises than propositions; and the whole Creed, take it in any of the old Forms, is but an Analysis of that which St. Paul calls the word of salvation, whereby we shall be saved, viz. that we confess Jesus to be Lord, and that God raised him from the dead: by the first whereof he became our Law-giver and our Guardian; by the second he was our Saviour: the other things are but parts and main actions of those two. Now what reason there is in the world that can inwrap any thing else within the foundation, that is, in the whole body of Articles simply and inseparably necessary, or in the prime original necessity of Faith, I cannot possibly imagine. These do the work, and therefore nothing can upon the true grounds of reason enlarge the necessity to the inclosure of other Articles.

9. Now if more were necessary than the Articles of the Creed, I demand why was it made the Vide Isidor. de eccl. offic. lib. 1. cap. 20. Suidan. Turnebum. lib. 2. c. 30. advers. Venant. For. in Exag. Symb. Fevardent. in Iren. lib. 1. c. 2. Characteristick note of a Christian from a Heretick, or a Jew, or an Infidel? or to what purpose was it composed? Or if this was intended as sufficient, did the Apostles, or those Churches which they founded, know any thing else to be necessary? If they did not, then either nothing more is necessary (I speak of matters of meer belief) or they did not know all the will of the Lord, and so were unfit Dispensers of the mysteries of the Kingdom; or if they did know more was necessary, and yet would not insert it, they did an act of publick notice, and consign'd it to all Ages of the Church to no purpose, unless to beguile credulous people by making them believe their faith was sufficient, having tried it by that touch-stone Apostolical, when there was no such matter.

10. But if this was sufficient to bring men to heaven then, why not now? If the Apostles admitted all to their Communion that believed this Creed, why shall we exclude any that preserve the same intire? Why is not our faith of these Articles of as much efficacy for bringing us to heaven, as it was in the Churches Apostolical? Who [Page] had guides more infallible that might without errour have taught them superstructures enough, if they had been necessary: and so they did; But that they did not insert them into the Creed, when they might have done it with as much certainty, as these Articles, makes it clear to my understanding, that other things were not necessary, but these were; that whatever profit and advantages might come from other Articles, yet these were sufficient, and however certain persons might accidentally be obliged to believe much more, yet this was the one and only foundation of Faith upon which all persons were to build their hopes of Heaven; this was therefore necessary to be taught to all, because of necessity to be believed by all: So that although other persons might commit a delinquency in genere morum, if they did not know or did not believe much more, because they were obliged to further disquisitions in order to other ends, yet none of these who held the Creed intire, could perish for want of necessary faith, though possibly he might for supine negligence or affected ignorance, or some other fault which had influence upon his opinions, and his understanding, he having a new supervening obligation ex accidente to know and believe more.

11. Neither are we oblig'd to make these Articles more particular and minute than the Creed. For since the Apostles and indeed our blessed Lord himself promised heaven to them who believed him to be the Christ that was to come into the World, and that he who believes in him, should be partaker of the resurrection and life eternal, he will be as good as his word: yet because this Article was very general, and a complexion rather than a single proposition; the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicite, & though they have said no more than what lay entire and ready form'd in the bosom of the great Article, yet they made their extracts, to great purpose, and absolute sufficiency, and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the first great Article, than the Creed of the Apostles. For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicite, is as certainly true, and as much to be believed as the Article it self, because ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi, yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain, and what one calls evident, is so obscure to another that he believes it is false; it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made, because if any of these Apostolical deductions were not demonstrable evidently to follow from that great Article to which salvation is promised, yet the authority of them who compil'd the Symbol, the plain description of the Articles from the words of Scriptures, the evidence of reason demonstrating these to be the whole foundation, are sufficient upon great grounds of reason to ascertain us; but if we go farther, besides the easiness of being deceived, we relying upon our own discourses, (which though they may be true and then bind us to follow them, but yet no more than when they only seem truest,) yet they cannot make the thing certain to another, much less necessary in it self. And since God would not bind us upon pain of sin and punishment, to make deductions our selves, much less would he bind us to follow another mans Logick as an Article of our Faith; I say much less another mans; for our own integrity (for we will certainly be true to our selves, and do our own business heartily) is as fit and proper to be imployed as another mans ability. He cannot secure me that his ability is absolute and the greatest, but I can be more certain that my own purposes and fidelity to my self is such. And since it is necessary to rest somewhere, lest we should run to an infinity, it is best to rest there where the Apostles and the Churches Apostolical rested; when not only they who are able to judge, but others who are not, are equally ascertained of the certainty and of the sufficiency of that explication.

12. This I say, not that I believe it unlawful or unsafe for the Church or any of the Antistites religionis, or any wise man to extend his own Creed to any thing may certainly follow from any one of the Articles; but I say, that no such deduction is fit to be prest on others as an Article of Faith; and that every deduction which is so made, unless it be such a thing as is at first evident to all, is but sufficient to make a humane Faith, nor can it amount to a divine, much less can be obligatory to bind a person of a differing perswasion to subscribe under pain of losing his Faith, or being a Heretick. For it is a demonstration, that nothing can be necessary to be believed under pain of damnation, but such propositions of which it is certain that God hath spoken and taught them to us, and of which it is certain that this is their sence and purpose: For if the sence be uncertain, we can no more be obliged to believe it in a certain sence, than we are to believe it at all, if it were not certain that God delivered it. But if it be only certain that God spake it, and not certain to what sence, our faith of it is [Page] to be as indeterminate as its sence, and it can be no other in the nature of the thing, nor is it consonant to Gods justice to believe of him that he can or will require more. And this is of the nature of those propositions which Aristotle calls [...], to which without any further probation, all wise men will give assent at its first publication. And therefore deductions inevident, from the evident and plain letter of Faith, are as great recessions from the obligation, as they are from the simplicity, and certainty of the Article. And this I also affirm, although the Church of any one denomination, or represented in a Council, shall make the deduction or declaration. For unless Christ had promised his Spirit to protect every particular Church from all errours less material, unless he had promised an absolute universal infallibility etiam in minutioribus, unless super-structures be of the same necessity with the foundation, and that Gods Spirit doth not only preserve his Church in the being of a Church, but in a certainty of not saying any thing that is less certain; and that whether they will or no too; we may be bound to peace and obedience, to silence, and to charity, but have not a new Article of Faith made; and a new proposition though consequent (as 'tis said) from an Article of Faith becomes not therefore a part of the Faith, nor of absolute necessity, Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis enisa est, Contra haeres. cap. 32. nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur, said Vincentius Lirinensis; whatsoever was of necessary belief is so still, and hath a new degree added by reason of a new light or a clear explication; but no propositions can be adopted into the foundation. The Church hath power to intend our Faith, but not to extend it; to make our belief more evident, but not more large and comprehensive. For Christ and his Apostles concealed nothing that was necessary to the integrity of Christian Faith, or salvation of our souls; Christ declared all the will of his Father, and the Apostles were Stewards and Dispensers of the same Mysteries, and were faithful in all the house, and therefore concealed nothing, but taught the whole Doctrine of Christ; so they said themselves. And indeed if they did not teach all the Doctrine of Faith, an Angel or a man might have taught us other things than what they taught, without deserving an Anathema, but not without deserving a blessing for making up that Faith intire which the Apostles left imperfect. Now if they taught all the whole body of Faith, either the Church in the following Ages lost part of the Faith (and then was their infallibility, and the effect of those glorious promises to which she pretends and hath certain Title? for she may as well introduce a falshood as lose a truth, it being as much promised to her that the Holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth, as that she shall be preserved from all errours as appears John 16.13.) Or if she retained all the Faith which Christ and his Apostles consign'd and taught, then no Age can by declaring any point, make that be an Article of Faith which was not so in all Ages of Christianity before such declaration. And indeed if the Vide Jacob. Almain. in 3. Sent. d. 25. Q. unic. Dub. 3. Pate [...] ergo, quod nulla veritas est Catholica ex approbatione Ecclesiae vel Papae, Gabr. Biel. in 3. Sent. Dist. 25. q. Unic. art. 3. Dub. 3. ad finem. Church by declaring an Article can make that to be necessary, which before was not necessary, I do not see how it can stand with the charity of the Church so to do (especially after so long experience she hath had that all men will not believe every such decision or explication) for by so doing she makes the narrow way to Heaven narrower, and chalks out one path more to the Devil than he had before, and yet the way was broad enough when it was at the narrowest. For before, differing persons might be saved in diversity of perswasions, and now after this declaration if they cannot, there is no other alteration made, but that some shall be damned who before even in the same dispositions and belief should have been beatified persons. For therefore it is well for the Fathers of the Primitive Church that their errours were not discovered, for if they had been contested (for that would have been called discovery enough) vel errores emendassent, Bellar. de laicit l. 3. c. 20. Sect. ad primam confirmationem. vel ab Ecclesiâ ejecti fuissent. But it is better as it was, they went to heaven by that good-fortune, whereas otherwise they might have gone to the Devil. And yet there were some errours, particularly that of Saint Cyprian that was discovered, and he went to heaven, 'tis thought; possibly they might so too for all this pretence. But suppose it true, yet whether that declaration of an Article, of which with safety we either might have doubted or been ignorant, does more good, 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 [Page] 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. Lib. de veland. Virg. 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.

[Page]

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 judgmen [...]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 observable that no Heresies are noted signanter in Scripture, but such as are great errours practical in materiâ pietatis, such whose doctrines taught impiety, or such who denyed the coming of Christ directly or by consequence, not remote or withdrawn, but prime and immediate: And therefore in the Code de S. Trinitate & fide Catholica, Heresy is called [...], a wicked Opinion and an ungodly doctrine.

3. The first false doctrine we find condemned by the Apostles was the opinion of Simon Magus, who thought the Holy Ghost was to be bought with money; he thought very dishonourably to the blessed Spirit; but yet his followers are rather noted of a vice, neither resting in the understanding, nor derived from it, but wholly practical; 'Tis simony, not heresy, though in Simon it was a false opinion proceeding from a low account of God, and promoted by his own ends of pride and covetousness: The great heresy that troubled them was the doctrine of the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses, the necessity of Circumcision; against which doctrine they were therefore zealous, because it was a direct overthrow to the very end and excellency of Christs coming. And this was an opinion most pertinaciously and obstinately maintained by the Jews, and had made a Sect among the Galathians, and this was indeed wholly in opinion; and against it the Apostles opposed two Articles of the Creed, which served at several times according as the Jews changed their opinion, and left some degrees of their errour, I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe the holy Catholick Church; For they therefore pressed the necessity of Moses Law, because they were unwilling to forgo the glorious appellative of being Gods own peculiar people; and that salvation was of the Jews, and that the rest of the World were capable of that grace, no otherwise but by adoption into their Religion, and becoming proselytes: But this was so ill a Doctrine, as that it overthrew the great benefits of Christ's coming; for if they were circumcised, Christ profited them nothing, meaning this, that Christ will not be a Saviour to them who do not acknowledge him for their Law-giver; and they neither confess him their Law-giver, nor their Saviour, that look to be justified by the Law of Moses, and observation of legal rites; so that this doctrine was a direct enemy to the foundation; and therefore the Apostles were so zealous against it. Now then that other opinion, which the Apostles met at Jerusalem to resolve, was but a piece of that opinion; for the Jews and Proselytes were drawn off from their lees and sediment, by degrees, step by step. At first they would not endure any should be saved but themselves, and their Proselytes. Being wrought off from this height by Miracles, and preaching of the Apostles, they admitted the Gentiles to a possibility of salvation, but yet so as to hope for it by Moses Law. From which foolery, when they were with much ado perswaded, and told that salvation was by Faith in Christ, not by works of the Law, yet they resolved to plow with an Oxe and an Ass still, [Page] and joyn Moses with Christ; not as shadow and substance, but in an equal confederation, Christ should save the Gentiles if he was helpt by Moses, but alone Christianity could not do it. Against this the Apostles assembled at Jerusalem, and made a decision of the Question, tying some of the Gentiles (such only who were blended by the Jews in communi patria,) to observation of such Rites which the Jews had derived by tradition from Noah, intending by this to satisfie the Jews as far as might be with a reasonable compliance and condescension; the other Gentiles who were unmixt, in the mean while, remaining free, as appears in the liberty S. Paul gave the Church of Corinth of eating Idol Sacrifices (expresly against the Decree at Jerusalem) so it were without scandal. And yet for all this care and curious discretion, a little of the leaven still remained: All this they thought did so concern the Gentiles, that it was totally impertinent to the Jews; still they had a distinction to satisfie the letter of the Apostles Decree, and yet to persist in their old opinion; and this so continued, that fifteen Christian Bishops in succession were circumcised,Euseb. l. 4. Eccles. hist. c. 5. even until the destruction of Jerusalem, under Adrian, as Eusebius reports.

4. First, By the way let me observe, that never any matter of Question in the Christian Church was determined with greater solemnity, or more full authority of the Church than this Question concerning Circumcision: No less than the whole Colledge of the Apostles, and Elders at Jerusalem, and that with a Decree of the highest sanction, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis. Secondly, Either the case of the Hebrews in particular was omitted, and no determination concerning them, whether it were necessary or lawful for them to be circumcised, or else it was involv'd in the Decree, and intended to oblige the Jews. If it was omitted since the Question was de re necessaria (for dico vobis, I Paul say unto you, If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing) it is very remarkable how the Apostles to gain the Jews, and to comply with their violent prejudice in behalf of Moses Law, did for a time Tolerate their dissent etiam in re alioquin necessariâ, which I doubt not but was intended as a precedent for the Church to imitate for ever after: But if it was not omitted, either all the multitude of the Jews (which S. James then their Bishop expressed by [...];Act. 21.20. Thou seest how many myriads of Jews that believe, L. 3.32. Eccl. Hist. and yet are zelots for the Law: and Eusebius speaking of Justus saies, he was one ex infinitâ multitudine eorum qui ex circumcisione in Jesum credebant,) I say all these did perish, and their believing in Christ served them to no other ends, but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with hypocrisie and heresie; or if they were saved, it is apparent how merciful God was and pitiful to humane infirmities, that in a point of so great concernment did pity their weakness, and pardon their errors, and love their good mind, since their prejudice was little less than insuperable, and had fair probabilities, at least, it was such as might abuse a wise and good man (and so it did many) they did bono animo errare. 1 Tim. 1. And if I mistake not, this consideration S. Paul urged as a reason why God forgave him who was a Persecutor of the Saints, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief, that is, he was not convinced in his understanding, of the truth of the way which he persecuted, he in the mean while remaining in that incredulity not out of malice or ill ends, but the mistakes of humanity and a pious zeal, therefore God had mercy on him: And so it was in this great Question of circumcision, here only was the difference, the invincibility of S. Paul's error, and the honesty of his heart caused God so to pardon him, as to bring him to the knowledge of Christ, which God therefore did because it was necessary, necessitate medii; no salvation was consistent with the actual remanency of that error; but in the Question of Circumcision, although they by consequence did overthrow the end of Christ's coming: yet because it was such a consequence, which they being hindred by a prejudice non impious did not perceive, God tolerated them in their error, till time and a continual dropping of the lessons and dictates Apostolical did wear it out, and then the doctrine put on its apparel, and became clothed with necessity; they in the mean time so kept to the foundation, that is, Jesus Christ crucified and risen again, that although this did make a violent concussion of it, yet they held fast with their heart, what they ignorantly destroyed with their tongue, (which Saul before his conversion did not) that God upon other Titles, than an actual dereliction of their error did bring them to salvation.

5. And in the descent of so many years, I find not any one Anathema past by the Apostles or their Successors upon any of the Bishops of Jerusalem, or the Believers of the Circumcision, and yet it was a point as clearly determined, and of as great necessity as any of those Questions that at this day vex and crucifie Christendom.

6. Besides this Question, and that of the Resurrection, commenced in the Church of [Page] Corinth, and promoted with some variety of sence by Hymenaeus and Philetus in As [...]a, who said that the Resurrection was past already, I do not remember any other heresie named in Scripture, but such as were errors of impiety, seductiones in materiâ practicâ, such as was particularly, forbidding to marry, and the heresie of the Nicolaitans, a doctrine that taught the necessity of lust and frequent fornication.

7. But in all the Animadversions against errors made by the Apostles in the New Testament, no pious person was condemned, no man that did invincibly erre, or bonâ mente; but something that was amiss in genere morum, was that which the Apostles did redargue. And it is very considerable, that even they of the Circumcision, who in so great numbers did heartily believe in Christ, and yet most violently retain Circumcision, and without Question went to heaven in great numbers; yet of the number of these very men they came deeply under censure, when to their error they added impiety: So long as it stood with charity, and without humane ends and secular interests, so long it was either innocent or connived at; but when they grew covetous, and for filthy lucres sake taught the same doctrine which others did in the simplicity of their hearts, then they turned Hereticks, then they were termed Seducers; and Titus was commanded to look to them, and to silence them; For there are many that are intractable and vain bablers, Seducers of minds, especially they of the Circumcision, who seduce whole houses, teaching things that they ought not, for filthy lucres sake. These indeed were not to be induced, but to be silenced, by the conviction of sound doctrine, and to be rebuked sharply, and avoided.

8. For heresie is not an error of the understanding, but an error of the will. And this is clearly insinuated in Scripture, in the stile whereof Faith and a good life are made one duty, and vice is called opposite to Faith, and heresie opposed to holiness and sanctity. So in S. Paul, 1 Tim. 1. For (saith he) the end of the Commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned; à quibus quòd aberrarunt quidam, from which charity, and purity, and goodness, and sincerity, because some have wandred, deflexerunt ad vaniloquium. And immediately after, he reckons the oppositions to faith and sound doctrine, and instances only in vices that stain the lives of Christians, the unjust, the unclean, the uncharitable, the lyer, the perjur'd person, & si quis alius qui sanae doctrinae adversatur; these are the enemies of the true doctrine. And therefore S. Peter having given in charge, to adde to our vertue, patience, temperance, charity, and the like; gives this for a reason, for if these things be in you, and abound, ye shall be fruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. So that knowledge and faith is inter praecepta morum, is part of a good life: Quid igitur credulitas vel sides? opinor sideliter hominem Christo credere, id est, fidelem Deo esse, hoc est fideliter Dei mandata servare. So Salvian. And Saint Paul calls Faith or the form of sound words, [...], the doctrine that is according to godliness, 1 Tim. 6.3. [...]. That's our Religion, or Faith, the whole manner of serving God, C. de summâ Trinit. & fide Cathol.And veritati credere, and in injustitiâ sibi complacere, are by the same Apostle opposed, and intimate, that piety and faith is all one thing; faith must be [...], intire and holy too, or it is not right. It was the heresie of the Gnosticks, that it was no matter how men lived, so they did but believe aright: Which wicked doctrine Tatianus a learned Christian did so detest, that he fell into a quite contrary, Non est curandum quid quisque credat, id tantum curandum est quod quisque faciat; And thence came the Sect Encratites: Both these heresies sprang from the too nice distinguishing the faith from the piety and good life of a Christian: They are both but one duty. However, they may be distinguished, if we speak like Philosophers; they cannot be distinguished, when we speak like Christians. For to believe what God hath commanded, is in order to a good life; and to live well is the product of that believing, and as proper emanation from it, as from its proper principle, and as heat is from the fire. And therefore, in Scripture, they are used promiscuously in sence, and in expression, as not only being subjected in the same person, but also in the same faculty; faith is as truly seated in the will as in the understanding, and a good life as meerly derives from the understanding [...]s the will. Both of them are matters of choice and of election, neither of them an effect natural and invincible, or necessary antecedently (necessaria ut fiant, non necessariò facta) And indeed if we remember that S. Paul reckons heresie amongst the works of the flesh, and ranks it with all manner of practical impieties, we shall easily perceive that if a man mingles not a vice with his opinion, if he be innocent i [...] his life, though deceived in his doctrine, his errour is his misery, not his crime; it makes him an argument of weakness, and an object of pity, but not a person sealed up to ruine and reprobation.

9. For as the nature of faith is, so is the nature of heresie, contraries having the same proportion and commensuration. Now faith, if it be taken for an act of the understanding meerly, is so far from being that excellent grace that justifies us, that it is [Page] not good at all, in any kind but in genere naturae, and makes the understanding better in it self or pleasing to God, just as strength doth the arm, or beauty the face, or health the body; these are natural perfections indeed, and so knowledge and a true belief is to the understanding. But this makes us not at all more acceptable to God; for then the unlearned were certainly in a damnable condition, and all good Scholars should be saved (whereas I am afraid too much of the contrary is true.) But unless Faith be made moral by the mixtures of choice, and charity, it is nothing but a natural perfection, not a grace or a vertue; and this is demonstrably proved in this, that by the confession of all men of all interests and perswasions, in matters of meer belief, invincible ignorance is our excuse if we be deceived, which could not be, but that neither to believe aright is commendable, nor to believe amiss is reprovable; but where both one and the other is voluntary and chosen antecedently or consequently, by prime election, or ex post facto, and so comes to be considered in morality, and is part of a good life or a bad life respectively. Just so it is in heresie, if it be a design of ambition, and making of a Sect (so Erasmus expounds S. Paul [...], sectarum Alieni sunt à veritate qui se obarment multitudine. Chrys. authorem) if it be for filthy lucres sake as it was in some that were of the circumcision, if it be of pride and love of preheminence, as it was in Diotrephes [...], or out of peevishness and indocibleness of disposition, or of a contentious spirit, that is, that their feet are not shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; in all these cases the errour is just so damnable, as is its principle, but therefore damnable not of it self, but by reason of its adherency. And if any shall say any otherwise, it is to say that some men shall be damned when they cannot help it, perish without their own fault, and be miserable for ever, because of their unhappiness to be deceived through their own simplicity and natural or accidental, but inculpable infirmity.

8. For it cannot stand with the goodness of God, who does so know our infirmities, that he pardons many things in which our wills indeed have the least share (but some they have) but are overborn with the violence of an impetuous temptation; I say, it is inconsistent with his goodness to condemn those who erre where the error hath nothing of the will in it, who therefore cannot repent of their errour, because they believe it true, who therefore cannot make compensation, because they know not that they are tyed to dereliction of it. And although all Hereticks are in this condition, that is, they believe their errours to be true; yet there is a vast difference between them who believe so out of simplicity, and them who are given over to believe a lie, as a punishment or an effect of some other wickedness or impiety. For all have a concomitant assent to the truth of what they believe; and no man can at the same time believe what he does not believe; but this assent of the understanding in Hereticks is caused not by force of Argument, but the Argument is made forcible by something that is amiss in his will; and although a Heretick may peradventure have a stronger argument for his errour, than some true Believer for his right perswasion; yet it is not considerable how strong his Argument is (because in a weak understanding, a small motive will produce a great perswasion, like gentle physick in a weak body) but that which here is considerable, is, what it is that made his Argument forcible. If his invincible and harmless prejudice, if his weakness, if his education, if his mistaking piety, if any thing that hath no venome, nor a sting in it, there the heartiness of his perswasion is no sin, but his misery and his excuse: but if any thing that is evil in genere morum did incline his understanding, if his opinion did commence upon pride, or is nourished by covetousness, or continues through stupid carelesness, or increases by pertinacy, or is confirmed by obstinacy, then the innocency of the errour is disbanded, his misery is changed into a crime, and begins its own punishment. But by the way I must observe, that when I reckoned obstinacy amongst those things which make a false opinion criminal, it is to be understood with some discretion and distinction. For there is an obstinacy of will, which is indeed highly guilty of misdemeanour, and when the School makes pertinacy or obstinacy to be the formality of heresie, they say not true at all, unless it be meant the obstinacy of the will and choice; and if they do, they speak imperfectly, and inartificially, this being but one of the causes that makes errour become heresie; the adequate and perfect formality of heresie is whatsoever makes the errour voluntary and vitious, as is clear in Scripture, reckoning covetousness, and pride, and lust, and whatsoever is vitious to be its causes; (and in habits, or moral changes and productions, whatever alters the essence of a habit, or gives it a new formality, is not to be reckoned the efficient but the form) but there is also an obstinacy (you may call it) but indeed is nothing but a resolution and confirmation of understanding, which is not in a mans power honestly to alter, and it is not all the commands of humanity, [Page] that can be Argument sufficient to make a man leave believing that for which he thinks he hath reason, and for which he hath such Arguments as heartily convince him. Now the persisting in an opinion finally, and against all the confidence and imperiousness of humane commands, that makes not this criminal obstinacy, if the erring person have so much humility of will as to submit to whatsoever God says, and that no vice in his will hinders him from believing it. So that we must carefully distinguish continuance in opinion from obstinacy, confidence of understanding from peevishness of affection, a not being convinced from a resolution never to be convinced, upon humane ends and vitious principles: Scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberit nolle deponere, Lib. 2. Epist. 1. nec propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis & concordiae vinculo quaedam propria quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere; Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, saith S. Cyprian. And he himself was such a one; for he persisted in his opinion of rebaptization untill death, and yet his obstinacy was not called criminal, or his errour turned to heresie. But to return.

11. In this sence it is that a Heretick is [...], self-condemned, not by an immediate express sentence of understanding, but by his own act or fault brought into condemnation. As it is in the Canon Law, Notorius percussor Clerici is ipso jure excommunicate, not per sententiam latam ab homine, but à jure. No man hath passed sentence pro tribunali, but Law hath decreed it pro edicto: So it is in the case of a Heretick. The understanding which is judge, condemns him not by an express sentence; for he erres with as much simplicity in the result, as he had malice in the principle: But there is sententia lata à jure, his will which is his law, that hath condemned him. And this is gathered from that saying of S. Paul, 2 Tim. 3.13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived: First, they are evil men; malice and peevishness is in their wills; then they turn Hereticks and seduce others, and while they grow worse and worse, the errour is master of their understanding, they are deceived themselves, given over to believe a lie, saith the Apostle: They first play the knave, and then play the fool; they first sell themselves to the purchase of vain-glory or ill ends, and then they become possessed with a lying spirit, and believe those things heartily, which if they were honest, they should with Gods grace discover and disclaim. So that now we see that bona fides in falso articulo, a hearty perswasion in a false article, does not alwaies make the errour to be esteemed involuntary, but then only when it is as innocent in the principle, as it is confident in the present perswasion. And such persons who by their ill lives and vitious actions, or manifest designs (for by their fruits ye shall know them) give testimony of such criminal indispositions, so as competent judges by humane and prudent estimate may so judge them, then they are to be declared Hereticks, and avoided. And if this were not true, it were vain that the Apostle commands us to avoid an Heretick: For no external act can pass upon a man for a crime that is not cognoscible.

12. Now every man that erres, though in a matter of consequence, so long as the foundation is intire, cannot be suspected justly guilty of a crime to give his errour a formality of heresie; for we see many a good man miserably deceived (as we shall make it appear afterwards) and he that is the best amongst men, certainly hath so much humility to think he may be easily deceived, and twenty to one but he is in some thing or other; yet if his errour be not voluntary, and part of an ill life, then because he lives a good life, he is a good man, and therefore no Heretick: No man is a Heretick against his will. And if it be pretended that every man that is deceived, is therefore proud, because he does not submit his understanding to the authority of God or Man respectively, and so his errour becomes a heresie; To this I answer, That there is no Christian man but will submit his understanding to God, and believes whatsoever he hath said; but always provided, he knows that God hath said so, else he must do his duty by a readiness to obey when he shall know it. But for obedience or humility of the understanding towards men, that is a thing of another consideration, and it must first be made evident that his understanding must be submitted to men; and who those men are, must also be certain, before it will be adjudged a sin not to submit. But if I mistake not, Christs saying [call no man master upon earth] is so great a prejudice against this pretence, as I doubt it will go near wholly to make it invalid. So that as the worshipping of Angels is an humility indeed, but it is voluntary and a will-worship to an ill sence, not to be excused by the excellency of humility, nor the vertue of Religion: so is the relying upon the judgement of man, an humility too, but such as comes not under that [...], that obedience of Faith which is the duty of every Christian; but intrenches upon that duty which we owe to Christ as an acknowledgement that he is [Page] our great Master, and the Prince of the Catholick Church. But whether it be or be not, if that be the Question, whether the disagreeing person be to be determined by the dictates of men, I am sure the dictates of men must not determine him in that Question, but it must be settled by some higher principle: So that if of that Question the disagreeing person does opine, or believe, or err bonâ fide, he is not therefore to be judged a Heretick, because he submits not his understanding, because till it be sufficiently made certain to him that he is bound to submit, he may innocently and piously disagree, and this not submitting is therefore not a crime (and so cannot make a heresy) because without a crime he may lawfully doubt whether he be bound to submit or no, for that's the Question. And if in such Questions which have influence upon a whole systeme of Theology, a man may doubt lawfully if he doubts heartily, because the authority of men being the thing in Question, cannot be the judge of this Question, and therefore being rejected, or (which is all one) being questioned, that is, not believed, cannot render the doubting person guilty of pride, and by consequence not of heresy, much more may particular questions be doubted of, and the authority of men examined, and yet the doubting person be humble enough, and therefore no Heretick for all this pretence. And it would be considered that humility is a duty in great ones as well as in Idiots. And as inferiours must not disagree without reason, so neither must superiours subscribe to others without sufficient authority, evidence and necessity too: And if rebellion be pride, so is tyranny; and it being in materiâ intellectuali, both may be guilty of pride of understanding, sometimes the one in imposing, sometimes the other in a causless disagreeing; but in the inferiours it is then only the want of humility, when the guides impose or prescribe what God hath also taught, and then it is the disobeying Gods dictates, not mans, that makes the sin. But then this consideration will also intervene, that as no dictate of God obliges men to believe it, unless I know it to be such: So neither will any of the dictates of my superiours engage my faith, unless I also know, or have no reason to dis-believe, but that they are warranted to teach them to me, therefore, because God hath taught the same to them, which if I once know, or have no reason to think the contrary, if I disagree, my sin is not in resisting humane authority, but divine. And therefore the whole business of submitting our understanding to humane authority, comes to nothing; for either it resolves into the direct duty of submitting to God, or if it be spoken of abstractly, it is no duty at all.

13. But this pretence of a necessity of humbling the understanding, is none of the meanest arts whereby some persons have invaded, and usurpt a power over mens faith and consciences, and therefore we shall examine the pretence afterwards, and try if God hath invested any Man or company of men with such a power. In the mean time, he that submits his understanding to all that he knows God hath said, and is ready to submit to all that he hath said if he but know it, denying his own affections and ends and interests and humane perswasions, laying them all down at the foot of his great Master Jesus Christ, that man hath brought his understanding into subjection, and every proud thought unto the obedience of Christ, and this is [...], the obedience of Faith, which is the duty of a Christian.

14. But to proceed: Besides these heresies noted in Scripture, the age of the Apostles, and that which followed, was infested with other heresies; but such as had the same formality and malignity with the precedent, all of them either such as taught practical impieties, or denied an Article of the Creed. Egesippus in Eusebius reckons seven only prime heresies that sought to deflour the purity of the Church: That of Simon, that of Thebutes, of Cleobius, of Dositheus, of Gortheus, of Masbotheus; I suppose Cerinthus to have been the seventh man, though he express him not: But of these, except the last, we know no particulars; but that Egesippus says, they were false Christs, and that their doctrine was directly against God and his blessed Son. Menander also was the first of a Sect, but he bewitched the people with his Sorceries. Cerinthus his doctrine pretended Enthusiasm or a new Revelation, and ended in lust and impious theorems in matter of uncleanness. The Vid. Hilar. lib. 1. de Trin. Ebionites denied Christ to be the Son of God, and affirmed him [...], begot by natural generation, (by occasion of which and the importunity of the Asian Bishops, St. John writ his Gospel) and taught the observation of Moses Law. Basilides taught it lawful to renounce the faith, and take false oaths in time of Persecution. Carpocrates was a very bedlam, half-witch, and quite mad-man, and practised lust, which he called the secret operations to overcome the Potentates of the World. Some more there were, but of the same nature and pest, not of a nicety in dispute, not a question of secret Philosophy, not of atomes, and undiscernable [Page] propositions, but open defiances of all Faith, of all sobriety, and of all sanctity, excepting only the doctrine of the Millenaries, which in the best Ages was esteemed no heresy, but true Catholick Doctrine, though since it hath justice done to it, and hath suffered a just condemnation.

15. Hitherto, and in these instances, the Church did esteem and judge of heresies, in proportion to the rules and characters of Faith. For Faith being a Doctrine of piety as well as truth, that which was either destructive of fundamental verity, or of Christian sanctity was against Faith, and if it made a Sect, was heresy; if not, it ended in personall impiety and went no farther. But those who, as S. Paul says, not onely did such things, but had pleasure in them that doe them, and therefore taught others to doe what they impiously did dogmatize, they were Hereticks both in matter and form, in doctrine and deportment, towards God, and towards man, and judicable in both tribunals.

16. But the Scripture and Apostolical Sermons, having expressed most high indignation against these masters of impious Sects, leaving them under prodigious characters, and horrid representments, as calling them men of corrupt minds, reprobates concerning the faith given over to strong delusions to the belief of a lie, false Apostles, false Prophets, men already condemned, and that by themselves, Anti-Christs, enemies to God; and heresy it self, a work of the flesh, excluding from the kingdom of heaven; left such impressions in the minds of all their successors, and so much zeal against such Sects, that if any opinion commenced in the Church, not heard of before, it oftentimes had this ill luck to run the same fortune with an old heresy. For because the Hereticks did bring in new opinions in matters of great concernment, every opinion de novo brought in was liable to the same exception; and because the degree of malignity in every errour was oftentimes undiscernable, and most commonly indemonstrable, their zeal was alike against all; and those Ages being full of piety, were sitted to be abused with an over-active zeal, as wise persons and learned are with a too much indifferency.

17. But it came to pass, that the further the succession went from the Apostles, the more forward men were in numbring heresies, and that upon slighter and more uncertain grounds. Some footsteps of this we shall find, if we consider the Sects that are said to have sprung in the first three hundred years, and they were pretty and quick in their springs and falls; fourscore and seven of them are reckoned. They were indeed reckoned afterward, and though when they were alive, they were not condemn'd with as much forwardness, as after they were dead; yet even then, confidence began to mingle with opinions less necessary, and mistakes in judgment were oftner and more publick than they should have been. But if they were forward in their censures (as sometimes some of them were) it is no great wonder they were deceived. For what principle or [...] had they then to judge of heresies, or condemn them, besides the single dictates or decretals of private Bishops? for Scripture was indifferently pretended by all; and concerning the meaning of it, was the Question: now there was no general Council all that while, no opportunity for the Church to convene; and if we search the communicatory letters of the Bishops and Martyrs in those days, we shall find but few sentences decretory concerning any Question of Faith, or new sprung opinion. And in those that did, for ought appears, the persons were mis-reported, or their opinions mistaken, or at most, the sentence of condemnation was no more but this; Such a Bishop who hath had the good fortune by posterity to be reputed a Catholick, did condemn such a man or such an opinion, and yet himself erred in as considerable matters, but meeting with better neighbours in his lifetime, and a more charitable posterity, hath his memory preserved in honour. It appears plain enough in the case of Nicholas the Deacon of Antioch, upon a mistake of his words whereby he taught [...] to abuse the flesh, viz. by acts of austerity and self-denial, and mortification; some wicked people that were glad to be mistaken and abused into a pleasing crime, pretended that he taught them to abuse the flesh by filthy commixtures and pollutions: This mistake was transmitted to posterity with a full cry, and acts afterwards found out to justifie an ill opinion of him. For by S. Hierom's time it grew out of Question, but that he was the vilest of men, and the worst of Hereticks; Nicolaus Antiochenus, omnium immunditiarum conditor choros duxit foemineos. And again,Ad C [...]esip [...]. Iste Nicolaus Diaconus ita immundus extitit, ut etiam in praesepi Domini nefas perpetrârit: Epist. de Fabiano lapso. Accusations that while the good man lived were never thought of; for his daughters were Virgins and his Sons lived in holy coelibate all their lives, and himself lived in chast Wedlock; and yet his [Page] memory had rotted in perpetual infamy, had not God (in whose sight, the memory of the Saints is precious) preserved it by the testimony of L. 4. Stromat. Clemens Alexandrinus, and from him of L. 3. c. 26. Hist. Eusebius and Nicephorus. But in the Catalogue of Hereticks made by Philastrius he stands mark'd with a black character as guilty of many heresies: By which one testimony we may guess what trust is to be given to those Catalogues: Well, This good man had ill luck to fall into unskilful hands at first; but Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Lactantius, (to name no more) had better fortune; for it being still extant in their writings that they were of the Millenary opinion, Papius before, and Nepos after were censured hardly, and the opinion put into the catalogue of heresies, and yet these men never suspected as guilty, but like the children of the Captivity walkt in the midst of the flame, and not so much as the smell of fire passed on them. But the uncertainty of these things is very memorable, in the story of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch contesting with Eusebius Pamphilus: Eustathius accused Eusebius for going about to corrupt the Nicene Creed,L. 1. c. 23. of which slander he then acquitted himself (saith Socrates) and yet he is not cleared by posterity, for still he is suspected, and his fame not clear: However Eusebius then scaped well, but to be quit with his Adversary, he recriminates and accuses him to be a favourer of Sabellius, rather than of the Nicene Canons; an imperfect accusation, God knows, when the crime was a suspicion, proveable only by actions capable of divers constructions, and at the most, made but some degrees of probability, and the fact it self did not consist in indivisibili, and therefore was to stand or fall, to be improved or lessened according to the will of the Judges, whom in this cause Eustathius by his ill fortune and a potent Adversary found harsh towards him, in so much that he was for heresy deposed in the Synod of Antioch; and though this was laid open in the eye of the world as being most ready at hand, with the greatest ease charged upon every man, and with greatest difficulty acquitted by any man; yet there were other suspicions raised upon him privately, or at least talkt of ex post facto, and pretended as causes of his deprivation, lest the sentence should seem too hard for the first offence. And yet what they were no man could tell, saith the story. But it is observable what Socrates saith, as in excuse of such proceedings, [...]. ‘It is the manner among the Bishops, when they accuse them that are deposed, they call them wicked,L. 1. c. 24. but they publish not the actions of their impiety.’ It might possibly be that the Bishops did it in tenderness of their reputation, but yet hardly; for to punish a person publickly and highly, is a certain declaring the person punished guilty of a high crime, and then to conceal the fault upon pretence to preserve his reputation, leaves every man at liberty, to conjecture what he pleaseth, who possibly will believe it worse than it is, in as much as they think his judges so charitable as therefore to conceal the fault, lest the publishing of it should be his greatest punishment, and the scandal greater than his deprivation. Simpliciter pateat vitium fortasse pusillum, Quod tegitur majus creditur esse malum. Martial. However this course, if it were just in any, was unsafe in all; for it might undoe more than it could preserve, and therefore is of more danger, than it can be of charity. It is therefore too probable that the matter was not very fair; for in publick sentences the acts ought to be publick, but that they rather pretend heresy to bring their ends about, shews how easie it is to impute that crime, and how forward they were to doe it: And that they might and did then as easily call Heretick as afterward, when Vigilius was condemned of heresie for saying there were Antipodes; or as the Fryars of late did, who suspected Greek and Hebrew of heresie, and called their Professors Hereticks, and had like to have put Terence, and Demosthenes into the Index Expurgatorius; sure enough they rail'd at them pro concione, therefore because they understood them not, and had reason to believe they would accidentally be enemies to their reputation among the people.

18. By this instance which was a while after the Nicene Council, where the acts of the Church were regular, judicial and orderly, we may guess at the sentences passed upon heresy, at such times and in such cases, when their process was more private, and their acts more tumultuary, their information less certain, and therefore their mistakes more easie and frequent. And it is remarkable in the case of the heresy of Montanus, the scene of whose heresie lay within the first three hundred years, though it was represented in the Catalogues afterwards, and possibly the mistake concerning it, is to be put upon the score of Epiphanius, by whom Montanus and his Followers were put into the Catalogue of Hereticks for commanding abstinence from meats, as if they were unclean, and of themselves unlawful. Now the truth was, Montanus said no such thing, but commanded frequent [Page] abstinence, enjoyned dry diet, and an ascetick Table, not for conscience sake, but for Discipline; and yet because he did this with too much rigour and strictness of mandate, the Primitive Church misliked it in him, as being too near their errour, who by a Judaical superstition abstained from meats as from uncleanness. This by the way will much concern them who place too much sanctity in such Rites and Acts of Discipline; for it is an eternal Rule and of never failing truth, that such abstinencies if they be obtruded as Acts of original immediate duty and sanctity, are unlawfull and superstitious; if they be for Discipline they may be good, but of no very great profit; it is that [...] which S. Paul says profiteth but little; and just in the same degree the Primitive Church esteemed them; for they therefore reprehended Montanus, for urging such abstinences with too much earnestness, though but in the way of Discipline; for that it was no more, Tertullian, who was himself a Montanist, and knew best the opinions of his own Sect, testifies; and yet Epiphanius reporting the errours of Montanus, commends that which Montanus truly and really taught, and which the Primitive Church condemned in him, and therefore represents that heresie to another sence, and affixes that to Montanus, which Epiphanius believed a heresie, and yet which Montanus did not teach. And this also among many other things lessens my opinion very much of the integrity or discretion of the old Catalogues of Hereticks, and much abates my confidence towards them.

19. And now that I have mentioned them casually in passing by, I shall give a short account of them; for 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 D. Thom. l. contr. ge [...]t. [...]. 21. 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 Euthym. part. 1. tit. 21. Epiphan. haeres. 64. 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 [Page] 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 Philastr. 99. eos inter haereticos numerat qui spiraculum vitae in libro Genes. interpretantur animam rationalem, & non potiùs gratiam Spiritûs sancti.. 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 Ages, in which as they in all probability did differ from the apprehensions of the former Centuries, so it is certain, there were differing learnings, other fancies, divers representments and judgments of men depending upon circumstances which the first Ages knew, and the following Ages did not; and therefore the Catalogues were drawn with some truth, but less certainty, as appears in their differing about the Authors of some heresies; several opinions imputed to the same, and some put in the roll of Hereticks by one, which the other left out; which to me is an Argument that the Collectors were determined, not by the sence and sentence of the three first Ages, but by themselves, and some circumstances about them, which to reckon for Hereticks, which not. And that they themselves were the prime Judges, or perhaps some in their own Age together with them; but there was not any sufficient external judicatory competent, to declare heresy, that by any publick or sufficient sentence or acts of Court had furnished them with warrant for their Catalogues. And therefore they are no Argument sufficient that the first Ages of the Church, which certainly were the best, did much recede from that which I shewed to be the sence of the Scripture, and the practice of the Apostles; they all contented themselves with the Apostles Creed as the rule of the Faith; and therefore were not forward to judge of heresy, but by analogie to their rule of Faith: And those Catalogues made after these Ages are not sufficient Arguments that they did otherwise; but rather [Page] of the weakness of some persons, or of the spirit and genius of the Age in which the Compilers lived, in which the device of calling all differing opinions by the name of heresies, might grow to be a design to serve ends, and to promote interests, as often as an act of zeal and just indignation against evil persons destroyers of the Faith and corrupters of manners.

22. For what ever private mens opinions were, yet till the Nicene Council, the rule of Faith was intire in the Apostles Creed, and provided they retained that, easily they broke not the unity of Faith, however differing opinions might possibly commence in such things in which a liberty were better suffered than prohibited with a breach of charity. And this appears exactly in the Question between S. Cyprian of Carthage, and Stephen Bishop of Rome, in which one instance it is easie to see what was lawful and safe for a wise and good man, and yet how others began even then to be abused by that temptation, which since hath invaded all Christendome. S. Cyprian rebaptized Hereticks, and thought he was bound so to doe; calls a Synod in Africk as being Metropolitan, and confirms his opinion by the consent of his Suffragans and Brethren, but still with so much modesty, that if any man was of another opinion, he judged him not, but gave him that liberty that he desired himself; Stephen Bishop of Rome grows angry, Excommunicates the Bishops of Asia and Africa, that in divers Synods had consented to rebaptization, and without peace, and without charity, condemns them for Hereticks. Indeed here was the rarest mixture and conjunction of unlikelihoods that I have observed. Here was error of opinion with much modesty and sweetness of temper on one side; and on the other an over-active and impetuous zeal to attest a truth. It uses not to be so, for errour usually is supported with confidence, and truth suppressed and discountenanced by indifferency. But that it might appear that the errour was not the sin, but the uncharitableness, Stephen was accounted a zelous and furious person, and S. Vid. S. Aug. l. 2. c. 6. de bapt. contra Do [...]. Cyprian though deceived, yet a very good man, and of great sanctity. For although every errour is to be opposed, yet according to the variety of errours, so is there variety of proceedings. If it be against Faith, that is, a destruction of any part of the foundation, it is with zeal to be resisted, and we have for it an Apostolical warrant, contend earnestly for the Faith; but then as these things recede farther from the foundation, our certainty is the less, and their necessity not so much, and therefore it were very fit, that our confidence should be according to our evidence, and our zeal according to our confidence, and our confidence should then be the Rule of our Communion; and the lightness of an Article should be considered with the weight of a precept of charity. And therefore, there are some errours to be reproved, rather by a private friend than a publick censure, and the persons of the men not avoided but admonished, and their Doctrine rejected, not their Communion; few opinions are of that malignity which are to be rejected with the same exterminating spirit, and confidence of aversation, with which the first Teachers of Christianity condemned Ebion, Manes, and Corinthus; and in the condemnation of Hereticks, the personal iniquity is more considerable than the obliquity of the doctrine, not for the rejection of the Article, but for censuring the persons; and therefore it is the piety of the man that excused S. Cyprian, which is a certain Argument that it is not the opinion, but the impiety that condemns and makes the Heretick. And this was it which Vincentius Lirinensis said in this very case of S. Cyprian, Adv. hares. c. 11▪ Vnius & ejusdem opinionis (mirum videri potest) judicamus authores Catholicos, & sequaces haereticos. Excusamus Magistros, & condemnamus Scholasticos. Qui scripserunt libros sunt haeredes Coeli, quorum librorum defensores detruduntur ad infernum. Which saying, if we confront against the saying of Salvian condemning the first Authors of the Arrian Sect, and acquitting the Followers, we are taught by these two wise men, that an errour is not it that sends a man to Hell, but he that begins the heresy, and is the author of the Sect, he is the man marked out to ruine; and his Followers scaped, when the Heresiarch commenced the errour upon pride and ambition, and his Followers went after him in simplicity of their heart; and so it was most commonly: but on the contrary, when the first man in the opinion was honestly and invincibly deceived, as S. Cyprian was, and that his Scholars to maintain their credit, or their ends, maintain'd the opinion, not for the excellency of the reason perswading, but for the benefit and accrewments, or peevishness, as did the Donatists, qui de Cypriani authoritate sibi carnaliter blandiuntur, as S. Austin said of them; then the Scholars are the Hereticks, and the master is a Catholick. For his errour is not the heresy formally, and an erring person may be a Catholick. A wicked person in his errour becomes heretick, when the good man in the same errour shall have all the rewards of Faith. For what ever an ill man believes, if he therefore believe it [Page] because it serves his own ends, be his belief true or false, the man hath an heretical mind, for to serve his own ends, his mind is prepared to believe a lie. But a good man that believes what according to his light, and upon the use of his moral industry he thinks true, whether he hits upon the right or no, because he hath a mind desirous of truth, and prepared to believe every truth, is therefore acceptable to God, because nothing hindred him from it, but what he could not help, his misery and his weakness, which being imperfections meerly natural, which God never punishes, he stands fair for a blessing of his morality, which God always accepts. So that now if Stephen had followed the example of God Almighty, or retained but the same peaceable spirit which his Brother of Carthage did, he might with more advantage to truth, and reputation both of wisdom and piety have done his duty in attesting what he believed to be true; for we are as much bound to be zealous pursuers of peace as earnest contenders for the Faith. I am sure more earnest we ought to be for the peace of the Church, than for an Article which is not of the Faith, as this Question of rebaptization was not; for S. Cyprian died in belief against it, and yet was a Catholick, and a Martyr for the Christian Faith.

23. The summe is this. S. Cyprian did right in a wrong cause (as it hath been since judged) and Stephen did ill in a good cause; as far then as piety and charity is to be perferred before a true opinion, so far is S. Cyprian's practice a better precedent for us, and an example of primitive sanctity, than the zeal and indiscretion of Stephen: S. Cyprian had not learned to forbid to any one a liberty of prophesying or interpretation, if he transgressed not the foundation of Faith and the Creed of the Apostles.

24. Well, thus it was, and thus it ought to be in the first Ages, the Faith of Christendom rested still upon the same foundation, and the judgements of heresies were accordingly, or were amiss; but the first great violation of this truth was, when General Councils came in, and the Symbols were enlarged, and new Articles were made as much of necessity to be believed as the Creed of the Apostles, and damnation threatned to them that did dissent, and at last the Creeds multiplied in number, and in Articles, and the liberty of prophesying began to be something restrained.

25. And this was of so much the more force and efficacy, because it began upon great reason, and in the first instance, with success good enough. For I am much pleased with the enlarging of the Creed, which the Council of Nice made, because they enlarged it to my sence; but I am non sure that others are satisfied with it; While we look upon the Articles they did determine, we see all things well enough; but there are some wise personages consider it in all circumstances, and think the Church had been more happy if she had not been in some sence constrained to alter the simplicity of her faith, and make it more curious and articulate, so much that he had need be a subtle man to understand the very words of the new determinations.

26. For the first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, in the presence of his Clergy, entreats somewhat more curiously of the secret of the mysterious Trinity,Socra. l. 1. c. 8. and Unity, so curiously that Arius (who was a Sophister too subtle as it afterward appeared) misunderstood him, and thought he intended to bring in the heresy of Sabellius. For while he taught the Unity of the Tritity, either he did it so inartificially, or so intricately, that Arius thought he did not distinguish the persons, when the Bishop intended only the unity of nature. Against this Arius furiously drives, and to confute Sabellius, and in him (as he thought) the Bishop, distinguishes the natures too, and so to secure the Article of the Trinity, destroyes the Unity. It was the first time the Question was disputed in the world, and in such mysterious niceties, possibly every wise man may understand something, but few can understand all, and therefore suspect what they understand not, and are furiously zealous for that part of it which they do perceive. Well, it happened in these as always in such cases, in things men understand not they are most impetuous; and because suspicion is a thing infinite in degrees, for it hath nothing to determine it, a suspicious person is ever most violent; for his fears are worse than the thing feared, because the thing is limited, but his fears are not; so that upon this,Lib. 1. c. 6. grew contentious on both sides, and tumultuous rayling and reviling each other; and then the Laity were drawn into parts, and the Meletians abetted the wrong part, and the right part fearing to be overborn, did any thing that was next at hand to secure it self. Now then they that lived in that Age, that understood the men, that saw how quiet the Church was before this stirre, how miserably rent now, what little benefit from the Question, what schism about it, gave other [Page] censures of the business than we since have done, who only look upon the Article determined with truth and approbation of the Church generally, since that time. But the Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius, tells the truth, and chides them both for commencing the Question, Alexander for broaching it, Arius for taking it up;Cap. 7. and although this be true, that it had been better for the Church it never had begun, yet being begun, what is to be done in it? of this also in that admirable Epistle, we have the Emperours judgment (I suppose not without the advice and privity of Hosius Bishop of Corduba, whom the Emperour loved and trusted much, and imployed in the delivery of the Letters.) ‘For first he calls it a certain vain piece of a Question, ill begun and more unadvisedly published, a Question which no Law or Ecclesiastical Canon defineth, a fruitless contention, the product of idle brains, a matter so nice, so obscure, so intricate, that it was neither to be explicated by the Clergy, nor understood by the people, a dispute of words, a doctrine inexplicable, but most dangerous when taught, lest it introduce discord or blasphemy; and therefore, the Objector was rash, and the Answerer unadvised; for it concerned not the substance of Faith, or the worship of God, nor any chief commandment of Scripture, and therefore, why should it be the matter of discord? For though the matter be grave; yet because neither necessary, nor explicable, the contention is trifling and toyish. And therefore, as the Philosophers of the same Sect, though differing in explication of an opinion, yet more love for the unity of their Profession, than disagree for the difference of opinion; So should Christians believing in the same God, retaining the same Faith, having the same hopes, opposed by the same enemies, not fall at variance upon such disputes, considering our understandings are not all alike; and therefore, neither can our opinions in such mysterious Articles: So that the matter being of no great importance, but vain, and a toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity, it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending, keep their opinions to themselves, ask each other forgiveness, and give mutual toleration.’ This is the substance of Constantine's letter, and it contains in it much reason, if he did not undervalue the Question; but it seems it was not then thought a question of Faith, but of nicety of dispute; they both did believe one God, and the holy Trinity. Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Council, it was upon occasion of the vileness of the men of the Arian part, their eternal discord, and pertinacious wrangling, and to bring peace into the Church; that was the necessity; and in order to it was the determination of the Article. But for the Article it self, the Letter declares what opinion he had of that, and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful exhortation, full of grave and sober counsels ▪ and such as Hosius himself, who was the messenger, pressed with all earnestness, with all the skill and Authority he had.

27. I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before; and therefore they have put it into the Creed (I suppose) to bring the world to unity, and to prevent Sedition in this Question, and the accidental blasphemies, which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries, and by their illiterate resolutions. But although the Article was determined with an excellent spirit, and we all with much reason profess to believe it; yet it is another consideration, whether or no it might not have been better determined, if with more simplicity; and another yet, whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing, yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it, it had not been more agreeable to the practice of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed, and to have lest this in a rescript, for record to all posterity, and not to have enlarged the Creed with it; for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles, as Sermons are of places of Scripture, it was thought by some, that Scripture might with good profit, and great truth be expounded, and yet the Expositions not put into the Canon; or go for Scripture, but that left still in the naked Original simplicity, and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation, and though most certainly true, yet not penn'd by so infallible a spirit, as was that of the Apostles; and therefore not with so much evidence, as certainty. And if they had pleased, they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes, no less than of the blessed Apostles, whose Symbol they might have imitated, with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture, when they first composed it. For it is most considerable, that although in reason every clause in the Creed should be clear, and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation, that there might be no place left for several sences or variety of Expositions: yet when [Page] 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,Vide Sozomen. lib. 2. c. 18. 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 [...],Socrates lib. 1. cap. 26. 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 Non imprudenter dixit, qui curiosae explicationi hujus mysterii dictum Aristonis Philosophi applicuit Helleborus niger si crassiùs sumatur purgat & sanat. Quum autem teritur & comminuitur, suffocat. 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 tres hypostases dicere, si jubetis; and again, Obtestor beatitudinem tuam per Crucifixum, mundi salutem, per [...] Trinitatem, ut mihi Epistolis tuis, sive tacendarum sive dicendarum hypostaseôn detur authoritas.

30. But without all Question, the Fathers determined the Question with much truth, though I cannot say, the Arguments upon which they built their Decrees, were so good as the conclusion it self was certain; But that which in this case is considerable, is whether or no they did well in putting a curse to the foot of their Decree, and the Decree it self into the Symbol, as if it had been of the same necessity? For the curse, Eusebius Pamphilus could hardly find in his heart to subscribe, at last he did, but with this clause that he subscribed it because the former curse did only forbid men to acquaint themselves with forraign speeches and unwritten languages, whereby confusion and discord is brought into the Church. So that it was not so much a magisterial high assertion of the Article, as an endeavour to secure the peace of the Church. And to the same purpose, for ought I know, the Fathers composed a form of Confession, not as a prescript Rule of Faith to build the hopes of our salvation on, but as a tessera of that Communion which by publick Authority was therefore established upon those Articles, because the Articles were true, though not of prime necessity, and because that unity of confession was judged, as things then stood, the best preserver of the unity of minds.

31. But I shall observe this, that although the Nicene Fathers in that case at that [Page] time, and in that conjuncture of circumstances did well (and yet their approbation is made by after Ages ex post facto) yet if this precedent had been followed by all Councils (and certainly they had equal power, if they had thought it equally reasonable) and that they had put all their Decrees into the Creed, as some have done since, to what a volume had the Creed by this time swelled? and all the house had run into foundation, nothing left for super-structures. But that they did not, it appears▪ 1. That since they thought all their Decrees true, yet they did not think them all necessary, at least not in that degree, and that they published such Decrees, they did it Declarando, not imperando, as Doctors in their Chairs, not masters of other mens faith and consciences. 2. And yet there is some more modesty, or wariness, or necessity (what shall I call it?) than this comes too: for why are not all controversies determined? but even when General assemblies of Prelates have been, some controversies that have been very vexatious, have been pretermitted, and others of less consequence have been determined: Why did never any General Council condemn in express sentence the Pelagian heresie, that great pest, that subtle infection of Christendome? and yet divers General Councils did assemble while the heresie was in the World. Both these cases in several degrees leave men in their liberty of believing and prophesying. The latter proclaims that all controversies cannot de determined to sufficient purposes, and the first declares that those that are, are not all of them matters of Faith, and themselves are not so secure, but they may be deceived; and therefore possibly it were better it were let alone; for if the latter leaves them divided in their opinions, yet their Communions, and therefore probably their charities are not divided; but the former divides their Communions, and hinders their interest; and yet for ought is certain, the accused person is the better Catholick. And yet after all this, it is not safety enough to say, let the Council or Prelates determine Articles warily, seldom, with great caution, and with much sweetness and modesty. For though this be better than to do it rashly, frequently, and furiously; yet if we once transgress the bounds set us by the Apostles in their Creed, and not only preach other truths, but determine them pro tribunali as well as pro cathedra, although there be no errour in the subject matter (as in Nice there was none) yet if the next Ages say they will determine another Article with as much care and caution, and pretend as great a necessity, there is no hindring them, but by giving reasons against it; and so like enough they might have done against the decreeing the Article at Nice; yet that this is not sufficient; for since the Authority of the Nicene Council hath grown to the height of a mountainous prejudice against him that should say it was ill done, the same reason and the same necessity may be pretended by any Age and in any Council, and they think themselves warranted by the great precedent at Nice, to proceed as peremptorily as they did; but then if any other Assembly of learned men may possibly be deceived, were it not better they should spare the labour, than that they should with so great pomp and solemnities engage mens perswasions, and determine an Article which after Ages must rescind, for therefore most certainly in their own Age, the point with safety of faith and salvation, might have been disputed and disbelieved: And that many mens faiths have been tyed up by Acts and Decrees of Councils for those Articles in which the next age did see a liberty had better been preserved, because an errour was determined, we shall afterward receive a more certain account.

32. And therefore the Council of Nice did well, and Constantinople did well, so did Ephesus and Chalcedon; but it is because the Articles were truly determined (for that is part of my belief;) but who is sure it should be so before-hand, and whether the points there determined were necessary or no to be believed or to be determined, if peace had been concerned in it through the faction and division of the parties, I suppose the judgment of Constantine the Emperour, and the famous Hosius of Corduba is sufficient to instruct us, whose authority I rather urge than reasons, because it is a prejudice, and not a reason I am to contend against it.

33. So that such determinations and publishing of Confessions with Authority of Prince and Bishop, are sometimes of very good use for the peace of the Church, and they are good also to determine the judgment of indifferent persons, whose reasons of either side, are not too great to weigh down the probability of that Authority: But for persons of confident and imperious understandings, they on whose side the determination is, are armed with a prejudice against the other, and with a weapon to affront them, but with no more to convince them; and they against whom the decision is, do the more readily betake themselves to the defensive, and are engaged upon contestation and publick enmities, for such Articles which either might safely have been [Page] unknown or with much charity disputed. Therefore the Nicene Council, although it have the advantage of an acquired and prescribing Authority, yet it must not become a precedent to others, lest the inconveniences of multiplying more Articles upon a great pretence of reason as then, make the act of the Nicene Fathers in straightning Prophesying, and enlarging the Creed, become accidentally an inconvenience. The first restraint, although if it had been complained of, might possibly have been better considered of; yet the inconvenience is not visible, till it comes by way of precedent to usher in more. It is like an arbitrary power, which although by the same reason it take six pence from the subject, it may take a hundred pound, and then a thousand, and then all, yet so long as it is within the first bounds, the inconvenience is not so great; but when it comes to be a precedent or argument for more, then the first may justly be complained of, as having in it that reason in the principle, which brought the inconvenience in the sequel; and we have seen very ill consequences from innocent beginnings.

34. And the inconveniences which might possibly arise from this precedent, those wise Personages also did foresee, and therefore although they took liberty in Nice, to add some Articles, or at least more explicitely to declare the first Creed, yet they then would have all the world to rest upon that and go no farther, as believing that to be sufficient.Epist. ad Epict. Saint Athanasius declares their opinion, [...]. That Faith which the Fathers there confessed, was sufficient for the refutation of all impiety, and the establishment of all Faith in Christ and true Religion. And therefore there was a famous Epistle written by Zeno the Emperour,Evagr. l. 3. c. 14. called the [...], or the Epistle of reconciliation, in which all disagreeing interests are entreated to agree in the Nicene Symbol, and a promise made upon that condition to communicate with all other Sects, adding withal, that the Church should never receive any other Symbol than that which was composed by the Nicene Fathers. And however Honorius was condemned for a Monothelite; yet in one of the Epistles which the sixth Synod alledged against him, (viz. the second) he gave them counsel that would have done the Church as much service as the determination of the Article did; for he advised them not to be curious in their disputings, nor dogmatical in their determinations about that Question; and because the Church was not used to dispute in that Question, it were better to preserve the simplicity of Faith, than to ensnare mens consciences by a new Article. And when the Emperour Constantius was by his Faction engaged in a contrary practice, the inconvenience and unreasonableness was so great, that a prudent Heathen observed and noted it in this character of Constantius, Christianam religionem absolutam & simplicem [N. B.] anili superstitione confudit. In quâ scrutandâ perplexiùs quàm in componendâ gratiùs, excitavit dissidia quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum, dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium.

35. And yet men are more led by Example, than either by Reason or by Precept; for in the Council of Constantinople one Article de novo & integro was added, viz. I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins; and then again they were so confident, that that Confession of Faith was so absolutely intire, and that no man ever after should need to add any thing to the integrity of Faith, that the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus pronounced Anathema to all those that should add any thing to the Creed of Constantinople. And yet for all this, the Church of Rome in a Synod at Gentilly added the clause of Filioque, to the Article of the Procession of the holy Ghost, and what they have done since, all the World knows, Exempla non consistunt, sed quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem, latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. All men were perswaded that it was most reasonable the limits of Faith should be no more enlarged; but yet they enlarged it themselves, and bound others from doing it, like an intemperate Father, who because he knows he does ill himself, enjoyns temperance to his Son, but continues to be intemperate himself.

36. But now if I should be questioned concerning the Symbol of Athanasius (for we see the Nicene Symbol was the Father of many more, some twelve or thirteen Symbols in the space of an hundred years) I confess I cannot see that moderate sentence and gentleness of charity in his Preface and Conclusion as there was in the Nicene Creed. Nothing there but damnation and perishing everlastingly, unless the Article of the Trinity be believed, as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explained. Indeed Athanasius had been soundly vexed on one side, and much cryed up on the other; and therefore it is not so much wonder for him to be so decretory and severe in his censure, for nothing could more ascertain his friends to him, and dis-repute [Page] his enemies, than the belief of that damnatory Appendix; but that does not justifie the thing. For the Articles themselves, I am most heartily perswaded of the truth of them, and yet I dare not say all that are not so, are irrevocably damn'd, because citra hoc Symbolum, the Faith of the Apostles Creed is intire, and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, that is, he that believeth such a belief as is sufficient disposition to be baptized, that Faith with the Sacrament is sufficient for heaven. Now the Apostles Creed does one; why therefore do not both intitle us to the promise? Besides, if it were considered concerning Athanasius Creed, how many people understand it not, how contrary to natural reason it seems, how little the *Vide Hosium de author. S. Script. l. 3. p. 53. & Gordon. Huntlaeum, Tom. 1. controv. 1. de ver [...]o Dei, cap. 19. Scripture says of those curiosities of Explication, and how Tradition was not clear on his side for the Article it self, much less for those forms and minutes (how himself is put to make an answer, and excuse for the Note: Vid. Gretser & Tanner in colloq. Ratisbon. Eusebium fuisse Arrianum ait Perron. lib. 3. cap. 2. contre le Roy Jaques: Idem ait Origenem negasse Divinitatem silii & Spir. S. l. 2. c. 7. de Euchar. contra Duplessis. Idem cap. 5. obser. 4. ait. Irenae [...] talia dixisse quae qui hodiè diceret, pro Arriano reputaretur: Vide etiam Fisher in resp. ad 9. Quaest. Jacobi Reg. & Epiphan. in haeres. 69. Fathers speaking in excuse of the Arrians, at least so seemingly, that the Arrians appealed to them for trial, and the offer was declin'd) and after all this that the Nicene Creed it self went not so far, neither in Article, nor Anathema, nor Explication, it had not been amiss if the final judgment had been left to Jesus Christ; for he is appointed Judge of all the World, and he shall judge the people righteously, for he knows every truth, the degree of every necessity, and all excuses that do lessen, or take away the nature or malice of a crime; all which I think Athanasius, though a very good man, did not know so well as to warrant such a sentence; And put case the heresie there condemned be damnable, (as it is damnable enough) yet a man may maintain an opinion that is in it self damnable, and yet he not knowing it so, and being invincibly led into it, may go to heaven; his opinion shall burn, and himself be saved. But however, I find no opinion in Scripture called damnable, but what are impious in materiâ practicâ, or directly destructive of the Faith, or the body of Christianity, such of which Saint Peter speaks [bringing in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. 2.1. these are the false Prophets who out of covetousness make merchandise of you through cozening words.] Such as these are truly heresies, and such as these are certainly damnable. But because there are no degrees either of truth or falshood, every true proposition being alike true; that an errour is more or less damnable, is not told us in Scripture, but is determined by the man and his manners, by circumstances and accidents; and therefore the censure in the Preface and end, are Arguments of his zeal and strength of his perswasion; but they are extrinsecal and accidental to the Articles, and might as well have been spared. And indeed to me it seems very hard to put uncharitableness into the Creed, and so to make it become as an Article of Faith, though perhaps this very thing was no Faith of Athanasius, who, if we may believe Aquinas, made this manifestation of Faith, non per modum Symboli, sed per modum doctrinae, that is, if I understand him right,D. Tho. 22. q. 1. artic. 1. ad 3 um. not with a purpose to impose it upon others, but with confidence to declare his own belief; and that it was prescribed to others as a Creed, was the act of the Bishops of Rome; so he said, nay, possibly it was none of his: So said the Patriarch of C. P. Meletius about one hundred and thirty years since, in his Epistle to John Douza, Athanasio falsò adscriptum Symbolum cum Pontificum Rom. appendice illâ adulteratum, luce lucidiùs contestamur. And it is more than probable that he said true, because this Creed was written originally in Latine, which in all reason Athanasius did not, and it was translated into Greek, it being apparent that the Latine Copy is but one, but the Greek is various, there being three Editions or Translations rather, expressed by Genebrard, lib. 3. de Trinit. But in this particular, who list, may better satisfie himself in a disputation de Symbolo Athanasii, printed at Wertzburg 1590. supposed to be written by Serrarius or Clencherus.

37. And yet I must observe that this Symbol of Athanasius, and that other of Nice, offer not at any new Articles; they only pretend to a further Explication of the Articles Apostolical, which is a certain confirmation that they did not believe more Articles to be of belief necessary to salvation: If they intended these further Explanations to be as necessary as the dogmatical Articles of the Apostles Creed, I know not how to answer all that may be objected against that; but the advantage that I shall gather from their not proceeding to new matters, is laid out ready for me in the words of Athanasius, saying of this Creed [This is the Catholick Faith] and if his authority be good, or his saying true, or he the Author, then no man can say of any other Article, that it is a part of the Catholick Faith, or that the Catholick Faith can [Page] be enlarged beyond the contents of that Symbol; and therefore it is a strange boldness in the Church of Rome, Bulla Pii quarti supra forma juramenti professionis fidei, in sin. Conc. Trid. first to add twelve new Articles, and then to add the Appendix of Athanasius to the end of them, This is the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved.

38. But so great an Example of so excellent a man, hath been either mistaken or followed with too much greediness, all the World in factions, all damning one another, each party damn'd by all the rest, and there is no disagreeing in opinion from any man that is in love with his own opinion, but damnation presently to all that disagree. A Ceremony and a Rite hath caused several Churches to Excommunicate each other, as in the matter of the Saturday Fast, and keeping Easter. But what the spirits of men are when they are exasperated in a Question and difference of Religion, as they call it, though the thing it self may be most inconsiderable, is very evident in that request of Pope Innocent the Third, desiring of the Greeks (but reasonably a man would think) that they would not so much hate the Roman manner of consecrating in unleavened bread, as to wash, and scrape, and pare the Altars after a Roman Priest had consecrated. Nothing more furious than a mistaken zeal, and the actions of a scrupulous and abused conscience. When men think every thing to be their Faith and their Religion, commonly they are so busie in trifles and such impertinencies in which the scene of their mistake lies, that they neglect the greater things of the Law, charity, and compliances, and the gentleness of Christian Communion; for this is the great principle of mischief, and yet is not more pernicious than unreasonable.

39. For I demand: Can any man say and justifie that the Apostles did deny Communion to any man that believed the Apostles Creed, and lived a good life? And dare any man tax that proceeding of remissness, and indifferency in Religion? And since our blessed Saviour promised salvation to him that believeth (and the Apostles when they gave this word the greatest extent, enlarged it not beyond the borders of the Creed) how can any man warrant the condemning of any man to the flames of Hell that is ready to die in attestation of this Faith, so expounded and made explicite by the Apostles, and lives accordingly? And to this purpose it was excellently said by a wise and a pious Prelate,L. 10. de Trin. ad finem. St. Hilary, Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam quaestiones vocat, &c. In absoluio nobis & facili est aeternitas; Jesum suscitatum à mortuis, per Deum credere, & ipsum esse Dominum confiteri, &c. These are the Articles which we must believe, which are the sufficient and adequate object of the Faith which is required of us in order to Salvation. And therefore it was, that when the Bishops of Istria deserted the Communion of Pope Pelagius, in causâ trium Capitulorum, He gives them an account of his Faith by recitation of the Creed,Concil. tom. 4. Edit. Paris. p. 473. and by attesting the four General Councils, and is confident upon this that de fidei firmitate nulla poterit esse quaestio vel suspicio generari; let the Apostles Creed, especially so explicated, be but secured, and all Faith is secured; and yet that explication too was less necessary than the Articles themselves; for the Explication was but accidental, but the Articles even before the Explication were accounted a sufficient inlet to the Kingdome of Heaven.

40. And that there was security enough, in the simple believing the first Articles; is very certain amongst them, and by their Principles, who allow of an implicite faith to serve most persons to the greatest purposes; for if the Creed did contain in it the whole Faith, and that other Articles were in it implicitely, (for such is the doctrine of the School, and particularly of Aquinas) then he that explicitely believes all the Creed,2.2 ae. q. 11.10. cap. does implicitely believe all the Articles contained in it, and then it is better the implication should still continue, than that by any explication (which is simply unnecessary) the Church should be troubled with questions and uncertain determinations, and factions enkindled, and animosities set on foot, and mens souls endangered, who before were secured by the explicite belief of all that the Apostles required as necessary, which belief also did secure them from all the rest, because it implyed the belief of whatsoever was virtually in the first Articles, if such belief should by chance be necessary.

41. The summe of this Discourse is this, if we take an estimate of the nature of Faith from the dictates and Promises Evangelical, and from the Practice Apostolical, the nature of Faith and its integrity consists in such propositions which make the foundation of hope and charity, that which is sufficient to make us to doe honour to Christ, and to obey him, and to encourage us in both; and this is compleated in the Apostles Creed. And since contraries are of the same extent, heresy is to be judged by its [Page] proportion and analogie to Faith, and that is heresy only which is against Faith. Now because Faith is not only a precept of Doctrines, but of manners and holy life, whatsoever is either opposite to an Article of Creed, or teaches ill life, that's heresy; but all those propositions which are extrinsecal to these two considerations, be they true or be they false, make not heresy, nor the man an Heretick; and therefore however he may be an erring person, yet he is to be used accordingly, pittied and instructed, not condemned or Excommunicated; And this is the result of the first ground, the consideration of the nature of Faith and heresy.

SECT. III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture, in Questions not simply necessary, not literally determined.

1. GOD who disposes of all things sweetly and according to the nature and capacity of things and persons, had made those only necessary, which he had taken care should be sufficiently propounded to all persons of whom he required the explicite belief. And therefore all the Articles of Faith are clearly and plainly set down in Scripture, and the Gospel is not hid nisi pereuntibus saith S. Paul; [...], saith Damascen, and that so manifestly that no man can be ignorant of the foundation of Faith without his own apparent fault. And this is acknowledged by all wise and good men, and is evident,Orthod. fidei. lib. 4. c. 18. besides the reasonableness of the thing, in the testimonies of Saints Super Psal. 88. & de util. cred. c. 6. Austin, Super Isa. c. 19. & in Psal. 86. Hierom, Homil. 3. in Thes. Ep. 2. Chrysostome, Serm. de confess. Fulgentius, Miscel. 2. l. 1. tit. 46. Hugo de Sancto Victore, In Gen. ap. Struch. p. 87. Thedoret, C. 6. c. 21. Lactantius, Ad Antioch. l. 2. p. 918. Theophilus Antiochenus, par. 1. q. art. Aquinas, and the later School-men. And God hath done more; for many things which are only profitable, are also set down so plainly, that (as S. Austin says) nemo inde haurire non possit, si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè accedat (ubi supra de util. cred. c. 6.) but of such things there is no Question commenced in Christendome, and if there were, it cannot but be a crime and humane interest, that are the Authors of such disputes, and therefore these cannot be simple errours, but always heresies, because the principle of them is a personal sin.

2. But besides these things which are so plainly set down, some for doctrine as Saint Paul says, that is, for Articles and foundation of Faith, some for instruction, some for reproof, some for comfort, that is, in matters practical and speculative of several tempers and constitutions, there are innumerable places containing in them great mysteries, but yet either so enwrapped with a cloud, or so darkned with umbrages, or heightened with expressions, or so covered with allegories and garments of Rhetorick, so profound in the matter, or so altered or made intricate in the manner, in the cloathing and in the dressing, that God may seem to have left them as tryals of our industry, and Arguments of our imperfections, and incentives to the longings after Heaven, and the clearest revelations of eternity, and as occasions and opportunities of our mutual charity and toleration to each other, and humility in our selves, rather than the repositories of Faith, and furniture of Creeds, and Articles of belief.

3. For wherever the word of God is kept, whether in Scripture alone, or also in Tradition, he that considers that the meaning of the one, and the truth or certainty of the other are things of great Question, will see a necessity in these things (which are the subject matter of most of the Questions of Christendome) that men should hope to be excused by an implicite faith in God Almighty. For when there are in the Explications of Scripture so many Commentaries, so many sences and Interpretations, so many Volumes in all Ages, and all, like mens faces, exactly none like another, either this difference and inconvenience is absolutely no fault at all, or if it be, it is excusable, by a mind prepared to consent in that truth which God intended. And this I call an implicite Faith in God, which is certainly of as great excellency as an implicite Faith in any man or company of men. Because they who do require an implicite Faith in the Church for Articles less necessary, and excuse the want of explicite Faith by the implicite, do require an implicite Faith in the Church, because they believe that God hath required of them to have a mind prepared [Page] to believe whatever the Church says; which because it is a proposition of no absolute certainty, whosoever does in readiness of mind believe all that God spake, does also believe that sufficiently, if it be fitting to be believed, that is, if it be true, and if God hath said so; for he hath the same obedience of understanding in this as in the other. But because it is not so certain, God hath tied him in all things to believe that which is called the Church, and that it is certain we must believe God in all things, and yet neither know all that either God hath revealed or the Church taught, it is better to take the certain than the uncertain, to believe God rather than men, especially since if God hath bound us to believe men, our absolute submission to God does involve that, and there is no inconvenience in the world this way, but that we implicitely believe one Article more, viz. the Churches Authority or infallibility, which may well be pardoned, because it secures our belief of all the rest, and we are sure if we believe all that God said explicitely or implicitely, we also believe the Church implicitely in case we are bound to it; but we are not certain, that if we believe any company of men whom we call the Church, that we therefore obey God and believe what he hath said. But however, if this will not help us, there is no help for us, but good fortune or absolute predestination; for by choice and industry, no man can 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 [Page] 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 Graeci corruperunt novum Testamentum ut testantur Tertul. l. 5. adv. Marcion. Euseb. l. 5. Hist. c. ult. Irenae. l. 1. c. 29. adv. haeres. Basil. l. 2. contr. Eunomium. 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 Lib. 12 Confess. cap. 26. Lib. 11. de Civit. Dei c. 19. L. 3. de doctrinâ Christ. cap. 27. 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 m [...]n will write Commentaries, as Herod made Orations [...], what infallible [Page] [...] 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,Hieron. in Matth. 13. 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 [Page] 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 Sic Hieron. In adolescenti [...] prov [...]catus ardore & studio Scripturarum allegoricè interpretatus sum Abdiam Prophetam, cujus historiam nesciebam. De Sensu Allegorico S. Script. dixit Basilius, [...]. L. 20. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. praefa [...]. L. 19. in Isai. & in c. 36. Ezek. 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 [Page] 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 [...]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 [Page] 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, Bellar. l 5. de pontif. c. 3. Sect. respondeo primó. 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 [Page] 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 [...]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, De doctri. Christian. lib. 3. for then they had got the trick, and he is angry at it, neque enim putare debemus esse praescriptum, ut quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit, hoc etiam semper significare credamus.

3. Thirdly, Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason. And this is as the other, if it be well, it's well. But unless there were some intellectus universalis furnished with infallible propositions, by referring to [Page] which every man might argue infallibly, this Logick may deceive as well as any of the rest. For it is with reason as with mens tastes; although there are some general principles which are reasonable to all men, yet every man is not able to draw out all its consequences, nor to understand them when they are drawn forth, nor to believe when he does understand them. There is a precept of S. Paul directed to the Thessalonians before they were gathered into a body of a Church, 2 Thes. 3.6. To withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly. But if this precept were now observed, I would fain know whether we should not fall into that inconvenience which S. Paul sought to avoid in giving the same commandment to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5.9. I wrote to you that ye should not company with fornicators; And yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, for then ye must go out of the world: And therefore he restrains it to a quitting the society of Christians living ill lives. But now that all the world hath been Christians, if we should sin in keeping company with vitious Christians, must we not also go out of this world? Is not the precept made null, because the reason is altered, and things are come about, and that the [...] are the brethren, [...] called brethren, as S. Pauls phrase is? And yet either this never was considered, or not yet believed; for it is generally taken to be obligatory, though (I think) seldom practised. But when we come to expound Scriptures to a certain sence by Arguments drawn from prudential motives, then we are in a vast plain without any sufficient guide, and we shall have so many sences, as there are humane prudences. But that which goes further than this, is a parity of reason from a plain place of Scripture to an obscure, from that which is plainly set down in a Text to another that is more remote from it. And thus is that place in S. Matthew forced, If thy brother refuse to be amended. Dic ecclesiae. Hence some of the Roman Doctors argue, If Christ commands to tell the Church in case of adultery or private injury, then much more in case of heresie. Well, suppose this to be a good Interpretation; Why must I stay here? Why may not I also adde by a parity of reason, If the Church must be told of heresie, much more of treason: And why may not I reduce all sins to the cognizance of a Church tribunal, as some men do directly, and Snecanus does heartily and plainly? If a mans principles be good, and his deductions certain, he need not care whither they carry him. But when an Authority is intrusted to a person, and the extent of his power expressed in his commission, it will not be safety to meddle beyond his commission upon confidence of a parity of reason. To instance once more; When Christ in pasce oves, & tu es Petrus, gave power to the Pope to govern the Church (for to that sence the Church of Rome expounds those Authorities) by a certain consequence of reason, say they, he gave all things necessary for exercise of this jurisdiction, and therefore in [pasce oves] he gave him an indirect power over temporals, for that is necessary that he may do his duty: Well, having gone thus far, we will go farther upon the parity of reason, therefore he hath given the Pope the gift of tongues, and he hath given him power to give it; for how else shall Xavier convert the Indians? He hath given him power also to command the Seas and the winds, that they should obey him, for this also is very necessary in some cases. And so pasce oves is accipe donum linguarum, and Impera ventis, & dispone regum diademata, & laicorum praedia, and influentias coeli too, and whatsoever the parity of reason will judge equally necessary in order to pasce oves. When a man does speak reason, it is but reason he should be heard; but though he may have the good fortune, or the great abilities to do it, yet he hath not a certainty, no regular infallible assistance, no inspiration of Arguments and deductions; and if he had, yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason, unless other mens understandings were of the same aire, the same constitution and ability, they cannot be prescribed unto, by another mans reason; especially because such reasonings as usually are in explication of particular places of Scripture, depend upon minute circumstances and particularities, in which it is so easie to be deceived, and so hard to speak reason regularly and always, that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceived.

4. Fourthly, Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogie of Faith, and that is the most sure and infallible way (as it is thought:) But upon stricter survey it is but a Chimera, a thing in nubibus which varies like the right hand and left hand of a Pillar, and at the best is but like the Coast of a Country to a Traveller out of his way; It may bring him to his journeys end though twenty miles about; it may keep him from running into the Sea, and from mistaking a river for dry land; but whether this little path or the other be the right away it tells not. So is the analogie of Faith, that is, if I understand it right, the rule of Faith, that is the Creed. Now were it not a fine device to goe to expound all the Scripture by the Creed, there being in it so many thousand [Page] places which have no more relation to any Article in the Creed, than they have to Tityre tu patulae? Indeed if a man resolves to keep the analogie of Faith, that is, to expound Scripture, so as not to doe any violence to any fundamental Article, he shall be sure however he errs, yet not to destroy Faith, he shall not perish in his Exposition. And that was the precept given by Saint Paul, that all Prophecyings should be estimated [...], Rom. 6.12. and to this very purpose, St. Austin in his Exposition of Genesis, by way of Preface sets down the Articles of Faith, with this design and protestation of it, that if he says nothing against those Articles, though he miss the particular sence of the place, there is no danger, or sin in his Exposition; but how that analogie of Faith should have any other influence in expounding such places in which those Articles of Faith are 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 [Page] 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 videantur, said Vincent. Lirinensis] in which every man knows what innumerable ways there are of being mistaken,In Commonit. God having in things not simply necessary left such a difficulty upon those parts of Scripture which are the subject matters of controversie ad edomandam labore superbiam, L. 2. de doctr. Christian. c. 6. & intellectum à fastidio revocandum (as S. Austin gives a reason) that all that err honestly, are therefore to be pitied, and tolerated, because it is or may be the condition of every man at one time or other.

8. The sum is this: Since holy Scripture is the repository of divine truths, and the great rule of Faith, to which all Sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions, and since all agree in the Articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down, and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity; and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries, and matters of Question upon which there is a vail; since there are so many Copies with infinite varieties of reading; since a various Interpunction, a parenthesis, a letter, an accent may much alter the sence; since some places have divers literal sences, many have spiritual, mystical and Allegorical meanings, since there are so many tropes, metonymies, ironies, hyperboles, proprieties and improprieties of language, whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper interpretation; now that the knowledge of such circumstances and particular stories is irrevocably lost: since there are some mysteries which at the best advantage of expression, are not easie to be apprehended, and whose explication, by reason of our imperfections, must needs be dark, sometimes weak, sometimes unintelligible: and lastly, since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture, as searching the Originals, conference of places, parity of reason, and analogie of Faith, are all dubious, uncertain, and very fallible, he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason, will be very far from confidence, because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty, all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries and amidst so many difficulties. And therefore a wise man that considers this, would not willingly be prescribed to by others; and therefore if he also be a just man, he will not impose upon others; for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him, unless he could secure him from errour: So that here also there is a [Page] necessity to conserve the liberty of Prophesying, and Interpreting Scripture; a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in Questions controverted, and the uncertainty of any internal medium of Interpretation.

SECT. V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture, or determine Questions.

1. IN the next place, we must consider those extrinsecal means of Interpreting Scripture, and determining Questions, which they most of all confide in that restrain Prophesying with the greatest Tyranny. The first and principal is Tradition, which is pretended not only to expound Scripture (Necesse enim est propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus, Vincent. Lirinens. in Commonitor. ut Propheticae & Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensus normam dirigatur:) But also to propound Articles upon a distinct stock, such Articles whereof there is no mention and proposition in Scripture. And in this topick, not only the distinct Articles are clear and plain, like as the fundamentals of Faith expressed in Scripture, but also it pretends to expound Scripture, and to determine Questions with so much clarity and certainty, as there shall neither be errour nor doubt remaining, and therefore no disagreeing is here to be endured. And indeed it is most true if Tradition can perform these pretensions, and teach us plainly, and assure us infallibly of all truths, which they require us to believe, we can in this case have no reason to disbelieve them, and therefore are certainly Hereticks if we doe, because without a crime, without some humane interest or collaterall design, we cannot disbelieve traditive Doctrine or traditive Interpretation, if it be infallibly proved to us that tradition is an infallible guide.

2. But here I first consider that tradition is no repository of Articles of faith, and therefore the not following it is no Argument of heresie; for besides that I have shewed Scripture in its plain expresses to be an abundant rule of Faith and manners, Tradition is a topick as fallible as any other; so fallible that it cannot be sufficient evidence to any man in a matter of Faith or Question of heresie.

3. For first, I find that the Fathers were infinitely deceived in their account and enumeration of Traditions, sometimes they did call some Traditions such, not which they knew to be so, but by Arguments and presumptions they concluded them so. Such as was that of.Epist. 118. ad Januar. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 4. c. 24. S. Austin, ea quae universalis tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis instituta reperiuntur, credibile est ab Apostolorum traditione descendisse. Now suppose this rule probable, that's the most, yet it is not certain; It might come by custome, whose Original was not known, but yet could not derive from an Apostolical principle. Now when they conclude of particular Traditions by a general rule, and that general rule not certain, but at the most probable in any thing, and certainly false in some things, it is wonder if the productions, that is, their judgments and pretence fail so often. And if I should but instance in all the particulars, in which Tradition was pretended falsely or uncertainly in the first Ages, I should multiply them to a troublesome variety; for it was then accounted so glorious a thing to have spoken with the persons of the Apostles, that if any man could with any colour pretend to it, he might abuse the whole Church, and obtrude what he listed under the specious title of Apostolical Tradition, and it is very notorious to every man that will but read and observe the Recognitions or stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus, where there is enough of such false wares shewed in every book, and pretended to be no less than from the Apostles. In the first Age after the Apostles, Papias pretended he received a Tradition from the Apostles, that Christ before the day of Judgment should reign a thousand years upon Earth, and his Saints with him in temporal felicities; and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias, drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years. For besides, that the Millenary opinion is expresly taught by Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Lactantius, Severus, Victorinus, Apollinaris, Nepos, and divers others famous in their time: Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon says, it was the belief of all Christians exactly Orthodox, [...] [Page] [...], and yet there was no such Tradition, but a mistake in Papias; but I find it nowhere spoke against, till Dionysius of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book, and converted Coracian the Egyptian from the opinion. Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles (for so was Papias) and then continued for some Ages upon the meer Authority of so famous a man, did yet deceive the Church: much more fallible is the pretence, when two or three hundred years after, it but commences, and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolical. And so it happened in the case of the Arrian heresie, which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolical, as Theodoret reports;Lib 1. hist c. 8. and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture than from Tradition, they would have fail'd much in so good a cause; for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made, and desired to be tryed by the Fathers of the first three hundred years, which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended a clear Tradition, because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle. But that this trial was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius, although at other times confidently and truly pretended, it was an Argument the Tradition was not so Vide Petav. in Epiph. her. 69. clear, but both sides might with some fairness pretend to it. And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresie, the Heretick [...], Justin. Mart. dial. ad Tryp. [...]ud. Ar [...]emon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition, because the medium was plausible, and consisting of so many particulars, that it was hard to be redargued, pretended a Tradition from the Apostles, that Christ was [...], and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victors time inclusively, and till Zephyrinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine; which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth, so as possibly to abuse the Church, had not been worthy of confutation, which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer out of whom Euseb. l. 5. c▪ ult. Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender. But I observe from hence, that it was usual to pretend to Tradition, and that it was easier pretended than confuted, and I doubt not but oftener done than discovered. A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Hereticks, whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture; Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party, would be judged by custome and Tradition Ecclesiastical. See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination, either that probation was not accounted by S. Syprian, and the Bishops both of Asia and Africk, to be a good Argument, and sufficient to determine them, or there was no certain Tradition against them; for unless one of these two doe it, nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth, unless peradventure, S. Cyprian, Firmilian, the Bishops of Galatia, Cappadocia, and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition, for they knew of none such, and some of them expresly denied it.Can. 2. And the sixth general Synod approves of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground, because in praedictorum praesulum locis & solum secundum traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est; they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptization, and therefore there could be no Tradition Universal against it, or if there were they knew not of it, but much for the contrary; and then it would be remembred that a conceal'd Tradition was like a silent Thunder, or a Law not promulgated; it neither was known, nor was obligatory. And I shall observe this too, that this very Tradition was so obscure, and was so obscurely delivered, silently proclaimed, that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it but by a consequence which he thought probable and credible,L. 5. d▪ baptism. contr. Donat. c. 23. as appears in his discourse against the Donatists. The Apostles, saith S. Austin, prescribed nothing in this particular: But this custome which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition, as many other things which the Catholick Church observes. That's all the ground and all the reason; nay, the Church did waver concerning that Question, and before the decision of a Council, Cyprian and others might dissent without breach of charity.Lib. 1. de baptism. c. 18. It was plain then there was no clear Tradition in the Question, possibly there might be a custome in some Churches postnate to the times of the Apostles, but nothing that was obligatory, no Tradition Apostolical. But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it; and S. Austin confuted the Pelagians, in the Question of Original sin by the custome of exorcism and insufflation,De peccat. original. l. 2. c. 40. contra Pelag [...]. & Caelest. which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition, which yet was then, and is now so impossible to be proved, that he that shall affirm it, shall gain only the reputation of a bold man and a confident.

4. Secondly, I consider, if the report of Traditions in the Primitive times so near the [Page] Ages Apostolical was so uncertain, that they were fain to aym at them by conjectures, and grope as in the dark, the uncertainty is much increased since, because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost, which yet if they had continued, they might have been good records to us, as Clemens Romanus, Egesippus, Nepos, Coracion, Dionysius Areopagite, of Alexandria, of Corinth, Firmilian and many more: And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted, than now they can, it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences, since so many Sects have been, so many wars, so many corruptions in Authors, so many Authors lost, so much ignorance hath intervened, and so many interests have been served, that now the rule is to be altered; and whereas it was of old time credible, that that was Apostolical whose beginning they knew not, now quite contrary we cannot safely believe them to be Apostolical unless we do know their beginning to have been from the Apostles. For this consisting of probabilities and particulars, which put together make up a moral demonstration, the Argument which I now urge hath been growing these fifteen hundred years, and if anciently there was so much as to evacuate the Authority of Tradition, much more is there now absolutely to destroy it, when all the particulars, which time and infinite variety of humane accidents have been amassing together, are now concentred, and are united by way of constipation. Because every Age and every great change, and every heresie, and every interest, hath increased the difficulty of finding out true Traditions.

5. Thirdly, There are very many Traditions which are lost, and yet they are concerning matters of as great consequence as most of those Questions for the determination whereof Traditions are pretended: It is more than probable, that as in Baptism and the Eucharist the very forms of ministration are transmitted to us, so also in confirmation and ordination, and that there were special directions for visitation of the sick, and explicite interpretations of those difficult places of S. Paul. which S. Peter affirmed to be so difficult that the ignorant do wrest them to their own damnation, and yet no Church hath conserved these or those many more which S. Basil affirms to be so many that [...];Cap. 29. de [...]pir. Sancto. the day would fail him in the very simple enumeration of all Traditions Ecclesiastical. And if the Church hath failed in keeping the great variety of Traditions, it will hardly be thought a fault in a private person to neglect Tradition, which either the whole Church hath very much neglected inculpably, or else the whole Church is very much to blame. And who can ascertain us that she hath not entertained some which are no Traditions, as well as lost thousands that are? That she did entertain some false Traditions I have already proved; but it is also as probable that some of those which these Ages did propound for Traditions are not so, as it is certain that some which the first Ages called Traditions, were nothing less.

6. Fourthly, There are some opinions which when they began to be publickly received, began to be accounted prime Traditions and so became such, not by a native title, but by adoption; and nothing is more usual than for the Fathers to colour their popular opinion with so great an appellative. S. Austin called the communicating of Infants an Apostolical Tradition, and yet we do not practise it, because we disbelieve the Allegation. And that every custome which at first introduction was but a private fancy or singular practice, grew afterwards into a publick rite and went for a Tradition after a while continuance, appears by Tertullian who seems to justifie it, Non enim existimas tu licitum esse cuicunque fideli constituere quod Deo placere illi visum fuerit, Contra Marcion De coron. milit. c. 3. & 4. Apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. ad disciplinam & salutem. And again, A quocunque traditore censetur, nec authorem respicias sed authoritatem. And S. Hierome most plainly, Praecepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat. And when Irenaeus had observed that great variety in the keeping of Lent, which yet to be a fourty days Fast is pretended to descend from Tradition Apostolical, some fasting but one day before Easter, some two, some fourty, and this even long before Irenaeus's time, he gives this reason, Varietas illa jejunii coepit apud Majores nostros qui non accuratè consuetudinem eorum qui vel simplicitate quâdam vel privatâ authoritate in posterum aliquid statuissent, observârant [ex translatione Christophorsoni:] And there are yet some points of good concernment, which if any man should question in a high manner, they would prove indeterminable by Scripture, or sufficient reason, and yet I doubt not their confident Defenders would say they are opinions of the Church, and quickly pretend a Tradition from the very Apostles, and believe themselves so secure that they could not be discovered, because the Question never having been disputed, gives them occasion to say that which had no beginning known was certainly from the Apostles. For why should not Divines doe in the Question [Page] of reconfirmation as in that of rebaptization? Are not the grounds equal from an indeleble character in one as in the other? and if it happen such a Question as this after contestation should be determined, not by any positive decree, but by the cession of one part, and the authority and reputation of the other, does not the next Age stand fair to be abused with a pretence of Tradition, in the matter of reconfirmation, which never yet came to a serious Question? For so it was in the Question of rebaptization for which there was then no more evident Tradition than there is now in the question of reconfirmation, as I proved formerly, but yet it was carried upon that Title.

7. Fifthly, There is great variety in the probation of Tradition, so that what ever is proved to be Tradition, is not equally and alike credible; for nothing but universal Tradition is of it self credible; other Traditions in their just proportion as they partake of the degrees of universality. Now that a Tradition be universal, or which is all one that it be a credible Testimony,Lib. 3. c. 4. S. Irenaeus requires that Tradition should derive from all the Churches Apostolical. And therefore according to this rule there was no sufficient medium to determine the Question about Easter, because the Eastern and Western Churches had several Traditions respectively, and both pretended from the Apostles. Clemens Alexandrinus sayes,L. 1. Stromat. L. 2. c. 39. Omnes Seniores testantur qui in Asia apud johannem Discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis Johannem, &c. & qui alios Apostolos viderunt haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt, & testantur de ejusmedi relatione. Salmeron. disput. 51. in Rom. it was a secret Tradition from the Apostles that Christ preached but one year: But Irenaeus says it did derive from Hereticks, and says that he by Tradition first from S. John, and then from his Disciples received another Tradition, that Christ was almost fifty years old when he died, and so by consequence preached almost twenty years; both of them were deceived, and so had all that had believed the report of either pretending Tradition Apostolical. Thus the custome in the Latine Church of fasting on Saturday was against that Tradition which the Greeks had from the Apostles; and therefore by this division and want of consent, which was the true Tradition was so absolutely indeterminable, that both must needs lose much of their reputation. But how then when not only particular Churches but single persons are all the proof we have for a Tradition? And this often happened; I think S. Austin is the chief Argument and Authority we have for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary; The Baptism of Infants is called a Tradition by Origen alone at first, and from him by others. The procession of the holy Ghost from the Son, which is an Article the Greek Church disavowes, derives from the Tradition Apostolical, as it is pretended; and yet before S. Austin we hear nothing of it very clearly or certainly, for as much as that whole mysterie concerning the blessed Spirit was so little explicated in Scripture, and so little derived to them by Tradition, that till the Council of Nice, you shall hardly find any form of worship or personal address of devotion to the holy Spirit, as Erasmus observes, and I think the contrary will very hardly be verified. And for this particular in which I instance, whatsoever is in Scripture concerning it, is against that which the Church of Rome calls Tradition, which makes the Greeks so confident as they are of the point, and is an Argument of the vanity of some things which for no greater reason are called Traditions, but because one man hath said so, and that they can be proved by no better Argument to be true. Now in this case wherein Tradition descends upon us with unequal certainty, it would be very unequal to require of us an absolute belief of every thing not written, for fear we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolical. And since no thing can require our supreme assent, but that which is truly Catholick and Apostolick, and to such a Tradition is required as Irenaeus says, the consent of all those Churches which the Apostles planted, and where they did preside, this topick will be of so little use in judging heresies, that (beside what is deposited in Scripture) it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture it self, and as it is now received, even in that there is some variety.

8. And therefore there is wholly a mistake in this business; for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition, and with much earnestness, and some clamour they call upon Hereticks to conform to or to be tryed by Tradition, it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamental points of Christianity, which were also recorded in Scripture. But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consign'd, they called to that testimony they had, which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolical, whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis, did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they have been taught. Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolical, Christum accepisse calicem, & dixisse sanguinem suum esse, & docuisse nodum oblationem novi Testamenti, quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum. And the Fathers in these Ages confute Hereticks by Ecclesiastical Tradition, that is, they confront against their impious and blasphemous doctrines that Religion which the Apostles having taught to the Churches where they did preside, their Successors [Page] did still preach, and for a long while together suffered not the enemy to sow tares amongst their wheat. And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions, were nothing but such fundamental truths which were in Scripture, [...], as Irenaeus in Eusebius observes,Lib. 5. cap. 20. in the instance of Polycarpus; and it is manifest by considering what heresies they fought against,Vid. Irenae. l. 3. & 4. cont. haeres. the heresies of Ebion, Cerinthus, Nicolaitans, Valentinians, Carpocratians, persons that denied the Son of God, the Unity of the Godhead, that preached impurity, that practised Sorcery and Witch-craft. And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them than Scripture, was, because the publick Doctrine of all the Apostolical Churches was at first more known and famous than many parts of the Scripture, and because some Hereticks denied S. Lukes Gospel, some received none but S. Matthews, some rejected all S. Pauls Epistles, and it was a long time before the whole Canon was consigned by universal testimony, some Churches having one part, some another, Rome her self had not all, so that in this case the Argument from Tradition was the most famous, the most certain, and the most prudent. And now according to this rule they had more Traditions than we have, and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written, and their necessity was less, as the knowledge of them was ascertained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths. All that great mysteriousness of Christs Priest-hood, the unity of his Sacrifice, Christs Advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven, and many other excellent Doctrines might very well be accounted Traditions before S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews was published to all the World; but now they are written truths, and if they had not, possibly we might either have lost them quite, or doubted of them, as we doe of many other Traditions,2. Pet. 1.13. by reason of the insufficiency of the propounder. And therefore it was that S. Peter took order that the Gospel should be Writ, for he had promised that he would doe something which after his decease should have these things in remembrance. He knew it was not safe trusting the report of men where the fountain might quickly run dry, or be corrupted so insensibly, that no cure could be found for it, nor any just notice taken of it till it were incurable. And indeed there is scarce any thing but what is written in Scripture, that can with any confidence of Argument pretend to derive from the Apostles, except rituals, and manners of ministration; but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a current, that we may see a visible channel, and trace it to the Primitive fountains. It is said to be a Tradition Apostolical, that no Priest should baptize without chrism and the command of the Bishop: Suppose it were, yet we cannot be obliged to believe it with much confidence, because we have but little proof for it, scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were,Dialog. adv. Lucifer. this is but a ritual, of which in passing by, I shall give that account: That, suppose this and many more rituals did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolical (which yet but very few doe) yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such rituals, because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles, are expired and gone out in a desuetude; such as are abstinence from bloud, and from things strangled, the coenobitick life of secular persons, the colledge of widows, to worship standing upon the Lords day, to give milk and honey to the newly baptized, and many more of the like nature; now there having been no mark to distinguish the necessity of one from the indifferency of the other, they are all alike necessary, or alike indifferent; If the former, why does no Church observe them? If the latter, why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty, for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them, but the adiaphorous? S. Paul gave order, that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife; The Church of Rome will not allow so much; other Churches allow more: The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday, as appears in their Canons; the Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday, and not on Wednesday: The Apostes had their Agapae or love Feasts, we should believe them scandalous: They used a kiss of charity in ordinary addresses, the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Masse, other Churches quite omit it: The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugal Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles (which to them is an Argument who believe them such) and yet the Church of Rome, by no means will endure it;De sacr. hom. continent. li. 5. c. 105. De Tradit. part. 3. c. de Author. Can. Apost. nay more, Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84. Canons Apostolical which Clemens collected, scarce six or eight are observed by the Latine Church, and Peresius gives this account of it, In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantu [...], aliis pro temporis & materiae qualitate aut obliteratis, aut totius Ecclesiae magisterio abrogatis. Now it were [Page] good that they which take a liberty to themselves, should also allow the same to others. So that for one thing or other, all Traditions, excepting those very few that are absolutely universal, will lose all their obligation, and become no competent medium to confine mens practices, or limit their faiths, or determine their perswasions. Either for the difficulty of their being proved, the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them, or the indifferency of the thing transmitted, all Traditions both ritual and doctrinal are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying.

9. Sixthly, To which I adde by way of confirmation, that there are some things called Traditions, and are offered to be proved to us by a Testimony, which is either false or not extant. Clemens of Alexandria pretended it a Tradition that the Apostles preached to them that died in infidelity, even after their death, and then raised them to life, but he proved it only by the Testimony of the Book of Hermes; he affirmed it to be a Tradition Apostolical, that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophie, but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphal Books of Peter and Paul. Tertullian and S. Basil pretended it an Apostolical Tradition, to sign in the aire with the sign of the Cross, but this was only consigned to them in the Gospel of Nicodemus. But to instance once for all in the Epistle of Marcellus to the Bishop of Antioch, where he affirmes that it is the Canon of the Apostles, praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis, non posse Concilia celebrari. And yet there is no such Canon extant, nor ever was for ought appears in any Record we have; and yet the Collection of the Canons is so intire, that though it hath something more than what was Apostolical, yet it hath nothing less. And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the Canons of the Apostles, I consider that there cannot in the world a greater instance be given how easie it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions. For 1. to the first 50, which many did admit for Apostolical, 35 more were added, which most men now count spurious, all men call dubious, and some of them univerally condemned by peremptory sentence, even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection, as 65.67. and 8⅘ Canons. For the first 50, it is evident that there are some things so mixt with them, and no mark of difference left, that the credit of all is much impaired, insomuch that Isidor of Sevil says, they were Apocryphal, made by Hereticks, Apud Gratian. dist. 16. c. Canones. Lib 1. c. 18. de Orthod. fide. and published under the title Apostolical, but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them. And yet they have prevailed so far amongst some, that Damascen is of opinion they should be received equally with the Canonical writings of the Apostles. One thing only I observe (and we shall find it true in most writings, whose Authority is urged in Questions of Theologie) that the Authority of the Tradition is not it which moves the assent, but the nature of the thing; and because such a Canon is delivered, they do not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered, but disbelieve the Tradition, if they do not like the matter, and so do not judge of the matter by the Tradition, but of the Tradition by the matter. And thus the Church of Rome rejects the 84. or 85. Canon of the Apostles, not because it is delivered with less Authority, than the last 35 are, but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise than it is at Rome. Thus also the fifth Canon amongst the first 50, because it approves the marriage of Priests and Deacons does not perswade them to approve of it too, but it self becomes suspected for approving it: So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolical Authority, or else that the reputation of such Traditions is kept up to serve their own ends, and therefore when they encounter them, they are no more to be upheld; which what else is it but to teach all the world to contemn such pretences and undervalue Traditions, and to supply to others a reason why they should doe that, which to them that give the occasion is most unreasonable?

10. Seventhly, The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only means of proving Tradition, and sometimes their dictates and doctrine being the Tradition pretended of necessity to be imitated, it is considerable that men in their estimate of it, take their rise from several Ages and differing Testimonies, and are not agreed about the competency of their Testimony; and the reasons that on each side make them differ, are such as make the authority it self the less authentick and more repudiable. Some will allow only of the three first Ages, as being most pure, most persecuted, and therefore most holy, least interested, serving fewer designes, having fewest factions, and therefore more likely to speak the truth for Gods sake and its own, as best complying with their great end of acquiring Heaven in recompence of losing their lives: Others Vid. Card. Perron. lettre [...]u Sieur Casaubon. say, that those Ages being persecuted minded the present Doctrines proportionable to their [Page] purposes and constitution of the Ages, and make little or nothing of those Questions which at this day vex Christendome: And both speak true: The first Ages speak greatest truth, but least pertinently. The next Ages the Ages of the four general Councils spake something, not much more pertinently to the present Questions, but were not so likely to speak true, by reason of their dispositions contrary to the capacity and circumstance of the first Ages; and if they speak wisely as Doctors, yet not certainly as witnesses of such propositions which the first Ages noted not; and yet unless they had noted, could not possibly be Traditions. And therefore either of them will be less useless as to our present affairs. For indeed the Questions which now are the publick trouble, were not considered or thought upon for many hundred years, and therefore prime Tradition there is none as to our purpose, and it will be an insufficient medium to be used or pretended in the determination; and to dispute concerning the truth or necessity of Traditions, in the Questions of our times, is as if Historians disputing about a Question in the English Story, should fall on wrangling whether Livie or Plutarch were the best Writers: And the earnest disputes about Traditions are to no better purpose. For no Church at this day admits the one half of those things, which certainly by the Fathers were called Traditions Apostolical, and no Testimony of ancient Writers does consign the one half of the present Questions, to be or not to be traditions. So that they who admit only the doctrine and testimony of the first Ages cannot be determined in most of their doubts which now trouble us, because their writings are of matters wholly differing from the present disputes, and they which 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,L. 3. c. 2. contr. haeres. 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 vi [...]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 [Page] 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 Orat. ad Nicen. PP. apud. Theodor. l. 1. c. 7. Constantine, In Mat. l. 4. c. 23. & in Aggaeum. St. Hierom, De bono viduel. c. 1. St. Austin, Orat. cont. Genr. St. Athanasius, In Psal. 132. St. Hilary, L. 2. contra heres. tom. 1. haer. 61. St. Epiphanius, and divers others, all speaking words to the same sence, with that saying of St. 1 Cor. 4. 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 particular authority of these men whose Commentaries they are, and therefore must be considered with them.

12. The summe is this: Since the Fathers, who are the best witnesses of Traditions, yet were infinitely deceived in their account, since sometimes they guest at them, and conjectured by way of Rule and Discourse, and not of their knowledge, not by evidence of the thing; since many are called Traditions which were not so, many are uncertain whether they were or no, yet confidently pretended, and this uncertainty which at first was great enough, is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 years; since the Church hath been either so careless or so abused that she could not, or would not preserve Traditions with carefulness and truth; since it was ordinary for the old Writers to set out their own fancies, and the Rites of their Church which had been Ancient under the specious Title of Apostolical Traditions; since some Traditions rely but upon single Testimony at first, and yet descending upon others, come to be attested by many, whose Testimony, though conjunct, yet in value is but single, because it relies upon the first single Relator, and so can have no greater authority, or certainty, than they derive from the single person; since the first Ages who were most competent to consign Tradition, yet did consign such Traditions as be of a nature wholly discrepant from the present Questions, and speak nothing at all, or very imperfectly to our purposes; and the following ages are no fit witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them, because they could not know it at all, but by [Page] such transmission and prior consignation; since what at first was a Tradition, came afterwards to be written, and so ceased its being a Tradition; yet the credit of Traditions commenced upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word, afterward consigned by writing; since what was certainly Tradition Apostolical, as many Rituals were, are rejected by the Church in several ages, and are gone out into a desuetude; and lastly, since, beside the no necessity of Traditions, there being abundantly enough in Scripture, there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers, which they themselves either proved by no Authors, or by Apocryphal, and spurious, and Heretical, the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain, so false, so suspicious, so contradictory, so improbable, so unproved, that if a Question be contested, and be offered to be proved only by Tradition, it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the belief of all men with an imperiousness or resolved determination, but it will be necessary men should preserve the liberty of believing and prophecying, and not part with it, upon a worse merchandise and exchange than Esau made for his birthright.

SECT. VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councils Ecclesiastical to the same purpose.

1. BUT since we are all this while in uncertainty, it is necessary that we should address our selves somewhere, where we may rest the soal of our foot: And Nature, Scripture, and Experience teach the World in matters of Question, to submit to some final sentence. For it is not reason that controversies should continue till the erring person shall be willing to condemn himself; and the Spirit of God hath directed us by that great precedent at Jerusalem, to address our selves to the Church, that in a plenary Council and Assembly, she may Synodically determine Controversies. So that if a General Council have determined a Question, or expounded Scripture, we may no more disbelieve the Decree, than the Spirit of God himself who speaks in them. And indeed, if all Assemblies of Bishops were like that first, and all Bishops were of the same spirit of which the Apostles were, I should obey their Decree with the same Religion as I do them whose Preface was Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis, and I doubt not but our blessed Saviour intended that the Assemblies of the Church should be Judges of the Controversies, and guides of our perswasions in matters of difficulty. But he also intended they should proceed according to his will which he had revealed, and those precedents which he had made authentick by the immediate assistance of his holy Spirit: He hath done his part, but we do not do ours. And if any private person in the simplicity and purity of his soul desires to find out a truth of which he is in search and inquisition, if he prays for wisdom, we have a promise he shall be heard and answered liberally, and therefore much more, when the representatives of the Catholick Church do meet, because every person there hath in individuo a title to the promise, and another title as he is a governour and a guide of souls, and all of them together have another title in their united capacity, especially, if in that union they pray, and proceed with simplicity and purity, so that there is no disputing against the pretence and promises, and authority of General Councils. For if any one man can hope to be guided by Gods Spirit in the search, the pious, and impartial, and unprejudicate search of truth, then much more may a General Council. If no private man can hope for it, then truth is not necessary to be found, nor we are not obliged to search for it, or else we are saved by chance: But if private men can by vertue of a promise, upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth, much more shall a General Council. So that I consider thus: There are many promises pretended to belong to General Assemblies in the Church; but I know not any ground, nor any pretence, that they shall be absolutely assisted, without any condition on their own parts, and whether they will or no: Faith is a vertue as well as Charity, and therefore consists in liberty and choice, and hath nothing in it of necessity: There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule; for [Page] they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasme; if they should, I know no warrant for that, neither did any General Council ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently proved by Scripture, Reason, or Tradition, as appears in the Acts of the Councils; now then, if they be tied to conditions, it is their duty to observe them; but whether it be certain that they will observe them, that they will do all their duty, that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty, that's the consideration. So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of General Councils, and whether or no great promises appertain to them, I suppose him to be much mistaken; but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason, and that none of them were deceived, because possibly they might have been truly directed, is a stranger to the History of the Church, and to the perpetual instances and experiments of the faults and failings of humanity. It is a famous saying of St. Gregory, That he had the four first Councils in esteem and veneration next to the four Evangelists; I suppose it was because he did believe them to have proceeded according to rule, and to have judged righteous judgment; but why had not he the same opinion of other Councils too, which were celebrated before his death, for he lived after the fifth General; not because they had not the same Authority; for that which is warrant for one, is warrant for all; but because he was not so confident that they did their duty, nor proceeded so without interest as the first four had done, and the following Councils did never get that reputation which all the Catholick Church acknowledged due to the first four. And in the next Order were the three following Generals; for the Greeks and Latines did never jointly acknowledge but seven Generals to have been authentick in any sence, because they were in no sence agreed that any more than seven had proceeded regularly, and done their duty: So that now the Question is not whether General Councils have a promise that the holy Ghost will assist them; For every private man hath that promise, that if he does his duty, he shall be assisted sufficiently in order to that end to which he needs assistance; and therefore much more shall General Councils in order to that end for which they convene, and to which they need assistance, that is, in order to the conservation of the Faith, for the doctrinal rules of good life, and all that concerns the essential duty of a Christian, but not in deciding Questions to satisfie contentions, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. But now can the Bishops so convened be factious, can they be abused with prejudice, or transported with interests, can they resist the holy Ghost, can they extinguish the Spirit, can they stop their ears, and serve themselves upon the holy Spirit and the pretence of his assistances; and cease to serve him upon themselves, by captivating their understandings to his dictates, and their wills to his precepts? Is it necessary they should perform any condition? is there any one duty for them to perform in these Assemblies, a duty which they have power to do or not to do? If so, then they may fail of it, and not do their duty: And if the assistance of the holy Spirit be conditional, then we have no more assurance that they are assisted, than that they do their duty, and do not sin.

2. Now let us suppose what this duty is: Certainly, if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; and all that come to the knowledge of the truth, must come to it by such means which are spiritual and holy dispositions, in order to a holy and spiritual end. They must be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace, that is, they must have peaceable and docible dispositions, nothing with them that is violent, and resolute to encounter those gentle and sweet assistances: and the Rule they are to follow, is the Rule which the holy Spirit hath consigned to the Catholick Church, that is, the holy Scripture, either Vid Optat. Milev. l. 5. adv. Parm. Baldvin. in. eundem. & S. August. in ps. 21. Expos. 2. intirely, or at least for the greater part of the Rule: So that now if the Bishops be factious and prepossessed with perswasions depending upon interest, it is certain they may judge amiss; and if they recede from the Rule, it is certain they do judge amiss: And this I say upon their grounds who most advance the Authority of General Councils: For if a General Council may err if a Pope confirm it not, then most certainly if in any thing it recede from Scripture, it does also err; because that they are to expect the Popes confirmation they offer to prove from Scripture: now if the Popes confirmation be required by authority of Scripture, and that therefore the defailance of it does evacuate the Authority of the Council, then also are the Councils Decrees invalid, if they recede from any other part of Scripture: So that Scripture is the Rule they are to follow, and a man would have thought it had been needless to have proved it, but that we are fallen into Ages in which no truth is certain, no reason concluding, nor is there any thing that can convince some men.Relect. controv. 4. q. 1. a. 3. For Stapleton with extream boldness against the piety of Christendom, against the [Page] publick sence of the ancient Church, and the practice of all pious Assemblies of Bishops affirms the Decrees of a Council to be binding, etiamsi non confirmetur ne probabilì testimonio Scripturarum: nay, though it be quite extra Scripturam, but all wise and good men have ever said that sence which Saint Hilary expressed in these words, Quae extra Evangelium sunt non defendam; This was it which the good Emperour Constantine propounded to the Fathers met at Nice, I. 2. ad Constant. Apud Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 10. Libri Evangelici, oracula Apostolorum, & veterum Prophetarum clarè nos instruunt quid sentiendum in Divinis. And this is confessed by a sober man of the Roman Church it self, the Cardinal of Cusa, Oportet quòd omnia talia quae legere debent, contineantur in Authoritatibus sacrarum Scripturarum: Now then all the advantage I shall take from hence, is this, That if the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the Law and the Prophets, and the men of Berea were accounted noble for searching the Scriptures, whether those things which they taught were so or no; I suppose it will not be denied, but the Councils Decrees may also be tryed whether they be conform to Scripture yea or no; and although no man can take cognisance and judge the Decrees of a Council pro Authoritate publicâ, yet pro informatione privatâ they may; the Authority of a Council is not greater than the Authority of the Apostles, nor their dictates more sacred or authentick. Now then put case a Council should recede from Scripture; whether or no were we bound to believe its Decrees? I only ask the Question: For it were hard to be bound to believe what to our understanding seems contrary to that which we know to be the Word of God: But if we may lawfully recede from the Councils Decrees, in case they be contrariant to Scripture, it is all that I require in this Question. For if they be tyed to a Rule, then they are to be examined and understood according to the Rule, and then we are to give our selves that liberty of judgment which is requisite to distinguish us from beasts, and to put us into a capacity of reasonable people, following reasonable guides. But however, if it be certain that the Councils are to follow Scripture, then if it be notorious that they do recede from Scripture, we are sure we must obey God rather than men, and then we are well enough. For unless we are bound to shut our eyes, and not to look upon the Sun, if we may give our selves liberty to believe what seems most 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? [Page] 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.L. 2. c. 14. Concord. Cathol. 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,Epist. Abailardi ad Heliss. conjugem. 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 Cusanus, l. 2. cap. 25. Concord. 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 confirmation were necessary, and required to the making of conciliary and necessary sanctions. But if it were, the case were very hard: For suppose a heresy should invade, and possess the Chair of Rome, what remedy can the Church have in that case, if a General Council be of no Authority without the Pope confirm it? will the Pope confirm a Council against himself; will he condemn his own heresie? That the Pope may be an Heretick appears in the Dist. 40. Can. si Papa. Canon Law, which says he may for heresie be deposed, and therefore by a Council which in this case hath plenary Authority without the Pope. And therefore in the Synod at Rome held under Pope Adrian the Second, the Censure of the Sixth Synod against Honorius who was convict of heresie, is approved with this Appendix, that in this case, the case of heresie, minores possint de majoribus judicare: And therefore if a Pope were above a Council, yet when the Question is concerning heresie, the case is altered; the Pope may be judged by his inferiours, who in this case, which is the main case of all, become his Superiours. And it is little better than impudence to pretend that all Councils were confirmed by the Pope, or that there is a necessity in respect [Page] of divine obligation, that any should be confirmed by him, more than by another of the Patriarchs. For the Council of Chalcedon it self one of those four which Saint Gregory did revere next to the four Evangelists, is rejected by Pope Leo, who in his 53. Epistle to Anatolius, and in his 54. to Martian, and in his 55. to Pulcheria, accuses it of ambition and inconsiderate temerity, and therefore no fit Assembly for the habitation of the holy Spirit, and Gelasius in his Tome de vinculo Anathematis, affirms that the Council is in part to be received, in part to be rejected, and compares it to heritical books of a mixt matter, and proves his assertion by the place of St. Paul, Omnia probate, De laicis l. 3. c. 20. Sect. ad hoc ult. quod bonum est retinete. And Bellarmine sayes the same; In Concilio Chalcedonensi quaedam sunt bona, quaedam mala, quaedam recipienda, quaedam rejicienda; ita & in libris haereticorun, and if any thing be false, then all is Questionable, and judicable & discernable, and not infallible antecedently. And however, that Council hath ex postfacto, and by the voluntary consenting of after Ages obtained great reputation; yet they that lived immediately after it, that observed all the circumstances of the thing, and the disabilities of the persons and the uncertainty of the truth of its decrees, by reason of the unconcludingness of the Arguments brought to attest it, were of another mind, Quod autem ad Concilium Chalcedonense attinet, Evag. lib. 3. cap. 30. illud id temporis (viz. Anastasii Imp.) neque palam in Ecclesiis sanctissimis praedicatum fuit neque ab omnibus rejectum, nam singuli Ecclesiarum praesides pro suo arbitratu in ea re egerunt. And so did all men in the world that were not Master'd with prejudices and undone in their understanding with accidental impertinencies; they judged upon those grounds which they had and saw, and suffered not themselves to be bound to the imperious dictates of other men, who are as uncertain in their determinations as other in their questions. And it is an evidence that there is some deception, and notable errour either in the thing or in the manner of their proceeding, when the Decrees of a Council shall have no authoritie from the Compilers, nor no strength from the reasonableness of the Decision, but from the accidental approbation of Posteritie: And if Posteritie had pleased, Origen had believed well and been an Orthodox person. And it was pretty sport to see that Papias was right for two Ages together, and wrong ever since; and just so it was in Councils, particularly in this of Chalcedon, that had a fate alterable according to the Age, and according to the Climate, which to my understanding is nothing else but an Argument that the business of infallibility is a latter device, and commenced to serve such ends as cannot be justified by true and substantial grounds, and that the Pope should confirm it as of necessity, is a fit cover for the same dish.

4. In the sixth General Council, Honorius Pope of Rome was condemned; did that Council stay for the Popes Confirmation before they sent forth the Decree? Certainly they did not think it so needful, as that they would have suspended or cassated the Decree, in case the Pope had then disavowed it: For besides the condemnation of Pope Honorius for Heresie, the 13. and 55. Canons of that Council are expressely against the custome of the Church of Rome. But this particular is involved in that new Question, whether the Pope be above a Council. Now since the Contestation of this Question, there was never any free or lawful Council that determined for the Pope, it is not likely any should, and is it likely that any Pope will confirm a Council that does not? For the Council of Basil is therefore condemned by the last Lateran which was an Assembly in the Popes own Palace,Vid. postea de Concil. Sinvessano. Sect. 6. N. 9. and the Council of Constance is of no value in this Question, and slighted in a just proportion, as that Article is disbelieved. But I will not much trouble the Question with a long consideration of this particular; the pretence is senceless and illiterate, against reason and experience,Epist. 162. ad Glorium. and already determined by Saint Austin sufficiently as to this particular, Ecce putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicaverunt non bonos judices fuisse. Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium, ubi etiam cum ipsis judicibus causa possit agitari, ut si male judicasse convicti essent, eorum sententiae solverentur. For since Popes may be parties, may be Simoniacks, Schismaticks, Hereticks, it is against reason that in their own causes they should be Judges, or that in any causes they should be Superiour to their Judges. And as it is against reason, so is it against all experience too; for the Council Sinvessanum (as it is said) was conven'd to take Cognisance of Pope Marcellinus; and divers Councils were held at Rome to give judgment in the causes of Damasus, Sixtus the III. Symmachus, and Leo III. and IV. as is to be seen in Platina, and the Tomes of the Councils. And it is no answer to this and the like allegations to say in matters of fact and humane constitution, the Pope may be judged by a Council, but in matters of Faith all the world must stand to the Popes determination and authoritative decision: For if the Pope can by any colour pretend to [Page] any thing, it is to a supreme Judicature in matters Ecclesiastical, positive and of fact; and if he fails in this pretence, he will hardly hold up his head for any thing else: for the ancient Bishops derived their Faith from the fountain, and held that in the highest tenure, even from Christ their Head; but by reason of the Imperial Vid. Concil. Chalced. act. 15. City it became the principal Seat, and he surprized the highest Judicature, partly by the concession of others, partly by his own accidental advantages; and yet even in these things although he was major singulis, yet he was minor universis. And this is no more then what was decreed of the eighth General Synod; which if it be sense,Act. ult. can. 21. is pertinent to this Question: for General Councils are appointed to take Cognizance of Questions and differences about the Bishop of Rome, non tamen audacter in eum ferre sententiam. By audacter, as is supposed, is meant praecipitanter, hastily and unreasonably: but if to give sentence against him be wholly forbidden, it is non-sense; for to what purpose is an Authority of taking Cognizance, if they have no power of giving sentence, unless it were to defer it to a superiour judge, which in this case cannot be supposed? For either the Pope himself is to judge his own cause after their examination of him, or the General Council is to judge him. So that although the Council is by that Decree enjoyned to proceed modestly and warily, yet they may proceed to sentence, or else the Decree is ridiculous and impertinent.

5. But to clear all, I will instance in matters of Question and opinion: For not onely some Councils have made their Decrees without or against the Pope, but some Councils have had the Pope's confirmation, and yet have not been the more legitimate or obligatory, but are known to be heretical. For the Canons of the sixth Synod, although some of them were made against the Popes, and the custome of the Church of Rome, a Pope a while after did confirm the Council; and yet the Canons are impious and hereticall, and so esteemed by the Church of Rome herself. I instance in the second Canon, which approves of that Synod of Carthage under Cyprian for rebaptization of Hereticks, and the 72. Canon, that dissolves marriage between persons of differing perswasion in matters of Christian Religion; and yet these Canons were approved by Pope Adrian I. who in his Epistle to Tharasius, which is in the second Action of the seventh Synod, calls them Canones divinè & legaliter praedicatos. And these Canons were used by Pope Nicolas I. in his Epistle ad Michaelem, and by Innocent III. c. à multis: extra. de aetat. ordinandorum. So that now (that we may apply this) there are seven General Councils which by the Church of Rome are condemn'd of errour. The Vid. Socr. l. 2. c. 5. & Sozom. l. 3. c. 5. Gregor. in Regist. li. 3. caus. 7. ait Concilium Numidiae errâsse. Concilium Aquisgrani erra [...]it. De raptore & rapta dist. 20. can. de libellis. in glossa. Council of Antioch, A. D. 345. in which Saint Athanasius was condemned: The Council of Millan, A. D. 354. of above 300 Bishops: The Council of Ariminum, consisting of 600 Bishops: The second Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449. in which the Eutychian heresie was confirmed, and the Patriarch Flavianus kill'd by the faction of Dioscorus: The Council of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus, A. D. 730: And another at Constantinople 35 years after: And lastly, the Council at Pisa, 134 years since. Now that these General Councils are condemned, is a sufficient Argument that Councils may erre: and it is no answer to say they were not confirmed by the Pope; for the Pope's confirmation I have shewn not to be necessary; or if it were, yet even that also is an Argument that General Councils may become invalid, either by their own fault, or by some extrinsecall supervening accident, either of which evacuates their Authority. And whether all that is required to the legitimation of a Council was actually observ'd in any Council, is so hard to determine, that no man can be infallibly sure that such a Council is authentick and sufficient probation.

6. Secondly, And that is the second thing I shall observe, There are so many Questions concerning the efficient, the form, the matter of General Councils, and their manner of proceeding, and their final sanction, that after a Question is determined by a Conciliary Assembly, there are perhaps twenty more Questions to be disputed before we can with confidence either believe the Council upon its mere Authority, or obtrude it upon others. And upon this ground, how easie it is to elude the pressure of an Argument drawn from the Authority of a General Council, is very remarkable in the Question about the Pope's or the Council's Superiority: which Question although it be defined for the Council against the Pope by five General Councils, the Council of Florence, of Constance, of Basil, of Pisa, and one of the Laterans; yet the Jesuites to this day account this Question pro non definita, and have rare pretences for their escape. As first, It is true, a Council is above a Pope, in case there be no Pope, or he uncertain: which is Bellarmin's answer, never considering whether he spake sense or no, nor yet 1 remembring that the Council of Basil deposed Eugenius, who was a true Pope and so acknowledged. Secondly, sometimes the Pope did not confirm these Councils: that's 2 [Page] their Answer. And although it was an exception that the Fathers never thought of, when they were pressed with the Authority of the Council of Ariminum or Sirmium, or any other Arrian Convention; yet the Council of Basil was conven'd by Pope Martin V. then, in its sixteenth Session, declared by Eugenius the IV. to be lawfully continued, and confirmed expresly in some of its Decrees by Pope Nicolas, and so stood till it was at last rejected by Leo the X. very many years after; but that came too late, and with too visible an interest: and this Council did decree fide Catholicâ tenendum Concilium esse supra Papam. But if one Pope confirms it, and another rejects it, as it happened in this case and in many more, does it not destroy the competency of the Authority? and we see it by this instance, that it so serves the turns of men, that it is good in some cases, that is, when it makes for them, and invalid when it makes against 3 them. Thirdly, but it is a little more ridiculous in the case of the Council of Constance, whose Decrees were confirmed by Martin V. But that this may be no Argument against them, Bellarmine tells you he onely confirmed those things quae facta fuerant Conciliariter, re diligenter examinatâ: of which there being no mark, nor any certain Rule to judge it, it is a device that may evacuate any thing we have a mind to, it was not done Conciliariter, that is, not according to our mind; for Conciliariter is a fine new-nothing, 4 that may signifie what you please. Fourthly, but other devices yet more pretty they have: As, Whether the Council of Lateran was a General Council or no, they know not, (no, nor will not know:) which is a wise and plain reservation of their own 5 advantages, to make it General or not General, as shall serve their turns. Fifthly, as for the Council of Florence, they are not sure whether it hath defined the Question satìs 6 apertè; apertè they will grant, if you will allow them not satìs aperté. Sixthly and lastly,Bellar. de conc. l. 1. c. 8. the Council of Pisa is neque approbatum neque reprobatum: which is the greatest folly of all and most prodigious vanity. So that by something or other, either they were not convened lawfully, or they did not proceed Conciliariter, or 'tis not certain that the Council was General or no, or whether the Council were approbatum or reprobatum, or else it is partim confirmatum partim reprobatum, or else it is neque approbatum neque reprobatum; by one of these ways, or a device like to these, all Councils and all Decrees shall be made to signifie nothing, and to have no Authority.

7. Thirdly, There is no General Council that hath determined that a General Council is infallible; no Scripture hath recorded it; no Tradition universal hath transmitted to us any such proposition: So that we must receive the Authority at a lower rate, and upon a less probability then the things consigned by that Authority. And it is strange that the Decrees of Councils should be esteemed authentick and infallible, and yet it is not infallibly certain that the Councils themselves are infallible, because the belief of the Councils infallibility is not proved to us by any medium but such as may deceive us.

8. Fourthly, But the best instance that Councils are, some, and may all, be deceived, is the contradiction of one Council to another: for in that case both cannot be true, and which of them is true, must belong to another judgment, which is less then the solennity of a General Council; and the determination of this matter can be of no greater certainty after it is concluded, then when it was propounded as a Question, being it is to be determined by the same Authority, or by a less then it self. But for this allegation we cannot want instances.Sess. 25. The Council of Trent allows picturing of God the Father: The Council of Nice altogether disallows it. The same Nicene Council,Act. 2. which was the seventh General, allows of picturing Christ in the form of a Lamb: But the sixth Synod by no means will indure it, as Caranza affirms. The Council of Neocaesarea confirmed by Leo IV. dist. 20. de libellis, and approved by the first Nicene Council,Can. 82. as it is said in the seventh Session of the Council of Florence, forbids second Marriages, and imposes Penances on them that are married the second time, forbidding Priests to be present at such Marriage-Feasts: Besides that this is expresly against the Doctrine of Saint Paul, it is also against the Doctrine of the Council of Laodicea which took off such Penances, and pronounced second Marriages to be free and lawfull. Nothing is more discrepant then the third Council of Carthage, and the Council of Laodicea, about assignation of the Canon of Scripture; and yet the sixth General Synod approves both. And I would fain know if all General Councils are of the same mind with the Fathers of the Council of Carthage, who reckon into the Canon five Books of Solomon. L. 17. de cul. Dei, c. 20. I am sure Saint Austin reckoned but three, and I think all Christendom beside are of the same opinion. And if we look into the title of the Law de Conciliis, called Concordantia discordantiarum, we shall finde instances enough to confirm that the Decrees of some Councils are contradictory to others, and that no [Page] wit can reconcile them. And whether they did or no, that they might disagree, and former Councils be corrected by later, was the belief of the Doctors in those Ages in which the best and most famous Councils were convened; as appears in that famous saying of S. Austin, speaking concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks, and how much the Africans were deceived in that Question, he answers the Allegation of the Bishops Letters, and chose National Councils which confirmed S. Cyprian's opinion, by saying that they were no final determination. For Episcoporum literae emendari possunt à Conciliis nationalibus, Concilia nationalia à plenariis, L. 2. de bapt. Donat. c. 3. ipsáque plenaria priora à posterioribus emendari. Not onely the occasion of the Question, being a matter not of fact, but of Faith, as being instanced in the Question of rebaptization, but also the very fabrick and oeconomy of the words, put by all the answers of all those men who think themselves pressed with the Authority of S. Austin. For as National Councils may correct the Bishops Letters, and General Councils may correct National, so the later General may correct the former, that is, have contrary and better Decrees of manners, and better determinations in matters of faith. And from hence hath risen a Question, Whether is to be received, the former or the later Councils, in case they contradict each other? The former are nearer the fountains Apostolicall, the later are of greater consideration: The first have more Authority, the later more reason: The first are more venerable, the later more inquisitive and seeing. And now what rule shall we have to determine our beliefs whether to Authority, or Reason, the Reason and the Authority both of them not being the highest in their kind, both of them being repudiable, and at most but probable? And here it is that this great uncertainty is such as not to determine any body, but fit to serve every body: and it is sport to see that Bellarmine will by all means have the Council of Carthage preferred before the Council of Laodicea, L. 2. de Conc. c. 8. Sect. respondeo inprimis. because it is later; and yet he prefers the second Nicene Ibid. Sect. de Concilio autem. Dist. 20. Can. Domino Sancto. Council before the Council of Frankfurt, because it is elder. S. Austin would have the former Generals to be mended by the later; but Isidore in Gratian saies, when Councils do differ, standum esse antiquioribus, the elder must carry it. And indeed these probables are buskins to serve every foot, and they are like magnum & parvum, they have nothing of their own, all that they have is in comparison of others: so these Topicks have nothing of resolute and dogmaticall truth, but in relation to such ends as an interessed person hath a minde to serve upon them.

9. Fifthly, There are many Councils corrupted, and many pretended and alledged when there were no such things, both which make the Topick of the Authority of Councils to be little and inconsiderable. There is a Council brought to light in the edition of Councils by Binius, viz. Sinuessanum, pretended to be kept in the year 303. but it was so private till then, that we find no mention of it in any ancient Record: Neither Eusebius, nor Ruffinus, S. Hierom, nor Socrates, Sozomen, nor Theodoret, nor Eutropius, nor Bede knew any thing of it; and the eldest allegation of it is by Pope Nicolas I. in the ninth Century. And he that shall consider that 300 Bishops in the midst of horrid Persecutions (for so then they were) are pretended to have conven'd, will need no greater Argument to suspect the imposture. Besides, he that was the framer of the engine did not lay his ends together handsomly: for it is said that the deposition of Marcellinus by the Synod was told to Diocletian when he was in the Persian War, when as it is known before that time he had returned to Rome, and triumphed for his Persian Conquest, as Eusebius in his Chronicle reports: and this is so plain, that Binius and Baronius pretend the Text to be corrupted, and to go to Pro [cùm esset in bello Persarum] legi volunt [cùm reversus esset è bello Persarum.] Euseb. Chronicon. Vide Binium in notis ad Concil. Sinuessanum, Tom. 1. Concil. & Baron. Annal. Tom. 3. A.D. 303. num. 107. mend it by such an emendation as is a plain contradiction to the sense, and that so un-clerk-like, viz. by putting in two words, and leaving out one; which whether it may be allowed them by any licence less then Poetical, let Criticks judge. L. 5. Ep. 14. ad Narsem. Comment. in Hebr. S. Gregory saith that the Constantinopolitans had corrupted the Synod of Chalcedon, and that he suspected the same concerning the Ephesine Council. And in the fifth Synod there was a notorious prevarication, for there were false Epistles of Pope Vigilius and Menna the Patriarch of Constantinople inserted, and so they passed for authentick till they were discovered in the sixth General Synod, Actions the 12. and 14. And not onely false Decrees and Actions may creep into the Codes of Councils; but sometimes the authority of a learned man may abuse the Church with pretended Decrees, of which there is no Copy or shadow in the Code itself. And thus Thomas Aquinas says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was reckoned in the Canon by the Nicene Council, no shadow of which appears in those Copies we now have of it: and this pretence and the reputation of the man prevailed so far with Melchior Canus, the learned Bishop of the Canaries, that he believed it upon this ground, Vir sanctus rem adeò gravem non astrueret, nisi compertum habuisset: [Page] and there are many things which have prevailed upon less reason, and a more slight Authority. And that very Council of Nice hath not onely been pretended by Aquinas, but very much abused by others, and its Authority and great reputation hath made it more liable to the fraud and pretences of idle people. For whereas the Nicene Fathers made but twenty Canons, (for so many and no more were received by Con. Carthag. VI. cap. 9 Cecilian of Carthage, that was at Nice in the Council, by Saint Con. Afric. Austin, and 200 African Bishops with him, by Saint Ibid. c. 102. c. 133. Cyril of Alexandria, by Lib. 1. Eccl. Hist. c. 6. Atticus of Constantinople, by Ruffinus, In princ. Con. de Synod. princ. Isidore, and Theodoret, as Baronius, tom. 3. A. D. 325. n. 156. Tom. 3. ad A. D. 325. n. 62, 63. Baronius witnesses;) yet there are fourscore lately found out in an Arabian MS. and published in Latine by Turrian and Alfonsus of Pisa, Jesuites surely, and like to be masters of the mint. And not onely the Canons, but the very Acts of the Nicene Council are false and spurious, and are so confessed by Baronius; though how he and Panopl. lib. 2. c. 6. Lindanus will be reconciled upon the point, I neither know well nor much care. Now if one Council be corrupted, we see by the instance of S. Gregory that another may be suspected, and so all: because he found the Council of Chalcedon corrupted, he suspected also the Ephesine, and another might have suspected more, for the Nicene was tampered foully with; and so three of the four Generals were sullied and made suspicious, and therefore we could not be secure of any. If false Acts be inserted in one Council, who can trust the actions of any, unless he had the keeping the Records himself, or durst swear for the Register? And if a very learned man (as Thomas Aquinas was) did either wilfully deceive us, or was himself ignorantly abused, in Allegation of a Canon which was not, it is but a very fallible Topick at the best, and the most holy man that is may be abused himself, and the wisest may deceive others.

10. Sixthly and lastly, To all this and to the former instances, by way of Corollary, I adde some more particulars in which it is notorious that Councils General and National, that is, such as were either General by Original, or by adoption into the Canon of the Catholick Church, did erre, and were actually deceived. The first Council of Toledo admits to the Communion him that hath a Concubine, so he have no wife besides: and this Council is approved by Pope Leo in the 92. Epistle to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona. Gratian saies that the Council means by a Concubine, a wise married sine dote & solennitate; but this is dawbing with untempered morter. For though it was a custome amongst the Jews to distinguish Wives from their Concubines,Dist. 34. can. omnibus. by Dowry and legal Solennities, yet the Christian distinguished them no otherwise then as lawfull and unlawfull, then as Chastity and Fornication. And besides, if by a Concubine is meant a lawfull wife without a Dowry, to what purpose should the Council make a Law that such a one might be admitted to the Communion? for I suppose it was never thought to be a Law of Christianity, that a man should have a Portion with his Wife, nor he that married a poor Virgin should deserve to be Excommunicate. So that Gratian and his Followers are prest so with this Canon, that to avoid the impiety of it, they expound it to a signification without sense or purpose. But the business then was, that Adultery was so publick and notorious a practice, that the Council did chuse rather to endure simple Fornication, that by such permission of a less, they might slacken the publick custome of a greater; just as at Rome they permit Stews, to prevent unnatural sins. But that by a publick sanction Fornicators, habitually and notoriously such, should be admitted to the holy Communion, was an act of Priests so unfit for Priests, that no excuse can make it white or clean. The Council of Wormes does authorize a superstitious custom at that time too much used, of discovering stolen goods by the holy Sacrament,Cap. 3. which Par. 3. q. 80. a. 6. ad 3m. Aquinas justly condemns for Superstition. The Can. 72. sixth Synod separates persons lawfully married upon an accusation and crime of heresie. The Roman Council under Can. ego Berengar. de consecrat. dist. 2. Pope Nicolas II. defin'd that not onely the Sacrament of Christ's body, but the very body itself of our blessed Saviour is handled and broke by the hands of the Priest, and chewed by the teeth of the Communicants: which is a manifest errour derogatory from the truth of Christ's beatificall Resurrection, and glorification in the Heavens, and disavowed by the Church of Rome it self. But Bellarmine, that answers all the Arguments in the world, whether it be possible or not possible,Lib. 2. c. 8. de Concil. would fain make the matter fair, and the Decree tolerable; for, says he, the Decree means that the body is broken, not in it self, but in the sign; and yet the Decree sayes, that not onely the Sacrament, (which, if any thing be, is certainly the sign) but the very body it self is broken and champed with hands and teeth respectively: which indeed was nothing but a plain over-acting the Article in contradiction to Berengarius. And the answer of Bellarmine is not sense; for he denies that the body it self is broken in it self, (that was the errour we charged upon the Roman [Page] Synod) and the sign abstracting from the body is not broken, (for that was the opinion that Council condemn'd in Berengarius:) but, says Bellarmine, the body in the sign. What's that? for neither the sign, nor the body, nor both together are broken. For if either of them distinctly, they either rush upon the errour which the Roman Synod condemn'd in Berengarius, or upon that which they would fain excuse in Pope Nicolas: but if both are broken, then 'tis true to affirm it of either, and then the Council is blasphemous in saying that Christ's glorified body is passible and frangible by natural manducation. So that it is and it is not, it is not this way, and yet it is no way else, but it is some way, and they know not how, and the Council spake blasphemy, but it must be made innocent; and therefore it was requisite a cloud of a distinction should be raised, that the unwary Reader might be amused, and the Decree scape untoucht: but the truth is, they that undertake to justifie all that other men say, must be more subtle then they that said it, and must use such distinctions which possibly the first Authours did not understand. But I will multiply no more instances, for what instance soever I shall bring, some or other will be answering it; which thing is so far from satisfying me in the particulars, that it encreases the difficulty in the general, and satisfies me in my first belief. For Illa demum eis videntur edicta & Conciliaquae in rem suam faciunt; reliqua non pluris aestimant quàm conventum muliercularum in textrina velthermis. Lud. Vives in Scholiis l. 20. Aug. de Civ. Dei. c. 26. 36. q. 2. c placuit. if no Decrees of Councils can make against them, though they seem never so plain against them, then let others be allowed the same liberty, (and there is all the reason in the world they should) and no Decree shall conclude against any Doctrine that they have already entertained: and by this means the Church is no fitter instrument to decree Controversies then the Scripture it self, there being as much obscurity and disputing in the sense, and the manner, and the degree, and the competency, and the obligation of the Decree of a Council, as of a place of Scripture. And what are we the nearer for a Decree, if any Sophister shall think his elusion enough to contest against the Authority of a Council? yet this they do that pretend highest for their Authority: which consideration or some like it might possibly make Gratian prefer S. Hierom's single Testimony before a whole Council, because he had Scripture on his side, which says that the Authority of Councils is not [...], and that Councils may possibly recede from their Rule, from Scripture: and in that which indeed was the case, a single person proceeding according to Rule is a better Argument: so saith Panormitan, Par. 1. de election. & elect. potest. c. significasti. In concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset dicto Papae aut totius Concilii praeferendum, si ille moveretur melioribus Argumentis.

11. I end this Discourse with representing the words of Gregory Nazianzen in his Epistle to Procopius; Athanas. lib. de Synod. Frustrà igitur circumcursitantes praet [...]xunt ob sidem se Synodos postulare, cùm sit Divina Scriptura omnibus potentior. Ego, si vera scribere oportet, ità animo assect us sum, ut omnia Episcoporum Concilia fugiam, quoniam nullius Concilii sinem laetum faustúmque vidi, nec quod depulsionem malorum potiùs quàm accessionem & incrementum habuerit. But I will not be so severe and dogmaticall against them: [...]or I believe many Councils to have been call'd with sufficient Authoritie, to have been managed with singular piety and prudence, and to have been finished with admirable successe and truth. And where we find such Councils, he that will not with all veneration believe their Decrees, and receive their Sanctions, understands not that great duty he owes to them who have the care of our souls, whose faith we are bound to follow, (saith Saint Paul) that is,Heb. 13.7. so long as they follow Christ: and certainly many Councils have done so. But this was then when the publick interest of Christendome was better conserv'd in determining a true Article, then in finding a discreet temper or a wise expedient to satisfie disagreeing persons. (As the Fathers at Trent did, and the Lutherans and Calvinists did at Sendomir in Polonia, and the Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians did at Dort.) It was in Ages when the summe of Religion did not consist in maintaining the Grandezza of the Papacy; where there was no order of men with a fourth Vow upon them to advance Saint Peter's Chair; when there was no man, nor any company of men that esteem'd themselves infallible: and therefore they searched for truth as if they meant to find it, and would believe it if they could see it proved, not resolved to prove it because they had upon chance or interest believed it; then they had rather have spoken a truth, then upheld their reputation, but onely in order to truth. This was done sometimes, and when it was done, God's Spirit never fail'd them, but gave them such assistances as were sufficient to that good end for which they were assembled, and did implore his aid. And therefore it is that the four General Councils so called by way of eminency have gained so great a reputation above all others, not because they had a better promise, or more special assistances, but because they proceeded better according to the Rule, with less faction, without ambition and temporal ends.

12. And yet those very Assemblies of Bishops had no Authority by their Decrees to make a Divine Faith, or to constitute new objects of necessary Credence; they [Page] made nothing true that was not so before, and therefore they are to be apprehended in the nature of excellent Guides, and whose Decrees are most certainly to determine all those who have no Argument to the contrary of greater force and efficacy then the Authoritie or reasons of the Council. And there is a duty owing to every Parish Priest, and to every Diocesan Bishop; these are appointed over us and to answer for our souls, and are therefore morally to guide us, as reasonable Creatures are to be guided, that is, by reason and discourse: For in things of judgement and understanding, they are but in form next above Beasts that are to be ruled by the imperiousness and absoluteness of Authority, unless the Authority be divine, that is, infallible. Now then in a juster height, but still in its true proportion, Assemblies of Bishops are to guide us with a higher Authority, because in reason it is supposed they will do it better, with more Argument and certainty, and with Decrees, which have the advantage by being the results of many discourses of very wise and good men. But that the Authority of General Councils was never esteemed absolute, infallible and unlimited, appears in this, that before they were obliging, it was necessary that each particular Church respectively should accept them,Vid. S. August. l. 1. c. 18. de bapt. contra Donat. Concurrente universali totius Ecclesiae consensu, &c. in declaratione veritatum quae credenda sunt, &c. That's the way of making the Decrees of Councils become authentick, and be turn'd into a Law, as Gerson observes; and till they did, their Decrees were but a dead letter: (and therefore it is that these later Popes have so laboured that the Council of Trent should be received in France; and Carolus Molineus a great Lawyer, and of the Roman Communion, disputed So did the third Estate of France in the Convention of the three Estates under Lewis the 13th. earnestly contend against it. against the reception.) And this is a known condition in the Canon Law, but it proves plainly that the Decrees of Councils have their Authority from the voluntary submission of the particular Churches, not from the prime sanction and constitution of the Council. And there is great Reason it should: for as the representative body of the Church derives all power from the diffusive body which is represented, so it resolves into it, and though it may have all the legal power, yet it hath not all the natural; for more able men may be unsent, then sent; and they who are sent may be wrought upon by stratagem, which cannot happen to the whole diffusive Church. It is therefore most fit that since the legal power, that is, the externall, was passed over to the body representative, yet the efficacy of it and the internall should so still remain in the diffusive, as to have power to consider whether their representatives did their duty yea or no, and so to proceed accordingly. For unless it be in matters of justice, in which the interest of a third person is concern'd, no man will or can be supposed to pass away all power from himself of doing himself right, in matters personall, proper, and of so high concernment: It is most unnatural and unreasonable. But besides that they are excellent instruments of peace, the best humane Judicatories in the world, rare Sermons for the determining a point in Controversie, and the greatest probability from humane Authority, besides these advantages (I say) I know nothing greater that general Councils can pretend to with reason and Argument sufficient to satisfie any wise man. And as there was never any Council so general, but it might have been more general; for in respect of the whole Church, even Nice it self was but a small Assembly; so there is no Decree so well constituted, but it may be prov'd by an Argument higher then the Authority of the Council: And therefore general Councils, and National, and Provinciall, and Diocesan, in their severall degrees, are excellent Guides for the Prophets, and directions and instructions for their Prophesyings; but not of weight and Authority to restrain their Liberty so wholly, but that they may dissent when they see a reason strong enough so to persuade them, as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity, to answer to God for such their modesty, and peaceable, but (as they believe) their necessary disagreeing.

SECT. VII. Of the Fallibility of the Pope, and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture, and resolving Questions.

[Page]

1. BUT since the Question between the Council and the Pope grew high, there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Pope's behalf, as to believe General Councils to be nothing but Pomps and Solemnities of the Catholick Church, and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope. And therefore to appeal from the Pope to a future Council is a heresie, yea, and Treason too, said Pope Pius II. and therefore it concerns us now to be wise and wary. But before I proceed,Epist. ad Norimberg. Patrum & avorum nostrorum tempore pauci audebant dicere Papam esse supra Concilium, l. 1. de gestis Concil. Basil. I must needs remember that Pope Pius II. while he was the wise and learned Aeneas Sylvius, was very confident for the preeminence of a Council, and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes then the Council, though the truth was on the other side, even because the Pope gives Bishopricks and Abbeys, but Councils give none: and yet as soon as he was made Pope, as if he had been inspired, his eyes were open to see the great priviledges of S. Peter's Chair, which before he could not see, being amused with the truth, or else with the reputation of a General Council. But however, there are many that hope to make it good, that the Pope is the Universal and the Infallible Doctor, that he breaths Decrees as Oracles, that to dissent from any of his Cathedral determinations is absolute heresie, the Rule of Faith being nothing else but conformity to the Chair of Peter. So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed: but yet to make amends, I hope we shall have an infallible Guide; and when a man is in Heaven, he will never complain that his choice is taken from him, and that he is confin'd to love and to admire, since his love and his admiration is fixt upon that which makes him happy, even upon God himself. And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree, but in a true proportion, as little cause to be troubled that we are confin'd to believe just so, and no choice left us for our understandings to discover, or our wills to chuse, because though we be limited, yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest, we are confin'd to our Center, and there where our understandings will be satisfied, and therefore will be quiet, and where after all our strivings, studies and endeavours we desire to come, that is, to truth; for there we are secur'd to finde it, because we have a Guide that is infallible. If this prove true, we are well enough. But if it be false or uncertain, it were better we had still kept our liberty, then be couzened out of it with gay pretences. This then we must consider.

2. And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses: For what more plain then the Commission given to Peter? Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. And, to thee will I give the Keys. And again, For thee have I prayed that thy faith fail not; but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren. And again, If thou lovest me, feed my sheep. Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles, by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church, and by consequence he is to rule and govern all. By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor, and he is to teach and determine all, and enabled with an infallible power so to do. And in a right understanding of these Authorities, the Fathers speak great things of the Chair of Peter; for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peter's successors, as to his Person; that must by all means be supposed, and so did the old Doctors, who had as much certainty of it as we have, and no more: but yet let's hear what they have said. Irenae. contra haeres. l. 3. c. 3. To this Church, by reason of its more powerfull principality, it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene. —In this, Tradition Apostolical always was observed, and therefore to communicate with this Bishop, with this Ambr. de obitu Salyri, & l. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imp. Cyp. Ep. 52. Church, was to be in Communion with the Church Catholick. —Cyp. Ep. 55. ad Cornel. To this Church errour or perfidiousness cannot have access.—S. Austin in Psal. contra partem Donat. Against this See the gates of Hell cannot prevail.—Hieron. Ep. 57. ad Damasum. For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock.—And whoever eats the Lamb not within this House, is prophane; he that is not in the Ark of Noah perishes in the inundation of waters. He that gathers not with this Bishop, he scatters; and he that belongeth not to Christ, must needs belong to Antichrist. And that's his final sentence. But if you would have all this proved by an infallible Argument, L. 2. contra Parmenian. Optatus of [Page] Milevis in Africa supplies it to us from the very name of Peter: For therefore Christ gave him the cognomination of Cephas [...], to shew that S. Peter was the visible Head of the Catholick Church. Dignum patellâ operculum! This long harangue must needs be full of tragedy to all them that take liberty to themselves to follow Scripture and their best Guides, if it happens in that liberty that they depart from the perswasions of the Communion of Rome. But indeed, if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it, this Scene is the most unhandsomly laid, and the worst carried, of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendome.

3. First, Against the Allegations of Scripture I shall lay no greater prejudice then this, that if a person dis-interested should see them, and consider what the products of them might possibly be, the last thing that he would think of would be how that any of these places should serve the ends or pretences of the Church of Rome. For to instance in one of the particulars, that man had need have a strong fancy who imagines that because Christ prayed for S. Peter, that (being he had design'd him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did mean to constitute a Church) his faith might not fail, (for it was necessary that no bitterness or stopping should be in one of the first springs, lest the current be either spoil'd or obstructed) that therefore the faith of Pope Alexander VI. or Gregory, or Clement, 1500 years after, should be preserved by virtue of that prayer, which the form of words, the time, the occasion, the manner of the address, the effect it self, and all the circumstances of the action and person did determine to be personal. And when it was more then personal, S. Peter did not represent his Successors at Rome, but the whole Catholick Church, say Aquinas and the Divines of the University of Paris. 2. 2ae q. 2. a. 6. ar. 6. ad 3m. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. sect. 1. Caus. 21. cap. à recta. q. 1.29. dist. Anastasius 60. dist. si Papa. Volunt enim pro sola Ecclesia esse oratum, says Bellarmine of them: and the gloss upon the Canon Law plainly denies the effect of this prayer at all to appertain to the Pope; Quaere de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hîc dicitur quòd non possit errare: an de ipso Papa qui Ecclesia dicitur? sed certum est quòd Papa errare potest—Respondeo, ipsa Congregatio fidelium hîc dicitur Ecclesia, & talis Ecclesia non potest non esse, nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesia, & voluntate labiorum suorum non fraudabitur. But there is a little danger in this Argument when we well consider it; but it is likely to redound on the head of them whose turns it should serve. For it may be remembred that for all this prayer of Christ for S. Peter, the good man fell foully, and denied his Master shamefully: And shall Christ's prayer be of greater efficacy for his Successors, for whom it was made but indirectly and by consequence, then for himself, for whom it was directly and in the first intention? And if not, then for all this Argument, the Popes may deny Christ as well as their chief predecessor Peter. But it would not be forgotten how the Roman Doctors will by no means allow that S. Peter was then the chief Bishop or Pope, when he denied his Master. But then much less was he chosen chief Bishop when the prayer was made for him, because the prayer was made before his fall; that is, before that time in which it is confessed he was not as yet made Pope: And how then the whole Succession of the Papacy should be entitled to it, passes the length of my hand to span. But then also if it be supposed and allowed, that these words shall intail infallibility upon the Chair of Rome, why shall not also all the Apostolical Sees be infallible as well as Rome? why shall not Constantinople or Byzantium where S. Andrew sate? why shall not Ephesus where S. John sate? or Jerusalem where S. James sate? for Christ prayed for them all, ut Pater sanctificaret eos suâ veritate, Joh. 17.

4. Secondly, For [tibi dabo claves] was it personal or not? If it were, then the Bishops of Rome have nothing to do with it: If it were not, then by what Argument will it be made evident that S. Peter in the promise represented onely his Successors, and not the whole Colledge of Apostles, and the whole Hierarchy? For if S. Peter was chief of the Apostles, and Head of the Church, he might fair enough be the representative of the whole Colledge, and receive it in their right as well as his own: which also is certain that it was so, for the same promise of binding and loosing (which certainly was all that the Keys were given for) was made afterward to all the Apostles, Matt. 18. and the power of remitting and retaining (which in reason and according to the style of the Church is the same thing in other words) was actually given to all the Apostles: and unless that was the performing the first and second promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when, or whether yet or no, the promise be performed. That promise I say which did not pertain to Peter principally and by origination, and to the rest by Communication, society and adherence, but that promise which was made to Peter first, but not for himself, but for all the Colledge, and for all their Successors, and then made the second time to them all, without representation, but in [Page] diffusion, and perform'd to all alike in presence except S. Thomas. And if he went to S. Peter to derive it from him, I know not; I find no record for that: but that Christ conveyed the promise to him by the same Commission, the Church yet never doubted, nor had she any reason. But this matter is too notorious: I say no more to it, but repeat the words and Argument of S. Austin, Si hoc Petro tantùm dictum est, Tra. 50. in Joann. non facit hoc Ecclesia: if the Keys were onely given and so promised to S. Peter, that the Church hath not the Keys, then the Church can neither bind nor loose, remit nor retain; which God forbid. If any man should endeavour to answer this Argument, I leave him and S. Austin to contest it.

5. Thirdly, For Pasce oves, there is little in that Allegation, besides the boldness of the Objectors: for were not all the Apostles bound to feed Christ's sheep? had they not all the Commission from Christ and Christ's Spirit immediately? S. Paul had certainly. Did not S. Peter himself say to all 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,Li. 1. Epist. 3. 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:De agone Christi c. 30. 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,Epist. ad Athanas. apud Athanas. tom. 1. pag. 42. Paris. [...] [...], 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.L. 10. Epist. 83▪ 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.M. 4. Sent. dist. 24. 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, Ad Philadelph. S. Ignatius, Sele [...]c. orat. 25. S. Basil, L. 6. de [...]init. S. Hilary, De Trinitate advers. Judaeos. S. Gregory Nyssen, L. 3. Ep. 33. S. Gregory the Great, In 1. Ep. Joann. [...]. 10. S. Austin, De Trinit l 4. S. Cyril of Alexandria, L. 1. Ep. 235. 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 [Page] 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 Epist. ad Philadelph. 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:In c. 16. Matt. tract. 1. 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 from the person to the confession of Peter, and declared that to be the foundation of the Church. And thus I have requited fancy with fancy: but for the main point, that these two Expositions are inclusive of each other, I find no warrant. For though they may consist together well enough, if Christ had so intended them; yet unless it could be shewn by some circumstance of the Text, or some other extrinsecall Argument, that they must be so, and that both senses were actually intended, it is but gratìs dictum and a begging of the Question, to say that they are so, and the fancy so new, that when S. Austin had expounded this place of the person of Peter, he reviews it again, and in his Retractions leaves every man to his liberty which to take, as having nothing certain in this Article: which had been altogether needless if he had believed them to be inclusively in each other, neither of them had need to have been retracted, both were alike true, both of them might have been believed. But I said the fancy was new, and I had reason; for it was so unknown till yesterday, that even the late Writers of his own side expound the words of the confession of S. Peter exclusively to his person or any thing else, as is to be seen in Defens. pacis part. 2. c. 28. Marsilius, Recommend. sacr. Script. Petrus de Aliaco, and the gloss upon Dist. 19. can. ità Dominus, § ut suprá. Which also was the Interpetation of Phavorinus Camers their own Bishop, from whom they learnt the resemblance of the words [...] and [...], of which they have made so many gay discourses. [...].

7. Fifthly, But upon condition I may have leave at another time to recede from so great and numerous Testimony of Fathers, I am willing to believe that it was not the confession of S. Peter, but his person, upon which Christ said he would build his Church, or that these Expositions are consistent with and consequent to each other; that this confession was the objective foundation of Faith, and Christ and his Apostles the subjective; Christ principally, and S. Peter instrumentally: and yet I understand not any advantage will hence accrue to the See of Rome. For upon S. Peter it was built, but not alone, for it was upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone: and when S. Paul reckoned the Oeconomy of Hierarchy, he reckons not Peter first, and then the Apostles; but first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, &c. And whatsoever is first, either is before all things else, or at least nothing is before it. So that at least S. Peter is not before all the rest of the Apostles; which also S. Paul expresly averrs, I am in nothing inferiour to the very chiefest of the Apostles, no [Page] not in the very being a Rock and a Foundation: and it was of the Church of Ephesus that S. Paul said in particular it was columna & firmamentum veritatis; that Church was,Vid. Socrat. l. 1. c. 19, 20. Sozom. l. 2. c. 14 Niceph. l. 14. c. 40. not excluding others, for they also were as much as she: for so we keep close and be united to the corner-stone, although some be master-builders, yet all may build; and we have known whole Nations converted by Lay-men and women, who have been builders so far as to bring them to the corner-stone.

8. Sixthly, But suppose all these things concern S. Peter in all the capacities can be with any colour pretended, yet what have the Bishops of Rome to doe with this? For how will it appear that these promises and Commissions did relate to him as a particular Bishop, and not as a publick Apostle? since this latter is so much the more likely, because the great pretence of all seems in reason more proportionable to the founding of a Church, then its continuance. And yet if they did relate to him as a particular Bishop, (which yet is a farther degree of improbability, removed farther from certainty) yet why shall S. Clement or Linus rather succeed in this great office of Headship then S. John or any of the Apostles that survived Peter? It is no way likely a private person should skip over the head of an Apostle. Or why shall his Successors at Rome more enjoy the benefit of it then his Successors at Antioch? since that he was at Antioch and preached there, we have a Divine Authority; but that he did so at Rome, at most we have but a humane. And if it be replied that because he died at Rome, it was Argument enough that there his Successors were to inherit his privilege, this besides that at most it is but one little degree of probability, and so not of strength sufficient to support an Article of faith, it makes that the great Divine Right of Rome, and the Apostolical presidency, was so contingent and fallible as to depend upon the decree of Nero; and if he had sent him to Antioch there to have suffered Martyrdome, the Bishops of that Town had been heads of the Catholick Church. And this thing presses the harder, because it is held by no mean persons in the Church of Rome, that the Bishoprick of Rome and the Papacy are things separable, and the Pope may quit that See and sit in another: which to my understanding is an Argument, that he that succeeded Peter at Antioch is as much supreme by Divine Right as he that sits at Rome; both alike, that is,Vid. Cameracens. Qu. vespert. neither by Divine Ordinance. For if the Roman Bishops by Christ's intention were to be Head of the Church, then by the same intention the Succession must be continued in that See; and then let the Pope go whither he will, the Bishop of Rome must be the Head: which they themselves deny, and the Pope himself did not believe, when in a schism he sat at Avignon. And that it was to be continued in the See of Rome, it is but offered to us upon conjecture, upon an act of providence, as they fansy it, so ordering it by vision; and this proved by an Author which themselves call fabulous and Apocryphal, under the name of Linus, in Biblioth. PP. de passione Petri & Pauli. A goodly building which relies upon an event that was accidental, whose purpose was but insinuated, the meaning of it but conjectured at, and this conjecture so uncertain, that it was an imperfect aim at the purpose of an event, which whether it was true or no was so uncertain, that it is ten to one there was no such matter. And yet again, another degree of uncertainty is, to whom the Bishops of Rome do succeed. For S. Paul was as much Bishop of Rome as S. Peter was; there he presided, there he preached, and he it was that was the Doctor of the Uncircumcision and of the Gentiles, S. Peter of the Circumcision and of the Jews onely; and therefore the converted Jews at Rome might with better reason claim the privilege of S. Peter, then the Romans and the Churches in her Communion, who do not derive from Jewish Parents.

9. Seventhly, If the words were never so appropriate to Peter, or also communicated to his Successors, yet of what value will the consequent be? what prerogative is entailed upon the Chair of Rome? For that S. Peter was the Ministerial Head of the Church, is the most that is desired to be proved by those and all other words brought for the same purposes, and interests of that See. Now let the Ministerial Head have what Dignity can be imagined, let him be the first, (and in all Communities that are regular and orderly there must be something that is first upon certain occasions, where an equal power cannot be exercised, and made pompous or ceremonial:) But will this Ministerial Headship inferr an infallibility? will it inferr more then the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue, where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses, yet in no sense infallible? will it inferr more to us then it did amongst the Apostles, amongst whom if for order's sake S. Peter was the first, yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles? there was no such thing spoke of, nor any such thing put in practice. And that the other Apostles were by a personal privilege as infallible as himself, is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power [Page] over them; for though in Faith they were infallible, yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himself was: and certainly there might have something happened in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority, by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judicial power over some one of them. If he had but withstood any of them to their faces, as S. Paul did him, it had been more then yet is said in his behalf. Will the Ministerial Headship inferr any more, then that when the Church in a Community or a publick capacity should do any Act of Ministery Ecclesiasticall he shall be first in Order? Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councils, which yet was not always granted him: suppose it to be a power of taking cognizance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councils cannot be called: suppose it a double voice, or the last decisive, or the negative in the causes exteriour: suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment, which when all Churches were united in Communion, and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion, might better have been acted then now it can: yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly, and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences. A Ministerial Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose. And therefore men are causelesly amused with such premisses, and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended.

10. Eighthly, I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Oracles, and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith, because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred, and greater certainty of demonstration, then these places give that they are infallible; as will appear by the instances and perpetual experiment of their being deceived, of which there is no Question, but of the sense of these places there is. And indeed, if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility, as I have against their half Communion, against their Service in an unknown tongue, worshipping of Images, and divers other Articles, I would make no scruple of believing, but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates, and believe it reasonable all Prophesying should be restrained: But till then I have leave to discourse, and to use my reason. And to my reason it seems not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles, not S. Peter himself, not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome, should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops: for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy, as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies, and need of a remedy. And it had been a certain determination of the Question, if, when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision, that they should have sent to Peter, who for his infallibility in ordinary, and his power of Headship, would not onely with reason enough, as being infallibly assisted, but also for his Authority, have best determined the Question, if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret. And although we have but little Record that the first Council at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law, and the forms of Conciliary proceedings, and the Ceremonials; yet so much of it as is recorded is against them. S. James, and not S. Peter, gave the final sentence; and although S. Peter determined the Question pro libertate, yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too, and gave sentence they should abstain from some things there mentioned, which by way of temper he judged most expedient:S. Chrysost. hom. 3. in act. Apost. And so it passed. And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority, nothing of Superiour jurisdiction. [...].

11. So that if the Question be to be determined by Scripture, it must either be ended by plain places, or by obscure. Plain places there are none, and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes. But if obscure places be all the [...], by what means shall we infallibly find the sense of them? The Pope's interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended, in this cannot; for it is the thing in Question, and therefore cannot determine for itself. Either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope, and so we have two Foundations and two Heads, (for this as well as the other upon the same reason) or else (which is indeed the truth) there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible. Now it being against the common condition of men, above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall, against the Analogie of Scripture, and the deportment of the other Apostles, against the Oeconomy of the Church, and S. Peter's own entertainment, the presumption lies against him, and these places are to be [Page] left to their prime intentions, and not put upon the rack, to force them to confess what they never thought.

12. But now for Antiquity, if that be deposed in this Question, there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile their words and their actions, that the process is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding, or the matter considerable: But I shall a little consider it, so far at least as to shew either Antiquity said no such thing as is pretended, or, if they did, it is but little considerable, because they did not believe themselves; their practice was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words. But I am much eased of a long disquisition in this particular (for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in itself as fallible and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question) by the saying of Aeneas Sylvius, that before the Nicene Council every man lived to himself, and small respect was had to the Church of Rome; which practice could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishops Infallibility, and by consequence supreme judgment and last resolution in matters of Faith: but especially by the insinuation and consequent acknowledgment of Bellarmine, De Rom. Pon [...] ▪ l. 4. c. 2. Sect. secunda s [...]ntentia. that for 1000 years together the Fathers knew not of the Doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility; for Nilus, Gerson, Almain, the Divines of Paris, Alphonsus de Castro and Pope Adrian VI. persons who lived 1400 years after Christ, affirm that Infallibility is not seated in the Pope's person, that he may erre, and sometimes actually hath: which is a clear demonstration that the Church knew no such Doctrine as this; there had been no Decree nor Tradition nor general opinion of the Fathers, or of any Age before them; and therefore this Opinion, which Bellarmine would fain blast if he could, yet in his Conclusion he says it is not propriè haeretica. A device and an expression of his own, without sense or precedent. But if the Fathers had spoken of it and believed it, why may not a disagreeing person as well reject their Authority when it is in behalf of Rome, as they of Rome without scruple cast them off when they speak against it? For Bellarmine, being pressed with the Authority of Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica and other Fathers, says that the Pope acknowledges no Fathers, but they are all his children, and therefore they cannot depose against him: and if that be true, why shall we take their Testimonies for him? for if Sons depose in their Father's behalf, it is twenty to one but the adverse party will be cast, and therefore at the best it is but suspectum Testimonium. But indeed this discourse signifies nothing but a perpetuall uncertainty in such Topicks, and that, where a violent prejudice or a concerning interest is engaged, men by not regarding what any man says proclaim to all the world that nothing is certain but Divine Authority.

13. But I will not take advantage of what Bellarmine says, nor what Stapleton or any one of them all say, for that will be but to press upon personal perswasions, or to urge a general Question with a particular defaillance, and the Question is never the nearer to an end: for if Bellarmine says any thing that is not to another man's purpose or perswasion, that man will be tried by his own Argument, not by another's. And so would every man doe that loves his liberty, as all wise men do, and therefore retain it by open violence, or private evasions. But to return.

14. An Authority from Irenaeus in this Question, and on behalf of the Pope's Infallibility, or the Authority of the See of Rome, or of the necessity of communicating with them, is very fallible: for besides that there are almost a dozen answers to the words of the Allegation, as is to be seen in those that trouble themselves in this Question with the Allegation, and answering such Authorities; yet if they should make for the affirmative of this Question, it is protestatio contra factum. For Irenaeus had no such great opinion of Pope Victor's Infallibility, that he believed things in the same degree of necessity that the Pope did; for therefore he chides him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops [...] all at a blow in the Question concerning Easter-day: and in a Question of Faith he expresly disagreed from the doctrine of Rome: for Irenaeus was of the Millenary opinion, and believed it to be a Tradition Apostolicall. Now if the Church of Rome was of that opinion then, why is she not now? where is the succession of her Doctrine? But if she was not of that opinion then, and Irenaeus was, where was his belief of that Churche's Infallibility? The same I urge concerning S. Cyprian, who was the head of a Sect in opposition to the Church of Rome in the Question of Rebaptization, and he and the abettors, Firmilian and the other Bishops of Cappadocia and the voicinage spoke harsh words of Steven, and such as become them not to speak to an infallible Doctor, and the supreme Head of the Church. I will urge none of them to the disadvantage of that See, but onely note the Satyrs of Firmilian against him, because it is of good use, to shew that it is possible for them in their ill carriage to blast the reputation and efficacy of a great Authority. For he says that that Church did [Page] pretend the Authority of the Apostles, cùm in multis Sacramentis Divinae rei à principio discrepet, Ep. Firmiliani cont. Steph. ad Cyp. Vide etiam Ep. Cypriani ad Pompeium. & ab Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, & defamet Petrum & Paulum tanquam authores. And a little after, Justè dedignor (says he) apertam & manifestam stultitiam Stephani, per quam veritas Christianae petrae aboletur. Which words say plainly, that for all the goodly pretence of Apostolicall Authority, the Church of Rome did then in many things of Religion disagree from Divine Institution, (and from the Church of Jerusalem, which they had as great esteem of for Religion sake, as of Rome for its Principality;) and that still in pretending to S. Peter and S. Paul they dishonoured those blessed Apostles, and destroyed the honour of their pretence by their untoward prevarication. Which words I confess pass my skill to reconcile them to an opinion of Infallibility: and although they were spoken by an angry person, yet they declare that in Africa they were not then perswaded as now they are at Rome: Cyprian. Epist. ad Quintum fratrem. Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere. That was their belief then, and how the contrary hath grown up to that height where now it is, all the world is witness. And now I shall not need to note concerning S. Hierome, that he gave a complement to Damasus that he would not have given to Liberius, Qui tecum non colligit spargit. For it might be true enough of Damasus, who was a good Bishop and a right believer: but if Liberius's name had been put in stead of Damasus, the case had been altered with the name;De Script. Eccles. in Fortunatian. for S. Hierome did believe and write it so, that Liberius had subscribed to Arianism. And if either he or any of the rest had believ'd the Pope could not be a Heretick nor his Faith fail, but be so good and of so competent Authority as to be a Rule to Christendom; why did they not appeal to the Pope in the Arian Controversie? why was the Bishop of Rome made a party and a concurrent, as other good Bishops were, and not a Judge and an Arbitrator in the Question? why did the Fathers prescribe so many Rules and cautions and provisoes for the discovery of Heresy? why were the Emperours at so much charge, and the Church at so much trouble, as to call and convene Councils respectively, to dispute so frequently, to write so sedulously, to observe all advantages against their Adversaries, and for the truth, and never offered to call for the Pope to determine the Question in his Chair? Certainly no way could have been so expedite, none so concluding and peremptory, none could have convinc'd so certainly, none could have triumphed so openly over all Discrepants, as this, if they had known of any such thing as his being infallible, or that he had been appointed by Christ to be the Judge of Controversies. And therefore I will not trouble this Discourse to excuse any more words either pretended or really said to this purpose of the Pope, for they would but make books swell and the Question endless: I shall onely to this purpose observe that the old Writers were so far from believing the Infallibility of the Roman Church or Bishop, that many Bishops and many Churches did actually live and continue out of the Roman Communion; particularly Vbi illa Augustini & reliquorum prudentia? quis jam ferat crassissimae ignorantiae illam vocem in tot & tantis Patribus? Alan. Cop. dialog. p. 76, 77. Vide etiam Bonifac. II. Ep. ad Eulalium Alexandrinum; Lindanum Panopsi, l. 4. c. 89. in fine▪ Salmeron Tom. 12. tract. 68. sect ad Canonem; Sander. de visibili Monarchia, l. 7. n. 411. Baron. Tom. 10. A. D. 878. Saint Austin, who with 217 Bishops and their Successors for 100 years together stood separate from that Church, if we may believe their own Records. So did Ignatius of Constantinople, S. Chrysostome, S. Cyprian, Firmilian, those Bishops of Asia that separated in the Question of Easter, and those of Africa in the Question of Rebaptization. But besides this, most of them had Opinions which the Church of Rome disavows now, and therefore did so then, or else she hath innovated in her Doctrine; which though it be most true and notorious, I am sure she will never confess. But no excuse can be made for S. Austin's disagreeing and contesting in the Question of Appeals to Rome, the necessity of Communicating Infants, the absolute damnation of Infants to the pains of Hell, if they die before Baptism, and divers other particulars. It was a famous act of the Bishops of Liguria and Istria, who, seeing the Pope of Rome consenting to the fifth Synod in disparagement of the famous Council of Chalcedon, which for their own interests they did not like of, renounced subjection to his Patriarchate, and erected a Patriarch at Aquileia, who was afterwards translated to Venice, where his name remains to this day. It is also notorious that most of the Fathers were of opinion that the Souls of the faithfull did not enjoy the Beatifick Vision before Doomsday. Whether Rome was then of that opinion or no I know not, I am sure now they are not, witness the Councils of Florence and Trent: but of this I shall give a more full account afterwards. But if to all this which is already noted we adde that great variety of opinions amongst the Fathers and Councils in assignation of the Canon, they not consulting with the Bishop of Rome, nor any of them thinking themselves bound to follow his Rule in enumeration of the Books of Scripture, I think no more need to be said as to this particular.

[Page]15. Eighthly, But now if, after all this, there be some Popes which were notorious Hereticks, and Preachers of false Doctrine, some that made impious Decrees both in Faith and manners, some that have determined Questions with egregious ignorance and stupidity, some with apparent sophistry, and many to serve their own ends most openly, I suppose then the Infallibility will disband, and we may doe to him as to other good Bishops, believe him when there is cause; but if there be none, then to use our Consciences. Non enim salvat Christianum, Tract. de interdict. compos. à Theol. Venet. prop. 13. Lib. advers. Praxeam. quòd Pontifex constanter affirmat praeceptum suum esse justum; sed oportet illud examinari, & se juxta regulam superiùs datum dirigere. I would not instance and repeat the errours of dead Bishops, if the extreme boldness of the pretence did not make it necessary. But if we may believe Tertullian, Pope Zepherinus approved the Prophecies of Montanus, and upon that approbation granted peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, till Praxeas perswaded him to revoke his act. But let this rest upon the credit of Tertullian, whether Zepherinus were a Montanist or no: some such thing there was for certain.Vid. Liberal. in breviario, cap. 22. Durand. 4. dist. 7. q. 4. Pope Vigilius denied two Natures in Christ, and in his Epistle to Theodora the Empress anathematiz'd all them that said he had two natures in one person. S. Gregory himself permitted Priests to give Confirmation, which is all one as if he should permit Deacons to consecrate, they being by Divine Ordinance annext to the higher Orders: and upon this very ground Adrianus affirms that the Pope may erre in definiendis dogmatibus fidei. Quae. de confirm. art. ult. And that we may not fear we shall want instances, we may to secure it take their own confession; Nam multae sunt decretales haereticae, (says Occham as he is cited by Almain,) & firmiter hoc credo, 3. dist. 24. q. unic [...]· (says he for his own particular:) sed non licet dogmatizare oppositum, quoniam sunt determinatae. So that we may as well see that it is certain that Popes may be Hereticks, as that it is dangerous to say so; and therefore there are so few that teach it. All the Patriarchs and the Bishop of Rome himself subscribed to Arianism, (as Baronius confesses:A. D. 357. n. 44.) and Dist. 19. c. 9. L. 4. Ep. 2. Gratian affirms that Pope Anastasius II. was strucken of God for communicating with the Heretick Photinus. I know it will be made light of that Gregory the seventh saith the very Exorcists of the Roman Church are superiour to Princes. But what shall we think of that Decretall of Gregory the third, who wrote to Boniface his Legate in Germany, Vid. Corranz. Sum. Concil. fol. 218. edit. Antwerp. quòd illi quorum uxores infirmitate aliquâ morbidâ debitum reddere noluerunt aliis poterant nubere? Was this a doctrine fit for the Head of the Church, an infallible Doctor? It was plainly, if any thing ever was, doctrina Daemoniorum, and is noted for such by Gratian, Caus. 32.4.7. can. quod proposuisti. Where the Gloss also intimates that the same privilege was granted to the English-men by Gregory, quia novi erant in fide. And sometimes we had little reason to expect much better: for, not to instance in that learned discourse in the Cap. per venerab. qui filii sint legitimi. Canon-Law de majoritate & obedientia, where the Pope's Supremacy over Kings is proved from the first chapter of Genesis, and the Pope is the Sun, and the Emperour is the Moon, for that was the fancy of one Pope perhaps, though made authentick and doctrinall by him; it was (if it be possible) more ridiculous, that Pope Innocent the third urges that the Mosaicall Law was still to be observed, and that upon this Argument; Sanè, saith he, cùm Deuteronontium Secunda lex interpretetur, ex vi vocabuli comprobatur, ut quod ibi decernitur in Testamento Novo debeat observari. Worse yet; for when there was a corruption crept into the Decree called Sancta Romana, where, in stead of these words,Dist. 15. apud Gratian. Sedulii opus heroicis versibus descriptum, all the old Copies till of late read, haereticis versibus descriptum, this very mistake made many wise men, (as Pierius says) yea, Pope Adrian the sixth,De Sacerd. barb. no worse man, believe that all Poetry was hereticall, because (forsooth) Pope Gelasius, whose Decree that was, although he believed Sedulius to be a good Catholick, yet, as they thought, concluded his Verses to be hereticall. But these were ignorances; it hath been worse amongst some others, whose errours have been more malicious. Pope Honorius was condemned by the sixth General Synod, and his Epistles burnt; and in the seventh Action of the eighth Synod the Acts of the Roman Council under Adrian the second are recited, in which it is said that Honorius was justly anathematiz'd, because he was convict of Heresie. Bellarmine says, it is probable that Pope Adrian and the Roman Council were deceived with false Copies of the sixth Synod, and that Honorius was no Heretick. To this I say, that although the Roman Synod and the eighth General Synod and Pope Adrian all together are better witnesses for the thing then Bellarmine's conjecture is against it; yet if we allow his conjecture, we shall lose nothing in the whole: for either the Pope is no infallible Doctor, but may be a Heretick, as Honorius was; or else a Council is to us no infallible Determiner. I say, as to us: for if Adrian and the whole Roman Council and the eighth General were all cozened with false Copies of the sixth Synod, which was so little a while before them, and whose Acts were transacted and kept in the Theatre and Records of the Catholick [Page] Church; he is a bold man that will be confident that he hath true Copies now. So that let which they please stand or fall, let the Pope be a Heretick or the Councils be deceived and palpably abused, (for the other, we will dispute it upon other instances and arguments when we shall know which part they will chuse) in the mean time we shall get in the general what we lose in the particular. This onely, this device of saying the Copies of the Councils were false,Vide diatrib. de act. 6. & 7 ae Synod. praefatione ad Lectorem, & Dominicum Bannes 22 ae. q. 1. a. 10. dub. 2. Picus Mirand. in exposit. theorem. 4. was the strategem of Albertus Pighius 900 years after the thing was done; of which invention Pighius was presently admonished, blamed, and wished to recant. Pope Nicolas explicated the Mystery of the Sacrament with so much ignorance and zeal, that in condemning Berengarius he taught a worse impiety. But what need I any more instances? it is a confessed case by Baronius, by Biel, by Stella, Almain, Occham and Canus, and generally by the best Scholars in the Church of Rome, that a Pope may be a Heretick, and that some of them actually were so; and no less then three General Councils did believe the same thing, viz. the sixth, seventh, and eighth, as Bellarmine is pleased to acknowledge in his fourth Book De Pontifice Romano, c. 11. resp. ad Arg. 4. And the Canon Si Papa, dist. 40. affirms it in express terms, that a Pope is judicable and punishable in that case. But there is no wound but some Empirick or other will pretend to cure it, and there is a cure for this too. For though it be true, that if a Pope were a Heretick the Church might depose him, yet no Pope can be a Heretick; not but that the man may, but the Pope cannot,L. 2. c. 30. ubi [...]uprà, sect. est ergó. for he is ipso facto no Pope, for he is no Christian: so Bellarmine: and so, when you think you have him fast, he is gone, and nothing of the Pope left. But who sees not the extreme folly of this evasion? For besides that out of fear and caution he grants more then he needs, more then was sought for in the Question, the Pope hath no more privilege then the Abbot of Cluny; for he cannot be a Heretick, nor be deposed by a Council: for if he be manifestly a Heretick, he is ipso facto no Abbot, for he is no Christian; and if the Pope be a Heretick privately & occultly, for that he may be accused and judged, said the Glosse upon the Canon Si Papa, dist. 40. and the Abbot of Cluny and one of his meanest Monks can be no more, therefore the case is all one. But

Vide Alphons. à Cast. l. 1. adv. haeres. c. 4. hoc lemma riden [...]em affabre.

Vid. etiam Innocentium Ser. 2. de consecrat. Pontif. act. 7.8 ae Synodi, & Concil. 5. sub Symmadio. Vide Collat. 8. can. 12. ubi P P. judicialem sententiam P. Vigilii in causa trium Capitulorum damnârunt expressé. Extrav. comm. Extrav. grave, Tit. X. De Angelo custod▪ fol. 59. de consecrat. dist. 3. can pronunciand▪ gloss. verb. Nativ ▪

this is fitter to make sport with, then to interrupt a serious discourse. And therefore although the Canon Sancta Romana approves all the Decretalls of Popes, yet that very Decretall hath not decreed it firm enough, but that they are so warily receiv'd by them, that when they list they are pleased to dissent from them. And it is evident in the Extravagant of Sixtus IV. Com. De reliquiis, who appointed a Feast of the immaculate Conception, a special Office for the day, and Indulgences enough to the observers of it: and yet the Dominicans were so far from believing the Pope to be infallible, and his Decree authentick, that they declaim'd against it in their Pulpits so furiously and so long, till they were prohibited under pain of Excommunication to say the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original sin. Now what solennity can be more required for the Pope to make a Cathedral determination of an Article? The Article was so concluded, that a Feast was instituted for its celebration, and pain of Excommunication threatned to them which should preach the contrary; nothing more solemn, nothing more confident and severe. And yet after all this, to shew that whatsoever those people would have us to believe, they'l believe what they list themselves, this thing was not determined de fide, saith Victorellus: nay, the Authour of the Gloss of the Canon-Law hath these express words, De festo Conceptionis nihil dicitur, quia celebrandum non est, sicut in multis regionibus fit, & maximè in Anglia; & haec est ratio, quia in peccatis concepta fuit, sicut & caeteri Sancti. And the Commissaries of Sixtus V. and Gregory XIII. did not expunge these words, but left them upon Record, not onely against a received and more approved opinion of the Jesuits and Franciscans, but also in plain defiance of a Decree made by their visible Head of the Church, who (if ever any thing was decreed by a Pope with an intent to oblige all Christendome) decreed Hâc in perpetuum valiturâ constitutione statuimus, &c. De reliquiis, &c. Extrav. Com. Sixt. 4. cap. 1. this to that purpose.

16. So that, without taking particular notice of it, that egregious sophistry and flattery of the late Writers of the Roman Church is in this instance, besides divers others before mentioned, clearly made invalid. For here the Bishop of Rome, not as a private Doctor, but as Pope, not by declaring his own opinion, but with an intent to oblige the Church, gave sentence in a Queston which the Dominicans will still account pro non determinata. And every Decretall recorded in the Canon-Law, if it be false in the matter, is just such another instance. And Alphonsus à Castro says to the same purpose, in the instance of Caelestine dissolving Marriages for Heresy; Neque Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat, ità ut illum errâsse dicamus velut privatam personam, & non ut Papam, quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini definitio habetur in antiquis Decretalibus, in cap. Laudabilem, titulo De conversione infidelium; quam ego ipse vidi & legi: [Page]Lib. 1. adv. haeres. cap. 4. And therefore 'tis a most intolerable folly to pretend that the Pope cannot erre in his Chair, though he may erre in his Closet, and may maintain a false opinion even to his death. For besides that it is sottish to think that either he would not have the world of his own opinion, (as all men naturally would;) or that, if he were set in his Chair, he would determine contrary to himself in his Study, (and therefore to represent it as possible, they are fain to flie to a Miracle, for which they have no colour, neither instructions, nor insinuation, nor warrant, nor promise;) besides that it were impious and unreasonable to depose him for Heresy, who may so easily, even by setting himself in his Chair and reviewing his Theorems, be cured: it is also against a very great experience. For besides the former Allegations, it is most notorious that Pope Alexander III. in a Council at Rome of 300 Archbishops and Bishops, A. D. 1179. condemned Peter Lombard of Heresy in a matter of great concernment, no less then something about the Incarnation; from which Sentence he was, after 36 years abiding it, absolved by Pope Innocent III. without repentance or dereliction of the Opinion. Now if this Sentence was not a Cathedral Dictate, as solemn and great as could be expected, or as is said to be necessary to oblige all Christendome, let the great Hyperaspists of the Roman Church be Judges, who tell us that a particular Council with the Pope's confirmation is made Oecumenicall by adoption, and is infallible, and obliges all Christendome: so Bellarmine. L. 2. de Concil. cap. 5. And therefore he says that it is temerarium, erroneum, & proximum haeresi, to deny it. But whether it be or not, it is all one as to my purpose. For it is certain,De Pontif. Rom. c. 14. Sect. respondeo. In 3. sent. d. 24. q. in cont. 6. dub. 6. in sine. that in a particular Council confirmed by the Pope, if ever, then and there the Pope sate himself in his Chair; and it is as certain that he sate besides the cushion, and determined ridiculously and falsely in this case. But this is a device for which there is no Scripture, no Tradition, no one dogmaticall resolute saying of any Father, Greek or Latine, for above 1000 years after Christ: and themselves, when they list, can acknowledge as much. And therefore Bellarmine's saying, I perceive, is believed of them to be true, That there are many things in the Proverbialiter [...]lim dictum erat de Decretalibus, Malè cum rebus humanis actum esse, ex quo Decre [...]is alae accesse [...]unt; scil. cùm Decretales post Decretum Gratiani sub nomine Gregorii noni edebantur. Decretall Epistles which make not Articles to be de fide. And therefore, Non est necessariò credendum determinatis per summum Pontificem, says Almain. And this serves their turns in every thing they do not like; and therefore I am resolved it shall serve my turn also for something, and that is, that the matter of the Pope's Infallibility is so ridiculous and improbable, that they do not believe it themselves. Some of them clearly practised the contrary: and although Pope Leo X. hath determined the Pope to be above a Council, yet the Sorbon to this day scorn it at the very heart. And I might urge upon them that scorn that De Authorit. Eccles. cap. 10. in sine. Almain truly enough by way of Argument alledges. It is a wonder that they who affirm the Pope cannot erre in judgement, do not also affirm that he cannot sin: they are like enough to say so, says he, if the vicious lives of the Popes did not make a daily confutation of such flattery. Now for my own particular, I am as confident, and think it as certain, that Popes are actually deceived in matters of Christian Doctrine, as that they do prevaricate the laws of Christian piety. And therefore L. 1. ca. 4. advers. haeres. edit. Paris. 1534. In seqq. non expurgantur ista verba, at idem sensus manet. Alphonsus à Castro calls them impudentes Papae assentatores, that ascribe to him infallibility in judgment or interpretation of Scripture.

17. But if themselves did believe it heartily, what excuse is there in the world for the strange uncharitableness or supine negligence of the Popes, that they do not set themselves in their Chair, and write infallible Commentaries, and determine all Controversies without errour, and blast all Heresies with the word of their mouth, declare what is and what is not de fide, that his Disciples and Confidents may agree upon it, reconcile the Franciscans and Dominicans, and expound all Mysteries? For it cannot be imagined but he that was endued with so supreme power in order to so great ends, was also fitted with proportionable, that is, extraordinary, personal abilities, succeeding and derived upon the persons of all the Popes. And then the Doctors of his Church need not trouble themselves with study, nor writing explications of Scripture, but might wholly attend to practicall Devotion, and leave all their Scholasticall wranglings, the distinguishing Opinions of their Orders, and they might have a fine Church, something like Fairy-land, or Lucian's Kingdome in the Moon. But if they say they cannot doe this when they list, but when they are moved to it by the Spirit, then we are never the nearer: for so may the Bishop of Angoulesme write infallible Commentaries when the Holy Ghost moves him to it, for I suppose his motions are not ineffectual, but he will sufficiently assist us in performing of what he actually moves us to. But among so many hundred Decrees which the Popes of Rome have made, or confirmed and attested, (which is all one) I would fain know, in how many of them did the Holy Ghost assist them? If they know it, let them declare it, that it may be certain which of their Decretals [Page] are de fide; for as yet none of his own Church knows. If they do not know, then neither can we know it from them, and then we are as uncertain as ever. And besides, the Holy Ghost may possibly move him, and he by his ignorance of it may neglect so profitable a motion, and then his promise of infallible assistance will be to very little purpose, because it is with very much fallibility applicable to practice. And therefore it is absolutely useless to any man or any Church: because, suppose it settled in Thesi, that the Pope is infallible; yet whether he will doe his duty, and perform those conditions of being assisted which are required of him, or whether he be a secret Simoniack, (for if he be, he is ipso facto no Pope) or whether he be a Bishop, or Priest, or a Christian, being all uncertain, every one of these depending upon the intention and power of the Baptizer or Ordainer, which also are fallible, because they depend upon the honesty and power of other men; we cannot be infallibly certain of any Pope that he is infallible: and therefore when our Questions are determined, we are never the nearer, but may hug ourselves in an imaginary truth, the certainty of finding truth out depending upon so many fallible and contingent circumstances. And therefore the thing, if it were true, being so to no purpose, it is to be presumed that God never gave a power so impertinently, and from whence no benefit can accrue to the Christian Church, for whose use and benefit, if at all, it must needs have been appointed.

18. But I am too long in this impertinency. If I were bound to call any man Master upon earth, and to believe him upon his own affirmative and authority, I would of all men least follow him that pretends he is infallible, and cannot prove it. For he that cannot prove it makes me as uncertain as ever; and that he pretends to Infallibility, makes him careless of using such means which will morally secure those wise persons, who, knowing their own aptness to be deceived, use what endeavours they can to secure themselves from errour, and so become the better and more probable guides.

19. Well, thus far we are come: Although we are secured in Fundamental points from involuntary errour by the plain, express and dogmaticall places of Scripture; yet in other things we are not, but may be invincibly mistaken, because of the obscurity and difficulty in the controverted parts of Scripture, by reason of the incertainty of the means of its Interpretation, since Tradition is of an uncertain reputation, and sometimes evidently false; Councils are contradictory to each other, and therefore certainly are equally deceived many of them, and therefore all may; and then the Popes of Rome are very likely to mislead us, but cannot ascertain us of truth in matter of Question; and in this world we believe in part, and prophesy in part, and this imperfection shall never be done away till we be translated to a more glorious state: either then we must throw our chances, and get truth by accident or predestination; or else we must lie safe in a mutuall Toleration, and private liberty of perswasion, unless some other Anchor can be thought upon where we may fasten our floating Vessels, and ride safely.

SECT. VIII. Of the disability of Fathers, or Writers Ecclesiastical, to determine our Questions with certainty and truth.

[Page]

1. THere are some that think they can determine all Questions in the world by two or three sayings of the Fathers, or by the consent of so many as they will please to call a concurrent Testimony: But this consideration will soon be at an end. For if the Fathers when they are witnesses of Tradition do not always speak truth, as it happened in the case of Papias and his numerous Followers for almost three Ages together; then is their Testimony more improbable when they dispute or write Commentaries.

2. The Fathers of the first Ages spake unitedly concerning divers Questions of secret Theology, and yet were afterwards contradicted by one personage of great reputation, whose credit had so much influence upon the world as to make the contrary opinion become popular: why then may not we have the same liberty, when so plain an uncertainty is in their perswasions, and so great contrariety in their Doctrines? But this is evident in the case of absolute Predestination, which till Saint Austin's time no man preached, but all taught the contrary; and yet the reputation of this one excellent man altered the scene. But if he might dissent from so general a Doctrine, why may not we doe so too (it being pretended that he is so excellent a precedent to be followed) if we have the same reason? He had no more Authority nor dispensation to dissent then any Bishop hath now. And therefore Saint Austin hath dealt ingenuously, and as he took this liberty to himself, so he denies it not to others, but indeed forces them to preserve their own liberty. And therefore when Saint Hierom had a great minde to follow the Fathers in a point that he fansied, and the best security he had was, Patiaris me cum talibus errare, Saint Austin would not endure it, but answered his reason, and neglected the Authority. And therefore it had been most unreasonable that we should doe that now, though in his behalf, which he towards greater personages (for so they were then) at that time judged to be unreasonable. It is a plain recession from Antiquity which was determined by the Council ofSess. ult. Florence, piorum animas purgatas, &c. mox in Coelum recipi, & intueri clarè ipsum Deum trinum & unum sicuti est; as who please to [...]ry may see it dogmatically resolved to the contrary by Q. 60. ad Christian. Justin Martyr, by Lib. 5. Irenaeus, by Hom. 7. in Levit. Origen, by Hom. 39. in 1 Cor. Saint Chrysostome, In c. 11. ad Heb. Theodoret, In c 6. Apoc. Arethas Caesariensis, In 16. c. Luc. Euthymius, who may answer for the Greek Church. And it is plain that it was the opinion of the Greek Church by that great difficulty the Romans had of bringing the Greeks to subscribe to the Florentine Council, where the Latines acted their master-piece of wit and strategem, the greatest that hath been till the famous and superpolitick design of Trent. And for the Latine Church, Lib. 4. adv. Marc. Tertullian, L. 2. de Cain. c. 2. Saint Ambrose, Ep. 111. ad Fortunatian. Saint Austin, In Psal. 138. Saint Hilary, De exeq. defunctor. Prudentius, L. 7. c. 21. Lactantius, In c. 6. Apoc. Victorinus Martyr and Serm. 3. de omn. sanctis. Vid. etiam S. Aug. in Enchir. c. 108. & l. 12. de civ. Dei, c. 9. & in Ps. 36. & in l. 1. retract. c. 14. Vid. insuper testimonia quae collegit Spalat. l. 5. c. 8. n. 98. de repub. Eccl. & Sixt. Senens. l. 6. annot. 345. Saint Bernard are known to be of opinion that the souls of the Saints are in abditis receptaculis & exterioribus atriis, where they expect the resurrection of their bodies, and the glorification of their souls; and though they all believe them to be happy, yet they injoy not the beatifick Vision before the resurrection. Now there being so full a consent of Fathers, (for many more may be added) and the Decree of Pope John XXII. besides, who was so confident for his Decree that he commanded the University of Paris to swear that they would preach it and no other, and that none should be promoted to degrees in Theology that did not swear the like, (as In oper. 90 di [...]rum. Occham, Serm. de Pasch. Gerson, In 4. sent. q. 13. a. 3. Marsilius and In 4. de Sacram. confirma [...]. Adrianus report:) since it is esteemed lawfull to dissent from all these, I hope no man will be so unjust to press other men to consent to an Authority which he himself judges to be incompetent. These two great instances are enough; but if more were necessary, I could instance in the opinion of the Chiliasts, maintained by the second and third Centuries, and disavowed ever since: in the Doctrine of communicating Infants, taught and practised as necessary by the fourth and fifth Centuries, and detested by the Latine Church in all the following Ages: in the variety of opinions concerning the very form of Baptism, some keeping close to the institution and the words of its first sanction, others affirming it to be sufficient if it be administred in [Page]nomine Christi; particularly Saint Ambrose, Pope Nicolas the First, De consecrat. dist. 4. c. à quodam Judaeo. In c. 10. Act. Ven. Bede and Ep. 340. Saint Bernard, besides some Writers of after-Ages, as Hugo de Sancto Victore, and the Doctors generally his contemporaries. And it would not be inconsiderable to observe, that if any Synod, General, National, or Provincial, be receded from by the Church of the later Age, (as there have been very many) then so many Fathers as were then assembled and united in opinion are esteemed no Authority to determine our perswasions. Now suppose 200 Fathers assembled in such a Council, if all they had writ Books, and 200 Authorities had been alledged in confirmation of an opinion, it would have made a mighty noise, and loaded any man with an insupportable prejudice that should dissent: And yet every opinion maintained against the Authority of any one Council, though but Provincial, is in its proportion such a violent recession and neglect of the Authority and Doctrine of so many Fathers as were then assembled, who did as much declare their opinion in those Assemblies by their Suffrages, as if they had writ it in so many books; and their opinion is more considerable in the Assembly then in their writings, because it was more deliberate, assisted, united, and more dogmaticall. In pursuance of this observation, it is to be noted by way of instance, that Saint Austin and two hundred and seventeen Bishops, and all their Successors *Vid. Epist. Bonifacii II. apud Nicolinum, Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 544. & exemplar precum Eulalii apud eundem, ibid. p. 525. Qui anathematizat omnes decisores suos qui in ea causa Romae se opponendo rectae fidei regulam praevaricati sunt, inter quos tamen [...]fuit Augustinus, quem pro maledicto Caelestinus tacitè agnoscit, admittendo sc. exemplar precum. Vid. Doctor. Mart. de jurisdict. part. 4. p. 273. & Erasm. annot. in Hieron. praefat. in Daniel. for a whole Age together, did consent in denying Appeals to Rome; and yet the Authority of so many Fathers (all true Catholicks) is of no force now at Rome in this Question: but if it be in a matter they like, one of these Fathers alone is sufficient. The Doctrine of Saint Austin alone brought in the Festival and veneration of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin; and the hard sentence passed at Rome upon unbaptized Infants, and the Dominican opinion concerning Predetermination, derived from him alone as from their Original. So that if a Father speaks for them, it is wonderfull to see what Tragedies are stirred up against them that dissent, as is to be seen in that excellent nothing of Campian's Ten reasons. But if the Fathers be against them, then Patres in quibusdam non leviter lapsi sunt, says Bellarmine; and, Constat quosdam ex praecipuis, it is certain the chiefest of them have foully erred.De verbo Dei l. 3. c. 10. Sect. Dices. Nay, Posa, Salmeron and Wadding, in the Question of the immaculate Conception, make no scruple to dissent from Antiquity, to prefer new Doctors before the old; and to justifie themselves, bring instances in which the Church of Rome had determined against the Fathers. And it is not excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may erre, but if they concur they are certain Testimony. For there is no question this day disputed by persons that are willing to be tried by the Fathers so generally attested on either side, as some points are which both sides dislike severally or conjunctly. And therefore 'tis not honest for either side to press the Authority of the Fathers as a concluding Argument in matter of dispute, unless themselves will be content to submit in all things to the Testimony of an equal number of them; which I am certain neither side will do.

3. If I should reckon all the particular reasons against the certainty of this Topick, it would be more then needs as to this Question, and therefore I will abstain from all disparagement of those worthy personages, who were excellent lights to their several Dioceses and Cures.Strom. l. 3. & 6. And therefore I will not instance that Clemens Alexandrinus taught that Christ felt no hunger or thirst, but eat onely to make demonstration of the verity of his Humane nature; nor that Saint Hilary taught that Christ in his sufferings had no sorrow; nor that Origen taught the pains of Hell not to have an eternall duration; nor that S. Cyprian taught Rebaptization; nor that Athenagoras condemned second Marriages; nor that Saint John Damascen said Christ onely prayed in appearance, not really and in truth: I will let them all rest in peace, and their memories in honour: for if I should inquire into the particular probations of this Article, I must doe to them as I should be forced to doe now; if any man should say that the Writings of the School-men were excellent argument and Authority to determine mens perswasions, I must consider their writings, and observe their defaillances, their contradictions, the weakness of their Arguments, the mis-allegations of Scripture, their inconsequent deductions, their false opinions, and all the weaknesses of humanity, and the failings of their persons; which no good man is willing to doe, unless he be compelled to it by a pretence that they are infallible, or that they are followed by men even into errours or impiety. And therefore since there is enough in the former instances to cure any such misperswasion and prejudice, I will not instance in the innumerable particularities that might perswade us to keep our Liberty intire, [Page] or to use it discreetly. For it is not to be denied but that great advantages are to be made by thei [...] writings, & probabile est quod omnibus, quod pluribus, quod sapientibus videtur: If one wise man says a thing, it is an argument to me to believe it in its degree of probation, that is, proportionable to such an assent as the Authority of a wise man can produce, and when there is nothing against it that is greater; and so in proportion higher and higher, as more wise men (such as the old Doctors were) do affirm it. But that which I complain of is, that we look upon wise men that lived long agoe with so much veneration and mistake, that we reverence them not for having been wise men, but that they lived long since. But when the Question is concerning Authority, there must be something to build it on; a Divine Commandment, humane Sanction, excellency of spirit, and greatness of understanding, on which things all humane Authority is regularly built. But now if we had lived in their times, (for so we must look upon them now, as they did who without prejudice beheld them) I suppose we should then have beheld them as we in England look on those Prelates who are of great reputation for learning and sanctity: here onely is the difference; when persons are living, their Authority is depressed by their personal defaillances, and the contrary interests of their contemporaries, which disband when they are dead, and leave their credit intire upon the reputation of those excellent books and monuments of learning and piety which are left behind. But beyond this, why the Bishop of Hippo shall have greater Authority then the Bishop of the Canaries, caeteris paribus, I understand not. For did they that lived (to instance) in Saint Austin's time be [...]ieve all that he wrote? If they did, they were much to blame; or else himself was to blame for retracting much of it a little before his death. And if while he lived his affirmative was no more Authority then derives from the credit of one very wise man, against whom also very wise men were opposed, I know not why his Authority should prevail farther now; for there is nothing added to the strength of his reason since that time, but onely 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.Apol. Athanas. ad Constant. Vid. Baron. A. D. 553. 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 [Page] 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 Vid. Baron. in Annal. 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;L. 1. de imag. orat. 1. and to the same purpose, and in the number of 27 and 29 Chapters, he is cited by Nom [...]can. tit. 1. cap. 3. 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 V. Beda de gratia Christi adv. Julianum. 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.Greg. Arim. in 2. sent. dist. 26. q. 1, 2, 3. 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, Can. 2. 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 that he was asked by Budus Bishop of Emessa, whether he did approve of the Epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth; and that his answer was, Si haec apud vos scripta non sint adultera: Nam plura ex his ab hostibus Ecclesiae deprehenduntur esse depravata. Euseb. l. 4. c. 23 And this was done even while the Authours themselves were alive: for so Dionysius of Corinth complain'd that his writings were corrupted by Hereticks; and Pope Leo, that his Epistle to Flavianus was perverted by the Greeks. And in the Synod of Constantinople before quoted (the sixth Synod) Macarius and his Disciples were convicted quòd Sanctorum testimonia aut truncârint aut depravârint. Act. 8. vid. etiam Synod. 7. act. 4. Thus the third Chapter of Saint Cyprian's book De unitate Ecclesiae in the Edition of Pamelius suffered great alteration; these words [Primatus Petro datur] wholly inserted, and these [super Cathedram Petri fundata est Ecclesia:] and whereas it was before, super unum aedificat Ecclesiam Christus, that not being enough, they have made it super [illum] unum. Now these Additions are against the faith of all old Copies before Minutius and Pamelius, and against Gratian, even after himself had been chastised by the Roman Correctors, the Commissaries of Gregory XIII. as is to be seen where these words are alledged, Decret. c. 24. q. 1. can. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum. So that we may say of Cyprian's works as [Page] Pamelius himself said concerning his writings and the writings of other of the Fathers, Vnde colligimus (saith he) Cypriani scripta, ut & aliorum Veterum, Annot. Cyprian. super Concil. Carthag. n. 1. à librariis variè fuisse interpolata. But Gratian himself could doe as fine a feat when he listed, or else some-body did it for him, and it was in this very Question, their beloved Article of the Pope's Supremacy; for De poenit. dist. 1. c. Potest fieri, he quotes these words out of Saint Ambrose, Non habent Petri haereditatem qui non habent Petri sedem: fidem, not sedem, it is in Saint Ambrose; but this errour was made authentick by being inserted into the Code of the Law of the Catholick Church. And considering how little notice the Clergy had of antiquity but what was transmitted to them by Gratian, it will be no great wonder that all this part of the world swallowed such a bole, and the opinion that was wrapped in it. But I need not instance in Gratian any farther, but refer any one that desires to be satisfied concerning this Collection of his, to Augustinus Archbishop of Tarracon in emendatione Gratiani, where he shall find fopperies and corruptions good store noted by that learned man.Vid. Ind. Expurg. Belg. in Bertram. & Flandr. Hispan. Portugal. Neopolitan. Romanum; Junium in praefat. ad Ind. Expurg. Belg. Hasenmullerum, pag. 275. Withrington. Apolog. num. 449. But that the Indices expurgatorii commanded by Authority, and practised with publick licence, professe to alter and correct the sayings of the Fathers, and to reconcile them to the Catholick sense, by putting in and leaving out, is so great an Imposture, so unchristian a proceeding, that it hath made the faith of all books and all Authours justly to be suspected. For considering their infinite diligence and great opportunity, as having had most of the Copies in their own hands, together with an unsatisfiable desire of prevailing in their right or in their wrong, they have made an absolute destruction of this Topick: and when the Fathers speak Videat Lector Andream Cristovium in Bello Jesuitico, & [...]oh. Reinolds in lib. de idol. Rom. Latine, or breathe in a Roman Diocese, although the providence of God does infinitely over-rule them, and that it is next to a miracle that in the Monuments of Antiquity there is no more found that can pretend for their advantage then there is, which indeed is infinitely inconsiderable; yet our Questions and uncertainties are infinitely multiplied, in stead of a probable and reasonable determination. For since the Latines alwaies complain'd of the Greeks for privately corrupting the ancient Records both of Councils and Vid. Ep. Nicolai ad Mi [...]chael. Imperat. Fathers, and now the Latines make open profession not of corrupting, but of correcting, their writings, (that's the word) and at the most it was but a humane Authority, and that of persons not alwaies learned, and very often deceived; the whole matter is so unreasonable, that it is not worth a farther disquisition. But if any one desires to enquire farther, he may be satisfied in Erasmus, in Henry and Robert Stephens, in their Prefaces before the Editions of the Fathers, and their Observations upon them; in Bellarm. de scrip. Eccl. in D. Reynolds de lib. Apoc. in Scaliger, and Robert Coke of Leeds in Yorkshire, in his Book De censura Patrum.

SECT. IX. Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be Judge of Controversies, and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit.

1. AND now after all these considerations of the several Topicks, Tradition, Councils, Popes and ancient Doctors of the Church, I suppose it will not be necessary to consider the Authority of the Church apart. For the Church either speaks by Tradition, or by a representative body in a Council, by Popes, or by the Fathers: for the Church is not a Chimaera, not a shadow, but a company of men believing in Jesus Christ, which men either speak by themselves immediately, or by their Rulers, or by their proxies and representatives. Now I have considered it in all senses but in its diffusive capacity; in which capacity she cannot be supposed to be a Judge of Controversies, both because in that capacity she cannot teach us, as also because if by a Judge we mean all the Church diffused in all its parts and members, so there can be no controversie: for if all men be of that opinion, then there is no Question contested; if they be not all of a mind, how can the whole diffusive Catholick Church be pretended in defiance of any one Article, where the diffusive Church [Page] being divided, part goes this way, and part another? But if it be said, The greatest part must carry it: Besides that it is impossible for us to know which way the greatest part goes in many Questions, it is not always true that the greater part is the best; sometimes the contrary is most certain; and it is often very probable, but it is always possible.Theod. l. 2. c. 16. hist. And when paucity of followers was objected to Liberius, he gave this in answer, There was a time when but three Children of the Captivity resisted the King's Decree.Tom. 2. And Athanasius wrote on purpose against those that did judge of truth by multitudes: and indeed it concerned him so to doe, when he alone stood in the gap against the numerous armies of the Arians.

2. But if there could in this case be any distinct consideration of the Church, yet to know which is the true Church is so hard to be found out, that the greatest Questions of Christendom are judged before you can get to your Judge, and then there is no need of him. For those Questions which are concerning the Judge of Questions must be determined before you can submit to his judgement; and if you can yourselves determine those great Questions which consist much in universalities, then also you may determine the particulars, as being of less difficulty. And he that considers how many notes there are given to know the true Church by, no less then 15 by Bellarmine, and concerning every one of them almost whether it be a certain note or no there are very many questions and uncertainties, and when it is resolved which are the notes, there is more dispute about the application of these notes then of the [...], will quickly be satisfied that he had better sit still then to go round about a difficult and troublesome passage, and at last get no farther, but return to the place from whence he first set out. And there is one note amongst the rest, Holiness of Doctrine, that is, so as to have nothing false either in Doctrina fidei or morum, (for so Bellarmine explicates it) which supposes all your Controversies judged before they can be tried by the Authority of the Church; and when we have found out all true Doctrine, (for that is necessary to judge of the Church by, that, as Saint Austin's counsel is, Ecclesiam in verbis Christi investigemus) then we are bound to follow, because we judge it true, not because the Church hath said it: and this is to judge of the Church by her Doctrine, not of the Doctrine by the Church. And indeed it is the best and onely way: But then how to judge of that Doctrine will be afterwards enquired into. In the mean time the Church, that is, the Governours of the Churches, are to judge for themselves, and for all those who cannot judge for themselves. For others, they must know that their Governours judge for them too, so as to keep them in peace and obedience, though not for the determination of their private perswasions. For the Oeconomy of the Church requires that her Authority be received by all her children. Now this Authority is Divine in its original, for it derives immediately from Christ; but it is humane in its ministration. We are to be led like men, not like beasts. A Rule is prescribed for the Guides themselves to follow, as we are to follow the Guides: and although in matters indeterminable or ambiguous the presumption lies on behalf of the Governours, (for we doe nothing for Authority if we suffer it not to weigh that part down of an indifferency and a question which she chuses;) yet if there be error manifestus, as it often happens, or if the Church-Governours themselves be rent into innumerable Sects, as it is this day in Christendom, then we are to be as wise as we can in chusing our Guides, and then to follow so long as that reason remains for which we first chose them. And even in that Government which was an immediate Sanction of God, I mean the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Synagogue, (where God had consign'd the High-Priest's Authority with a menace of death to them that should disobey, that all the world might know the meaning and extent of such precepts, and that there is a limit beyond which they cannot command, and we ought not to obey) it came once to that pass, that if the Priest had been obeyed in his Conciliary Decrees, the whole Nation had been bound to believe the condemnation of our Blessed Saviour to have been just; and at another time the Apostles must no more have preached in the name of JESUS. But here was manifest errour. And the case is the same to every man that invincibly, and therefore innocently, believes it so. Deo potiùs quàm hominibus is our rule in such cases. For although every man is bound to follow his Guide, unless he believes his Guide to mislead him; yet when he sees reason against his Guide, it is best to follow his reason: for though in this he may fall into errour, yet he will escape the sin; he may doe violence to Truth, but never to his own Conscience; and an honest errour is better then an hypocriticall profession of truth, or a violent luxation of the understanding, since if he retains his honesty and simplicity, he cannot erre in a matter of Faith or absolute necessity: God's goodness hath secured all [Page] honest and carefull persons from that; for other things he must follow the best guides he can, and he cannot be obliged to follow better then God hath given him.

3. And there is yet another way pretended of infallible Expositions of Scripture, and that is, by the Spirit. But of this I shall say no more, but that it is impertinent as to this Question. For put case the Spirit is given to some men enabling them to expound infallibly; yet because this is but a private assistance, and cannot be proved to others, this infallible assistance may determine my own assent, but shall not inable me to prescribe to others, because it were unreasonable I should, unless I could prove to him that I have the Spirit, and so can secure him from being deceived if he relies upon me. In this case I may say as S. Paul in the case of praying with the Spirit, He verily giveth thanks well, but the other is not edified. So that let this pretence be as true as it will, it is sufficient that it cannot be of consideration in this Question.

4. The result of all is this: Since it is not reasonable to limit and prescribe to all mens understandings by any external Rule in the interpretation of difficult places of Scripture, which is our Rule; since no man nor company of men is secure from errour, or can secure us that they are free from malice, interest and design; and since all the ways by which we usually are taught, as Tradition, Councils, Decretalls, &c. are very uncertain in the matter, in their authority, in their being legitimate and natural, and many of them certainly false, and nothing certain but the Divine Authority of Scripture, in which all that is necessary is plain, and much of that that is not necessary is very obscure, intricate and involv'd: either we must set up our rest onely upon Articles of Faith and plain places, and be incurious of other obscurer revelations, (which is a duty for persons of private understandings, and of no publick function;) or if we will search farther, (to which in some measure the Guides of others are obliged) it remains we enquire how men may determine themselves, so as to doe their duty to God, and not to disserve the Church, that every such man may doe what he is bound to in his personal capacity, and as he relates to the publick as a publick minister.

SECT. X. Of the authority of Reason, and that it proceeding upon best grounds is the best Judge.

1. HEre then I consider, that although no man may be trusted to judge for all others, unless this person were infallible and authorized so to doe, which no man nor no company of men is; yet every man may be trusted to judge for himself, I say, every man that can judge at all, (as for others they are to be saved as it pleaseth God:) but others that can judge at all must either chuse their Guides who shall judge for them, (and then they oftentimes doe the wisest, and always save themselves a labour, but then they chuse too;) or if they be persons of greater understanding, then they are to chuse for themselves in particular what the others doe in general, and by chusing their Guide: and for this any man may be better trusted for himself, then any man can be for another. For in this case his own interest is most concerned; and ability is not so necessary as honesty, which certainly every man will best preserve in his own case, and to himself, (and if he does not, it is he that must smart for't) and it is not required of us not to be in errour, but that we endeavour to avoid it.

2. He that follows his Guide so far as his Reason goes along with him, or, which is all one, he that follows his own Reason, (not guided onely by natural arguments, but by Divine revelation, and all other good means) hath great advantages over him that gives himself wholly to follow any humane Guide whatsoever, because he follows all their reasons and his own too: he follows them till Reason leaves them, or till it seems so to him, which is all one to his particular; for by the confession of all sides, an erroneous Conscience binds him, when a right Guide does not bind him. But he that gives himself up wholly to a Guide is oftentimes (I mean, if he be a discerning person) forced to doe violence to his own understanding, and to lose all the benefit of his own discretion, that he may reconcile his Reason to his Guide. And of this we see infinite inconveniences in the Church of Rome; for we find persons of great understanding oftentimes so amused with the Authority of their Church, that it is pity to see [Page] them sweat in answering some objections, which they know not how to doe, but yet believe they must, because the Church hath said it. So that if they reade, study, pray, search records, and use all the means of art and industry in the pursuit of truth, it is not with a resolution to follow that which shall seem truth to them, but to confirm what before they did believe: and if any Argument shall seem unanswerable against any Article of their Church, they are to take it for a temptation, not for an illumination, and they are to use it accordingly: which makes them make the Devil to be the Author of that which God's Spirit hath assisted them to find in the use of lawful means and the search of truth. And when the Devil of falshood is like to be cast out by God's Spirit, they say that it is through Beelzebub: which was one of the worst things that ever the Pharisees said or did. And was it not a plain stifling of the just and reasonable demands made by the Emperour, by the Kings of France and Spain, and by the ablest Divines among them, which was used in the Council of Trent, when they demanded the restitution of Priests to their liberty of Marriage, the use of the Chalice, the service in the Vulgar tongue; and these things not onely in pursuance of Truth, but for other great and good ends, even to take away an infinite scandal and a great Schism? And yet when they themselves did profess it, and all the world knew these reasonable demands were denied merely upon a politick consideration, yet that these things should be framed into Articles, and Decrees of Faith, and they for ever after bound not onely not to desire the same things, but to think the contrary to be Divine truths; never was Reason made more a slave or more useless. Must not all the world say, either they must be great hypocrites, or doe great violence to their understanding, when they not onely cease from their claim, but must also believe it to be unjust? If the use of their Reason had not been restrained by the tyranny and imperiousness of their Guide, what the Emperour and the Kings and their Theologues would have done, they can best judge who consider the reasonableness of the demand, and the unreasonableness of the deniall. But we see many wise men who with their Optandum esset ut Ecclesia licentiam daret, &c. proclaim to all the world, that in some things they consent and do not consent, and do not heartily believe what they are bound publickly to profess; and they themselves would clearly see a difference, if a contrary Decree should be framed by the Church, they would with an infinite greater confidence rest themselves in other propositions then what they must believe as the case now stands; and they would find that the Authority of a Church is a prejudice as often as a free and modest use of Reason is a temptation.

3. God will have no man pressed with another's inconveniences in matters spiritual and intellectual, no man's Salvation to depend upon another, and every tooth that eats sour grapes shall be set on edge for itself, and for none else: and this is remarkable in that saying of God by the Prophet,Ezek. 33. If the Prophet ceases to tell my people of their sins, and leads them into errour, the people shall die in their sins, and the bloud of them I will require at the hands of that Prophet; meaning, that God hath so set the Prophets to guide us, that we also are to follow them by a voluntary assent, by an act of choice and election. For although accidentally and occasionally the sheep may perish by the shepherd's fault; yet that which hath the chiefest influence upon their final condition is their own act and election: and therefore God hath so appointed Guides to us, that if we perish, it may be accounted upon both our scores, upon our own and the Guides too, which says plainly, that although we are intrusted to our Guides, yet we are intrusted to ourselves too. Our Guides must direct us; and yet if they fail, God hath not so left us to them, but he hath given us enough to ourselves to discover their failings, and our own duties in all things necessary. And for other things we must doe as well as we can. But it is best to follow our Guides, if we know nothing better: but if we do, it is better to follow the pillar of fire then a pillar of cloud, though both possibly may lead to Canaan. But then also it is possible that it may be otherwise. But I am sure if I doe my own best, then if it be best to follow a Guide, and if it be also necessary, I shall be sure by God's grace and my own endeavour to get to it: But if I without the particular ingagement of my own understanding follow a Guide, possibly I may be guilty of extreme negligence, or I may extinguish God's Spirit, or doe violence to my own Reason. And whether intrusting myself wholly with another be not a laying up my talent in 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.

[Page]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; Matt. 15.10. Joh. 5.39. 1 Joh. 4.1. Eph. 5.17. Luk. 24.25. Rom. 3.11. & 1.28. Apoc. 2.2. Act. 17.11. 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,Lib. 3. 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 [Page] 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 left to our liberty to judge that way that makes best demonstration of our piety and of our love to God and truth, not that way that is always the best argument of an excellent understanding; for this may be a blessing, but the other onely is a duty.

6. And now that we are pitch'd upon that way which is most natural and reasonable in determination of ourselves rather then of questions, which are often indeterminable, since right Reason proceeding upon the best grounds it can, viz. of Divine revelation and humane Authority and probability, is our Guide, (stando in humanis) and supposing the assistance of God's Spirit, (which he never denies them that fail not of their duty in all such things in which he requires truth and certainty;) it remains that we consider how it comes to pass that men are so much deceived in the use of their Reason and choice of their Religion, and that in this account we distinguish those accidents which make errour innocent from those which make it become a Heresie.

SECT. XI. Of some causes of Errour in the exercise of Reason which are inculpate in themselves.

1. THen I consider that there are a great many inculpable causes of Errour, which are arguments of humane imperfections, not convictions of a sin. And (First) The variety of humane understandings is so great, that what is plain and apparent to one is difficult and obscure to another; one will observe a consequent from a common Principle, and another from thence will conclude the quite contrary. When S. Peter saw the Vision of the sheet let down with all sorts of beasts in it, and a voice saying, Surge, Petre, macta & manduca, if he had not by a particular assistance been directed to the meaning of the Holy Ghost, possibly he might have had other apprehensions of the meaning of that Vision; for to myself it seems naturally to speak nothing but the abolition of the Mosaicall Rites, and the restitution of us to that part of Christian liberty which consists in the promiscuous eating of meats: and yet besides this, there want not some understandings in the world, to whom these words seem to give S. Peter a power to kill Hereticall Princes. Methinks it is a strange understanding that makes such extractions; but Bozius and Baronius did so. But men may understand what they please, especially when they are to expound Oracles. It was an argument of some wit, but of singularity of understanding, that happened in the great contestation between the Missals of S. Ambrose and S. Gregory. The lot was thrown, and God made to be Judge; so as he was tempted to a Miracle, to answer a question which themselves might have ended without much trouble. The two Missals were laid upon the Altar, and the Church-door shut and sealed. By the morrow-Mattins they found Saint Gregorie's Missal torn in pieces, (saith the story) and thrown about the Church, but S. Ambrose's opened and laid upon the Altar in a posture of being read. If I had been to judge of the meaning of this Miracle, I should have made no scruple to have said it had been the will of God that the Missal of Saint Ambrose, which had been anciently used, and publickly tried and approved of, should still be read in the Church, and that of Gregory let alone, it being torn by an Angelicall hand as an Argument of its imperfection, or of the inconvenience of innovation. But yet they judg'd it [Page] otherwise; for by the tearing and scattering about, they thought it was meant it should be used over all the world, and that of S. Ambrose read onely in the Church of Milain. I am more satisfied that the former was the true meaning, then I am of the truth of the story: But we must suppose that. And now there might have been eternall disputings about the meaning of the Miracle, and nothing left to determine, when two fancies are the litigants, and the contestations about probabilities hinc indé. And I doubt not this was one cause of so great variety of Opinions in the Primitive Church, when they proved their several Opinions, which were mysterious Questions of Christian Theologie, by testimonies out of the obscurer Prophets, out of the Psalms and Canticles▪ as who please to observe their arguments of discourse and actions of Council shall perceive they very much used to doe. Now although mens understandings be not equal, and that it is fit the best understandings should prevail; yet that will not satisfie the weaker understandings, because all men will not think that another understanding is better then his own, at least not in such a particular in which with fancy he hath pleased himself. But commonly they that are least able are most bold, and the more ignorant is the more confident: therefore it is but reason, if he would have another bear with him, he also should bear with another; and if he will not be prescribed to, neither let him prescribe to others. And there is the more reason in this, because such modesty is commonly to be desired of the more imperfect: for wise men know the ground of their perswasion, and have their confidence proportionable to their evidence; others have not, but over-act their trifles. And therefore I said it is but a reasonable demand, that they that have the least reason should not be most imperious: and for others, it being reasonable enough, for all their great advantages upon other men, they will be soon perswaded to it. For although wise men might be bolder in respect of the persons of others less discerning; yet they know there are but few things so certain as to create much boldness and confidence of assertion. If they do not, they are not the men I take them for.

2. Secondly, When an action or Opinion is commenc'd with zeal and piety against a known vice o [...] a vicious person, commonly all the mistakes of its proceeding are made sacred by the holiness of the principle, and so abuses the perswasions of good people, that they make it as a Characteristick note to distinguish good persons from bad: and then whatever errour is consecrated by this means is therefore made the more lasting, because it is accounted holy; and the persons are not easily accounted Hereticks, because they erred upon a pious principle. There is a memorable instance in one of the greatest Questions of Christendome, viz. concerning Images. For when Philippicus had espied the Images of the six first Synods upon the front of a Church, he caused them to be pulled down: now he did it in hatred of the sixth Synod; for he, being a Monothelite, stood condemned by that Synod. The Catholicks that were zealous for the sixth Synod caused the Images and representments to be put up again: and then sprung the Question concerning the lawfulness of Images in Churches.Vid. Paulum Diaconum. Philippicus and his party strived by suppressing Images to doe disparagement to the sixth Synod: the Catholicks, to preserve the honour of the sixth Synod, would uphold Images. And then the Question came to be changed, and they who were easie enough to be perswaded to pull down Images, were over-awed by a prejudice against the Monothelites; and the Monothelites strived to maintain the advantage they had got by a just and pious pretence against Images. The Monothelites would have secured their errour by the advantage and consociation of a truth; and the other would rather defend a dubious and disputable errour, then lose and let goe a certain truth. And thus the case stood, and the successors of both parts were led invincibly. For when the Heresie of the Monothelites disbanded, (which it did in a while after) yet the opinion of the Iconoclasts, and the Question of Images, grew stronger. Yet since the Iconoclasts at the first were Hereticks, not for their breaking Images, but for denying the two Wills of Christ, his Divine and his Humane; that they were called Iconoclasts was to distinguish their opinion in the Question concerning the Images, but that then Iconoclasts so easily had the reputation of Hereticks was because of the other Opinion which was conjunct in their persons: which Opinion men afterwards did not easily distinguish in them, but took them for Hereticks in gross, and whatsoever they held to be hereticall. And thus upon this prejudice grew great advantages to the veneration of Images; and the persons at first were much to be excused, because they were misguided by that which might have abused the best men. And if Epiphanius, who was as zealous against Images in Churches as Philippicus or Leo Isaurus, had but begun a publick contestation, and engaged Emperours to have made Decrees against them, Christendom would have had other [Page] apprehensions of it then they had when the Monothelites began it. For few men will endure a truth from the mouth of the Devil, and if the person be suspected, so are his ways too. And it is a great subtilty of the Devil, so to temper truth and falshood in the same person, that truth may lose much of its reputation by its mixture with errour, and the errour may become more plausible by reason of its conjunction with truth. And this we see by too much experience; for we see many Truths are blasted in their reputation, because persons whom we think we hate upon just grounds of Religion have taught them.In cap. 6. Johan. And it was plain enough in the case of Maldonat, that said of an explication of a place of Scripture, that it was most agreeable to Antiquity, but because Calvin had so expounded it, he therefore chose a new one. This was malice. But when a prejudice works tacitly, undiscernibly, and irresistibly of the person so wrought upon, the man is to be pitied, not condemned, though possibly his Opinion deserves it highly. And therefore it hath been usual to discredit Doctrines by the personal defaillances of them that preach them, or with the dis-reputation of that Sect that maintains them in conjunction with other perverse doctrines.L. 20. c. 3. cont. Faustum Man. L. 1. c. ult. de Imagin. Faustus the Manichee, in S. Austin, glories much that in their Religion God was worshipped purely and without Images. S. Austin liked it well, for so it was in his too: but from hence Sanders concludes, that to pull down Images in Churches was the Heresie of the Manichees. The Jews endure no Images;De reliq. SS. l. 2. c. 6. Sect. Nicolaus. therefore Bellarmine makes it to be a piece of Judaism to oppose them. He might as well have concluded against saying our prayers and Church-musick, that it is Judaicall, because the Jews used it. And he would be loath to be served so himself: for he that had a mind to use such arguments might with much better probability conclude against their Sacrament of extreme Unction, because when the miraculous healing was ceased, then they were not Catholicks, but Hereticks, that did transfer it to the use of dying persons,L. 1. c. 8. adv. haer. (says Irenaeus;) for so did the Valentinians. And indeed this argument is something better then I thought for at first, because it was in Irenaeus time reckoned amongst the Heresies. But there are a sort of men that are even with them, and hate some good things which the Church of Rome teaches, because she who teaches so many errours hath been the publisher, and is the practiser, of those things. I confess the thing is always unreasonable, but sometimes it is invincible and innocent; and then may serve to abate the fury of all such decretory sentences as condemn all the world but their own Disciples.

3. Thirdly, There are some Opinions that have gone hand in hand with a blessing and a prosperous profession; and the good success of their defenders hath amused many good people, because they thought they heard God's voice where they saw God's hand, and therefore have rushed upon such Opinions with great piety and as great mistaking. For where they once had entertain'd a fear of God, and apprehension of his so sensible declaration, such a fear produces scruple, and a scrupulous conscience is always to be pitied, because, though it is seldome wise, it is always pious. And this very thing hath prevailed so far upon the understandings even of wise men, that Bellarmine makes it a note of the true Church. Which Opinion when it prevails is a ready way to make, that in stead of Martyrs all men should prove Hereticks or Apostates in persecution: for since men in misery are very suspicious, out of strong desires to find out the cause, that by removing it they may be relieved, they apprehend that to be it that is first presented to their fears; and then if ever Truth be afflicted, she shall also be destroyed. I will say nothing in defiance of this fancy, although all the experience in the world says it is false, and that of all men Christians should least believe it to be true, to whom a perpetual Cross is their certain expectation, (and the Argument is like the Moon, for which no garment can be fit, it alters according to the success of humane affairs, and in one Age will serve a Papist, and in another a Protestant:) yet when such an Opinion does prevail upon timorous persons, the malignity of their errour (if any be consequent to this fancy, and taken up upon the reputation of a prosperous Heresie) is not to be considered simply and nakedly, but abatement is to be made in a just proportion to that fear and to that apprehension.

4. Fourthly, Education is so great and so invincible a prejudice, that he who masters the inconvenience of it is more to be commended then he can justly be blamed that complies with it. For men do not always call them Principles which are the prime Fountains of Reason, from whence such consequents naturally flow as are to guide the actions and discourses of men; but they are Principles which they are first taught, which they suckt in next to their milk, and by a proportion to those first Principles they usually take their estimate of Propositions. For whatsoever is taught to them at first they believe infinitely, for they know nothing to the contrary, they have had no other [Page] Masters whose Theorems might abate the strength of their first perswasions; and it is a great advantage in those cases to get possession; and before their first principles can be dislodg'd, they are made habitual and complexionall, it is in their nature then to believe them▪ and this is helped forward very much by the advantage of love and veneration which we have to the first parents of our perswasions. And we see it in the Orders of Regulars in the Church of Rome. That Opinion which was the Opinion of their Patron or Founder, or of some eminent Personage of the Institute, is enough to engage all the Order to be of that Opinion: and it is strange that all the Dominicans should be of one Opinion in the matter of Predetermination and immaculate Conception, and all the Franciscans of the quite contrary, as if their understandings were formed in a different mold, and furnished with various principles by their very Rule. Now this prejudice works by many principles; but how strongly they do possess the understanding is visible in that great instance of the affection and perfect perswasion the weaker sort of people have to that which they call the Religion of their Fore-fathers.Optima rati eà quae magno as sensu recepta sunt; quorúmque exempla multa sunt; nec ad rationem, sed ad similitudinem, vivimus. Sen. Vid. Min. Fel. Octav. You may as well charm a Fever asleep with the noise of bells, as make any pretence of Reason against that Religion which old men have intailed upon their heirs male so many generations till they can prescribe. And the Apostles found this to be most true in the extremest difficulty they met with to contest against the Rites of Moses, and the long Superstition of the Gentiles, which they therefore thought fit to be retained, because they had done so formerly; Pergentes non quò eundum est, sed quò itur: and all the blessings of this life which God gave them they had in conjunction with their Religion, and therefore they believed it was for their Religion; and this perswasion was bound fast in them with ribs of iron: the Apostles were forced to unloose the whole conjuncture of parts and principles in their understandings, before they could make them malleable and receptive of any impresses. But the observation and experience of all wise men can justifie this truth. All that I shall say to the present purpose is this, that consideration is to be had to the weakness of persons when they are prevailed upon by so innocent a prejudice: and when there cannot be arguments strong enough to overmaster an habitual perswasion bred with a man, nourished up with him, that always eat at his table, and lay in his bosome, he is not easily to be called Heretick; for if he keeps the foundation of Faith, other Articles are not so clearly demonstrated on either side, but that a man may innocently be abused to the contrary. And therefore in this case to handle him charitably, is but to doe him justice. And when an Opinion in minoribus articulis is entertained upon the title and stock of education, it may be the better permitted to him, since upon no better stock nor stronger arguments most men entertain their whole Religion, even Christianity itself.

5. Fifthly, there are some persons of a differing perswasion who therefore are the rather to be tolerated, because the indirect practices and impostures of their adversaries have confirmed them, that those Opinions which they disavow are not from God, as being upheld by means not of God's appointment. For it is no unreasonable discourse to say, that God will not be served with a lie; for he does not need one, and he hath means enough to support all those Truths which he hath commanded, and hath supplied every honest cause with enough for its maintenance, and to contest against its adversaries. And (but that they which use indirect arts will not be willing to lose any of their unjust advantages, nor yet be charitable to those persons whom either to gain or to undoe they leave nothing unattempted) the Church of Rome hath much reason not to be so decretory in her sentences against persons of a differing perswasion: for if their cause were entirely the cause of God, they have given wise people reason to suspect it, because some of them have gone to the Devil to defend it. And if it be remembred what tragedies were stirred up against Luther, for saying the Devil had taught him an argument against the Mass; it will be of as great advantage against them, that they goe to the Devil for many arguments to support, not onely the Mass, but the other distinguishing Articles of their Church. I instance in the notorious forging of Miracles, and framing of false and ridiculous Legends. For the former I need no other instances then what hapned in the great contestation about the immaculate Conception, when there were Miracles brought on both sides to prove the contradictory parts: and though it be more then probable that both sides play'd the jugglers, yet the Dominicans had the ill luck to be discovered, and the actors burn'd at Berne. But this discovery hapned by providence; for the Dominican Opinion hath more degrees of probability then the Franciscan, is clearly more consonant both to Scripture and all Antiquity; and this part of it is acknowledged by the greatest Patrons themselves, as Salmeron, Posa, and Wadding: yet because they played the knaves in a just Question, and used false arts to maintain a [Page] true proposition, God Almighty, to shew that he will not be served by a lie, was pleased rather to discover the Imposture in the right Opinion then in the false, since nothing is more dishonourable to God then to offer a sin in sacrifice to him, and nothing more incongruous in the nature of the thing then that truth and falshood should support each other, or that true Doctrine should live at the charges of a lie. And he that considers the arguments for each Opinion will easily conclude, that if God would not have truth confirmed by a lie, much less would he himself attest a lie with a true Miracle. And by this ground it will easily follow that the Franciscan party, although they had better luck then the Dominicans, yet had not more honesty, because their cause was worse, and therefore their arguments no whit the better. And although the argument drawn from Miracles is good to attest a holy Doctrine, which by its own worth will support itself after way is a little made by Miracles; yet of itself and by its own reputation it will not support any fabrick: for in stead of proving a Doctrine to be true, it makes that the Miracles themselves are suspected to be Illusions, if they be pretended in behalf of a Doctrine which we think we have reason to account false. And therefore the Jews did not believe Christ's Doctrine for his Miracles, but disbelieved the truth of his Miracles because they did not like his Doctrine. And if the holiness of his Doctrine, and the Spirit of God by inspirations and infusions, and by that which Saint Peter calls a surer word of Prophecy, had not attested the Divinity both of his Person and his Office, we should have wanted many degrees of confidence which now we have upon the truth of Christian Religion. But now since we are foretold by this surer word of prophecy, that is, the prediction of Jesus Christ, that Antich [...]ist should come in all wonders and signs and lying miracles, and that the Church saw much of that already verified in Simon Magus, Apollonius Tyaneus, and Manetho, and divers Stapleton prompt. Moral. pars aestiva, p. 627. Hereticks, it is now come to that pass,Vid. Baron. A.D. 68. n. 22. Philostrat. l. 4. p. 485. Compend. Ced. p. 202. that the Argument in its best advantage proves nothing so much as that the Doctrine which it pretends to prove is to be suspected, because it was foretold that false doctrine should be obtruded under such pretences. But then when not onely true Miracles are an insufficient argument to prove a Truth since the establishment of Christianity, but that the Miracles themselves are false and spurious, it makes that Doctrine in whose defence they come justly to be suspected, because they are a demonstration that the interessed persons use all means, leave nothing unattempted, to prove their propositions; but since they so fail as to bring nothing from God, but something from the Devil, for its justification, it's a great sign that the Doctrine is false, because we know the Devil, unless it be against his will, does nothing to prove a true proposition that makes against him. And now then those persons who will endure no man of another Opinion might doe well to remember how by their Exorcisms, their Devils tricks at Lowdon, and the other side pretending to cure mad folks and persons bewitched, and the many discoveries of their juggling, they have given so much reason to their adversaries to suspect their Doctrine, that either they must not be ready to condemn their persons who are made suspicious by their indirect proceeding in attestation of that which they value so high as to call their Religion, or else they must condemn themselves for making the scandal active and effectual.

6. As for false Legends, it will be of the same consideration, because they are false Testimonies of Miracles that were never done; which differs onely from the other as a lie in words from a lie in action: but of this we have witness enough in that Decree of Pope Leo X. Session the eleventh of the last Lateran Council, where he excommunicates all the forgers and inventers of Visions and false Miracles: which is a testimony that it was then a practice so publick as to need a Law for its suppression. And if any man shall doubt whether it were so or not, let him see the Centum gravamina of the Princes of Germany, where it is highly complain'd of. But the extreme stupidity and sottishness of the inventers of lying stories is so great, as to give occasion to some persons to suspect the truth of all [...] Isid. Pelus. Vid. L. 11. loc. Theol. cap. 6. Canus ibid. Church-story: witness the Legend of Lombardy; of the Authour of which the Bishop of the Canaries gives this Testimony, In illo enim libro miraculorum monstra saepius quàm vera miracula legas. Hanc homo scripsit ferrei oris, plumbei cordis, animi certè parùm severi & prudentis. But I need not descend so low, for S. Gregory and Ven. Bede themselves reported Miracles for the authority of which they onely had the report of the common people; and it is not certain that S. Hierome had so much in his stories of S. Paul and S. Anthony, and the Fauns and the Satyrs which appeared to them, and desired their prayers. But I shall onely by way of eminency note what Sir Thomas More says in his Epistle to Ruthal the King's Secretary before the Dialogue of Lucian [Philopseudes,] that therefore he undertook the translation of that Dialogue, to free the world from a Superstition that crept in under the face and title of Religion. [Page] For such lies (says he) are transmitted to us with such authority, that a certain Impostor had perswaded S. Austin, that the very Fable which Lucian scoffs and makes sport withall in that

Viz. De duo [...]us spur. altero▪ decedente, alter [...] in vitam redeunte post viginti dies; quam in aliis nominibus ridet Lucianus.

Vide etiam argumentum Gilberti Cognati, in Annotat. in hunc Dialog.

Vid. Palaeot. de Sacra sindone, par. 1. Epist. ad Lector.

Dialogue was a real story, and acted in his own days. The Epistle is worth the reading to this purpose: but he says this abuse grew to such a height, that scarce any life of any Saint or Martyr is truly related, but is full of lies and lying wonders; and some persons thought they served God if they did honour to God's Saints by inventing some prodigious story or Miracle for their reputation. So that now it is no wonder if the most pious men are apt to believe, and the greatest Historians are easie enough to report, such Stories, which serving to a good end, are also consigned by the report of persons otherwise pious and prudent enough. I will not instance in Vincentius his Speculum, Turonensis, Thomas Cantipratanus, John Herolt, Vitae Patrum, nor the Revelations of Saint Brigit, though confirmed by two Popes, Martin V. and Boniface IX. Even the best and most deliberate amongst them, Lippoman, Surius, Lipsius, Bzovius and Baronius, are so full of Fables, that they cause great disreputation to the other Monuments and Records of Antiquity, and yet doe no advantage to the cause under which they serve and take pay. They doe no good, and much hurt; but yet accidentally they may procure this advantage to Charity, since they doe none to Faith, that since they have so abused the credit of Story, that our confidences want much of that support we should receive from her records of Antiquity, yet the men that dissent and are scandalized by such proceedings should be excused if they should chance to be afraid of truth that hath put on garments of imposture: and since much violence is done to the truth and certainty of their judging, let none be done to their liberty of judging; since they cannot meet a right Guide, let them have a charitable Judge. And since it is one very great argument against Simon Magus and against Mahomet, that we can prove their Miracles to be Impostures; it is much to be pitied if timorous and suspicious persons shall invincibly and honestly less apprehend a Truth which they see conveyed by such a testimony which we all use as an argument to reprove the Mahometan Superstition.

7. Sixthly, Here also comes in all the weaknesses and trifling prejudices which operate not by their own strength, but by advantage taken from the weakness of some understandings. Some men by a Proverb or a common saying are determined to the belief of a Proposition, for which they have no argument better then such a proverbial sentence. And when divers of the common people in Jerusalem were ready to yield their understandings to the belief of the Messias, they were turned clearly from their apprehensions by that Proverb, Look and see, does any good thing come from Galilee? and this, When Christ comes, no man knows from whence he is; but this man was known of what parents, of what City. And thus the weakness of their understanding was abused, and that made the argument too hard for them. And the whole seventh Chapter of S. John's Gospel is a perpetuall instance of the efficacy of such trifling prejudices, and the vanity and weakness of popular understandings. Some whole Ages have been abused by a Definition, which being once received, as most commonly they are upon slight grounds, they are taken for certainties in any Science respectively, and for Principles, and upon their reputation men use to frame Conclusions, which must be false or uncertain according as the Definitions are. And he that hath observed any thing of the weaknesses of men, and the successions of groundless Doctrines from Age to Age, and how seldome Definitions which are put into Systems, or that derive from the Fathers, or are approved among School-men, are examined by persons of the same interests, will bear me witness how many and great inconveniences press hard upon the perswasions of men, who are abused, and yet never consider who hurt them. Others, and they very many, are led by authority or examples of Princes and great personages: Numquis credit ex Principibus? John 7. Some by the reputation of one learned man are carried into any perswasion whatsoever. And in the middle and latter Ages of the Church this was the more considerable, because the infinite ignorance of the Clerks and the men of the Long robe gave them over to be led by those few Guides which were marked to them by an eminency, much more then their Ordinary: which also did the more amuse them, because most commonly they were fit for nothing but to admire what they understood not. Their learning then was some skill in the Master of the Sentences, in Aquinas or Scotus, whom they admired next to the most intelligent order of Angels: hence came Opinions that made Sects and division of names, Thomists, Scotists, Albertists, Nominals, Reals, and I know not what monsters of Names; and whole families of the same Opinion, the whole institute of an Order being engaged to believe according to the Opinion of some leading man of the same Order, as if such an Opinion were imposed upon them in virtute sanctae obedientiae. But this inconvenience is greater when the principle of [Page] the mistake runs higher, when the Opinion is derived from a Primitive man and a Saint; for then it often happens that what at first was but a plain innocent seduction comes to be made sacred by the veneration which is consequent to the person for having lived long agone; and then, because the person is also since canonized, the errour is almost made eternall, and the cure desperate. These and the like prejudices, which are as various as the miseries of humanity or the variety of humane understandings, are not absolute excuses, unless to some persons: but truly if they be to any, they are exemptions to all from being pressed with too peremptory a sentence against them; especially if we consider what leave is given to all men by the Church of Rome, to follow any one probable Doctor in an Opinion which is contested against by many more. And as for the Doctors of the other side, they being destitute of any pretences to an infallible medium to determine Questions, must of necessity allow the same liberty to the people, to be as prudent as they can in the choice of a fallible Guide; and when they have chosen, if they do follow him into errour, the matter is not so inexpiable for being deceived in using the best Guides we had, which Guides, because themselves were abused; did also against their wills deceive me. So that this prejudice may the easier abuse us, because it is almost like a duty to follow the dictates of a probable Doctor: or if it be overacted or accidentally pass into an inconvenience, it is therefore to be excused because the Principle was not ill, unless we judge by our event, not by the antecedent probability. Of such men as these it was said by Saint Austin, Caeteram turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit. Cont. Fund. c. 4. Orat. 21. And Gregory Nazianzen, [...]. The common sort of people are safe in their not enquiring, by their own industry, and in the simplicity of their understanding relying upon the best Guides they can get.

8. But this is of such a nature in which as we may inculpably be deceived, so we may turn it into a vice or a design; and then the consequent errours will alter the property, and become Heresies. There are some men that have mens persons in admiration because of advantage, and some that have itching ears, and heap up Teachers to themselves ▪ In these and the like cases the authority of a person and the prejudices of a great reputation is not the excuse, but the fault; and a Sin is so far from excusing an Errour, that Errour becomes a Sin by reason of its relation to that Sin as to its parent and principle.

SECT. XII. Of the Innocency of Errour in Opinion in a pious person.

1. AND therefore as there are so many innocent causes of Errour as there are weaknesses within and harmless and unavoidable prejudices from without; so if ever errour be procured by a vice, it hath no excuse, but becomes such a crime, of so much malignity, as to have influence upon the effect and consequent, and by communication makes it become criminal. The Apostles noted two such causes, Covetousness and Ambition; the former in them of the Circumcision, and the latter in Diotrephes and Simon Magus: and there were some that were [...]· they were of the Long robe too,2 Tim. 3. but they were the she-Disciples, upon whose Consciences some false Apostles had influence by advantage of their wantonness: and thus the three principles of all sin become also the principles of Heresie; the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. And in pursuance of these arts the Devil hath not wanted fuell to set a-work Incendiaries in all Ages of the Church. The Bishops were always honourable, and most commonly had great Revenues, and a Bishoprick would satisfie the two designs of Covetousness and Ambition; and this hath been the golden apple very often contended for, and very often the cause of great fires in the Church. Thebulis, quia rejectus ab Episcopatu Hierosolymitano, turbare coepit Ecclesiam, said Egesippus in Eusebius. Tertullian turned Montanist in discontent for missing the Bishoprick of Carthage after Agrippinus; and so did Montanus himself for the same discontent, saith Nicephorus. Novatus would have been Bishop of Rome, Donatus of Carthage, Arius of Alexandria, Aërius of Sebastia; but they all missed, and therefore all of them vexed Christendom. And this was so common a thing, that oftentimes the threatning the Church with a Schism or a Heresie was a design to get a Bishoprick. And Socrates reports of [Page] Asterius, that he did frequent the Conventicles of the Arians: Nam Episcopatum aliquem ambiebat. And setting aside the infirmities of men and their innocent prejudices, Epiphanius makes Pride to be the onely cause of Heresies; [...], Pride and Prejudice cause them all, the one criminally, the other innocently. And indeed S. Paul does almost make Pride the onely cause of Heresies: his words cannot be expounded, unless it be at least the principal; [...], and consents not to sound words, and the doctrine that is according to godliness, [...].

2. The summe is this, If ever an Opinion be begun with pride, or manag'd with impiety, or ends in a crime, the man turns Heretick: but let the errour be never so great, so it be not against an Article of Creed, if it be simple and hath no confederation with the personal iniquity of the man, the Opinion is as innocent as the person, though perhaps as false as he is ignorant, and therefore shall burn, though he himself escape. But in these cases and many more (for the causes of deception encrease by all accidents, and weaknesses, and illusions) no man can give certain judgement upon the persons of men in particular, unless the matter of fact and crime be accident and notorious. The man cannot by humane judgement be concluded a Heretick, unless his Opinion be an open recession from plain demonstrative Divine Authority, (which must needs be notorious, voluntary, vincible and criminal) or that there be a palpable serving of an end accidental and extrinsecall to the Opinion.

3. But this latter is very hard to be discerned, because those accidental and adherent crimes which make the man a Heretick, in Questions not simply fundamental or of necessary practice, are actions so internall and spiritual that cognizance can but seldome be taken of them. And therefore (to instance) though the Opinion of Purgatory be false, yet to believe it cannot be Heresie, if a man be abused into the belief of it invincibly; because it is not a Doctrine either fundamentally false or practically impious, it neither proceeds from the will, nor hath any immediate or direct influence upon choice and manners. And as for those other ends of upholding that Opinion which possibly its Patrons may have, as for the reputation of their Churche's Infallibility, for the advantage of Dirges, Requiems, Masses, Monthly minds, Anniversaries, and other Offices for the dead, which usually are very profitable, rich and easie; these things may possibly have sole influences upon their understanding, but whether they have or no God onely knows. If the Proposition and Article were true, these ends might justly be subordinate and consistent with a true Proposition. And there are some Truths that are also profitable, as the necessity of maintenance to the Clergy, the Doctrine of Restitution, giving Alms, Lending freely, Remitting debts in cases of great necessity: and it would be but an ill argument that the Preachers of these Doctrines speak false, because possibly in these Articles they may serve their own ends. For although Demetrius and the Craftsmen were without excuse for resisting the preaching of S. Paul, because it was notorious they resisted the Truth upon ground of profit and personal emoluments, and the matter was confessed by themselves; yet if the Clergy should maintain their just Rights and Revenues which by pious dedications and donatives were long since ascertained upon them, is it to be presumed in order of Law and charity, that this end is in the men subordinate to truth, because it is so in the thing itself, and that therefore no judgement in prejudice of these truths can be made from that observation?

4. But if aliunde we are ascertained of the truth or falshood of a Proposition respectively, yet the judgement of the personal ends of the men cannot ordinarily be certain and judicial, because most commonly the acts are private, and the purposes internall, and temporal ends may sometimes consist with truth; and whether the purposes of the men make these ends principal or subordinate, no man can judge: and be they how they will, yet they do not always prove that, when they are conjunct with errour, the errour was caused by these purposes and criminal intentions.

5. But in Questions practical the Doctrine itself and the person too may with more ease be reproved, because matter of fact being evident, and nothing being so certain as the experiments of humane affairs, and these being the immediate consequents of such Doctrines, are with some more certainty of observation redargued then the speculative, whose judgement is of itself more difficult, more remote from matter and humane observation, and with less curiosity and explicitness declared in Scripture, as being of less consequence and concernment in order to God's and Man's great end. In other things which end in notion and ineffective contemplation, where neither the Doctrine is malicious, nor the person apparently criminal, he is to be left to the judgement of God: [Page] and as there is no certainty of humane judicature in this case, so it is to no purpose it should be judged. For if the person may be innocent with his Errour, and there is no rule whereby it can certainly be pronounced that he is actually criminal; (as it happens in matters speculative) since the end of the Commandment is love out of a pure conscience, and faith unfeigned, and the Commandment may obtain its end in a consistence with this simple speculative Errour; why should men trouble themselves with such Opinions, so as to disturb the publick charity or the private confidence? Opinions and persons are just so to be judged as other matters and persons criminal. For no man can judge any thing else: it must be a crime, and it must be open, so as to take cognizance and make true humane judgement of it. And this is all I am to say concerning the causes of Heresies, and of the distinguishing Rules for guiding of our judgements towards others.

6. As for guiding our judgements and the use of our Reason in judging for ourselves, all that is to be said is reducible to this one Proposition: Since Errours are then made sins when they are contrary to charity, or inconsistent with a good life and the honour of God, that judgement is the truest, or at least that opinion most innocent, that, 1. best promotes the reputation of God's Glory, and, 2. is the best instrument of holy life. For in Questions and interpretations of dispute these two analogies are the best to make Propositions, and conjectures and determinations. Diligence and care in obtaining the best Guides, and the most convenient assistances, prayer, and modesty of spirit, simplicity of purposes and intentions, humility and aptness to learn, and a peaceable disposition, are therefore necessary to finding out Truths, because they are parts of good life, without which our Truths will doe us little advantage, and our errours can have no excuse. But with these dispositions as he is sure to find out all that is necessary; so what Truth he inculpably misses of he is sure is therefore not necessary, because he could not find it when he did his best and his most innocent endeavours. And this I say to secure the persons; because no Rule can antecedently secure the Proposition in matters disputable. For even in the proportions and explications of this Rule there is infinite variety of disputes: And when the dispute is concerning Free will, one party denies it, because he believes it magnifies the grace of God, that it works irresistibly; the other affirms it, because he believes it engages us upon greater care and piety of our endeavours. The one Opinion thinks God reaps the glory of our good actions, the other thinks it charges our bad actions upon him. So in the Question of Merit, one part chuses his assertion, because he thinks it incourages us to doe good works; the other believes it makes us proud, and therefore he rejects it. The first believes it increases piety, the second believes it increases spiritual presumption and vanity. The first thinks it magnifies God's justice, the other thinks it derogates from his mercy. Now then, since neither this nor any ground can secure a man from possibility of mistaking, we were infinitely miserable if it would not secure us from punishment, so long as we willingly consent not to a crime, and doe our best endeavour to avoid an errour. Onely by the way let me observe, that since there are such great differences of apprehension concerning the consequents of an Article, no man is to be charged with the odious consequences of his Opinion. Indeed his Doctrine is, but the person is not, if he understands not such things to be consequent to his Doctrine: for if he did, and then avows them, they are his direct Opinions, and he stands as chargeable with them as with his first propositions: but if he disavows them, he would certainly rather quit his Opinion then avow such errours or impieties which are pretended to be consequent to it, because every man knows that can be no truth from whence falshood naturally and immediately does derive, and he therefore believes his first Proposition, because he believes it innocent of such errours as are charged upon it directly or consequently.

7. So that now, since no errour, neither for its self nor its consequents, is to be charged as criminal upon a pious person; since no simple errour is a sin, nor does condemn us before the throne of God; since he is so pitifull to our crimes, that he pardons many de toto & integro, in all makes abatement for the violence of temptation, and the surprizal and invasion of our faculties, and therefore much less will demand of us an account for our weaknesses; and since the strongest understanding cannot pretend to such an immunity and exemption from the condition of men, as not to be deceived and confess its weakness: it remains we inquire what deportment is to be used towards persons of a differing perswasion, when we are (I do not say doubtfull of a Proposition, but) convinced that he that differs from us is in Errour: for this was the first intention and the last end of this Discourse.

SECT. XIII. Of the Deportment to be used towards persons Disagreeing, and the reasons why they are not to be punished with Death, &c.

[Page]

1. FOR although every man may be deceived, yet some are right, and may know it too; for every man that may erre does not therefore certainly erre, and if he erres because he recedes from his Rule, then if he follows it he may doe right; and if ever any man upon just grounds did change his Opinion, then he was in the right and was sure of it too: and although confidence is mistaken for a just perswasion many times; yet some men are confident, and have reason so to be. Now when this happens, the question is what deportment they are to use towards persons that disagree from them, and by consequence are in errour.

2. First then, No Christian is to be put to death, dismembred, or otherwise directly persecuted, for his Opinion, which does not teach Impiety or Blasphemy. If it plainly and apparently brings in a crime, and himself does act it or incourage it, then the matter of fact is punishable according to its proportion or malignity. As if he preaches Treason or Sedition, his Opinion is not his excuse, because it brings in a crime; and a man is never the less Traitour because he believes it lawfull to commit Treason: and a man is a Murtherer if he kills his brother unjustly, although he thinks he does God good service in it. Matters of fact are equally judicable, whether the principle of them be from within or from without. And if a man could pretend to innocence in being seditious, blasphemous, or perjur'd, by perswading himself it is lawfull, there were as great a gate opened to all iniquity as will entertain all the pretences, the designs, the impostures and disguises of the world. And therefore God hath taken order that all Rules concerning matters of fact and good life shall be so clearly explicated, that without the crime of the man he cannot be ignorant of all his practicall duty. And therefore the Apostles and primitive Doctors made no scruple of condemning such persons for Hereticks that did dogmatize a sin. He that teaches others to sin is worse then he that commits the crime, whether he be tempted by his own interest, or incouraged by the other's Doctrine. It was as bad in Basilides to teach it to be lawfull to renounce Faith and Religion, and take all manner of Oaths and Covenants in time of persecution, as if himself had done so. Nay, it is as much worse as the mischief is more universal, or as a fountain is greater then a drop of water taken from it. He that writes Treason in a book, or preaches Sedition in a Pulpit, and perswades it to the people, is the greatest Traitour and Incendiary, and his Opinion there is the fountain of a sin, and therefore could not be entertained in his understanding upon weakness, or inculpable or innocent prejudice; he cannot from Scripture or Divine revelation have any pretence to colour that so fairly as to seduce either a wise or an honest man. If it rest there and goes no farther, it is not cognoscible, and so scapes that way: but if it be published, and comes à stylo ad machaeram, (as Tertullian's phrase is) then it becomes matter of fact in principle and in perswasion, and is just so punishable as is the crime that it perswades. Such were they of whom Saint Paul complains, who brought in damnable doctrines and lusts. S. Paul's Vtinam abscindantur is just of them,Gal. [...]. take it in any sense of rigour and severity, so it be proportionable to the crime or criminal Doctrine. Such were those of whom God spake in Deut. 13. If any Prophet tempts to idolatry, saying, Let us goe after other Gods, he shall be slain. But these do not come into this Question: but the Proposition is to be understood concerning Questions disputable in materia intellectuali; which also, for all that law of killing such false Prophets, were permitted with impunity in the Synagogue, as appears beyond exception in the great divisions and disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. I deny not but certain and known Idolatry, or any other sort of practicall impiety with its principiant Doctrine, may be punished corporally, because it is no other but matter of fact; but no matter of mere Opinion, no errours that of themselves are not sins are to be persecuted or punished by death or corporal inflictions. This is now to be proved.

3. Secondly, All the former Discourse is sufficient argument how easie it is for us in [Page] such matters to be deceived. So long as Christian Religion was a simple profession of the Articles of Belief, and a hearty prosecution of the rules of good life, the fewness of the Articles and the clearness of the Rule was cause of the seldome prevarication. But when Divinity is swelled up to so great a body, when the several Questions which the peevishness and wantonness of sixteen Ages have commenced are concentred into one, and from all these Questions something is drawn into the body of Theologie, till it hath ascended up to the greatnesse of a mountain, and the summe of Divinity collected by Aquinas makes a volume as great as was that of Livy, mocked at in the Epigram, ‘Quem mea vix totum bibliotheca capit;’ it is impossible for any industry to consider so many particulars in the infinite numbers of Questions as are necessary to be considered before we can with certainty determine any. And after all the considerations which we can have in a whole Age, we are not sure not to be deceived. The obscurity of some Questions, the nicity of some Articles, the intricacy of some Revelations, the variety of humane understandings, the windings of Logick, the tricks of adversaries, the subtilty of Sophisters, the ingagement of educations, personal affections, the portentous number of writers, the infinity of Authorities, the vastness of some arguments, as consisting in enumeration of many particulars, the uncertainty of others, the several degrees of probability, the difficulties of Scripture, the invalidity of probation of Tradition, the opposition of all exteriour arguments to each other and their open contestation, the publick violence done to Authors and records, the private arts and supplantings, the falsifyings, the indefatigable industry of some men to abuse all understandings and all perswasions into their own Opinions, these and thousands more, even all the difficulty of things, and all the weaknesses of man, and all the arts of the Devil, have made it impossible for any man in so great variety of matter not to be deceived. No man pretends to it but the Pope, and no man is more deceived then he is in that very particular.

4. Thirdly, From hence proceeds a danger which is consequent to this proceeding: for if we, who are so apt to be deceived, and so insecure in our resolution of Questions disputable, should persecute a disagreeing person, we are not sure we do not fight against God. For if his Proposition be true and persecuted, then, because all Truth derives from God, this proceeding is against God, and therefore this is not to be done, upon Gamaliel's ground, lest peradventure we be found to fight against God; of which because we can have no security (at least) in this case, we have all the guilt of a doubtfull or an uncertain Conscience. For if there be no security in the thing, as I have largely proved, the Conscience in such cases is as uncertain as the Question is: and if it be not doubtfull where it is uncertain, it is because the man is not wise, but as confident as ignorant; the first without reason, and the second without excuse. And it is very disproportionable for a man to persecute another certainly for a Proposition that, if he were wise, he would know is not certain; at least the other person may innocently be uncertain of it. If he be killed, he is certainly killed; but if he be called Heretick, it is not so certain that he is an Heretick. It were good therefore that proceedings were according to evidence, and the rivers not swell over the banks, nor a certain definitive sentence of Death passed upon such perswasions which cannot certainly be defined. And this argument is of so much the more force, because we see that the greatest persecutions that ever have been were against Truth, even against Christianity itself; and it was a prediction of our Blessed Saviour, that persecution should be the lot of true believers. And if we compute the experience of suffering Christendom, and the prediction that Truth should suffer, with those few instances of suffering Hereticks, it is odds but persecution is on the wrong side, and that it is errour and Heresie, that is, cruel and tyrannical; especially since the Truth of Jesus Christ and of his Religion are so meek, so charitable, and so merciful. And we may in this case exactly use the words of S. Paul, But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now: and so it ever will be till Christ's second coming.

5. Fourthly, Whoever persecutes a disagreeing person arms all the world against himself, and all pious people of his own perswasion, Quo comperto illi in nostram perniciem licentiore audaciâ grassabuntur. S. Aug. ep. ad Donat. Pr [...] cons. & Contr. ep. Fund. Ità nunc debeo sustinere & tantâ patientiâ vobiscum agere, quantâ mecum egerunt proximi mei cùm in vestro dogmate rabiosus ac caecus errarem. when the scales of Authority return to his adversary, and attest his contradictory; and then what can he urge for mercy for himself or his party that sheweth none to others? If he says that he is to be spared because he believes true, but the other was justly persecuted because he was in errour, he is ridiculous. For he is as confidently believed to be an Heretick as he believes his adversary such: and whethe [...] ▪ he be or no being the thing in question, of this he is [Page] not to be his own judge, but he that hath Authority on his side will be sure to judge against him. So that what either side can indifferently make use of, it is good that neither would, because neither side can with reason sufficiently doe it in prejudice of the other. If a man will say that every man must take his adventure, and if it happens Authority to be with him he will persecute his adversaries, and if it turns against him he will bear it as well as he can, and hope for a reward of Martyrdom and innocent suffering; besides that this is so equal to be said of all sides, and besides that this is a way to make an eternall disunion of hearts and charities, and that it will make Christendom nothing but a shambles and a perpetuall butchery, and as fast as mens wits grow wanton, or confident, or proud, or abused, so often there will be new executions and massacres; besides all this, it is most unreasonable and unjust, as being contrariant to those Laws of Justice and Charity whereby we are bound with greater zeal to spare and preserve an innocent then to condemn a guilty person, and there's less malice and iniquity in sparing the guilty then in condemning the good: because it is in the power of men to remit a guilty person to Divine judicature, and for divers causes not to use severity; but in no case it is lawfull, neither hath God at all given to man a power, to condemn such persons as cannot be proved other then pious and innocent. And therefore it is better, if it should so happen, that we should spare the innocent person, and one that is actually deceived, then that upon the turn of the wheel the true believers should be destroyed.

6. And this very reason he that had authority sufficient and absolute to make Laws was pleased to urge as a reasonable inducement for the establishing of that Law which he made for the indemnity of erring persons. It was in the Parable of the Tares mingled with the good seed in agro dominico. The good seed (Christ himself being the interpreter) are the Children of the Kingdom, the Tares are the children of the wicked one: upon this comes the precept, Gather not the tares by themselves, but let them both grow together till the harvest, that is, till the day of Judgement. This Parable hath been tortured infinitely to make it confess its meaning, but we shall soon dispatch it. All the difficulty and variety of exposition is reducible to these two Questions, What is meant by [Gather not,] and what by [Tares;] that is, what kind of sword is forbidden, and what kind of persons are to be tolerated. The former is clear; for the spiritual sword is not forbidden to be used to any sort of criminals, for that would destroy the power of Excommunication. The prohibition therefore lies against the use of the temporal sword, in cutting off some persons. Who they are is the next difficulty. But by Tares, or the children of the wicked one, are meant either persons of ill lives, wicked persons onely in re practica; or else another kind of evil persons, men criminal or faulty in re intellectuali. One or other of these two must be meant; a third I know not. But the former cannot be meant, because it would destroy all bodies politick, which cannot consist without Laws, nor Laws without a compulsory and a power of the sword: therefore if criminalls were to be let alone till the day of Judgement, bodies politick must stand or fall ad arbitrium impiorum, and nothing good could be protected, not Innocence itself, nothing could be secured but violence and tyranny. It follows then, that since a kind of persons which are indeed faulty are to be tolerated, it must be meant of persons faulty in another kind, in which the Gospel had not in other places clearly established a power externally compulsory: and therefore since in all actions practically criminall a power of the sword is permitted, here, where it is denied, must be meant a crime of another kind, and by consequence errours intellectual, commonly call'd Heresie.

7. And after all this the reason there given confirms this Vide S. Chrysost. homil. 47. in Cap. 13. Matth. & S. August. Quaest. in cap. 13. Matt. S. Cyprian. Ep. lib. 3. Ep. 1. Theophyl. in [...]3. Matt. interpretation; for therefore it is forbidden to cut off these Tares, lest we also pull up the wheat with them: which is the sum of these two last Arguments. For because Heresie is of so nice consideration and difficult sentence, in thinking to root up Heresies we may by our S. Hieron. in cap. 13. Matth. ait per hanc [...]arabolam signi [...]icari, nè in re [...]us dubi [...] praeceps siat [...]udicium. mistakes destroy true Doctrine: which although it be possible to be done in all cases of practical question by mistake; yet because externall actions are more discernible then inward speculations and Opinions, innocent persons are not so easily mistaken for the guilty in actions criminal, as in matters of inward perswasion. And upon that very reason Saint Martin was zealous to have procured a revocation of a Commission granted to certain Tribunes to make enquiry in Spain for Sects and Opinions; for under colour of rooting out the Priscillianists, there was much mischief done, and more likely to happen, to the Orthodox. For it happened then as oftentimes since, Pallore potiùs & veste quàm fide Haereticus dijudicari solebat aliquando per Tribunos Maximi. They were no good inquisitors of Heretical pravity, so Sulpitius witnesses. But secondly, the reason [Page] says, that therefore these persons are so to be permitted as not to be persecuted, lest when a revolution of humane affairs sets contrary Opinions in the throne or chair, they who were persecuted before should now themselves become persecuters of others; and so at one time or other, before or after, the Wheat be rooted up, and the Truth be persecuted. But as these reasons confirm the Law and this sense of it; so, abstracting from the Law, it is of itself concluding by an argument ab incommodo, and that founded upon the principles of Justice and right Reason, as I formerly alledged.

8. Fifthly, We are not onely uncertain of finding out Truths in matters disputable, but we are certain that the best and ablest Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt cum quo labore verum inveniatur, & quàm difficilè caveantur errores. Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt quàm rarum & arduum sit carnalia phantasmata piae mentis serenitate superare. Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt quibus & suspiriis & gemitibus fiat ut ex quantulacunque parte possit intelligi Deus. Postremò, illi in vos saeviant qui nullo tali errore decepti sunt quali vos deceptos vident. S. August. Cont. Ep. Fund. Doctors of Christendom have been actually deceived in matters of great concernment; which thing is evident in all those instances of persons from whose Doctrine all sorts of Christians respectively take liberty to dissent. The errours of Papias, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Justin Martyr in the Millenary Opinion, of Saint Cyprian, Firmilian, the Asian and African Fathers in the Question of Re-baptization, S. Austin in his decretory and uncharitable sentence against the unbaptized children of Christian parents, the Roman or the Greek Doctors in the Question of the Procession of the Holy Ghost and in the matter of Images, are examples beyond exception. [...]. Now if these great personages had been persecuted or destroyed for their Opinions, who should have answered the invaluable loss the Church of God should have sustained in missing so excellent, so exemplary, and so great Lights? But then if these persons erred, and by consequence might have been destroyed, what should have become of others whose understanding was lower, and their security less, their errours more, and their danger greater? At this rate all men should have passed through the fire: for who can escape when S. Cyprian and S. Austin cannot? Now to say these persons were not to be persecuted, because although they had errours, yet none condemned by the Church at that time or before, is to say nothing to the purpose, nor nothing that is true. Not true; because S. Cyprian's errour was condemned by Pope Stephen, which in the present sense of the prevailing party in the Church of Rome is, to be condemned by the Church. Not to the purpose; because it is nothing else but to say that the Church did tolerate their errours. For since those Opinions were open and manifest to the world, that the Church did not condemn them, it was either because those Opinions were by the Church not thought to be errours; or if they were, yet she thought fit to tolerate the errour and the erring person. And if she would doe so still, it would in most cases be better then now it is. And yet if the Church had condemned them, it had not altered the case as to this question; for either the persons upon the condemnation of their errour should have been persecuted, or not. If not, why shall they now, against the instance and precedent of those Ages who were confessedly wise and pious, and whose practices are often made to us arguments to follow? If yea, and that they had been persecuted, it is a thing which this Argument condemns, and the loss of the Church had been invaluable in the losing or the provocation and temptation of such rare personages; and the example and the rule of so ill consequence, that all persons might upon the same ground have suffered, and though some had escaped, yet no man could have any more security from punishment then from errour.

9. Sixthly, Either the disagreeing person is in errour, or not, but a true believer: in either of the cases to persecute him is extremely imprudent. For if he be a true believer, then it is a clear case that we doe open violence to God, and his servants, and his Truth. If he be in errour, what greater folly and stupidity then to give to errour the glory of Martyrdom, and the advantages which are accidentally consequent to a persecution? For as it was true of the Martyrs, Quoties morimur, toties nascimur, and the increase of their trouble was the increase of their confidence and the establishment of their perswasions: so it is in all false Opinions; for that an Opinion is true or false is extrinsecall or accidental to the consequents and advantages it gets by being afflicted. And there is a popular pity that follows all persons in misery, and that compassion breeds likeness of affections, and that very often produces likeness of perswasion; and so much the rather, because there arises a jealousie and pregnant suspicion that they who persecute an Opinion are destitute of sufficient Arguments to confute it, and that the Hangman is the best disputant. For if those Arguments which they have for their own Doctrine were a sufficient ground of confidence and perswasion, men would be more willing to use those means and Arguments which are better compliances with humane understanding, which more naturally do satisfie it, which are more humane and Christian, then that way is which satisfies none, which destroys many, which provokes more, and which makes all men jealous. To which adde, that those who [Page] die for their Opinion leave in all men great arguments of the heartiness of their belief, of the confidence of their perswasion, of the piety and innocencie of their persons, of the purity of their intention and simplicity of purposes, that they are persons totally disinteressed and separate from design. For no interest can be so great as to be put in balance against a man's life and his Soul; and he does very imprudently serve his ends who seeingly and foreknowingly loses his life in the prosecution of them. Just as if Titius should offer to die for Sempronius upon condition he might receive twenty talents when he had done his work. It is certainly an argument of a great love, and a great confidence, and a great sincerity, and a great hope, when a man lays down his life in attestation of a Proposition. Greater love then this hath no man, then to lay down his life, saith our Blessed Saviour. And although laying of a wager is an argument of confidence more then truth; yet laying such a wager, staking of a man's Soul, and pawning his life, gives a hearty testimony that the person is honest, confident, resigned, charitable and noble. And I know not whether Truth can doe a person or a cause more advantages then these can doe to an errour. And therefore besides the impiety, there is great imprudence in Canonizing a Heretick, and consecrating an errour by such means, which were better preserved as incouragements of Truth, and comforts to real and true Martyrs. And it is not amiss to observe that this very advantage was taken by Hereticks, who were ready to shew and boast their Catalogues of Martyrs: in particular the Circumcellians did so, and the Donatists; and yet the first were Hereticks, the second Schismaticks. And it was remarkable in the Scholars of Priscillian, who as they had their Master in the reputation of a Saint while he was living, so when he was dead they had him in veneration as a Martyr; they with reverence and devotion carried his and the bodies of his slain companions to an honourable sepulture, and counted it Religion to swear by the name of Priscillian. So that the extinguishing of the person gives life and credit to his Doctrine, and when he is dead he yet speaks more effectually.

10. Seventhly, It is unnatural and unreasonable to persecute disagreeing Opinions. Unnatural; for Understanding, being a thing wholly spiritual, cannot be restrained, and therefore neither punished by corporal afflictions. It is in aliena republica, a matter of another world. You may as well cure the Colick by brushing a man's cloaths, or fill a man's belly with a Syllogism. These things do not communicate in matter, and therefore neither in action nor passion. And since all punishments in a prudent Government punish the offender to prevent a future crime, and so it proves more medicinal then vindictive, the punitive act being in order to the cure and prevention; and since no punishment of the body can cure a disease in the Soul; it is disproportionable in nature, and in all civil Government, to punish where the punishment can doe no good. It may be an act of tyranny, but never of justice. For is an Opinion ever the more true or false for being persecuted? Some men have believed it the more, as being provoked into a confidence, and vexed into a resolution; but the thing itself is not the truer: and though the Hangman may confute a man with an inexplicable Dilemma, yet not convince his understanding; for such Premisses can infer no Conclusion but that of a man's life: and a Wolf may as well give laws to the understanding as he whose Dictates are onely propounded in violence, and writ in bloud: and a Dog is as capable of a law as a man, if there be no choice in his obedience, nor discourse in his choice, nor reason to satisfie his discourse. And as it is unnatural, so it is unreasonable, that Sempronius should force Caius to be of his opinion, because Sempronius is Consul this year, and commands the Lictors. As if he that can kill a man cannot but be infallible: and if he be not, why should I doe violence to my Conscience, because he can doe violence to my person?

11. Eighthly, Force in matters of Opinion can doe no good, but is very apt to doe hurt; for no man can change his Opinion when he will, or be satisfied in his Reason that his Opinion is false, because discountenanced. If a man could change his Opinion when he lists, he might cure many inconveniences of his life: all his fears and his sorrows would soon disband, if he would but alter his Opinion, whereby he is perswaded that such an accident that afflicts him is an evil, and such an object formidable: let him but believe himself impregnable, or that he receives a benefit when he is plundered, disgraced, imprisoned, condemned and afflicted, neither his steps need to be disturbed, nor his quietness discomposed. But if a man cannot change his Opinion when he lists, nor ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot doe otherwise, then to use force may make him an Hypocrite, but never to be a right Believer; and so, in stead of erecting a trophee to God and true Religion, we build a monument for the Devil. [Page] Infinite examples are recorded in Church-story to this very purpose. But Socrates instances in one for all: for when Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum was threatned by the Emperour Valens with banishment and confiscation if he did not subscribe to the Decree of Ariminum, at last he yielded to the Arian Opinion, and presently fell into great torment of Conscience, openly at Cyzicum recanted the errour, asked God and the Church forgiveness, and complained of the Emperour's injustice: and that was all the good the Arian party got by offering violence to his Conscience. And so many families in Spain, which are as they call them new Christians, and of a suspected Faith, into which they were forced by the tyranny of the Inquisition, and yet are secret Moors, are evidence enough of the Ejusmodi fuit Hipponensium conversio, cujus quidem species decepit August. ità ut opinaretur haereticos, licèt non morte trucidandos, vi tamen coercendos. Experientia enim demonstravit eos tam facilè ad Arianismum transiisse atque ad Catholicismum, cùm Ariani Principes rerum in ea civitate potirentur. inconvenience of preaching a Doctrine in ore gladii cruentandi. For it either punishes a man for keeping a good Conscience, or forces him into a bad; it either punishes sincerity, or perswades hypocrisie; it persecutes a truth, or drives into errour: and it teaches a man to dissemble and to be safe, but never to be honest.

12. Ninthly, It is one of the glories of Christian Religion, that it was so pious, excellent, miraculous and perswasive, that it came in upon its own piety and wisedome, with no other force but a torrent of arguments and demonstration of the Spirit; a mighty rushing wind to beat down all strong holds, and every high thought and imagination; but towards the persons of men it was always full of meekness and charity, compliance and toleration, condescention and bearing with one another, restoring persons overtaken with an errour in the spirit of meekness, considering lest we also be tempted. The consideration is as prudent, and the proposition as just, as the precept is charitable, and the precedent was pious and holy. Now things are best conserved with that which gives it the first being, and which is agreeable to its temper and constitution. That precept which it chiefly preaches in order to all the blessedness in the world, that is, of meekness, mercy and charity, should also preserve itself and promote its own interest. For indeed nothing will doe it so well, nothing doth so excellently insinuate itself into the understandings and affections of men, as when the actions and perswasions of a Sect, and every part and principle and promotion, are univocall. And it would be a mighty disparagement to so glorious an Institution, that in its principle it should be mercifull and humane, and in the promotion and propagation of it so inhumane: And it would be improbable and unreasonable that the sword should be used in the perswasion of one Proposition, and yet in the perswasion of the whole Religion nothing like it. To doe so may serve the end of a temporal Prince, but never promote the honour of Christ's Kingdom; it may secure a design of Spain, but will very much disserve Christendom, to offer to support it by that which good men believe to be a distinctive cognizance of the Mahometan Religion from the excellency and piety of Christianity, whose sense and spirit is described in those excellent words of Saint Paul, 2 Tim. 2.24. The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging the truth. They that oppose themselves must not be strucken by any of God's servants; and if yet any man will smite these who are his opposites in Opinion, he will get nothing by that, he must quit the title of being a servant of God for his pains. And I think a distinction of persons Secular and Ecclesiasticall will doe no advantage for an escape, because even the Secular power, if it be Christian, and a servant of God, must not be [...]. I mean in those cases where meekness of instruction is the remedy: or, if the case be irremediable, abscission by Censures is the penalty.

13. Tenthly, And if yet in the nature of the thing it were neither unjust nor unreasonable, yet there is nothing under God Almighty that hath power over the Soul of man, so as to command a perswasion, or to judge a disagreeing. Humane positive Laws direct all externall acts in order to several ends, and the Judges take cognizance accordingly; but no man can command the Will, or punish him that obeys the Law against his will: for because its end is served in externall obedience, it neither looks after more, neither can it be served by more, nor take notice of any more. And yet possibly the Understanding is less subject to humane power then the Will: for that humane power hath a command over externall acts which naturally and regularly flow from the Will, & ut plurimùm suppose a direct act of will, but always either a direct or indirect volition, prim [...]ry or accidental; but the Understanding is a natural faculty subject to no command, but where the command is itself a reason fit to satisfie & perswade it. And therefore God, commanding us to believe such Revelations, perswades and satisfies the understanding by his commanding and revealing: for there is no greater probation in the world that Proposition [Page] is true, then because God hath commanded us to believe it. But because no man's command is a satisfaction to the understanding, or a verification of the Proposition, therefore the understanding is not subject to humane Authority. They may perswade, but not injoyn where God hath not; and where God hath, if it appears so to him, he is an Infidel if he does not believe it. And if all men have no other efficacy or authority on the understanding but by perswasion, proposal and intreaty, then a man is bound to assent but according to the operation of the argument, and the energy of perswasion; neither indeed can he though he would never so fain: and he that out of fear, and too much compliance, and desire to be safe, shall desire to bring his understanding with some luxation to the belief of humane Dictates and Authorities, may as often miss of the Truth as hit it, but is sure always to lose the comfort of Truth, because he believes it upon indirect, insufficient and incompetent arguments: and as his desire it should be so is his best argument that it is so, so the pleasing of men is his best reward, and his not being condemned and contradicted all the possession of a Truth.

SECT. XIV. Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons Disagreeing, and when Persecution first came in.

AND thus this Truth hath been practised in all times of Christian Religion, when there were no collateral designs on foot, nor interests to be served, nor passions to be satisfied. In Saint Paul's time, though the censure of Heresie were not so loose and forward as afterwards, and all that were called Hereticks were clearly such and highly criminal, yet as their crime was so was their censure, that is, spiritual. They were first admonished, once at least; for so l. 3. cap. 3. Irenaeus, De praescript. Tertullian, Lib. ad Quirinum. Cyprian, in hunc locum. Ambrose and ibidem. Hierom read that place of Titus 3. But since that time all men, and at that time some read it, Post unam & alteram admonitionem reject a Heretick. Rejection from the communion of Saints after two warnings, that's the penalty. Saint John expresses it by not eating with them, not bidding them God speed; but the persons against whom he decrees so severely are such as denied Christ to be come in the flesh, direct Antichrists. And let the sentence be as high as it lists in this case, all that I observe is, that since in so damnable Doctrines nothing but spiritual censure, separation from the communion of the faithfull, was enjoyned and prescribed, we cannot pretend to an Apostolicall precedent, if in matters of dispute and innocent question, and of great uncertainty and no malignity, we should proceed to sentence of Death.

2. For it is but an absurd and illiterate arguing, to say that Excommunication is a greater punishment, and killing a less; and therefore who-ever may be excommunicated may also be put to death: (which indeed is the reasoning that Bellarmine uses.) For first, Excommunication is not directly and of itself a greater punishment then corporal Death, because it is indefinite and incompleat, and in order to a farther punishment; which if it happens, then the Excommunication was the inlet to it; if it does not, the Excommunication did not signifie half so much as the loss of a member, much less Death. For it may be totally ineffectual, either by the iniquity of the proceeding, or repentance of the person: and in all times and cases it is a medicine if the man please; if he will not, but perseveres in his impiety, then it is himself that brings the Censure to effect, that actuates the judgement, and gives a sting and an energy upon that which otherwise would be [...]. Secondly, but when it is at worst, it does not kill the Soul; it onely consigns it to that death which it had deserved, and should have received independently from that sentence of the Church. Thirdly, and yet Excommunication is to admirable purpose: for whether it refers to the person censured, or to others, it is prudentiall in itself, it is exemplary to others, it is medicinal to all. For the person censured is by this means threatned into piety, and the threatning made the more energeticall upon him, because by fiction of Law, or as it were by a Sacramental representment, the pains of hell are made presentiall to him, and so becomes an act of prudent▪ judicature, and excellent discipline, and the best instrument of spiritual Government; because the nearer the threatning is reduced to matter, and the more present [Page] and circumstantiate it is made, the more operative it is upon our spirits while they are immerged in matter. And this is the full sense and power of Excommunication in its direct intention: consequently and accidentally other evils might follow it; as in the times of the Apostles the censured persons were buffeted by Satan, and even at this day there is less security even to the temporal condition of such a person whom his spiritual parents have Anathematiz'd. But besides this I know no warrant to affirm any thing of Excommunication; for the sentence of the Church does but declare, not effect, the final sentence of damnation. Whoever deserves Excommunication deserves damnation; and he that repents shall be saved though he die out of the Churche's externall Communion; and if he does not repent, he shall be damned though he was not excommunicate.

3. But suppose it greater then the sentence of corporal Death, yet it follows not, because Hereticks may be excommunicate, therefore killed; for from a greater to a less in a several kinde of things the argument concludes not. It is a greater thing to make an excellent discourse then to make a shoe; yet he that can doe the greater cannot doe this less. An Angel cannot beget a man, and yet he can doe a greater matter in that kinde of operations which we term spiritual and Angelicall. And if this were concluding, that whoever may be excommunicate may be kill'd, then, because of Excommunications the Church is confessed the sole and intire Judge, she is also an absolute disposer of the lives of persons. I believe this will be but ill doctrine in Spain: for in Bulla Coenae Domini the King of Spain is every year excommunicated on Maunday-Thursday; but if by the same power he might also be put to death, (as upon this ground he may) the Pope might with more ease be invested in that part of Saint Peter's Patrimony which that King hath invaded and surprized. But besides this, it were extreme harsh Doctrine in a Roman Consistory, from whence Excommunications issue for trifles, for fees, for not suffering themselves infinitely to be oppressed, for any thing: if this be greater then Death, how great a tyranny is that which doth more then kill men for lesse then trifles? or else how inconsequent is that argument which concludes its purpose upon so false pretence and supposition?

4. Well, however zealous the Apostles were against Hereticks, yet none were by them or their dictates put to death. The death of Ananias and Sapphira, and the blindness of Elymas the Sorcerer, amount not to this, for they were miraculous inflictions: and the first was a punishment to Vow-breach and Sacrilege, the second of Sorcery and open contestation against the Religion of Jesus Christ; neither of them concerned the case of this present question. Or if the case were the same, yet the Authority is not the same: For he that inflicted these punishments was infallible, and of a power competent; but no man at this day is so. But as yet people were converted by Miracles, and Preaching, and Disputing, and Hereticks by the same means were redargued, and all men instructed, none tortured for their Opinion. And this continued till Christian people were vexed by disagreeing persons, and were impatient and peevish by their own too much confidence and the luxuriancy of a prosperous fortune: but then they would not endure persons that did dogmatize any thing which might intrench upon their reputation or their interest. And it is observable that no man nor no Age did ever teach the lawfulness of putting Hereticks to death, till they grew wanton with prosperity. But when the reputation of the Governours was concerned, when the interests of men were endangered, when they had something to lose, when they had built their estimation upon the credit of disputable Questions, when they began to be jealous of other men, when they over-valued themselves and their own Opinions, when some persons invaded Bishopricks upon pretence of new Opinions; then they, as they thrived in the favour of Emperours, and in the successe of their Disputes, solicited the temporal power to banish, to fine, to imprison and to kill their adversaries.

5. So that the case stands thus: In the best times, amongst the best men, when there were fewer temporal ends to be served, when Religion and the pure and simple designs of Christianity were onely to be promoted, in those times and amongst such men no persecution was actual, nor perswaded, nor allowed, towards disagreeing persons. But as men had ends of their own and not of Christ, as they receded from their duty and Religion from its purity, as Christianity began to be compounded with interests and blended with temporal designs, so men were persecuted for their Opinions. This is most apparent, if we consider when Persecution first came in, and if we observe how it was checked by the holiest and the wisest persons.

6. The first great instance I shall note was in Priscillian and his followers, who were [Page] condemned to death by the Tyrant Maximus. Which instance although Saint Hierom observes as a punishment and judgement for the crime of Heresie, yet is of no use in the present Question, because Maximus put some Christians of all sorts to death promiscuously, Catholick and Heretick without choice; and therefore the Priscillianists might as well have called it a judgement upon the Catholicks, as the Catholicks upon them.

7. But when Vrsatus and Stacius, two Bishops, procured the Priscillianists death by the power they had at Court; Saint Martin was so angry at them for their cruelty, that he excommunicated them both. And Saint Ambrose upon the same stock denied his communion to the Itaciani. And the account that Sulpitius gives of the story is this, Hoc modo (says he) homines luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo necati sunt. The example was worse then the men. If the men were hereticall, the execution of them however was unchristian.

8. But it was of more Authority that the Nicene Fathers supplicated the Emperour and prevailed for the banishment of Arius. Of this we can give no other account,Sozom. l. 1. cap. 20. but that by the history of the time we see baseness enough and personal misdemeanour and factiousnesse of spirit in Arius to have deserved worse then banishment, though the obliquity of his Opinion were not put into the balance; which we have reason to believe was not so much as considered,Socrates l. 1. cap. 26. Cont. Crescon. Grammat. lib. 3. cap. 50. Vid [...]ntiam Epist. 158. & 159. & lib. 1. cap. 29. cont. tit. Petilian. Vide etiam Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 3. & cap. 29 because Constantine gave toleration to differing Opinions, and Arius himself was restored upon such conditions to his Countrey and Office which would not stand with the ends of the Catholicks, if they had been severe exactors of concurrence and union of perswasions.

9. I am still within the scene of Ecclesiasticall persons, and am considering what the opinion of the learnedst and the holiest Prelates was concerning this great Question. If we will believe Saint Austin, (who was a credible person) no good man did allow it; Nullis tamen bonis in Catholica hoc placet, si usque ad mortem in quenquam, licèt haereticum, saeviatur. This was Saint Austin's final opinion:Lib. 2. cap. 5. retractat. vid. Ep. 48. ad Vincent. script. post retract. & Ep. 5 [...]. ad Boni [...]. For he had first been of the mind, that it was not honest to doe any violence to mis-perswaded persons; and when upon an accident happening in Hippo he had altered and retracted that part of the opinion, yet then also he excepted Death, and would by no means have any mere Opinion made capital. But, for ought appears, Saint Austin had greater reason to have retracted that retractation then his first opinion; for his saying of nullis bonis placet was as true as the thing was reasonable it should be so. Witnesse those known Testimonies of Ad Scapulam. Tertullian, Lib. 3. Ep. 1. Epist. Cyprian, l. 5. c. 2 [...]. Lactantius, In cap. 13. Matth. & in cap. 2. Hos. S. Hierom, In vit. S. Martin. Severus Sulpitius, Octav. Minutius, Cont. Auxent. Arr. Hilary, 3. Sect. C. 32. Damascen, In cap. 13. Matth. hom. 4. Chrysostome, In Evang. Matth. Theophylact, and In verba Apost. fides ex auditu. Bernard, and divers others, whom the Reader may find quoted by the Archbishop of Spalato, Lib. 8. de Rep. Eccl. c. 8.

10. Against this concurrent testimony my reading can furnish me with no adversary, nor contrary instances, but in Atticus of CP. Theodosius of Synada, in Stacius and Vrsatus before reckoned. Onely indeed some of the later Popes of Rome began to be busie and unmercifull; but it was then when themselves were secure, and their interests great, and their temporal concernments highly considerable.

11. For it is most true, and not amisse to observe it, that no man who was under the Ferula did ever think it lawfull to have Opinions forced, or Hereticks put to death; and yet many men, who themselves have escaped the danger of a pile and a faggot, have changed their opinion just as the case was altered, that is, as themselves were unconcerned in the suffering. Petilian, Parmenian and Gaudentius by no means would allow it lawfull, for themselves were in danger, and were upon that side that is ill thought of and discountenanced: but Ep. 1. ad Turbium. [...] L. 1. Ep. [...]2. Gregory and †Leo, Popes of Rome, Apud Aug. l. 1. c. 7. cont. Ep. Parmenian. & l. 2. c. 10. cont. tit. Petilian. upon whose side the authority and advantages were, thought it lawfull they should be punished and persecuted, for themselves were unconcerned in the danger of suffering. And therefore Saint Gregory commends the Exarch of Ravenna for forcing them who dissented from those men who called themselves the Church. And there were some Divines in the lower Germany who upon great reasons spake against the tyranny of the Inquisition, and restraining Prophesying, who yet, when they had shaken off the Spanish yoke, began to persecute their brethren. It was unjust in them, in all men unreasonable and uncharitable, and often increases the errour, but never lessens the danger.

[Page]12. But yet although the Church, I mean in her distinct and Clerical capacity, was against destroying or punishing difference in Opinion, till the Popes of Rome did superseminate and perswade the contrary; yet the Bishops did perswade the Emperours to make Laws against Hereticks, and to punish disobedient persons with Fines, with Imprisonment, with Death and Banishment respectively. This indeed calls us to a new account. For the Churchmen might not proceed to bloud nor corporal inflictions, but might they not deliver over to the Secular arm, and perswade Temporal Princes to doe it? For this I am to say, that since it is notorious that the doctrine of the Clergy was against punishing Hereticks, the Laws which were made by the Emperours against them might be for restraint of differing Religion in order to the preservation of the publick Peace, which is too frequently violated by the division of Opinions. But I am not certain whether that was alwaies the reason, or whether or no some Bishops of the Court did not also serve their own ends in giving their Princes such untoward counsel; but we find the Laws made severally to several purposes, in divers cases and with different severity.Apud Euseb. de vita Constant. Constantine the Emperour made a Sanction, Vt parem cum fidelibus ii qui errant pacis & quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant. The Emperour Gratian decreed, Vt quam quisque vellet religionem sequeretur, & conventus Ecclesiasticos semoto metu omnes agerent. But he excepted the Manichees, the Photinians and Eunomians. Theodosius the elder made a law of death against the Anabaptists of his time,Vide Socr. l. 7. c. 12. Vid. Cod. de haeretic. L. Manichees, & leg. Arriani, & l. Quicunque. and banished Eunomius, and against other erring persons appointed a pecuniary mulct; but he did no executions so severe as his sanctions, to shew they were made in terrorem onely. So were the Laws of Valentinian and Martian, decreeing contra, omnes qui prava docere tentant, that they should be put to death; so did Apud Paulum Diac. l. 16. & l. 24. Michael the Emperour: but Justinian onely decreed banishment.

13. But whatever whispers some Politicks might make to their Princes, as the wisest and holiest did not think it lawfull for Churchmen alone to doe executions, so neither did they transmit such persons to the Secular judicature. And therefore when the Edict of Macedonius the President was so ambiguous, that it seemed to threaten death to Hereticks unless they recanted; S. Austin admonished him carefully to provide that no Heretick should be put to death, alledging it not onely to be unchristian, but illegal also, and not warranted by Imperial constitutions; for before his time no Laws were made for their being put to death: but however he prevailed that Macedonius published another Edict, more explicite, and lesse seemingly severe. But in his Epistle to Donatus the African Proconsul he is more confident and determinate; Necessitate nobis impactâ & indictâ, ut potiùs occîdi ab eis eligamus, quàm eos occidendos vestris judiciis ingeramus.

14. But afterwards many got a trick of giving them over to the Secular power; which at the best is no better then Hypocrisie, removing envy from themselves and laying it upon others; a refusing to doe that in externall act which they doe in counsel and approbation: which is a transmitting the act to another, and retaining a proportion of guilt unto themselves, even their own and the others too. I end this with the saying of Chrysostome, Serm. de Anathemate. Dogmata impia & quae ab haereticis profecta sunt arguere & anathematizare oportet, hominibus autem parcendum, & pro salute eorum orandum.

SECT. XV. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing Opinions.

BUT although Hereticall persons are not to be destroyed, yet Heresie being a work of the flesh, and all Hereticks criminal persons, whose acts and Doctrine have influence upon Communities of men, whether Ecclesiasticall or civil, the Governours of the Republick or Church respectively are to doe their duties in restraining those mischiefs which may happen to their several charges, for whose indemnity they are answerable. And therefore according to the effect or malice of the Doctrine or the person, so the cognizance of them belongs to several Judicatures. If it be [Page] false Doctrine in any capacity, and doth mischief in any sense, or teaches ill life in any instance, or encourages evil in any particular, [...], these men must be silenced, they must be convinced by sound Doctrine, and put to silence by spiritual evidence, and restrained by Authority Ecclesiasticall, that is, by spiritual Censures, according as it seems necessary to him who is most concern'd in the regiment of the Church. For all this we have precept, and precedent Apostolicall, and much reason. For by thus doing the Governour of the Church uses all that Authority that is competent, and all the means that is reasonable, and that proceeding which is regular, that he may discharge his cure, and secure his flock. And that he possibly may be deceived in judging a Doctrine to be hereticall, and by consequence the person excommunicate suffers injury, is no argument against the reasonableness of the proceeding: For all the injury that is is visible and in appearance, and so is his crime. Judges must judge according to their best reason guided by Law of God as their Rule, and by evidence and appearance as their best instrument; and they can judge no better. If the Judges be good and prudent, the errour of proceeding will not be great nor ordinary: and there can be no better establishment of humane judicature, then is a fallible proceeding upon an infallible ground. And if the judgement of Heresie be made by estimate and proportion of the Opinion to a good or a bad life respectively, supposing an errour in the deduction, there will be no malice in the conclusion; and that he endeavours to secure piety according to the best of his understanding, and yet did mistake in his proceeding, is onely an argument that he did his duty after the manner of men, possibly with the piety of a Saint, though not with the understanding of an Angel. And the little inconvenience that happens to the person injuriously judged is abundantly made up in the excellency of the Discipline, the goodnesse of the example, the care of the publick, and all those great influences into the manners of men which derive from such an act so publickly consign'd. But such publick judgement in matters of Opinion must be seldome and curious, and never but to secure piety and a holy life: for in matters speculative, as all determinations are fallible, so scarce any of them are to purpose, nor ever able to make compensation of either side, either for the publick fraction, or the particular injustice, if it should so happen in the censure.

2. But then, as the Church may proceed thus far, yet no Christian man or Community of men may proceed farther. For if they be deceived in their judgement and censure, and yet have passed onely spiritual censures, they are totally ineffectual, and come to nothing; there is no effect remaining upon the Soul, and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly. But if any other judgement passe upon persons erring, such judgements whose effects remain, if the person be unjustly censured, nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries. If a person be excommunicate unjustly, it will doe him no hurt; but if he be killed or dismembred unjustly, that censure and infliction is not made ineffectual by his innocence, he is certainly killed and dismembred. So that as the Churche's Authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent, cautelous and orderly, is just and competent: so the proceeding is reasonable, it is provident for the publick, and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little, as that the publick benefit makes ample compensation, so long as the proceeding is but spiritual.

3. This discourse is in the case of such Opinions which by the former rules are formal Heresies, and upon practicall inconveniences. But for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the publick tranquillity, as the Republick hath nothing to doe, upon the ground of all the former discourses; so if the Church meddles with them where they do not derive into ill life, either in the person or in the consequent, or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion, which is all one, (for that those fundamental Articles are of greatest necessity in order to a vertuous and godly life, which is wholly built upon them, and therefore are principally necessary) if she meddles farther, otherwise then by preaching and conferring and exhortation, she becomes tyrannical in her government, makes herself an immediate judge of Consciences and perswasions, lords it over their Faith, destroys unity and charity: and as he that dogmatizes the Opinion becomes criminal, if he troubles the Church with an immodest, peevish and pertinacious proposall of his Article, not simply necessary; so the Church does not do her duty, if she so condemns it pro tribunali as to enjoyn him and all her subjects to believe the contrary. And as there may be pertinacy in Doctrine, so there may be pertinacy in judging; and both are faults. The peace of the Church and the unity of her Doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave, that is, the Creed for [Page] Articles of mere belief, and the precepts of Jesus Christ, and the practicall rules of piety, which are most plain and easie, and without controversie, set down in the Gospels and writings of the Apostles. But to multiply Articles, and adopt them into the family of the Faith, and to require assent to such Articles which (as Saint Paul's phrase is) are of doubtfull disputation equal to that assent we give to matters of Faith, is to build a tower upon the top of a Bulrush; and the farther the effect of such proceedings does extend, the worse they are: the very making such a Law is unreasonable, the inflicting spiritual censures upon them that cannot doe so much violence to their understanding as to obey it is unjust and ineffectuall; but to punish the person with death, or with corporal infliction, indeed it is effectuall, but it is therefore tyrannicall. We have seen what the Church may doe towards restraining false or differing Opinions: next I shall consider, by way of Corollary, what the Prince may doe as for his interest, and onely in securing his people, and serving the ends of true Religion.

SECT. XVI. Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to severall Religions.

1. FOR upon these very grounds we may easily give account of that great Question, Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to several Religions. For first, It is a great fault that men will call the several Sects of Christians by the names of several Religions. The Religion of Jesus Christ is the form of sound Doctrine and wholsome words, which is set down in Scripture indefinitely, actually conveyed to us by plain places, and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles. Those impertinencies which the wantonnesse and vanity of men hath commenced, which their interests have promoted, which serve not Truth so much as their own ends, are far from being distinct Religions: for matters of Opinion are no parts of the Worship of God, nor in order to it, but as they promote obedience to his Commandments; and when they contribute towards it, are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions, and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they do or pretend to serve. And such are all the Sects and all the pretences of Christians, but pieces and minutes of Christianity, if they do serve the great end; as every man for his own Sect and interest believes for his share it does.

2. Toleration hath a double sense or purpose. For sometimes by it men understand a publick licence and exercise of a Sect: sometimes it is onely an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause, and as they mean to answer to God. Both these are very much to the same purpose, unlesse some persons whom we are bound to satisfie be scandalized, and then the Prince is bound to doe as he is bound to satisfie. To God it is all one. For abstracting from the offence of persons, which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons, it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publickly or privately, to doe actions of Religion concerning which we are not perswaded that they are truly holy. To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light, the thing is the same, onely the Circumstance of publick and private is different; which cannot be concerned in any thing, nor can it concern any thing, but the matter of Scandal and relation to the minds and fantasies of certain persons.

3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute. And the Question whether the Prince may tolerate divers perswasions, is no more then whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his Opinion. Now in this case he is just so to tolerate diversity of perswasions as he is to tolerate publick actions: for no Opinion is judicable, nor no person punishable, but for a sin; and if his Opinion by reason of its managing or its effect be a sin in itself, or becomes a sin to the person, then as he is to doe towards other sins, so to that Opinion or man so opining. But to believe so or not so, when there is no more but mere believing, is not in his power to enjoyn, therefore not to punish. And it is [Page] not onely lawfull to tolerate disagreeing Perswasions, but the Authority of God onely is competent to take notice of it, and infallible to determine it, and fit to judge; and therefore no humane Authority is sufficient to doe all those things which can justifie the inflicting temporal punishments upon such as doe not conform in their perswasions to a Rule or Authority which is not onely fallible, but supposed by the disagreeing person to be actually deceived.

4. But I consider that in the Toleration of a different Opinion Religion is not properly and immediately concerned so as in any degree to be endangered. For it may be safe in diversity of perswasions, and it is also a part of Christian Humani juris & naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod pa [...]averit colere. Sed nec religioni [...] est cogere religionem, quae suscip [...] spont [...] debet, non vi. Tertul. ad Scapulam. Religion, that the liberty of mens Consciences should be preserved in all things, where God hath not set a limit and made a restraint; that the Soul of man should be free, and acknowledge no Master but Jesus Christ; that matters spiritual should not be restrained by punishments corporal; that the same meekness and charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity, that gave it foundation and increment and firmness in its first publication; that Conclusions should not be more dogmatical then the virtual resolution and efficacy of the Premisses; and that the persons should not more certainly be condemned then their Opinions confuted; and lastly, that the infirmities of men and difficulties of things should be both put in balance, to make abatement in the definitive sentence against mens persons. But then, because Toleration of Opinions is not properly a Question of Religion, it may be a Question of Policy: and although a man may be a good Christian, though he believe an errour not fundamental, and not directly or evidently impious, yet his Opinion may accidentally disturb the publick peace, through the over-activeness of the persons, and the confidence of their belief, and the opinion of its appendant necessity: and therefore Toleration of differing Perswasions in these cases is to be considered upon political grounds, and is just so to be admitted or denied as the Opinions or Toleration of them may consist with the publick and necessary ends of Government. Onely this; As Christian Princes must look to the interest of their Government, so especially must they consider the interests of Christianity, and not call every redargution or modest discovery of an established errour by the name of disturbance of the peace. For it is very likely that the peevishness and impatience of contradiction in the Governours may break the peace. Let them remember but the gentleness of Christianity, the liberty of Consciences which ought to be preserved, and let them doe justice to the persons, whoever they are, that are peevish, provided no man's person be over-born with prejudice. For if it be necessary for all men to subscribe to the present established Religion, by the same reason at another time a man may be bound to subscribe to the contradictory, and so to all Religions in the world. And they onely who by their too much confidence intitle God to all their fancies, and make them to be Questions of Religion, and evidences for Heaven, or consignations to Hell, they onely think this Doctrine unreasonable, and they are the men that first disturb the Churche's peace, and then think there is no appeasing the tumult but by getting the victory. But they that consider things wisely, understand, that since salvation and damnation depend not upon impertinencies, and yet that publick peace and tranquillity may, the Prince is in this case to seek how to secure Government, and the issues and intentions of that, while there is in these cases directly no insecurity to Religion, unless by the accidental uncharitableness of them that dispute: which uncharitableness is also much prevented when the publick peace is secured, and no person is on either side ingaged upon Dextera praecipuè capit indulgentia mentes; Asperitas odium saevaque bella [...]ar [...]. revenge, or troubled with disgrace, or vexed with punishments by any decretory sentence against him. It was the saying of a wise States-man, (I mean Thuanus) Haeretici, qui pace datâ factionibus scinduntur, persecutione uniuntur contra Remp. If you persecute H [...]reticks or Discrepants, they unite themselves as to a common defence: if you permit them, they divide themselves upon private interest, and the rather, if this interest was an ingredient of the Opinion.

5. The summe is this, It concerns the duty of a Prince, because it concerns the Honour of God, that all vices and every part of ill life be discountenanced and restrained: and therefore in relation to that Opinions are to be dealt with. For the understanding being to direct the will, and Opinions to guide our practices, they are considerable onely as they teach impiety and vice, as they either dishonour God or disobey him. Now all such Doctrines are to be condemned; but for the persons preaching such Doctrines, if they neither justifie nor approve the pretended consequences which are certainly impious, they are to be separated from that consideration. But if they know such consequences and allow them, or if they do not stay till [Page] the Doctrines produce impiety, but take sin before-hand, and manage them impiously in any sense, or if either themselves or their Doctrine do really, and without colour or feigned pretext, disturb the publick peace Exstat prudens monitum Mecaenatis apud Dionem Cassium ad [...]ugustum in haec verba; Fos vero qui in Divinis aliquid innovant odio habe, & coerce, non deorum solùm causâ, sed quia nova numina hi tales introducentes multos impellunt ad mutationem rerum: unde conjurationes, seditiones, Conciliabula exsistunt, res profecto minimè conducibiles principatui. Et legibus quoque expressum est, quod in religionem committitur in omnium fertur injuriam. and just interests, they are not to be suffered. In all other cases it is not onely lawfull to permit them, but it is also necessary that Princes and all in Authority should not persecute discrepant Opinions. And in such cases wherein persons not otherwise incompetent are bound to reprove an errour, (as they are in many) in all these if the Prince makes restraint, he hinders men from doing their duty, and from obeying the Laws of Jesus Christ.

SECT. XVII. Of Compliance with Disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general.

1. UPon these grounds it remains that we reduce this Doctrine to practical Conclusions, and consider, among the differing Sects and Opinions which trouble these parts of Christendome, and come into our concernment, which Sects of Christians are to be tolerated, and how far, and which are to be restrained and punished in their several proportions.

2. The first Consideration is, since diversity of Opinions does more concern publick peace then Religion, what is to be done to persons who disobey a publick Sanction upon a true allegation that they cannot believe it to be lawfull to obey such Constitutions, although they disbelieve them upon insufficient grounds; that is, whether in constituta lege disagreeing persons or weak Consciences are to be complied withall, and their disobeying and disagreeing tolerated.

3. First, In this Question there is no distinction can be made between persons truly weak, and but pretending so. For all that pretend to it are to be allowed the same liberty whatsoever it be; for no man's spirit is known to any but to God and himself: and therefore pretences and realities in this case are both alike in order to the publick Toleration. And this very thing is one argument to perswade a Negative. For the chief thing in this case is the concernment of publick Government, which is then most of all violated when what may prudently be permitted to some purposes may be demanded to many more, and the piety of the Laws abused to the impiety of other mens ends. And if Laws be made so malleable as to comply with weak Consciences, he that hath a minde to disobey is made impregnable against the coercitive power of the Laws by this pretence. For a weak Conscience signifies nothing in this case, but a dislike of the Law upon a contrary perswasion. For if some weak Consciences do obey the Law, and others do not, it is not their weakness indefinitely that is the cause of it, but a definite and particular perswasion to the contrary. So that if such a pretence be excuse sufficient from obeying, then the Law is a Sanction obliging every one to obey that hath a minde to it, and he that hath not, may chuse; that is, it is no Law at all; for he that hath a mind to it may doe it if there be no Law, and he that hath no mind to it need not for all the Law.

4. And therefore the wit of man cannot prudently frame a law of that temper and expedient, but either he must lose the formality of a law, and neither have power coercitive nor obligatory but ad arbitrium inferiorum; or else it cannot antecedently to the particular case give leave to any sort of men to disagree or disobey.

5. Secondly, Suppose that a Law be made with great reason so as to satisfie divers persons pious and prudent that it complies with the necessity of Government, and promotes the interest of God's service and publick order, it may easily be imagined that these persons which are obedient sons of the Church may be as zealous for the publick Order and Discipline of the Church as others for their opinion against it, and may [Page] be as much scandalized if disobedience be tolerated as others are if the Law be exacted: and what shall be done in this case? Both sorts of men cannot be complied withall: because as these pretend to be offended at the Law, and by consequence (if they understand the consequents of their own Opinion) at them that obey the Law; so the others are justly offended at them that unjustly disobey it. If therefore there be any on the right side as confident and zealous as they who are on the wrong side, then the disagreeing persons are not to be complied with, to avoid giving offence: for if they be, offence is given to better persons, and so the mischief, which such complying seeks to prevent, is made greater and more unjust, obedience is discouraged, and disobedience is legally canonized for the result of a holy and a tender Conscience.

6. Thirdly, Such complying with the disagreeings of a sort of men is the total overthrow of all Discipline, and it is better to make no Laws of publick Worship then to rescind them in the very constitution; and there can be no end in making the Sanction, but to make the Law ridiculous, and the Authority contemptible. For to say that complying with weak Consciences in the very framing of a Law of Discipline is the way to preserve unity, were all one as to say, to take away all Laws is the best way to prevent disobedience. In such matters of indifferency, the best way of cementing the fraction is to unite the parts in the Authority, for then the question is but one, viz. Whether the authority must be obeyed or not. But if a permission be given of disputing the particulars, the Questions become next to infinite. A Mirrour when it is broken represents the object mutiplied and divided: but if it be entire, and through one centre transmits the species to the eye, the Vision is one and natural. Laws are the Mirrour in which men are to dress and compose their actions, and therefore must not be broken with such clauses of exception which may without remedy be abused to the prejudice of Authority, and peace, and all humane Sanctions. And I have known in some Churches that this pretence hath been nothing but a design to discredit the Law, to dismantle the Authority that made it, to raise their own credit, and a trophee of their zeal, to make it a characteristick note of a Sect, and the cognizance of holy persons: and yet the men that claimed exemption from the Laws upon pretence of having weak Consciences, if in hearty expression you had told them so to their heads, they would have spit in your face, and were so far from confessing themselves weak, that they thought themselves able to give Laws to Christendome, to instruct the greatest Clerks, and to catechize the Church herself. And, which is the worst of all, they who were perpetually clamourous that the severity of the Laws should slacken as to their particular, and in matter adiaphorous, (in which, if the Church hath any Authority, she hath power to make Laws) to indulge a leave to them to doe as they list, yet were the most imperious amongst men, most decretory in their sentences, and most impatient of any disagreeing from them, though in the least minute and particular: whereas, by all the justice of the world, they who perswade such a compliance in matters of fact, and of so little question, should not deny to tolerate persons that differ in Questions of great difficulty and contestation.

7. Fourthly, But yet since all things almost in the world have been made matters of dispute, and the will of some men, and the malice of others, and the infinite industry and pertinacy of contesting and resolution to conquer, hath abused some persons innocently into a perswasion that even the Laws themselves, though never so prudently constituted, are superstitious, or impious; such persons who are otherwise pious, humble and religious, are not to be destroyed for such matters which in themselves are not of concernment to Salvation, and neither are so accidentally to such men and in such cases where they are innocently abused, and they erre without purpose and design. And therefore if there be a publick disposition in some persons to dislike Laws of a certain quality, if it be fore-seen, it is to be considered in lege dicenda; and whatever inconvenience or particular offence is fore-seen, is either to be directly avoided in the Law, or else a compensation in the excellency of the Law and certain advantages made to out-weigh their pretensions. But in lege jam dicta, because there may be a necessiy some persons should have a liberty indulged them, it is necessary that the Governours of the Church should be intrusted with a power to consider the particular case, and indulge a liberty to the person, and grant personal dispensations. This I say is to be done at several times, upon particular instance, upon singular consideration, and new emergencies. But that a whole kinde of men, such a kinde to which all men without possibility of being confuted may pretend, should at once in the very frame of the Law be permitted to disobey, is to nullifie the Law, to destroy Discipline, and to hallow [Page] disobedience; it takes away the obliging part of the Law, and makes that the thing enacted shall not be enjoyn'd, but tolerated onely; it destroys unity and uniformity, which to preserve was the very end of such laws of Discipline; it bends the Rule to the thing which is to be ruled, so that the Law obeys the subject, not the subject the Law; it is to make a Law for particulars, not upon general reason and congruity, against the prudence and design of all Laws in the world, and absolutely without the example of any Church in Christendome; it prevents no scandal, for some will be scandalized at the Authority itself, some at the complying and remisness of Discipline, and several men at matters and upon ends contradictory: All which cannot, some ought not, to be complied withall.

8. Sixthly, The summe is this, The end of the Laws of Discipline are in an immediate order to the conservation and ornament of the publick; and therefore the Laws must not so tolerate, as by conserving persons to destroy themselves and the publick benefit: but if there be cause for it, they must be cassated; or if there be no sufficient cause, the complyings must be so as may best preserve the particulars in conjunction with the publick end, which, because it is primarily intended, is of greatest consideration. But the particulars whether of case or person are to be considered occasionally and emergently by the Judges, but cannot antecedently and regularly be determined by a Law.

9. But this sort of men is of so general pretence, that all Laws and all Judges may easily be abused by them. Those Sects which are signified by a Name, which have a system of Articles, a body of profession, may be more clearly determined in their Question concerning the lawfulness of permitting their professions and assemblies.

I shall instance in two, which are most troublesome and most disliked; and by an account made of these, we may make judgement what may be done towards others whose errours are not apprehended of so great malignity. The men I mean are the Anabaptists, and the Papists.

SECT. XVIII. A particular consideration of the Opinions of the Anabaptists.

1. IN the Anabaptists I consider onely their two capital Opinions, the one against the Baptism of Infants, the other against Magistracy: and because they produce different judgements and various effects, all their other fancies, which vary as the Moon does, may stand or fall in their proportion and likeness to these.

2. And first I consider their denying Baptism to Infants. Although it be a Doctrine justly condemned by the most sorts of Christians upon great grounds of reason, yet possibly their defence may be so great as to take off much and rebate the edge of their adversaries assault. It will be neither unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short scheme of plea for each party; the result of which possibly may be, that though they be deceived, yet they have so great excuse on their side, that their errour is not impudent or vincible. The Baptism of Infants rests principally and usually upon this discourse.

3. When God made a Covenant with Abraham for himself and his posterity, into which the Gentiles were reckoned by spiritual adoption, he did for the present consign that Covenant with the Sacrament of Circumcision. The extent of which Rite was to all his family, from the Major domo to the Proselytus domicilio, and to infants of eight days old. Now the very nature of this Covenant being a covenant of Faith for its formality, and with all faithfull people for the object, and Circumcision being a seal of this Covenant, if ever any Rite do supervene to consign the same Covenant, that Rite must acknowledge Circumcision for its type and precedent. And this the Apostle tells us in express doctrine. Now the nature of a Type is, to give some proportions to its successour the Antitype; and they both being seals of the same righteousness of faith, it will not easily be found where these two seals have any such distinction in their nature or purposes, as to appertain to persons of differing capacity, and not equally concern all. [Page] And this argument was thought of so much force by some of those excellent men which were Bishops in the Primitive Church, that a good Bishop writ an Epistle to Saint Cyprian, to know of him whether or no it were lawfull to baptize Infants before the eighth day, because the type of Baptism was ministred in that Circumcision; he in his discourse supposing that the first Rite was a direction to the second, which prevailed with him so far as to believe it to limit every circumstance.

4. And not onely this type, but the acts of Christ which were previous to the institution of Baptism, did prepare our understanding by such impresses as were sufficient to produce such perswasion in us, that Christ intended this ministery for the actual advantage of Infants as well as of persons of understanding. For Christ commanded that children should be brought unto him, he took them in his arms, he imposed hands on them and blessed them, and without question did by such acts of favour consign his love to them, and them to a capacity of an eternal participation of it. And possibly the invitation which Christ made to all to come to him, all them that are heavie laden, did in its proportion concern Infants as much as others, if they be guilty of Original sin, and if that sin be a burthen, and presses them to any spiritual danger or inconvenience. And if they be not, yet Christ, who was (as Tertullian's phrase is) nullius poenitentiae debitor, guilty of no sin, obliged to no repentance, needing no purification and no pardon, was baptized by S. John's baptism, which was the baptism of repentance. And it is all the reason in the world, that since the grace of Christ is as large as the prevarication of Adam, all they who are made guilty by the first Adam should be cleansed by the second. But as they are guilty by another man's act, so they should be brought to the Font to be purified by others; there being the same proportion of reason, that by others acts they should be relieved who were in danger of perishing by the act of others. And therefore S. Austin argues excellently to this purpose, Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes, ut veniant; aliorum cor, ut credant; aliorum linguam, Serm. 10. de verb. Apost. ut fateantur: ut quoniam, quòd aegri sunt, alio peccante praegravantur, sic, cùm sani fiant, alio confitente salventur. And Justin Martyr, Resp. ad Orthodoxos. [...].

5. But whether they have original sin or no, yet, take them in puris naturalibus, they cannot goe to God, or attain to eternity, to which they were intended in their first being and creation; and therefore much less since their naturals are impaired by the curse on humane nature, procured by Adam's prevarication. And if a natural agent cannot in puris naturalibus attain to heaven, which is a supernatural end, much less when it is loaden with accidental and grievous impediments. Now then since the onely way revealed to us of acquiring Heaven is by Jesus Christ; and the first inlet into Christianity and access to him is by Baptism, as appears by the perpetual Analogie of the New Testament; either Infants are not persons capable of that end which is the perfection of humane nature, and to which the Soul of man in its being made immortal was essentially designed, and so are miserable and deficient from the very end of humanity, if they die before the use of Reason; or else they must be brought to Christ by the Church doors, that is, by the Font and waters of Baptism.

6. And in reason it seems more pregnant and plausible that Infants rather then men of understanding should be baptized. For since the efficacy of the Sacraments depends upon Divine Institution and immediate benediction, and that they produce their effects independently upon man, in them that do not hinder their operation; since Infants cannot by any acts of their own promote the hope of their own Salvation, which men of reason and choice may, by acts of vertue and election; it is more agreeable to the goodness of God, the honour and excellencey of the Sacrament, and the necessity of its institution, that it should in Infants supply the want of humane acts and free obedience: which the very thing itself seems to say it does, because its effect is from God, and requires nothing on man's part, but that its efficacy be not hindered. And then in Infants the disposition is equal, and the necessity more; they cannot ponere obicem, and by the same reason cannot doe other acts which without the Sacraments doe advantages towards our hopes of heaven, and therefore have more need to be supplied by an act and an Institution Divine and supernatural.

7. And this is not onely necessary in respect of the condition of Infants incapacity to doe acts of grace, but also in obedience to Divine precept. For Christ made a Law whose Sanction is with an exclusive negative to them that are not baptized, [Vnless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.] If then Infants have a capacity of being coheirs with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father, as Christ affirms they have, by saying, [for of such is the kingdom of heaven;] [Page] then there is a necessity that they should be brought to Baptism, there being an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized and all persons not spiritual from the kingdom of heaven.

8. But indeed it is a destruction of all the hopes and happiness of Infants, a denying to them an exemption from the final condition of Beasts and Insectils, or else a designing of them to a worse misery, to say that God hath not appointed some externall or internall means of bringing them to an eternall happiness. Internall they have none; for Grace being an improvement and heightning the faculties of nature in order to a heightned and supernatural end, Grace hath no influence or efficacy upon their faculties, who can doe no natural acts of understanding: And if there be no externall means, then they are destitute of all hopes and possibilities of Salvation.

9. But, thanks be to God, he hath provided better, and told us accordingly, for he hath made a promise of the Holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men:Act. 2.38, 39. The Promise is made to you and to your children, said S. Peter; the Promise of the Father, the Promise that he would send the holy Ghost. Now if you ask how this Promise shall be conveyed to our children, we have an express out of the same Sermon of S. Peter, Be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. So that therefore because the Holy Ghost is promised, and Baptism is the means of receiving the Promise, therefore Baptism pertains to them, to whom the Promise which is the effect of Baptism does appertain. And that we may not think this Argument is fallible, or of humane collection, observe that it is the Argument of the same Apostle in express terms: For in the case of Cornelius and his Family, he justified his proceeding by this very Medium, Shall we deny Baptism to them who have received the gift of the holy Ghost as well as we? Which Discourse if it be reduced to form of Argument says this; They that are capable of the same Grace are receptive of the same sign: But then (to make the Syllogism up with an Assumption proper to our present purpose) Infants are capable of the same Grace, that is, of the Holy Ghost: (for the Promise is made to our children as well as to us, and S. Paul says the children of believing parents are holy, and therefore have the Holy Ghost, who is the Fountain of holiness and sanctification:) Therefore they are to receive the sign and the seal of it, that is, the Sacrament of Baptism.

10. And indeed, since God entred a Covenant with the Jews which did also actually involve their children, and gave them a sign to establish the Covenant and its appendant Promise, either God does not so much love the Church as he did the Synagogue, and the mercies of the Gospel are more restrained then the mercies of the Law, God having made a Covenant with the Infants of Israel, and none with the children of Christian Parents; or if he hath, yet we want the comfort of its consignation; and unless our children are to be baptized, and so intitled to the Promises of the new Covenant, as the Jewish babes were by Circumcision, this mercy which appertains to Infants is so secret and undeclared and unconsigned, that we want much of that mercy and outward testimony which gave them comfort and assurance.

11. And in proportion to these Precepts and Revelations was the practice Apostolicall: For they (to whom Christ gave in Precept to make Disciples all nations, baptizing them, and knew that nations without children never were, and that therefore they were passively concerned in that commission,) baptized whole Families, particularly that of Stephanas and divers others, in which it is more then probable there were some Minors, if not sucking babes. And this practice did descend upon the Church in after-Ages by tradition Apostolicall. Of this we have sufficient Testimony from Origen, In Rom. 6. tom. 2 pag. 543. Serm. 10. de verb. Apost. c. 2.4 Instit. cap. 16. sect. 8. Pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit, etiam parvulis baptismum dare: and S. Austin, Hoc Ecclesia à majorum fide percepit. And generally all Writers (as Calvin says) affirm the same thing. For nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat. From hence the Conclusion is, that Infants ought to be baptized, that it is simply necessary, that they who deny it are Hereticks, and such are not to be endured, because they deny to Infants hopes, and take away the possibility of their Salvation, which is revealed to us on no other condition of which they are capable but Baptism. For by the insinuation of the Type, by the action of Christ, by the title Infants have to Heaven, by the precept of the Gospel, by the energy of the Promise, by the reasonableness of the thing, by the infinite necessity on the Infant's part, by the practice Apostolicall, by their Tradition and the universal practice of the Church, by all these God and good people proclaim the lawfulness, the conveniency, and the necessity of Infants Baptism.

12. To all this the Anabaptist gives a soft and gentle Answer, that it is a goodly harangue, which upon strict examination will come to nothing; that it pretends fairly, [Page] and signifies little; that some of these Allegations are false, some impertinent, and all the rest insufficient.

13. For the Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite considerations. Figures and Types prove nothing, unless a Commandment goe along with them, or some express to signifie such to be their purpose. For the Deluge of waters and the Ark of Noah were a figure of Baptism, said Peter; and if therefore the circumstances of one should be drawn to the other, we should make Baptism a prodigie ratherthen a Rite. The Paschall Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist, which succeeds the other as Baptism does to Circumcision; but because there was in the manducation of the Paschall Lamb no prescription of Sacramental drink, shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be ministred but in one kinde? And even in the very instance of this Argument, supposing a correspondence of analogie between Circumcision and Baptism, yet there is no correspondence of identity. For although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in the circumstance of childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to children, and yet Baptism onely to men of reason. Because Circumcision left a character in the flesh, which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to age; and such a character was necessary, because there was no word added to the sign: but Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the body; and if it leaves a character at all, it is upon the Soul, to which also the word is added, which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the sign itself is. For both which reasons it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason, that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament, and the impress made upon the spirit. Since therefore the reason of this parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the Type. And the case is clear in the Bishop's Question to Cyprian: L. 3. Epist. 8. ad Fidum. for why shall not Infants be baptized just upon the eighth days as well as circumcised? If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to infer one circumstance which is impertinent and accidental to the mysteriousness of the Rite, why shall it not infer all? And then also Females must not be baptized, because they were not circumcised. But it were more proper, if we would understand it right, to prosecute the Analogie from the Type to the Anti-type by way of letter and spirit and signification, and as Circumcision figures Baptism, so also the adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signifie something spiritual in the adherencies of Baptism. And therefore as Infants were Circumcised, so spiritual Infants shall be Baptized, which is spiritual Circumcision: for therefore babes had the ministry of the Type, to signifie that we must when we give our names to Christ become [...], children in malice; [for unless you become like one of these little ones, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven,] said our Blessed Saviour: and then the Type is made compleat. And this seems to have been the sense of the Primitive Church: for in the Age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey, to represent to them their duty, that though in age and understanding they were men, yet they were babes in Christ, and children in malice. But to infer the sense of the Paedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing, that Austin, whose device it was, (and men use to be in love with their own fancies) at the most pretended it but as probable and a mere conjecture.

14. And as ill success will they have with the other Arguments as with this. For from the action of Christ's blessing Infants to infer they are to be baptized, proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments. The Conclusion would be with more probability derived thus: Christ blessed children and so dismissed them, but baptized them not; therefore Infants are not to be baptized. But let this be as weak as its enemy, yet that Christ did not baptize them, is an Argument sufficient that Christ hath other ways of bringing them to heaven then by Baptism, he passed his act of grace upon them by benediction and imposition of hands.

15. And therefore, although neither Infants nor any man in puris naturalibus can attain to a supernatural end, without the addition of some instrument or means of God's appointing ordinarily and regularly; yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order, as in the case of Infants we contend he hath not, the Argument is invalid. And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized; so we are sure God will doe them no injustice, nor damn them for what they cannot help.

16. And therefore let them be pressed with all the inconveniences that are consequent to Original sin, yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants, so as to be [Page] sufficient to condemn them; or if it could, yet the mercy and absolute goodness of God will secure them, if he takes them away before they can glorifie him with a free obedience. Quid ergò festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? was the question of Tertullian, (lib. de Bapt.) He knew no such danger from their Original guilt as to drive them to a Laver of which in that Age of innocence they had no need, as he conceived. And therefore there is no necessity of flying to the help of others for tongue, and heart, and Faith, and predispositions to Baptism; for what need all this stir? As Infants without their own consent, without any act of their own, and without any exteriour solennity, contracted the guilt of Adam's sin, and so are liable to all the punishment which can with justice descend upon his posterity, who are personally innocent: so Infants shall be restored without any solennity or act of their own, or of any other men for them, by the second Adam, by the redemption of Jesus Christ, by his righteousness and mercies applied either immediately, or how or when he shall be pleased to appoint. And so Austin's Argument will come to nothing, without any need of Godfathers, or the Faith of any body else. And it is too narrow a conception of God Almighty, because he hath tied us to the observation of the Ceremonies of his own institution, that therefore he hath tied himself to it. Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself: But nothing is more unreasonable, then, because he hath tied all men of years and discretion to this way, therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way without his direction. The conceit is poor and low, and the action consequent to it is too bold and venturous. Mysterium meum mihi & filiis domûs meae. Let him doe what he please to Infants, we must not.

17. Onely this is certain, that God hath as great care of Infants as of others; and because they have no capacity of doing such acts as may be in order to acquiring Salvation, God will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither where he hath intended them: but so say that therefore he will doe it by an external act and ministery, and that confin'd to a particular, viz. this Rite and no other, is no good Argument, unless God could not doe it without such means, or that he had said he would not. And why cannot God as well doe his mercies to Infants now immediately, as he did before the institution either of Circumcision or Baptism?

18. However, there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this external Ministery, much less for prevaricating Christ's precept of Nisi quis renatus fuerit, &c. For first, the Water and the Spirit in this place signifie the same thing; and by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit, cleansing and purifying the Soul, as appears in its parallel place of Christ baptizing with the Spirit and with Fire. For although this was literally fulfilled in Pentecost, yet morally there is more in it; for it is the sign of the effect of the Holy Ghost, and his productions upon the soul; and it was an excellency of our Blessed Saviour's office, that he baptizes all that come to him with the Holy Ghost and with Fire: for so S. John, preferring Christ's mission and office before his own, tells the Jews, not Christ's Disciples, that Christ shall baptize them with Fire and the Holy Spirit, that is, all that come to him, as John the Baptist did with water; for so lies the Antithesis. And you may as well conclude that Infants must also pass through the fire as through the water. And that we may not think this a trick to elude the pressure of this place, Peter says the same thing: for when he had said that Baptism saves us, he adds by way of explication, [not the washing of the flesh, but the confidence of a good Conscience towards God;] plainly saying that it is not water, or the purifying of the body, but the cleansing of the Spirit, that does that which is supposed to be the effect of Baptism. And if our Saviour's exclusive negative be expounded by analogie to this of Peter, as certainly the other parallel instance must, and this may, then it will be so far from proving the necessity of Infants Baptism, that it can conclude for no man that he is obliged to the Rite; and the Doctrine of the Baptism is onely to derive from the very words of Institution, and not to be forced from words which were spoken before it was ordained. But to let pass this advantage, and to suppose it meant of external Baptism, yet this no more infers a necessity of Infants Baptism, then the other words of Christ infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion; Nisi comederitis carnem Filii hominis, & biberitis sanguinem, non introibitis in regnum coelorum: and yet we do not think these words sufficient Argument to communicate them. If men therefore will doe us justice, either let them give both Sacraments to Infants, as some Ages of the Church did, or neither. For the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the Sanction, or in the energie of its expression. And Simeon Thessalonicensis derides inertem Latinorum [...], as we express it, the lazie trifling of the Latines, who dream of a difference. [...]; O the unreasonableness [Page] and absurdity! For why do you baptize them? Meaning that, because they are equally ignorant in Baptism as in the Eucharist, that which hinders them in one is the same impediment in both. And therefore they were honest that understood the obligation to be parallel, and performed it accordingly: and yet because we say they were deceived in one distance, and yet the obligation (all the world cannot reasonably say but) is the same; they are as honest and as reasonable that doe neither. And since the ancient Church did with an equal opinion of necessity give them the Communion, and yet men now adays do not, why shall men be burthened with a prejudice and a name of obloquy for not giving the Infants one Sacrament more then they are disliked for not affording them the other? If Anabaptist shall be a name of disgrace, why shall not some other name be invented for them that deny to communicate Infants, which shall be equally disgracefull, or else both the Opinions signified by such names be accounted no disparagement, but receive their estimate according to their truth?

19. Of which truth since we are now taking account from pretences of Scripture, it is considerable that the discourse of S. Peter which is pretended for the intitling Infants to the Promise of the Holy Ghost, and by consequence to Baptism, which is supposed to be its Instrument and conveiance, is wholly a fancy, and hath in it nothing of certainty or demonstration, and not much probability. For besides that the thing it self is unreasonable, and the Holy Ghost works by the heightning and improving our natural faculties, and therefore it is a Promise that so concerns them as they are reasonable creatures, and may have a title to it, in proportion to their nature, but no possession or reception of it till their faculties come into act; besides this, I say, the words mentioned in S. Peter's Sermon (which are the onely record of the Promise) are interpreted upon a weak mistake. The promise belongs to you and to your children, therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity: That is the Argument. But the reason of it is not yet discovered, nor ever will; for [to you and your children] is to you and your posterity, to you and your children when they are of the same capacity, in which you are effectually receptive of the promise; and therefore Tertullian calls Infants, designatos sanctitatis, ac per hoc etiam salutis, the candidates of holiness and salvation, those that are designed to it. But he that, when-ever the word [children] is used in Scripture, shall by [children] understand Infants, must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men, but all were Infants: and if that had been true it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims, and beat the King of Moab, and march so far, and discourse so well, for they were all called the children of Israel.

20. And for the Allegation of S. Paul, that Infants are holy if their Parents be faithfull, it signifies nothing but that they are holy by designation, just as Jeremy and John Baptist were sanctified in their Mothers womb, that is, they were appointed and designed for holy Ministeries, but had not received the Promise of the Father, the gift of the Holy Ghost▪ for all that sanctification: and just so the children of Christian parents are sanctified, that is, designed to the service of Jesus Christ, and the future participation of the Promises.

21. And as the Promise appertains not (for ought appears) to Infants in that capacity and consistence, but onely by the title of their being reasonable creatures, and when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty; so if it did, yet Baptism is not the means of conveying the Holy Ghost. For that which Peter says, Be baptized, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost, signifies no more then this, First be baptized, and then by imposition of the Apostles hands (which was another mysterie and rite) ye shall receive the Promise of the Father. And this is nothing but an insinuation of the rite of Confirmation, as is to this sense expounded by divers ancient Authours; and in ordinary ministery the effect of it is not bestowed upon any unbaptized persons, for it is in order next after Baptism: and upon this ground Peter's Argument in the case of Cornelius was concluding enough à majori ad minus; thus the Holy Ghost was bestowed upon him and his family, which gift by ordinary ministery was consequent to Baptism, (not as the effect is to the cause or to the proper instrument, but as a consequent is to an antecedent in a chain of causes accidentally and by positive institution depending upon each other;) God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great dispositions towards Heaven, and therefore were to be admitted to those Rites which are the ordinary inlets into the Kingdome of Heaven. But then from hence to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receiving the same grace, there also the same sign is to be ministred, and from hence to infer Paedo baptism, is an Argument very fallacious upon several grounds. First, because Baptism is not the sign of the Holy Ghost, but by another mystery it was conveyed ordinarily and extraordinarily, it was conveyed [Page] independently from any mystery; and so the Argument goes upon a wrong supposition. Secondly, if the supposition were true, the proposition built upon it is false; for they that are capable of the same grace are not always capable of the same sign: for women under the Law of Moses, although they were capable of the righteousness of Faith, yet they were not capable of the sign of Circumcision. For God does not always convey his graces in the same manner, but to some mediately, to others immediately; and there is no better instance in the world of it then the gift of the Holy Ghost, (which is the thing now instanced in this contestation:) for it is certain in Scripture, that it was ordinarily given by imposition of hands, and that after Baptism; (and when this came into an ordinary ministry, it was called by the ancient Church Chrism or Confirmation;) but yet it was given sometimes without imposition of hands, as at Pentecost and to the family of Cornelius, sometimes before Baptism, sometimes after, sometimes in conjunction with it.

22. And after all this, lest these Arguments should not ascertain their Cause, they fall on complaining against God, and will not be content with God unless they may baptize their children, but take exceptions that God did more for the children of the Jews. But why so? Because God made a Covenant with their children actually as Infants, and consigned it by Circumcision. Well; so he did with our children too in their proportion. He made a Covenant of spiritual Promises on his part, and spiritual and real services on ours; and this pertains to children when they are capable, but made with them as soon as they are alive, and yet not so with the Jews babes: for as their Rite consigned them actually, so it was a national and temporal blessing and Covenant, as a separation of them from the portion of the Nations, a marking them for a peculiar people, (and therefore while they were in the wilderness and separate from the commixture of all people they were not at all circumcised;) but as that Rite did seal the righteousness of Faith, so, by virtue of its adherencie, and remanency in their flesh, it did that work when the children came to age. But in Christian Infants the case is otherwise: for the new Covenant, being established upon better Promises, is not onely to better purposes, but also in distinct manner to be understood; when their spirits are as receptive of a spiritual act or impress as the bodies of Jewish children were of the sign of Circumcision, then it is to be consigned. But this business is quickly at an end, by saying that God hath done no less for ours then for their children; for he will doe the mercies of a Father and Creatour to them, and he did no more to the other. But he hath done more to ours, for he hath made a Covenant with them and built it upon Promises of the greatest concernment; he did not so to them. But then for the other part, which is the main of the Argument, that unless this mercy be consigned by Baptism, as good not at all in respect of us, because we want the comfort of it; this is the greatest vanity in the world. For when God hath made a Promise pertaining also to our children, (for so our Adversaries contend, and we also acknowledge in its true sense) shall not this promise, this word of God be of sufficient truth, certainty and efficacy to cause comfort, unless we tempt God and require a sign of him? May not Christ say to these men as sometime to the Jews, A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, but no sign shall be given unto it? But the truth on't is, this Argument is nothing but a direct quarrelling with God Almighty.

23. Now since there is no strength in the Doctrinal part, the practice and precedents Apostolical and Ecclesiastical will be of less concernment, if they were true as is pretended, because actions Apostolical are not always Rules for ever: it might be fit for them to doe it pro loco & tempore, as divers others of their Institutions, but yet no engagement past thence upon following Ages; for it might be convenient at that time, in the new spring of Christianity, and till they had engaged a considerable party, by that means to make them parties against the Gentiles Superstition, and by way of pre-occupation, to ascertain them to their own Sect when they came to be men, or for some other reason not transmitted to us, because the Question of fact itself is not sufficiently determined. For the insinuation of that precept of baptizing all Nations, of which Children certainly are a part, does as little advantage as any of the rest, because other parallel expressions of Scripture do determine and expound themselves to a sense that includes not all persons absolutely, but of a capable condition; as Adorate eum omnes gentes, & psallite Deo omnes nationes terrae, and divers more.

24. As for the conjecture concerning the family of Stephanus, at the best it is but a conjecture: and besides that it is not proved that there were children in the family; yet if that were granted, it follows not that they were baptized, because by [whole families] in Scripture is meant all persons of reason and age within the family; for it [Page] is said of the Ruler at Capernaum, that he believed and all his house. John. 4.53. 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 'tis 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 [...]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 [...]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 N [...]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,In com [...]nd. Can. [...]. 4. [...]. 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 [Page]deinde primis temporibus illis solummodo Baptismi gratiam dari solitam qui & corporis & mentis [...]integritate jam ad hoc pervenerunt, De rebus Eccles. c. 26. 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.

Quidni necesse es [...] (sic legit Franc▪ Junius in notis ad Tertul.) sponsores etiam periculo ingeri, qui & ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possint, & proventu malae indolis falli? Tertul. lib. de Baptis. cap. 18.27. 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 have transacted the solennity with better circumstances, and given answers with more truth. For the Question is asked of believing in the present. And if the Godfathers answer in the name of the child, [I do believe,] it is notorious they speak false and ridiculously: for the Infant is not capable of believing;Lib. de Baptis. prope finem cap. 18. Itaque pro personae cujusque conditione ac dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio baptismi utilior est, praecipuè tamen circa parvulos—Fiant Christiani cum Christum nôsse potuerint. and if he were, he were also capable of dissenting, and how then do they know his minde? And therefore Tertullian gives advice that the Baptism of Infants should be deferred till they could give an account of their Faith. And the same also is the Counsel of Orat. 40. quaest. in S. Baptisma. Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum, although he allows them to hasten it in case of necessity: for though his reason taught him what was fit, yet he was overborn with the practice and Opinion of his Age, which began to bear too violently upon him; and yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred [...], by reason of Infancy. To which if we adde that the parents of S. Austin, S. Hierom, and S. Ambrose, although they were Christian, yet did not baptize their children before they were 30 years of age; and S. Chrysostome, who was instituted and bred up in Religion by the famous and beloved Bishop Meletius, was yet not baptized till after he was twenty years of age; and Gregory Nazianzen, though he was the son of a Bishop, yet was not Christened till he came to man's age; it will be very considerable in the example, and of great efficacy for destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles.

28. But however, it is against the perpetual analogie of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants. For besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them, nor ever himself nor his Apostles (that appears) did baptize any of them; all that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions to Baptism of which Infants are not capable, and these are Faith and Repentance. And not to instance in those innumerable places that require Faith before this Sacrament, there needs no more but this one saying of our Blessed Saviour, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mark. 16.16. but he that believeth not shall be damned: plainly thus, Faith and Baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven; but if he have not Faith, Baptism shall doe him no good. So that if Baptism be necessary then, so is Faith, and much more: for want of Faith damns absolutely; it is not said so of the want of Baptism. Now if this decretory sentence be to be understood of persons of age, and if children by such an answer (which indeed is reasonable enough) be excused from the necessity of Faith, the want of which regularly does damn; then it is sottish to say the same incapacity of Reason and Faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of Baptism, which is less necessary, and to which Faith and many other acts are necessary predispositions when it is reasonably and humanely received. The Conclusion is, that Baptism is also to be deferred till the time of Faith: And whether Infants have Faith or no, is a question to be disputed by persons that care not how much they say, not how little they prove.

29. First, Personal and actual Faith they have none; for they have no acts of understanding: and besides, how can any man know that they have, since he never saw any sign of it, neither was he told so by any one that could tell? Secondly, Some say they have imputative Faith: but then so let the Sacrament be too: that is, if they have the parents Faith or the Church's, then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them; that as in their mothers womb, and while they hang on their breasts, they live [Page] upon their mothers nourishment, so they may upon the Baptism of their parents or their Mother the Church. For since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism, (and themselves confess it, by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to dawb the matter up) such as the Faith is such must be the Sacrament: for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith, this being in immediate and necessary order to that. And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual Faith, all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism. Thirdly, the first of these devices was that of Luther and his Scholars, the second of Calvin and his: and yet there is a third device which the Church of Rome teaches, and that is, that Infants have habitual Faith. But who told them so? how can they prove it? what Revelation or reason teaches any such thing? Are they by this habit so much as disposed to an actual belief without a new Master? Can an Infant sent into a Mahumetan province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man, then if he had not been baptized? Are there any acts precedent, concomitant or consequent to this pretended habit? This strange invention is absolutely without art, without Scripture, Reason or Authority. But the men are to be excused, unless there were a better. But for all these strategems, the Argument now alledged against the Baptism of Infants is demonstrative and unanswerable.

30. To which also this consideration may be added, that if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants, upon whom is the imposition laid? to whom is the command given? to the parents or to the children? Not to the children, for they are not capable of a Law: not to the parents, for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others, and Infants may be damned for their fathers carelesness or malice. It follows, that it is not necessary at all to be done to them, to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law, and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity: and if it be not necessary, it is certain it is not reasonable, and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed: and therefore it is to be presumed that it ought to be understood and administred according as other precepts are, with reference to the capacity of the subject, and the reasonableness of the thing.

31. For I consider, that the baptizing of Infants does rush us upon such inconveniences which in other Questions we avoid like rocks: which will appear if we Discourse thus.

Either Baptism produces spiritual effects, or it produces them not. If it produces not any, why is such contention about it? what are we the nearer heaven if we are baptized? and if it be neglected, what are we the farther of? But if (as without all peradventure all the Paedo-baptists will say) Baptism does doe a work upon the Soul, producing spiritual benefits and advantages, these advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone, or by that as it is helped by the co-opera [...]ion and predispositions of the Suscipient.

If by the external work of the Sacrament alone, how does this differ from the opus operatum of the Papists, save that it is worse? For they say the Sacrament does not produce its effect but in a Suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparatives of piety, Faith, and Repentance; though in a subject so disposed they say the Sacrament by its own virtue does it: but this Opinion says it does it of itself, without the help, or so much as the coexistence, of any condition but the mere reception.

But if the Sacrament does not doe its work alone, but per modum recipientis, according to the predispositions of the Suscipient, then, because Infants can neither hinder it, nor doe any thing to farther it, it does them no benefit at all. And if any man runs for succour to that exploded [...], that Infants have Faith, or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how, we desire no more advantage in the world, then that they are constrained to an answer without Revelation, against reason, common sense, and all the experience in the world.

The summe of the Argument in short is this, though under another representment.

Either Baptism is a mere Ceremony, or it implies a Duty on our part. If it be a Ceremony onely, how does it sanctifie us, or make the comers thereunto perfect? If it implies a Duty on our part, how then can children receive it, who cannot doe duty at all?

And indeed this way of ministration makes Baptism to be wholly an outward duty, a work of the Law, a carnal Ordinance; it makes us adhere to the letter, without regard of the Spirit, to be satisfied with shadows, to return to bondage, to relinquish the mysteriousness, the substance and Spirituality of the Gospel. Which Argument is of so much the more consideration, because under the Spiritual Covenant, or the Gospel of Grace, if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol, (which it does when the Symbols [Page] are Seals and consignations of the Grace, as it is said the Sacraments are) yet it always accompanies it, but never follows in order of time. And this is clear in the perpetual analogie of Holy Scripture.

For Baptism is never propounded, mentioned or enjoyned as a means of remission of sins or of eternal life, but something of duty, choice and sanctity is joyned with it, in order to production of the end so mentioned. Know ye not that as many as are baptized into Christ Jesus, Rom. 6.3. are baptized into his death? There is the Mystery and the Symbol together, and declared to be perpetually united. [...], All of us who were baptized into one were baptized into the other; not onely into the name of Christ, but into his death also. But the meaning of thi [...] as it is explained in the following words of S. Paul makes much for our purpose: For to be baptized into his death, signifies to be buried with him in Baptism, vers. 4. that as Christ rose from the dead, we also should walk in newness of life: That's the full mystery of Baptism. For being baptized into his death, or, which is all one,vers. 5. in the next words, [...], into the likeness of his death, cannot goe alone; if we be so planted into Christ, we shall be partakers of his Resurrection: and that is not here instanced in precise reward, but in exact duty; for all this is nothing but crucifixion of the old man, vers. 6. a destroying the body of sin, that we no longer serve sin.

This indeed is truly to be baptized both in the Symbol and the Mystery. Whatsoever is less then this is but the Symbol only, a mere Ceremony, an opus operatum, a dead letter, an empty shadow, an instrument without an agent to manage or force to actuate it.

Plainer yet: Whosoever are baptized into Christ have put on Christ, have put on the new man: But to put on this new man, is to be formed in righteousness, and holiness, and truth. This whole Argument is the very words of S. Paul. The Major proposition is dogmatically determined Gal. 3.27. The Minor in Ephes. 4.24. The Conclusion then is obvious, that they who are not formed new in righteousness, and holiness, and truth, they who, remaining in the present incapacities, cannot walk in the newness of life, they have not been baptized into Christ: and then they have but one member of the distinction, used by S. Peter, they have that Baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh, but they have not that Baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God, 1 Pet. 3.21. which is the only Baptism that saves us. And this is the case of children. And then the case is thus:

As Infants by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition, (and therefore, say the Paedo-baptists, they need Baptism to put them into it;) so if they be baptized before the use of Reason, before the works of the Spirit, before the operations of Grace, before they can throw off the works of darkness, and live in righteousness and newness of life, they are never the nearer. From the pains of Hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocence, though they die in puris naturalibus; and Baptism will carry them no further. For that Baptism that save us is not the onely washing with water, of which onely children are capable, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, of which they are not capable till the use of Reason, till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evil.

And from thence I consider anew, That all vows made by persons under others names, stipulations made by Minors, are not valid till they by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age do ratifie them. Why then may not Infants as well make the vow de novo, as de novo ratifie that which was made for them ab antiquo, when they come to years of choice? If the Infant vow be invalid till the Manly confirmation, why were it not as good they staid to make it till that time,Vide Erasmum in pr [...]fa [...]. ad Annotat. in Matth. before which if they do make it, it is to no purpose? This would be considered.

32. And in conclusion, Our way is the surer way; for not to baptize children till they can give an account of their Faith is the most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity, and it can have no danger in it. For to say that Infants may be damned for want of Baptism, (a thing which is not in their power to acquire, they being persons not yet capable of a Law) is to affirm that of God which we dare not say of any wise and good man. Certainly it is much derogatory to God's Justice, and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his Goodness.

33. And therefore who-ever will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of the Paedo-baptists, and practise it accordingly, they pollute the blood of the everlasting Testament; they dishonour and make a pageantry of the Sacrament; they ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ, and please themselves in a sign without effect, making Baptism like the fig-tree in the Gospel, full of leaves but no fruit; and they invocate the Holy Ghost in vain, doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree.

[Page]24. Thus far the Anabaptists may argue; and men have disputed against them with so much weakness and confidence, that we may say of them as S. Gregory Nazianzen observes of the case of the Church in his time, [...], &c. They have been encouraged in their errour more by the accidental advantages we have given them by our weak arguings, then by any excellency of their wit, and (much less) any advantage of their cause. It concerned not the present design of this Book to enquire whether these men speak true or no: for if they speak probably, or so as may deceive them that are no fools, it is argument sufficient to perswade us to pity the erring man that is deceived without design: and that is all that I intended. But because all men will not understand my purpose, or think my meaning innocent, unless I answer the Arguments which I have made or gathered for mine and their adversaries, (although I say it be nothing to the purpose of my Book, which was onely to represent, that even in a wrong cause there may be invincible causes of deception to innocent and unfortunate persons, and of this truth the Anabaptists in their question of Paedo baptism is a very great instance; yet) I will rather chuse to offend the rules of Art, then not to fulfill all the requisites of charity: I have chosen therefore to adde some animadversions upon the Anabaptists plea, upon all that is material, and which can have any considerable effect in the Question. For though I have used this art and stratagem of peace justly, by representing the Enemie's strength to bring the other party to thoughts of charity and kind comportments; yet I could not intend to discourage the right side, or to make either a mutiny or defection in the Armies of Israel. I do not, as the Spies from Canaan, say that these men are Anakims, and the city-walls reach up to Heaven, and there are giants in the Land: I know they are not insuperable, but they are like the blind and the lame set before a wall, that a weak man can leap over, and a single troup armed with wisedome and truth can beat all their guards. But yet I think that he said well and wisely to Charles the fighting Duke of Burgundy, that told him that the Switzers strength was not so to be despised, but that an honourable peace and a Christian usage of them were better then a cruel and a bloudy war. The event of that battel told all the world, that no Enemy is to be despised and rendred desperate at the same time; and that there are but few causes in the world but they do sometimes meet with witty Advocates, & in themselves put on such semblances of truth, as will (if not make the victory uncertain, yet) make peace more safe & prudent, & mutual charity to be the best defence.

And First, I do not pretend to say that every Argument brought by good men and wise in a righ [...] cause must needs be demonstrative. The Divinity of the eternal Son of God is a Truth of as great concernment and as great certainty as any thing that ever was disputed in the Christian Church; and yet he that reads the writings of the Fathers, and the Acts of Councils convened about that great Question, will find that all the armour is not proof which is used in a holy War. For that seems to one which is not so to another▪ and when a man hath one sufficient reason to secure him and make him confident, every thing seems to him to speak the same sense, though to an adversary it does not: for the one observes the similitude, and pleaseth himself; the other watches onely the dissonancies, and gets advantage; because one line of likeness will please a believing willing man, but one will not do the work; and where many dissimilitudes can be observed, & but one similitude, it were better to let the shadow alone then hazard the substance. And it is to be observed, that Hereticks and misbelievers do apply themselves rather to disable truth then directly to establish their errour; and every Argument they wrest from the hand of their adversaries is to them a double purchase, it takes from the other and makes him less, and makes himself greater: the way to spoil a strong man is to take from him the armour in which he trusted: and when this adversary hath espied a weak part in any discourse, he presently concludes that the cause is no stronger, and reckons his victories by the colours that he takes, though they signified nothing to the strength of the cause. And this is the main way of proceeding in this Question: for they rather endeavour to shew that we cannot demonstrate our part of the Question, then that they can prove theirs. And as it is indeed easier to destroy then to build, so it is more agreeable to the nature and to the design of Heresie: and therefore it were well that in this and in other Q [...]stions where there are watchfull adversaries, we should fight as Gideon did with three hundred hardy brave fellows that would stand against all violence, rather then to make a noise with rams Horns and broken pitchers, like the men at the siege of Jericho. And though it is not to be expected that all Arguments should be demonstrative in a true cause, yet it were well if the Generals of the Church, which the Scripture affirms is terrible as an army with banners, should not, [Page] by sending out weak parties which are easily beaten, weaken their own army, and give confidence to the Enemy.

Secondly, Although it is hard to prove a negative, and it is not in many cases to be imposed upon a Litigant; yet when the affirmative is received and practised, whoever will disturb the actual perswasion must give his reason, and offer proof for his own Doctrine, or let me alone with mine. For the reason why negatives are hard to prove is because they have no positive cause; but as they have no being, so they have no reason: but then also they are first, and before affirmatives, that is, such which are therefore to prevail because nothing can be said against them. Darkness is before light, and things are not before they are: and though to prove that things are, something must be said; yet to prove they are not, nothing is to be alledged but that they are not, and no man can prove they are. But when an affirmative hath entred and prevailed, because no effect can be without some positive cause, therefore this which came in upon some cause or other must not be sent away without cause: and because the negative is in this case later then the affirmative, it must enter as the affirmatives doe when they happen to be later then the negative. Adde to this, that for the introduction of a negative against the possession of a prevailing affirmative, it is not enough to invalidate the arguments of the affirmative, by making it appear they are not demonstrative: for although that might have been sufficient to hinder its first entry, yet it is not enough to throw it out, because it hath gotten strength and reasonableness by long custome and dwelling upon the minds of men, and hath some forces beyond what it derives from the first causes of its introduction. And therefore whoever will perswade men to quit their long perswasions and their consonant practices, must not tell them that such perswasions are not certain, and that they cannot prove such practices to be necessary; but that the Doctrine is false, against some other revealed Truth which they admit, and the practice evil; not onely useless, but dangerous or criminal. So that the Anabaptists cannot acquit themselves and promote their cause by going about to invalidate our Arguments, unless they do not onely weaken our affirmative by taking away (not one or two, but) all the confidences of its strength, but also make their own negative to include a duty, or its enemy to be guilty of a crime. And therefore if it were granted that we cannot prove the Baptism of infants to be necessary, and that they could speak probably against all the Arguments of the right Believers; yet it were intolerable that they should be attended to, unless they pretend, and make their pretence good, that they teach piety and duty and necessity: for nothing less then these can make recompence for so violent, so great an inroad and rape upon the perswasions of men. Whether the Anabaptists do so or no, will be considered in the sequel.

Thirdly, These Arguments which are in this Section urged in behalf of the Anabaptists, [their persons] I mean, finally, not their cause at all but in order to their persons, can doe the less hurt, because they rely upon our grounds, not upon theirs; that is, they are intended to perswade us to a charitable comport towards the men, but not at all to perswade their Doctrine. For it is remarkable, that none of them have made use of this way of arguing since the publication of these Adversaria; and of some things they can never make use. As in that exposition of the words of S. Peter, Be baptized, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost; which is expounded to be meant not in Baptism, but in Confirmation: which is a Rite the Anabaptists allow not, and therefore they cannot make use of any such Exposition which supposes a Divine institution of that which they at no hand admit. And so it is in divers other particulars, as any wary person, that is cautious he be not deluded by any weak and plausible pretence of theirs, may easily observe.

But after all, the Arguments for the Baptism of children are firm and valid, and though shaken by the adverse plea, yet as trees that stand in the face of storms take the surer root, so will the right Reasons of the right Believers, if they be represented with their proper advantages.

Ad 3. & 13. The first Argument is the Circumcising of children, which we say does rightly infer the Baptizing them: The Anabaptist says no; because admit that Circumcision were the type of Baptism, yet it follows not that the circumstances of one must infer the same circumstances in the other; which he proves by many instances: and so far he sayes true. And therefore if there were no more in the Argument then can be inferred from the type to the antitype, both the supposition & the superstructure would be infirm: because it is uncertain whether Circumcision be a type of Baptism; and if it were granted, it cannot infer equal circumstances. But then this Argument goes farther, and to other and more material purposes, even to the overthrow of their chief pretension. For Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith: And if Infants, [Page] who have no Faith, yet can by a Ceremony be admitted into the Covenant of Faith, as S. Paul con [...]ends that all the circumcised were, and it is certain of Infants, that they were reckoned amongst the Lord's people as soon as they were circumcised; then it follows, that the great pretence of the Anabaptists, that for want of Faith Infants are incapable of the Sacrament, comes to nothing. For if Infants were admitted into the Covenant of Faith by a Ceremony before they could enter by choice and reason, by Faith and Obedience; then so they may now, their great and onely pretence notwithstanding. Now whereas the Anabaptist says that in the admission of the Jewish Infants to Circumcision and of Christian Infants to Baptism there is this difference, that Circumcision imprints a character on the flesh, but Baptism does not; Circumcision had no word added, but Baptism hath; and therefore Infants were capable of the former, but not of the latter; for they might be cut with the Circumcising-stone, but they cannot be instructed with the word of Baptism: in that there was a character left by which they might be instructed when they come to age, but in Baptism there is no character, and the word they understand not; therefore that was to purpose, but this is not. I answer, that this is something to the circumstance of the Sacraments, but nothing to the substance of the Argument. For if the Covenant of Faith can belong to Infants, then it is certain they can have the benefit of Faith before they have the grace; that is, God will doe them benefit before they can do him service: and that is no new thing in Religion, that God should love us first. But then, that God is not as much before-hand with Christian as with Jewish Infants, is a thing which can never be believed by them who understand that in the Gospel God opened all his treasures of mercies, and unsealed the fountain itself, whereas before he poured forth only rivulets of mercy and comfort. That Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith, Saint Paul affirms; that so also is Baptism, (if it be any thing at all) the Anabaptists must needs confess, because they refuse to give Baptism to them who have not Faith, and make it useless to them, as being a Seal without a Deed. But then the Argument is good upon its first grounds. But then for the title Reparties but now mentioned, that Circumcision imprints a character, but Baptism does not; that Baptism hath a word, but Circumcision had none; they are just nothing to the purpose. For as that character imprinted on the Infants flesh would have been nothing of instruction to them unless there had been a word added, that is, unless they had been told the meaning of it when they came to be men; so neither will the word added to Baptism be of use either to men or children, unless there be a character upon their spirits imprinted when or before they come to the use of reason by the Holy Spirit of God: but therefore as the Anabaptists would have our Infants stay from the Sacrament till they can understand the word; so also might the imprinting of a character on the flesh of the Jewish Infants have been deferred till the word should be added, that is, till they could understand the word, or declaration of the meaning of that character, without which they could not understand its meaning. The case is equal. In the Jewish Infants the character was before the word; in the Christian Infants the word is before the character: but neither that nor this alone could doe all the work of the Sacrament; but yet it could doe some, and when they could be conjoyned, the office was compleated. But therefore as the Infants under Moses might have that which to them was an insignificant character; so may the Infants under Christ have water, and a word whose meaning these shall understand as soon as those could understand the meaning of the character. So that these pretended differences signifie nothing; and if they did, yet they are not certainly true, but rather certainly false: for although the Scriptures mention not any form of words used in the Mosaick Sacraments, yet the Jews books record them. And then for the other, that there is no character imprinted in Baptism it is impossible they should reasonably affirm, because it being spiritual is also undiscernible, and cometh not by observation. And although there is no permanent or inherent quality imprinted by the Spirit in Baptism that we know of, and therefore will not affirm; (but neither can they know it is not, and therefore they ought not to deny, much less to establish any proposition upon it;) yet it is certain that, although no quality be imprinted before they come to the use of Reason, yet a Relation is contracted, and then the children have title to the Promises, and are reckoned in Christi censu, in Christ's account, they are members of his body: and though they can as yet doe no duty, yet God can doe them a favour; although they cannot yet perform a condition, yet God can make a promise; and though the Anabaptists will be so bold as to restrain Infants, yet they cannot restrain God, and therefore the Sacrament is not to be denied to them. For although they can doe nothing, yet they can receive something; they can by this Sacrament as really be admitted [Page] into the Covenant of Faith, even before they have the Grace of Faith, as the Infants of the Jews could: and if they be admitted to this Covenant, they are Children of faithfull Abraham, and heirs of the promise. All the other particulars of their answer to the Argument taken from Circumcision are wholly impertinent; for they are intended to prove that Circumcision being a type of Baptism cannot prove that the same circumstances are to be observed: all which I grant. For Circumcision was no type of Baptism, but was a Sacrament of initiation to the Mosaick Covenant; and so is Baptism of initiation to the Evangelical: Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, and so is Baptism; but they are both but Rites and Sacraments, and therefore cannot have the relation of type and antitype; they are both but external ministeries fitted to the several periods of the Law and the Gospel, with this onely difference, that Circumcision gave place to, was supplied and succeeded to by Baptism. And as those persons who could not be circumcised, I mean the females, yet were baptized, as is notorious in the Jews books and story, and by that Rite were admitted to the same Promises and Covenant as if they had been circumcised: so much more when males and females are onely baptized, Baptism must be admitted and allowed to consign all that Covenant of Faith which Circumcision did, and therefore to be dispensed to all them who can partake of that Covenat, as Infants did then, and therefore certainly may now. So that in short, we do not infer that Infants are to receive this Sacrament because they received that; but because the benefit and secret purpose of both is the same in some main regards: and if they were capable of the blessing then, so they are now; and if want of Faith hindered not the Jewish babes from entring into the Covenant of Faith, then neither shall it hinder the Christian babes: and if they can and do receive the benefit for which the ceremony was appointed as a sign and conduit, why they should not be admitted to the ceremony is so very a trifle, that it deserves not to become the entertainment of a fancy in the sober time of the day, but must go into the portion of dreams and illusions of the night.

Ad 4. And as ill success will they have with the other Answers. For although we intend the next Argument but as a reasonable inducement of the baptizing Infants by way of proportion to the other treatments they received from Christ; yet this probability, notwithstanding all that is said against it, may be a demonstration. For if Infants can be brought to Christ by the charitable minsteries of others when they cannot come themselves; if Christ did give them his blessing, and great expressions of his love to them, when they could not by any act of their own dispose themselves to it; if the Disciples, who then knew nothing of this secret, were reproved for hindring them to be brought, and upon the occasion of this a precept established for ever, that children should be suffered to come to him; and though they were brought by others, yet it was all one as if they had come themselves, and was so called, so expounded; and if the reason why they should be suffered to come is such a thing as must at least suppose them capable of the greatest blessing: there is no peradventure but this will amount to as much as the grace of Baptism will come to. For if we regard the outward Ministery, that Christ did take them in his arms and lay his hands upon them is as much as if the Apostles should take them in their arms and lay water upon them: if we regard the effect of it, that Christ blessed them is as much as if his Ministers prayed over them: if we regard the capacity of Infants, it is such that the Kingdome of Heaven belongs to them; that is, they also can be admitted to the Covenant of the Gospel, for that is the least signification of [the Kingdome of Heaven;] or they shall be partakers of Heaven, which is the greatest signification, and includes all the intermedial ways thither, according to the capacity of the suscipients: if we regard the acceptance of the action and entertainment of the person, it is as great as Christ any-where expresses: if we regard the Precept, it cannot be supposed to expire in the persons of those little ones which were then brought, for they were come already, and though they were tacitly reproved who offered to hinder them, yet the children were present; and therefore it must relate to others, to all Infants, that they should for ever be brought to Christ. And this is also to be gathered from [...], of such, not [...], of these; for these are but a few, but the Kingdome of God is of such as these who are now brought; children make up a great portion of it, and the other portion is made up by such who become like to these. And if the Transcript belong to the Kingdome, it were strange if the Exemplar should not: if none can enter but they who are like children, it must be certain that nothing can hinder the children. And lastly, if we regard the Doctrine which Christ established upon this action, it will finish the Argument into [Page] a certain conclusion; Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little child, shall not enter therein: receive it as a little child receives it, that is, with innocence and without any let or hinderance. So that they who receive it best receive it but as little children: for they, being the first in the kind, are made the measure of all the rest; and if others shall be excluded for not being like these, it is certain these are not to be excluded for not being like others: other are commanded to be like them in innocence, and that is sufficient to make them recipients of the Divine grace; but therefore to make Infants to be recipients it is not required that they should have the use of Reason. And we do not well consider that it is God who creates all our capacities of grace, and it is he who makes us able to receive what he intends to bestow, and nothing of ours can doe it; no good actions can deserve any grace, much less the first grace, the grace of Baptism; and all that men can doe in the whole use of their Reason and order of their life is to return as much as they can to the innocence of their Infancy; and Prayer is but a seeking after pardon and grace whereby we may stand as innocents before God, and Charity is but growing, and is here principally the extermination of all malice and envie, and by Alms (as Daniel advis'd to Nebuchadnezzar) we do but break off our sins, and our health is but the expulsion of evil humors, and our pleasure is but the removal of a pain, and optimus est qui minimis urgetur, and our best holiness is being like to Infants: and therefore it is no wonder if God made them the principals in this line, and loves them so well who are innocent of any consent to evil. And although they have done no good, yet they are all that which God loves, they are his Image undefiled, unscratch [...]d, unbroken by any act or consent of their own: but then it were a very great wonder, if these in whom God sees the work of his own hands, the image of his own essence, the purity of innocence, the capacities of glory, to whom his Holy Son gave such signal testimonies of his love, upon whom he bestowed a blessing, for whose sake he was much displeased when they were hindred to come, whom he declared the exemplar of those who should be saved, and the pattern and precedent of receiving his Kingdome, to whom he imparted spiritual favours by a ceremony and selemnity, I say, it were a very great wonder that these should not receive the same favours in the way of ordinary establishment, who have the principal title, and did actually receive them in the extraordinary before the general appointment of the other. If there be any thing that can hinder them, it must be something without; for nothing within can hinder them to receive [...]hat which others cannot receive but by being like them: and if any thing without does hinder them, it cannot expect to fare better then the Disciples, with whom Christ was much displeased. But of what can they now be hindered? Not of the grace of the Sacrament; that is their own by way of eminent relation and propriety, the Kingdome of Heaven is theirs and of such as they are: Not of the Sacrament therefore or solemnity, for that is wholly for the other, and is nothing but an instrument, and hath a relative use, and none else; and as it is to no purpose to any man till they receive the grace of it, so it can be for no reason detained from them who shall certainly have the grace though they be forcibly deprived of the instrument. Unless therefore they who could come to Christ and were commanded to be brought to Christ when he was upon earth may not, cannot come to him now that he is in Heaven, and made our Advocate and our Gracious Lord and King; unless they who had the honour of a solemnity from the hands of Christ may not be admitted to a ceremony from the hands of his servants; unless Baptismal water be more then Baptismal grace, and to be admitted into the Church be more then to be admitted to Heaven; it cannot with any plausible reason be pretended that Infants are to be excluded form this Sacrament.

Ad 14. Now as for the little things which the Anab. murmurs against the first essay of this Argument, they will quickly disappear. For whereas he says, it were a better Argument to say that Christ blessed children and so dismissed them, but baptized them not, therefore Infants are not to be baptized; this is perfectly nothing, because Christ baptized none at all, men, women, nor children; and this will conclude against the Baptism of men too as well as Infants: and whereas it is hence inferred, that because Christ baptized them not, therefore he hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven then by Baptism; it is very true, but makes very much against them. For if God hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven who yet cannot believe, if they can go to Heaven without Faith, why not to the Font? If they can obtain that glorious end in order to which the Sacrament is appointed without the act of believing, then so also they may the means. But for what end, to what purpose do they detain the water, [Page] when they cannot keep back the Spirit? and why will they keep them from the Church, when they cannot keep them from God? and why do men require harder conditions of being baptized then of being saved? And then, that God will by other means bring them to Heaven if they have not Baptism, is argument sufficient to prove that God's goodness prevails over the malice and ignorance of men, and that men contend more for shadows then for substances, and are more nice in their own ministrations then God is in the whole effusions of his bounty; and therefore that these disagreeing persons may doe themselves injury, but, in the event of things, none to the children.

So that this Argument, though sligthly passed over by the Anab. yet is of very great perswasion in this Article, and so us'd and relied upon by the Church of England in her office of Baptism: and for that reason I have the more insisted upon it.

Ad. 5. the next Argument without any alteration or addition stands firm upon its own basis. Adam sinn'd, and left nakedness to descend upon his posterity, a relative guilt and a remaining misery; he left enough to kill us, but nothing to make us alive: he was the head of mankind in order to temporal felicity; but there was another head intended to be the representative of humane nature to bring us to eternal: but the temporal we lost by Adam; and the eternal we could never receive from him, but from Christ onely: from Adam we receive our nature such as it is; but grace and truth comes by Jesus Christ: Adam left us an imperfect nature that tends to sin and death, but he left us nothing else; and therefore, to holiness and life we must enter from another principle. So that besides the natural birth of Infants there must be something added by which they must be reckoned in a new account: they must be born again, they must be reckon'd in Chrst, they must be adopted to the inheritance, and admitted to the Promise, and intitled to the Spirit. Now that this is done ordinarily in Baptism, is not to be denied: for therefore it is called [...], the Font or Laver of regeneration; it is the gate of the Church, it is the solemnity of our admission to the Covenant Evangelical: and if Infants cannot goe to Heaven by the first or natural birth, then they must goe by a second and supernatural: and since there is no other solemnity or Sacrament, no way of being born again that we know of but by the ways of God's appointing, and he hath appointed Baptism, and all that are born again are born this way, even men of Reason who have or can receive the Spirit being to enter at the door of Baptism; it follows that Infants also must enter here, or we cannot say that they are entred at all. And it is highly considerable, that whereas the Anab. does clamorously and loudly call for a precept for childrens Baptism; this consideration does his work for him and us. He that shews the way needs not bid you walk in it: and if there be but one door that stands open, and all must enter some way or other, it were a strange perverseness of argument to say that none shall pass in at that door unless they come alone; and they that are brought, or they that lean on crutches or the shoulders of others, shall be excluded and undone for their infelicity, and shall not receive help because they have the greatest need of it. But these men use Infants worse then the poor Paralytick was treated at the pool of Bethesda: he could not be washed because he had none to put him in; but these men will not suffer any one to put them in, and untill they can goe in themselves they shall never have the benefit of the Spirit's moving upon the waters.

Ad. 15. but the Anab. to this discourse gives onely this reply, that the supposition or ground is true, a man by Adam or any way of nature cannot goe to Heaven: neither men nor Infants without the addition of some instrument or means of God's appointing; but this is to be understood to be true onely ordinarily and regularly: but the case of Infants is extraordinary, for they are not within the rule and the way of ordinary dispensation; and therefore there being no command for them to be baptized, there will be some other way to supply it extraordinarily. To this I reply, that this is a plain begging of the question, or a denying the conclusion: for the Argument being this, that Baptism being the ordinary way or instrument of new birth and admission to the Promises Evangelical and supernatural happiness, and we knowing of no other, and it being as necessary for Infants as for men to enter some way or other, it must needs follow that they must goe this way, because there is a way for all, and we know of no other but this; therefore the presumption lies on this, that Infants must enter this way. They answer, that it is true in all but Infants: the contradictory of which was the conclusion, and intended by the argument. For whereas they say, God hath not appointed a rule and an order in this case of Infants, it is the thing in question, and therefore is not by direct negation to be opposed against the contrary Argument. For I argue thus, Whereever there is no extraordinary way appointed, there we must all [Page] goe the ordinary; but for Infants there is no extraordinary way appointed or declared, therefore they must goe the ordinary: and he that hath without difference commanded that all Nations should be baptized, hath without difference commanded all sorts of persons: and they may as well say that they are sure God hath not commanded women to be baptized, or Hermaphrodites, or eunuchs, or fools, or mutes, because they are not named in the precept; for sometimes in the Census of a nation women are no more reckoned then children; and when the Children of Israel coming out of Egypt were numbred, there was no reckoning either of women or children, and yet that was the number of the Nation which is there described.Exod. 13.

But then as to the thing itself, whether God hath commanded Infants to be baptized, it is indeed a worthy inquiry, and the summe of all this contestation: but then it is also to be concluded by every Argument that proves the thing to be holy, or charitable, or necessary, or the means of Salvation, or to be instituted and made in order to an indispensable end. For all commandments are not expressed in imperial forms, as [we will, or will not; thou shalt, or shalt not:] but some are by declaration of necessity, some by a direct institution, some by involution and apparent consequence, some by proportion and analogy, by identities and parities, and Christ never expresly commanded that we should receive the Holy Communion, but that, when the Supper was celebrated, it should be in his memorial. And if we should use the same method of arguing in all other instances as the Anabaptist does in this, and omit every thing for which there is not an express Commandment, with an open nomination and describing of the capacities of the persons concerned in the Duty, we should have neither Sacrament, nor Ordinance, Fasting, nor Vows, communicating of Women, nor baptizing of the Clergy. And when Saint Ambrose was chosen Bishop before he was baptized, it could never upon their account have been told that he was obliged to Baptism: because though Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize others, yet he no way told them that their Successors should be baptized, any more then the Apostles themselves were; of whom we reade nothing in Scripture that either they were actually baptized, or had a commandment so to be. To which may be added, that as the taking of Priestly Orders disobliges the suscipient from receiving Chrism or Confirmation, in case he had it not before; so, for ought appears in Scripture to the contrary, it may excuse from Baptism. But if it does not, then the same way of arguing which obliges women or the Clergy to be baptized will be sufficient warrant to us to require in the case of Infants no more signal precept then in the other, and to be content with the measures of wise men, who give themselves to understand the meaning of Doctrines and Laws, and not to exact the tittles and unavoidable commands by which fools and unwilling persons are to be governed, lest they die certainly if they be not called upon with univocal, express, open and direct commandments. But besides all this, and the effect of all the other Arguments, there is as much command for Infants to be baptized as for men; there being in the words of Christ no nomination or specification of persons, but onely in such words as can as well involve children as old men; as, [Nisi quis] and [omnes gentes,] and the like.

Ad 16. But they have a device to save all harmless yet: for though it should be granted that infants are press'd with all the evils of original sin, ye there will be no necessity of Baptism to Infants, because it may very well be supposed that as Infants contracted the relative guilt of Adam's sin, that is, the evils descending by an evil inheritance from him to us, without any solemnity; so may Infants be acquitted by Christ without solemnity, or the act of any other man. This is the summe of the 16th Number. To which the Answer is easie. First, that at the most it is but a dream of proportions, and can infer onely that if it were so, there were some correspondency between the effects descending upon us from the two great Representatives of the world; but it can never infer that it ought to be so. For these things are not wrought by the ways of Nature, in which the proportions are regular and constant; but they are wholly arbitrary and mysterious, depending upon extrinsick causes which are conducted by other measures, which we onely know by events, and can never understand the reasons. For because the sin of Adam had effect upon us without a Sacrament, must it therefore be wholly unnecessary that the death of Christ be applied to us by Sacramental ministrations? If so, the Argument will as well conclude against the Baptism of men as of Infants: for since they die in Adam, and had no solemnity to convey that death, therefore we by Christ shall all be made alive; and to convey this life there needs no Sacrament. This way of arguing therefore is a very trifle, but yet this is not: As Infants were not infected with the stain and injured by the evils of Adam's sin but by the means [Page] of natural generation; so neither shall they partake of the benefits of Christ's death but by spiritual regeneration; that is, by being baptized into his death. For it is easier to destroy then to make alive; a single crime of one man was enough to ruine him and his posterity: but to restore us, it became necessary that the Son of God should be incarnate, and die, and be buried, and rise again, and intercede for us, and become our Law-giver, and we be his subjects and keep his Commandments. There was no such order of things in our condemnation to death: must it therefore follow that there is no such in the justification of us unto life? To the first there needs no Sacrament, for evil comes fast enough; but to the latter there must goe so much as God please; and the way which he hath appointed us externally is Baptism: to which if he hath tied us, it is no matter to us whether he hath tied himself to it or no: for although he can goe which way he please, yet he himself loves to goe in the ways of his ordinary appointing, as it appears in the extreme paucity of Miracles which are in the world, and he will not endure that we should leave them. So that although there are many thousand ways by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself; yet he will bring no soul to himself by ways extraordinary, when he hath appointed ordinary: and therefore although it be unreasonable of our own heads to carry Infants to God by Baptism without any direction from him; yet it is not unreasonable to understand Infants to be comprehended in the duty, and to be intended in the general precept, when the words do not exclude them, nor any thing in the nature of the Sacrament; and when they have a great necessity, for the relief of which this way is commanded, and no other way signified, all the world will say there is reason we should bring them also the same way to Christ. And therefore though we no ways doubt but if we doe not our duty to them, God will yet perform his mercifull intention, yet that's nothing to us; though God can save by miracle, yet we must not neglect our charitable ministeries. Let him doe what he please to or for Infants, we must not neglect them.

Ad 6. The Argument which is here described is a very reasonable inducement to the belief of the certain effect to be consequent to the Baptism of Infants: Because Infants can do nothing towards Heaven, and yet they are designed thither, therefore God will supply it. But he supplies it not by any internall assistances, and yet will supply it; therefore by an externall. But there is no other externall but Baptism, which is of his own institution, and designed to effect those blessings which Infants need: therefore we have reason to believe that by this way God would have them brought.

Ad 17. To this it is answered, after the old rate, that God will doe it by his own immediate act. Well, I grant it; that is, he will give them Salvation of his own goodness, without any condition on the Infants part personally performed; without Faith and Obedience, if the Infant dies before the use of Reason: but then, whereas it is added, that to say God will doe it by an externall act and ministery, and that by this Rite of Baptism and no other, is no good Argument, unless God could not doe it without such means, or said he would not; The Reply is easie, that we say God will effect this grace upon Infants by this externall ministery, not because God cannot use another, nor yet because he hath said he will not, but because he hath given us this, and hath given us no other. For he that hath a mind to make an experiment may upon the same argument proceed thus. God hath given bread to strengthen man's heart, and hath said, that in the sweat of our brows we shall eat bread; and 'tis commanded, that if they do not work, they shall not eat: there being certain laws and conditions of eating, I will give to my labourers and hirelings, but therefore my child shall have none; for be you sure if I give to my child no man's-meat, yet God will take as great [...]are of Infants as of others, and God will by his own immediate mercy keep them alive as long as he hath intended them to live: but to say that therefore he will doe it by externall food, is no good argument, unless God could not doe it without such means, or that he had said he would not. To this I suppose any reasonable person would say I have given sufficient answer, if I tell him that the argument is good, that the Infants must eat man's food, although God can keep them alive without it, and although he hath not said that he will not keep them alive without it; I say, the argument is good, because he hath given them this way: and though he could give them another, and did never say he would not give them another; yet because he never did give them another, it is but reasonable that they should have this. To the last clause of this number, viz. why cannot God as well doe his mercies to infants now immediately as he did before the institution either of Circumcision or Baptism? I answer, that I know no man that says he cannot: but yet this was not sufficient to hinder babes from Circumcision, and why then shall it hinder them from Baptism? For though God could save Infants always [Page] without Circumcision as well as he did sometime, yet he required this of them: and therefore it may be so in Baptism, this pretence notwithstanding.

Ad 7. This number speaks to the main inquiry, and shews the commandement; Vnless a man be born of water and of the spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven. This precept was in all Ages expounded to signifie the ordinary necessity of Baptism to all persons; and nisi quis can mean Infants as well as men of age: and because it commands a new birth and a regeneration, and implies that a natural birth cannot intitle us to Heaven, but the second birth must; Infants, who have as much need and as much right to heaven as men of years, and yet cannot have it by natural or first-birth, must have it by the second and spiritual: and therefore all are upon the same main account; and when they are accidentally differenced by age, they are also differenced by correspondent, accidental and proportionable duties; but all must be born again. This birth is expressed here by water and the Spirit, that is, by the Spirit in baptismal water; for that is in Scripture called the Laver of a new birth or regeneration.

Ad 18. But here the Anab. gives us his warrant: Though Christ said, None but those who are born again by Water and the Spirit shall enter into Heaven; he answers, fear it not, I will warrant you. To this purpose it was once said before, Yea, but hath God said, In the day ye shall eat thereof ye shall die? I say ye shall not die, but ye shall be like Gods. But let us hear the answer. First, It is said that Baptism and the Spirit signifie the same thing: for by water is meant the effect of the Spirit. I reply, that therefore they do not signifie the same thing, because by water is meant the effect of the Spirit; unless the effect and the cause be the same thing: so that here is a contradiction in the parts of the Allegation. But if they signifie two things as certainly they do, then they may as well signifie the sign and the thing signified, as the cause and the effect; or they may mean the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament, as it is most agreeable to the whole analogie of the Gospel. For we are sure that Christ ordained Baptism, and it is also certain that in Baptism he did give the Spirit; and therefore to confound these two is to no purpose, when severally they have their certain meaning, and the Laws of Christ and the sense of the whole Church, the institution and the practice of Baptism make them two terms of a relation, a sign and a thing signified, the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament. For I offer it to the consideration of any man that believes Christ to have ordained the Sacrament of Baptism, which is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that by water and the spirit should be meant the outward element and inward grace; or that by water and spirit should be meant onely the Spirit cleansing us like water? But suppose it did mean so, what would be effected or perswaded by it more then by the other? If it be said that then Infants by this place were not obliged to Baptism; I reply, that yet they were obliged to new birth nevertheless; they must be born again of the Spirit, if not of water and the Spirit: and if they are bound to be regenerate by the Spirit, why they shall not be baptized with water which is the symbol and Sacrament, the vehiculum and channel of its ordinary conveyance, I profess I cannot understand how to make a reasonable conjecture. But it may be they mean, that if by water and the Spirit be onely meant Spiritus purificans, the cleansing, purifying Spirit, then this place cannot concern Infants at all: But this loop-hole I have already obstructed by placing a bar that can never be removed. For it is certain and evident that regeneration or new birth is here enjoyned to all as of absolute and indispensable necessity; and if Infants be not obliged to it, then by their natural birth they goe to Heaven, or not at all: but if Infants must be born again, then either let these adversaries shew any other way of new birth but this of water and the Spirit; or let them acknowledge this to belong to infants, and then the former discourse returns upon them in its full strength. So that now I shall not need to consider their parallel instance of [being baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire.] For although there are differences enough to be observed, the one being onely a Prophecy, and the other a Precept; the one concerning some onely, and the other concerning all; the one being verified with degrees and variety, the other equally and to all: yet this place, which in the main expression I confess to have similitude, was verified in the letter and first signification of it, and so did relate to the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in the likeness of tongues of fire; but this concerns not all, for all were not so baptized. And whereas it is said in the Objection that the Baptist told not Christ's Disciples, but the Jews; and that therefore it was intended to relate to all: it was well observed, but to no purpose; for Christ at that time had no Disciples. But he told it to the Jews: and yet it does not follow that they should all be baptized [Page] 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 com [...] 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,John 6.53. &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 [Page] 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 from Christ: it is a receiving Christ which is the duty here enjoyned; this is one way of doing it, and all the ways that they are capable of. And that this precept can be performed this way S. Augustine affirms expresly in his third book de peccatorum meritis & remissione Et in Serm. ad Infantes, apud V. Bedam [...]n 1. Cor. 10. John 6.63.. In this thing there is nothing hard but the metaphors of eating and drinking. Now that this is to be spiritually understood our Blessed Lord himself affirms in answer to the prejudice of the offended Capernaites; that it is to be understood of Faith, and that Faith is the spiritual manducation, is the sense of the ancient Church: and therefore in what sense soever any one is obliged to believe, in the same sense he is obliged to the duty of spiritual manducation, and no otherwise. But because Infants cannot be obliged to the act or habit of Faith, and yet can receive the Sacrament of Faith,See the disc. of the Real presence, Section 3. they receive Christ as they can, and as they can are intitled to life. But however, by this means the difficulty of the expression is taken off: for if by eating and drinking Christ is meant receiving Christ by Faith, then this phrase can be no objection but that S. Austin's affirmative may be true, and that this commandment is performed by Infants in Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Faith. To eat and drink does with as great impropriety signifie Faith as Baptism; but this is it which I said at first, that the metaphoricall expression was no part of the precept, but the vehiculum of the Commandment, occasioned by the preceding discourse of our Blessed Saviour; and nothing is necessary but that Christ should be received by all that would have life eternall: of which because Infants are capable, and without receiving Christ they (by virtue of these words) are not capable, and but in Baptism they cannot receive Christ; it follows that these words are no argument to infer an equal necessity of communicating Infants, but they are a good argument to prove a necessity of baptizing them. Secondly, But farther yet; I demand, can Infants receive Christ in the Eucharist? Can they in that Sacrament eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud? If they cannot, then neither these words nor any other can infer an equal necessity of being communicated, for they can infer none at all: and whether those other words [of Nisi quis renatus fuerit, &c.] do infer a necessity of Baptism, will be sufficiently cleared upon their own account. But if Infants can receive Christ in the Eucharist, to which they can no more dispose themselves by Repentance then they can to Baptism by Faith, then it were indeed very well if they were communicated, but yet not necessary, because if they can receive Christ in the Eucharist they can receive Christ in Baptism; and if they can receive him any way, this precept is performed by that way: and then whether they must also be communicated, must be enquired by other arguments; for whatsoever is in these words intended is performed by any way of receiving Christ, and therefore cannot infer more in all circumstances and to all persons. Thirdly, Suppose these words were to be expounded of Sacramentall manducation of the flesh of Christ in the Lord's Supper, yet it does not follow that Infants are as much bound to receive the Communion as to receive the Baptism. It is too crude a fancy to think that all universal Propositions, whether affirmative or negative, equally expressed, do signifie an equal universality. It is said in the Law of Moses, Whosoever is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people: this indeed signifies universally, and included Infants, binding them to that Sacrament. But when it was said, Whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great;2 Chro. 15.13. although these words be expressed with as great a latitude as the other, yet it is certain it did not include Infants, [Page] who could not seek the Lord. The same is the case of the two Sacraments: the obligation to which we do not understand onely by the preceptive words or form of the commandments, but by other appendages and the words of duty that are relative to the suscipients of the several Sacraments, and the analogy of the whole Institution. Baptism is the Sacrament of beginners, the Eucharist of proficients; that is the birth, this is the nourishment of a Christian. There are many more things of difference to be observ'd. But as the Church in several Ages hath practised severally in this Article, so in the particular there is no such certainty but that the Church may without sin doe it or not doe it as she sees cause: but that there is not the same necessity in both to all persons, and that no necessity of communicating Infants can be inferr'd from the parallel words, appears in the former answers, and therefore I stand to them.

Ad 9. The summe of the sixth Argument is this. The promise of the Holy Ghost is made to all, to us and to our children: and if the Holy Ghost belong to them, then Baptism belongs to them also; because Baptism is the means of conveying the Holy Ghost,Acts 2.38, 39. as appears in the words of S. Peter, Be baptized, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost; as also because from this very argument S. Peter resolved to baptize Cornelius and his family, because they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost: for they that are capable of the same grace are receptive of the same sign. Now that Infants also can receive the effects of the Holy Spirit is evident, because besides that the promise of the Holy Ghost is made to all, to us and our posterity, S. Paul affirms that the children of believing parents are holy: but all holiness is an emanation from the Holy Spirit of God.

Ad 19. To the words of S. Peter they answer, that the promise does appertain to our children, that is, to our posterity; but not till they are capable: they have the same right which we have, but enter not into possession of their right till they have the same capacity: for by [children] are not meant Infants, but as the children of Israel signifies the descendents onely, so it is here. And indeed this is true enough, but not pertinent enough to answer the intention and efficiency of these words. For I do not suppose that the word [children] means Infants, but [you and your children] must mean all generations of Christendom, all the descendents of Christian parents: and if they belong to their posterity because they are theirs, then the Promises belong to all that are so; and then children cannot be excluded. But I demand, have not the children of believing parents a title to the Promises of the Gospel? If they have none, then the Kingdom of Heaven belongs not to such; and if they die, we can doe nothing but despair of their Salvation: which is a proposition whose barbarity and unreasonable cruelty confutes itself. But if they have a title to the Promises, then the thing is done, and this title of theirs can be signified by these words; and then either this is a good argument, or the thing is confessed without it. For he that hath a title to the Promises of the Gospel hath a title to this Promise here mentioned, the promise of the Holy Spirit; for by him we are sealed to the day of redemption.

And indeed that this mystery may be rightly understood, we are to observe that the Spirit of God is the great ministery of the Gospel, and whatsoever blessing Evangelicall we can receive, it is the emanation of the Spirit of God. Grace and Pardon, Wisedome and Hope, offices and titles and relations, powers, priviledges and dignities, all are the good things of the Spirit; whatsoever we can profit withall, or whatsoever we can be profited by, is a gift of God the Father of spirits, and is transmitted to us by the Holy Spirit of God. For it is but a trifle and a dream to think that no person receives the Spirit of God but he that can doe actions and operations spiritual. S. Paul distinguishes the effects of the Spirit into three classes:1 Cor. 12.4, 5, 6. there are [...], and [...], and [...] ▪ besides these operations, there are gifts and ministeries: and they that receive not the [...], the operations, or powers to doe actions spiritual, may yet receive gifts, or at least the blessings of ministery; they can be ministred to by others who from the Spirit have received the power of ministration. And I instance in these things in which it is certain we can receive the Holy Spirit without any predisposition of our own. First, We can receive gifts: even the wicked have them, and they who shall be rejected at the day of Judgement shall yet argue for themselves, that they have wrought miracles in the name of the Lord Jesus; and yet the gift of miracles is a gift of the Holy Spirit: and if the wicked can receive them, who are of dispositions contrary to all the emanations of the Holy Spirit,1 Cor. 12.9, 10. then much more [Page] may children [...] who, although they cannot prepare themselves any more then the wicked do, yet neither can they doe against them to hinder or obstruct them. But of this we have an instance in a young child, Daniel, whose spirit God raised up to acquit the innocent, and to save her soul from unrighteous Judges: and when the boys in the street sang Hosanna to the Son of David, our Blessed Lord said, that if they had held their peace, the stones of the street would have cried out Hosanna. And therefore that God should from the mouths of babes and sucklings ordain his own praise, is one of the Magnalia Dei, but no strange thing to be believed by us who are so apparently taught it in Holy Scripture. Secondly, Benediction or blessing is an emanation of God's Holy Spirit, and in the form of blessing which is recorded in the Epistles of S. Paul one great part of it is the communication of the Holy Spirit: and it is very probable that those three are but Synonyma. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is to give us his Holy Spirit,1 Cor. 15 23. 2 Cor. 13.14. and the love of God is to give us his Holy Spirit; for the Spirit is the love of the Father, and our Blessed Saviour argues it as the testimony of God's love to us: If ye, who are evil, know how to give good things to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give his Spirit to them that ask him? Now since the great summe and compendium of Evangelicall blessings is the Holy Spirit, and this which is expressed by three Synonyma's in the second Epistle to the Corinthians is in the first reduced to one, it is all but the Grace of the Lord Jesus; it will follow that, since our Blessed Saviour gave his solemn blessing to children, his blessing relating to the Kingdom of Heaven, (for of such is the Kingdom) he will not deny his Spirit to them: when he blessed them, he gave them something of his Spirit, some emanation of that which blesses us all, and without which no man can be truly blessed. Thirdly, Titles to inheritance can be given to Infants without any predisposing act of their own. Since therefore Infants dying so can, as we all hope, receive the inheritance of Saints, some mansion in Heaven, in that Kingdom which belongs to them and such as they are, and that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the consignation to that inheritance; nothing can hinder them from receiving the Spirit, that is, nothing can hinder them to receive a title to the inheritance of the Saints, which is the free gift of God, and the effect and blessing from the Spirit of God.

Now how this should prove to Infants to be a title to Baptism is easie enough to be understood: For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body; that is,1 Cor. 12.13. the Spirit of God moves upon the waters of Baptism, and in that Sacrament adopts us into the mysticall body of Christ, and gives us title to a coinheritance with him.

Ad 21. So that this perfectly confutes what is said in the beginning of Number 21. that Baptism is not the means of conveying the Holy Ghost. For it is the Spirit that baptizes, it is the Spirit that adopts us to an inheritance of the Promises, it is the Spirit that incorporates us into the mysticall body of Christ; and upon their own grounds it ought to be confessed: for since they affirm the water to be nothing without the Spirit, it is certain that the water ought not to be without the Spirit; and therefore that this is the soul and life of the Sacrament, and therefore usually in conjunction with that ministery, unless we hinder it: and it cannot be denied but that the Holy Ghost was given ordinarily to new converts at their Baptism. And whereas it is said in a parenthesis, that this was (not as the effect is to the cause or to the proper instrument, but as a consequent is to an antecedent in a chain of causes accidentally and by positive institution depending upon each other;) it is a groundless assertion: for when the men were called upon to be baptized, and were told they should receive the Holy Ghost; and we find that when they were baptized they did receive the Holy Ghost; what can be more reasonable then to conclude Baptism to be the ministery of the Spirit? And to say that this was not consequent properly and usually, but accidentally onely, it followed sometimes, but was not so much as instrumentally effected by it, is as if one should boldly deny all effect to Physick: for though men are called upon to take Physick, and told they should recover, and when they do take Physick they do recover; yet men may unreasonably say, this recovery does follow the taking of Physick, not as an effect to the cause or to the proper instrument, but as a consequent is to an antecedent in a chain of causes accidentally and by positive institution depending upon each other. Who can help it if men will say that it happened that they recovered after the taking Physick, but then was the time in which they should have been well however? The best confutation of them is to [Page] deny Physick to them when they need, and try what nature will doe for them without the help of art. The case is all one in this Question, this onely excepted, that in this case it is more unreasonable then in the matter of Physick,1 Cor. 12.13. because the Spirit is expresly signified to be the baptizer in the forecited place of Saint Paul.

From hence we argue, that since the Spirit is ministred in Baptism, and that Infants are capable of the Spirit, the Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of incorporation into the body of Christ, the Spirit sealing them to the day of redemption, the Spirit intitling them to the Promises of the Gospel, the Spirit consigning to them God's part of the Covenant of Grace; they are also capable of Baptism: For whoever is capable of the Grace of the Sacrament is capable of the sign or Sacrament itself.

To this last clause the Anab. answers two things. First, that the Spirit of God was conveyed sometimes without Baptism. I grant it, but what then? Therefore Baptism is not the sign or ministery of the Holy Ghost? It follows not. For the Spirit is the great wealth and treasure of Christians, and is conveyed in every ministery of Divine appointment; in Baptism, in Confirmation, in Absolution, in Orders, in Prayer, in Benediction, in assembling together. Secondly, The other thing they answer is this, that it is not true that they who are capable of the same grace are capable of the same sign; for females were capable of the righteousness of Faith, but not of the seal of Circumcision. I reply, that the Proposition is true not in natural capacities, but in spiritual and religious regards; that is, they who in Religion are declared capable of the grace are by the same Religion capable of the Sacrament or sign of that grace. But naturally they may be uncapable by accident, as in the Objection is mentioned. But then this is so far from invalidating the Argument, that it confirms it in the present instance. Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. For even the Jewish females, although they could not be circumcised, yet they were baptized even in those days, as I have proved already See the Great Exemplar, part 1. disc. of Baptism, numb. 8, 9, 10.; and although their natural indisposition denied them to be circumcised, yet neither nature nor Religion forbad them to be baptized: and therefore since the Sacrament is such a ministery of which all are naturally capable, and none are forbidden by the Religion, the Argument is firm and unshaken, and concludes with as much evidence and certainty as the thing requires.

Ad 10. The last Argument from Reason is, That it is reasonable to suppose that God in the period of Grace, in the days of the Gospel, would not give us a more contracted comfort and deal with us by a narrower hand then with the Jewish babes, whom he sealed with a Sacrament as well as enriched with a grace, and therefore openly consigned them to comfort and favour.

Ad 22. To this they answer, that we are to trust the word without a sign; and since we contend that the Promise belongs to us and to our children, why do we not believe this, but require a sign? I reply, that if this concludes any thing, it concludes against the Baptism of men and women; for they hear and reade and can believe the Promise, and it can have all its effects and produce all its intentions upon men; but yet they also require the sign, they must be baptized. And the reason why they require it is because Christ hath ordained it. And therefore although we can trust the Promise without a sign, and that if we did not, this manner of sign would not make us believe it, for it is not a miracle, that is, a sign proving, but it is a Sacrament, that is, a sign signifying; and although we do trust the Promise even in the behalf of Infants when they cannot be baptized: yet by the same reason as we trust the Promise so we also use the Rite, both in obedience to Christ; and we use the Rite or the Sacrament because we believe the Promise; and if we did not believe that the Promise did belong to our children, we would not baptize them. Therefore this is such an impertinent quarrel of the Anabaptists, that it hath no strength at all but what it borrows from a cloud of words, and the advantages of its representment. As God did openly consign his grace to the Jewish babes by a Sacrament, so he does to ours: and we have reason to give God thanks, not onely for the comfort of it, (for that's the least part of it) but for the ministery and conveyance of the real blessing in this Holy mystery.

Ad 23, 24, 25. That which remains of Objections and answers is wholly upon the matter of examples and precedents from the Apostles and first descending Ages of the Church: but to this I have already largely spoken in a Discourse of this Question Disc. of Baptism of Infants, versus finem, in the Great Exemplar, part 1. p. 202, &c.; and if the Anabaptists would be concluded by the practice of the Universal Church in this Question, it would quickly be at an end. For although sometimes the Baptism of children was deferred till the age of reason and choice; yet it was onely when there was no danger of the death of the children: and although there might be some advantages gotten by such delation; yet it could not be endured that they should be sent [Page] out of the world without it. [...], said S. Gregory Nazianzen: It is better they should be sanctified even when they understand it not, then that they should go away from hence without the seal of perfection and sanctification. Secondly, But that Baptism was amongst the Ancients sometimes deferred was not always upon a good reason, but sometimes upon the same account as men now adays defer repentance, or put off Confession and Absolution and the Communion till the last day of their life; that their Baptism might take away all the sins of their life. Thirdly, It is no strange thing that there are examples of late Baptism, because Heathenism and Christianity were so mingled in towns and cities and private houses, that it was but reasonable sometimes to stay till men did chuse their Religion, from which it was so likely they might afterwards be tempted. Fourthly, The Baptism of Infants was always most notorious and used in the Churches of Africa, as is confessed by all that know the Ecclesiastical Story. Fifthly, Among the Jews it was one and all: if the Major domo believed, he believed for himself & all his family, and they all followed him to Baptism, even before they were instructed; and therefore it is that we find mention of the Baptism of whole Families in which children are as well to be reckoned as the uninstructed servants: and if actual Faith be not required before Baptism even of those who are naturally capable of it, as it is notorious in the case of the Gaolour who believed, and at that very hour he and all his family were baptized, then want of Faith cannot prejudice Infants, and then nothing can. Sixthly, There was never in the Church a command against the baptizing Infants: and whereas it is urged that in the Council of Neocaesarea the Baptism of a pregnant woman did no way relate to the child, and that the reason there given excludes all Infants upon the same account, because every one is to shew his Faith by his own choice and election; I answer, that this might very well be in those times where Christianity had not prevailed, but was forced to dispute for every single proselyte, and the mother was a Christian and the Father a Heathen; there was reason that the child should be let alone till he could chuse for himself, when peradventure it was not fit his father should chuse for him: and that is the meaning of the words of Balsamo and Zonaras upon that Canon. But secondly, the words of the Neocaesarean Canon are not rightly considered. For the reason is not relative to the child, but onely to the woman, concerning whom the Council thus decreed. The woman with child may be baptized when she will: [...]. For her Baptism reaches not to the child, because every one confesses his Faith by his own act and choice: that is, the woman confesses onely for herself, she intends it onely for herself, she chuses onely for herself; and therefore is onely baptized for herself. But this intimates, that if she could confess for her child, the Baptism would relate to her child; but therefore when the Parents do confess for the child, or the Godfathers, and that the child is baptized into that confession, it is valid. However nothing in this Canon is against it.

I have now considered all that the Anabaptists can with probability object against our Arguments, and have discovered the weakness of their exceptions, by which although they are and others may be abused, yet it is their weakness that is the cause of it: for which although the men are to be pitied, yet it may appear now that their cause is not at all the better.

Ad 28. It remains that I consider their own Arguments by which they support themselves in their misperswasion. First, It is against the analogie of the Gospel: for besides that Christ never baptized any Infants, nor his Apostles, there is required to Baptism Faith and Repentance; of which because Infants are not capable, neither are they capable of the Sacrament. To these things I answer, that it is true Christ never baptized Infants, for he baptized no person at all: but he blessed Infants, and what that amounts to I have already discoursed; and he gave a commandment of Baptism which did include them also, as I have proved in the foregoing periods, and in other places. That the Apostles never baptized Infants, is boldly said, but can never be proved. But then as to the main of the Argument, that Faith and Repentance are pre-required; I answer, It is in this as it was in Circumcision, to which a Proselyte could not be admitted form Gentilism or Idolatry, unless he gave up his name to the Religion, and believed in God and his servant Moses; but yet their children might: and it might have been as well argued against their children as ours, since in their Proselytes and ours there were required predispositions of Faith and Repentance. 2. But it is no wonder that these are called for by the Apostles of those whom they invited to the Religion: they dealt with men of reason, but such who had superinduced foul sins to their infidelity; which [Page] were to be removed before they could be illuminated and baptized; but Infants are in their pure naturals, & therefore nothing hinders them from receiving the gifts & meer graces of God's Holy Spirit before-mentioned. 3. But we see also that, although Christ required Faith of them who came to be healed, yet when any were brought, or came in behalf of others, he onely required Faith of them who came, and their Faith did benefit to others. For no man can call on him on whom they have not believed, but therefore they who call must believe;Matth. 9.28. Mar. 9.23. Mat. 8.13. Joh. 4.50. and if they call for others, they must believe that Christ can doe it for others. But this instance is so certain a reproof of this Objection of theirs, which is their principal, which is there all, that it is a wonder to me they should not all be convinced at the reading and observing of it. I knew an eminent person amongst them, who having been abused by their fallacies, upon the discovery of the falshood of this their main allegation was converted: & I know also some others who could not at all object against it; but if they had been as humble as they were apprehensive, would certainly have confessed their errour. But to this I can adde nothing new beyond what I have largely discoursed of in the Treatise of Baptism before-mentioned.

Ad 30. The next Argument is, If Baptism be necessary to infants, upon whom is the imposition laid? to whom is the command given? The Children are not capable of a Law, therefore it is not given to them: nor yet to the parents, because if so, then the Salvation of Infants should be put into the power of others who may be careless or malicious. I answer, that there is no precept of baptizing Infants just in that circumstance of age; for then they had sinned who had deferred it upon just grounds to their manhood. But it is a precept given to all, and it is made necessary by that order of things which Christ hath constituted in the New Testament; so that if they be baptized at all in their just period, there is no commandment broken: but if Infants come not to be men, then it was accidentally necessary they should have been baptized before they were men. And now to the enquiry, upon whom the imposition lies, it is easie to give an answer; it lies upon them who can receive it, and therefore upon the parents: not so that the Salvation of Infants depends upon others, God forbid; but so, that if they neglect the charitable ministry, they shall dearly account for it. It is easie to be understood by two Instances. God commanded that children should be circumcised, Moses by his wife's peevishness neglected it, and therefore the Lord sought to kill him for it, not Gershom the child. It is necessary for the preservation of childrens lives that they eat, but the provisions of meat for them is a duty incumbent on the parents; and yet if parents expose their children, it may be the lives of the children shall not depend on others; but when their father and mother forsaketh them, 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 [Page] 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,Gal. 3.27. 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, Eph. 4.24. 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 with the beginnings and principles of life, not with inherent qualities, but with titles and relations to promises and estates of blessing and assistances of holiness, which principles of life if they be nourished will express themselves in perfect and symbolical actions. The thing is easie to be understood by them who observe the manner of speaking usual in Scripture. We are begotten to a lively hope, so S. Paul: the very consignation and designing us to that hope which is laid up for the Saints is a new birth, a regeneration, the beginnings of a new life: and of this Infants are as capable as any.

The other thing is this, That the Infants vow is invalid till it be after confirmed in the days of Reason; and therefore it were as good to be let alone till it can be made [Page] with effect. I answer, that if there were nothing in the Sacrament but the making of a vow, I confess I could see no necessity in it, nor any convenience, but that it engages children to an early piety, and their parents and guardians by their care to prevent the follies of their youth: but then when we consider that Infants receive great blessings from God in this holy ministery, that what is done to them on God's part is of great effect before the ratification of their vow, this prudential consideration of theirs is light and airy.

And after all this it will be easie to determine which is the surer way. For certainly to baptize Infants is hugely agreeable to that charity which Christ loved in those who brought them to him; and if Infants die before the use of reason, it can doe them no hurt that they were given to God in a holy designation; it cannot any way be supposed, and is not pretended by any one, to prejudice their Eternity: but if they die without Baptism, it is then highly questioned whether they have not an intolerable loss. And if it be questioned by wise men whether the want of it do not occasion their eternal loss, and it is not questioned whether Baptism does them any hurt or no, then certainly to baptize them is the surer way without all peradventure.

Ad 33. The last number sums up many words of affrightment together, but no Argument, nothing but bold and unjustifiable assertions; against which I onely oppose their direct contradictories. But in stead of them the effect of the former discourse is this, That whoever shall pertinaciously deny or carelesly neglect the Baptism of Infants does uncharitably expose his babes to the danger of an eternal loss, from which there is no way to recover but an extraordinary way which God hath not revealed to us; he shuts them out of the Church, and keeps them out who are more fit to enter then himself; he as much as lies in him robs the children of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and a title to the Promises Evangelical; he supposes that they cannot receive God's gifts unless they do in some sense or other deserve them, and that a negative disposition is not sufficient preparation to a new Creation, and an obediential capacity is nothing, and yet it was all that we could have in our first creation; he supposes that we must doe something before the first grace, that is, that God does not love us first, but we first love him, that we seek him, and he does not seek us, that we are before-hand with him, and therefore can doe something without him, that Nature can alone bring us to God. For if he did not suppose all this, his great pretence of the necessity of Faith and Repentance would come to nothing: for Infants might without such dispositions receive the grace of Baptism, which is alwaies the first; unless by the superinducing of actual sins upon our nature we make it necessary to doe something to remove the hinderances of God's Spirit, & that some grace be accidentally necessary before that which ordinarily & regularly is the first grace. He, I say, that denies Baptism to Infants does disobey Christ's commandment, which being in general and indefinite terms must include all that can be saved, or can come to Christ; and he excepts from Christ's commandment whom he pleases, without any exception made by Christ; he makes himself Lord of the Sacrament, and takes what portions he pleases from his fellow-servants, like an evil and an unjust steward; he denies to bring little children to Christ, although our dearest Lord commanded them to be brought; he upbraids the practice and charity of the holy Catholick Church, and keeps Infants from the communion of Saints, from a participation of the Promises, from their part of the Covenant, from the laver of regeneration, from being rescued from the portion of Adam's inheritance, from a new creation, from the Kingdom of God, which belongs to them and such as are like them. And he that is guilty of so many evils, and sees such horrid effects springing from his Doctrine, must quit his errour, or else openly profess love to a serpent, and direct enmity to the most innocent part of mankind.

I do not think the Anabaptists perceive or think these things to follow from their Doctrine: But yet they do so really. And therefore the effect of this is, that their Doctrine is wholly to be reproved and disavowed, but the men are to be treated with the usages of a Christian: strike them not as an Enemy, but exhort them as brethren. They are with all means Christian & humane to be redargued or instructed: but if they cannot be perswaded, they must be left to God, who knows every degree of every man's understanding, all his weaknesses and strengths, what impress every argument makes upon his Spirit, and how uncharitable every reason is, and he alone judges of his ignorance or his malice, his innocency or his avoidable deception. We have great reason to be confident as to our own part of the Question; but it were also well if our knowledge would make us thankfull to God, and humble in ourselves, and charitabe to our brother. It is pride that makes contention, but humility is the way of peace and truth.

SECT. XIX. That there may be no Toleration of Doctrines inconsistent with Piety or the Publick good.

[Page]

1. BUT then for their other capital Opinion, with all its branches, that it is not lawfull for Princes to put malefactors to death, nor to take up defensive Arms, nor to minister an Oath, nor to contend in judgement, it is not to be disputed with such liberty as the former.L. 7. Strom. For although it be part of that doctrine which Clemens Alexandrinus says was delivered per secretam traditionem Apostolorum, Non licere Christianis contendere in judicio, nec coram gentibus nec coram sanctis; & perfectum non debere jurare; and the other part seems to be warranted by the eleventh Canon of the Nicene Council, which enjoyns penance to them that take Arms after their conversion to Christianity: yet either these Authorities are to be slighted, or be made receptive of any interpretation, rather then the Commonwealth be disarmed of its necessary supports, and all Laws made ineffectual and impertinent. For the interest of the Republick and the well being of Bodies politick is not to depend upon the nicety of our imaginations, or the fancies of any peevish or mistaken Priests; and there is no reason a Prince should ask John-a-Brunck whether his understanding would give him leave to reign, and be a King. Nay, suppose there were divers places of Scripture which did seemingly restrain the politicall use of the Sword; yet since the avoiding a personal inconvenience hath by all men been accounted sufficient reason to expound Scripture to any sense rather then the literal, which infers an unreasonable inconvenience, (and therefore the pulling out an eye, and the cutting off a hand, is expounded by mortifying a vice, and killing a criminal habit) much rather must the Allegations against the power of the Sword endure any sense rather then it should be thought that Christianity should destroy that which is the onely instrument of Justice, the restraint of vice and support of Bodies politick. It is certain that Christ and his Apostles and Christian Religion did comply with the most absolute Government, and the most imperial that was then in the world, and it could not have been at all endured in the world if it had not; for indeed the world itself could not last in regular and orderly communities of men, but be a perpetuall confusion, if Princes and the Supreme power in Bodies politick were not armed with a coercive power to punish malefactors: the publick necessity and universal experience of all the world convinces those men of being most unreasonable that make such pretences which destroy all Laws, and all Communities, and the bands of civil Societies, and leave it arbitrary to every vain or vicious person whether men shall be safe, or Laws be established, or a murtherer hanged, or Princes rule. So that in this case men are not so much to dispute with particular Arguments, as to consider the interest and concernment of Kingdoms and publick Societies. For the Religion of Jesus Christ is the best establisher of the felicity of private persons, and of publick Communities: it is a Religion that is prudent and innocent, humane and reasonable, and brought infinite advantages to mankind, but no inconvenience, nothing that is unnatural, or unsociable, or unjust. And if it be certain that this world cannot be governed without Laws, and Laws without a compulsory signifie nothing; then it is certain that it is no good Religion that teaches Doctrine whose consequents will destroy all Government: and therefore it is as much to be rooted out as any thing that is the greatest pest and nuisance to the publick interest. And that we may guess at the purposes of the men, and the inconvenience of such Doctrine; these men that did first intend by their Doctrine to disarm all Princes and Bodies politick, did themselves take up arms to establish their wild and impious fancy. And indeed that Prince or Commonwealth that should be perswaded by them, would be exposed to all the insolencies of forreiners, and all mutinies of the Teachers themselves, and the Governours of the people could not doe that duty they owe to their people, of protecting them from the rapine and malice which will be in the world as long as the world is. And therefore here they are to be restrained from preaching such Doctrine, if they mean to preserve their Government: and the necessity of the thing will justifie the lawfulness of the thing. If they think it to themselves, that cannot be helped; so long it is innocent as much as concerns the publick: but if they preach it, they may be accounted Authours of all the [Page] consequent inconveniences, and punisht accordingly. No Doctrine that destroys Government is to be endured. For although those Doctrines are not always good that serve the private ends of Princes, or the secret designs of State, which by reason of some accidents or imperfections of men may be promoted by that which is false and pretending; yet no Doctrine can be good that does not comply with the formality of Government itself, and the well-being of Bodies politick. Augur cùm esset Cato, dicere usus est, Cicero de senectute. optimis auspiciis ea geri quae pro Reipub. salute gererentur; quae contra Rempub. fierent, contra auspicia fieri. Religion is to meliorate the condition of a people, not to doe it disadvantage: and therefore those Doctrines that inconvenience the publick are no parts of good Religion. Vt Respub. salva sit, is a necessary consideration in the permission of Prophesyings; for according to the true, solid and prudent ends of the Republick, so is the Doctrine to be permitted or restrained, and the men that preach it according as they are good subjects and right Commonwealths-men. For Religion is a thing superinduced to temporal Government, and the Church is an addition of a capacity to a Commonwealth, and therefore is in no sense to disserve the necessity and just interests of that to which it is superadded for its advantage and conservation.

2. And thus by a proportion to the rules of these instances all their other Doctrines [...]re to have their judgement as concerning Toleration or restraint: for all are either speculative or practicall, they are consistent with the publick ends or inconsistent, they teach impiety or they are innocent; and they are to be permitted or rejected accordingly. For in the Question of Toleration the foundation of Faith, good life and Government is to be secured: in all other cases the former considerations are effectuall.

SECT. XX. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome is tolerable.

1. BUT now concerning the Religion of the Church of Rome (which was the other instance I promised to consider) we will proceed another way, and not consider the truth or falsity of the Doctrines; for that is not the best way to determine this Question concerning permitting their Religion or Assemblies. Because that a thing is not true, is not Argument sufficient to conclude that he that believes it true is not to be endured: but we are to consider what inducements they are that possess the understanding of those men, whether they be reasonable and innocent, sufficient to abuse or perswade wise and good men; or whether the Doctrines be commenced upon design, and managed with impiety, and then have effects not to be endured.

2. And here, first, I consider that those Doctrines that have had long continuance and possession in the Church cannot easily be supposed in the present professors to be a design, since they have received it from so many Ages; and it is not likely that all Ages should have the same purposes, or that the same Doctrine should serve the severall ends of divers Ages. But however long prescription is a prejudice oftentimes so insupportable, that it cannot with many Arguments be retrenched, as relying upon these grounds, that Truth is more ancient then falshood; that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church, and leave her in an errour; that whatsoever is new is not onely suspicious, but false: which are suppositions pious and plausible enough. And if the Church of Rome had communicated Infants so long as she hath prayed to Saints or baptized Infants, the communicating would have been believed with as much confidence as the other Articles are, and the dissentients with as much impatience rejected. But this consideration is to be enlarged upon all those particulars which, as they are apt to abuse the persons of the men and amuse their understandings, so they are instruments of their excuse, and by making their errours to be invincible, and their Opinions, though false, yet not criminall, make it also to be an effect of reason and charity to permit the men a liberty of their Conscience, and let them answer to God for themselves and their own Opinions. Such as are the beauty and splendour of their Church; their pompous Service; the stateliness and solennity of the Hierarchy; their name of Catholick, which they suppose their own due, and to concern no other [Page] Sect of Christians; the antiquity of many of their Doctrines; the continuall Succession of their Bishops, their immediate derivation from the Apostles, their Title to succeed S. Peter; the supposall and pretence of his personal prerogatives; the advantages which the conjunction of the Imperial Seat with their Episcopal hath brought to that See; the flattering expressions of minor Bishops, which by being old Records have obtained credibility; the multitude and variety of people which are of their perswasion; apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected; and a pretended, and sometimes an apparent, consent with some elder Ages in many matters Doctrinal; the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personal Opinions of the Fathers, which they with infinite clamours see to be cried up to be a Doctrine of the Church of that time; the great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide; the great differences which are commenced amongst their Adversaries, abusing the liberty of Prophesying unto a very great licentiousness; their happiness of being instruments in converting divers Nations; the advantages of Monarchicall Government, the benefit of which as well as the inconveniences (which though they feel they consider not) they daily do enjoy; the piety and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women; the single life of their Priests and Bishops; the riches of their Church; the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances; the great reputation of their first Bishops for Faith and sanctity; the known holiness of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate; their Miracles false or true substantial or imaginary; the casualties and accidents that have happened to their Adversaries, which being chances of humanity are attributed to several causes, according as the fancies of men and their interests are pleased or satisfied; the temporal felicity of their Professors; the oblique arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them; and, amongs [...] many other things, the names of Heretick and Schismatick, which they with infinite pertinacy fasten upon all that disagree from them. These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason, and more piety, to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore fathers, which had actual possession and seisure of mens understandings before the opposite professions had a name: and so much the rather, because Religion hath more advantages upon the fancy and affections then it hath upon Philosophie and severe discourses, and therefore is the more easily perswaded upon such grounds as these, which are more apt to amuse then to satisfie the understanding.

3. Secondly, If we consider the Doctrines themselves, we shall find them to be superstructures ill built, and worse managed; but yet they keep the foundation, they build upon God in Jesus Christ, they profess the Apostles Creed, they retain Faith and repentance as the supporters of all our hopes of Heaven, and believe many more Truths then can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation. And therefore all the wisest personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of salvation, whilst their errours are not faults of their will, but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding. So that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted: The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures.

But then on the other side, if we take account of their Doctrines as they relate to good life, or are consistent or inconsistent with civil Government, we shall have other considerations.

4. Thirdly, For I consider that many of their Doctrines do accidentally teach or lead to ill life, and it will appear to any man that considers the result of these Propositions. Attrition (which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin; or, as others say, a sorrow for sin commenced upon any reason of a religious hope, or fear, or desire, or any thing else) is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of Penance to receive absolution, and be justified before God, by taking away the guilt of all his sins, and the obligation to eternall pains. So that already the fear of Hell is quite removed upon conditions so easie, that many men take more pains to get a groat, then by this Doctrine we are obliged to for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sins of a whole life of the most vicious person in the world. And but that they affright their people with a fear of Purgatory, or with the severity of Penances in case they will not venture for Purgatory, (for by their Doctrine they may chuse or refuse either) there would be nothing in their Doctrine or Discipline to impede and slacken their proclivity to sin. But then they have as easie a cure for that too, with a little more charge sometimes, but most commonly with less trouble: For there are so many Confraternities, so [Page] many priviledged Churches, Altars, Monasteries, Coemeteries, Offices, Festivals, and so free a concession of Indulgences appendant to all these, and a thousand fine devices to take away the fear of Purgatory, to commute or expiate Penances, that in no Sect of men do they with more ease and cheapness reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of Heaven then in the Roman Communion.

5. And indeed if men would consider things upon their true grounds, the Church of Rome should be more reproved upon Doctrines that infer ill life then upon such as are contrariant to Faith. For false superstructures do not always destroy Faith; but many of the Doctrines they teach, if they were prosecuted to the utmost issue, would destroy good life. And therefore my quarrell with the Church of Rome is greater and stronger upon such points which are not usually considered, then it is upon the ordinary disputes, which have to no very great purpose so much disturbed Christendom: and I am more scandalized at her for teaching the sufficiency of Attrition in the Sacrament, for indulging Penances so frequently, for remitting all Discipline, for making so great a part of Religion to consist in externalls and Ceremonials, for putting more force and energy and exacting with more severity the commandments of men then the precepts of Justice and internal Religion, lastly, besides many other things, for promising Heaven to persons after a wicked life upon their impertinent cries and Ceremonials transacted by the Priests and the dying person. I confesse I wish the zeal of Christendom were a little more active against these and the like Doctrines, and that men would write and live more earnestly against them then as yet they have done.

6. But then what influence this just zeal is to have upon the persons of the Professors is another consideration. For as the Pharisees did preach well, & lived ill, and therefore were to be heard, not imitated: so if these men live well, though they teach ill, they are to be imitated, not heard; their Doctrines by all means, Christian and humane, are to be discountenanced, but their persons tolerated eatenus; their Profession and Decrees to be rejected and condemned, but the persons to be permitted, because by their good lives they confute their Doctrines, that is, they give evidence that they think no evil to be consequent to such Opinions; and if they did, that they live good lives, is argument sufficient that they would themselves cast the first stone against their own Opinions, if they thought them guilty of such misdemeanours.

7. Fourthly, But if we consider their Doctrines in relation to Government and publick societies of men, then if they prove faulty, they are so much the more intolerable by how much the consequents are of greater danger and malice: Such Doctrines as these, The Pope may dispense with all oaths taken to God or man; he may absolve subjects from their allegeance to their natural Prince; Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks; Hereticall Princes may be slain by their subjects. These Propositions are so deprest, and do so immediately communicate with matter, and the interests of men, that they are of the same consideration with matters of fact, and are to be handled accordingly. To other Doctrines ill life may be consequent; but the connexion of the antecedent and the consequent is not (peradventure) perceived or acknowledged by him that believes the Opinion with no greater confidence then he disavows the effect and issue of it: but in these the ill effect is the direct profession & purpose of the Opinion, and therefore the man and the man's Opinion is to be dealt withall just as the matter of fact is to be judged; for it is an immediate, a perceived, a direct event, and the very purpose of the Opinion. Now these Opinions are a direct overthrow to all humane society and mutuall commerce, a destruction of Government, and of the Laws, and duty and subordination which we owe to Princes: and therefore those men of the Church of Rome that do hold them, and preach them, cannot pretend to the excuses of innocent Opinions, and hearty perswasion, to the weakness of humanity, and the difficulty of things; for God hath not left those Truths which are necessary for conservation of the publick societies of men so intricate and obscure, but that every one that is honest, and desirous to understand his duty, will certainly know that no Christian truth destroys a man's being sociable and a member of the Body politick, cooperating to the conservation of the whole as well as of itself. However, if it might happen that men should sincerely erre in such plain matters of fact, (for there are fools enough in the world) yet if he hold his peace, no man is to persecute or punish him; for then it is mere opinion, which comes not under politicall cognizance, that is, that cognizance which onely can punish corporally: but if he preaches it he is actually a Traitour, or Seditious, or authour of Perjury, or a destroyer of humane society, respectively to the nature of the Doctrine; and the preaching such Doctrines cannot claim the privilege and immunity of a mere Opinion, because it is as much matter of fact as any [Page] the actions of his disciples and confidents, and therefore in such cases is not to be permitted, but judged according to the nature of the effect it hath or may have upon the actions of men.

8. Fifthly, But lastly, in matters merely speculative the case is wholly altered, because the Body politick, which onely may lawfully use the Sword, is not a competent judge of such matters which have not direct influence upon the Body politick, or upon the lives and manners of men as they are parts of a Community: (Not but that Princes or Judges temporal may have as much ability as others, but by reason of the incompetency of the Authority.) And Gallio spoke wisely when he discoursed thus to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, Act. 18.14. reason would that I should hear you: But if it be a question of words and names, and of your Law, look ye to it, for I will be no judge of such matters. The man spoke excellent reason; for the cognizance of these things did appertain to men of the other Robe. But the Ecclesiastical power, which onely is competent to take notice of such questions, is not of capacity to use the temporal sword or corporal inflictions. The mere Doctrines and Opinions of men are things spiritual, and therefore not cognoscible by a temporal Authority: and the Ecclesiastical Authority, which is to take cognizance, is itself so spiritual, that it cannot inflict any punishment corporal.

9. And it is not enough to say that when the Magistrate restrains the preaching such Opinions, if any man preaches them he may be punished, (and then it is not for his Opinion but his disobedience that he is punished;) for the temporal power ought not to restrain Prophesyings where the publick peace and interest is not certainly concerned. And therefore it is not sufficient to excuse him, whose Law in that case, being by an incompetent power, made a scruple where there was no sin.

10. And under this consideration come very many Articles of the Church of Rome, which are wholly speculative, which do not derive upon practice, which begin in the understanding and rest there, and have no influence upon life and Government, but very accidentally, and by a great many removes; and therefore are to be considered onely so far as to guide men in their perswasions, but have no effect upon the persons of men, their bodies, or their temporal condition. I instance in two; Prayer for the dead, and the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; these two to be in stead of all the rest.

11. For the first, This discourse is to suppose it false, and we are to direct our proceedings accordingly: And therefore I shall not need to urge with how many fair words and gay pretences this Doctrine is set off, apt either to cozen or instruct the conscience of the wisest, according as it is true or false respectively. But we finde (says the Romanist) in the History of the Maccabees, that the Jews did pray and make offerings for the dead: (which also appears by other testimonies, and by their Form of prayers still extant which they used in the Captivity.) It is very considerable, that since our Blessed Saviour did reprove all the evil Doctrines and Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, and did argue concerning the dead and the Resurrection against the Sadducees, yet he spake no word against this publick practice, but left it as he found it; which he who came to declare to us all the will of his Father would not have done, if it had not been innocent, pious and full of charity. To which by way of consociation if we adde that Saint Paul did pray for Onesiphorus, 2 Tim. 1.18. that the Lord would she [...] him a mercy in that day, that is, according to the style of the New Testament, the day of Judgement; the result will be, that although it be probable that Onesiphorus at that time was dead, (because in his salutations he salutes his houshold, without naming him who was the Major domo, against his custom of salutations in other places,) yet besides this, the prayer was for such a blessing to him whose demonstration and reception could not be but after death: which implies clearly that then there is a need of mercy, and by consequence the dead people even to the day of Judgement inclusively are the subject of a misery, the object of God's mercy, and therefore fit to be commemorated in the duties of our piety and charity, and that we are to recommend their condition to God, not onely to give them more glory in the re-union, but to pity them to such purposes in which they need; which because they are not revealed to us in particular, it hinders us not in recommending the persons in particular to God's mercy, but should rather excite our charity and devotion. For it being certain that they have a need of mercy, and it being uncertain how great their need is, it may concern the prudence of charity to be the more earnest, as not knowing the greatness of their necessity.

[Page]12. And if there should be any uncertainty in these Arguments, yet its having been the universal practice of the Church of God in all places, and in all Ages till within these hundred years, is a very great inducement for any member of the Church to believe that in the first Traditions of Christianity and the Institutions Apostolical there was nothing delivered against this practice, but very much to insinuate or enjoyn it; because the practice of it was at the first, and was universal. And if any man shall doubt of this, he shews nothing but that he is ignorant of the Records of the Church;De corona milit. c. 3. & de monogam. c. 10. it being plain in Tertullian and Saint Ep. 66. Cyprian, (who were the eldest Writers of the Latine Church) that in their times it was ab antiquo the custom of the Church to pray for the Souls of the faithfull departed in the dreadfull mysteries. And it was an Institution Apostolical, (says one of them) and so transmitted to the following Ages of the Church; and when once it began upon slight grounds and discontent to be contested against by Aerius, the man was presently condemn'd for a Heretick, as appears in Epiphanius.

13. But I am not to consider the Arguments for the Doctrine itself, although the probability and fair pretence of them may help to excuse such persons who upon these or the like grounds do heartily believe it: but I am to consider that, whether it be true or false, there is no manner of malice in it, and at the worst it is but a wrong errour upon the right side of charity, and concluded against by its Adversaries upon the confidence of such Arguments which possibly are not so probable as the grounds pretended for it.

14. And if the same judgement might be made of any more of their Doctrines, I think it were better men were not furious in the condemning such Questions which either they understood not upon the grounds of their proper Arguments, or at least consider not as subjected in the persons, and lessened by circumstances, by the innocency of the event, or other prudential considerations.

15. But the other Article is harder to be judged of, and hath made greater stirs in Christendom, and hath been dasht at with more impetuous Objections, and such as do more trouble the Question of Toleration. For if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false, (as upon much evidence we believe it is) then it is accused of introducing Idolatry, giving Divine worship to a creature, adoring of bread and wine; and then comes in the precept of God to the Jews,Deut. 13. that those Prophets who perswaded to Idolatry should be slain.

16. But here we must deliberate, for it is concerning the lives of men; and yet a little deliberation may suffice. For Idolatry is a forsaking the true God, and giving Divine worship to a creature or to an Idol, that is, to an imaginary god, who hath no foundation in essence or existence; and is that kind of superstition which by Divines is called the superstition of an undue object. Now it is evident that the object of their adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts and purposes, and by which God principally, if not solely, takes estimate of humane actions) in the blessed Sacrament is the onely true and eternal God hypostatically joyned with his holy Humanity, which Humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacramental signs: And if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping the bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to doe so; which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatricall. If their confidence and fancy-full Opinion hath engaged them upon so great mistake, (as without doubt it hath) yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to Idolatry: Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas. And although they have done violence to all Philosophy and the reason of man, and undone and cancelled the principles of two or three Sciences, to bring in this Article; yet they have a Divine Revelation whose literal and grammatical sense, if that sense were intended, would warrant them to doe violence to all the Sciences in the Circle. And indeed that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against natural reason, is no Argument to make them disbelieve it, who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School (and which now-a-days pass for the Doctrine of the Church) with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation.

17. But for the Article itself; We all say that Christ is there present some way or other extraordinary: and it will not be amiss to worship him at that time, when he gives himself to us in so mysterious a manner, and with so great advantages, especially [Page] since the whole Office is a consociation of divers actions of Religion and worship. Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of Religion to communicate and to offer, a Divine worship is given to Christ, and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that Sacrament; and it is no more in the Church of Rome, but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence: which errour is wholly seated in the understanding, and does not communicate with the will. For all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of Divine adoration, and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever; and before they venture to pass an act of adoration, they believe the bread to be annihilated, or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped: and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime, which they formally hate, and we materially avoid. This consideration was concerning the Doctrine itself.

18. Secondly, And now for any danger to mens persons for suffering such a Doctrine, this I shall say, that if they who doe it are not formally guilty of Idolatry, there is no danger that they whom they perswade to it should be guilty. And what persons soever believe it to be Idolatry to worship the Sacrament, while that perswasion remains will never be brought to it, there is no fear of that; and he that perswades them to doe it, by altering their perswasions and beliefs does no hurt but altering the Opinions of the men, and abusing their understandings: but when they believe it to be no Idolatry, then their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will, that from thence onely it hath its being criminall.

19. Thirdly, However, if it were Idolatry, I think the precept of God to the Jews of killing false and idolatrous Prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to doe. For in the case of the Apostles and the men of Samaria, when James and John would have called for fire to destroy them, even as Elias did under Moses Law, Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own Spirit, and taught them a lesson of greater sweetness, and consigned this truth to all Ages of the Church, that such severity is not consistent with the meekness which Christ by his example and Sermons hath made a precept Evangelicall: At most it was but a judiciall Law, and no more of Argument to make it necessary to us then the Mosaicall precepts of putting Adulterers to death, and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousie.

20. And thus in these two Instances I have given account what is to be done in Toleration of diversity of Opinions. The result of which is principally this; Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Commonwealth be safe. For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a Question rather politicall then religious: for as for the concernments of Religion, these Instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular, and by one of these all particulars may be judged.

21. And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jews in a Commonwealth, whose interest is served by their inhabitation; and yet upon equal grounds of State and policy not to permit differing Sects of Christians. For although possibly there is more danger mens perswasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians; yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian, as if they be turned from Christian to Jew, or Moor, as many are daily in Spain and Portugall.

22. And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no power over them qui for [...]s sunt, as Jews are. For it is true, the Church in the capacity of spiritual regiments hath nothing to doe with them, because they are not her Diocese: yet the Prince hath to doe with them when they are subjects of his regiment. They may not be Excommunicate any more then a stone may be killed, because they are not of the Christian Communion: but they [...]re living persons, parts of the Commonwealth, infinitely deceived in their Religion, and very dangerous if they offer to perswade men to their Opinions, and are the greatest enemies of Christ, whose honour and the interest of whose service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintain. And when the question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death, the Church hath equally nothing to doe with them both, for she hath nothing to doe with the temporall sword; but the Prince, whose subjects equally Christians and Jews are, hath equal power over their persons; for a Christian is no more a Subject [Page] then a Jew is, the Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death: so that the Jew by being no Christian is not for [...]s, or any more an exempt person for his body or his life then the Christian is. And yet in all Churches where the Secular power hath temporal reason to tolerate the Jews, they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion. Which thing is of more consideration, because the Jews are direct Blasphemers of the Son of God, and Blasphemy by their own Law, the Law of Moses, is made capital; and might with greater reason be inflicted upon them, who acknowledge its obligation, then urged upon Christians, as an Authority enabling Princes to put them to death who are accused of accidental and consecutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively, which yet they hate and disavow with much zeal and heartiness of perswasion. And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the houshold of Faith: for at least they are children, though they be but rebellious children; (and if they were not, what hath the mother to doe with them any more then with the Jews?) they are in some relation or habitude of the family; for they are consigned with the same Baptism, profess the same Faith delivered by the Apostles, are erected in the same hope, and look for the same glory to be revealed to them at the coming of their common Lord and Saviour, to whose service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves. And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans, yet not worse. Have no company with them; that is the worst that is to be done to such a man in Saint Paul's judgement: Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

SECT. XXI. Of the Duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion.

1. FRom these Premisses we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulness or duty respectively of Christian Communion, which is differently to be considered in respect of particular Churches to each other, and of particular men to particular Churches. For as for particular Churches, they are bound to allow Communion to all those that profess the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion. For whatsoever preserves us as members of the Church gives us title to the Communion of Saints, and whatsoever Faith or belief that is to which God hath promised Heaven, that Faith makes us members of the Catholick Church. Since therefore the judicial Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God; to make the Way to Heaven streighter then God made it, or to deny to communicate with those with whom God will vouchsafe to be united, and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith, because they have not all our Opinions, and believe not every thing necessary which we overvalue, is impious and schismaticall; it infers tyranny on one part, and perswades and tempts to uncharitableness and animosities on both; it dissolves Societies, and is an enemy to peace; it busies men in impertinent wranglings; and by names of men and titles of factions it consigns the interessed parties to act their differences to the height, and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a good life bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and societies.

2. And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis, and indeed the whole Church, accounted the Donatists Hereticks upon this very ground,Cap. 11. Vid. Pacian. Epist. ad Sempron. 2. because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their perswasion: whereas the Authours of that Opinion for which they first did separate and make a Sect, because they did not break the Churche's peace, nor magisterially prescribed to others, were in that disagreeing and errour accounted Catholicks. Divisio enim & disunio facit vos haereticos, L. 2. c. 95. contra liter. [...]etilian. pax & unitas faciunt Catholicos, said Saint Augustin. And to this sense is that of Saint Paul, If I had all faith and had not charity, I am nothing. He who upon confidence of his true belief denies a charitable Communion to his brother loses the reward [Page] of both. And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the Asiaticks as Pope Anicetus and Saint Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter, Victor had not been [...], so bitterly reproved and condemned as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and Irenaeus. Concordia enim, quae est charitatis effectus, est unio voluntatum, Euseb. l. 5. c. 25, 26. Aquin. 2.2. q. 37. a. 1. non opinionum: True Faith, which leads to Charity, leads on to that which unites wills and affections, not Opinions.

3. Upon these or the like considerations the Emperour Zeno published his [...], in which he made the Nicene Creed to be the medium of Catholick Communion; and although he lived after the Council of Chalcedon, yet he made not the Decrees of that Council an instrument of its restraint and limit, as preferring the peace of Christendom and the union of charity far before a forced or pretended unity of perswasion, which never was nor ever will be real and substantial: and although it were very convenient if it could be had, yet it is therefore not necessary because it is impossible. And if men please, whatever advantages to the publick would be consequent to it may be supplied by a charitable compliance and mutuall permission of Opinion, and the offices of a brotherly affection prescribed us by the Laws of Christianity. And we have seen it, that all Sects of Christians, when they have an end to be served upon a third, have permitted that liberty to a second which we now contend for, and which they formerly denied, but now grant, that by joyning hands they might be the stronger to destroy the third. The Arians and Meletians joyned against the Catholicks; the Catholicks and Novatians joyned against the Arians. Now if men would doe that for charity which they doe for interest, it were handsomer and more ingenuous: For that they do permit each others disagreeings for their interests sake, convinceth them of the lawfulness of the thing, or else the unlawfulness of their own proceedings. And therefore it were better they would serve the ends of charity then of faction; for then that good end would hallow the proceeding, and make it both more prudent and more pious, while it serves the design of religious purposes.

SECT. XXII. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different Perswasions; and how far they may doe it.

1. AS for the duty of particular men in the Question of communicating with Churches of different perswasions, it is to be regulated according to the Laws of those Churches. For if they require no impiety or any thing unlawfull as the condition of their Communion, then they communicate with them as they are servants of Christ, as disciples of his Doctrine and subjects to his laws, and the particular distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect hath no influence or communication with him who from another Sect is willing to communicate with all the servants of their common Lord. For since no Church of one name is infallible, a wise man may have either the misfortune or a reason to believe of every one in particular, that she errs in some Article or other, either he cannot communicate with any, or else he may communicate with all that do not make a sin or the profession of an errour to be the condition of their Communion. And therefore as every particular Church is bound to tolerate disagreeing persons in the senses and for the reasons above explicated; so every particular person is bound to tolerate her, that is, not to refuse her Communion, when he may have it upon innocent conditions. For what is it to me if the Greek Church denies Procession of the third Person from the second, so she will give me the right hand of fellowship (though I affirm it) therefore because I profess the Religion of Jesus Christ, and retain all matters of Faith and necessity? But this thing will scarce be reduced to practice; for few Churches that have framed bodies of Confession and Articles will endure any person that is not of the same Confession: which is a plain demonstration that such bodies of Confession & Articles doe [Page] much hurt, by becoming instruments of separating and dividing Communions, and making unnecessary or uncertain propositions a certain means of Schism and disunion. But then men would doe well to consider whether or no such proceedings do not derive the guilt of Schism upon them who least think it, and whether of the two is the Schismatick, he that makes unnecessary and (supposing the state of things) inconvenient impositions, or he that disobeys them, because he cannot without doing violence to his Conscience believe them; he that parts Communion because without sin he could not entertain it, or they that have made it necessary for him to separate by requiring such conditions which to no man are simply necessary, and to his particular are either sinfull or impossible.

2. The Sum of all is this: There is no security in any thing or to any person but in the pious and hearty endeavours of a good life, and neither sin nor errour does impede it from producing its proportionate and intended effect; because it is a direct deletery to sin and an excuse to errours, by making them innocent, and therefore harmless. And indeed this is the intendment and design of Faith. For (that we may joyn both ends of this Discourse together) therefore certain Articles are prescribed to us, and propounded to our understanding, that so we might be supplied with instructions, with motives and engagements to encline and determine our wills to the obedience of Christ. So that Obedience is just so consequent to Faith, as the acts of will are to the dictates of the understanding. Faith therefore being in order to Obedience, and so far excellent as itself is a part of Obedience, or the promoter of it, or an engagement to it; it is evident that if Obedience and a good life be secured upon the most reasonable and proper grounds of Christianity, that is, upon the Apostles Creed, then Faith also is secured. Since whatsoever is beside the duties, the order of a good life, cannot be a part of Faith, because upon Faith a good life is built; all other Articles, by not being necessary, are no otherwise to be required but as they are to be obtained and found out, that is, morally, and fallibly, and humanely. It is fit all Truths be promoted fairly and properly, and yet but few Articles prescribed magisterially, nor framed into Symbols and bodies of Confession; least of all, after such composures, should men proceed so furiously as to say all disagreeing after such declarations to be damnable for the future, and capital for the present. But this very thing is reason enough to make men more limited in their prescriptions, because it is more charitable in such suppositions so to doe.

3. But in the thing itself, because few kinds of errours are damnable, it is reasonable as few should be capital. And because every thing that is damnable in itself and before God's Judgement-seat is not discernible before men, (and Questions disputable are of this condition) it is also very reasonable that fewer be capital then what are damnable, and that such Questions should be permitted to men to believe, because they must be left to God to judge. It concerns all persons to see that they doe their best to find out Truth; and if they do, it is certain that, let the errour be never so damnable, they shall escape the errour, or the misery of being damned for it. And if God will not be angry at men for being invincibly deceived, why should men be angry one at another? For he that is most displeased at another man's errour may also be tempted in his own will, and as much deceived in his understanding: For if he may fail in what he can chuse, he may also fail in what he cannot chuse: his understanding is no more secured then his will, nor his Faith more then his Obedience. It is his own fault if he offends God in either: but whatsoever is not to be avoided, as errours, which are incident oftentimes even to the best and most inquisitive of men, are not offences against God, and therefore not to be punished or restrained by men: but all such Opinions in which the publick interests of the Commonwealth, and the foundation of Faith and a good life, are not concerned, are to be permitted freely. Quisque abundet in sensu suo, was the Doctrine of S. Paul; and that is Argument and conclusion too: and they were excellent words which Saint Ambrose said in attestation of this great Truth, Nec Imperiale est, libertatem dicendi negare; nec Sacerdotale, quod sentias non dicere. I end with a Story which I find in the Jews Books. ‘When Abraham sate at his Tent-door, according to his custome, waiting to entertain strangers; he espied an old man stooping and leaning on his staff, weary with age and travell, coming towards him, who was an hundred years of age: he received him kindly, washed his feet, provided supper, caused him to sit down: but observing that the old man eat and prayed not, nor begged for a blessing on his meat, he asked him why he did not worship the God of Heaven. [Page] The old man told him that he worshipped the Fire onely, and acknowledged no other God. At which answer Abraham grew so zealously angry, that he thrust the old man out of his tent, and exposed him to all the evils of the night, and an unguarded condition. When the old man was gone, God called to Abraham and asked him where the stranger was. He replied, I thrust him away because he did not worship thee. God answered him, I have suffered him these hundred years, although he dishonoured me; and couldst not thou endure him one night, when he gave thee no trouble? Upon this, saith the story, Abraham fetcht him back again, and gave him hospitable entertainment and wise instruction.’ Go thou, and doe likewise, and thy charity will be rewarded by the God of Abraham.

[...].

THE END.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

ΧΡΙΣΙΣ ΤΕΛΕΙΩΤΙΧΗ.

A DISCOURSE OF CONFIRMATION.

ACTS 9.2.

[...];

ALSO A DISCOURSE OF The NATVRE, OFFICES and MEASVRES OF FRIENDSHIP.

WITH Rules of conducting it.

In a Letter to M. K. P.

To which are added, Two Letters to Persons changed in RELIGION.

ALSO Three Letters to a Gentleman that was tempted to the Communion of the ROMISH CHVRCH.

Dion. Orat. 1. de Regno.

[...].

By JER. TAYLOR, Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First, and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.

LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent Majesty, 1673.

To His Grace, JAMES DUKE OF ORMONDE, Lord Lieutenant General, And General Governour of His Majestie's Kingdom OF IRELAND, ONE OF THE Lords of His Majestie's most Honourable Privy Councils of His Majestie's Kingdoms OF England, Scotland and Ireland, &c. And Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter.

[Page]

[Page]

May it please your Grace,

IT is not any Confidence that I have dexterously performed this Charge, that gives me the boldness to present it to Your Grace. I have done it as well as I could; and for the rest, my Obedience will bear me out: For I took not this task upon my self, but was intreated to it by them who have power to Command me. But yet it is very necessary that it should be addressed to Your Grace, who are, as Sozomen said of Theodosius, Certaminum Magister, & orationum Judex constitutus: You are appointed the great Master of our arguings, and are most fit to be the Judge of our Discourses, especially when they do relate and pretend to publick Influence and Advantages to the Church. We all are witnesses of Your Zeal to promote true Religion, and every day find You to be a great Patron to this very poor Church, which groans under the Calamities and permanent Effects of a War acted by Intervals for above Four Hundred years; such which the intermedial Sun-shines of Peace could but very weakly [Page] repair. Our Churches are still demolished, much of the Revenues irrecoverably swallowed by Sacriledge, and digested by an unavoidable impunity; Religion infinitely divided, and parted into formidable Sects; the People extremely Ignorant, and Wilful by inheritance; superstitiously Irreligious, and uncapable of Reproof. And amidst these and very many more inconveniences, it was greatly necessary that God should send us such a KING, and he send us such a Vice-Roy, who weds the Interests of Religion, and joyns them to his heart.

For we do not look upon Your Grace only as a Favourer of the Churche's Temporal Interest, though even for that the Souls of the relieved Clergie do daily bless You: neither are You our Patron only as the Cretans were to Homer, or the Alenadae to Simonides, Philip to Theopompus, or Severus to Oppianus; but as Constantine and Theodosius were to Christians; that is, desirous that true Religion should be promoted, that the Interest of Souls should be advanced, that Truth should flourish, and wise Principles should be entertain'd, as the best Cure against those Evils which this Nation hath too often brought upon themselves. In order to which excellent purposes it is hoped, that the reduction of the Holy Rite of Confirmation into use and Holy practice may contribute some very great moments. For besides that the great Vsefulness of this Ministery will greatly endear the Episcopal Order, to which (that I may use S. Hierom's words) if there be not attributed a more than common Power and Authority, there will be as many Schisms as Priests; it will also be a means of endearing the Persons of the Prelates to their Flocks, when the People shall be convinced that there is, or may be, if they please, a perpetual entercourse of Blessings and Love between them; when God by their Holy hands refuses not to give to the People the earnest of an eternal inheritance, when by them he blesses; and that the grace of our Lord Jesus, and the Love of God, and the Communication of his Spirit, is conveyed to all persons capable of the Grace, by the Conduct, and on the hands and Prayers of their Bishops.

And indeed not only very many single Persons, but even the whole Church of Ireland hath need of Confirmation. We have most of us contended for false Religions and un-Christian Propositions: and now that by God's Mercy and the Prosperity and Piety of his Sacred Majesty the Church is broken from her Cloud, and many are reduc'd to the true Religion and righteous worship of [Page] God, we cannot but call to mind, how the Holy Fathers of the Primitive Church often have declar'd themselves in Councils, and by a perpetual Discipline, that such persons who are return'd from Sects and Heresies into the Bosom of the Church should not be re-baptiz'd, but that the Bishops should Impose hands on them in Confirmation. It is true, that this was design'd to supply the defect of those Schismatical Conventicles, who did not use this Holy Rite: For this Rite of Confirmation hath had the fate to be oppos'd only by the Schismatical and Puritan Parties of old, the Novatians or Cathari, and the Donatists; and of late by the Jesuits, and new Cathari, the Puritans and Presbyterians; the same evil Spirit of Contradiction keeping its course in the same chanel▪ and descending regularly amongst men of the same Principles. But therefore in the restitution of a man, or company of men, or a Church, the Holy Primitives, in the Council of C P. Laodicea and Orange, thought that to Confirm such persons was the most agreeable Discipline; not only because such persons did not in their little and dark Assemblies use this Rite, but because they always greatly wanted it. For it is a sure Rule in our Religion, and is of an eternal truth, that they who keep not the Unity of the Church, have not the Spirit of God; and therefore it is most fit should receive the ministery of the Spirit, when they return to the bosom of the Church, that so indeed they may keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace. And therefore Asterius Bishop of Amasia compares Confirmation to the Ring with which the Father of the Prodigal adorn'd his returning Son; Datur nempe prodigo post stolam & annulus, nempe Symbolum intelligibilis signaculi Spiritûs. And as the Spirit of God, the Holy Dove, extended his mighty wings over the Creation, and hatch'd the new-born World, from its seminal powers, to Light and Operation, and Life and Motion; so in the Regeneration of the Souls of Men, he gives a new Being, and Heat and Life, Procedure and Perfection, Wisdom and Strength: and because that this was ministred by the Bishops hands in Confirmation, was so firmly believ'd by all the Primitive Church, therefore it became a Law, and an Vniversal practice in all those Ages, in which men desir'd to be sav'd by all means. The Latin Church and the Greek always did use it, and the Blessings of it, which they believ'd consequent to it, they expressed in a holy Prayer, which in the Greek Euchologion they have very anciently and [Page] constantly used. [...]. Thou, O Lord, the most compassionate and great King of all, graciously impart to this person the seal of the gift of thy Holy, Almighty, and adorable Spirit. For, as an ancient Greek said truly and wisely, [...]. The Father is reconcil'd, and the Son is the Reconciler; but to them who are by Baptism and Repentance made friends of God, the Holy Spirit is collated as a gift. They well knew what they received in this Ministration, and therefore wisely laid hold of it, and would not let it go.

This was anciently ministred by Apostles, and ever after by the Bishops, and religiously receiv'd by Kings and greatest Princes; and I have read that S. Sylvester confirm'd Constantine the Emperor: and when they made their children servants of the Holy Jesus, and Souldiers under his banner, and Bonds-men of his Institution, then they sent them to the Bishop to be Confirm'd; who did it sometimes by such Ceremonies, that the solemnity of the Ministery might with greatest Religion addict them to the service of their Great Lord. We read in Adrovaldus, that Charles Martel, entring into a League with Bishop Luitprandus, De Miraculis S. Benedict. l. 1. c. 1.14. sent his Son Pepin to him, ut, more Christianorum fidelium, capillum ejus primus attonderet, ac Pater illi Spiritualis existeret, that he might, after the manner of Christians, first cut his hair, (in token of service to Christ) and [in confirming him] he should be his Spiritual Father. And something like this we find concerning William Earl of Warren and Surrey, who when he had Dedicated the Church of S. Pancratius and the Priory of Lewes, receiv'd Confirmation, and gave seizure per capillos capitis mei (says he in the Charter) & fratris mei Radulphi de Warrena, quos abscidit cum cultello de capitibus nostris Henricus Episcopus Wintoniensis; by the hairs of my head and of my Brother's, which Henry Bishop of Winchester cut off before the Altar: meaning (according to the ancient Custom) in Confirmation, when they by that Solemnity addicted themselves to the free Servitude of the Lord Jesus. The Ceremony is obsolete and chang'd, but the Mystery can never. And indeed that is one of the advantages in which we can rejoyce concerning the ministration of this Rite in the Church of England and Ireland; That whereas it was sometimes clouded, sometimes hindred, and sometimes hurt, by the appendage of needless and useless Ceremonies; it is now reduc'd to the Primitive and first Simplicity amongst us, and the excrescencies us'd in the [Page] Church of Rome are wholly par'd away, and by holy Prayers and the Apostolical Ceremony of Imposition of the Bishops hands it is worthily and zealously administred. The Latins us'd to send Chrism to the Greeks, when they had usurped some jurisdiction over them, and the Pope's Chaplains went with a quantity of it to CP. where the Russians usually met them for it; for that was then the Ceremony of this Ministration: But when the Latins demanded fourscore pounds of Gold besides other gifts, they went away, and chang'd their Custom, rather than pay an unlawful and ungodly Tribute. Non quaerimus vestra, sed vos; We require nothing but leave to impart God's blessings with pure Intentions and a Spiritual Ministery. And as the Bishops of our Churches receive nothing from the People for the Ministration of this Rite, so they desire nothing but Love and just Obedience in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical duties; and we offer our Flocks Spiritual things without mixture of Temporal advantages from them; we minister the Rituals of the Gospel without the Inventions of Men, Religion without Superstition, and only desire to be believ'd in such things, which we prove from Scripture expounded by the Catholick Practice of the Church of God.

Concerning the Subject of this Discourse, the Rite of Confirmation, it were easie to recount many great and glorious expressions which we find in the Sermons of the Holy Fathers of the Primitive Ages: so certain it is, that in this thing we ought to be zealous, as being desirous to perswade our People to give us leave to do them great good. But the following Pages will do it, I hope, competently: only we shall remark, that when they had gotten a custom anciently, that in cases of necessity they did permit Deacons and Lay-men sometimes to Baptize, yet they never did confide in it much; but with much caution and curiosity commanded that such persons should, when that Necessity was over, be carried to the Bishop to be Confirm'd, so to supply all precedent defects relating to the past imperfect ministery, and future necessity and danger; as appears in the Council of Eliberis. And the Ancients had so great estimate and veneration to this Holy Rite, that as in Heraldry they distinguish the same thing by several names, when they relate to Persons of greater Eminency, and they blazon the Arms of the Gentry by Metals, of the Nobility by precious Stones, but of Kings and Princes by Planets: so when they would signifie the Vnction which was us'd in Confirmation, they gave it a special word, [Page] and of more distinction and remark; and therefore the Oil us'd in Baptism they call'd [...], but that of Confirmation was [...] ▪ and they who spake properly kept this difference of words, until by incaution and ignorant carelesness the names fell into confusion, and the thing into disuse and dis-respect. But it is no small addition to the Honour of this Ministration, that some wise and good men have piously believed, that when Baptiz'd Christians are Confirm'd, and solemnly bless'd by the Bishop, that then it is that a special Angel-Guardian is appointed to keep their Souls from the assaults of the Spirits of darkness. Concerning which, though I shall not interpose mine own opinion, yet this I say, that the Piety of that supposition is not disagreeable to the intention of this Rite: for since by this the Holy Spirit of God (the Father of Spirits) is given, it is not unreasonably thought by them, that the other good Spirits of God, the Angels who are ministring Spirits, sent forth to minister to the good of them that shall be Heirs of Salvation, should pay their kind offices in subordination to their Prince and Fountain; that the first in every kind might be the measure of all the rest. But there are greater and stranger things than this that God does for the Souls of his Servants, and for the honour of the Ministeries which himself hath appointed.

We shall only add that this was ancient, and long before Popery entred into the World, and that this Rite hath been more abus'd by Popery than by any thing: and to this day the Bigots of the Roman Church are the greatest Enemies to it; and from them the Presbyterians. But besides that the Church of England and Ireland does religiously retain it, and hath appointed a solemn Officer for the Ministery; the Lutheran and Bohemian Churches do observe it carefully, and it is recommended and establish'd in the Harmony of the Protestant Confessions.

And now, may it please Your Grace to give me leave to implore Your Aid and Countenance for the propagating this so religious and useful a Ministery, which, as it is a peculiar of the Bishop's Office, is also a great enlarger of God's Gifts to the People. It is a great instrument of Vnion of hearts, and will prove an effective Deletery to Schism, and an endearment to the other parts of Religion: it is the consummation of Baptism, and a preparation to the Lord's Supper: it is the Vertue from on high, and the solemnity of our Spiritual Adoption. But there will be no need to use many arguments to enflame your Zeal in this affair, when Your Grace shall find, that [Page] to promote it will be a great Service to God; for this alone will conclude Your Grace, who are so ready, by Laws and Executions, by word and by Example, to promote the Religion of Christ, as it is taught in these Churches. I am not confident enough to desire Your Grace, for the reading this Discourse, to lay aside any one hour of Your greater Employments, which consume so much of Your Days and Nights: But I say that the Subject is greatly worthy of consideration. Nihil enim inter manus habui, cui majorem sollicitudinem praestare deberem. And for the Book it self, I can only say what Secundus did to the wise Lupercus, Quoties ad fastidium legentium deliciásque respicio, intelligo nobis commendationem ex ipsa mediocritate libri petendam: I can commend it because it is little, and so not very troublesome. And if it could have been written according to the worthiness of the Thing treated in it, it would deserve so great a Patronage: but because it is not, it will therefore greatly need it; but it can hope for it on no other account, but because it is laid at the feet of a Princely Person, who is Great and Good, and one who not only is bound by Duty, but by Choice hath obliged Himself to do advantages to any worthy Instrument of Religion. But I have detain'd Your Grace so long in my Address, that Your Pardon will be all the Favour which ought to be hop'd for by

Your Grace's most Humble and Obliged Servant, Jer. Dunensis.

A DISCOURSE OF CONFIRMATION.
THE INTRODVCTION.

[Page]

[Page]

NEXT to the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the whole Oeconomy of our Redemption wrought by him in an admirable order and Conjugation of glorious Mercies, the greatest thing that ever God did to the World, is the giving to us the Holy Ghost: and possibly this is the Consummation and Perfection of the other. For in the work of Redemption Christ indeed made a new World; we are wholly a new Creation, and we must be so: and therefore when S. John began the Narrative of the Gospel, he began in a manner and style very like to Moses in his History of the first Creation; In the beginning was the Word, &c. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. But as in the Creation the Matter was first: there were indeed Heavens, and Earth, and Waters; but all this was rude and without form, till the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters: So it is in the new Creation. We are a new Mass, redeem'd with the bloud of Christ, rescued from an evil portion, and made Candidates of Heaven and Immortality; but we are but an Embryo in the regeneration, until the Spirit of God enlivens us and moves again upon the waters: and then every subsequent motion and operation is from the Spirit of God. We cannot say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. By him we live, in him we walk, by his aids we pray, by his emotions we desire: we breath, and sigh, and groan by him: he helps us in all our infirmities, and he gives us all our strengths; he reveals mysteries to us, and teaches us all our duties; he stirs us up to holy desires, and he actuates those desires; he makes us to will and to do of his good pleasure.

For the Spirit of God is that in our Spiritual life that a Man's Soul is in his Natural: without it we are but a dead and liveless trunk. But then, as a Man's Soul in proportion to the several Operations of Life obtains several appellatives; it is Vegetative, and Nutritive, Sensitive, and Intellective, according as it operates: So is the Spirit of God. He is the Spirit of Regeneration in Baptism, of Renovation in Repentance; the Spirit of Love, and the Spirit of holy Fear; the Searcher of the hearts, and the Spirit of Discerning; the Spirit of Wisdom, and the Spirit of Prayer. In one mystery he illuminates, and in another he feeds us: he begins in one, and finishes and perfects in another. It is the same Spirit working divers Operations. For he is all this now reckoned, and he is every thing else that is the Principle of Good unto us; he is the Beginning, and the Progression, the Consummation and Perfection of us all: and yet every work of his is perfect in its kind, and in order to his own designation; and from the beginning to the end is Perfection all the way. Justifying and Sanctifying Grace is the proper entitative Product in all; but it hath divers appellatives and connotations in the several rites: and yet even then also, because of the identity of the Principle, the similitude and general consonancy in the Effect, the same appellative is given, and the same effect imputed to more than one; and yet none of them can be [Page] omitted, when the great Master of the Family hath blessed it, and given it institution. Thus S. Dionys calls Baptism [...], the perfection of the Divine birth; and yet the baptized person must receive other mysteries which are more signally perfective: [...] ▪ Confirmation is yet more perfective, and is properly the perfection of Baptism.

By Baptism we are Heirs, and are adopted to the inheritance of Sons, admitted to the Covenant of Repentance, and engag'd to live a good Life; yet this is but the solemnity of the Covenant, which must pass into after-acts by other influences of the same Divine principle. Until we receive the spirit of Obsignation or Confirmation, we are but babes in Christ in the meanest sence, Infants that can do nothing, that cannot speak, that cannot resist any violence, expos'd to every rudeness, and perishing by every Temptation.

But therefore as God at first appointed us a ministery of a new birth; so also hath he given to his Church the consequent Ministery of a new strength. The Spirit mov'd a little upon the waters of Baptism, and gave us the Principles of Life; but in Confirmation he makes us able to move our selves. In the first he is the Spirit of Life; but in this he is the Spirit of Strength and Motion. Baptisma est nativitas, Vnguentum verò est nobis actionis instar & motûs, said Cabasilas. In Baptism we are intitled to the inheritance: but because we are in our Infancy and minority, the Father gives unto his Sons a Tutor, De Divin. Offic. l. 5. c. 17. a Guardian and a Teacher in Confirmation, said Rupertus: that as we are baptized into the Death and Resurrection of Christ; so in Confirmation we may be renewed in the Inner man, and strengthned in all our Holy vows and purposes, by the Holy Ghost ministred according to God's Ordinance.

The Holy Rite of Confirmation is a Divine Ordinance, and it produces Divine Effects, and is ministred by Divine Persons, that is, by those whom God hath sanctified and separated to this ministration. At first, all that were baptiz'd were also confirm'd: and ever since, all good people that have understood it have been very zealous for it; and time was in England, even since the first beginnings of the Reformation, when Confirmation had been less carefully ministred for about six years, when the people had their first opportunities of it restor'd, they ran to it in so great numbers, that Churches and Church-yards would not hold them; insomuch that I have read Vindic. Ecclesiast. Hierarch. per Franc. Hal [...]er. that the Bishop of Chester was forc'd to impose hands on the people in the Fields, and was so oppressed with multitudes, that he had almost been trode to death by the people, and had died with the throng, if he had not been rescued by the Civil Power.

But men have too much neglected all the ministeries of Grace, and this most especially, and have not given themselves to a right understanding of it, and so neglected it yet more. But because the prejudice which these parts of the Christian Church have suffered for want of it is very great, (as will appear by enumeration of the many and great Blessings consequent to it) I am not without hope that it may be a service acceptable to God, and an useful ministery to the Souls of my Charges, if by instructing them that know not, and exhorting them that know, I set forward the practice of this Holy Rite, and give reasons why the people ought to love it and to desire it, and how they are to understand and practise it, and consequently, with what dutious affections they are to relate to those persons whom God hath in so special and signal manner made to be, for their good and eternal benefit, the Ministers of the Spirit and Salvation.

S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachias, my Predecessor in the See of Down and Connor, reports that it was the care of that good Prelate to renew the rite of Confirmation in his Diocese, where it had been long neglected and gone into desuetude. It being too much our case in Ireland, I find the same necessity, and am oblig'd to the same procedure, for the same reason, and in pursuance of so excellent an example: Hoc enim est Evangelizare Christum, Cap. 9. De fide & operibus. (said S. Austin) non tantùm docere quae sunt dicenda de Christo, sed etiam quae observanda ei qui accedit ad compagem corporis Christi; For this is to preach the Gospel, not only to teach those things which are to be said of Christ, but those also which are to be observed by every one who desires to be confederated into the Society of the Body of Christ, which is his Church: that is, not only the doctrines of good Life, but the Mysteries of Godliness, and the Rituals of Religion, which issue from a Divine fountain, are to be declar'd by him who would fully preach the Gospel.

In order to which performance I shall declare,

1. The Divine Original, Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation.

[Page]2. That this Rite was to be a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministration.

3. That it was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Churches.

4. That this Rite was appropriate to the Ministery of Bishops.

5. That Prayer and Imposition of the Bishop's hands did make the whole Ritual; and though other things were added, yet they were not necessary, or any thing of the Institution.

6. That many great Graces and Blessings were consequent to the worthy reception and due ministration of it.

7. I shall add something of the manner of Preparation to it, and Reception of it.

SECT. I. Of the Divine Original, Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation.

IN the Church of Rome they have determin'd Confirmation to be a Sacrament proprii nominis, properly and really; and yet their Doctors have, some of them at least, been paulò iniquiores, a little unequal and unjust to their proposition, insomuch that from themselves we have had the greatest opposition in this Article.De Sacram. disp. 3. q. uni [...]. punct. 3.2. Lib. 3. De sacram. Bonacina and Henriquez allow the proposition, but make the Sacrament to be so unnecessary, that a little excuse may justifie the omission and almost neglect of it. And Loemelius and Daniel à Jesu, and generally the English Jesuits have, to serve some ends of their own Family and Order, disputed it almost into contempt, that by representing it as unnecessary, they might do all the ministeries Ecclesiastical in England without the assistance of Bishops their Superiors, whom they therefore love not, because they are so. But the Theological Faculty of Paris have condemn'd their Doctrine as temerarious and savouring of Heresie; and in the later Schools have approv'd rather the Doctrine of Gamachaeus, Estius, Kellison, and Bellarmine, who indeed do follow the Doctrine of the most Eminent persons in the Ancient School, Richard of Armagh, Scotus, Hugo Cavalli, and Gerson the Learned Chancellor of Paris, who following the Old Roman order, Amalarius and Albinus, do all teach Confirmation to be of great and pious Use, of Divine Original, and to many purposes necessary, according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church.

Whether Confirmation be a Sacrament of no, is of no use to dispute; and if it be disputed, it can never be prov'd to be so as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, that is, as generally necessary to Salvation: but though it be no Sacrament, it cannot follow that it is not of very great Use and holiness: and as a Man is never the less tied to Repentance, though it be no Sacrament; so neither is he ever the less oblig'd to receive Confirmation, though it be (as it ought) acknowledg'd to be of an Use and Nature inferior to the two Sacraments of Divine, direct and immediate institution. It is certain that the Fathers in a large Symbolical and general sence call it a Sacrament; but mean not the same thing by that word when they apply it to Confirmation, as they do when they apply it to Baptism and the Lord's Supper. That it is an excellent and Divine Ordinance to purposes Spiritual, that it comes from God and ministers in our way to God, that is all we are concern'd to inquire after: and this I shall endeavour to prove not only against the Jesuits, but against all Opponents of what side soever.

My First Argument from Scripture is what I learn from Optatus and S. Cyril. Optatus writing against the Donatists hath these words: Christ descended into the water, not that in him, who is God, was any thing that could be made cleaner, but that the water was to precede the future Vnction, for the initiating and ordaining and fulfilling the mysteries of Baptism. He was wash'd, when he was in the hands of John; then followed the order of the mystery, and the Father finish'd what the Son did ask, [Page]and what the Holy Ghost declar'd: The Heavens were open'd, God the Father anointed him, the Spiritual Vnction presently descended in the likeness of a Dove, and sate upon his head, and was spred all over him, and he was called the Christ, when he was the anointed of the Father. To whom also, lest Imposition of hands should seem to be wanting, the voice of God was heard from the cloud, saying, This is my Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him. That which Optatus says is this; that upon and in Christ's person, Baptism, Confirmation and Ordination were consecrated and first appointed. He was Baptized by S. John; he was Confirm'd by the Holy Spirit, and anointed with Spiritual Unction in order to that great work of obedience to his Father's will; and he was Consecrated by the voice of God from Heaven. In all things Christ is the Head, and the First-fruits: and in these things was the Fountain of the Sacraments and Spiritual Grace, and the great Exemplar of the Oeconomy of the Church. For Christ was nullius poenitentiae debitor: Baptism of Repentance was not necessary to him, who never sinn'd; but so it became him to fulfil all righteousness, and to be a pattern to us all, But we have need of these things, though he had not; and in the same way in which Salvation was wrought by him for himself and for us all, in the same way he intended 1 John 2.8. we should walk. He was Baptized because his Father appointed it so: we must be baptized because Christ hath appointed it, and we have need of it too. He was Consecrated to be the great Prophet and the great Priest, because no man takes on him this honour, but he that was called of God, as was Aaron: and all they who are to minister in his Prophetical office under him must be consecrated and solemnly set apart for that ministration, and after his glorious example. He was Anointed with a Spiritual Unction from above after his Baptism; for after Jesus was baptized, he ascended up from the waters, and then the Holy Ghost descended upon him. It is true, he receiv'd the Fulness of the Spirit; but we receive him by measure; but of his fulness we all receive, grace for grace: that is, all that he receiv'd in order to his great work, all that in kind, one for another, Grace for Grace, we are to receive according to our measures and our necessities. And as all these he receiv'd by external ministrations; so must we: God the Father appointed his way, and he, by his Example first, hath appointed the same to us; that we also may follow him in the regeneration, and work out our Salvation by the same Graces in the like solemnities. For if he needed them for himself, then we need them much more. If he did not need them for himself, he needed them for us, and for our Example, that we might follow his steps, who by receiving these exterior solemnities and inward Graces became the Author and finisher of our Salvation, and the great Example of his Church. I shall not need to make use of the fancy of the Murcosians and Colabarsians, who turning all Mysteries into Numbers, reckoned the numeral letters of [...], and made them coincident to the α and ω· but they intended to say, that Christ receiving the Holy Dove after his Baptism became all in all to us, the beginning and the perfection of our Salvation; here he was confirm'd, and receiv'd the ω to his α, the Consummation to his Initiation, the completion of his Baptism and of his Headship in the Gospel. But that which I shall rather add is what S. Cyril from hence argues.Catech [...]s. 3. [...]. When he truly was baptized in the River of Jordan, he ascended out of the waters, and the Holy Ghost substantially descended upon him, like resting upon like. And to you also in like manner, after ye have ascended from the waters of Baptism, the Vnction is given, which bears the image or similitude of him by whom Christ was anointed — that as Christ after Baptism and the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him went forth to battel (in the Wilderness) and overcame the adversary; so ye also, after Holy Baptism and the mystical Vnction (or Confirmation,) being vested with the Armour of the Holy Spirit, are enabled to stand against the opposite Powers. Here then is the first great ground of our solemn receiving the Holy Spirit, or the Unction from above after Baptism, which we understand and represent by the word Confirmation, denoting the principal effect of this Unction, Spiritual Strength. Christ, who is the Head of the Church, entred this way upon his duty and work: and he who was the first of all the Church, the Head and great Example, is the measure of all the rest; for we can go to Heaven no way but in that way in which he went before us.

There are some who from this Story would infer the descent of the Holy Ghost after Christ's Baptism not to signifie that Confirmation was to be a distinct Rite from Baptism, but a part of it, yet such a part as gives fulness and Consummation to it. S. Hierom, Chrysostom, Euthymius and Theophylact go not so far, but would have us by this to understand that the Holy Ghost is given to them that are baptized. [Page] But Reason and the Context are both against it. 1. Because the Holy Ghost was not given by John's Baptism; that was reserv'd to be one of Christ's glories; who also, when by his Disciples he baptiz'd many, did not give them the Holy Ghost; and when he commanded his Apostles to baptize all Nations, did not at that time so much as promise the Holy Ghost: he was promis'd distinctly, and given by another Ministration. 2. The descent of the Holy Spirit was a distinct ministery from the Baptism: it was not only after Jesus ascended from the waters of Baptism; but there was something intervening, and by a new office or ministration: For there was Prayer joyn'd in the ministery. So S. Luke observes; while Jesus was praying, the Heavens were open'd, and the Holy Spirit descended: for so Jesus was pleas'd to consign the whole Office and Ritual of Confirmation. Prayer for invocating the Holy Spirit, and giving him by personal application; which as the Father did immediately, so the Bishops do by Imposition of hands. 3. S. Austin observes that the apparition of the Holy Spirit like a Dove was the visible or ritual part; and the voice of God was the word to make it to be Sacramental; accedit verbum ad elementum, & [...]it Sacramentum: Tract. 80. in Joan. for so the ministration was not only perform'd on Christ, but consign [...]d to the Church by similitude and exemplar institution. I shall only add▪ that the force of this Argument is established to us by more of the Fathers. S. Hilary upon this place hath these words: The Fathers voice was heard, that from those things which were consummated in Christ, S. Hilar. can. 4. in [...]ine. we might know that after the Baptism of water the Holy Spirit from the gates of Heaven flies unto us; and that we are to be anointed with the Vnction of a celestial glory, and be made the Sons of God by the adoption of the voice of God, the Truth by the very effects of things prefigur'd unto us the similitude of a Sacrament. So S. Chrysostom: In the beginnings always appears the sensible visions of Spiritual things for their sakes who cannot receive the understanding of an incorporeal nature; In [...]. that if afterwards they be not so done (that is, after the same visible manner) they may be believ'd by those things which were already done. But more plain is that of Theophylact: Ibid. The Lord had not need of the descent of the Holy Spirit, but he did all things for our sakes; and himself is become the First-fruits of all things which we afterwards were to receive, that he might become the first-fruits among many Brethren. The consequent is this, which I express in the words of S. Austin, affirming, Christi in Baptismo columbam unctionem nostram praefigurâsse, The Dove in Christ's Baptism did represent and prefigure our Unction from above, that is, the descent of the Holy Ghost upon us in the rite of Confirmation. Christ was baptized, and so must we. But after Baptism he had a new ministration for the reception of the Holy Ghost: and because this was done for our sakes, we also must follow that example. And this being done immediately before his entrance into the Wilderness to be tempted of the Devil, it plainly describes to us the Order of this ministery, and the Blessing design'd to us: After we are baptiz'd, we need to be strengthned and confirm'd propter pugnam spiritualem; we are to fight against the Flesh, the World and the Devil, and therefore must receive the ministration of the Holy Spirit of God: which is the design and proper work of Confirmation. For (they are the words of the Excellent Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew, imputed to S. Chrysostom) The Baptism of Water profits us, because it washes away the sins we have formerly committed, if we repent of them. Homil. 4. But it does not sanctifie the Soul, nor precedes the Concupiscences of the Heart and our evil thoughts, nor drives them back, nor represses our carnal desires. But he therefore who is (only) so baptized, that he does not also receive the Holy Spirit, is baptized in his Body, and his sins are pardon'd; but in his Mind he is yet but a Catechumen: for so it is written, He that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his: and therefore afterward out of his flesh will germinate worse sins, because he hath not receiv'd the Holy Spirit conserving him (in his Baptismal Grace,) but the house of his Body is empty; wherefore that wicked spirit finding it swept with the Doctrines of Faith, as with besoms, enters in, and in a sevenfold manner dwells there. Which words, besides that they well explicate this mystery, do also declare the necessity of Confirmation, or receiving the Holy Ghost after Baptism, in imitation of the Divine precedent of our Blessed Saviour.

2. After the Example of Christ, my next Argument is from his Words spoken to Nicodemus in explication of the prime mysteries Evangelical; Vnless a man be born of Water and of the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God. John 3.5. These words are the great Argument which the Church uses for the indispensable necessity [Page] of Baptism; and having in them so great effort, and not being rightly understood, they have suffered many Convulsions (shall I call them?) or Interpretations. Some serve their own Hypothesis by saying that Water is the Symbol, and the Spirit is the Baptismal Grace: Others, that it is a [...], one is only meant, though here be two Signatures. But others conclude, that Water is only necessary, but the Spirit is super-added as being afterwards to supervene and move upon these Waters: And others yet affirm, that by Water is only meant a Spiritual Ablution, or the effect produced by the Spirit; and still they have intangled the words so that they have been made useless to the Christian Church, and the meaning too many things makes nothing to be understood. But Truth is easie, intelligible and clear, and without objection, and is plainly this:

Unless a man be Baptized into Christ, and Confirmed by the Spirit of Christ, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Christ; that is, he is not perfectly adopted into the Christian Religion, or fitted for the Christian Warfare. And if this plain and natural sence be admitted, the place is not only easie and intelligible, but consonant to the whole Design of Christ and Analogy of the New Testament.

For, first, Our blessed Saviour was Catechizing of Nicodemus, and teaching him the first Rudiments of the Gospel, and like a wise Master-builder, first lays the foundation, The Doctrine of Baptism and laying on of Hands; which afterwards S. Paul put into the Christian Catechism, as I shall shew in the sequel. Now these also are the first Principles of the Christian Religion taught by Christ himself, and things which at least to the Doctors might have been so well known, that our Blessed Saviour upbraids the not knowing them as a shame to Nicodemus. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact, Euthymius and Rupertus affirm, that this Generation by Water and the Holy Spirit might have been understood by the Old Testament, in which Nicodemus was so well skilled. Certain it is, the Doctrine of Baptisms was well enough known to the Jews, and the [...], the illumination and irradiations of the Spirit of God was not new to them, who believed the Visions and Dreams, the Daughter of a Voice, and the influences from Heaven upon the Sons of the Prophets: and therefore although Christ intended to teach him more than what he had distinct notice of, yet the things themselves had foundation in the Law and the Prophets: but although they were high Mysteries, and scarce discerned by them who either were ignorant or incurious of such things; yet to the Christians they were the very Rudiments of their Religion, and are best expounded by observation of what S. Paul placed in the very foundation. But,

2. Baptism is the first Mystery, that is certain; but that this of being born of the Spirit is also the next, is plain in the very order of the words: and that it does mean a Mystery distinct from Baptism, will be easily assented to by them who consider, that although Christ Baptized and made many Disciples by the Ministery of his Apostles, yet they who were so baptized into Christ's Religion did not receive this Baptism of the Spirit till after Christ's Ascension.

3. The Baptism of Water was not peculiar to John the Baptist, for it was also of Christ, and ministred by his command; it was common to both; and therefore the Baptism of Water is the less principal here. Something distinct from it is here intended. Now if we add to these words, That S. John tells of another Baptism which was Christ's peculiar, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire; That these words were literally verified upon the Apostles in Pentecost, and afterwards upon all the Baptized in Spiritual effect, (who, besides the Baptism of Water, distinctly had the Baptism of the Spirit in Confirmation:) it will follow that of necessity this must be the meaning and the verification of these words of our Blessed Saviour to Nicodemus, which must mean a double Baptism: Transibimus per aquam & ignem, antequam veniemus in refrigerium, We must pass through Water and Fire, before we enter into Rest; that is, We must first be Baptized with Water, and then with the Holy Ghost, who first descended in Fire; that is, the only way to enter into Christ's Kingdom is by these two Doors of the Tabernacle, which God hath pitched, 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,S. Clem. Ep. 4. 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:Constit. Apost. and from these words of Christ now alledged, derives the use and institution [Page] 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, Ad Stephanum. 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 Homil. in Dominic. prim. post Ascens. Eusebius Emissenus; and S. Epist. 108. ad Seleucianum. 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. L. c. 27. 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, John 7.39. 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 1 was instituted before his Death. 2. Confirmation might here as well be instituted 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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,Chap. 7. v. 38. 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 6 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, [Page] and all the Greek Fathers read it; so S. Qu. 9. ad Heditiam. Hierom and S. In Joan. tract. 22. 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 first mysteries of our Regeneration. Now because Christ is the great Fountain of this Blessing to us, and he it was who sent his Father's Spirit upon the Church, himself best knew his own intentions, and the great Blessings he intended to communicate to his Church, and therefore it was most agreeable that from his Sermons we should learn his purposes and his blessing, and our duty. Here Christ declared rem Sacramenti, the spiritual Grace which he would afterwards impart to his Church by exterior Ministery, in this as in all other Graces, Mysteries and Rituals Evangelical: Nisi quis, Vnless a man be born both of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

But the next Objection is yet more material. 2. For if this be the meaning of our Blessed Saviour, then Confirmation is as necessary as Baptism, and without it ordinarily no man can be saved. The Solution of this will answer a Case of Conscience, concerning the necessity of Confirmation; and in what degree of duty and diligence we are bound to take care that we receive this Holy Rite. I answer therefore, that entring into the Kingdom of God, is being admitted into the Christian Church and warfare, to become Sons of God, and Souldiers of Jesus Christ. And though this be the outward Door, and the first entrance into Life, and consequently the King's high-way, and the ordinary means of Salvation; yet we are to distinguish the external Ceremony from the internal Mystery: The Nisi quis is for this, not for that; and yet that also is the ordinary way. Vnless a man be baptized, that is, unless he be indeed regenerate, he cannot be sav'd: and yet Baptism, or the outward washing, is the Solemnity and Ceremony of its ordinary ministration; and he that neglects this, when it may be had, is not indeed Regenerate; he is not renewed in the spirit of his Mind, because he neglects God's way, and therefore can as little be sav'd as he who, having receiv'd the External Sacrament, puts a bar to the intromission of the Inward Grace. Both cannot always be had; but when they can, although they are not equally valuable in the nature of the Thing, yet they are made equally necessary by the Divine Commandment. And in this there is a great, but general, mistake in the doctrine of the Schools, disputing concerning what Sacraments are necessary necessitate medii, that is, as necessary Means, and what are necessary by the necessity of Precept, or Divine Commandment. For although a less reason will excuse from the actual susception of some than of others, and a less diligence for the obtaining of one will serve than in obtaining of another, and a supply in one is easier obtained than in another; yet no Sacrament hath in it any other necessity than what is made merely by the Divine Commandment. But the grace of every Sacrament, or Rite or Mystery which is of Divine ordinance is necessary indispensably, so as without it no man can be sav'd. And this difference is highly remarkable in the words of Christ recorded by S. Mark, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16.16. Baptism it self, as to the external part, is not necessary necessitate medii, or indispensably; but baptismal Faith for the remission of sins in persons capable, that indeed is necessary: for Christ does not say that [...]he want of Baptism damns as the want of Faith does; and yet both Baptism and Faith are the ordinary way of Salvation, and both necessary; Baptism, because it is so by the Divine Commandment, and Faith as a necessary means of Salvation, in the very Oeconomy and dispensation of the Gospel. Thus it is also in the other Sacrament; Vnless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man, John 6. and drink his blood, we have no life in us: and yet God forbid that every man that is not Communicated should die eternally. But it means plainly, that without receiving Christ, as he is by God's intention intended we should [Page] receive him in the Communion, we have no life in us. Plainly thus, Without the Internal grace we cannot live; and the External ministery is the usual and appointed means of conveying to us the Internal: and therefore although without the External it is possible to be sav'd, when it is impossible to be had; yet with the wilful neglect of it we cannot. Thus therefore we are to understand the words of Christ declaring the necessity of both these Ceremonies: They are both necessary, because they are the means of spiritual advantages and graces, and both minister to the proper ends of their appointment, and both derive from a Divine Original: but the ritual or ceremonial part in rare emergencies is dispensable; but the Grace is indispensable. Without the grace of Baptism we shall die in our sins; and without the grace or internal part of Confirmation we shall never be able to resist the Devil, but shall be taken captive by him at his will. Now the External or Ritual part is the means, the season and opportunity of this Grace; and therefore is at no hand to be neglected, lest we be accounted despisers of the grace, and tempters of God to ways and provisions extraordinary. For although when without our fault we receive not the Sacramental part, God can and will supply it to us out of his own stores, because no man can perish without his own fault; and God can permit to himself what he pleases, as being Lord of the Grace and of the Sacrament: yet to us he hath given a Law and a Rule; and that is the way of his Church in which all Christians ought to walk. In short, The use of it is greatly profitable; the neglect is inexcusable; but the contempt is damnable. Tenentur non negligere si pateat opportunitas, said the Bishops in a Synod at Paris: If there be an opportunity, it must not be neglected. Obligantur suscipere, aut saltem non contemnere, said the Synod at Sens: They are bound to receive it, or at least not to despise it. Now he despises it that refuses it when he is invited to it, or when it is offered, or that neglects it without cause. For causlesly and contemptuously are all one. But these answers were made by gentle Casuists: he only values the Grace that desires it, that longs for it, that makes use of all the means of Grace, that seeks out for the means, that refuses no labour, that goes after them as the Merchant goes after Gain: and therefore the Old Ordo Romanus admonishes more strictly; Omnino praecavendum esse ut hoc Sacramentum Confirmationis non negligatur, In Offic. Sab. Pasch. post orat. quae dicitur Data confirm. quia tunc omne Baptisma legitimum Christianitatis nomine confirmatur: We must by all means take heed that the Rite of Confirmation be not neglected, because in that every true Baptism is ratified and confirmed. Which words are also to the same purpose made use of by Albinus Flaccus. De Offa. divin. in Sabb. [...]. Pasch. No man can tell to what degrees of diligence and labour, to what sufferings or journeyings he is oblig'd for the procuring of this ministery: there must be debita sollicitudo, a real providential zealous care to be where it is to be had, is the duty of every Christian according to his own circumstances; but they who will not receive it unless it be brought to their doors, may live in such places and in such times where they shall be sure to miss it, and pay the price of their neglect of so great a ministery of Salvation. Turpissima est jactura quae per negligentiam sit, He is a Fool that loses his good by carelesness:Seneca. But no man is zealous for his Soul, but he who not only omits no opportunity of doing it advantage when it is ready for him, but makes and seeks and contrives opportunities. Si non necessitate, sed incuriâ & voluntate remanserit, as S. Clement's expression is, If a man wants it by necessity, it may by the overflowings of the Divine Grace be supplied; but not so if negligence or choice causes the omission.

3. Our way being made plain, we may proceed to other places of Scripture to prove the Divine Original of Confirmation. It was a Plant of our Heavenly Father's planting, it was a Branch of the Vine, and how it springs from the Root Christ Jesus we have seen; it is yet more visible as it was dressed and cultivated by the Apostles. Now as soon as the Apostles had received the Holy Spirit, they preached and baptized, and the inferior Ministers did the same, and S. Philip particularly did so at Samaria, the Converts of which place received all the Fruits of Baptism; but Christians though they were, they wanted a [...], something to make them perfect. The other part of the Narrative I shall set down in the words of S. Luke: Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, All [...] 8. v. 14, 15▪ 16, 17. they sent unto them Peter and John; Who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: For as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. If it had not been necessary to have added a new solemnity and ministration, it is not to be supposed the Apostles Peter and John would have gone from Jerusalem to impose hands on the Baptized at Samaria. Id quod deerat à [Page]Petro & Joanne factum est, ut Oratione pro eis habitâ & manu impositâ, invocaretur & infunderetur super eos Spiritus Sanctus, said S. Cyprian: It was not necessary that they should be Baptized again,Ad Jubaian. only that which was wanting was performed by Peter and John, that by prayer and imposition of hands the Holy Ghost should be invocated and poured upon them. The same also is from this place affirmed by P. Innocentius the First,Epist. 1. c. 3. Adv. Luciferi [...]n. S. Hierom, and many others: and in the Acts of the Apostles we find another instance of the celebration of this Ritual and Mystery, for it is signally expressed of the Baptized Christians at Ephesus, that S. Paul first Baptized them, and then laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And these Testimonies are the great warranty for this Holy Rite. Quod nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs Impositio tribuit singulis, hoc tunc Spiritûs Sancti descensio in credentium populo donavit universis, said Eucherius Lugdunensis, in his Homily of Pentecost: The same thing that is done now in Imposition of hands on single persons, is no other than that which was done upon all Believers in the descent of the Holy Ghost; it is the same Ministery, and all deriving from the same Authority.

Confirmation or Imposition of hands for the collation of the Holy Spirit we see was actually practised by the Apostles, and that even before and after they preached the Gospel to the Gentiles; and therefore Amalarius, who entred not much into the secret of it, reckons this Ritual as derived from the Apostles per consuetudinem, by Catholick custom; which although it is not perfectly spoken as to the whole [...] or Authority of it, yet he places it in the Apostles, and is a witness of the Catholick succeeding custom and practice of the Church of God. Which thing also Zanchius observing, though he followed the sentiment of Amalarius, and seemed to understand no more of it, yet says well; Interim (says he) exempla Apostolorum & veteris Ecclesiae vellem pluris aestimari: I wish that the Example of the Apostles and the Primitive Church were of more value amongst Christians. It were very well indeed they were so, but there is more in it than mere Example. These examples of such solemnities productive of such spiritual effects are, as S. Cyprian calls them, Apostolica Magisteria, the Apostles are our Masters in them, and have given Rules and Precedents for the Church to follow. This is a Christian Law, and written, as all Scriptures are, for our instruction. But this I shall expresly prove in the next Paragraph.

4. We have seen the Original from Christ, the Practice and exercise of it in the Apostles and the first Converts in Christianity: that which I shall now remark is, that this is established and passed into a Christian Doctrine. The warranty for what I say is the words of S. Paul, Heb. 6.1, 2. where the Holy Rite of Confirmation, so called from the effect of this ministration, and expressed by the Ritual part of it, Imposition of Hands, is reckoned a Fundamental point, [...] Not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works, and of Faith towards God, of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and of laying on of Hands, of Resurrection from the Dead, and Eternal Judgment. Here are six Fundamental points of S. Paul's Catechism, which he laid as the Foundation or the beginning of the institution of the Christian Church; and amongst these Imposition of hands is reckoned as a part of the Foundation, and therefore they who deny it, dig up Foundations. Now that this Imposition of hands is that which the Apostles used in confirming the Baptized, and invocating the Holy Ghost upon them, remains to be proved.

For it is true that Imposition of hands signifies all Christian Rites except Baptism and the Lord's Supper; not the Sacraments, but all the Sacramentals of the Church: it signifies Confirmation, Ordination, Absolution, Visitation of the Sick, Blessing single persons, (as Christ did the Children brought to him) and blessing Marriages; all these were usually ministred by Imposition of hands. Now the three last are not pretended to be any part of this Foundation; neither Reason, Authority, nor the Nature of the thing suffer any such pretension: The Question then is between the first three.

First, Absolution of Penitents cannot be meant here, not only because we never read that the Apostles did use that Ceremony in their Absolutions; but because the Apostle speaking of the Foundation in which Baptism is, and is reckoned one of the principal parts in the Foundation, there needed no Absolution but Baptismal, for they and we believing one Baptism for the Remission of Sins, this is all the Absolution that can be at first and in the Foundation.Symbol. Nican. & C P. The other was secunda post naufragium tabula, it came in after, when men had made a shipwrack of their good conscience, and were, as S. Peter says, [...], forgetful of the former cleansing and purification and washing of their old sins. 2 Pet. 1.9.

[Page]Secondly, It cannot be meant of Ordination; and this is also evident. 1. Because the Apostle says he would thence-forth leave to speak of the Foundation, and go on to perfection, that is, to higher Mysteries. Now in Rituals, of which he speaks, there is none higher than Ordination. 2. The Apostle saying he would speak no more of Imposition of Hands, goes presently to discourse of the mysteriousness of the Evangelical Priesthood, and the honour of that vocation; by which it is evident he spake nothing of Ordination in the Catechism or Narrative of Fundamentals. 3. This also appears from the context, not only because Laying on of hands is immediately set after Baptism, but also because in the very next words of his Discourse he does enumerate and apportion to Baptism and Confirmation their proper and proportioned effects: to Baptism, illumination, according to the perpetual style of the Church of God, calling Baptism [...] an enlightning; and to Confirmation he reckons tasting the Heavenly gift, and being made partakers of the Holy Ghost; by the thing signified declaring the Sign, and by the mystery the Rite. Upon these words S. Chrysostom discoursing, says, ‘That all these are Fundamental Articles; that i [...], that we ought to Repent from dead works, to be Baptized into the Faith of Christ, and be made worthy of the gift of the Spirit, who is given by Imposition of Hands, and we are to be taught the mysteries of the Resurrection and Eternal Judgment.’ This Catechism (says he) is perfect: so that if any man have Faith in God, and being baptized is also confirmed, and so tastes the Heavenly gift and partakes of the Holy Ghost, and by hope of the Resurrection tastes of the good things of the World to come, if he falls away from this state, and turns Apostate from this whole Dispensation, digging down and turning up these Foundations, he shall never be built again, he can never be Baptized again, and never be Confirmed any more; God will not begin again, and go over with him again, he cannot be made a Christian twice: If he remains upon these Foundations, though he sins, he may be renewed [...] by Repentance, and by a Resuscitation of the Spirit, if he have not wholly quenched him; but if he renounces the whole Covenant, disown and cancel these Foundations, he is desperate, he can never be renewed [...] to the Title and Oeconomy of Repentance. This is the full explication of this excellent place, and any other ways it cannot reasonably be explicated: but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come, no Sence, no Mystery can be made of it or drawn from it; but by the interposition of Confirmation the whole context is clear, rational, and intelligible.

This then is that Imposition of hands of which the Apostle speaks. Vnus hic locus abunde testatur, &c. saith Calvin: This one place doth abundantly witness that the original of this Rite or Ceremony was from the Apostles;In hunc locum▪ [...], saith S. Chrysostom, for by this Rite of Imposition of hands they receiv'd the Holy Ghost. Fo [...] though the Spirit of God was given extra-regularly, and at all times, as God was pleas'd to do great things; yet this Imposition of hands was [...], this was the Ministery of the Spirit. For so we receive Christ when we hear and obey his word: we eat Christ by Faith, and we live by his Spirit; and yet the Blessed Eucharist is [...], the ministery of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now as the Lord's Supper is appointed ritually to convey Christ's Body and Bloud to us; so is Confirmation ordain'd ritually to give unto us the Spirit of God. And though by accident and by the overflowings of the Spirit it may come to pass that a man does receive perfective graces alone, and without Ministeries external: yet such a man without a miracle is not a perfect Christian ex statuum vitae dispositione; but in the ordinary ways and appointment of God, and until he receive this Imposition of hands, and be Confirmed, is to be accounted an imperfect Christian. But of this afterwards.

I shall observe one thing more out of this testimony of S. Paul. He calls it the Doctrine of Baptisms and Laying on of hands: by which it does not only appear to be a lasting ministery, because no part of the Christian Doctrine could change or be abolished; but hence also it appears to be of Divine institution. For if it were not, S. Paul had beed guilty of that which our Blessed Saviour reproves in the Scribes and Pharisees, and should have taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Which because it cannot be suppos'd, it must follow, that this Doctrine of Confirmation or Imposition of hands is Apostolical and Divine. The Argument is clear, and not easie to be reprov'd.

SECT. II. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery.

[Page]

YEA, but what is this to us? It belong'd to the days of wonder and extraordinary: The Holy Ghost breath'd upon the Apostles and Apostolical men; but then he breath'd his last: recedente gratiâ, recessit disciplina; when the Grace departed, we had no further use of the Ceremony. In answer to this I shall [...], by divers particulars evince plainly, that this Ministery of Confirmation was not temporary and relative only to the Acts of the Apostles, but was to descend to the Church for ever. This indeed is done already in the preceding Section; in which it is clearly manifested, that Christ himself made the Baptism of the Spirit to be necessary to the Church.John 3.5. He declar'd the fruits of this Baptism, and did particularly relate it to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church at and after that glorious Pentecost. He sanctified it, and commended it by his Example; just as in order to Baptism he sanctified the Floud Jordan, and all other waters, to the mystical washing away of sin, viz. by his great Example, and fulfilling this righteousness also. This Doctrine the Apostles first found in their own persons and Experience, and practised to all their Converts after Baptism by a solemn and external Rite; and all this passed into an Evangelical Doctrine, the whole mystery being signified by the external Rite in the words of the Apostle, as before it was by Christ expressing only the internal; so that there needs no more strength to this Argument. But that there may be wanting no moments to this truth, which the Holy Scripture affords, I shall add more weight to it: And,

1. The Perpetuity of this Holy Rite appears, because this great Gift of the Holy Ghost was promised to abide with the Church for ever. And when the Jews heard the Apostles speak with Tongues at the first and miraculous descent of the Spirit in Pentecost, to take off the strangeness of the wonder and the envy of the power, S. Peter at that very time tells them plainly,Acts 2.38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you, — and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [...] not the meanest person amongst you all but shall receive this great thing which ye observe us to have received; and not only you, but your Children too; not your Children of this Generation only, sed Natinatorum, & qui nascentur ab illis, but your Children for ever: For the promise is to you and to your children, V. 39. and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call. Now then let it be considered.

1. This gift is by Promise; by a promise not made to the Apostles alone, but to all; to all for ever.

2. Consider here at the very first as there is a verbum, a word of promise, so there is sacramentum too: (I use the word, as I have already premonished, in a large fence only, and according to the style of the Primitive Church) It is a Rite partly Moral, partly Ceremonial; the first is Prayer, and the other is Laying on of the hands: and to an effect that is but transient and extraordinary, and of a little abode, it is not easie to be supposed that such a Solemnity should be appointed. I say, such a Solemnity; that is, it is not imaginable that a solemn Rite annexed to a perpetual Promise should be transient and temporary, for by the nature of Relatives they must be of equal abode. The Promise is of a thing for ever; the Ceremony or Rite was annexed to the Promise, and therefore this also must be for ever.

3. This is attested by S. Paul, who reduces this Argument to this Mystery, saying, In whom after that ye believed, signati estis Spiritu Sancto promissionis, ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise. Ephes. 1.13. He spake it to the Ephesians, who well understood his meaning by remembring what was done to themselves by the Apostles Acts 19.6. but a while before, who after they had Baptized them did lay their hands upon them, and so they were sealed, and so they received the Holy Spirit of promise; for here the very matter of Fact is the clearest Commentary on S. Paul's words: The Spirit which was promised to all Christians they then received, when they were consigned, or [Page] had the Ritual seal of Confirmation by Imposition of hands. One thing I shall remark here, and that is, that this and some other words of Scripture relating to the Sacraments or other Rituals of Religion do principally mean the Internal Grace, and our consignation is by a secret power, and the work is within; but it does not therefore follow that the External Rite is not also intended: for the Rite is so wholly for the Mystery, and the Outward for the Inward, and yet by the Outward God so usually and regularly gives the Inward, that as no man is to rely upon the External Ministery, as if the opus operatum would do the whole Duty; so no man is to neglect the External, because the Internal is the more principal. The mistake in his particular hath caused great contempt of the Sacraments and Rituals of the Church, and is the ground of the Socinian Errors in these Questions.

But 4. What hinders any man from a quick consent at the first representation of these plain reasonings and authorities? Is it because there were extraordinary effects accompanying this Ministration, and because now there are not, that we will suppose the whole Oeconomy must cease? If this be it, and indeed this is all that can be supposed in opposition to it, it is infinitely vain.

1. Because these extraordinary effects did continue even after the death of all the 1 Apostles. S. Irenaeus says they did continue even to his time, even the greatest instance of Miraculous power: Et in fraternitate, saepissime propter aliquid necessarium, eâ quae est in quoquo loco Vniversâ Ecclesiâ postulante per jejunium & supplicationem multam, reversus est spiritus, &c. When God saw it necessary,Lib. 2. cap. 57. and the Church prayed and fasted much, they did miraculous things, even of reducing the spirit to a dead man.

2. In the days of the Apostles the Holy Spirit did produce miraculous effects, but 2 neither always, nor at all in all men: Are all workers of Miracles? 1 Cor. 12.29. do all speak with Tongues? do all interpret? can all heal? No, the Spirit bloweth where he listeth, and as he listeth; he gives Gifts to all, but to some after this manner, and to some after that.

3. These Gifts were not necessary at all times any more than to all persons; but 3 the Promise did belong to all, and was made to all, and was performed to all. In the days of the Apostles there was an Effusion of the Spirit of God, it ran over, it was for themselves and others, it wet the very ground they trode upon, and made it fruitful; but it was not to all in like manner, but there was also then, and since then, a Diffusion of the Spirit, tanquam in pleno. S. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, he was full of faith and power: The Holy Ghost was given to him to fulfil his Faith principally,Acts 6.8. the working Miracles was but collateral and incident. But there is also an Infusion of the Holy Ghost, and that is to all, and that is for ever: The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall, saith the Apostle.1 Cor. 12.7. And therefore if the Grace be given to all, there is no reason that the Ritual ministration of that Grace should cease, upon pretence that the Spirit is not given extraordinarily.

4. These extraordinary Gifts were indeed at first necessary: In the beginnings always appear the sensible visions of spiritual things for their sakes who cannot receive the understanding 4 of an incorporeal Nature; that if afterward they be not so done, they may be believed by those things which were already done, In Matthaum▪ said S. Chrysostom in the place before quoted; that is, these visible appearances were given at first by reason of the imperfection of the state of the Church, but the greater Gifts were to abide for ever: and therefore it is observable that S. Paul says that the gift of Tongues is one of the least and most useless things; a mere Sign, and not so much as a Sign to Believers, but to Infidels and Unbelievers; and before this he greatly prefers the gift of Prophesying or Preaching, which yet, all Christians know, does abide with the Church for ever.

5. To every ordinary and perpetual Ministery at first there were extraordinary effects and miraculous consignations. We find great parts of Nations converted at 5 one Sermon. Three thousand Converts came in at once Preaching of S. Peter, and five thousand at another Sermon: and persons were miraculously cured by the Prayer of the Bishop in his visitation of a sick Christian; and Devils cast out in the conversion of a sinner; and Blindness cur'd at the Baptism of S. Paul; and Aeneas was healed of a Palsie at the same time he was cur'd of his Infidelity; and Eutychus was restor'd to life at the Preaching of S. Paul. And yet that now we see no such Extraordinaries, it follows not that the Visitation of the sick, and Preaching Sermons, and Absolving Penitents are not ordinary and perpetual ministrations: and therefore to fansy that invocation of the Holy Spirit and Imposition of hands is to cease when the extraordinary [Page] and temporary contingencies of it are gone, is too trifling a fancy to be put in balance against so Sacred an Institution relying upon so many Scriptures.

6 6. With this Objection some vain persons would have troubled the Church in S. Austin's time; but he considered it with much indignation, writing against the Donatists. Tract. 6. in Canonicam Joan. circa med. & lib. 3. cont. Donatist. c. 6. His words are these: At the first times the Holy Spirit fell upon the Believers, and they spake with Tongues which they had not learned, according as the Spirit gave them utterance. They were Signs fitted for the season; for so the Holy Ghost ought to have signified in all Tongues, because the Gospel of God was to run through all the Nations and Languages of the World: so it was signified, and so it pass'd through. But is it therefore expected that they upon whom there is Imposition of hands that they might receive the Holy Ghost, that they should speak with Tongues? Or when we lay hands on Infants, does every one of you attend to hear them speak with Tongues? And when he sees that they do not speak with Tongues, is any of you of so perverse a heart as to say, They have not received the Holy Ghost; for if they had received him, they would speak with Tongues, as it was done at first? But if by these Miracles there is not now given any testimony of the presence of the Holy Spirit, how doth any one know that he hath received the Holy Ghost? Interroget cor suum, Si diligit fratrem, manet Spiritus Dei in illo. It is true, the Gift of Tongues doth not remain, but all the greater Gifts of the Holy Spirit remain with the Church for ever; Sanctification and Power, Fortitude and Hope, Faith and Love. Let every man search his Heart, and see if he belongs to God; whether the love of God be not spread in his heart by the Spirit of God: Let him see if he be not patient in Troubles, comforted in his Afflictions, bold to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, zealous of Good works. These are the miracles of Grace, and the mighty powers of the Spirit, according to that saying of Christ, These signs shall follow them that believe: In my Name shall they cast out Devils, they shall speak with new Tongues, they shall tread on Serpents, Mark 16.17. they shall drink poison, and it shall not hurt them; and they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover. That which we call the Miraculous part is the less power; but to cast out the Devil of Lust, to throw down the Pride of Lucifer, to tread on the great Dragon, and to triumph over our Spiritual enemies, to cure a diseased Soul, to be unharmed by the poison of Temptation, of evil Examples and evil Company: these are the true signs that shall follow them that truly and rightly believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus; this is to live in the Spirit, and to walk in the Spirit; this is more than to receive the Spirit to a power of Miracles and supernatural products in a natural matter: For this is from a supernatural principle to receive supernatural aids to a supernatural end in the Diviner spirit of a man; and this being more miraculous than the other, it ought not to be pretended that the discontinuance of extraordinary Miracles should cause the discontinuance of an ordinary Ministration; and this is that which I was to prove.

7 7. To which it is not amiss to add this Observation, that Simon Magus offered to buy this power of the Apostles, that he also by laying on of hands might thus minister the Spirit. Now he began this sin in the Christian Church, and it is too frequent at this day: but if all this power be gone, then nothing of that sin can remain; if the subject matter be removed, then the appendant crime cannot abide, and there can be no Simony, so much as by participation; and whatever is or can be done in this kind, is no more of this Crime than Drunkenness is of Adultery; it relates to it, or may be introductive of it, or be something like it. But certainly since the Church is not so happy as to be intirely free from the Crime of Simony, it will be hard to say that the power (the buying of which was the principle of this sin, and therefore the Rule of all the rest) should be removed, and the house stand without a foundation, the relative without the correspondent, the accessary without the principal, and the accident without the subject. This is impossible, and therefore it remains that still there abides in the Church this power, that by Imposition of the Hands of fit persons the Holy Ghost is ministred. But this will be further cleared in the next Section.

SECT. III. The Holy Rite of Imposition of Hands for the giving the Holy Spirit, or Confirmation, was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Church.

[Page]

NExt to the plain words of Scripture, the traditive Interpretation and Practice of the Church of God is the best Argument in the World for Rituals and Mystical ministrations; for the Tradition is universal, and all the way acknowledged to be derived from Scripture. And although in Rituals the Tradition it self, if it be universal and primitive, as this is, were alone sufficient, and is so esteemed in the Baptism of Infants, in the Priests consecrating the Holy Eucharist, in publick Liturgies, in Absolution of Penitents, the Lord's Day, Communicating of Women, and the like; yet this Rite of Confirmation being all that, and evidently derived from the practice Apostolical, and so often recorded in the New Testament, both in the Ritual and Mysterious part, both in the Ceremony and Spiritual effect, is a point of as great Certainty as it is of Usefulness and holy designation.

Theophilus Antiochenus lived not long after the death of S. John, A.D. 170. and he derives the name of Christian, which was first given to the Disciples in his City, from this Chrism or spiritual Unction, this Confirmation of baptized persons; [...], We are therefore called Christians, because we are anointed with the Vnction of God. These words will be best understood by the subsequent testimonies, by which it will appear that Confirmation (for reasons hereafter mention'd) was for many Ages called Chrism or Unction. But he adds the Usefulness of it: For who is there that enters into the World, or that enters into contention or Athletick combats, but is anointed with oil? By which words he intimates the Unction anciently us'd in Baptism, and in Confirmation both: for in the first we have our new Birth; in the second we are prepar'd for spiritual Combate.

Tertullian having spoken of the Rites of Baptism, proceeds;A. D. 200. De Baptismo, c. 6. Dehinc (saith he) manus imponitur, per Benedictionem advocans & invitans Spiritum Sanctum: Tunc ille Sanctissimus Spiritus super emundata & benedicta corpora libens à Patre descendit. After Baptism the hand is impos'd, by Blessing calling and inviting the Holy Spirit. Then that most Holy Spirit willingly descends from the Father upon the Bodies that are cleans'd and blessed; that is, first baptiz'd, then confirm'd. And again;De Resur. carn. cap. 8. Caro signatur, ut anima muniatur. Caro manûs impositione adumbratur, ut anima Spiritu illuminetur. The Fl [...]sh is consign'd, or seal'd, (that also is one of the known primitive words for Confirmation) that the Soul may be guarded or defended: and the Body is overshadowed by the Imposition of hands, that the Soul may be enlightned by the Holy Ghost. Nay, further yet, if any man objects that Baptism is sufficient, he answers; It is true, it is sufficient to them that are to die presently; Vbi suprà de Bapt. but it is not enough for them that are still to live and to fight against their spiritual Enemies. For in Baptism we do not receive the Holy Ghost, (for although the Apostles had been baptiz'd, yet the Holy Ghost was come upon none of them until Jesus was glorified) sed in aqua emundati, sub Angelo Spiritui Sancto praeparamur; but being cleans'd by Baptismal water, we are dispos'd for the Holy Spirit under the hand of the Angel of the Church, under the Bishop's hand. And a little after he expostulates the Article, Non licebit Deo in suo Organo per manus sanctas sublimitatem modulari spiritalem? Is it not lawful for God, by an instrument of his own, under Holy hands to accord the heights, and sublimity of the Spirit? For indeed this is the Divine Order: and therefore Tertullian reckoning the happiness and excellency of the Church of Rome at that time, says, She believes in God, she signs with Water, she clothes with the Spirit, De Praescrip [...]. cap. 36. (viz. in Confirmation) she feeds with the Eucharist, she exhorts to Martyrdom; and against this order or Institution she receives no man.

[Page] A. D. 250. Epist. 73.S. Cyprian, in his Epistle to Jubaianus, having urg'd that of the Apostles going to Samaria to impose hands on those whom S. Philip had baptized, adds; Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesia baptizantur, per praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum Sanctum consequantur, & signaculo Dominico consummentur. Which custom is also descended to us, that they who are baptiz'd might be brought by the Rulers of the Church, and by our Prayer and the Imposition of hands (said the Martyr-Bishop) may obtain the Holy Ghost, and be consummated with the Lord's signature. And again, Vngi necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, Epist. 70. & 73. &c. Et super eos qui in Ecclesia baptizati erant, & Ecclesiasticum & legitimum Baptismum consecuti fuerant, oratione pro iis habitâ, & manu impositâ, invocaretur & infunderetur Spiritus Sanctus. It is necessary that every one who is baptiz'd should receive the Unction, that he may be Christ's anointed one, and may have in him the grace of Christ. They who have receiv'd lawful and Ecclesiastical Baptism, it is not necessary they should be baptiz'd again; but that which is wanting must be supplied, viz. that Prayer being made for them, and Hands impos'd, the Holy Ghost be invocated and pour'd upon them.

S. Clement of Alexandria, a man of venerable Antiquity and Admirable Learning, tells that a certain young man was by S. John delivered to the care of a Bishop,A.D. 200. Apud Euseb. l. 3. c. 17. who having baptiz'd him, Postea verò sigillo Domini, tanquam [...]. perfectâ tutâque ejus custodiâ, eum obsignavit, Afterward he sealed him with the Lord's signature (the Churchword for Confirmation) as with a safe and perfect guard.

Origen in his seventh Homily upon Ezekiel, expounding certain mystical words of the Prophet,A.D. 210. saith, Oleum est quo vir sanctus Vngitur, oleum Christi, oleum Sanctae Doctrinae. Cùm ergò aliquis accepit hoc oleum quo Vngitur Sanctus, id est, Scripturam sanctam instituentem quomodo oporteat Baptizari, in nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritûs Sancti, & pauca commutans unxerit quempiam, & quodammodo dixerit, Jam non es Catechumenus, consecutus es lavacrum secundae generationis; talis homo accipit oleum Dei, &c. The Vnction of Christ, of holy Doctrine, is the Oil by which the Holy Man is anointed, having been instructed in the Scriptures, and taught how to be Baptized; then changing a few things he says to him, Now you are no longer a Catechumen, now you are regenerated in Baptism: such a man receives the Vnction of God, viz. He then is to be Confirmed.

S. Dionys, commonly called the Areopagite, in his excellent Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,De Eccles. Hier. c. 2. speaks most fully of the Holy Rite of Confirmation or Chrism. Having describ'd at large the office and manner of Baptizing the Catechumens, the trine Immersion, the vesting them in white Garments, he adds, Then they bring them again to the Bishop, and he consigns him (who had been so baptiz'd) [...], with the most Divinely-operating Vnction, and then gives him the most Holy Eucharist. And afterwards he says,Et cap. 4. But even to him who is consecrated in the most holy mystery of Regeneration, [...], the perfective Vnction of Chrism gives to him the advent of the Holy Spirit. And this Rite of Confirmation, then called Chrism, from the Spiritual Unction then effected, and consign'd also and signified by the Ceremony of Anointing externally, which was then the Ceremony of the Church, he calls it [...], the holy consummation of our Baptismal Regeneration; meaning that without this, there is something wanting to the Baptized persons.

A. D. 260.And this appears fully in that famous censure of Novatus by Cornelius Bishop of Rome, reported by Lib. 6. Hist. Eccles [...]. 43. Eusebius. Novatus had been Baptized in his bed being very sick and like to die: but when he recover'd, he did not receive those other things which by the rule of the Church he ought to have receive'd; neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo consignatus est, he was not consign'd with the Lord's signature by the hands of the Bishop, he was not Confirmed: Quo non impetrato, quomodo Spiritum Sanctum obtinuisse putandus est? Which having not obtain'd, how can he be suppos'd to have receiv'd the Holy Spirit? The same also something more fully related by Nicephorus, but wholly to the same purpose.Lib. 6. cap. 3.

A. D. 320. Melchiades, in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain, argues excellently about the necessity and usefulness of the Holy Rite of Confirmation. [What does the mystery of Confirmation profit me after the mystery of Baptism? Certainly we did not receive all in our Baptism, if after that Lavatory we want something of another kind. Let your charity attend. As the Military order requires that when the General enters a Souldier into his list, he does not only mark him, but furnishes him with Arms for the Battel: so in him that is Baptiz'd this Blessing is his Ammunition. You have given (Christ) a Souldier, [Page]give him also Weapons. And what will it profit him if a Father gives a great Estate to his Son, if he does not take care to provide a Tutor for him? Therefore the Holy Spirit is the Guardian of our Regeneration in Christ, he is the Comforter, and he is the Defender.]

I have already alledged the plain Testimonies of Optatus and S. Cyril in the first Section.A. D. 370. I add to them the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of Confirmation or the Christian signature; Hoc & viventi tibi maximum est tutamentum. Adhort. ad S. lavacrum. Ovis enim quae sigillo insignita est non facilè patet insidiis; quae verò signata non est facilè à furibus capitur. This Signature is your greatest guard while you live. For a Sheep, when it is mark'd with the Master's sign, is not so soon stollen by Thieves; but easily if she be not. The same manner of speaking is also us'd by S. Basil, who was himself together with Eubulus confirm'd by Bishop Maximinus. Quomodo curam geret tanquam ad se pertinentis Angelus? quomodo eripiat ex hostibus, si non agnoverit signaculum? How shall the Angel know what sheep belong unto his charge? how shall he snatch them from the Enemy, if he does not see their mark and signature? Theodoret also and Theophylact speak the like words: and, so far as I can perceive,In cap. 1. ad Ephes. these and the like sayings are most made use of by the School-men to be their warranty for an indeleble Character imprinted in Confirmation. I do not interest my self in the question, but only recite the Doctrine of these Fathers in behalf of the Practice and Usefulness of Confirmation.

I shall not need to transcribe hither those clear testimonies which are cited from the Epistles of S. Clement, Vrban the First, Fabianus and Cornelius; the summ of them is in those plainest words of Vrban the First: Omnes fideles per manûs impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post Baptismum accipere debent; All faithful people ought to receive the Holy Spirit by Imposition of the Bishops hands after Baptism. Much more to the same purpose is to be read, collected by Gratian de Consecrat. dist. 4. Presbyt. & de Consecrat. dist. 5. Omnes fideles, & ibid. Spiritus Sanctus.

S. Hierom brings in a Luciferian asking,Dial. adv Lucifer. Why he that is Baptiz'd in the Church does not receive the Holy Ghost, but by Imposition of the Bishop's hands? The answer is, Hanc observ [...]tionem ex Scripturae authoritate ad Sacerdotii honorem descendere, This observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend from the authority of the Scriptures; adding withall, it was for the prevention of Schisms, and that the Safety of the Church did depend upon it. Exigis ubi scriptum est? If you ask where it is written, it is answered, in Actibus Apostolorum, It is written in the Acts of the Apostles. But if there were no authority of Scripture for it, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret, the Consent of the whole Christian World in this Article ought to prevail as a Commandment. But here is a twofold Chord, Scripture and Universal Tradition; or rather Scripture expounded by an Universal traditive interpretation. The same observation is made from Scripture by S. Chrysostom: The words are very like those now recited from S. Hierom's Dialogue,Homil 18. in Act. and therefore need not be repeated.

S. Ambrose calls Confirmation Spiritale signaculum quod post fontem superest, Lib. 3. De Sacram. c. 2. ut perfectio fiat, A spiritual Seal remaining after Baptism, that Perfection be had. Oecumenius calls it [...], Perfection. Lavacro peccata purgantur, In Hebr. 6. Chrismate Spiritus Sanctus superfunditur; utraque verò ista manu & ore Antistitis impetramus, said Pacianus Bishop of Barcinona. In Baptism our sins are cleans'd, in Confirmation the Holy Spirit is pour'd upon us; and both these we obtain by the hands and mouth of the Bishop. And again, vestrae plebi unde Spiritus, quam non consignat unctus Sacerdos? The same with that of Cornelius in the case of Novatus before cited.Lib. 3. cont. N [...] vat.

I shall add no more, lest I overset the Article, and make it suspicious by too laborious a defence: only after these numerous testimonies of the Fathers, I think it may be useful to represent that this Holy Rite of Confirmation hath been decreed by many Councils.

The Council of Eliberis, celebrated in the time of P. Sylvester the First, decreed,Can. 38. that whosoever is Baptiz'd in his sickness, if he recover, ad Episcopum eum perducat, ut per manûs impositionem perfici possit; Let him be brought to the Bishop, that he may be perfected by the Imposition of hands. To the same purpose is the 77. Can. Episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit, The Bishop must perfect those whom the Minister Baptiz'd by his Benediction.

The Council of Laodicea decreed [...]·Can. [...]od. All that are Baptized must be anointed with the celestial Unction, and [so] be partakers of the Kingdom of [Page] Christ. All that are so, that is, are Confirm'd; for this celestial Unction is done by holy Prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit: so Zonaras upon this Canon: All such who have this Unction shall reign with Christ, unless by their wickedness they preclude their own possessions. This Canon was put into the Code of the Catholick Church, and makes the 152. Canon.

The Council of Orleans affirms expresly, that he who is Baptiz'd cannot be a Christian (meaning according to the usual style of the Church,Habitur apud Gratian. de Consecrat. dist. 5. cap. jejun. a full and perfect Christan) nisi confirmatione Episcopali suerit Chrismatus, unless he have the Unction of Episcopal Confirmation.

But when the Church had long disputed concerning the re-baptizing of Hereticks, and made Canons for and against it, according as the Heresies were, and all agreed that if the first Baptism had been once good, it could never be repeated; yet they thought it fit that such persons should be Confirm'd by the Bishop, all supposing Confirmation to be the perfection and consummation of the less-perfect Baptism. Thus the first Council of Arles decreed concerning the Arrians, Cap. 8. that if they had been Baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they should not be re-baptized. Manus tantùm eis imponatur, ut accipiant Spiritum Sanctum; that is, Let them be Confirm'd, let there be Imposition of hands, that they may receive the Holy Ghost. The same is decreed by the second Council of Arles in the case of the Bonasiact. Can. 17. Can. 7. But I also find it in a greater record, in the General Council of Constantinople; where Hereticks are commanded upon their Conversion to be received, secundùm constitutum Officium, there was an Office appointed for it; and it is in the Greeks Euchologion, sigillatos, primò scil. Vnctos Vnguento Chrismatis, &c. & signantes eos dicimus, Sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti. It is the form of Confirmation used to this day in the Greek Church.

So many Fathers testifying the practice of the Church and teaching this Doctrine, and so many more Fathers as were assembled in six Councils, all giving witness to this holy Rite, and that in pursuance also of Scripture, are too great a Cloud of Witnesses to be despised by any man that calls himself a Christian.

SECT. IV. The BISHOPS were always, and the only Ministers of Confirmation.

Homil. 18. in [...]cta.SAint Chrysostom asking the reason why the Samaritans, who were Baptized by Philip, could not from him and by his Ministery receive the Holy Ghost, answers, Perhaps this was done for the honour of the Apostles, to distinguish the supereminent dignity which they bore in the Church from all inferior Ministrations: but this answer not satisfying, he adds, Hoc donum non habebat, erat enim ex Septem illis, id quod magìs videtur dicendum. Vnde, meâ sententiâ, hic Philippus unus ex septem erat, secundus à Stephano; ideo & Baptizans Spiritum Sanctum non dabat, neque enim facultatem habebat, hoc enim donum solorum Apostolorum erat. This Gift they had not who Baptized the Samaritans, which thing is rather to be said than the other: for Philip was one of the Seven, and in my opinion next to S. Stephen; therefore though he Baptized, yet he gave not the Holy Ghost; for he had no power so to do, for this Gift was proper only to the Apostles. Nam virtutem quidem acceperant (Diaconi) faciendi Signa, non autem dandi aliis Spiritum Sanctum; igitur hoc erat in Apostolis singulare, unde & praecipuos, & non alios, videmus hoc facere. The Ministers that Baptized had a power of doing Signs and working Miracles, but not of giving the Holy Spirit; therefore this Gift was peculiar to the Apostles, whence it comes to pass that we see the [...]. Cap. 5. Eccles. Hier. chiefs in the Church, and no other, to do this.

S. Dionys says, [...], There is need of a Bishop to Confirm the Baptized, [...], for this was the ancient custom of the Church: And this was wont to be done by the Bishops, for conservation of Unity in the Church of Christ,In Heb. 6. Q. 44. in N. T. said S. Ambrose; A solis Episcopis, By Bishops only, said S. Austin; For the Bishops succeeded in the place and ordinary Office of the Apostles, said [Page] S. Hierom. And therefore in his Dialogue against the Luciferians it is said [That this observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend, that the Bishops only might by Imposition of Hands confer the Holy Ghost; that it comes from Scripture, that it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that it is done for the prevention of Schisms, that the safety of the Church depends upon it.]

But the words of P. Innocentius I. in his first Epistle and third Chapter, and published in the first Tome of the Councils, are very full to this particular. De consignandis Infantibus, manifestum est non ab alio quàm ab Episcopo fieri licere; nam Presbyteri, licèt s [...]nt Sacerdotes, Pontificatûs tamen apicem non habent: haec autem Pontificibus solis deberi, ut vel consignent, vel paracletum Spiritum tradant, non solùm consuetudo Ecclesiastica demonstrat, verùm & illa lectio Actuum Apostolorum, quae asserit Petrum & Joannem esse directos, qui jam Baptizatis traderent Spiritum Sanctum. Concerning Confirmation of Infants, it is manifest, it is not Lawful to be done by any other than by the Bishop; for although the Presbyters be Priests, yet they have not the Summity of Episcopacy: But that these things are only due to Bishops, is [...]ot only demonstrated by the custom of the Church, but by that of the Acts of the Apostles, where Peter and John were sent to minister the Holy Ghost to them that were Baptized. Contr. Parmen. lib. 7▪ Optatus proves Macarius to be no Bishop, because he was not conversant in the Episcopal Office, and Imposed hands on none that were Baptized. Hoc unum à majoribus fit, id est, à summis Pontificibus, quod à minoribus perfici non potest, said P. Melchiades: This (of Confirmation) is only done by the greater Ministers,Epist. ad Episc. Hispan. that is, by the Bishops, and cannot be done by the lesser. This was the constant Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Church,

Note:

Voluit Deus dona illa admiranda non continger [...] Baptizati [...] nisi per manus Apostolo [...]um, ut Authoritatem testibus su [...] conciliar [...] qu [...]in maximam; quod ipsum simul ad retinendam Ecclesiae unitatem pertin [...]bat. Gro [...]ius.

Videtur [...] [...]uisse peculiar [...] Apostol [...]rum munus dare Spiritum Sanctum. Isido [...]. Clarius in 8. A [...]tuum Apostolorum.

and derived from the practice and tradition of the Apostles, and recorded in their Acts written by S. Luke. For this is our great Rule in this case, what they did in Rituals and consigned to Posterity is our Example and our warranty: we see it done thus, and by these men, and by no others, and no otherwise, and we have no other authority, and we have no reason to go another way. The [...] in S. Luke, the [...] in S. Chrysostom, the [...] in Philo, and the [...], the chief Governour in Ecclesiasticals, his Office is [...], to teach such things as are not set down in Books; their Practice is a Sermon, their Example in these things must be our Rule, or else we must walk irregularly, and have no Rule but Chance and Humour, Empire and Usurpation; and therefore much rather, when it is recorded in Holy Writ, must this Observation be esteemed Sacred and inviolable.

But how if a Bishop be not to be had, or not ready? S. Ambrose In Eph. 4. is pretended to have answered, Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus, A Presbyter may consign, if the Bishop be not present; and Amalarius affirms, Sylvestrum Papam, praevidentem quantum periculosum iter arriperet qui sine Confirmatione maneret, quantum potuit subvenisse, & propter absentiam Episcoporum, necessitate addidisse, De Offic. Eccles. cap. 27. ut à Presbytero Vngerentur, That Pope Sylvester, fore-seeing how dangerous a Journey he takes who abides without Confirmation, brought remedy as far as he could, and commanded that in the absence of Bishops they should be anointed by the Priest: and therefore it is by some supposed that factum valet, sieri non debuit. The thing ought not to be done but in the proper and appointed way; but when it is done, it is valid; just as in the case of Baptism by a Lay-man or Woman. Nay, though some Canons say it is actio irrita, the act is null, yet for this there is a salvo pretended; for sometimes an action is said to be irrita in Law, which yet nevertheless is of secret and permanent value, and ought not to be done again. Thus if a Priest be promoted by Simony, it is said, Sacerdos non est, sed inaniter tantùm dicitur, [...] Qu. 1. cap. Qui vult 1. & 2 Epist. 2. de Episc ordinan [...]. 1. Qu. 2. C. [...] mul [...]. Clenem. de [...]. [...]ap. [...]n pl [...]is. que. He is but vainly called a Priest, for he is no Priest. So Sixtus II. said, That if a Bishop ordain in another's Diocese, the Ordination is void; and in the Law it is said, That if a Bishop be consecrated without his Clergy and the Congregation, the Consecration is null: and yet these later and fiercer Constitutions do not determine concerning the natural event of things, but of the legal and Canonical approbation.

To these things I answer, That S. Ambrose his saying that in Egypt the Presbyters consign in the Bishop's absence, does not prove that they ever did Confirm or Impose hands on the Baptized for the ministery of the Holy Spirit; because that very passage being related by S. Austin, Qu. V. & N.T. Qu. 101. the more general word of consign is rendred by the plainer and more particular consecrant, they consecrate, meaning the blessed Eucharist; which was not permitted primitively to a simple Priest to do in the Bishops absence [Page] without leave, only in Egypt it seems they had a general leave, and the Bishop's absence was an interpretative consent. But besides this, consignant is best interpreted by the practice of the Church, of which I shall presently give an account; they might in the abscence of the Bishop consign with Oil upon the top of the Head, but not in the Fore-head, much less Impose hands, or Confirm, or minister the Holy Spirit: for the case was this.

It was very early in the Church that, to represent the Grace which was ministred in Confirmation, the Unction from above, they us'd Oil and Balsam; and so constantly us'd this in their Confirmations, that from the Ceremony it had the appellation: Sacramentum Chrismatis S. Austin calls it;Lib. 2. cont. li [...]er. Petiliani, c. 104. [...], so Dionysius. Now because at the Baptism of the adult Christians, and (by imitation of that) of Infants, Confirmation and Baptism were usually ministred at the same time; the Unction was not only us'd to persons newly baptiz [...]d, but another Unction was added as a ceremony in Baptism it self, and was us'd immediately before Baptism; and the oil was put on the top of the head, and three times was the party sign'd. So it was then, as we find in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. But besides this Unction with oil in Baptismal preparations, and pouring oil into the Baptismal water, we find another Unction after the Baptism was finished. For they bring the Baptized person again to the Bishop, saith S. Dionys, Eccles. hier. cap. 2. who signing the man with hallowed Chrism, gives him the Holy Eucharist. This they called [...], the perfective or consummating Vnction; this was that which was us'd when the Bishop Confirmed the Baptized person: For to him who is initiated by the most holy initiation of the Divine generation, (that is, to him who hath been Baptiz'd, saith Pachimeres the Paraphrast of Dionysius) the perfective Vnction of Chrism gives the gift of the Holy Ghost. Can. 48. This is that which the Laodicean Council calls [...], to be anointed after Baptism. Both these Unctions were intimated by Theophilus Antiochenus. [...]; Every man that is born into the World, and every man that is a Champion, is anointed with oil: That to Baptism, this alluding to Confirmation.

Now this Chrism was frequently ministred immediately after Baptism, in the Cities where the Bishop was present: but in Villages and little Towns where the Bishop was not present, it could not be; but Bishops were forc'd at their opportunities to go abroad and perfect what was wanting, as it was in the example of Peter and John to the Samaritans. S. Hieron. adv. Lucifer. ant [...] [...]ued. Non quidem abnuo hanc esse Ecclesiarum consuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longè in minoribus Vrbibus per Presbyteros & Diaconos baptizati sunt, Episcopus ad invocationem Sancti Spiritûs manum impositurus excurrat. It is the custom of the Church, that when persons are in lesser Cities baptiz'd by Priests and Deacons, the Bishop uses to travel far, that he may lay hands on them for the invocation of the Holy Spirit. But because this could not always be done, and because many Baptized persons died before such an opportunity could be had; the Church took up a custom, that the Bishop should consecrate the Chrism, and send it to the Villages and little Cities distant from the Metropolis, and that the Priests should anoint the Baptized with it. But still they kept this part of it sacred and peculiar to the Bishop: 1. That no Chrism should be us'd but what the Bishop consecrated; 2. That the Priests should anoint the Head of the Baptized, but at no hand the Fore-head, for that was still reserved for the Bishop to do when he Confirmed them. And this is evident in the Epistle of P. Innocent the First, above quoted. Nam Presbyteris, seu extra Episcopum seu praesenta Episcopo Baptizant, Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet, sed quod ab Episcopo suerit consecratum; non tamen frontem ex eodem oleo signare, quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Paracletum. Now this the Bishops did, not only to satisfie the desire of the Baptized, but by this Ceremony to excite the votum Confirmationis, that they who could not actually be Confirmed, might at least have it in voto in desire, and in Ecclesiastical representation. This (as some think) was first introduc'd by Pope Sylvester: and this is the Consignation which the Priests of Egypt us'd in the absence of the Bishop; and this became afterward the practice in other Churches.

But this was no part of the Holy Rite of Confirmation, but a Ceremony annexed to it ordinarily; from thence transmitted to Baptism, first by imitation, afterwards by way of supply and in defect of the opportunities of Confirmation Episcopal. And therefore we find in the first Arausican Council, in the time of Leo the First and Theodosius junior, Cap. 1. it was decreed, That in Baptism every one should receive Chrism: De eo autem qui in Baptismate, quâcunque necessitate faciente, Chrismatus non fuerit, in Confirmatione Sacerdos commonebitur. If the Baptized by any intervening accident or necessity [Page] was not anointed, the Bishop should be advertis'd of it in Confirmation; meaning, that then it must be done. For the Chrism was but a Ceremony annexed, no part of either Rite essential to it; but yet they thought it necessary, by reason of some opinions then prevailing in the Church. But here the Rites themselves are clearly distinguish'd; and this of Confirmation was never permitted to mere Presbyters. Innocentius III, a great Canonist and of great authority, gives a full evidence in this particular. Per frontis Chrismationem manûs Impositio designatur, quia per eam Spiritu [...] Sanctus per augmentum datur & robur. Vnde cùm caeteras unctiones simplex Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere, hanc non nisi summus Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere, idest, Episcopus conferre. By anointing of the forehead the Imposition of hands is design'd, because by that the Holy Ghost is given for increase and strength: therefore when a single Priest may give the other Unctions, yet this cannot be done but by the chief Priest, that is, the Bishop. And therefore to the Question, What shall be done if a Bishop may not be had? the same Innocentius answers; It is safer and without danger wholly to omit it, than to have it rashly and without authority ministred by any other, Cùm umbra quaedam ostendatur in oper [...], veritas autem non subeat in essectu; for it i [...] a mere shadow without truth or real effect, when any one else does it but the person whom God hath appointed to this ministration. And no approved man of the Church did ever say the contrary, till Richard Primate of Armagh commenced a new Opinion, from whence (Thomas of Walden says that) Wiclef borrowed his Doctrine to trouble the Church in this particular.

What the Doctrine of the ancient Church was in the purest times, I have already (I hope) sufficiently declared; what it was afterwards, when the Ceremony of Chrism was as much remarked as the Rite to which it ministred, we find fully declared by Rabanus Maurus. De instit. C [...]oric. l. 1. c. 30. Signatur Baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in Capitis summitate, per Pontificem verò in Fronte; ut priori Vnctione significetur Spiritùs Sancti super ipsum descensio ad habitationem Deo consecrandum; in secunda quoque, ut ejus Spiritûs Sancti septiformis gratia, cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis & scientiae & virtutis, venire in hominem declaretur: Tunc enim ipse Spiritus Sanctus post mundata & benedicta corpora atque animas liberè à Patre descendit, ut unà cum sua visitatione sanctificaret & illustraret; & nunc in hominem ad hoc venit, ut Signaculum fidei, quod in fronte suscepit, faciat cum donis coelestibus repletum, & suâ gratiâ confortatum, intrepidè & audacter coram Regibus & Potestatibus hujus seculi portare, ac nomen Christi liberâ voce praedicare. In Baptism the Baptized was anointed on the top of the Head, in Confirmation on the Forehead: by that was signified that the Holy Ghost was preparing a habitation for himself; by this was declared the descent of the Holy Spirit, with his seven-fold Gifts, with all fulness of knowledge and spiritual understanding. These things were signified by the appendant Ceremony; but the Rites were ever distinguished, and did not only signifie and declare, but effect these Graces by the ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands.

The Ceremony the Church instituted and us'd as she pleas'd, and gave in what circumstances they would chuse; and new propositions entred, and customs chang'd, and deputations were made; and the Bishops, in whom by Christ was plac'd the fulness of Ecclesiastical power, concredited to the Priests and Deacons so much as their occasions and necessities permitted: and because in those ages and places where the external Ceremony was regarded (it may be) more than the inward Mystery or the Rite of Divine appointment, they were apt to believe that the Chrism or exterior Unction, delegated to the Priests Ministery after the Episcopal consecration of it, might supply the want of Episcopal Confirmation; it came to pass that new opinions were enter [...]ain'd, and the Regulars, the Friers and the Jesuits, who were always too little friends to the Episcopal power, from which they would fain have been wholly exempted, publickly taught (in England especially) that Chrism ministred by them with leave from the Pope did do all that which ordinarily was to be done in Episcopal Confirmation. For, as Tertullian complain'd in his time, Quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi, eo [...] necessitas coegit aliter disponendi instrumenta Doctrinae; They who had purposes of teaching new Doctrines, were constrain'd otherwise to dispose of the Instruments and Rituals appertaining to their Doctrines. These men, to serve ends, destroyed the Article, and overthrew the ancient Discipline and Unity of the Primitive Church. But they were justly censur'd by the Theological Faculty at Paris, and the Censure well defended by Hallier, one of the Doctors of the Sorbon; whither I refer the Reader that is curious in little things.

[Page]But for the main: It was ever call'd Confirmatio Episcopalis, & impositio manuum Episcoporum; which our English word well expresses, and perfectly retains the use; we know it by the common name of Bishopping of Children. I shall no farther insist upon it, only I shall observe that there is a vain distinction brought into the Schools and Glosses of the Canon Law, of a Minister ordinary, and extraordinary; all allowing that the Bishop is appointed the ordinary Minister of Confirmation, but they would fain innovate and pretend that in some cases others may be Ministers extraordinary. This device is of infinite danger to the destruction of the whole Sacred Order of the Ministery, and disparks the inclosures, and lays all in common, and makes men supreme controllers of the Orders of God, and relies upon a false Principle; for in true Divinity, and by the Oeconomy of the Spirit of God, there can be no Minister of any Divine Ordinance but he that is of Divine appointment, there can be none but the ordinary Minister. I do not say that God is tied to this way; he cannot be tied but by himself: and therefore Christ gave a special Commission to Ananias to baptize and to confirm S. Paul, and he gave the Spirit to Cornelius even before he was baptized, and he ordained S. Paul to be an Apostle without the ministery of man. But this I say, That though God can make Ministers extraordinary, yet Man cannot, and they that go about to do so usurp the Power of Christ, and snatch from his hand what he never intended to part with. The Apostles admitted others into a part of their care and of their power, but when they intended to imploy them in any ministery, they gave them so much of their Order as would enable them; but a person of a lower Order could never be deputed Minister of actions appropriate to the higher: which is the case of Confirmation, by the Practice and Tradition of the Apostles, and by the Universal Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Catholick Church, by which Bishops only, the Successors of the Apostles, were alone the Ministers of Confirmation: and therefore if any man else usurp it, let them answer it; they do hurt indeed to themselves, but no benefit to others, to whom they minister shadows instead of substances.

SECT. V. The whole Procedure or Ritual of Confirmation is by Prayer and Imposition of Hands.

THE Heart and the Eye are lift up to God to bring Blessings from him, and so is the Hand too; but this also falls upon the People, and rests there, to apply the descending Blessing to the proper and prepared suscipient. God governed the People of Israel by the hand of Moses and Aaron:

— & calidae fecêre silentia turbae

Majestate manûs:

And both under Moses and under Christ, when-ever the President of Religion did bless the People, he lifted up his Hand over the Congregation; and when he blessed a single Person, he laid his Hand upon him. This was the Rite used by Jacob and the Patriarchs, by Kings and Prophets, by all the eminently Religious in the Synagogue, and by Christ himself when he blessed the Children which were brought to him, and by the Apostles when they blessed and confirmed the baptized Converts; and whom else can the Church follow? The Apostles did so to the Christians of Samaria, to them of Ephesus; and S. Paul describes this whole mystery by the Ritual part of it, calling it the Foundation of the Imposition of hands. Heb. 6.2. It is the solemnity of Blessing, and the solemnity and application of Paternal prayer. [...];Palag. l. 3. c. 11 said Clement of Alexandria; Upon whom shall he lay his hands? whom shall he bless? Quidenim aliud est Impositio manuum, nisi Oratio super hominem? said S. Austin; The Bishop's laying his hands on the People, what is it but the solemnity of Prayer for them? that is, a prayer made by those Sacred persons who by Christ are [Page] appointed to pray for them, and to bless in his Name: and so indeed are all the Ministeries of the Church, Baptism, Consecration of the B. Eucharist, Absolution, Ordination, Visitation of the Sick; they are all in genere Orationis, they are nothing but solemn and appointed Prayer by an intrusted and a gracious Person, specificated by a proper order to the end of the blessing then designed. And therefore when S. James commanded that the sick Persons should send for the Elders of the Church, he adds, and let them pray over them; that is, lay their hands on the sick, and pray for them; that is praying over them: It is adumbratio dextrae, (as Tertullian calls it) the right hand of him that ministers over-shadows the person for whom the solemn Prayer is to be made.

This is the Office of the Rulers of the Church; for they in the Divine Eutaxy are made your Superiors: they are indeed your servants for Jesus sake, but they are over you in the Lord, and therefore are from the Lord appointed to bless the People; for without contradiction, saith the Apostle, the less is blessed of the greater, that is, God hath appointed the Superiors in Religion to be the great Ministers of Prayer,Heb. 7.7. he hath made them the gracious Persons, them he will hear, those he hath commanded to convey your needs to God, and God's blessings to you, and to ask a blessing is to desire them to pray for you; them, I say,Hooke [...] Eccl. Pol lib. 5. Sect 66. whom God most respecteth for their piety and zeal that way, or else regardeth for that their place and calling bindeth them above others to do this duty, such as are Natural and Spiritual Fathers.

It is easie for prophane persons to deride these things, as they do all Religion which is not conveyed to them by sense or natural demonstrations: but the Oeconomy of the Spirit and the things of God are spiritually discerned. The Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and no man knows whence it comes, and whither it goes; and the Operations are discerned by Faith, and received by Love and by Obedience. Date mihi Christianum, & intelligit quod dico; None but true Christians understand and feel these things. But of this we are sure, that in all the times of Mose's Law, while the Synagogue was standing, and in all the days of Christianity, so long as men loved Religion, and walked in the Spirit, and minded the affairs of their Souls, to have the Prayers and the Blessing of the Fathers of the Synagogue and the Fathers of the Church, was esteemed no small part of their Religion, and so they went to Heaven. But that which I intend to say is this, That Prayer and Imposition of Hands was the whole procedure in the Christian Rites: and because this Ministery was most signally performed by this Ceremony, and was also by S. Paul called and noted by the name of the Ceremony, Imposition of hands; this name was retained in the Christian Church, and this manner of ministring Confirmation was all that was in the commandment or institution.

But because in Confirmation we receive the Unction from above, that is, then we are most signally made Kings and Priests unto God, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, and to enable us to seek the Kingdom of God and the Righteousness of it, and that the giving of the Holy Spirit is in Scripture called the Vnction from above; the Church of God in early Ages made use of this Allegory▪ and passed it into an External Ceremony and Representation of the Mystery, to signifie the Inward Grace.

Post inscripta oleo frontis signacula,

[...]

per quae

Vnguentum Regale datum est, & Chrisma perenne.

We are consigned on the Fore-head with Oil, and a Royal Unction and an Eternal Chrism is given to us: so Prudentius gives testimony of the ministery of Confirmation in his time. [...],A.D. 400. Catech. Myst. [...] ▪ 3. said S. Cyril. Preserve this Unction pure and spotless, for it teaches you all things, as you have heard the blessed S. John speaking and philosophizing many things of this holy Chrism. Upon this account the H. Fathers used to bless and consecrate Oil and Balsam, that by an External Signature they might signifie the Inward Unction effected in Confirmation. [...]. This Chrism is not simple or common when it is blessed, but the gift of Christ, and the presence of his H. Spirit, as it were effecting the Divinity it self; the body is indeed anointed with visible Ointment, but is also sanctified by the holy and quickning Spirit: so S. Cyril. Syn [...]dus [...] ▪ ap. d [...] Eccl. Gal. [...] 5. I find in him and in some late Synods other pretty significations and allusions made by this Ceremony of Chrisms. Nos autem pro igne visibili, qui die Pentecostes super Apostolos[Page]apparuit, oleum sanctum, materiam nempe ignis ex Apostolorum traditione, ad confirmandum adhibemus: This using of Oil was instead of the Baptism with Fire, which Christ baptized his Apostles with in Pentecost; and Oil being the most proper matter of Fire, is therefore used in Confirmation.

That this was the ancient Ceremony is without doubt, and that the Church had power to do so hath no question, and I add, it was not unreasonable; for if ever the Scripture expresses the mysteriousness of a Grace conferred by an Exterior ministery, (as this is, by Imposition of hands) and represents it besides in the Expression and Analogy of any sensible thing, that Expression drawn into a Ceremony will not improperly signifie the Grace, since the Holy Ghost did chuse that for his own expression and representment. In Baptism we are said to be buried with Christ. The Church does according to the Analogy of that expression, when she immerges the Catechumen in the Font; for then she represents the same thing which the Holy Ghost would have to be represented in that Sacrament, the Church did but the same thing when she used Chrism in this ministration. This I speak in justification of that ancient practice: but because there was no command for it, [...], said S. Basil, Lib. de Spir. S. cap. 17. concerning Chrism there is no written word, that is, of the Ceremony there is not, he said it not of the whole Rite of Confirmation; therefore though to this we are all bound, yet as to the Anointing the Church is at liberty, and hath with sufficient authority omitted it in our ministrations.

In the Liturgy of King Edward the VI. the Bishops used the sign of the Cross upon the Foreheads of them that were to be Confirmed. I do not find it since forbidden, or revoked by any expression or intimation, saving only that it is omitted in our later Offices; and therefore it may seem to be permitted to the discretion of the Bishops, but yet not to be used unless where it may be for Edification, and where it may be by the consent of the Church, at least by interpretation; concerning which I have nothing else to interpose, but that neither this, nor any thing else which is not of the nature and institution of the Rite, ought to be done by private Authority, nor ever at all but according to the Apostle's Rule, [...], whatsoever is decent, and whatsoever is according to Order, that is to be done, and nothing else: for Prayer and Imposition of hands for the invocating and giving the Holy Spirit is all that is in the foundation and institution.

SECT. VI. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy Reception and due Ministery of Confirmation.

IT is of it self enough, when it is fully understood, what is said in the Acts of the Apostles at the first ministration of this Rite, They received the Holy Ghost; that is, according to the expression of our Blessed Saviour himself to the Apostles, when he commanded them in Jerusalem to expect the verification of his glorious promise, they were endued with vertue from on high; that is, with strength to perform their duty: which although it is not to be understood exclusively to the other Rites and Ministeries of the Church of Divine appointment, yet it is properly and most signally true, and as it were in some sence appropriate to this.Part. 3. qu. 72. art. 6. ad prim. For, as Aquinas well discourses, the Grace of Christ is not tied to the Sacraments; but even this Spiritual strength and vertue from on high can be had without Confirmation: as without Baptism Remission of sins may be had; and yet we believe one Baptism for the Remission of sins; and one Confirmation for the obtaining this vertue from on high, this strength of the Spirit. But it is so appropriate to it by promise and peculiarity of ministration, that as without the Desire of Baptism our sins are not pardon'd, so without at least the Desire of Confirmation we cannot receive this vertue from on high, which is appointed to descend in the ministery of the Spirit. It is true, the ministery of the Holy Eucharist is greatly effective to this purpose; and therefore in the ages of Martyrs the Bishops were careful to give the people the Holy Communion frequently, Vt quos [Page]tutos esse contra adversarium volebant, munimento Dominicae Saturitatis amarent, as S. Cyprian with his Collegues wrote to Cornelius;Epist. 54. that those whom they would have to be safe against the contentions of their adversaries, they should arm them with the guards and defences of the Lord's Fulness. But it is to be remembred that the Lord's Supper is for the more perfect Christians, and it is for the increase of the Graces receiv'd formerly, and therefore it is for Remission of sins, and yet is no prejudice to the necessity of Baptism, whose proper work is Remission of sins; and therefore neither does it makes Confirmation unnecessary: for it renews the work of both the precedent Rites, and repairs the breaches, and adds new Energy, and proceeds in the same dispensations, and is renewed often, whereas the others are but once.

Excellent therefore are the words of John Gerson, In o [...] us [...]. au [...]. de Confirmat. the Famous Chancellor of Paris, to this purpose. It may be said that in one way of speaking Confirmation is necessary, and in another it is not. Confirmation is not necessary as Baptism and Repentance, for without these Salvation cannot be had. This Necessity is Absolute; but there is a Conditional Necessity. Thus if a man would not become weak, it is necessary that he eat his meat well. And so Confirmation is necessary, that the Spiritual life and the health gotten in Baptism may be preserv'd in strength against our spiritual enemies. For this is given for strength. Hence is that saying of Hugo de S. Victore; What does it profit that thou art raised up by Baptism, if thou art not able to stand by Confirmation? Not that Baptism is not of value unto Salvation without Confirmation; but because he who is not Confirmed will easily fall, and too readily perish. The Spirit of God comes which way he pleases, but we are tied to use his own Oeconomy, and expect the blessings appointed by his own Ministeries: And because to Prayer is promised we shall receive what-ever we ask, we may as well omit the receiving the Holy Eucharist, pretending that Prayer alone will procure the blessings expected in the other, as well, I say, as omit Confirmation, because we hope to be strengthned and receive vertue from on high by the use of the Supper of the Lord. Let us use all the Ministeries of Grace in their season; for we know not which shall prosper, this or that, or whether they shall be both alike good: this only we know, that the Ministeries which God appoints are the proper seasons and opportunities of Grace.

This power from on high, which is the proper blessing of Confirmation, was expressed, not only in speaking with Tongues and doing Miracles, for much of this they had before they received the Holy Ghost, but it was effected in Spiritual and internal strengths; they were not only enabled for the service of the Church, but were indued with courage, and wisdom, and Christian fortitude, and boldness, to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, and unity of heart and mind, singleness of heart, and joy in God, when it was for the edification of the Church, Miracles were done in Confirmations; and S. Bernard, in the Life of S. Malachias, tells that S. Malchus, Bishop of Lismore in Ireland, confirmed a Lunatick child, and at the same time cured him: but such things as these are extra-regular and contingent. This which we speak of is a regular Ministery, and must have a regular effect.

S. Austin said, that the holy Spirit in Confirmation was given ad dilatanda Ecclesiae primordia, for the propagating Christianity in the beginnings of the Church. S. Hierom says, it was propter honorem sacerdotii, for the honour of the Priesthood. S. Ambrose says, it was ad Confirmationem Vnitatis in Ecclesia Christi, for the confirmation of Unity in the Church of Christ. And they all say true: But the first was by the miraculous Consignations which did accompany this Ministery, and the other two were by reason that the Mysteries were [...], they were appropriated to the ministery of the Bishop, who is caput unitatis, the Head, the last resort, the Firmament of Unity in the Church. These effects were regular indeed, but they were incident and accidental: There are effects yet more proper, and of greater excellency.

Now if we will understand in general what excellent fruits are consequent to this Dispensation, we may best receive the notice of them from the Fountain it self, our Blessed Saviour. He that believes, out of his belly (as the Scripture saith) shall flow Rivers of Living waters. But this he spake of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. This is evidently spoken of the Spirit, which came down in Pentecost,John 7.38. which was promised to all that should believe in Christ, and which the Apostles ministred by Imposition of hands, the Holy Ghost himself being the expositor; and it can signifie no less, but that a Spring of life should be put into the heart of the Confirmed, to water the Plants of God; that they should become Trees, not only planted by the waterside, (for so it was in David's time, and in all the Ministery of the Old TeTestament) [Page] but having a River of living water within them to make them fruitful of goods works, and bringing their fruit in due season, fruits worthy of amendment of life.

1. But the principal thing is this: Confirmation is the consummation and perfection, the corroboration and strength of Baptism and Baptismal Grace; for in Baptism we undertake to do our duty, but in Confirmation we receive strength to do it; in Baptism others promise for us, in Confirmation we undertake for our selves, we ease our God-fathers and God-mothers of their burthen, and take it upon our own shoulders, together with the advantage of the Prayers of the Bishop and all the Church made then on our behalf; in Baptism we give up our names to Christ, but in Confirmation we put our Seal to the Profession, and God puts his Seal to the Promise. It is very remarkable what S. Paul says of the beginnings of our being Christians, [...], the word of the beginning of Christ: Christ begins with us, he gives us his word, and admits us,Rom. 6.17. and we by others hands are brought in, [...], it is the form of Doctrine unto which ye were delivered. Cajetan observes right, That this is a new and emphatical way of speaking: we are wholly immerged in our Fundamentals; other things are delivered to us, but we are delivered up unto these. This is done in Baptism and Catechism;V. 18. and what was the event of it? Being then made free from sin, ye became the Servants of Righteousness. Your Baptism was for the Remission of sins there, and then ye were made free from that bondage; and what then? why then in the next place, when ye came to consummate this procedure, when the Baptized was Confirmed, then he became a servant of righteousness, that is, then the Holy Ghost descended upon you, and enabled you to walk in the Spirit; then the seed of God was first thrown into your hearts by a celestial influence. Spiritus Sanctus in Baptisterio plenitudinem tribuit ad innocentiam, sed in Confirmatione augmentum praestat ad gratiam, Serm. de Pentecoste. said Eusebius Emissenus: In Baptism we are made innocent, in Confirmation we receive the increase of the Spirit of Grace; in that we are regenerated unto life, in this we are strengthned unto battel. Dono sapientiae illuminamur, aedificamur, erudimur, instruimur, confirmamur, ut illam Sancti Spiritûs vocem audire possimus, Habitur apud Gratian. de consecrat. dist. 5. c. Spiritus S. Intellectum tibi dabo, & instruam te in hac vitâ quâ gradieris, said P. Melchiades; We are inlightned by the gift of wisdom, we are built up, taught, instructed and confirmed; so that we may hear that voice of the Holy Spirit, I will give unto thee an understanding heart, and teach thee in the way wherein thou shalt walk: For so,

Signari populos effuso pignore sancto,

Tertul. advers. Marcion. l. 1. car. c. 3.

Mirandae virtutis opus, —

It is a work of great and wonderful power when the holy Pledge of God is poured forth upon the people. This is that Power from on high which first descended in Pentecost, and afterward was ministred by Prayer and Imposition of the Apostolical and Episcopal hands, and comes after the other gift of Remission of sins. Vides quòd non simpliciter hoc fit, sed multâ opus est virtute ut detur Spiritus Sanctus. Non enim idem est assequi remissionem peccatorum, Homil. 18. in Acta. & accipere virtutem illam, said S. Chrysostom. You see that this is not easily done, but there is need of much power from on high to give the Holy Spirit; for it is not all one to obtain Remission of sins, and to have received this vertue or power from above. Quamvis enim continuò transituris sufficiant Regenerationis beneficia, victuris tamen necessaria sunt Confirmationis auxilia, said Melchiades: Although to them that die presently the benefits of Regeneration (Baptismal) are sufficient, yet to them that live the Auxiliaries of Confirmation are necessary. For, according to the saying of S. Leo, in his Epistle to Nicetas the Bishop of Aquileia, commanding that Hereticks returning to the Church should be Confirmed with invocation of the Holy Spirit and Imposition of hands, they have only received the form of Baptism sine sanctificationis virtute, without the vertue of Sanctification; meaning that this is the proper effect of Confirmation. For, in short, Although the newly-lifted Souldiers in humane warfare are inrolled in the number of them that are to fight, yet they are not brought to battel till they be more trained and exercised: So although by Baptism every one is ascribed into the catalogue of Believers, yet he receives more strength and grace for the sustaining and overcoming the temptations of the Flesh, the World and the Devil, only by Imposition of the Bishops hands. They are words which I borrowed from a late Synod at Rhemes. That's the first remark of blessing, In Confirmation we receive strength to do all that which was for us undertaken in Baptism: For the Apostles themselves (as the H. Fathers observe) were timorous in the Faith [Page] until they were Confirmed in Pentecost, but after the reception of the Holy Ghost they waxed valiant in the Faith, and in all their spiritual combats.

2. In Confirmation we receive the Holy Ghost as the earnest of our inheritance, as the seal of our Salvation: [...], saith Gregory Nazianzen; we therefore call it a Seal or Signature, as being a guard and custody to us, and a sign of the Lord's dominion over us. The Confirmed person is [...], a sheep that is mark'd, which Thieves do not so easily steal and carry away. To the same purpose are those words of Theodoret, [...].Comment. in Cantic. c. 1, 2. Remember that holy mystagog [...]e, in which they who were initiated, after the renouncing that Tyrant (the Devil and all his works) and the confession of the true King (Jesus Christ,) have received the Chrism of spiritual Vnction like a Royal signature, by that Vnction, as in a shadow, perceiving the invisible grace of the most Holy Spirit. That is, Confirmation we are sealed for the service of God and unto the day of Redemption; then it is that the seal of God is had by us, The Lord knoweth who are his. Quomodo verò dices, Dei sum, si notas [...]on produxeris? said S. Basil; How can any may say, I am God's sheep, unless he produce the marks?In Adhort. ad Baptis. Signati estis Spiritu promissionis per Sanct [...]ssimum Divinum Spiritum, Domini grex effecti sumus, said Theophylact. When we are thus seal'd by the most Holy and Divine Spirit of promise, then we are truly of the Lord's Flock, and mark'd with his seal: that is, When we are rightly Confirm'd, then he desc [...]nds into our Souls; and though he does not operate (it may be) presently, but as the Reasonable Soul works in its due time and by the order of Nature, by opportunities and new fermentations and actualities; so does the Spirit of God; when he is brought into use, when he is prayed for with love & assiduity, when he is caressed tenderly, when he is us'd lovingly, when we obey his motions readily, when we delight in his words greatly, then we find it true, that the Soul had a new life put into her, a principle of perpetual actions: but the tree planted by the waters side does not presently bear fruit, but in its due season. By this Spirit we are then seal'd; that whereas God hath laid up an inheritance for us in the Kingdom of Heaven, and in the faith of that we must live and labour, to confirm this Faith God hath given us this Pledge, the Spirit of God is a witness to us, and tells us by his holy comforts, by the peace of God, and the quietness and refr [...]shments of a good Conscience, that God is our Father, that we are his Sons and Daughters, and shall be co-heirs with Jesus in his eternal Kingdom. In Baptism we are made the Sons of God, but we receive the witness and testimony of it in Confirmation. This is [...] ▪ the Holy Ghost the Comforter, this is he whom Christ promis'd and did send in Pentecost, and was afterwards ministred and conveyed by Prayer and Imposition of hands: and by this Spirit he makes the Confessors bold, and the Martyrs valiant, and the Tempted strong, and the Virgins to persevere, and Widows to sing his praises and his glories. And this is that excellency which the Church of God called the Lord's seal, and teaches to be imprinted in Confirmation: [...], a perfect Phylactery or Guard, even the Lord's seal, so Eusebius calls it.Apud Euseb.

I will not be so curious as to enter into a discourse of the Philosophy of this: But I shall say, that they who are curious in the secrets of Nature, and observe external signatures in Stones, Plants, Fruits and Shells, of which Naturalists make many observations and observe strange effects, and the more internal signatures in Minerals and Living bodies, of which Chymists discourse strange secrets, may easily, if they please, consider that it is infinitely credible, that in higher essences, even in Spirits, there may be signatures proportionable, wrought more immediately and to greater purposes by a Divine hand. I only point at this, and so pass it over, as (it may be) not fit for every mans consideration.

And now if any man shall say, we see no such things as you talk of, and find the Confirm'd people the same after as before, no better and no wiser, not richer in Gifts, not more adorned with Graces, nothing more zealous for Christ's Kingdom, not more comforted with Hope, or established by Faith, or built up with Charity; they neither speak better, nor live better; What then? Does it therefore follow that the Holy Ghost is not given in Confirmation? Nothing less. For is not Christ given us in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Do not we receive his Body and his Blood? Are we not made all one with Christ, and he with us? And yet it is too true, that when we arise from that holy Feast, thousands there are that find no change. But there are in this two things to be considered.

[Page]One is, that the changes which are wrought upon our souls are not after the manner of Nature, visible, and sensible, and with observation. The Kingdom of God cometh not with Observation: for it is within you, and is only discerned spiritually, and produces its effects by the method of Heaven, and is first apprehended by Faith, and is endear'd by Charity, and at last is understood by holy and kind Experiences. And in this there is no more objection against Confirmation than against Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, or any other Ministery Evangelical.

The other thing is this: If we do not find the effects of the Spirit in Confirmation, it is our faults. For he is receiv'd by Moral instruments, and is intended only as a Help to our endeavours, to our labours and our prayers, to our contentions and our mortifications, to our Faith and to our Hope, to our Patience and to our Charity. Non adjuvari dicitur qui nihil facit, He that does nothing cannot be said to be help'd. Unless we in these instances do our part of the work, it will be no wonder if we lose his part of the co-operation and supervening blessing. He that comes under the Bishops hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, will come with holy desires and a longing Soul, with an open hand and a prepared heart; he will purifie the House of the Spirit for the entertainment of so Divine a guest; he will receive him with humility, and follow him with obedience, and delight him with purities: and he that does thus, let him make the objection if he can, and tell me, Does he say that Jesus is the Lord? He cannot say this but by the Holy Ghost. Does he love his Brother? If he does, then the Spirit of God abides in him. Is Jesus Christ formed in him? Does he live by the laws of the Spirit? Does he obey his commands? Does he attend his motions? Hath he no earnest desires to serve God? If he have not, then in vain hath he received either Baptism or Confirmation. But if he have, it is certain that of himself he cannot do these things: he cannot of himself think a good thought. Does he therefore think well? That is from the Holy Spirit of God.

To conclude this inquiry: The Holy Ghost is promised to all men to profit withall; that's plain in Scripture.1 Cor. 12.7. Confirmation, or Prayer and Imposition of the Bishops hand, is the Solemnity and Rite us'd in Scripture for the conveying of that promise, and the effect is felt in all the Sanctifications and changes of the Soul; and he that denies these things hath not Faith, nor the true notices of Religion, or the spirit of Christianity. Hear what the Scriptures yet further say in this Mystery.2 Cor. 1.21, 22. Now he which confirmeth or stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God: Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. Here is a description of the whole mysterious part of this Rite. God is the Author of the Grace: The Apostles and all Christians are the suscipients, and receive this Grace: by this Grace we are adopted and incorporated into Christ: God hath anointed us; that is, he hath given us this Unction from above, he hath sealed us by his Spirit, made us his own, bored our ears through, made us free by his perpetual service, and hath done all these things in token of a greater; he hath given us his Spirit to testifie to us that he will give us of his glory. These words of S. Paul, besides that they evidently contain in them the spiritual part of this Ritual, are also expounded of the Rite and Sacramental if self by S. Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theophylact, that I may name no more. For in this Mystery Christos nos efficit, & misericordiam Dei nobis annunciat per Spiritum Sanctum, said S. John Damascen;Lib. 4. de Fide, cap. 10. he makes us his anointed ones, and by the Holy Spirit he declares his eternal mercy towards us. Nolite tangere Christos meos, Touch not mine anointed ones. For when we have this Signature of the Lord upon us, the Devils cannot come near to hurt us, unless we consent to their temptations, and drive the Holy Spirit of the Lord from us.

SECT. VII. Of Preparation to Confirmation, and the Circumstances of Receiving it.

IF Confirmation have such gracious effects, why do we Confirm little Children, whom in all reason we cannot suppose to be capable and receptive of such Graces? It will be no answer to this, if we say, That this very question is asked concerning [Page] the Baptism of Infants, to which as great effects are consequent, even Pardon of all our sins, and the New birth and Regeneration of the Soul unto Christ: For in these things the Soul is wholly passive, and nothing is required of the suscipient but that he put in no bar against the Grace, which because Infants cannot do, they are capable of Baptism; but it follows not that therefore they are capable of Confirmation, because this does suppose them such as to need new assistances, and is a new profession, and a personal undertaking, and therefore requires personal abilities, and cannot be done by others, as in the case of Baptism. The Aids given in Confirmation are in order to our contention and our danger, our temptation and spiritual warfare; and therefore it will not seem equally reasonable to Confirm Children as to Baptize them.

To this I answer, That in the Primitive Church Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism; for we find many Records, that when the Office of Baptism was finished, and the baptized person devested of the white Robe, the person was carried again to the Bishop to be Confirmed, as I have already shewn out ofCap. 4. part. 3. De [...]. Epist. [...]d Epis [...]. Hisp [...]n. O [...]do Rom cap. de D [...] Sabba [...] S. Pas [...]h. Al [...]um. De devin. offic. [...]. 19. Dionysius and divers others. The reasons why anciently they were ministred immediately after one another is, not only because the most of them that were Baptized were of years to chuse their Religion, and did so, and therefore were capable of all that could be consequent to Baptism, or annexed to it, or ministred with it, and therefore were also at the same time Communicated as well as Confirmed; but also because the solemn Baptisms were at solemn times of the year, at Faster only and Whitsuntide, and only in the Cathedral or Bishop's Church in the chief City, whither when the Catechumens came, and had the opportunity of the Bishop's presence, they took the advantage ut Sacramento utroque renascantur, as S. Cyprian's expression is, that they might be regenerated by both the Mysteries, and they also had the third added, viz. the Holy Eucharist.

This simultaneous ministration hath occasioned some few of late to mistake Confirmation for a part of Baptism, but no distinct Rite, or of distinct effect, save only that it gave ornament and complement or perfection to the other. But this is infinitely confuted by the very first ministery of Confirmation in the world: For there was a great interval between S. Philip's Baptizing and the Apostles Confirming the Samaritans, where also the difference is made wider by the distinction of the Minister; a Deacon did one, none but an Apostle and his Successor a Bishop could do the other: and this being of so universal a Practice and Doctrine in the Primitive Church, it is a great wonder that any Learned men could suffer an error in so apparent a case. It is also clear in two other great remarks of the practice of the Primitive Church. The one is of them who were Baptized in their sickness, the [...], when they recovered they were commanded to address themselves to the Bishop to be Confirmed; which appears in the XXXVIII. Canon of the Council of Eliberis, and the XLVI. Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which I have before cited upon other occasions: The other is, that of Hereticks returning to the Church, who were Confirmed not only long after Baptism, but after their Apostasie and their Conversion.

For although Episcopal Confirmation was the inlargement of Baptismal grace, and commonly administred the same day, yet it was done by interposition of distinct Ceremonies, and not immediately in time. Honorius Augustodunensis tells,Vide Cassa [...] d [...]um Schol. ad Hym. [...]. That when the Baptized on the eighth day had laid aside their Mitres, or proper habit used in Baptism, then they were usually Confirmed, or consigned with Chrism in the Forehead by the Bishop. And when children were Baptized irregularly, or besides the ordinary way, in Villages and places distant from the Bishop, Confirmation was deferr'd, said Durandus. And it is certain, that this affair did not last long without variety: Sometimes they ministred both together; sometimes at greater, sometimes at lesser distances; and it was left indifferent in the Church to do the one or the other, or the third, according to the opportunity and the discretion of the Bishop.

But afterward in the middle and descending Ages it grew to be a question, not whether it were lawful or not, but which were better, To Confirm Infants, or to stay to their Childhood, or to their riper years. Aquinas, Bonaventure and some others say it is best that they be Confirmed in their Infancy, quia dolus non est, nec obicem ponunt, they are then without craft, and cannot hinder the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them. And indeed it is most agreeable with the Primitive practice, that if they were Baptized in Infancy, they should then also be Confirmed; according to that of the famous Epistle of Melchiades to the Bishops of Spain, Ità conjuncta sunt haec duo Sacramenta, ut ab invicem, nisi morte praeveniente, non possint separari, & unum altero ritè persici [Page]non potest. Where although he expresly affirms the Rites to be two, yet unless it be in cases of necessity they are not to be severed, and one without the other is not perfect; which, in the sence formerly mentioned, is true, and so to be understood, That to him who is Baptized and is not Confirmed something very considerable is wanting, and therefore they ought to be joyned, though not immediately, yet [...], according to reasonable occasions and accidental causes. But in this there must needs be a liberty in the Church, not only for the former reasons, but also because the Apostles themselves were not Confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

Others therefore say, That to Confirm them of Riper years is with more edification. The confession of Faith is more voluntary, the election is wiser, the submission to Christ's discipline is more acceptable, and they have more need, and can make better use of their strengths than derived by the Holy Spirit of God upon them: and to this purpose it is commanded in the Canon Law,De consecrat. dist. 5. c. ut jejuni. that they who are confirmed should be perfectae aetatis, of full age; upon which the Gloss says, Perfectam vocat fortè duodecim annorum, Twelve years old was a full age, because at those years they might then be admitted to the lower services in the Church. But the reason intimated and implied by the Canon is, because of the Preparation to it; They must come Fasting, and they must make publick Confession of their Faith. And indeed that they should do so is matter of great edification, as also are the advantages of choice, and other preparatory abilities and dispositions above-mentioned. They are matter of edification, I say, when they are done; but then the delaying of them so long before they be done, and the wanting the aids of the Holy Ghost conveyed in that Ministery, are very prejudicial, and are not matter of edification.

But therefore there is a third way, which the Church of England and Ireland follows, and that is, that after Infancy, but yet before they understand too much of Sin, and when they can competently understand the Fundamentals of Religion, then it is good to bring them to be Confirmed, that the Spirit of God may prevent their youthful sins, and Christ by his Word and by his Spirit may enter and take possession at the same time. And thus it was in the Church of England long since provided and commanded by the Laws of King Edgar, A. D. 967. cap. 15. Vt nullus ab Episcopo confirmari diu nimiùm detrectârit, That none should too long put off his being Confirmed by the Bishop; that is, as is best expounded by the perpetual practice almost ever since, as soon as ever by Catechism and competent instruction they were prepared, it should not be deferred. If it have been omitted, (as of late years it hath been too much) as we do in Baptism, so in this also, it may be taken at any age, even after they have received the Lord's Supper; as I observed before in the Practice and Example of the Apostles themselves, which in this is an abundant warrant: But still the sooner the better. I mean, after that Reason begins to dawn: but ever it must be taken care of, that the Parents and God-fathers, the Ministers and Masters see that the Children be catechised and well instructed in the Fundamentals of their Religion.

For this is the necessary preparation to the most advantageous reception of this Holy Ministery. In Eccles [...]is potissimùm Latinis non nisi adultiore aetate pueros admitti videmus, vel hanc certè ob causam, ut Parentibus, Susceptoribus & Ecclesiarum Praesectis occasio detur pueros de Fide, quam in Baptismo professi sunt, diligentiùs instituendi & admonendi, Consultationis cap. 9. said the excellent Cassander. In the Latin Churches they admit children of some ripeness of age, that they may be more diligently taught and instructed in the Faith.Serm. 116. in ram [...] Palmarum. De lib. Ecclesiast. c. 26. And to this sence agree S. Austin, Walafridus Strabo, Ruardus Lovaniensis, and Mr. Calvin.

For this was ever the practice of the Primitive Church, to be infinitely careful of Catechizing those who came and desired to be admitted to this holy Rite; they used Exorcisms or Catechisms to prepare them to Baptism and Confirmation. I said Exorcisms or Catechisms, for they were the same thing; if the notion be new, yet I the more willingly declare it, not only to free the Primitive Church from the suspicion of Superstition in using Charms or Exorcisms, (according to the modern sence of the word) or casting of the Devil out of innocent Children, but also to remonstrate the perpetual practice of Catechizing Children in the eldest and best times of the Church. Thus the Greek Scholiast upon Harmenopulus renders the word [...] by [...], the Primitive Exorcist was the Catechist: And Balsamon upon the 26. Canon of the Council of Laodicea says, that to Exorcize is nothing but to Catechize the unbelievers, [...], Some undertook to Exorcize, that is, (says he) to Catechize the unbelievers: And S. Cyril, in his Preface to his Catechisms, [Page] speaking to the Illuminati, Festinent (says he) pedes tui ad Catecheses audiendas, Exorcismos studiosè suscipe, &c. Let your feet run hastily to hear the Catechisms, studiously receive the Exorcisms, although thou beest already inspired and exorcized; that is, although you have been already instructed in the Mysteries▪ yet still proceed: For without Exorcisms (or Catechisms) the Soul cannot go forward, since they are Divine and gathered out of the Scriptures. And the reason why these were called Exorcisms he adds; [Because when the Exorcists or Catechists by the Spirit of God produce fear in your hearts, and do inkindle the Spirit as in a furnace, the Devil flies away, and Salvation and hope of Life Eternal does succeed:] according to that of the Evangelist concerning Christ, They were astonished at his Doctrine, for his word was with power;Luke 4.32. and that of S. Luke concerning Paul and Barnabas, The Deputy, when he saw what was done, Acts 13.12. was astonished at the Doctrine of the Lord. It is the Lord's Doctrine that hath the power to cast out Devils and work Miracles; Catechisms are the best Exorcisms. [Let us therefore, Brethren, abide in hope, and persevere in Catechizings (saith S. Cyril) although they be long, and produced with many words or discourses.] The same also we find in Orat. de Baptism. S. Gregory Nazianzen, and In Psal 68. S. Austin.

The use that I make of this notion is principally, to be an exhortation to all of the Clergy, that they take great care to Catechize all their people, to bring up Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, to prepare a holy seed for the service of God, to cultivate the young plants and to dress the old ones, to take care that those who are men in the World be not mere Babes and uninstructed in Christ, and that they who are children in age may be wise unto Salvation: for by this means we shall rescue them from early temptations, when being so prepared they are so assisted by a Divine Ministery; we shall weaken the Devil's power, by which he too often and too much prevails upon uninstructed and unconfirmed Youth. For [...], Confirmation is the firmament of our Profession; but we profess nothing till we be Catechized. Catechizings are our best Preachings, and by them we shall give the best accounts of our charges, while in the behalf of Christ we make Disciples, and take prepossession of Infant-understandings, and by this holy Rite, by Prayer and Imposition of hands we minister the Holy Spirit to them, and so prevent and disable the artifices of the Devil; for we are not ignorant of his devices, how he enters as soon as he can, and taking advantage of their ignorance and their passion, seats himself so strongly in their hearts and heads. ‘Turpiùs ejicitur quam non admittitur hostis,’ It is harder to cast the Devil out than to keep him out. Hence it is that the Youth are so corrupted in their Manners, so Devilish in their Natures, so cursed in their Conversation, so disobedient to Parents, so wholly given to vanity and idleness; they learn to swear before they can pray, and to lie as soon as they can speak. It is not my sence alone, but was long since observed by Gerson and Gulielmus Parisiensis, De extermina [...] Schism Propter cessationem Confirmationis tepiditas grandior est in fidelibus, & fidei defensione; There is a coldness and deadness in Religion, and it proceeds from the neglect of Confirmation rightly ministred, and after due preparations and dispositions. A little thing will fill a Child's head: Teach them to say their Prayers, tell them the stories of the Life and Death of Christ, cause them to love the holy Jesus with their first love, make them afraid of a sin; let the Principles which God hath planted in their very Creation, the natural principles of Justice and Truth, of Honesty and Thankfulness, of Simplicity and Obedience be brought into act, and habit, and confirmation by the Holy Sermons of the Gospel. If the Guides of Souls would have their people holy, let them [...]each Holiness to their Children, and then they will (at least) have a new generation unto God, better than this wherein we now live. They who are most zealous in this particular will with most comfort reap the fruit of their Labours, and the blessings of their Ministery; and by the numbers which every Curate presents to his Bishop fitted for Confirmation, he will in proportion render an account of his Stewardship with some visible felicity. And let it be remembred, that in the last Rubrick of the Office of Confirmation in our Liturgy it is made into a Law, that none should be admitted to the holy Communion until such time as he could say the Catechism, and be Confirmed: which was also a Law and Custom in the Primitive Church, as appears in S. Dionysius his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and the matter of Fact is notorious. Among the Helvetians they are forbidden to contract Marriages before they are well instructed in the Catechism: And in a late [Page] Synod at Bourges, the Curates are commanded to threaten all that are not Confirmed, that they shall never receive the Lord's Supper, nor be married. And in effect the same is of force in our Church: For the Married persons being to receive the Sacrament at their Marriage, and none are to receive but those that are Confirmed, the same Law obtains with us as with the Helvetians or the Synodus Bituricensis.

There is another little inquiry which I am not willing to omit; but the answer will not be long, because there is not much to be said on either side. Some inquire whether the Holy Rite of Confirmation can be ministred any more than once. S. Austin seems to be of opinion that it may be repeated.Lib. 3. de Bapt. c. 16. Quid enim aliud est Impositio manuum nisi oratio super hominem? Confirmation is a solemn prayer over a man; and if so, why it may not be reiterated can have nothing in the nature of the thing; and the Greeks do it frequently, but they have no warranty from the Scripture, nor from any of their own ancient Doctors. Indeed when any did return from Heresie, they Confirmed them, as I have proved out of the first and second Council of Arles, the Council of Laodicea, and the second Council of Sevil: But upon a closer intuition of the thing, I find they did so only to such who did not allow of Confirmation in their Sects, such as the Novatians and the Donatists. Novatiani poenitentiam à suo conventu arcent penitus, & iis qui ab ipsis tinguntur sacrum Chrisma non praebent. Quocirca qui ex hac Haeresi corpori Ecclesiae conjunguntur benedicti Patres ungi jusserunt: Lib. 3. Haeret. Fabul. so Theodoret. For that reason only the Novatians were to be Confirmed upon their Conversion, because they had it not before. I find also they did confirm the converted Arrians; but the reason is given in the first Council of Arles, quia propriâ lege utuntur, they had a way of their own: that is, as the Gloss saith upon the Canon, de Arrianis consecrat. dist. 4. their Baptism was not in the name of the Holy Trinity; and so their Baptism being null, or at least suspected, to make all as sure as they could, they Confirmed them. The same also is the case of the Bonasiaci in the second Council of Arles, though they were (as some of the Arrians also were) Baptized in the name of the most Holy Trinity; but it was a suspected matter, and therefore they Confirmed them: But to such persons who had been rightly Baptized and Confirmed, they never did repeat it. [...], the gift of the Spirit is an inedeleble Seal, Cyril. Hieros. in Pr [...]catech. saith S. Cyril; [...] S. Basil calls it, it is inviolable. They who did re-baptize, did also re-confirm. But as it was an error in S. Cyprian and the Africans to do the first, so was the second also, in case they had done it; for I find no mention expresly that they did the latter but upon the fore-mentioned accounts, and either upon supposition 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, Apud Gratian. de Consecrat. dist. 5. cap. Dictum est, & cap. De homine. Concil. Toletan. 8. can. 7. 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;Heb. 6.6. 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 ca [...]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 seal [...]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. Zonar. in Can. Laodicen. 48. The same advice is given by Prudentius,

[Page]

Cultor Dei, memento

Te fontis & lavacri

Rorem subiisse Sanctum,

Et Chrismate

innovatum.

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, Orat. in Sanctum lava crum. (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,Lib. 2. contra lit. Pe [...]il. c. 104▪ 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 Mrs. KATHARINE PHILIPS.

[Page]

[Page]

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 [...]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 all the New Testament. It speaks of Friends often; but by Friends are [Page] meant our acquiantance, or our Kindred, the relatives of our Family or our Fortune, or our Sect; something of society, or something of kindness there is in it; a tenderness of appellation and civility, a relation made by gifts, or by duty, by services and subjection; and I think, I have reason to be confident, that the word Friend (speaking of humane entercourse) is no other-ways used in the Gospels or Epistles, or Acts of the Apostles: and the reason of it is, the word Friend is of a large signification; and means all relations and societies, and whatsoever is not enemy. But by Friendships, I suppose you mean the greatest love, and the greatest usefulness, and the most open communication, and the noblest sufferings, and the most exemplar faithfulness, and the severest truth, and the heartiest counsel, and the greatest union of minds, of which brave men and women are capable. But then I must tell you that Christianity hath new christened it, and calls this Charity. The Christian knows no enemy he hath; that is, though persons may be injurious to him, and unworthy in themselves, yet he knows none whom he is not first bound to forgive, which is indeed to make them on his part to be no enemies, that is, to make that the word enemy shall not be perfectly contrary to friend, it shall not be a relative term and signifie something on each hand, a relative and a correlative; and then he knows none whom he is not bound to love and pray for, to treat kindly and justly, liberally and obligingly. Christian Charity is Friendship to all the world; and when Friendships were the noblest things in the world, Charity was little, like the Sun drawn in at a chink, or his beams drawn into the centre of a Burning-Glass; but Christian Charity is Friendship expanded like the face of the Sun when it mounts above the Eastern hills: and I was strangely pleas'd when I saw something of this in CICERO; for I have been so push'd at by herds and flocks of people that follow any body that whistles to them, or drives them to Pasture, that I am grown afraid of any Truth that seems chargeable with singularity: but therefore I say, glad I was when I saw Laelius in Cicero discourse thus: Amicitia ex infinitate generis humani quam conciliavit ipsa natura, contractares est, & adducta in angustum; ut omnis charitas, aut inter duos, aut inter paucos jungeretur. Nature hath made friendships and societies, relations and endearments; and by something or other we relate to all the world; there is enough in every man that is willing to make him become our Friend; but when men contract friendships, they inclose the Commons; and what Nature intended should be every mans, we make proper to two or three. Friendship is like Rivers and the strand of Seas, and the Air, common to all the world; but Tyrants, and evil customs, wars, and want of love have made them proper and peculiar. But when Christianity came to renew our nature, and to restore our laws, and to increase her priviledges, and to make her aptness to become religion, then it was declared that our Friendships were to be as universal as our conversation; that is, actual to all with whom we converse, and potentially extended unto those with whom we did not. For he who was to treat his enemies with forgiveness and prayers, and love and beneficence, was indeed to have no enemies, and to have all friends.

So that to your question, How far a Dear and perfect Friendship is authoriz'd by the principles of Christianity? The answer is ready and easie. It is warranted to extend to all Mankind; and the more we love, the better we are; and the greater our Friendships are, the dearer we are to God. Let them be as Dear, and let them be as perfect, and let them be as many as you can; there is no danger in it; only where the restraint begins, there begins our imperfection. It is not ill that you entertain brave Friendships and worthy Societies: it were well if you could love, and if you could benefit all Mankind; for I conceive that is the summ of all Friendship.

I confess this is not to be expected of us in this world; but as all our graces here are but imperfect, that is, at the best they are but tendencies to glory; so our friendships are imperfect too, and but beginnings of a celelestial friendship, by which we shall love every one as much as they can be loved. But then so we must here in our proportion; and indeed that is it that can make the difference; we must be friends to all, that is, apt to do good, loving them really, and doing to them all the benefits which we can, and which they are capable of. The Friendship is equal to all the World, and of it self hath no difference; but is differenced only by accidents, and by the capacity or incapacity of them that receive it. Nature and Religion are the bands of friendships; excellency and usefulness are its great indearments: society and neighbourhood, that is, the possibilities and the circumstances of converse are the determinations and actualities of it. Now when men either are unnatural, or irreligious, they will not be friends; when they are neither excellent nor useful, they are [Page]not worthy to be friends; when they are strangers or unknown, they cannot be friends actually and practically; but yet, as any man hath any thing of the good, contrary to those evils, so he can have and must have his share of friendship. For thus the Sun is the eye of the world; and he is indifferent to the Negro, or the cold Russian ▪ to them that dwell under the line, and them that stand near the Tropicks, the scalded Indian, or the poor boy that shakes at the foot of the Riphean hills. But the [...]luxure [...] of the Heaven and the Earth, the conveniency of abode, and the approaches to the North or South respectively change the emanations of his beams; not that they do not pass always from him, but that they are not equally received below, but by periods and changes, by little in-lets and reflections, they receive what they can. And some have only a dark day and a long night from him, snows and white cattle, a miserable life, and a perpetual harvest of Cata [...]hes and Consumption [...]; Apoplexies and dead Palsies. But some have splendid sires, and aromatick spices, rich wines, and well-digested fruits, great wit and great courage; because they dwell in his eye, and look in his face, and are the Courtiers of the Sun, and wait upon him in his Chambers of the East. Just so is it in friendships: some are worthy, and some are necessary; some dwell hard by and are fitted for converse; Nature joyns some to us, and Religion combines us with others; Society and accidents, parity of fortune, and equal dispositions do actuate our friendships: which of themselves and in their prime disposition are prepared for all Mankind according as any one can receive them. We see thi [...] best exemplified by two instances and expressions of friendships and charity: viz. Alms and Prayers; Every one that needs relief is equally the object of our Charity; but though to all mankind in equal needs we ought to be alike in charity▪ yet we signifie this severally and by limits, and distinct measures: the poor man that is near me, he whom I meet, he whom I love, he whom I fancy, he who did me benefit, he who relates to my family, he rather than another; because my expressions being finite and narrow, and cannot extend to all in equal significations, must be appropriate to those whose circumstances best fit me: and yet even to all I give my Alms; to all the world that needs them: I pray for all mankind, I am grieved at every sad story I hear; I am troubled when I hear of a pretty Bride murthered in her bride-chamber by an ambitious and enrag'd Rival; I shed a tear when I am told that a brave King was misunderstood, then slandered, then imprisoned, and then put to death by evil men: and I can never read the story of the Parisian Massacre, or the Sicilian Vespers, but my blood curdles, and I am disorder'd by two or three affections. A good man is a friend to all the world; and he is not truly charitable that does not wish well, and do good to all mankind in what he can. But though we must pray for all men, yet we say special Litanies for brave Kings and holy Prelates, and the wise Guides of Souls, for our Brethren and Relations, our Wives and Children.

The effect of this consideration is, that the Universal friendship of which I speak, must be limited, because we are so: In those things where we stand next to Immensity and Infinity, as in good wishes and prayers, and a readiness to benefit all mankind, in these our friendships must not be limited: But in other things which pass under our hand and eye, our voices and our material exchanges; our hands can reach no further but to our arms end, and our voices can but sound till the next air be quiet, and therefore they can have entercourse but within the sphere of their own activity; our needs and our conversations are served by a few, and they cannot reach to all; where they can, [...]hey must; but where it is impossible, it cannot be necessary. It must therefore follow, that our friendships to mankind may admit variety as does our conversation; and as by nature we are made sociable to all, so we are friendly; but as all cannot actually be of our society, so neither can all be admitted to a special, actual friendship. Of some entercourses all men are capable, but not of all; Men can pray for one another, and abstain from doing injuries to all the world, and be desirous to do all mankind good, and love all men; Now this friendship we must pay to all because we can; but if we can do no more to all, we must shew our readiness to do more good to all by actually doing more good to all them to whom we can.

To some we can, and therefore there are nearer friendships to some than to others, according as there are natural or civil nearnesses, relations and societies; and as I cannot express my friendships to all in equal measures and significations, that is, as I cannot do benefits to all alike: so neither am I tied to love all alike: For although there is much reason to love every man, yet there are more reasons to love some than others; and if I must love because there is reason I should, then I must love more, where there is more reason; and where there's a special affection and a great readiness [Page] to do good and to delight in certain persons towards each other, there is that special charity and indearment which Philosophy calls Friendship; but our Religion calls Love or Charity. Now if the inquiry be concerning this special friendship, 1. How it can be appropriate, that is, who to be chosen to it; 2. How far it may extend, that is, with what expressions signified; 3. How conducted? The answers will depend upon such considerations which will be neither useless nor unpleasant.

1. There may be a special friendship contracted for any special excellency whatsoever; because friendships are nothing but love and society mixt together, that is, a conversing with them whom we love; now for whatsoever we can love any one, for that we can be his friend; and since every excellency is a degree of amability, every such worthiness is a just and proper motive of friendship or loving conversation. But yet in these things there is an order and proportion. Therefore,

2. A Good man is the best friend, and therefore soonest to be chosen, longer to be retain'd; and indeed never to be parted with, unless he cease to be that for which he was chosen.

[...],

[...].

Where vertue dwells, there friendships make,

But evil neighbourhoods forsake.

But although Vertue alone is the worthiest cause of amability, and can weigh down any one consideration; and therefore to a man that is vertuous every man ought to be a friend; yet I do not mean the severe and philosophical excellencies of some morose persons who are indeed wise unto themselves, and exemplar to others. By Vertue here I do not mean Justice and Temperance, Charity and Devotion; for these I am to love the man, but friendship is something more than that: Friendship is the nearest love and the nearest society of which the persons are capable: Now Justice is a good entercourse for Merchants, as all men are that buy and sell; and Temperance makes a Man good company, and helps to make a wise man: But a perfect Friendship requires something else, these must be in him that is chosen to be my friend, but for these I do not make him my privado, that is, my special and peculiar friend: But if he be a good man, then he is properly fitted to be my correlative in the noblest combination.

And for this we have the best warrant in the world: For a just man scarcely will a man die; the Syriack interpreter reads it, [...], for an unjust man scarcely will a man die, that is, a wicked man is at no hand fit to receive the expression of the greatest friendship; but all the Greek copies that ever I saw, or read of, read it as we do; for a righteous man or a just man; that is, justice and righteousness is not the nearest indearment of friendship; but for a good man some will even dare to die, that is, for a man that is sweetly disposed, ready to do acts of goodness and to oblige others, to do things useful and profitable; for a loving man, a beneficent, bountiful man, one who delights in doing good to his friend, such a man may have the highest friendship, he may have a friend that will die for him. And this is the meaning of Laelius, Vertue may be despised, so may Learning and Nobility; At una est amicitia in rebus humanis de cujus utilitate omnes consentiunt; only Friendship is that thing, which because all know to be useful and profitable, no man can despise; that is, [...], or [...], goodness or beneficence makes friendships. For if he be a good man, he will love where he is beloved; and that's the first tie of friendship.

[...].

That was the commendation of the bravest friendship in Theocritus,

They lov'd each other with a love

That did in all things equal prove.

— [...]

[...].

[Page]

The world was under Saturn's reign

When he that lov'd was lov'd again.

For it is impossible this nearness of friendship can be where there is not mutual love; but this is secured if I chuse a good man; for he that is apt enough to begin alone, will never be behind in the relation and correspondency; and therefore I like the Gentiles Litany well,

[...]·

[...].

Let God give friends to me for my reward,

Who shall my love with equal love regard;

Happy are they, who when they give their heart,

Find such as in exchange their own impart.

But there is more in it than this felicity amounts to. For [...], the good man is a profitable, useful person, and that's the band of an effective friendship. For I do not think that Friendships are Metaphysical nothings, created for contemplation, or that men or women should stare upon each others faces, and make dialogues of news and prettinesses, and look babies in one anothers eyes. Friendship is the allay of our sorrows, the ease of our passions, the discharge of our oppressions, the Sanctuary to our calamities, the counsellor of our doubts, the clarity of our minds, the emission of our thoughts, the exercise and improvement of what we meditate. And although I love my friend because he is worthy, yet he is not worthy if he can do no good; I do not speak of accidental hindrances and misfortunes by which the bravest man may become unable to help his Child; but of the natural and artificial capacities of the man. He only is fit to be chosen for a friend, who can do those offices for which friendship is excellent. For (mistake not) no man can be loved for himself; our perfections in this world cannot reach so high; it is well if we would love God at that rate; and I very much fear, that if God did us no good, we might admire his Beauties, but we should have but a small proportion of love towards him; and therefore it is, that God to endear the obedience, that is, the love of his servants, signifies what benefits he gives us, what great good things he does for us. I am the Lord God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt: and does Job serve God for nought? and he that comes to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder: all his other greatnesses are objects of fear and wonder, it is his goodness that makes him lovely: and so it is in friendships. He only is fit to be chosen for a friend who can give counsel, or defend my cause, or guide me right, or relieve my need, or can and will, when I need it, do me good: only this I add: into the heaps of doing good, I will reckon [loving me] for it is a pleasure to be beloved: But when his love signifies nothing but kissing my cheek, or talking kindly, and can go no further, it is a prostitution of the bravery of friendship to spend it upon impertinent people who are (it may be) loads to their families, but can never ease my loads: but my friend is a worthy person when he can become to me instead of God, a guide or a support, an eye, or a hand, a staff, or a rule.

There must be in friendship something to distinguish it from a Companion, and a Country-man from a School-fellow or a Gossip, from a Sweet-heart or a Fellow-traveller: Friendship may look in at any one of these doors, but it stays not any where till it come to be the best thing in the world. And when we consider that one man is not better than another, neither towards God nor towards Man, but by doing better and braver things; we shall also see, that that which is most beneficent is also most excellent; & therefore those friendships must needs be most perfect, where the friends can be most useful. For men cannot be useful but by worthinesses in the several instances: a fool cannot be relied upon for counsel; nor a vicious person for the advantages of vertue, nor a begger for relief, nor a stranger for conduct, nor a tatler to keep a secret, nor a pitiless person trusted with my complaint, nor a covetous man with my childes fortune, nor a false person without a witness, nor a suspicious person with a private design; nor him that I fear with the treasures of my love: But he that is wise and vertuous, rich and at hand, close and merciful, free of his money and tenacious of a secret, open and ingenuous, true and honest, is of [Page] himself an excellent man; and therefore fit to be loved; and he can do good to me in all capacities where I can need him, and therefore is fit to be a friend. I confess we are forced in our friendships to abate some of these ingredients; but full measures of friendship would have full measures of worthiness; and according as any defect is in the foundation, in the relation also there may be imperfection: and indeed I shall not blame the friendship so it be worthy, though it be not perfect; not only because friendship is charity, which cannot be perfect here, but because there is not in the world a perfect cause of perfect friendship.

If you can suspect that this discourse can suppose friendship to be mercenary, and to be defective in the greatest worthiness of it, which is to love our friend for our friends sake, I shall easily be able to defend my self; because I speak of the election and reasons of chusing friends: after he is chosen do as nobly as you talk, and love as purely as you dream, and let your conversation be as metaphysical as your discourse, and proceed in this method, till you be confuted by experience; yet till then, the case is otherwise when we speak of chusing one to be my friend: He is not my friend till I have chosen him, or loved him; and if any man enquires whom he shall chuse or whom he should love, I suppose it ought not to be answered, that we should love him who hath least amability, that we should chuse him who hath least reason to be chosen. But if it be answered, he is to be chosen to be my friend who is most worthy in himself, not he that can do most good to me; I say, here is a distinction but no difference; for he is most worthy in himself who can do most good; and if he can love me too, that is, if he will do me all the good he can, or that I need, then he is my friend and he deserves it. And it is impossible from a friend to separate a will to do me good: and therefore I do not chuse well, if I chuse one that hath not power; for if it may consist with the nobleness of friendship to desire that my friend be ready to do me benefit or support, it is not sence to say, it is ignoble to desire he should really do it when I need; and if it were not for pleasure or profit, we might as well be without a friend as have him.

Among all the pleasures and profits, the sensual pleasure and the matter of money are the lowest and the least; and therefore although they may sometimes be used in friendship, and so not wholly excluded from the consideration of him that is to chuse, yet of all things they are to be the least regarded.

[...].

When fortune frowns upon a man,

A friend does more than money can.

For there are besides these, many profits and many pleasures; and because these only are sordid, all the other are noble and fair, and the expectations of them no disparagements to the best friendships. For can any wise or good man be angry if I say, I chuse this man to be my friend, because he is able to give me counsel, to restrain my wandrings, to comfort me in my sorrows; he is pleasant to me in private, and useful in publick; he will make my joys double, and divide my grief between himself and me? For what else should I chuse? For being a fool, and useless? for a pretty face or a smooth chin? I confess it is possible to be a friend to one that is ignorant, and pitiable, handsome and good for nothing, that eats well, and drinks deep, but he cannot be a friend to me; and I love him with a fondness or a pity, but it cannot be a noble friendship.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]. said Menander.

By wine and mirth and every days delight

We chuse our friends, to whom we think we might

Our souls intrust; but foools are they that lend

Their bosom to the shadow of a friend.

[...], Plutarch calls such friendships, the Idols and Images of friendship. True and brave friendships are between worthy persons; and there is in Mankind no degree of worthiness, but is also a degree of usefulness, and by every thing by which a man is excellent, I may be profited: and because those are the [Page] bravest friends which can best serve the ends of friendships, either we must suppose that friendships are not greatest comforts in the world, or else we must say, he chuses his friend best, that chuses such a one by whom he can receive the greatest comforts and assistances.

3. This being the measure of all friendships; they all partake of excellency, according as they are fitted to this measure: a friend may be counselled well enough, though his friend be not the wisest man in the world; and he may be pleased in his society, though he be not the best natured man in the world; but still it must be, that something excellent is, or is apprehended, or else it can be no worthy friendship; because the choice is imprudent and foolish. Chuse for your friend him that is wise and good, and secret and just, ingenuous and honest; and in those things which have a latitude, use your own liberty; but in such things which consist in an indivisible point, make no abatements; That is, you must not chuse him to be your friend that is not honest and secret, just and true to a tittle; but if he be wise at all, and useful in any degree, and as good as you can have him, you need not be ashamed to own your friendships; though sometimes you may be ashamed of some imperfections of your friend.

4. But if you yet enquire further, whether Fancy may be an ingredient in your choice? I answer, that Fancy may minister to this as to all other actions in which there is a liberty and variety; and we shall find that there may be peculiarities and little partialities, a friendship improperly so called, entring upon accounts of an innocent passion and a pleas'd fancy; even our Blessed Saviour himself loved S. John and Lazarus by a special love, which was signified by special treatments; and of the young man that spake well and wisely to Christ, it is affirmed, Jesus loved him, that is, he fancied the man, and his soul had a certain cognation and similitude of temper and inclination. For in all things where there is a latitude, every Faculty will endeavour to be pleased, and sometimes the meanest persons in a house have a festival: even Sympathies and natural inclinations to some persons, and a conformity of humors, and proportionable loves, and the beauty of the face, and a witty answer may first strike the flint and kindle a spark, which if it falls upon tender and compliant natures may grow into a flame; but this will never be maintained at the rate of friendship, unless it be fed by pure materials, by worthinesses which are the food of friendship: where these are not, men and women may be pleased with one anothers company, and lye under the same roof, and make themselves companions of equal prosperities, and humor their friend; but if you call this friendship, you give a sacred name to humor or fancy; for there is a Platonick friendship as well as a Platonick love; but they being but the Images of more noble bodies are but like tinsel dressings, which will shew bravely by candle-light, and do excellently in a mask, but are not fit for conversation and the material entercourses of our life. These are the prettinesses of prosperity and good-natured wit; but when we speak of friendship, which is the best thing in the world (for it is love and beneficence, it is charity that is fitted for society) we cannot suppose a brave pile should be built up with nothing; and they that build Castles in the air, and look upon friendship, as upon a fine Romance, a thing that pleases the fancy, but is good for nothing else, will do well when they are asleep, or when they are come to Elysium; and for ought I know in the mean time may be as much in love with Mandana in the Grand Cyrus, as with the Infanta of Spain, or any of the most perfect beauties and real excellencies of the world: and by dreaming of perfect and abstracted friendships, make them so immaterial that they perish in the handling and become good for nothing.

But I know not whither I was going; I did only mean to say that because Friendship is that by which the world is most blessed and receives most good, it ought to be chosen amongst the worthiest persons, that is, amongst those that can do greatest benefit to each other; and though in equal worthiness I may chuse by my eye, or ear, that is, into the consideration of the essential I may take in also the accidental and extrinsick worthinesses; yet I ought to give every one their just value; when the internal beauties are equal, these shall help to weigh down the scale, and I will love a worthy friend that can delight me as well as profit me, rather than him who cannot delight me at all, and profit me no more; but yet I will not weigh the gayest flowers, or the wings of Butterflies against Wheat; but when I am to chuse Wheat, I may take that which looks the brightest. I had rather see Thyme and Roses, Marjoram and July-flowers that are fair and sweet and medicinal, than the prettiest Tulips that are good for nothing: And my Sheep and Kine are better servants [Page] than Race-horses and Greyhounds: And I shall rather furnish my Study with Plutarch and Cicero, with Livy and Polybius, than with Cassandra and Ibrahim Bassa; and if I do give an hour to these for divertisement or pleasure, yet I will dwell with them that can instruct me, and make me wise and eloquent, severe and useful to my self and others. I end this with the saying of Laelius in Cicero: Amicitia [...]non debet consequi utilitatem, sed amicitiam utilitas. When I chuse my friend, I will not stay till I have received a kindness; but I will chuse such an one that can do me many if I need them: But I mean such kindnesses which make me wiser, and which make me better; that is, I will when I chuse my friend, chuse him that is the bravest, the worthiest and the most excellent person: and then your first Question is soon answered; To love such a person and to contract such friendships is just so authorized by the principles of Christianity, as it is warranted to love wisdom and vertue, goodness and beneficence, and all the impresses of God upon the spirits of brave men.

2. The next inquiry is How far it may extend? that is, by what expressions it may be signified? I find that David and Jonathan loved at a strange rate; they were both good men; though it happened that Jonathan was on the obliging side; but here the expressions were, Jonathan watched for David's good; told him of his danger, and helped him to escape; took part with David's innocence against his Father's malice and injustice; and beyond all this, did it to his own prejudice; and they two stood like two feet supporting one body; though Jonathan knew that David would prove like the foot of a Wrestler, and would supplant him, not by any unworthy or unfriendly action, but it was from God; and he gave him his hand to set him upon his own throne.

We find his parallels in the Gentile stories: young Athenodorus having divided the estate with his Brother Xenon, divided it again when Xenon had spent his own share; and Lucullus would not take the Consulship till his younger brother had first enjoyed it for a year; but Pollux divided with Castor his immortality; and you know who offer'd himself to death being pledge for his friend, and his friend by performing his word rescued him as bravely. And when we find in Scripture that for a good man some will even dare to die; and that Aquila and Priscilla laid their necks down for S. Paul; and the Galatians would have given him their very eyes, that is, every thing that was most dear to them, and some others were near unto death for his sake: and that it is a Precept of Christian charity, to lay down our lives for our brethren, that is, those who were combined in a cause of Religion, who were united with the same hopes, and imparted to each other ready assistances, and grew dear by common sufferings, we need enquire no further for the expressions of friendships. Greater love than this hath no man, than that he lay down his life for his friends; and this we are oblig'd to do in some Cases for all Christians; and therefore we may do it for those who are to us in this present and imperfect state of things, that which all the good men and women in the world shall be in Heaven, that is, in the state of perfect friendships. This is the biggest; but then it includes and can suppose all the rest; and if this may be done for all, and in some cases must for any one of the multitude, we need not scruple whether we may do it for those who are better than a multitude. But as for the thing it self, it is not easily and lightly to be done; and a man must not die for humour, nor expend so great a Jewel for a trifle: [...]: said Philo; we will hardly die when it is for nothing, when no good, no worthy end is served, and become a Sacrifice to redeem a foot-boy. But we may not give our life to redeem another: unless 1. The party for whom we die be a worthy and an useful person; better for the publick, or better for Religion, and more useful to others than my self. Thus Ribischius the German died bravely when he became a Sacrifice for his Master, Maurice Duke of Saxony; Covering his Masters body with his own, that he might escape the fury of the Turkish Souldiers. Succurram perituro, sed ut ipse non peream, nisi si futurus ero magni hominis, aut magnae rei merces, said Seneca. I will help a dying person if I can; but I will not die my self for him, unless by my death I save a brave man, or become the price of a great thing; that is, I will die for a Prince, for the Republick, or to save an Army, as David expos'd himself to combat with the Philistin for the redemption of the host of Israel: and in this sence, that is true, Praestat ut pereat unus quàm Vnitas, better that one perish than a multitude. 2. A man dies bravely when he gives his temporal life to save the soul of any single person in the Christian world. It is a worthy exchange, and [Page] the glorification of that love by which Christ gave his life for every Soul. Thus he that reproves an erring Prince wisely and necessarily, he that affirms a fundamental truth, or stands up for the glory of the Divine Attributes, though he die for it, becomes a worthy sacrifice. 3. These are duty, but it may be Heroick and full of Christian bravery, to give my life to rescue a noble and a brave friend, though I my self be as worthy a man as he; because the preference of him is an act of humility in me, and of friendship towards him; Humility and Charity making a pious difference, where Art and Nature have made all equal.

Some have fancied other measures of treating our friends. One sort of men say that we are to expect that our friends should value us as we value our selves: which if it were to be admitted, will require that we make no friendships with a proud man; and so far indeed were well; but then this proportion does exclude some humble men who are most to be valued, and the rather because they undervalue themselves.

Others say that a friend is to value his friend as much as his friend values him; but neither is this well or safe, wise or sufficient; for it makes friendship a mere bargain, and is something like the Country weddings in some places where I have been; where the bridegroom and the bride must meet in the half way, and if they fail a step, they retire and break the match: It is not good to make a reckoning in friendship; that's merchandise, or it may be gratitude, but not noble friendship; in which each part strives to out-do the other in significations of an excellent love: And amongst true friends there is no fear of losing any thing.

But that which amongst the old Philosophers comes nearest to the right, is that we love our friends as we love our selves. If they had meant it as our Blessed Saviour did, of that general friendship by which we are to love all mankind, it had been perfect and well; or if they had meant it of the inward affection, or of outward justice; but because they meant it of the most excellent friendships, and of the outward significations of it, it cannot be sufficient: for a friend may and must sometimes do more for his friend than he would do for himself. Some men will perish before they will beg or petition for themselves to some certain persons; but they account it noble to do it for their friend, and they will want rather than their friend shall want; and they will be more earnest in praise or dispraise respectively for their friend than for themselves. And indeed I account that one of the greatest demonstrations of real friendship is, that a friend can really endeavour to have his friend advanced in honour, in reputation, in the opinion of wit or learning before himself.

Aurum & opes, & rura frequens donabit amicus:

Qui velit ingenio cedere, rarus erit.

Martial. l. 8. Ep. 18.

Sed tibi tantus inest veteris respectus amici,

Carior ut mea sit quàm tua famatibi.

Lands, gold and trifles many give or lend,

But he that stoops in fame, is a rare friend;

In friendships Orb thou art the brightest Star,

Before thy fame mine thou preferrest far.

But then be pleased to think that therefore I so highly value this signification of friendship, because I so highly value humility. Humility and Charity are the two greatest graces in the world; and these are the greatest ingredients which constitute friendship and express it.

But there needs no other measures of friendship, but that it may be as great as you can express it; beyond death it cannot go, to death it may, when the cause is reasonable and just, charitable and religious: and yet if there be any thing greater than to suffer death (and pain and shame to some are more insufferable) a true and noble friendship shrinks not at the greatest trials.

And yet there is a limit even to friendship. It must be as great as our friend fairly needs in all things where we are not tied up by a former duty, to God, to our selves, or some pre-obliging relative. When Pollux heard some body whisper a reproach against his Brother Castor, he killed the slanderer with his fist: that was a zeal which his friendship could not warrant. Nulla est excusatio si amici causâ peccaveris, said Cicero. No friendship can excuse a sin: And this the braver Romans instanced in the matter of duty to their Country. It is not lawful to fight on our friends part [Page] against our Prince or Country; and therefore when Caius Blosius of Cuma in the sedition of Gracchus appeared against his Country, when he was taken he answered, That he loved Tiberius Gracchus so dearly, that he thought fit to follow him whithersoever he led; and begg'd pardon upon that account: They who were his Judges were so noble, that though they knew it no fair excuse, yet for the honour of friendship they did not directly reject his motion; but put him to death, because he did not follow, but led on Gracchus, and brought his friend into the snare: For so they preserved the honours of friendship on either hand, by neither suffering it to be sullied by a soul excuse, nor yet rejected in any fair pretence. A man may not be perjured for his friend. I remember to have read in the History of the Low-Countries, that Grimston and Redhead, when Bergenapzoom was besieged by the Duke of Parma, acted for the interest of the Queen of England's forces a notable design; but being suspected and put for their acquittance to take the Sacrament of the Altar, they dissembled their persons, and their interest, their design and their religion, and did for the Queens service (as one wittily wrote to her) give not only their bodies but their souls, and so deserved a reward greater than she could pay them: I cannot say this is a thing greater than a friendship can require, for it is not great at all, but a great villany, which hath no name, and no order in worthy entercourses; and no obligation to a friend can reach as high as our duty to God: And he that does a base thing in zeal for his friend, burns the golden thred that ties their hearts together; it is a conspiracy, but no longer friendship. And when Cato lent his wife to Hortensius, and Socrates lent his to a merry Greek, they could not amongst wise persons obtain so much as the fame of being worthy friends, neither could those great Names legitimate an unworthy action under the most plausible title.

It is certain that amongst friends their estates are common; that is, by whatsoever I can rescue my friend from calamity, I am to serve him, or not to call him friend; there is a great latitude in this, and it is to be restrained by no prudence, but when there is on the other side a great necessity neither vicious nor avoidable: A man may chuse whether he will or no; and he does not sin in not doing it, unless he have bound himself to it: But certainly friendship is the greatest band in the world, and if he have professed a great friendship, he hath a very great obligation to do that and more; and he can no ways be disobliged but by the care of his Natural relations.

I said, [Friendship is the greatest band in the world,] and I had reason for it, for it is all the bands that this world hath; and there is no society, and there is no relation that is worthy, but it is made so by the communications of friendship, and by partaking some of its excellencies. For Friendship is a transcendent, and signifies as much as Vnity can mean; and every consent, and every pleasure, and every benefit, and every society is the Mother or the Daughter of friendship. Some friendships are made by nature, some by contract, some by interest, and some by souls. And in proportion to these ways of Uniting, so the friendships are greater or less, vertuous or natural, profitable or holy, or all this together. Nature makes excellent friendships, of which we observe something in social Plants; growing better in each others neighbourhood than where they stand singly: And in Animals it is more notorious, whose friendships extend so far as to herd and dwell together, to play and feed, to defend and fight for one another, and to cry in absence, and to rejoyce in one anothers presence. But these friendships have other names less noble, they are Sympathy, or they are Instinct. But if to this natural friendship there be Reason superadded, something will come in upon the stock of Reason which will ennoble it; But because no Rivers can rise higher than Fountains, Reason shall draw out all the dispositions which are in Nature and establish them into friendships, but they cannot surmount the communications of Nature: Nature can make no friendships greater than her own excellencies. Nature is the way of contracting necessary friendships, that is, by nature such friendships are contracted without which we cannot live, and be educated, or be well, or be at all.

In this scene, that of Parents and Children is the greatest, which indeed is begun in nature, but is actuated by society and mutual endearments. For Parents love their Children because they love themselves, Children being but like emissions of water, symbolical or indeed the same with the fountain; and they in their posterity see the images and instruments of a civil immortality: But if Parents and Children do not live together, we see their friendships and their loves are much abated, and supported only by fame and duty, by customs and religion, which to nature are but artificial pillars, and make this friendship to be complicated, and to pass from its own kind to [Page] another. That of Children to their Parents is not properly friendship, but gratitude and interest, and religion, and whatever can supervene of the nature of friendship comes in upon another account; upon society and worthiness and choice.

This relation on either hand makes great Dearnesses: But it hath special and proper significations of it, and there is a special duty incumbent on each other respectively. This friendship and social relation is not equal, and there is too much authority on one side, and too much fear on the other to make equal friendships; and therefore although this is one of the kinds of friendship, that is of a social and relative love and conversation; yet in the more proper use of the word, [Friendship] does do some things which Father and Son do not; I instance in the free and open communicating counsels, and the evenness and pleasantness of conversation; and consequently the significations of the paternal and filial love as they are divers in themselves and unequal, and therefore another kind of friendship than we mean in our inquiry; so they are such a duty which no other friendship can annul: because their mutual duty is bound upon them by religion long before any other friendships can be contracted; and therefore having first possession must abide for ever. The duty and love to Parents must not yield to religion, much less to any new friendships: and our Parents are to be preferred before the Corban, and are at no hand to be laid aside but when they engage against God: That is, in the rights which this relation and kind of friendship challenges as its propriety, it is supreme and cannot give place to any other friendships; till the Father gives his right away, and God or the Laws consent to it; as in the case of marriage, emancipation, and adoption to another family: in which cases though love and gratitude are still obliging, yet the societies and duties of relation are very much altered, which in the proper and best friendships can never be at all. But then this also is true, That the social relations of Parents and Children not having in them all the capacities of a proper friendship, cannot challenge all the significations of it; that is, it is no prejudice to the duty I owe there, to pay all the dearnesse [...] which are due here, and to friends there are some things due which the other cannot challenge, I mean my secret, and my equal conversation, and the pleasures and interests of these, and the consequents of all.

Next to this is the society and dearness of Brothers and Sisters: which usually is very great amongst worthy persons; but if it be considered what it is in it self, it is but very little; there is very often a likeness of natural temper, and there is a social life under the same roof, and they are commanded to love one another, and they are equals in many instances, and are endeared by conversation when it is merry and pleasant, innocent and simple, without art and without design. But Brothers pass not into noble friendships upon the stock of that relation: they have fair dispositions and advantages, and are more easie and ready to ferment into the greatest dearnesses, if all things else be answerable. Nature disposes them well towards it, but in this inquiry if we ask what duty is passed upon a Brother to a Brother even for being so? I answer, that religion and our Parents and God and the Laws appoint what measures they please; but nature passes but very little, and friendship less; and this we see apparently in those Brothers who live asunder, and contract new relations, and dwell in other societies. There is no love, no friendship without the entercouse of conversation: Friendships indeed may last longer than our abode together, but they were first contracted by it, and established by pleasure and benefit; and unless it be the best kind of friendship (which that of Brothers in that mere capacity is not) it dies when it wants the proper nutriment and support: and to this purpose is that which was spoken by Solomon: [Better is a neighbour that is near, than a Brother that is far off:] that is,Prov. 27.10. although ordinarily Brothers are first possessed of the entries and fancies of friendship, because they are of the first societies and conversations; yet when that ceases and the Brother goes away, so that he does no advantage, no benefit of entercourse; the neighbour that dwells by me, with whom if I converse at all, either he is my enemy and does, and receives evil; or if we converse in worthinesses and benefit and pleasant communication, he is better in the laws and measures of friendship than my distant Brother. And it is observable that [Brother] is indeed a word of friendship and charity and of mutual endearment, and so is a title of the bravest society; yet in all the Scripture there are no precepts given of any duty and comport, which Brothers, that is, the descendents of the same Parents are to have one towards another in that capacity; and it is not because their nearness is such that they need none: For Parents and children are nearer, and yet need tables of duty to be described; and for Brothers, certainly they need it infinitely if there be any peculiar [Page] duty; Cain and Abel are the great probation of that, and you know who said,

Fratrum quoque gratia rara est:

It is not often you shall see

Two Brothers live in amity.

But the Scripture which often describes the duty of Parents and Children, never describes the duty of Brothers; except where by Brethren are meant all that part of mankind who are tied to us by any vicinity and indearment of religion or country, of profession and family, of contract or society, of love and the noblest friendships; the meaning is, that though Fraternity alone be the endearment of some degrees of friendship, without choice and without excellency; yet the relation it self is not friendship, and does not naturally infer it; and that which is procured by it, is but limited and little; and though it may pass into it, as other conversations may, yet the friendship is accidental to it, and enters upon other accounts, as it does between strangers; with this only difference that Brotherhood does oftentimes assist the valuation of those excellencies for which we entertain our friendships. Fraternity is the opportunity and preliminary disposition to friendship, and no more. For if my Brother be a fool or a vicious person, the love to which nature and our first conversation disposes me, does not end in friendship, but in pity and fair provisions and assistances; which is a demonstration that Brotherhood is but the inclination and address to friendship. And though I will love a worthy Brother more than a worthy stranger, if the worthiness be equal, because the relation is something, and being put into the scales against an equal worthiness must needs turn the balance, as every grain will do in an even weight; yet when the relation is all the worthiness that is pretended, it cannot stand in competition with a friend: for though a friend-Brother is better than a friend-stranger, where the friend is equal, but the Brother is not: yet a Brother is not better than a friend; but as Solomon's expression is [There is a Friend that is better than a Brother;] and to be born of the same Parents is so accidental and extrinsick to a mans pleasure or worthiness, or spiritual advantages, that though it be very pleasing and useful that a Brother should be a friend, yet it is no great addition to a friend that he also is a Brother: there is something in it, but not much. But in short, the case is thus. The first beginnings of friendship serve the necessities; but choice and worthiness are the excellencies of its endearment and its bravery; and between a Brother that is no friend, and a friend that is no Brother, there is the same difference as between the disposition and the act or habit: a Brother if he be worthy is the readiest and the nearest to be a friend, but till he be so, he is but the twi-light of the day, and but the blossom to the fairest fruit of Paradise. A Brother does not always make a friend, but a friend ever makes a Brother and more: And although nature sometimes finds the tree, yet friendship engraves the Image; the first relation places him in the garden, but friendship sets it in the Temple, and then only it is venerable and sacred: and so is Brotherhood when it hath the soul of friendship.

So that if it be asked which are most to be valued, Brothers or Friends; the answer is very easie; Brotherhood is or may be one of the kinds of friendship, and from thence only hath its value, and therefore if it be compared with a greater friendship must give place: But then it is not to be asked which is to be preferred, a Brother or a Friend, but which is the better friend, Memnon or my Brother? For if my Brother says I ought to love him best, then he ought to love me best;

Vt praestem Pyladen, aliquis mihi praestet Oresten.

Hoc non fit verbis, Marce, ut ameris, ama. Mar. l. 6. Ep. 11.

if he does, then there is a great friendship, and he possibly is to be preferred; if he can be that friend which he pretends to be, that is, if he be equally worthy: But if he says, I must love him only because he is my Brother, whether he loves me or no, he is ridiculous; and it will be a strange relation which hath no correspondent: but suppose it, and add this also, that I am equally his Brother as he is mine, and then he also must love me whether I love him or no; and if he does not, he says, I must love him though he be my Enemy; and so I must; but I must not love my Enemy though he be my Brother more than I love my Friend; and at last if he does love me for being his Brother, I confess that this love deserves love again; but then I consider, that he loves me upon an incompetent reason: for he that loves me only because I am his Brother, loves me for that which is no worthiness, and I must love him as much as that comes to, and for as little reason; unless this be added, that he loves me first: But whether choice and union of souls, and worthiness of manners, and greatness of understanding, and [Page] usefulness of conversation, and the benefits of Counsel, and all those endearments which make our lives pleasant and our persons Dear, are not better and greater reasons of love and Dearness than to be born of the same flesh, I think amongst wise persons needs no great inquiry. For Fraternity is but a Cognation of Bodies, but Friendship is an Union of Souls which are confederated by more noble ligatures. My Brother, if he be no more, shall have my hand to help him; but unless he be my friend too, he cannot challenge my heart: and if his being my friend be the greater nearness, then Friend is more than Brother, and I suppose no man doubts but that David lov'd Jonathan far more than he lov'd his Brother Eliab.

One inquiry more there may be in this affair, and that is, Whether a Friend may be more than a Husband or Wife; To which I answer, that it can never be reasonable or just, prudent or lawful: but the reason is, because Marriage is the Queen of friendships, in which there is a communication of all that can be communicated by friendship: and it being made sacred by vows and love, by bodies and souls, by interest and custom, by religion and by laws, by common Counsels and common fortunes; it is the principal in the kind of friendship, and the measure of all the rest: And there is no abatement to this consideration, but that there may be some allay in this as in other lesser friendships by the incapacity of the persons: if I have not chosen my friend wisely or fortunately, he cannot be the correlative in the best Union; but then the friend lives as the soul does after death, it is in the state of separation, in which the soul strangely loves the body and longs to be reunited, but the body is an useless trunk and can do no ministeries to the soul; which therefore prays to have the body reformed and restored and made a brave and a fit companion: So must these best friends, when one is useless or unapt to the braveries of the princely friendship, they must love ever, and pray ever, and long till the other be perfected and made fit; in this case there wants only the body, but the soul is still a relative and must be so for ever.

A Husband and a Wife are the best friends, but they cannot always signifie all that to each other which their friendships would; as the Sun shines not upon a Valley which sends up a thick vapour to cover his face; and though his beams are eternal, yet the emission is intercepted by the intervening cloud. But however all friendships are but parts of this; a man must leave Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife, that is [the dearest thing in Nature is not comparable to the dearest thing of friendship:] and I think this is argument sufficient to prove friendship to be the greatest band in the world; Adde to this, that other friendships are part of this, they are marriages too, less indeed than the other, because they cannot, must not be all that endearment which the other is; yet that being the principal, is the measure of the rest, and are all to be honoured by like dignities, and measured by the same rules, and conducted by their portion of the same Laws. But as Friendships are Marriages of the soul, and of fortunes and interests, and counsels; so they are Brotherhoods too; and I often think of the excellencies of friendships in the words of David, who certainly was the best friend in the world [Ecce quàm bonum & quàm jucundum fratres habitare in unum:] It is good and it is pleasant that Brethren should live like friends, that is, they who are any ways relative, and who are any ways social and confederate should also dwell in Unity and loving society, for that is the meaning of the word [Brother] in Scripture [It was my Brother Jonathan] said David; such Brothers contracting such friendships are the beauties of society, and the pleasure of life, and the festivity of minds: and whatsoever can be spoken of love, which is God's eldest daughter, can be said of vertuous friendships; and though Carneades made an eloquent Oration at Rome against justice, yet never saw a Panegyrick of malice, or ever read that any man was witty against friendship. Indeed it is probable that some men, finding themselves by the peculiarities of friendship excluded from the participation of those beauties of society which enamel and adorn the wise and the vertuous, might suppose themselves to have reason to speak the evil words of envy and detraction; I wonder not for all those unhappy souls which shall find Heaven-gates shut against them, will think they have reason to murmur and blaspheme: The similitude is apt enough, for that is the region of friendship, and Love is the light of that glorious Country, but so bright that it needs no Sun: Here we have fine and bright rays of that Celestial flame, and though to all mankind the light of it is in some measure to be extended, like the treasures of light dwelling in the South, yet a little do illustrate and beautifie the North, yet some live under the line, and the beams of friendship in that position are imminent and perpendicular.

[Page]I know but one thing more in which the Communications of friendship can be restrained; and that is, in Friends and Enemies: Amicus amici, amicus meus non est: My friends friend is not always my friend; nor his enemy mine; for if my friend quarrel with a third person with whom he hath had no friendships, upon the account of interest; if that third person be my friend, the nobleness of our friendships despises such a quarrel; and what may be reasonable in him, would be ignoble in me; sometimes it may be otherwise, and friends may marry one anothers loves and hatreds, but it is by chance if it can be just, and therefore because it is not always right, it cannot be ever necessary.

In all things else let friendships be as high and expressive till they become an Union, or that friends like the Molionidae be so the same that the flames of their dead bodies make but one Pyramis; no charity can be reproved, and such friendships which are more than shadows, are nothing else but the rays of that glorious grace drawn into one centre, and made more active by the Union; and the proper significations are well represented in the old Hieroglyphick, by which the Ancients depicted friendship; ‘In the beauties and strength of a young man, bare-headed, rudely clothed, to signifie its activity, and lastingness, readiness of action, and aptnesses to do service: Upon the fringes of his garment was written Mors & vita, as signifying that in life and death the friendship was the same; on the forehead was written Summer and Winter, that is, prosperous and adverse accidents and states of life; the left arm and shoulder was bare and naked down to the heart to which the finger pointed, and there was written longè & propè:’ by all which we know that friendship does good far and near, in Summer and Winter, in life and death, and knows no difference of state or accident but by the variety of her services: and therefore ask no more to what we can be obliged by friendship; for it is every thing that can be honest and prudent, useful and necessary.

For this is all the allay of this Universality, we may do any thing or suffer any thing that is wise or necessary, or greatly beneficial to my friend, and that in any thing, in which I am perfect master of my person and fortunes. But I would not in bravery visit my friend when he is sick of the plague, unless I can do him good equal at least to my danger; but I will procure him Physicians and prayers, all the assistances that he can receive, and that he can desire, if they be in my power: and when he is dead, I will not run into his grave and be stifled with his earth; but I will mourn for him, and perform his will, and take care of his relatives, and do for him as if he were alive; and I think that is the meaning of that hard saying of a Greek Poet.

[...],

[...].

To me though distant let thy friendship fly,

Though men be mortal, friendships must not die:

Of all things else there's great satiety.

Of such immortal abstracted pure friendships indeed there is no great plenty, and to see brothers hate each other is not so rare as to see them love at this rate. The dead and the absent have but few friends, say the Spaniards; but they who are the same to their friend [...], when he is in another Country, or in another World, these are they who are fit to preserve the sacred fire for eternal sacrifices, and to perpetuate the memory of those exemplar friendships of the best men which have filled the world with history and wonder: for in no other sence but this can it be true that friendships are pure loves, regarding to do good more than to receive it. He that is a friend after death, hopes not for a recompense from his friend, and makes no bargain either for fame or love; but is rewarded with the conscience and satisfaction of doing bravely: but then this is demonstration that they chuse Friends best who take persons so worthy that can and will do so. This is the profit and usefulness of friendship; and he that contracts such a noble Union, must take care that his friend be such who can and will; but hopes that himself shall be first used, and put to act it. I will not have such a friendship that is good for nothing, but I hope that I shall be on the giving and assisting part; and yet if both the friends be so noble and hope and strive to do the benefit, I cannot well say which ought to yield, and whether that friendship were braver that could be content to be unprosperous so his friend might have the glory of assisting him; or that which desires to give assistances in the greatest measures [Page] of friendship: but he that chuses a worthy friend that himself in the days of sorrow and need might receive the advantage, hath no excuse, no pardon, unless himself be as certain to do assistances when evil fortune shall require them. The summ of this answer to this enquiry I give you in a pair of Greek verses.

[...]·

[...].

Friends are to friends as lesser Gods, while they

Honour and service to each other pay.

But when a dark cloud comes, grudge not to lend

Thy head, thy heart, thy fortune to thy friend.

3. The last inquiry is, How friendships are to be conducted? that is, What are the duties in presence and in absence; whether the friend may not desire to enjoy his friend as well as his friendship? The answer to which in a great measure depends upon what I have said already: and if friendship be a charity in society, and is not for contemplation and noise, but for material comforts and noble treatments and usages, this is no peradventure, but that if I buy land, I may eat the fruits, and if I take a house I may dwell in it▪ and if I love a worthy person, I may please my self in his society: and in this there is no exception, unless the friendship be between persons of a different sex: for then not only the interest of their religion, and the care of their honour, but the worthiness of their friendship requires that their entercourse be prudent and free from suspicion and reproach. And if a friend is obliged to bear a calamity, so he secure the honour of his friend; it will concern him to conduct his entercourse in the lines of a vertuous prudence, so that he shall rather lose much of his own comfort, than she any thing of her honour; and in this case the noises of people are so to be regarded, that next to innocence they are the principal. But when by caution and prudence and severe conduct a friend hath done all that he or she can to secure fame and honourable reports; after this, their noises are to be despised; they must not fright us from our friendships, nor from her fairest entercourses; I may lawfully pluck the clusters from my own Vine, though he that walks by, calls me thief.

But by the way (Madam) you may see how much I differ from the morosity of those Cynicks who would not admit your sex into the communities of a noble friendship. I believe some Wives have been the best friends in the world; and few stories can out-do the nobleness and piety of that Lady that suck'd the poysonous, purulent matter from the wound of our brave Prince in the holy Land, when an Assasine had pierc'd him with a venom'd arrow. And if it be told that women cannot retain counsel, and therefore can be no brave friends; I can best confute them by the story of Porc [...]a, who being fearful of the weakness of her sex, stabb'd her self into the thigh to try how she could bear pain; and finding her self constant enough to that sufferance, gently chid her Brutus for not daring to trust her, since now she perceived that no torment could wrest that secret from her, which she hoped might be intrusted to her. If there were not more things to be said for your satisfaction, I could have made it disputable whether have been more illustrious in their friendships, men or women? I cannot say that Women are capable of all those excellencies by which men can oblige the world; and therefore a female friend in some cases is not so good a counsellor as a wise man, and cannot so well defend my honour; nor dispose of reliefs and assistances if she be under the power of another: but a woman can love as passionately, and converse as pleasantly, and retain a secret as faithfully, and be useful in her proper ministeries; and she can die for her friend as well as the bravest Roman Knight; and we find that some persons have engag'd themselves as far as death upon a less interest than all this amounts to: such were the [...], as the Greeks call them, the Devoti of a Prince or General, the Assasines amongst the Saracens, the [...] amongst the old Galatians: they did as much as a friend could do. And if the greatest services of a friend can be paid for by an ignoble price, we cannot grudge to vertuous and brave women that they be partners in a noble friendship, since their conversation and returns can add so many moments to the felicity of our lives: and therefore though a Knife cannot enter as far as a Sword, yet a Knife may be more useful to some purposes, and in every thing, except it be against an enemy. A man is the best friend in trouble, but a woman may be equal to him in the days of joy: a woman can as well increase our comforts, but cannot so well lessen our sorrows: and [Page] therefore we do not carry women with us when we go to fight; but in peaceful Cities and times vertuous women are the beauties of society and the prettinesses of friendship. And when we consider that few persons in the world have all those excellencies by which friendship can be useful and illustrious, we may as well allow women as men to be friends; since they can have all that which can be necessary and essential to friendships, and these cannot have all by which friendships can be accidentally improved; in all some abatements will be made; and we shall do too much honour to women if we reject them from friendships, because they are not perfect: for if to friendships we admit imperfect men, because no man is perfect; he that rejects women does find fault with them because they are not more perfect than men; which either does secretly affirm that they ought and can be perfect, or else it openly accuses men of injustice and partiality.

I hope you will pardon me that I am a little gone from my undertaking, I went aside to wait upon the women and to do countenance to their tender vertues: I am now return'd, and, if I were to do the office of a guide to uninstructed friends, would add the particulars following: Madam, you need not read them now, but when any friends come to be taught by your precept and example how to converse in the noblest conjurations, you may put these into better words and tell them,

1. That the first Law of friendship is, they must neither ask of their friend what is Undecent; nor grant it if themselves be ask'd. For it is no good office to make my friend more vicious or more a fool; I will restrain his folly, but not nurse it; I will not make my groom the officer of my lust and vanity. There are Villains who sell their souls for bread, that offer sin and vanity at a price: I should be unwilling my friend should know I am vicious; but if he could be brought to minister to it, he is not worthy to be my friend: and if I could offer it to him, I do not deserve to clasp hands with a vertuous person.

2. Let no man chuse him for his friend whom it shall be possible for him ever after to hate; For though the society may justly be interrupted, yet love is an immortal thing, and I will never despise him whom I could once think worthy of my love. A friend that proves not good, is rather to be suffered, than any enmities be entertained: and there are some outer offices of friendship and little drudgeries in which the less worthy are to be imployed, and it is better that he be below stairs than quite thrown out of doors.

3. There are two things which a friend can never pardon, a treacherous blow and the revealing of a secret, because these are against the Nature of friendship; they are the adulteries of it, and dissolve the Union; and in the matters of friendship, which is the marriage of souls, these are the proper causes of divorce: and therefore I shall add this only, that secrecy is the chastity of friendship, and the publication of it is a prostitution and direct debauchery; but a secret, treacherous wound is a perfect and unpardonable Apostasie. I remember a pretty apologue that Bromiard tells, A Fowler in a sharp frosty morning having taken many little birds for which he had long watched, began to take up his nets; and nipping the birds on the head laid them down. A young Thrush espying the tears trickling down his cheeks by reason of the extreme cold, said to her Mother, that certainly the man was very merciful and compassionate that wept so bitterly over the calamity of the poor Birds: But her Mother told her more wisely, that she might better judge of the mans disposition by his hand than by his eye; and if the hands do strike treacherously, he can never be admitted to friendship, who speaks fairly and weeps pitifully. Friendship is the greatest honesty and ingenuity in the world.

4. Never accuse thy friend, nor believe him that does; if thou dost, thou hast broken the skin: but he that is angry with every little fault, breaks the bones of friendship. And when we consider that in society and the accidents of every day, in which no man is constantly pleased or displeased with the same things, we shall find reason to impute the change unto our selves; and the emanations of the Sun are still glorious, when our eyes are sore: and we have no reason to be angry with an eternal light, because we have a changeable and a mortal faculty. But however, do not think thou didst contract alliance with an Angel, when thou didst take thy friend into thy bosom; he may be weak as well as thou art, and thou mayest need pardon as well as he, and That man loves flattery more than friendship, who would not only have his friend, but all the contingencies of his friend to humour him.

[...],

[...].

[...],

[...].

Theog.

[Page]5. Give thy friend counsel wisely and charitably, but leave him to his liberty whether he will follow thee or no: and be not angry if thy counsel be rejected: For advice is no Empire, and he is not my friend that will be my Judge whether I will or no. Neoptolemus had never been honoured with the victory and spoils of Troy if he had attended to the tears and counsel of Lycomedes, who being afraid to venture the young man, fain would have had him sleep at home safe in his little Island▪ He that gives advice to his friend and exacts obedience to it, does not the kindness and ingenuity of a friend, but the office and pertness of a School-master.

6. Never be a Judge between thy friends in any matter where both set their hearts upon the victory: If strangers or enemies be litigants, whatever side thou favourest, thou gettest a friend, but when friends are the parties thou losest one.

7. Never comport thy self so, as that thy friend can be afraid of thee: for then the state of the relation alters when a new and troublesome passion supervenes. ODERVNT quos METVVNT. Perfect love casteth out fear, and no man is friend to a Tyrant; but that friendship is Tyranny where the love is changed into fear, equality into empire, society into obedience; for then all my kindness to him also will be no better than flattery.

8. When you admonish your friend, let it be without bitterness; when you chide him, let it be without reproach; when you praise him, let it be with worthy purposes and for just causes, and in friendly measures; too much of that is flattery, too little is envy: if you do it justly, you teach him true measures; but when others praise him, rejoyce, though they praise not thee, and remember that if thou esteemest his praise to be thy disparagement, thou art envious, but neither just nor kind.

9. When all things else are equal, prefer an old friend before a new. If thou meanest to spend thy friend, and make a gain of him till he be weary, thou wilt esteem him as a beast of burden, the worse for his age: But if thou esteemest him by noble measures, he will be better to thee by thy being used to him, by trial and experience, by reciprocation of indearments, and an habitual worthiness. An old friend is like old wine, which when a man hath drunk, he doth not desire new, because he saith the old is better. But every old friend was new once; and if he be worthy, keep the new one till he become old.

10. After all this, treat thy friend nobly, love to be with him, do to him all the worthinesses of love and fair endearment, according to thy capacity and his; Bear with his infirmities till they approach towards being criminal; but never dissemble with him, never despise him, never leave him.

*

Extra fortunam est, quicquid donatur amisis:

Quas dederis, solus semper habebis opes.

Mart. l. 5. ep. 43.

Est tamen hoc vitium, sed non leve, sit licèt unum,

Quòd colit ingrata [...] pauper amici [...]ias.

Quis largitur opes veteri, fidóque sodali?

ep. 19.

Give him gifts and upbraid him not,

‖

Non bellè quaedam faciunt duo: sufficit unus

Huic operi [...] si visut loquar, ipse tase.

Crede mihi, quamvis ingentia, Posthume, dones,

Authoris pereunt garrulitate sui.

ep. 53.

and refuse not his kindnesses, and be sure never to despise the smallness or the impropriety of them. Confirmatur amor beneficio accepto: A gift (saith Solomon) fasteneth friendships. For as an eye that dwells long upon a Star must be refreshed with lesser beauties and strengthened with greens and Looking-glasses, lest the sight become amazed with too great a splendor; So must the love of friends sometimes be refreshed with material and low Caresses; lest by striving to be too divine it become less humane: It must be allowed its share of both: It is humane in giving pardon and fair construction, and openness and ingenuity, and keeping secrets; it hath something that is divine, because it is beneficent; but much because it is eternal.

POSTSCRIPT.

[Page]

MADAM,

IF you shall think it fit that these Papers pass further than your own eye and Closet, I desire they may be consign'd into the hands of my worthy friend Dr. Wedderburne: For I do not only expose all my sickness to his cure, but I submit my weaknesses to his censure; being as confident to find of him charity for what is pardonable, as remedy for what is curable: But indeed, Madam, I look upon that worthy man as an Idea of Friendship; and if I had no other notices of Friendship or conversation to instruct me than His, it were sufficient: For whatsoever I can say of Friendship, I can say of His; and as all that know Him reckon Him amongst the best Physicians, so I know Him worthy to be reckoned amongst the best Friends.

TWO LETTERS TO PERSONS Changed in their RELIGION. The First to a Gentlewoman Seduced to the Church of Rome. The other to a Person Returning to the Church of England. Volo Solidum Perenne.

[Page]

THE FIRST LETTER.

M. B.

I WAS desirous of an opportunity in London to have discoursed with you concerning something of nearest concernment to you; but the multitude of my little affairs hindred me, and have brought upon you this trouble to read a long Letter; which yet I hope you will be more willing to do, because it comes from one who hath a great respect to your person, and a very great charity to your soul. I must confess I was on your behalf troubled when I heard you were fallen from the Communion of the Church of England, and entred into a voluntary, unnecessary Schism, and departure from the Laws of the King and the Communion of those with whom you have always lived in charity; going against those Laws in the defence and profession of which your Husband died; going from the Religion in which you were Baptized, in which for so many years you lived piously and hoped for Heaven; and all this without any sufficient reason, without necessity or just scandal ministred to you: and to aggravate all this, you did it in a time when the Church of England was persecuted, when she was marked with the Characterisms of her Lord, the marks of the Cross of Jesus, that is, when she suffered for a holy cause and a holy conscience, when the Church of England was more glorious than at any time before; Even when she could shew more Martyrs and Confessors than any Church this day in Christendom; even then when a King died in the profession of her Religion, and thousands of Priests, learned and pious men, suffered the spoiling of their goods rather than they would forsake one Article of so excellent a Religion: So that seriously it is not easily to be imagined that any thing should move you, unless it be that which troubled the perverse Jews, and the Heathen Greek, Scandalum crucis, the scandal of the Cross. You stumbled at that Rock of offence, You left us because we were afflicted, lessened in outward circumstances and wrapped in a cloud: But give me leave only to remind you of that sad saying of the Scripture, that you may avoid the consequent of it; They that fall on this stone, shall be broken in pieces; but they on whom it shall fall, shall be grinded to powder. And if we should consider things but prudently, it is a great argument that the sons of our Church are very conscientious and just in their perswasions, when it is evident, that we have no temporal end to serve, nothing but the great end of our souls; all our hopes of preferment are gone, all secular regards; only we still have Truth on our sides, and we are not willing with the loss of Truth to change from a persecuted to a prosperous Church, from [Page] a Reformed to a Church that will not be reformed; lest we give scandal to good people that suffer for a holy conscience, and weaken the hands of the afflicted; of which if you had been more careful, you would have remained much more innocent.

But I pray, give me leave to consider for you, because you in your change considered so little for your self; What fault, what false doctrine, what wicked and dangerous Proposition, what defect, what amiss did you find in the Doctrine and Liturgy and Discipline of the Church of England?

For its Doctrine, It is certain it professes the belief of all that is written in the Old and New Testament, all that which is in the three Creeds, the Apostolical, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius, and whatsoever was decreed in the four General Councils, or in any other truly such; and whatsoever was condemned in these, our Church hath legally declared it to be Heresie. And upon these accounts above four whole Ages of the Church went to Heaven; they baptized all their Catechumens into this Faith, their hopes of Heaven was upon this and a good life, their Saints and Martyrs lived and died in this alone, they denied Communion to none that professed this Faith. This is the Catholick Faith, so saith the Creed of Athanasius; and unless a company of men have power to alter the Faith of God, whosoever live and die in this Faith, are intirely Catholick and Christian. So that the Church of England hath the same▪ Faith without dispute that the Church had for 400 or 500 years; and therefore there could be nothing wanting here to Saving Faith, if we live according to our belief.

2. For the Liturgy of the Church of England, I shall not need to say much, because the case will be every evident; First, Because the disputers of the Church of Rome have not been very forward to object any thing against it, they cannot charge it with any evil: 2. Because for all the time of King Edward the Sixth, and till the Eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth, your people came to our Churches, and prayed with us, till the Bull of Pius Quintus came out upon temporal regards, and made a Schism by forbidding the Queen's Subjects to pray as by Law was here appointed, though the Prayers were good and holy; as themselves did believe. That Bull enjoyned Recusancy, and made that which was an act of Rebellion, and Disobedience, and Schism, to be the character of your Roman Catholicks. And after this, what can be supposed wanting in order to Salvation? We have the Word of God, the Faith of the Apostles, the Creeds of the Primitive Church, the Articles of the four first General Councils, a holy Liturgy, excellent Prayers, perfect Sacraments, Faith and Repentance, the Ten Commandments, and the Sermons of Christ, and all the Precepts & counsels of the Gospel. We teach the necessity of good works, and require and strictly exact the severity of a holy life; We live in obedience to God, and are ready to die for him, and do so when he requires us so to do; We speak honourably of his most holy Name, we worship him at the mention of his Name, we confess his Attributes, we love his Servants, we pray for all men, we love all Christians, even our most erring Brethren: We confess our sins to God and to our Brethren whom we have offended, and to God's Ministers in cases of Scandal or of a troubled Conscience: We communicate often, we are enjoyned to receive the holy Sacrament thrice every year at least: Our Priests absolve the penitent, our Bishops ordain Priests, and Confirm baptized persons, and bless their people and intercede for them; and what could here be wanting to Salvation? what necessity forced you from us? I dare not suspect it was a Temporal regard that drew you away, but I am sure it could be no Spiritual.

But now that I have told you, and made you to consider from whence you went; give me leave to represent to you, and tell you whither you are gone, that you may understand the nature and conditions of your change: For do not think your self safe, because they tell you that you are come to the Church; You are indeed gone from one Church to another, from a better to a worse, as will appear in the induction, the particulars of which before I reckon, give me leave to give you this advice: If you mean in this affair to understand what you do, it were better you enquired what your Religion is, than what your Church is; For that which is a true Religion to day, will be so to morrow and for ever; but that which is a holy Church to day, may be heretical at the next change, or may betray her trust, or obtrude new Articles in contradiction to the old, or by new interpretations may elude ancient Truths, or may change your Creed, or may pretend to be the Spouse of Christ when she is idolatrous, that is, adulterous to God: Your Religion is that which you must, and therefore may competently understand; You must live in it, and grow in it, and govern all the actions of your life by it; and in all questions concerning the Church, you are to chuse your Church by the Religion, and therefore this ought first and last to be enquired after.

[Page]Whether the Roman Church be the Catholick Church, must depend upon so many uncertain enquiries, is offered to be proved by so long, so tedious a method, hath in it so many intrigues and Labyrinths of Question, and is (like a long line) so impossible to be perfectly streight, and to have no declination in it when it is held by such a hand as yours, that unless it be by material enquiries into the Articles of the Religion, you can never hope to have just grounds of confidence. In the mean time you can consider this; if the Roman Church were the Catholick, that is, so as to exclude all that are not of her communion, then the Greek Churches had as good turn Turks as remain damned Christians; and all that are in the communion of all the other Patriarchal Churches in Christendom, must also perish like Heathens; which thing before any man can believe, he must have put off all reason, and all modesty, and all charity. And who can with any probability think that the Communion of Saints in the Creed is nothing but the Communion of Roman Subjects, and the Article of the Catholick Church was made up to dispark the inclosures of Jerusalem, but to turn them into the pale of Rome, and the Church is as limited as ever it was, save only that the Synagogue is translated to Rome, which I think you will easily believe was a Proposition the Apostles understood not. But though it be hard to trust to it, it is also so hard to prove it, that you shall never be able to understand the measures of that question, and therefore your Salvation can never depend upon it. For no good or wise person can believe that God hath tied our Salvation to impossible measures, or bound us to an Article that is not by us cognoscible, or intends to have us conducted by that which we cannot understand.

And when you shall know that Learned men, even of the Roman party, are not agreed concerning the Catholick Church that is infallibly to guide you; Some saying that it is the Virtual Church, that is, the Pope; Some, that it is the Representative Church, that is, a Council; Some, that it is the Pope and the Council, the Virtual Church, and the Representative Church together; Some, that neither of these, nor both together are infallible; but only, the essential Church, or the diffusive Church is the Catholick, from whom we must at no hand dissent; you will quickly find your self in a wood, and uncertain whether you have more than a word in exchange for your Soul, when you are told you are in the Catholick Church.

But I will tell you what you may understand, and see and feel, something that your self can tell whether I say true or no concerning it. You are now gone to a Church that protects it self by arts of subtilty and arms, by violence and persecuting all that are not of their minds, to a Church in which your are to be a Subject of the King so long as it pleases the Pope: In which you may be absolved from your Vows made to God, your Oaths to the King, your Promises to Men, your duty to your Parents in some cases: A Church in which men pray to God, and to Saints in the same Form of words in which they pray to God, as you may see in the Offices of Saints, and particularly of our Lady: a Church in which men are taught by most of the principal Leaders to worship Images with the same worship with which they worship God and Christ, or him or her whose Image it is, and in which they usually picture God the Father, and the holy Trinity, to the great dishonour of that Sacred mystery, against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, against the express doctrine of Scripture, against the honour of a Divine Attribute, I mean, the Immensity and Spirituality of the Divine Nature; You are gone to a Church that pretends to be Infallible, and yet is infinitely deceived in many particulars, and yet endures no contradiction, and is impatient her children should enquire into any thing her Priests obtrude. You are gone from receiving the whole Sacrament to receive it but half; from Christ's Institution to a humane invention, from Scripture to uncertain Traditions, and from ancient Traditions to new pretences, from Prayers which ye understood to Prayers which ye understand not, from confidence in God to rely upon creatures, from intire dependence upon inward acts to a dangerous temptation of resting too much in outward ministeries, in the external work of Sacraments and of Sacramentals. You are gone from a Church whose worshipping is Simple, Christian and Apostolical, to a Church where mens consciences are loaden with a burden of Ceremonies greater than that in the days of the Jewish Religion (for the Ceremonial of the Church of Rome is a great Book in Folio) greater I say than all the Ceremonies of the Jews contained in Leviticus, &c. You are gone from a Church where you were exhorted to read the Word of God, the holy Scriptures from whence you found instruction, institution, comfort, reproof, a treasure of all excellencies, to a Church that seals up that Fountain from you, and gives you drink by drops out of such Cisterns as they first make, and then stain, [Page] and then reach out. And if it be told you that some men abuse Scripture, it is true; For if your Priests had not abused Scripture, they could not thus have abused you: But there is no necessity they should, and you need not, unless you list; any more than you need to abuse the Sacraments or decrees of the Church, or the messages of your friend, or the Letters you receive, or the Laws of the Land; all which are liable to be abused by evil persons, but not by good people and modest understandings. It is now become a part of your Religion to be ignorant, to walk in blindness, to believe the man that hears your Confessions, to hear none but him, not to hear God speaking but by him, and so you are liable to be abused by him, as he please, without remedy. You are gone from us, where you were only taught to worship God through Jesus Christ, and now you are taught to worship Saints and Angels with a worship at least dangerous, and in some things proper to God; For your Church worships the Virgin Mary with burning Incense and Candles to her, and you give her Presents, which by the consent of all Nations used to be esteemed a Worship peculiar to God, and it is the same thing which was condemned for Heresie in the Collyridians, who offered a Cake to the Virgin Mary; A Candle and a Cake make no difference in the worship; and your joyning God and the Saints in your worship and devotions, is like the device of them that fought for King and Parliament, the latter destroys the former. I will trouble you with no more particulars, because if these move you not to consider better, nothing can.

But yet I have two things more to add of another nature, one of which at least may prevail upon you, whom I suppose to have a tender and a religious Conscience.

The first is, That all the points of difference between us and your Church are such as do evidently serve the ends of Covetousness and Ambition, of Power and Riches; and so stand vehemently suspected of design, and art, rather than truth of the Article, and designs upon Heaven. I instance in the Popes power over Princes and all the World; His power of dispensation, The exemption of the Clergy from jurisdiction of Princes, The doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences which was once made means to raise a portion for a Lady, the Neece of Pope Leo the Tenth; The Priests power advanced beyond authority of any warrant from Scripture, a doctrine apt to bring absolute obedience to the Papacy: But because this is possibly too nice for you to suspect or consider, that which I am sure ought to move you, is this:

That you are gone to a Religion in which (though through God's grace prevailing over the follies of men, there are, I hope and charitably suppose, many pious men that love God and live good lives, yet) there are very many doctrines taught by your men, which are very ill friends to a good life. I instance in your Indulgences and Pardons, in which vicious men put a great confidence, and rely greatly upon them. The doctrine of Purgatory which gives countenance to a sort of Christians who live half to God and half to the world, and for them this doctrine hath found out a way that they may go to Hell and to Heaven too. The Doctrine that the Priests absolution can turn a trifling Repentance into a perfect and a good, and that suddenly too, and at any time, even on our death-bed, or the minute before our death, is a dangerous heap of falshoods, and gives licence to wicked people, and teaches men to reconcile a wicked debauched life, with the hopes of Heaven. And then for Penances and temporal satisfaction, which might seem to be as a plank after the shipwrack of the duty of Repentance, to keep men in awe and to preserve them from sinking in an Ocean of Impiety, it comes to just nothing by your doctrine; for there are so many easie ways of Indulgences and getting Pardons, so many Con-fraternities, Stations, priviledg'd Altars, little Offices, Agnus Dei's Amulets, Hallowed devices, Swords, Roses, Hats, Church-yards, and the fountain of these annexed Indulgences the Pope himself, and his power of granting what, and when, and to whom he list; that he is a very unfortunate man that needs to smart with penances; and after all, he may chuse to suffer any at all, for he may pay them in Purgatory if he please, and he may come out of Purgatory upon reasonable terms, in case he should think it fit to go thither: So that all the whole duty of Repentance seems to be destroyed with devices of men that seek power and gain, and find error and folly; insomuch that if I had a mind to live an evil Life, and yet hope for Heaven at last, I would be of your Religion above any in the world.

But I forget I am writing a Letter: I shall therefore desire you to consider upon the Promises, which is the safer way. For surely it is lawful for a man to serve God without Images; but that to worship Images is lawful, is not so sure. It is lawful to pray to God alone, to confess him to be true, and every man a lyar, to call no man [Page] Master upon Earth, but to rely upon God teaching us; But it is at least hugely disputable and not at all certain that any man, or society of men can be infallible, that we may put our trust in Saints, in certain extraordinary Images, or burn Incense and offer consumptive oblations to the Virgin Mary, or make Vows to persons, of whose state, or place, or capacities, or condition we have no certain revelation. We are sure we do well, when in the holy Communion we worship God and Jesus Christ our Saviour; but they who also worship what seems to be Bread, are put to strange shifts to make themselves believe it to be lawful. It is certainly lawful to believe what we see and feel; but it is an unnatural thing upon pretence of faith to disbelieve our eyes, when our sense and our faith can better be reconciled, as it is in the question of the Real Presence, as it is taught by the Church of England.

So that unless you mean to prefer a danger before safety, temptation to unholiness before a severe and a holy Religion: Unless you mean to lose the benefit of your Prayers by praying what you perceive not, and the benefit of the Sacrament in great degrees by falling from Christ's institution, and taking half instead of all: Unless you desire to provoke God to jealousie by Images, and Man to jealousie in professing a Religion in which you may in many cases have leave to forfeit your faith and lawful trust: Unless you will still continue to give scandal to those good people with whom you have lived in a common Religion, and weaken the hearts of God's afflicted ones: Unless you will chuse a Catechism without the Second Commandment, and a Faith that grows bigger or less as men please, and a Hope that in many degrees relies on men and vain confidences, and a Charity that damns all the World but your selves: Unless you will do all this, that is, suffer an abuse in your Prayers, in the Sacrament, in the Commandments, in Faith, in Hope, in Charity, in the Communion of Saints, and your duty to your Supreme, you must return to the bosom of your Mother the Church of England from whence you have fallen, rather weakly than maliciously; and I doubt not but you will find the Comfort of it all your Life, and in the Day of your Death, and in the Day of Judgment. If you will not, yet I have freed mine own Soul, and done an act of Duty and Charity, which at least you are bound to take kindly, if you will not entertain it obediently.

Now let me add this, That although most of these Objections are such things which are the open and avowed doctrines or practices of your Church, and need not to be proved as being either notorious or confessed; yet if any of your Guides shall seem to question any thing of it, I will bind my self to verifie it to a tittle, and in that too which I intend them, that is, so as to be an Objection obliging you to return, under the pain of folly or heresie, or disobedience, according to the subject matter. And though I have propounded these things now to your consideration, yet, if it be desired, I shall represent them to your eye, so that even your self shall be able to give sentence in the behalf of Truth. In the mean time give me leave to tell you of how much folly you are guilty in being moved by such mock-arguments as your men use when they meet with women and tender consciences and weaker understandings.

The first is; Where was your Church before Luther? Now if you had called upon them to speak something against your Religion from Scripture, or right Reason, or Universal Tradition, you had been secure as a Tortoise in her shell; a Cart pressed with Sheaves could not have oppressed your cause or person; though you had confessed you understood nothing of the mysteries of succession doctrinal or personal. For if we can make it appear that our Religion was that which Christ and his Apostles taught, let the Truth suffer what Eclipses or prejudices can be supposed, let it be hid like the holy fire in the captivity; yet what Christ and his Apostles taught us, is eternally true, and shall by some means or other be conveyed to us; even the enemies of Truth have been conservators of that Truth by which we can confute their Errors. But if you still ask where it was before Luther? I answer, it was there where it was after; even in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; and I know no warrant for any other Religion: And if you will expect I should shew any Society of men who professed all the doctrines which are now expressed in the Confession of the Church of England; I shall tell you it is unreasonable; because some of our Truths are now brought into our publick Confessions that they might be oppos'd against your Errors; before the occasion of which there was no need of any such Confessions, till you made many things necessary to be professed, which are not lawful to be believed. For if we believe your superinduc'd follies, we shall do unreasonably, unconscionably, and wickedly; but the questions themselves are so useless, abstracting from the accidental necessity which your follies have brought upon us, that it had [Page] been happy if we had never heard of them more than the Saints and Martyrs did in the first Ages of the Church. But because your Clergy have invaded the liberty of the Church, and multiplied the dangers of damnation, and pretend new necessities, and have introduc'd new Articles, and affright the simple upon new pretensions, and slight the very institution and the Commands of Christ and of the Apostles, and invent new Sacramentals, constituting Ceremonies of their own head, and promise grace along with the use of them, as if they were not Ministers but Lords of the Spirit, and teach for doctrines the commandments of men, and make void the Commandment of God by their tradition, and have made a strange Body of Divinity; therefore it is necessary that we should immure our Faith by the refusal of such vain and superstitious dreams: but our Faith was completed at first, it is no other than that which was delivered to the Saints, and can be no more for ever.

So that it is a foolish demand to require that we should shew before Luther a Systeme of Articles declaring our sence in these questions: It was long before they were questions at all; and when they were made questions, they remained so, a long time; and when by their several pieces they were determined, this part of the Church was oppressed with a violent power; and when God gave opportunity, then the yoke was broken; and this is the whole progress of this affair. But if you will still insist upon it, then let the matter be put into equal balances, and let them shew any Church whose Confession of Faith was such as was obtruded upon you at Trent: and if your Religion be Pius Quartus his Creed at Trent, then we also have a question to ask, and that is, Where was your Religion before Trent?

The Council of Trent determined, That the Souls departed before the day of Judgment enjoy the Beatifical Vision. It is certain this Article could not be shewn in the Confession of any of the ancient Churches; for most of the Fathers were of another opinion. But that which is the greatest offence of Christendom, is not only that these doctrines which we say are false were yet affirmed, but that those things which the Church of God did always reject, or held as Uncertain, should be made Articles of Faith, and so become parts of your Religion; and of these it is that I again ask the question which none of your side shall ever be able to answer for you: Where was your Religion before Trent?

I could instance in many particulars, but I shall name one to you, which because the thing of it self is of no great consequence, it will appear the more unreasonable and intolerable that your Church should adopt it into the things of necessary belief, especially since it was only a matter of fact, and they took the false part too. For in the 21. Sess. Chap. 4. it is affirmed, That although the holy Fathers did give the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants, yet they did it without any necessity of salvation, that is, they did not believe it necessary to their salvation: Which is notoriously false, and the contrary is marked out with the black-lead of every man almost that reads their Works; and yet your Council says this is sine controversiâ credendum, to be believed without all controversie; and all Christians forbidden to believe or teach otherwise. So that here it is made an Article of Faith amongst you, that a man shall neither believe his reason nor his eyes: and who can shew any Confession of Faith in which all the Trent-doctrine was professed and enjoyned under pain of damnation?

And before the Council of Constance, the doctrine touching the Popes power was so new,De potest. Eccles. cons. 12. so decried, that as Gerson says, he hardly should have escaped the note of Heresie that would have said so much as was there defined: So that in that Article which now makes a great part of your belief, where was your Religion before the Council of Constance? And it is notorious that your Council of Constance determined the doctrine of the Half-communion with a Non obstante to Christ's institution, that is, with a defiance to it, or a noted, observed neglect of it, and with a profession it was otherwise in the Primitive Church. Where then was your Religion before John Hus and Hierom of Prague's time, against whom that Council was convened? But by this instance it appears most certainly that your Church cannot shew her Confessions immediately after Christ, and therefore if we could not shew ours immediately before Luther, it were not half so much; For since you receded from Christ's Doctrine, we might well recede from yours; and it matters not who or how many or how long they professed your doctrine, if neither Christ nor his Apostles did teach it: So that if these Articles constitute your Church, your Church was invisible at the first; and if ours was invisible afterwards, it matters not; For yours was invisible in the days of light, and ours was invisible in the days of darkness. For our Church was always visible in the reflections of Scripture, and he that had his eyes of Faith and Reason might easily [Page] have seen these Truths all the way which constitute our Church. But I add yet farther, that our Church before Luther was there where your Church was, in the same place and in the same persons: For divers of the Errors which have been amongst us reformed, were not the constituent Articles of your Church before Luther's time; for before the last Councils of your Church a man might have been of your Communion upon easier terms; and Indulgences were indeed a practice, but no Article of Faith before your men made it so, and that very lately, and so were many other things besides. So that although your men cozen the credulous and the simple by calling yours The old Religion, yet the difference is vast between Truth and their affirmative, even as much as between old Errors and new Articles. For although Ignorance and Superstition had prepared the Oar, yet the Councils of Constance and Basil, and Trent especially, were the Forges and the Mint.

Lastly, If your men had not by all the vile and violent arts of the world stopped the mouths of dissenters, the question would quickly have been answered, or our Articles would have been so confessed, so owned and so publick, that the question could never have been asked; But in despite of all opposition, there were great numbers of professors who did protest and profess and practise our doctrines contrary to your Articles; as it is demonstrated by the Divines of Germany in Illyricus his Catalogus testium veritatis, and in Bishop Morton's Appeal.

But with your next objection you are better pleased, and your men make most noise with it. For you pretend that by our confession Salvation may be had in your Church, but your men deny it to us; and therefore by the confession of both sides you may be safe, and there is no question concerning you; but of us there is great question, for none but our selves say that we can be saved.

I answer, 1. That Salvation may be had in your Church, is it ever the truer because we say it? If it be not, it can add no confidence to you, for the Proposition gets no strength by our affirmative. But if it be, then our authority is good or else our reason; and if either be, then we have more reason to be believed speaking of our selves; because we are concerned to see that our selves may be in a state of hope; and therefore we would not venture on this side if we had not greater reason to believe well of our selves than of you. And therefore believe us when it is more likely that we have greater reason, because we have greater concernments, and therefore greater considerations.

2. As much charity as your men pretend us to speak of you, yet it is a clear case our hope of your Salvation is so little, that we dare not venture our selves on your side. The Burger of Oldwater being to pass a River in his journey to Daventry, bad his man try the ford; telling him he hoped he should not be drowned, for though he was afraid the River was too deep, yet he thought his Horse would carry him out, or at least the Boats would fetch him off. Such a confidence we may have of you, but you will find that but little warranty, if you remember how great an interest it is that you venture.

3. It would be remembred that though the best ground of your hope is not the goodness of your own faith, but the greatness of our charity; yet we that charitably hope well of you, have a fulness of assurance of the truth and certainty of our own way; and however you can please your selves with Images of things, as having no firm footing for your trifling confidence, yet you can never with your tricks out-face us of just and firm adherencies; and if you were not empty of supports, and greedy of bulrushes, snatching at any thing to support your sinking cause, you would with fear and trembling consider the direct dangers which we demonstrate to you to be in your Religion, rather than flatter your selves with collateral, weak, and deceitful hopes of accidental possibilities, that some of you may escape.

4. If we be more charitable to you than you are to us, acknowledge in us the beauty and essential form of Christian Religion, be sure you love as well as make use of our charity: But if you make our charity an argument against us, remember that you render us evil in exchange for good; and let it be no brag to you that you have not that charity to us; For therefore the Donatists were condemned for Hereticks and Schismaticks, because they damn'd all the world, and afforded no charity to any that was not of their Communion.

5. But that our charity may be such indeed, that is, that it may do you a real benefit, and not turn into Wormwood and Coloquintids, I pray take notice in what sence it is that we allow Salvation may possibly be had in your Church. We warrant it not to any, we only hope it for some; we allow it to them as to the Sadduces in the Law, [Page] and to the Corinthians in the Gospel who denied the Resurrection; that is, till they were sufficiently instructed, and competently convinced, and had time and powers to out-wear their prejudices and the impresses of their education and long perswasion. But to them amongst you who can and do consider and yet determine for error and interest, we have a greater charity, even so much as to labour and pray for their conversion, but not so much fondness as to flatter them into boldness and pertinacious adherencies to matters of so great danger.

6. But in all this affair, though your men are very bold with God and leap into his Judgment-seat before him, and give wild sentences concerning the Salvation of your own party and the Damnation of all that disagree; yet that which is our charity to you, is indeed the fear of God, and the reverence of his judgments. We do not say that all Papists are certainly damn'd, we wish and desire vehemently that none of you may perish. But then this charity of judgment relates not to you, nor is derived from any probability which we see in your doctrines that differ from ours: But because we know not what rate and value God puts upon the Article; It concerns neither you nor us to say, this or that man shall be damn'd for his opinion: For besides that this is a bold intrusion into that secret of God which shall not be opened till the day of Judgment; and besides that we know not what allays and abatements are to be made by the good meaning and the ignorance of the man; all that can concern us is to tell you that you are in error, that you depart from Scripture, that you exercise tyranny over souls, that you leave the Divine institution, and prevaricate God's Commandment, that you divide the Church without truth and without necessity, that you tie men to believe things under pain of damnation which cannot be made very probable, much less certain; and therefore that you sin against God and are in danger of his eternal displeasure. But in giving the final sentence as we have no more to do than your men have, yet so we refuse to follow your evil example; and we follow the glorious precedent of our Blessed Lord; who decreed and declared against the crime, but not against the Criminal before the day. He that does this, or that, is in danger of the Council, or in danger of judgment, or liable and obnoxious to the danger of Hell fire: So we say of your greatest Errors, they put you in the danger of perishing; but that you shall or shall not perish, we leave it to your Judge; and if you call this Charity, it is well, I am sure it is Piety and the fear of God.

7. Whether you may be saved, or whether you shall be damned for your errors, does neither depend upon our affirmative not your negative, but according to the rate and value which God sets upon things. Whatever we talk, things are as they are, not as we dispute, or grant, or hope; and therefore it were well if your men would leave abusing you and themselves with these little arts of indirect support. For many men that are warranted, yet do eternally perish; and you in your Church damn millions who I doubt not shall reign with Jesus eternally in the Heavens.

8. I wish you would consider, that if any of our men say Salvation may be had in your Church, it is not for the goodness of your new Propositions, but only because you do keep so much of that which is our Religion, that upon the confidence of that we hope well concerning you. And we do not hope any thing at all that is good of you or your Religion as it distinguishes from us and ours. We hope that the good which you have common with us may obtain pardon directly or indirectly, or may be an Antidote of the venome, and an Amulet against the danger of your very great Errors: So that if you can derive any confidence from our concession, you must remember where it takes root; not upon any thing of yours, but wholly upon the excellency of ours: You are not at all safe, or warranted for being Papists; but we hope well of some of you, for having so much of the Protestant: and if that will do you any good, proceed in it, and follow it whithersoever it leads you.

9. The safety that you dream of, which we say to be on your side, is nothing of allowance or warranty, but a hope that is collateral, indirect and relative. We do not say any thing whereby you can conclude yours to be safer than ours; for it is not safe at all, but extremely dangerous: We affirm those errors in themselves to be damnable, some to contain in them Impiety, some to have Sacriledge, some Idolatry, some Superstition, some practices to be conjuring and charming and very like to Witchcraft, as in your hallowing of Water, and baptizing Bells, and exorcising Demoniacks; and what safety there can be in these, or what you can fancy we should allow to you, I suppose you need not boast of. Now because we hope some are saved amongst you, you must not conclude yours to be safe; for our hope relies upon this: [Page] There are many of your Propositions in which we differ from you, that thousands amongst you understand and know nothing of; it is to them as if they were not; it is to them now as it was before the Council, they hear not of it. And though your Priests have taken a course that the most ignorant do practise some of your abominations most grosly, yet we hope this will not be laid upon them who (as S. Austin's expression is) cautâ sollicitudine quaerunt varitatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint; do according as they are able warily and diligently seek for Truth, and are ready to follow it when they find it; men who live good lives, and repent of all their evils known and unknown. Now if we are not deceived in our hopes, these men shall rejoyce in the eternal goodness of God, which prevails over the malice of them that misguide you: But if we be deceived in our hopes of you, your guides have abus'd you, and the blind leaders of the blind will fall together. For,

10. If you will have the secret of this whole affair, this it is. The hopes we have of any of you, (as it is known) principally relies upon the hopes of your repentance. Now we say that a man may repent of an error which he knows not of; as he that prays heartily for the pardon of all his sins and errors known and unknown; by his general repentance may obtain many degrees and instances of mercy. Now thus much also your men allow to us; these who live well, and die in a true, though but general, repentance of their sins and errors even amongst us, your best and wisest men pronounce to be in a savable condition. Here then we are equal, and we are as safe by your confession as you are by ours. But because there are some Bigots of your faction, fierce and fiery, who say that a general repentance will not serve our turns, but it must be a particular renunciation of Protestancy; these men deny not only to us but to themselves too, all that comfort which they derive from our Concession, and indeed which they can hope for from the mercies of God. For be you sure we think as ill of your Errors as you can suppose of our Articles; and therefore if for Errors (be they on which side it chances) a general repentance will not serve the turn without an actual dereliction, then flatter not your selves by any thing of our kindness to your party; for you must have a particular, if a general be not sufficient. But if it be sufficient for you, it is so for us, in case we be in error as your men suppose us; but if it will not suffice us for remedy to those Errors you charge us with, neither will it suffice you; for the case must needs be equal as to the value of repentance and malignity of the error: and therefore these men condemn themselves and will not allow us to hope well of them: But if they will allow us to hope, it must be by affirming the value of a general repentance; and if they allow that, they must hope as well of ours as we of theirs: But if they deny it to us, they deny it to themselves; and then they can no more brag of any thing of our concession. This only I add to this consideration; That your men do not, cannot charge upon us any doctrine that is in its matter and effect impious; there is nothing positive in our doctrine, but is either true or innocent; but we are accus'd for denying your superstructures: Ours therefore (if we be deceived) is but like a sin of omission; yours are sins of commission in case you are in the wrong (as we believe you to be) and therefore you must needs be in the greater danger than we can be supposed, by how much sins of omission are less than sins of commission.

11. Your very way of arguing from our charity is a very fallacy, and a trick that must needs deceive you if you rely upon it. For whereas your men argue thus; The Protestants say we Papists may be saved; and so say we too; but we Papists say that you Protestants cannot, therefore it is safest to be a Papist: Consider that of this argument, if it shall be accepted, any bold Heretick can make use, against any modest Christian of a true perswasion. For, if he can but out-face the modesty of the good man, and tell him he shall be damn'd; unless that modest man say as much of him, you see impudence shall get the better of the day. But it is thus in every error. Fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem in immediate succession were circumcised, believing it to be necessary so to be: with these other Christian Churches who were of the uncircumcision did communicate: Suppose now that these Bishops had not only thought it necessary for themselves, but for others too; this argument you see was ready; You of the uncircumcision who do communicate with us, think that we may be saved though we are circumcised; but we do not think that you who are not circumcised can be saved, therefore it is the safest way to be circumcised: I suppose you would not have thought their argument good, neither would you have had your children circumcised. But this argument may serve the Presbyterians as well as the Papists. We are indeed very kind to them in our sentences concerning their Salvation; and [Page] they are many of them as unkind to us. If they should argue so as you do, and say, You Episcopal men think we Presbyterians, though in errors, can be saved, and we say so too: but we think you Episcopal men are Enemies of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ; and therefore we think you in a damnable condition; therefore it is safer to be a Presbyterian: I know not what your men would think of the argument in their hands, I am sure we had reason to complain that we are used very ill on both hands for no other cause but because we are charitable. But it is not our case alone; but the [...]ld Catholicks were used just so by the Donatists in this very argument, as we are used [...] our men. The Donatists were so fierce against the Catholicks, that they would re-baptize all them who came to their Churches from the other: But the Catholicks, as knowing the Donatists did give right Baptism, admitted their Converts to Repentance, but did not re-baptize them. Upon this score, the Donatists triumphed, saying, You Catholicks confess our Baptism to be good, and so say we: But we Donatists deny your Baptism to be good; therefore it is safer to be of our side than yours. Now what should the Catholicks say or do? Should they lie for God and for Religion, and to serve the ends of Truth say, the Donatists Baptism was not good? That they ought not. Should they damn all the Donatists, and make the rent wider? It was too great already. What then? They were quiet, and knew that the Donatists sought advantages by their own fierceness, and trampled upon the others charity; but so they hardned themselves in error, and became evil, because the others were good.

I shall trouble you no further now, but desire you to consider of these things with as much caution, as they were written with charity.

Till I hear from you, I shall pray to God to open your heart and your understanding, that you may return from whence you are fallen, and repent, and do your first works. Which that you may do, is the hearty desire of

Your very affectionate Friend and Servant, JER. TAYLOR.

THE SECOND LETTER: Written to a Person newly Converted to the CHURCH of ENGLAND.

[Page]

Madam,

I Bless God I am safely arrived where I desired to be after my unwilling departure from the place of your abode and danger: And now because I can have no other expression of my tenderness, I account that I have a treble Obligation to signifie it by my care of your biggest and eternal interest. And because it hath pleased God to make me an Instrument of making you to understand in some fair measure the excellencies of a true and holy Religion, and that I have pointed out such follies and errors in the Roman Church, at which your understanding being forward and pregnant, did of it self start as at imperfect ill-looking Propositions, give me leave to do that now which is the purpose of my Charity, that is, teach you to turn this to the advantage of a holy life, that you may not only be changed but converted. For the Church of England whither you are now come is not in condition to boast her self in the reputation of changing the opinion of a single person, though never so excellent; She hath no temporal ends to serve which must stand upon fame and noises; all that she can design, is to serve God, to advance the honour of the Lord, and the good of Souls, and to rejoyce in the Cross of Christ.

First, therefore I desire you to remember that as now you are taught to pray both publickly and privately, in a Language understood, so it is intended your affections should be forward, in proportion to the advantages which your prayer hath in the understanding part. For though you have been often told and have heard, that Ignorance is the mother of devotion; you will find that the proposition is unnatural and against common sense and experience; because it is impossible to desire that of which we know nothing, unless the desire it self be fantastical and illusive: it is necessary that in the same proportion in which we understand any good thing, in the same we shall also desire it; and the more particular and minute your notices are, the more passionate and material also your affections will be towards it: and if they be good things for which we are taught to pray, the more you know them, the more reason you have to love them. It is monstrous to think that devotion, that is, passionate desires of religious things, and the earnest prosecutions of them, should be produced by any thing of ignorance or less perfect notices in any sence. Since therefore you are taught to pray, so that your understanding is the Precentor or the Master of the Quire, and you know what you say; your desires are made humane, religious, express, material (for these are the advantages of Prayers and Liturgies well understood) be pleased also to remember, that now if you be not also passionate and devout for the things you mention, you will want the Spirit of prayer, and be more inexcusable than before. In many of your Prayers before (especially the publick) you heard a voice, but saw and perceived nothing of the sence; and what you understood of it was like the man in the Gospel that was half blind, he saw men walking like Trees, and so you possibly might perceive the meaning of it in general; You knew when they came to the Epistle, when to the Gospel, when the Introit, when the Pa [...], when any of the other more general periods were; but you could have nothing of the Spirit of prayer, that is, nothing of the devotion and the holy affections to the particular excellencies which could or ought there to have been represented: But [Page] now you are taught how you may be really devout, it is made facil and easie, and there can want nothing but your consent and observation.

2. Whereas now you are taken off from all humane confidences, from relying wholly and almost ultimately upon the Priests power and external act, from reckoning prayers by numbers, from forms and out-sides; you are not to think that the Priests power is less, that the Sacraments are not effective, that your prayers may not be repeated frequently: But you are to remember, that all outward things and Ceremonies, all Sacraments and Institutions work their effect in the vertue of Christ, by some moral Instrument: The Priests in the Church of England can absolve you as much as the Roman Priests could fairly pretend; but then we teach that you must first be a penitent and a returning person, and our absolution does but manifest the work of God, and comfort and instruct your Conscience, direct and manage it: You shall be absolved here, but not unless you live an holy life; So that in this you will find no change but to the advantage of a strict life; we will not flatter you and cozen your dear Soul by pretended ministeries, but we so order our discourses and directions that all our ministrations may be really effective. And when you receive the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper, it does more good here than they do there; because if they consecrate rightly, yet they do not communicate you fully; and if they offer the whole representative Sacrifice, yet they do not give you the whole Sacrament; only we enjoyn that you come with so much holiness, that the grace of God in your heart may be the principal, and the Sacrament in our hands may be the ministring and assisting part. We do not promise great effects to easie trifling dispositions, because we would not deceive, but really procure to you great effects; and therefore you are now to come to our offices with the same expectations as before, of pardon, of grace, of sanctification; but you must do something more of the work your self, that we may not do less in effect than you have in your expectation; We will not, to advance the reputation of our power, deceive you into a less blessing.

3. Be careful that you do not flatter your self, that in our Communion you may have more ease and liberty of life: For though I know your pious Soul desires passionately to please God and to live religiously, yet I ought to be careful to prevent a temptation, lest it at any time should discompose your severity: Therefore as to confession to a Priest (which how it is usually practised among the Roman party, your self can very well account, and you have complain'd sadly, that it is made an ordinary act, easie and transient, sometime matter of temptation, oftentimes impertinent, but) suppose it free from such scandal to which some mens folly did betray it, yet the same severity you'l find among us: For though we will not tell a lie to help a sinner, and say that is necessary which is only appointed to make men do themselves good; yet we advise and commend it; and do all the work of Souls to all those people that will be saved by all means, to devout persons, that make Religion the business of their lives; and they that do not so in the Churches of the Roman Communion, as they find but little advantage by periodical confessions, so they feel but little awfulness and severity by the injunction. You must confess to God all your secret actions, you must advise with a holy man in all the affairs of your Soul, you will be but an ill friend to your self if you conceal from him the state of your spiritual affairs. We desire not to hear the circumstance of every sin, but when matter of justice is concerned, or the nature of the sin is changed, that is, when it ought to be made a Question; and you will find that though the Church of England gives you much liberty from the bondage of innumerable Ceremonies and humane devices, yet in the matter of holiness you will be tied to very great service, but such a service as is perfect freedom, that is, the service of God and the love of the holy Jesus, and a very strict religious life: For we do not promise Heaven, but upon the same terms it is promised us, that is, Repentance towards God, and Faith in our Lord Jesus: and as in Faith we make no more to be necessary than what is made so in holy Scripture, so in the matter of Repentance we give you no easie devices, and suffer no lessening definitions of it, but oblige you to that strictness which is the condition of being saved, and so expressed to be by the infallible Word of God; but such as in the Church of Rome they do not so much stand upon.

Madam, I am weary of my Journey, and although I did purpose to have spoken many things more, yet I desire that my not doing it may be laid upon the account of my weariness; all that I shall add to the main business is this.

[Page]4. Read the Scripture diligently, and with an humble spirit, and in it observe what is plain, and believe and live accordingly. Trouble not your self with what is difficult, for in that your duty is not described.

5. Pray frequently and effectually; I had rather your prayers should be often than long. It was well said of Petrarch, Magno verborum fraeno uti decet cum superiore colloquentem. When you speak to your Superior, you ought to have a bridle upon your tongue, much more when you speak to God. I speak of what is decent in respect of our selves and our infinite distances from God: But if love makes you speak, speak on, so shall your prayers be full of charity and devotion, Nullus est amore superior, ille te coget ad veniam, qui me ad multiloquium; Love makes God to be our friend, and our approaches more united and acceptable; and therefore you may say to God, The same love which made me speak, will also move thee to hear and pardon: Love and devotion may enlarge your Litanies, but nothing else can, unless Authority does interpose.

6. Be curious not to communicate but with the true Sons of the Church of England, lest if you follow them that were amongst us, but are gone out from us (because they were not of us) you be offended and tempted to impute their follies to the Church of England.

7. Trouble your self with no controversies willingly, but how you may best please God by a strict and severe conversation.

8. If any Protestant live loosely, remember that he dishonours an excellent Religion, and that it may be no more laid upon the charge of our Church, than the ill lives of most Christians may upon the whole Religion.

9. Let no man or woman affright you with declamations and scaring words of Heretick, and Damnation, and Changeable; for these words may be spoken against them that return to light, as well as to those that go to darkness; and that which men of all sides can say, it can be of effect to no side upon its own strength or pretension.

THE END.

THREE LETTERS WRITTEN TO A GENTLEMAN That was tempted to the Communion of the ROMISH CHURCH.

[Page]

[Page]

The First Letter.

SIR,

YOU needed not to make the Preface of an excuse for writing so friendly, and so necessary a Letter of Inquiry. It was your kindness to my person which directed your addresses hither; and your duty which ingag'd you to inquire some-where.

I do not doubt but you, and very many other ingenious and conscientious persons, do every day meet with the Tempters of the Roman Church, who like the Pharisees compass Sea and Land to get a Proselyte; at this I wonder not; for as Demetrius said, by this craft they get their living: but I wonder that any ingenious person, and such as I perceive you to be, can be shaken by their weak assaults: for their batteries are made up with impossible propositions, and weak and violent prejudices respectively; and when they talk of their own infallibility, they prove it with false Mediums (say we) with fallible Mediums as themselves confess; and when they argue us of an Uncertain Faith, because we pretend to no infallibility, they are themselves much more Uncertain, because they build their pretence of infallibility upon that which not only can, but will deceive them: and since they can pretend no higher for their infallibility than prudential motives, they break in pieces the staff upon which they lean, and with which they strike us.

But Sir, you are pleased to ask two Questions. 1. Whether the Apostles of our Blessed Lord did not Orally deliver many things necessary to Salvation which were not committed to writing? To which you add this assumentum, [in which because you desire to be answered, I suppose you meant it for another Question] viz. whether in those things which the Church of Rome retains, and we take no notice of, She be an Innovator, or a conserver of Tradition; and whether any thing which she so retains was or was not esteemed necessary?

The answer to the first part, will conclude the second. I therefore answer, that whatsoever the Apostles did deliver as necessary to Salvation, all that was written in the Scriptures: and that to them who believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, there needs no other Magazine of Divine truths but the Scripture. And this the Fathers of the first and divers succeeding Ages do Unanimously affirm. I will set down two or three, so plain that either you must conclude them to be deceivers, or that you will need no more but their testimony.

The words of S. Basil are these, [...], &c. Every word and every thing ought to be made credible,Ethic. definit. 26. or believ'd by the testimony of the Divinely-inspired Scripture: both for the confirmation of good things, and also for the reproof of the evil.

S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 12. Illuminat. saith, Attend not to my inventions, for you may possibly be deceiv'd: but trust no word unless thou dost learn it from the Divine Scriptures: and in Catech. 4. Illum. [...] [Page] [...], &c. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing [...], of the Divine and holy mysteries of Faith without the Divine Scriptures, nor to be moved with probable discourses: Neither give credit to me speaking, unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures. For that is the security of our Faith, [...], which is derived not from witty inventions, but from the demonstration of Divine Scriptures.

Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de Scripturis Sanctis: so S. Hierom in Psal. 89. And again, Hoc quia de Scripturis authoritatem non habet, eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur, in Matth. 23.

Si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat. So S. Chrysostom in Psal. 95. Homil.

Theodoret Dial. 1. cap. 6. brings in the Orthodox Christian saying to Eranistes: Bring not to me your Logismes and Syllogismes, [...], I rely only upon Scriptures. I could reckon very, very many more, both elder and later: and if there be any Universal Tradition consigned to us by the Universal Testimony of Antiquity, it is this, that the Scriptures are a perfect repository of all the Will of God, of all the Faith of Christ: and this I will engage my self to make very apparent to you, and certain against any opposer.

Upon the supposition of which it follows, that whatever the Church of Rome obtrudes as necessary to Salvation, and an Article of Faith that is not in Scripture, is an Innovation in matter of Faith, and a Tyranny over Consciences: which whosoever submits to, prevaricates the rule of the Apostle, commanding us, that we stand fast in the liberty, with which Christ hath set us free.

To the other Question; Whether an Ecclesiastical Tradition be of equal authority with Divine? I answer Negatively: And I believe I shall have no adversary in it, except peradventure some of the Jesuited Bigots. An Ecclesiastical Tradition, viz. a positive constitution of the Church delivered from hand to hand; is in the power of the Church to alter: but a Divine is not. Ecclesiastical Traditions in matters of Faith there are none, but what are also Divine; as for Rituals Ecclesiastical descending by Tradition, they are confessedly alterable: but till they be altered by abrogation, or desuetude, or contrary custom, or a contrary reason or the like, they do oblige by vertue of that Authority whatsoever it is that hath power over you. I know not what Mr. G. did say, but I am confident they who reported it of him, were mistaken: He could not say or mean what is charged upon him.

I have but two things more to speak to. One is, you desire me to recite what else might impede your compliance with the Roman Church? I answer, Truth and Piety hinder you. For you must profess the belief of many false propositions, and certainly believe many Uncertain things, and be uncharitable to all the world but your own party, and make Christianity a faction, and you must yield your reason a servant to man, and you must plainly prevaricate an institution of Christ, and you must make an apparent departure from the Church in which you received your Baptism and the Spirit of God, if you go over to Rome. But Sir, I refer you to the two Letters I have lately published at the end of my Discourse of Friendship; and I desire you to read my Treatise of the Real Presence: and if you can believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation, you can put off your reason and your sense, and your religion, and all the instruments of Credibility when you please: and these are not little things; In these you may perish: an error in these things is practical; but our way is safe, as being upon the defence, and intirely resting upon Scripture, and the Apostolical Churches.

The other thing I am to speak to is, the report you have heard of my inclinations to go over to Rome. Sir, that party which needs such lying stories for the support of their Cause, proclaim their Cause to be very weak, or themselves to be very evil Advocates. Sir, be confident, they dare not tempt me to do so, and it is not the first time they have endeavoured to serve their ends by saying such things of me. But I bless God for it; it is perfectly a Slander, and it shall, I hope, for ever prove so. Sir, if I may speak with you, I shall say very many things more for your confirmation. Pray to God to guide you; and make no change suddenly: For if their way be true to day, it will be so to morrow; and you need not make haste to undo your self. Sir, I wish you a setled mind and a holy Conscience; and that I could serve you in the capacity of

Your very Loving Friend and Servant in our Blessed Lord, JER. TAYLOR.

Munday, Jan. 11. 1657.

THE SECOND LETTER.

[Page]

SIR,

I Perceive that you are very much troubled; and I see also that you are in great danger; but that also troubles me, because I see they are little things and very weak and fallacious that move you. You propound many things in your Letter in the same disorder as they are in your Conscience: to all which I can best give answers when I speak with you; to which because you desire, I invite you, and promise you a hearty endeavour to give you satisfaction in all your material inquiries. Sir, I desire you to make no haste to change, in case you be so miserable as to have it in your thoughts: for to go over to the Church of Rome is like death, there is no recovery from thence without a Miracle; because Unwary souls (such are they who change from us to them) are with all the arts of wit and violence strangely entangled and ensur'd, when they once get the prey. Sir, I thank you for the Paper you inclosed. The men are at a loss, they would fain say something against that Book, but know not what. Sir, I will endeavour if you come to me, to restore you to peace and quiet; and if I cannot effect it, yet I will pray for it, and I am sure, God can. To his Mercy I commend you and rest

Your very affectionate Friend in our Blessed Lord, JER. TAYLOR.

Febr. 1. 1657/8.

THE THIRD LETTER.

SIR,

THE first Letter which you mention in this latter of the 10th of March, I received not; I had not else failed to give you an answer; I was so wholly unknowing of it, that I did not understand your Servant's meaning when he came to require an answer. But to your Question which you now propound, I answer.

Quest. Whether without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry we may not render Divine worship to our Blessed Saviour, as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host, according to his Humane Nature in that Host?

Answ. We may not render Divine worship to him (as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature) without danger of Idolatry: Because he is not there according to his Humane Nature, and therefore, you give Divine worship to a Non Ens, which must needs be Idolatry. For Idolum nihil est in mundo, saith S. Paul, and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens; for it is not true, there is no such thing. He is present there by his Divine power, and his Divine Blessing, and the fruits of his Body, the real effective consequents of his Passion: but for any other Presence, it is Idolum, it is nothing in the world. Adore Christ in Heaven; for the Heavens must contain him till the time of restitution of all things. And if you in the reception of the Holy Sacrament worship him [Page] whom you know to be in Heaven; you cannot be concerned in duty to worship him in the Host (as you call it) any more than to worship him in the Host at Nostre Dame when you are at S. Peter's in Rome: for you see him no more in one place than in another; and if to believe him to be there in the Host at Nostre Dame be sufficient to cause you to worship him there, then you are to do so to him at Rome, though you be not present: for you believe him there; you know as much of Him by Faith in both places, and as little by sense in either. But however, this is a thing of infinite danger. God is a jealous God: He spake it in the matter of external worship, and of Idolatry; and therefore do nothing that is like worshipping a mere creature, nothing that is like worshipping that which you are not sure it is God: and if you can believe the Bread when it is blessed by the Priest is God Almighty, you can if you please believe any thing else.

To the other parts of your Question, viz. Whether the same body be present really and Substantially, because we believe it to be there; or whether do we believe it to be there because God hath manifestly revealed it to be so, and therefore we revere and adore it accordingly?

I answer, 1. I do not know whether or no you do believe Him to be there really and Substantially. 2. If you do believe it so, I do not know what you mean by really and Substantially. 3. Whatsoever you do mean by it, if you do believe it to be there really and Substantially in any sence, I cannot tell why you believe it to be so: you best know your own reasons and motives of belief; for my part, I believe it to be there really in the sence I have explicated in my Book; and for those reasons which I have there alledged; but that we are to adore it upon that account, I no way understand. If it be Transubstantiated and you are sure of it: then you may pray to it, and put your trust in it; and believe the Holy Bread to be coeternal with the Father, and with the Holy Ghost. But it is strange that the Bread being consecrated by the power of the Holy Ghost, should be turn'd into the substance and nature of God, and of the Son of God: if so, does not the Son at that time proceed from the Holy Ghost, and not the Holy Ghost from the Son? But I am ashamed of the horrible proposition. Sir, I pray God keep you from these extremest dangers. I love and value you, and will pray for you and be, Dear Sir,

Your very affectionate Friend to serve you, JER. TAYLOR.

March 13. 1657/8

THE END.

THE TABLE.

[Page]

THough the whole Volume consists of divers Tractates of several Titles; yet because one course or order of numbers runs through all the pages till you come to pag. 1070, where begins the Discourse of Confirmation, and a new account of 70 pages more, reaching to the end of all: therefore it was not necessary to trouble this Index with the several Titles of the Books and Discourses. Where then the number of the page has the letter [b] with it, (as it has for no more then 70 of the last pages) the Reader is referred to the Book of Confirmation and the Discourse of Friendship, &c. But where the number of the page hath not that letter with it, he is directed to the rest of the Volume. Note also that [n] stands for the marginall number, and [ss. sect. §.] stands for the Section, in those parts of the Volume that are so divided.

A

A.

Absolution.

OF the forms of it that have been used, page 838, num. 53. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial form of absolution in their Liturgies, 837, n. 50, 52. and 838, n. 54. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative, 834, n. 41. and 841, n. 58. The usefulness of that kind of absolution, 841, n. 59. Judicial absolution by the Priest is not that which Christ intended in giving the power of remitting and retaining sins, 837, n. 50. and 841, n. 60. Absolution Ecclesiastical, 835, n. 44. Attrition joyned with Priestly absolution is not sufficient for pardon, 842, n. 62, 64.830, n. 33. The Priest's power to absolve is not judicial▪ but declarative onely, 483. A Deacon in the ancient Church might give absolution, 484. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative, 483, 486. The promise of Quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism, 486. Absolution upon confession to a Priest does not make Attrition equal to Contrition, 842, n. 62, 64. The severity of the Primitive Church in denying absolution to greater criminals was not their doctrine, but their discipline, 805, n. 21.

Accident.

What is the definitive notion of it, 236, sect. 11.

Acts.

The usuall acts of repentance, 845, n. 74. To communicate in act or desire are not terms opposite, but subordinate, 190, sect. 3. What repentance single acts of sin require, 646, n. 43. A single act of sin is cut off by the exercise of the contrary vertue, 647, n. 45. A single act of vertue is not sufficient to be opposed against a single act of Vice, 647, n. 46. How a single act of sin is sometimes habitual, 648, n. 49, 50. Some acts of sin require more then a moral revocation or opposing a contrary act of vertue in repentance, 648, n. 50. Single acts of sin without a habit give a denomination, 641, n. 25.

Book of Acts Apostles.

Chap. 13.48. [...] explained, 780, n. 28. and 835, n. 44.

Adam.

Concupiscence is not wholly an effect of his sin, 752, n. 11. How we can be liable to the punishment of his sin, when we were not guilty of it, 752, n. 12. How we are sinners in Adam, ibid. The effect of his fall upon his posterity, 870, 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will, 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin, 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable, 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam, 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him, 587, n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall, 748, n. 14. The following of Adam cannot [Page] be original sin, 764, n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven, 748, n. 3, 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned, Christ had been incarnate, 748, n. 4. Adam was made mortal, 779, n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent, 750, n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation, 714, n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious, 717, n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency, 717, n. 40. nor because we were in his loins, 717, n. 41. nor because of the decree of God, 717, n. 42.

[...].

What it signifieth, 617, n. 21.

[...].

The meaning and use of the word, 635, n. 2.

[...].

What latitude of signification it hath, 809, n. 39.

Aelfrick.

Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation, 266, n. 12.

Aerius.

How he could be an heretick, being his errour was not against any fundamental article, 150, ss. 48. He was never condemned by any general Council, 150, ss. 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was, 151, ss. 48.

Aggravate.

No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person, 614, n. 11.

[...].

The use of that word in the Scripture, 639, n. 15.

[...].

The meaning and use of the word, 638, n. 14.

Alms.

Are a part of repentance, 848, n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon, ibid. It is one of the best penances, 860, n. 114.

[...].

What the word signifieth, 617, n. 21. and 619, n. 26.

S. Ambrose.

He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time, 160, ss. 49. His testimony against transubstantiation, 259, 260, 261, §. 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered, 19, b. 20, b.

[...].

The notion of the word, 809, n. 38.

[...].

The importance of the word, 617, n. 122.

Angels.

[...], 1 Cor. 11.10. explained, 58. §. 9. Of worshipping them, 467.

Antiquity.

The reverence that is due to it, 882.

Apostle.

Whence that name was taken, 48, §. 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles, ibid. In what sense they were so, 47, §. 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop, 48, §. 4. [...] (in Ep. to Philip. 2.25.) does not signifie Messenger, but Apostle, 49, §. 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity, 59, §. 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles, 48, §. 4. Apostles in Scripture called [...], 85, §. 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick, 89, §. 24. Of the Canons that go under their names, 981, n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority, 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles, 310, §. 10. c. l. 1.

Arius.

His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach, 128, §. 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum, 441. How his heresie began, 958, n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius, 959, n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed, 958, 959, 960, n. 26, ad 36.

[Page] Art.

How much it changes nature, 652, n. 3.

[...].

The signification of the word, 665, n. 18. and 637, n. 8.

Athanasius.

The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious, 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others, 963. Concerning his Creed, ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine, then translated into Greek, 963, n. 36.

Attrition.

What it is, 842, n. 63. and 828, n. 25. The difference between it and contrition, ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient, demonstrated by many arguments, 830, n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution, is not equal to contrition, 842, n. 62, 64.

S. Augustine.

He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical, 161, §. 49. His authority against Transubstantiation, 261, 262, §. 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical, 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings, 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven, 501, 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time, 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory, 507, 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation, 525, His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting (Rom. VII.15.) 775, n. 18. His inconstancy in the question, whether concupiscence be a sin, 913.

Austerity.

Of the acts of austerity in Religion, of what use they are, 955, n. 18.

Authority.

That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience, 160, §. 49.

[...].

What the Apostle means by it (Tit. III.11.) 780, n. 30. and 951, n. 11.

[...].

What it signifieth, 689, n. 5.

B

B.

Baptism.

THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely, but Scripture too, 425, 426. S. Ambrose, S. Hierome and S. Augustine, though born of Christian parents, were not baptized till they were at full age, 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants, 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's, That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists, 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture, 426, 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents, 471. Of the Scripture & Liturgy in an unknown tongue, 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism, 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism, 802, n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism, 760, n. 21, 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded, 426, and 718, n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance, 802, n. 8, 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance, 803, n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin, why in our infancy are we baptized? That objection answered, 884. The state of unbaptized Infants, 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation, 20, b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use, 26, b. Of the change made in us by it, 28, b. With Baptism Confirmation was usually administred, 29, b.

Berengarius.

The Pope forced him to recant his errour about Transubstantiation in the Capernaitical sense, 191, §. 3. and 299.

Bind.

What it means in the promise of Christ, 736, 45, 46, 47. and 486.

Bishop.

The benefits that England has received in several ages from the Bishops Order; Ep. dedic. to Episcop. asserted. They were [Page] the Apostles successors, 48, §. 4. In what sense they were so, 47, §. 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop, 48, §. 4. The Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the Seven Churches, in the Apocalypse, means the Bishop, 57, §. 9. That Bishops were successors in their office to the Apostles, was the sense of Antiquity, 59, §. 10. The office of a Bishop was not inconsistent with that of an Evangelist, 69, §. 14. [...], Tit. 1.5. signifies Bishop, and not mere Presbyter, 71, §. 15. The authority and text of S. Hierom against the Prelacy of Bishops considered, 77, §. 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28. in those words [in quos Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos] were Bishops, and not mere Presbyters, 80, §. 21. Concerning the testimony of S. Hierome taken out of his Commentary in Ep. ad Tit. usually urged against the sole authority of Bishops, 77, §. 21. per tot. and §. 44. and pag. 144. In what sense it is true that Bishops were not greater then Presbyters, 83, §. 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters, 85, §. 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never styled Bishops, 86, §. 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining of a Bishop, 98, §. 31. Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon, 98, §. 31. Why a Bishop cannot be made per saltum, 101, §. 31. [...] had the Ordination of a Bishop, but not the Jurisdiction, 102, §▪ 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy, 104, §. 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony, 105, §. 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops, 105, §. 32. He could suspend or depose alone without the presence of a Presbyter, 116, 117, §. 36. The latitude or extent of the Bishop's power, 120, §. 36. It encroaches not upon the royal power, ibid. What persons are under the Bishop's jurisdiction, 123, §. 36. In the Primitive Church Presbyters might not officiate without the licence of the Bishop, 127, §. 37. The Bishop for his acts of judicature was responsible to none but God, 145, 146, §. 44. The Presbyters assistence to the Bishop was never necessary, and when practised, was voluntary on the Bishop's behalf, 147, §. 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters, onely in the greater Churches, 146, §. 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose a Presbyter, 147, §. 44. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops, 148, §. 45. The African Christians of Byzac chose to suffer martyrdome rather then hazard the succession of Bishops, 149, §. 45. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick, though he believe aright, that separates from his Bishop, 151, §. 48. The great honour that belongs to Bishops, 153, §. 48. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take secular employments, 157, §. 49. Christian Emperours allowed appeals in secular affairs from secular tribunals to that of the Bishop, 160, §. 49. They used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes, 161, §. 49. The Bishop might do any office of piety though of secular burthen, 161, §. 49. By the Law of God one Bishop is not superiour to another, and they all derive their power equally from Christ, 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy, he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope, 310, c. 1. §. 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses, 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproveth the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself universal Bishop, 310. If a secular Prince give a safe conduct, the Romanists teach, it binds not the Bishop who is under him, 341. Socrates his censure of their judicial proceedings in the Primitive Church, 994, n. 17.

Body.

Berengarius maintained in Rome, That by the power of God one body could not be in two places at one time, 222, §. 9. How a body is in place, 226, §. 11. What a body is, 236. One body cannot at the same time be in two places, 236, §. 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are, in S. Augustine's opinion, 237, §. 11. Aquinas affirmeth that the body of Christ is in the Elements, not after the manner of a body, but a substance. This notion considered, 238, §. 11. That consequence, That if two bodies may be in one place, then one body may be in two places, considered, 243, §. 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles, the doors being shut, it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place, 245, §. 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place, 245, §. 11. The Romanists absurdities in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ, 247, §. 11.

C

[Page]

C.

Canons.

THat the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick, 89, §. 24.

Carnality.

What it is in Scripture, 724, n. 53. Of the use of the word Carnal in Scripture, 774, n. 16.

Catechizing.

The excellent use of Catechizing Children, 30. b. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing, 30. b.

Certainty.

It may be where is no evidence, 686, n. 72.

Charity.

The great Charity of the Protestant Church in England, 460. The uncharitableness of that of Rome, ibid. Charity gives being to all vertues, 650, n. 56.

Children.

How God punisheth the fathers upon the Children, 725. God never imputes the father's sin to the child so as to inflict eternal punishment, but temporal onely, 725, n. 56. This he does onely in very great crimes, 725, n. 59. and not often, 726, n. 60. and before the Gospel was published, not since, 726, n. 62. Rules of deportment for those Children who fear a curse descending upon them from their sinful parents, 738, n. 93. The state of the unbaptized, 897.

Chorepiscopi.

They had Episcopal Ordination, but not Jurisdiction, 102, §. 32. The institution of them, what ends it served, 142, §. 43.

Christ.

The Romanists teach that Christ, being our Judge, is not fit to be our Advocate, 329, c. 2. §. 9. The Article of Christ's descent into hell omitted in some Creeds, 440. We are by him redeemed from the state of spiritual infirmity, 779, n. 27.

Christian.

The sum of Christian Religion, 445. Upon what motives most men imbrace that Religion, 460.

Chrysostome.

His notion of a sinner, 760, n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism, 760, n. 21, 22.

Church.

Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate, before they had a Bishop set over them, 82, §. 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal, otherwise then by substitution, ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety, 114, §. 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church, 122. §. 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops, 148, §. 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments, 157, §. 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends, 158, §. 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti, 159, §. 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment, 160, §. 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church, 165, §. 51. What the Church signifieth, 382, 383. Wicked men are not true members of it, 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth, 386, 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar, 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible, 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone, 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord, Tell the Church, 389. Of the notes of the Church, 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church, 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned, the Christian Church does not now practise, 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation, 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches, 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture, 450. When, in the question between the Church and the Scripture, they distinguish between authority quoad nos & in se, it salves not the difficulty, 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture, 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies, that they must all be decided before you can find him, 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church, 1018.

Clemens Alexandrinus▪

His authority against Transubstantiation, [Page] 258, §. 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin, 759, n. 20.

Clergy.

The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone, 389.

Clinicks.

Objections against the repentance of Clinicks, 678, n. 57. and 677, n. 56. and 679, n. 64. Heathens newly baptized, if they die immediately, need no other repentance, ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered, 681, n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks, 682, n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed, 695, n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks, 696, n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church, 696, 697, n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks, 699, n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man, 700, n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks, 804. The repentance of Clinicks, 853, n. 96.

Colossians.

Chap. 2.18. explained, 781, n. 31.

Commandment.

Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments, 579, n. 30.

Communicate.

To doe it in act, or desire, are not terms opposite, but subordinate, 190, §. 3.

Commutations.

When they were first set up, 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties, 648, 68.

Comparative.

Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form, 229, §. 10.

Concupiscence.

It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther, 776, n. 20. It is an evil, but not a sin, 734, n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin, 752, n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity, 789, n. 50. Where it is not consented to, it is no sin, 752, n. 11. and 765, n. 30. and 767, n. 39. and 898, 907, 909, 911, 912, 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin, 766, n. 32. It is not original sin, 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it, 913.

Confession.

According to the Roman doctrine, Confession does not restrain sin, and quiets not the Conscience, 315, §. 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible, 316, §. 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken, if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State, 343, c. 3. §. 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church, 474, 488, 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions, 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation, 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed, 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture, 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession, 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots, 488, 489. Father Arnold, Confessor to Lewis XIII. of France, did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him, 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience, 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance, 830, n. 34. It is due to God, 831. Why we are to confess sins to God, who knoweth them before, 832, n. 37. What properly is meant by it, ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended, 833, 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition, ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest, 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession, 854, n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession, 855, n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession, 856, n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister, 857, n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament, 857, n. 110.

Confirmation.

It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles, 53, §. 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters, [Page] 109, §. 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction, 110, §. 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church, Ep. ded. to that Treatise, pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek, but they would not buy it, Ep. ded. pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament, and yet not necessary, 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance, 3, 4. b. Of the necessity of Confirmation, 8. b. That the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, speaking of laying on of hands, meaneth Confirmation, and not Absolution, nor Ordination, 10, 11. b. It was to continue down to all ages of the Church, 13, 14. b. Confirmation proved by the Testimony of the Fathers, and the practice of the Primitive Church, 15. b. Of the authority of S. Ambrose and Pope Sylvester alledged to prove that Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters, 19, 20, ss. 4. b. The difference between the Chrism of Confirmation and Baptism, 20. b. Friers, Regulars and Jesuites did in England challenge by Commission from the Pope a power of administring Confirmation, though they were but Presbyters, 21. b. The difference as to the use between Confirmation and Baptism, 26. b. The blessings and graces usually conveyed by Episcopal Confirmation, 25, 26. b. The Ceremonies of it, 24, 25. b. Of the change made in us by it, 28. b. Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism, 29. b. The reason was, because few were then baptized but adult persons, ibid. The Apostles were not confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper, 30. b. Whether Confirmation be administred more opportunely in infancy or in our riper years, 29, 30. b. Whether it can be administred more then once, 32. b. On what account the Primitive Christians did confirm hereticks reduced and reconciled, 32. b.

Conscience.

That authority is most effectual which is seated there, 160, §. 49. The Church of Rome arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences, 461. The niceties that every Ideot must trouble his Conscience with that worships Images in the way of the Romanists, 548. How the religious man's Conscience is intangled by some modern errours that are allowed, Pref. to Discourse of Repentance. The contention between the flesh and conscience no sign of Regeneration, 781, n. 31. How to know which prevails in this contention, ibid.

Consequent.

The manner of the Scripture is to include the consequent in the antecedent, 679, n. 62.

Consignare.

Of the sense of that word in the ancient Church, 20. b.

Contrition.

A description of Contrition, 829, n. 28, 29. The efficacy of it in repentance, 670, n. 61. What it is, 821, n. 5. The difference between it and Attrition, 828. It must not be mistaken for a single act, 829, n. 31.

1 Corinth.

Chap. 11. v. 10. [...] explained, 58, §. 9. and 11.29. Eateth and drinketh unworthily explained, 218, §. 8. and 898. and 6.12. expl. 619, n. 23. and 10.23. ibid. and 2.14. expl. 723, n. 53. and 785, n. 44. and 11.27. expl. 814, n. 59.

2 Corinth.

Chap. 15.21. expl. 712, n. 15. and 12.21. expl. 803, n. 12. and 1.21, 22. Now he which confirmeth us, and hath anointed and sealed, expl. 28. b.

Corporal Austerities.

Or penances, 858, n. 111. They are not simply necessary, ibid. Corporal Afflictions are not of repentance, 846, n. 75. How they are to be used, 846, 847, n. 76, 77. The Primitive Christians did not believe them simply necessary, 847, n. 78, 79.

Covenant.

Reasons why with a Covenant of works God began this intercourse with man, 575. The opposition between the new and old Covenant is not in respect of faith and works, 588, n. 7.

Councils.

Presbyters had not the power of voting in them, 136, §. 41. That of Basil was the first in which Presbyters in their own right were admitted to vote, 136, §. 41. Presbyters, as such, did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council, Act. 15. p. 137, §. 41. The people had de facto no vote in that Council, ibid. The sixth Canon of the Council of Sevil objected and explained, 147, §. 44. Aërius was never condemned by any general Council, 150, §. 48. In the first council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes [Page] right, but separates from his Bishop, 151, §. 48. The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds, 290, c. 1. §. 2. The Council of Trent decreed a Proposition in matter of fact that was past, 290. c. 1. §. 2. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to God himself, 267, §. 13. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution, 302, c. 1. §. 6. The authority of a general Council against publick prayers in an unknown tongue, 304. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images, 306. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with Rome, 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders, 325, c. 2. §. 7. Even among the Romanists the authority of general Councils is but precarious, 391. Hard to tell which are General Councils, 392, 393. The last Lateran Council is at Rome esteemed a general Council, but in France and Germany none at all, 392. General Councils not infallible, 392. Instances of General Councils that have been condemned by the succeeding, 393. How to know which are General Councils, 393. It cannot be known who have voices in Councils, who not, 394. The Laiety were sometime admitted to vote in Councils, 394, 395. What if two parties call each their Council? 395. How shall the decision be in a Council, if the Bishops be divided in their opinions? 395. Who hath power to call a general Council, 395. Of a general Council confirmed by the Pope, 395. A general Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's confirmation, 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council, 396. The Divinity of the H. Ghost was not decreed in the Council of Nice, 424. The questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition, but Scripture, 425. How many of the Orthodox did begin to comply with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum, 441. The definitions of general Councils were not so binding in the Primitive Church, 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds, ibid. Lindwood, in the Council of Basil, made an appeal in the behalf of the King of England against the Pope, 511. What passed in the Lateran Council concerning Transubstantiation, 519. Neither Transubstantiation nor any thing else was in the Lateran Council decreed, 519. The same Council that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion the duty of subjects, 520. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great, 540, 541. Of the testimony of the Eliberitane Council against Images, 538. Of the Council of the Apostles held at Jerusalem, mentioned Act. 15. p. 948, n. 3. Of Councils Ecclesiastical, 948, §. 6. per tot. Concilium Sinuessanum a forged one, 991, n. 9. Reasons why decrees of Councils in defining controversies lay no obligation, 986, 987, 988, 989, ad fin. sect. Saint Augustine teacheth, that the decrees of general Councils are as much subject to amendment as the letters of private Bishops, 991, n. 8. The Roman Council under Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation, 992, n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time, 993.

Creed.

The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds, 290, c. 1. §. 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed, not necessitate praecepti, but medii, 438. No new Articles, as necessarily to be believed, ought to be added to the Apostles Creed, 438, 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds, 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed, though it were done onely by way of Explication, 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds, 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after, 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds, 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary, but even explicative additions, 441, 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius considered, and the argument from it answered, 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed, I believe the holy Catholick Church, 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church, 448. The end of making Creeds, 942, n. 7. and 960, n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried, 957, n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed, 943, n. 8.

[...].

How this word is sometimes used in Scripture, 885, 887, 888, 889, 902.

Saint Cyprian.

His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered, 145, 146, §. 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters, ibid. A Text of Saint [Page] Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors, 155, §. 48. His authority against Transubstantiation, 258, §. 12. The Sermons de coena Domini, usually imputed to him, are not his, but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa, 680, n. 64. and 259, §. 1 [...]. He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses, 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks, Saint Cyprian regarded it not, nor changed his opinion, 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory, 513, 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism, 760, n. 21, 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick, but his Scholars were, 957, 958, n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him, Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick, 957, n. 22.

Cyril.

His testimony alledged, that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread, answered fully, 229, §. 10. His testimony against the worship of Images, 306.

D

D.

Damnation.

HOW this word and the Greek word [...] are sometimes used in Scripture, 885, 898, 902.

Deacon.

He might in the ancient Church give absolution, 484.

Death.

How to treat a dying man being in despair, 677, n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit, 678, n. 56.

Deathbed-repentance.

How secure and easie some make it, 567.

Delegation.

Saint Paul made delegation of his power, 163, §. 50. Other examples of like delegation, 164, §. 50.

Demonstration.

Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul, 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities, 362. Probability is as good as demonstration, where there is no shew of reason against it, 362. Of moral demonstration, what it is, 368, 369.

Despair.

A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair, 852, n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks, 696, n. 29.

Devil.

The manner of casting him out by exorcism, 334, c. 2. §. 10.

[...].

The use of the word, 635, n. 2.

[...].

Of the use and signification of those words, 903.

[...].

The meaning thereof, 639, n. 15.

Diocese.

Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes, 140, §. 43. Which was first, a particular Congregation, or a Diocese, 141, §. 43.

Dionysius Areopagita.

His authority against Transubstantiation, 266, §. 12. His testimony against Purgatory, 513, 514.

Disputing.

Two brothers, the one a Protestant, the other a Papist, disputed to convert one another, and in the event each of them converted the other, 460.

Division.

Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome, 403.

Doctrine.

Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines, 354, 355, 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees, of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, 471, 472. The Romanists doctrine [Page] about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, 473.

Durandus.

His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation, 520.

E

E.

Ecclesiastes.

Chap. 5.2. And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained, 2. n. 8, 9.

[...].

What it signifies, 637, n. 10.

Education.

The force of it in the choice of Religion, 1018, 1019.

Elections.

Against popular elections in the Church, 131, §. 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons, 131, §. 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken, how, and upon what reason, 132, §. 40.

England.

The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers, 328, c. 2. §. 8. The character of the Church of England, 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England, 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death, 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope, 511. When Image-worship first came in hither, 550.

Ephesians.

Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained, 722, n. 50. Chap. 2.5. dead in sins explained, 909.

[...].

Of the signification of it, 900.

Ephrem Syrus.

His authority against Transubstantiation, 259, 260, 261, §. 12. and 300.

Epiphanius.

His testimony against Transubstantiation, 259, 260, 261, §. 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images, 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle, 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus, 955, n. 18.

Equivocation.

The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation, 340, c. 3. §. 1.

Evangelist.

What that office was, 69, §. 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop, ibid.

Eucharist.

The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it, 182, §. 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense, 191, §. 3. and 299. The meaning of [...], 199, §. 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover, as 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, [Page] 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

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 [Page] 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

G.

Galatians.

CHap. 5.15, 16, 17, 18. explained, 782, n. 32. and Chap. 5.24. He that is in Christ hath crucified the flesh with the affections explained, 794, n. 58. and Chap. 5.17. The spirit lusteth against the flesh explained, 810, n. 40.

Gelasius

Bishop of Rome was the authour of the Book de duabus naturis, contra Eutychetem, 265, §. 12. His words about Transubstantiation considered.

Genesis.

Chap. 6. v. 5. Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart onely evil explained, 720, n. 47. and Chap. 8. v. 21. The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth explained, 721, n. 48.

H. Ghost.

The Divinity of the Holy Ghost was not decreed at Nice, 424. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition, 427, 428. What is the sin against the Holy Ghost, 810, n. 43. Final impenitence proved not to be the sin against the Holy Ghost, 811, n. 42. That the sin against the Holy Ghost is pardonable, 812, n. 48. In what sense it is affirmed in Scripture that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be pardoned in this world, nor in the world to come, 812, n. 52, 53.

Glory.

Concerning the degrees of eternal glory, 968, n. 5.

God.

Of his power to doe things impossible, 233, §. 11. Ubiquity an incommunicable attribute of God's, 237, §. 12. and 241. To picture God the Father or the Trinity is against the Primitive practice, 307. The Romanists teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with all the laws of God, 342. No man is tempted of God, 737, n. 90.

Gospel.

The difference between it and the Law, [Page] 574. Of the possibility of keeping the Evangelical Law, 576. What is required in the Gospel, 588, n. 9. It is nothing else but faith and repentance, 599, n. 1, 2. The righteousness of the Law and Gospel how they differ, 673, n. 46.

Grace.

Pope Adrian taught that a man out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace, 320, 321. The Romanists attribute the conveying of Grace to things of their own inventing, 337, §. 11. They teach that the Sacraments do not onely convey Grace, but supply the defect of it, 337. To be in the state of Grace is of very large signification, 643, n. 31. The just measures and latitude of a man's being in the state of Grace, 643, n. 32. How it works, 679. n. 52. ad 56. What it signifieth to be in the state of Grace, 643, n. 31. There is a transcendent habit of Grace, and what it is, 685. n. 68. How the necessity of Grace is consistent with the doctrine of Free-will, 754, n. 15. By the strengths of mere Nature men cannot get to heaven, 885.

Greek.

Photius was the first authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latine Church, 109, §. 33. The Greek Church receive not the Article of Transubstantiation, Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 175. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory, 297. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory, 510.

Gregory.

Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself Universal Bishop, 310.

Guilt.

It cannot properly be traduced from one person to another, 902, 915. Against that notion, That guilt cleaveth to the nature, though not to the person, 910.

H

H.

Habits.

A Single act of sin without a habit gives a denomination, 641, n. 25. Sins are damnable that cannot be habitual, 641, n. 24. A sinful habit hath a guilt distinct from that of the act, 659, n. 1. Sinful habits require a distinct manner of repentance, 669, n. 31. Seven objections against that Assertion answered, 675, n. 51. Of infused habits, 676. The method of mortifying vicious habits, 690, 691, n. 9, 10. How and in what cases a single act may be accounted habitual, 648, n. 50. Of sinful habits and their threefold capacity, 659, n. 4. 'Tis not true to affirm, That every reluctancy to an act of vertue that proceeds from the habit of the contrary vice, if it be overcome, increases the reward, 661, n. 6. ad 9. A vicious habit adds many degrees of aversation from God, 669, n. 9. Evil habits do not only imply a facility, but a kind of necessity, 662, n. 11. A vicious habit makes our repentances the more difficult, 663, n. 14. A vicious habit makes us swallow a great sin as easily as the least, 664, n. 15. It keeps us always out of God's favour, 665, n. 18. A sinful habit denominates the man guilty, though he exert no actions, 666, n. 23. Smaller sins, if habitual, discompose our state of Grace, 667, n. 24. Habitual concupiscence needs pardon as much as natural, 667, n. 26. Saint Augustine endeavours to prove that a sinful habit has a special sinfulness distinct from that of evil actions; and Pelagius did gainsay it, 667, n. 26. Every habit of vice is naturally expelled by a habit of vertue, 669, n. 34. Though to extirpate a vicious habit by a contrary habit is not meritorious of pardon, yet it is necessary in order to the obtaining pardon, 670, n. 36. To oppose a habit against a habit is a more proper and effectual remedy, then to oppose an act of sorrow or repentance against an act of sin, 670, n. 38. In re morali there is no such thing as infused habits, 676, n. 53.

Hands.

Of laying on of hands in absolution, 838, n. 54. Imposition of hands was twice solemnly had in repentance, 840, 841, n. 57.

Heathen.

Their practice in their hymns and prayers to their gods, pag. 3, n. 11. They could not worship an Image terminativè, 338. The Heathens did condemn the worship of Images, 546.

Heaven.

In a natural state we cannot hope for Heaven, 737, n. 85.

Epistle to the Hebrews.

Chap. 6. v. 1, 2. Of the foundation of laying [Page]on of hands explained, 10, 11, b. That the Apostle there, in speaking of the laying on of hands, means Confirmation, and not either Absolution or Ordination, 10, 11, b. Chap. 9.28. expl. 712, n. 15. Chap. 7.27. expl. 712. n. 17. Chap. 5.23. explained, 712. Chap. 6.4, 5, 6. explained, ibid. Chap. 10.26. explained, 809, n. 36.

Hell.

The Article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed, 943, n. 8.

Heresie.

How Aërius could be an Heretick, seeing his errour was against no fundamental doctrine, 150, §. 48. The notion of Heresie was anciently more comprehensive then now it is, ibid. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes right, but separates from his Bishop, 151, §. 48. The Heresie of the Acephali what it was, ibid. A Son or Wife they absolve from duty, if the Father or Husband be heretical, 345. The Pope takes upon him to depose Kings not heretical, 345. The Fathers style some hereticks that are not, 376. An heretical Pope is no Pope, 401. What Popes have been heretical, ibid. and 402. The validity of Baptism by hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture, 426, 427. Divers hereticks did worship the picture of our Lord, and were reproved for it, 545. Pope John XXII. 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

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.

[Page] 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 received, 1004. Alexander III. in a Council condemned Pet. Lombard of Heresy, from which sentence without repentance, or leaving [Page] his opinion, after 36 years he was absolved by Innocent III. 1005.

Infallible.

The Romanists hold the Scripture for no infallible rule, 381. No man affirms, but J.S. that the Fathers are infallible, 373, 374, 375. Whether the representative Church be infallible, 389. General Councils not infallible, 392. Bellarmine confesseth that for 1500 years the Pope's judgement was not held infallible, 453.

Infants.

What punishment Adam's sin can bring upon Infants that die, 714, n. 29. It was the general opinion of the Fathers before Saint Augustine, that Infants unbaptized were not condemned to the pains of Hell, 755, 756, n. 16, 17. The reason on which the Baptism of Infants is grounded, 718, n. 42.

Infirmity.

What is the state of Infirmity, 771, n. 3. It excuses no man, ibid. That state which some men call a state of Infirmity is a state of sin and death, 777, n. 26. What are sins of infirmity, 789, n. 47. Sins of infirmity consist more in the imperfection of obedience, then in the commission of any evil, 790, n. 51. A sin of infirmity cannot be but in a small matter, 791, n. 54. What are not sins of infirmity, 792, n. 55. Violence of passion excuseth none under the title of sins of infirmity, 792, n. 56. Sins of infirmity not accounted in the same manner to young men as to others, 793, n. 59. The greatness of the temptation doth not make sin excusable upon the account of sins of infirmity, 793, n. 60. The smallest instance if observed ceases to be a sin of infirmity, 794, n. 61. A man's will hath no infirmity, 794, n. 62. Nothing is a sin of infirmity but what is in some sense involuntary, 794, n. 63. Sins of inculpable ignorance are sins of infirmity, 794, n. 64. There is no pardonable state of infirmity, 797, n. 98.

Job.

Chap. 31. v. 18. explained, 721.

Gospel of Saint John.

Chap. 3. v. 5. Vnless a man be born of water and of the holy Spirit explained, 5, 6, b. Chap. 6. v. 53. Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink his bloud, 8, b. Chap. 8. 47. He that is of God heareth God's word, 679, n. 62. Chap. 9.34. Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us? 721, n. 49. Chap. 14.17. The world cannot receive him explained, 785, n. 37. Chap. 20.23. Whosoever's sins ye remit explained, 816, n. 66.

1. Epistle of Saint John.

Chap. 5. v. 17. There is a sin not unto death explained, 643, n. 31. and 809, 810. Chap. 3.9. He that is born of God sinneth not, nor can he, explained, 810. Chap. 1.9. If we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive our sins, explained, 830, n. 34. Chap. 5.7. The Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one, explained, 967, n. 4.

Irenaeus.

He mentions an impostor that essayed to counterfeit. Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it, 228, §. 10.

Isaiah.

Chap. 53. v. 10. explained, 712, n. 15.

Judgment.

That of man and God proceed in several methods, and relie upon different grounds, 614, 615, n. 15.

Jurisdiction.

Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any Jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by delegation, 82, §. 21. What persons are under that of Bishops, 123, §. 36.

Justice.

God's Justice and Mercy reconciled about his exacting the Law, 580.

Justification.

Of our Justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness, 901, 902. Guilt cannot properly and really be traduced from one person to another, 902, 915. Of the words [...], 903.

K

K.

[...].

WHat it signifieth, 636, n. 6.

[Page] [...].

Of that word and its use, 638, n. 12.

Keys.

Wherein that kind of power consisteth, 841, n. 58.

Kings.

The Episcopal power encroacheth not upon the Regal, 120, §. 36. The seal of Confession the Romanists will not suffer to be broken to save the life of a Prince or the whole State, 343, c. 3. §. 2. An excommunicate King, the Romans teach, may be deposed or killed, 344, c. 3. §. 3. The Pope takes upon him to depose Kings that are not heretical, 345. The Roman Religion no friend to Kings, 345. Their opinions so injurious to Kings are not the doctrines of private men onely, 345. Father Arnald, Confessor to Lewis XIII. of France, did cause that King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him, 489.

L

L.

Laiety.

NO Ecclesiastical presidency ever given to the Laiety, 114, §. 36. The Oeconomus of the Church might not be a Lay-man, 164, §. 50. The Laiety sometime admitted to vote in Councils, 394, 395. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church, 165, §. 51.

Latin.

Photius was the first authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church, 109, §. 33.

Law.

The Papists corrupted the Imperial Law of Justinian in the matter of Prayers in an unknown Language, 304, c. 1. §. 7. The difference between the Law and Gospel, 574. Of the possibility of keeping the Law, 576. Arguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible, 576, 577, n. 15. ad 19. In what sense it is said to be [...], 574. Its severity made the Gospel better received, ibid. Difference between it and the Gospel, 673, n. 46. and 574, 575. and 580, 581. Of the difference between Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome concerning the possibility of keeping the Law of God, 579, n. 30, 31. In what measures God exacteth it, 580, 581. His mercy and justice reconciled about that thing, 580, 581. To keep the Law naturally possible, but morally impossible, 580, n. 34. No man can keep the Law of God [...], but he may [...], 585, n. 50. The Law of works imposed on Adam onely, 587, n. 1. The state of men under the Law, 778. A threefold Law in man, flesh or members, the mind or conscience, the spirit, 781, n. 29. The contention between the Law of the flesh and conscience is no sign of Regeneration, but the contention between the Law of the flesh and spirit is, 782, n. 31. The Law of Moses and of the Gospel were not impossible of themselves, but in respect of our circumstances, 580, n, 33. All that which was insupportable in Moses's Law was nothing but the want of Repentance, ibid. Laws indirectly occasion sin, 771, n. 6.

Lawful.

Every thing that is lawful, or the utmost of what is lawful, not always [...] to be done, 856, 857.

Life.

The necessity of good life, 799, n. 25. The natural evils of man's life, 734, n. 82.

Loose.

What in the promise of Christ is signified by binding and loosing, 836, n. 45, 46, 47.

Saint Luke.

Chap. 22.25. [...] explained, 153, §. 48. [...] in that Text what it meaneth, ibid. 154. Chap. 15.7. explained, 801, n. 5. Chap. 11.41. explained, 848. Chap. 13.14. explained, 786, 40.

Lukewarmness.

How it comes to be a sin, 673, n. 47.

M

M.

Malefactors.

BEing condemned, by the customs of Spain, they are allowed respite till their Confessor supposeth them competently prepared, 678, n, 56.

Man.

The weakness and frailty of humane nature, 734, n. 82. in his body, soul and spirit, 735, n. 83. and 486.

[Page] Mark.

Chap. 12.34. explained, 780, n. 26. Chap. 12.32. explained, 809.

Justin Martyr.

His testimony against Transubstantiation, 258, §. 12. and 522, 523. His testimony against Purgatory, 513, 514.

Mass.

A Cardinal in his last Will took order to have fifty thousand Masses said for his soul, 320. Indulgences make not the multitude of Masses less necessary, 320, c. 2. §. 4. Pope John VIII. gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue, 534.

Saint Matthew.

Chap. 26.11. Me ye have not always explained, 222▪ §. 9. Chap. 28.20. I am with you always to the end of the world explained, ibid. Chap. 18.17. Dic Ecclesiae explained, 389. Chap. 15.9. teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, 471, 472, 477. Chap. 5.19. one of the least of these Commandments, 615, 616, n. 18. Chap. 5.19. explained, ibid. n. 18. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained, 622, n. 34. Chap. 12.32. explained, 810. Chap. 15.48. explained, 582, n. 40, 43. Chap. 5.22. shall be guilty of judgement, 621, n. 34.

Mercy.

God's Mercy and Justice reconciled about his exacting the Law, 580.

Merit.

Pope Adrian taught, that one out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace, 320, 321.

[...].

The difference between them, 596, n. 1.

Millenaries.

Their opinion how much it spread and prevailed in the ancient Church, 976, n. 3.

Miracles.

The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation proved to be false by their own doctrine, 229, §. 10. Of those now-adays wrought by the Romanists, 452. The Dominicans and Franciscans brought Miracles on both sides, in proof both for and against the immaculate Conception, 1019. Of false Miracles and Legends, 1020. Miracles not a sufficient argument to prove a doctrine, ibid. Canus his opinion of the Legenda Lombardica, ibid. The Pope in the Lateran Council made a decree against false Miracles, 1020.

Montanus.

His Heresie mistaken by Epiphanius, 955, n. 18.

Moral.

The difference between the Moral, Regenerate and Prophane man in committing sin, 782, n. 33. and 820, n. 1.

Mortal Sin.

Between the least mortal sin and greatest venial sin no man can distinguish, 610, n. 2.

Mortification.

It is a precept, not a counsel, 672, n. 44. The method of mortifying vicious habits, 691, n. 10, 11. The benefits of it, 690. n. 6.

Mysterie.

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, like other mysteries, is not to be searched into as to the manner of it too curiously, 182, §. 1.

N

N.

Nature.

OF the use of that word in the controversie of Transubstantiation, 251, §. 12. By the strength of it alone men cannot get to heaven, 885. The state of nature, 770, n. 1, 2. c. 8. §. 1. What the phrase [by nature] means, 723, n. 48. By it alone we cannot be saved, 737, n. 86. The use of the word [...], 767, n. 35.

Necessity.

Of that distinction, Necessitas praecepti, and medii, 8. b. There is in us no natural necessity of sinning, 754, n. 15.

[Page] Nicolaitans.

The authour of that Heresie vindicated from false imputations, 953, n. 17.

Novatians.

Their doctrine opposed, 802, n. 8. A great objection of theirs proposed, 806, n. 24. and answered, 807, n. 26.

O

O.

Obedience.

ARguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible, 576, 577, n. 15. ad 19.

Obstinacy.

Two kinds of it, the one sinful, the other not so, 951, n. 10.

Opinion.

A man is not to be charged with the odious consequents of his opinion, 1024. Sometimes on both sides of the Opinion it is pretended that the Proposition promotes the honour of God, ibid. How hard it is not to be deceived in weighing some Opinions of Religion, 1026.

Ordination.

Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon, 98, §. 31. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop, ibid. Ordo and gradus were at first used promiscuously, 98, §. 31. How strangely some of the Church of Rome do define Orders, 99, §. 31. [...] had Episcopal Ordina [...]ion, but not Jurisdiction, 102, §. 32. Presbyters could not ordain, 102, §. 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters, 103, §. 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy, 104, §. 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony, 105, §. 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches without Bishops, 105, §. 32. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters, 145, 146, §. 44. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders, 325, c. 2. §. 7. The Romanists give distinct Ordination to their Exorcists, 336.

Origen.

His authority against Transubstantiation, 258, §. 12.

Original sin.

In what sense it is damnable, 570. How that doctrine is contrary to the Pelagian, 571. Some Romanists in this doctrine have receded as much from the definitions of their Church as this Authour from the English, and without offence, 571. Original sin is manifest in the many effects of it, 869. The true doctrine of Original sin, 869, 870, 896. The errours in that Article, 871. There are sixteen several and famous opinions in the Article of Original sin, 877. Against that Proposition, Original sin makes us liable to damnation, yet none are damned for it, 878, n. 5. 879, n. 6, 7. The ill consequence of the mistakes in this doctrine, 883, 884. If Infants are not under the guilt of original sin, why are they baptized? That objection answered, 884. The difficulties that Saint Augustine and others found in explicating the traduction of original sin, 896. The Authour's doctrine about Original sin. It is proved that it contradicts not the Ninth Article of the Church of England, 898, 899. Concupiscence is not it, 911. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance, 713, n. 22. Adam's sin made us not heirs of damnation, ibid. nor makes us necessarily vicious, 717, n. 37. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a natural efficiency, 717, n. 39. nor because we were in the loins of Adam, 717, n. 40. nor because of the will and decree of God, 717, n. 41. Objections out of Scripture against this doctrine answered, 720, n. 46. (Vid. Sin.) The Authour affirmeth not that there is no such thing as original sin, 747, 748, n. 1. He is not singular in his doctrine, 762, n. 24, 26. The want of original righteousness is no sin, 752, n. 10. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of Original sin, 761, n. 22. With what variety the doctrine of Original sin was anciently taught, 761, n. 23. How much they are divided amongst themselves who say that Original sin is in us formally a sin, 762, n. 25. Original sin damneth not, 756, n. 16. The sum of the doctrine of Original sin, 757, n. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus in the opinion of Vossius understood not Original sin, 759, n. 20.

P

[Page]

P.

[...].

WHat it signifieth, 617, n. 21.

[...].

What it and [...] signifie, 809, n. 37.

[...].

The signification of it, 617, n. 21.

Pardons.

Of Pardons, 316, 318, c. 2. §. 3, 4. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon, 317. The many follies about Pardons, and the difficulties, 319. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist, 484, 485. At the day of Judgement a different pardon is given from what we obtain in this world, 501. Several degrees of pardon of sin, 839, n. 54. As our repentance is, so is our pardon, 839. Mistakes about Pardon and Salvation, 789, n. 45. Some sins called unpardonable in a limited sense, 806, n. 22. What is our state of pardon in this life, 814, n. 57. and 816. In what manner and to what purpose the Church pardoneth Penitents by the hand of a Priest, 838, 839, n. 54. The usefulness of pardon by a Priest, 841, n. 59.

Parishes.

When the first division of them was, 139, §. 43. Episcopal Dioceses in the Primitive notion of them had no subordination nor distinction of Parishes, 140, §. 43. Which was first, a particular Congregation, or a Diocese, 141, §. 43.

Passions.

What they are, 870. How the Will and Passions do differ, and where they are seated, ibid. They do not rule the will, 871. Their violence excuseth not under the title of sins of infirmity, 792, n. 56. Make it the great business of thy life to subdue thy Passions, 795, n. 67. A state of passion is a state of spiritual death, 793, n. 58. A Passion in the soul is nothing but a peculiar way of being affected with an object, 825, n. 19. The Passions are not immediately subject to commandment, 826, n. 19. From what cause each Passion flows, ibid.

Passeover.

The Eucharist does imitate the words used at the Passeover, as the institution is a Copy of that, 201, §. 5. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover, of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign, 211, §. 6.

Peace.

Truth and Peace compared in their value, 883. All truth is not to be preferred before it, 882, 962.

Pelagian.

How the doctrine of Original sin, as here explicated, is contrary to the Pelagian, 571. Saint Augustine's zeal against the Pelagians made him mistake [Rom. 7.15, 19.] pag. 775, n. 18. Of that Heresie, 761, n. 23, 24. How it is mistaken, 761, 762, n. 23. Pelagius's Heresie not condemned by any General Council, 961, n. 31.

Penances.

Of corporal austerities, 858, n. 111. A rule for the measure of them, 860, n. 114, 115. Which are best, and rather to be chosen, 860, n. 114. Fasting, Prayer and Alms are the best penances, 860, n. 115. They are not to be accounted simply necessary, or a direct service of God, 860, n. 116.

People.

Against popular Elections in the Church, 131, §. 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons, 131, §. 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken, how, and upon what reason, 132, §. 40. The people had de facto no vote in the first Oecumenical Council, 137, §. 41.

Perfection.

How Christian perfection and supererogation differ, 590, 591, n. 16. Perfection of degrees, and of state, 582, n. 41. ad 48. How perfection is consistent with repentance, 582, n. 47. §. 3. per tot. Wherein perfection of state consisteth, 583, n. 47. Perfection in genere actûs, 584. what it is, 584. The perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention, 585, n. 47. It cannot be less then an entire Piety perfect in [Page] its parts, 585, n. 48. The perfection of a Christian requires increase, 589, n. 13. and 583, n. 44.

Philippians.

Chap. 1. v. 1. [...], that Text discussed, 87, §. 23. Chap. 2. 12, 13. Work out your salvation with fear explained, 676, n. 55.

[...].

What these words in Saint Paul's style do import, 767, n. 38. and 781.

[...].

The use of that word, 723, and 767, n. 35.

Picture.

Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord, and were reproved for it, 545. 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. Against the distinction of picturing the Essence, and the Shape, 550, 554. Pope John caused those to be burned for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity, 555.

Pilgrimages.

They are reproved by the ancient Fathers, 293, 496.

Place.

Picus Mirandula maintained at Rome, that one body by the power of God could not be in two places at one time, 222, §. 9. How a spirit is in place, 236, §. 11. How a body is in place, ibid. One body cannot at the same time be in two places, 236, §. 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality, as others are, according to Saint Augustine's opinion, 237, §. 11. Ubiquity is an incommunicable attribute of God's, 237, §. 11. and 241. The device of potential and actual Ubiquity helps not, 237, §. 11. Three natural ways of being in a place, 237, §. 11▪ Of being in a place Sacramentaliter, 239, §. 11. Bellarmine holds that one body may be in two places at once, which Aquinas denieth, 239, §. 11. That one body cannot be at once in two distant places, 236, and 241, §. 11. That consequence, If two bodies may be in one place, then one body may be in two places, denied, 243, §. 11. Against Aristotle's definition of place, 244, §. 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles, the doors being shut, it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place, 245, §. 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place, 245, §. 11.

[...].

The true notion of it, 636, n. 4.

[...].

How it differs from [...], 724, n. 53.

[...].

The meaning of it, 636, n. 5.

Pope.

A Text of Saint Cyprian's contrary to their Supremacy over the Bishops that succeed other Apostles, 155, §. 48. The authority of a Pope against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue, 304. The Apostles were from Christ invested with an equal authority, 308. By the Law of Christ one Bishop is not superiour to another, and they all derive their power equally from Christ, 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy, he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope, 310, c. 1. §. 10. Saint Cyprian affirms, that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses, 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself Universal Bishop, 310. Saint Peter did not act as having any superiority over the Apostles, 310, c. 1. §. 10. There is nothing in Scripture to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Saint Peter in that power he had, more then any other, 310. Pope Victor and Pope Stephen were opposed by other Bishops, 310. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priviledges with Rome, 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders, 325, c. 2. §. 7. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint, 333, c. 2. §. 9. The Romanists teach, the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God, 342. He hath power, as the Romanists teach, to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians, 344. He is to be obeyed, according to their doctrine, though he command Sin, or forbid Vertue, 345. He takes upon him to depose Princes that are not heretical, 345. The greatness of the Pope's power, 345. Sixtus Quintus did in an Oration in the Conclave solemnly commend the Monk that kill'd [Page] Henry III. of France, 346, c. 3. §. 3. Of the Pope's confirming a General Council, 395. A General Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's Confirmation, 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council, 396. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing Hereticks, Saint Cyprian regarded it not, nor changed his opinion, 399. Sixtus V. and some other Popes were Simoniacal, 401. A Simoniacal Pope is no Pope, ibid. An Heretical Pope is no Pope, ibid. What Popes have been heretical, 401, 402. What Popes have been guilty of those crimes that disannul their authority, 400, 401, 402. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of Faith, 446, 447. Of his Infallibility, 995, §. 7. per tot. He, the Romanists teach, can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture, 450. The Roman Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures, 451. Bellarmine confesseth that for 1500 years the Pope's judgment was not esteemed infallible, 453. A strange unintelligible Indulgence given by two Popes about the beginning of the Council of Trent, 498. An instance of a Pope's skill in the Bible, 505. Lindwood, in the Council of Basil, made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope, 511. The same Pope that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion lawful, 520. When the Pope excommunicated Saint Cyprian, all Catholicks absolved him, 957, n. 22. Some Papists hold that the Popedome is separable from the Bishoprick of Rome: how then can he get any thing by the title of Succession? 999. Divers ancient Bishops lived separate from the Communion of the Roman Pope, 1002. The Bishops of Liguria and Istria renounced subjection to the Patriarchate of Rome, and set up one of their own at Aquileia, ibid. Divers Popes were Hereticks, 1003.

Possible.

Two senses of it, 580, n. 34.

Prayer.

The practice of the Heathens in their prayers and hymns to their gods, 3, n. 11. Against them that deny all Set forms of Prayer, 2, n. 6. & seq. Against those that allow any Set forms of prayer but those that are enjoyned by Authority, 13, n. 51. Prescribed forms in publick are more for the edification of the Church then the other kind, 14, n. 56. ad 65. The Lord's Prayer was given to be a Directory, not onely for the matter of prayer, but the manner or form too, 19, n. 75. The Church hath the gift of Prayer, and can exercise it in none but prescribed Forms, 18, n. 69, 70. Our Lord gave his Prayer to be not onely a Copy, but a prescribed Form, 19, n. 78. The practice of the Primitive Church in this matter, 21, n. 86. Whether the Primitive Church did well in using publick prescribed Forms of Prayer, and upon what grounds, 25, n. 97. An answer to that Objection, That Set forms limit the Spirit, 30, n. 116. That Objection, that Ministers may be allowed a liberty in their Prayers as well as their Sermons, answered, 32, n. 129. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit, 9, n. 37. and 47. The Romanists teach, that neither attention nor devotion are required in our prayers, 327, c. 2. §. 8. Of the Scripture and Liturgy in an unknown tongue, 471. A Pope gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue, 534. Of Prayer as a fruit or act of Repentance, 848, n. 80. It is one of the best penances, 860, n. 114. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory, 295. The opinion and practice of the ancient Church in the language of publick Prayers, 303, 304. The Papists corrupted the Imperial law of Justinian in the matter of Prayers in an unknown tongue, 304, c. 1. §. 7. The authority of a Pope and General Council against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue, 304. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayer, 328, c. 2. §. 8.

Prayer for the dead.

The Primitive Fathers that practised it did not think of Purgatory, 501. Saint Augustine prayed for his dead Mother, when he believed her to be a Saint in Heaven, 501, 502. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory, 502, 503. Communicantes & offerentes pro sanctis proved to mean prayer, and not thanksgiving onely, 502. Instances out of the Latin Missal where prayers are made for those that were dead, and yet not in Purgatory, 505. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, 512.

Preach.

Presbyters in Africk by Law were not allowed to preach, upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours, 128, §. 37.

[...], Presbyter.

Tit. 1.15. it signifies Bishop, and not mere Presbyter, 71, §. 15. Presbyters in Jerusalem were something more then Presbyters in other Churches, 97, §. 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28. in these words [in [Page]quo Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos] were Bishops, and not mere Presbyters, 80, §. 21. Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them, 82, §. 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by delegation, 82, §. 21. In what sense it is true that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters, 83, §. 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters, 85, §. 23. Apostles in Scripture styled [...], 85, §. 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never called Bishops, 86, §. 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop, 98, §. 31. Presbyters could not ordain, 102, §. 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters, 103, §. 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter, 105, §. 32. Photius was [...]he first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters, 109, §. 33. The Bishop alone could suspend or depose without the presence of a Presbyter, 116, 117, §. 36. In the Primitive Church they might not officia [...]e without the licence of the Bishop, 127, §. 37. In Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach, upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours, 128, §. 37. They had not the power of voting in Councils, 136, §. 41. The Council of Basil was the first in which they in their own right were admitted to vote, 136, §. 41. They, as such, did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council held Acts 15. pag. 137, §. 41. Saint Cyprian's authority, alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in the government of the Church, answered, 145, 146, §. 44. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters, ibid. The Presbyter's assistence to the Bishop was never necessary, and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part, 147, §. 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was, there was not always a College of Presbyters, onely in the greater Churches, 146, §. 44. One Bishop alone, without the concurrence of more Bishops, could not depose, 147, §. 44. Presbyters at first had no distinct Cure, 136, §. 50. The signification of the word [...], 165, §. 51. There were some Presbyters of whom it was not required to preach, 167, §. 51.

Priest.

What the Penitentiary Priest was, and by whom taken away, 473, 474, 492, 493. That the Priest's power to absolve is not judicial, but declarative onely, 483. Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation, 477. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative, 483, 486. Celebrate, when spoken of the Eucharist, means the action of the people as well as the Priest, 530. Whether Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters, 19, 20, 21. b. What is the power of Priests in order to pardoning sin, 838. Of the forms of Absolution given by the Priest, 838. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative, 834, n. 41. and 841. Confession to a Priest is no part of Contrition, 833, n. 41. The benefit of confessing to a Priest, 834, n. 43. Auricular confession to a Priest whence it descended, 833, n. 41. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister, 857. Absolution by a Priest is not that which Christ intended by the power of remitting and retaining sins, 841, n. 60. Attrition joyned with the Priest's Absolution is not sufficient for pardon, 842, n. 62, 64.

Primitive.

Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions, 453, 454.

Principle.

First Principles are not necessary in all Discourses, 356.

Probable.

That any probable opinion may safely be followed, 324, c. 2. §. 7. The ill consequents of that doctrine, 325. What makes an opinion probable, 324, c. 2. §. 7. It is no excuse for them to say, This is the opinion but of one Doctor, 325, c. 2. §. 7. Instances to shew that to follow the opinion of a probable Doctor will make the worst sins seem lawful, 326. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities, 362. Probability is as good as Demonstration where is no shew of reason against it, 362.

Prohibitions.

Whether the Secular power can give them against the Ecclesiastical, 122, §. 36.

Prophane.

The difference in committing sin between the prophane, moral, and regenerate man, 782.

Proverb.

A Proverb contrary to truth is a great prejudice to a man's understanding, 798. Avoid [Page] all Proverbs by which evil life is encouraged, ibid.

Psalms.

The meaning of [...] in the Council of Laodicea, 23, n. 91, 92. Psalm 51.5. explained, 721, n. 49.

[...].

What the word signifieth, 724, n. 53.

Punishment.

The guilt being taken away, there can remain no obligation to punishment, 294. God punisheth not one sin with another, 859, n. 112. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment, 618, n. 24. We should by our choice make that temporal punishment penitential that God inflicts, 859, n. 113. An instance of that practice out of Eusebius, ibid.

Purgatory.

An account of some false Propositions, without which the doctrine of Purgatory cannot be maintained, 294. The guilt being taken away, there can remain no obligation to punishment, 294. Simon Magus had the first notion of Purgatory, 294. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory, 295. The Fire of purgation that the Fathers speak of is not the Romanists Purgatory, 295. Those silly Legends upon which they ground Purgatory, 296, c. 1. §. 4. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory, 297. The authority of Fathers against it, 297, c. 1. §. 4. When the doctrine of Purgatory was first brought into the Church, 495. Of Purgatory, and the testimonies of Roffensis and Pol. Virgil against it justified, 500. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory, 501. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory, 502, 503. Instances out of the Latine Missal where prayers were made for those that were dead, and yet not in Purgatory, 505. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no Article of Faith in Saint Augustine's time, 506. The testimony of Otho Frisingensis against Purgatory considered, 509. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory, 510. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers, 512. The testimony of Saint Cyprian, Saint Dionysius, Saint Justin Martyr against Purgatory, 513, 514.

Q

Q.

Questions.

IN those about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides, 435. Those that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition, but Scripture, 425. Sundry Questions; as,

Whether the practice of the Primitive Fathers, denying Ecclesiastical repentance to Idolaters and Murtherers and Adulterers, and them onely, be warrantable, 805.

Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance, 713, n. 22.

Whether Attrition with Absolution pardoneth sin, 842.

Whether it be possible to keep the Law, 579.

Whether Perfection be consistent with Repentance, 579, c. 1. ss. 3. per tot.

Whether sinful Habits require a distinct manner of Repentance, 652.

Whether every single deliberate act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour, c. 4. ss. 2. per tot.

Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause, but not in the effect, is to be punished, 719, n. 44. and 785.

Whether if Adam had not sinned, Christ had been incarnate, 771. and 748, 4.

How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible Law, 580, n. 32.

Since God imposeth not an impossible Law, how does it consist with his wisedom to impose what in justice he does not exact? 581, n. 35.

If so many acts of sin taken singly and alone do damn, how can any man be saved? 642, 643, n. 28.

Whether one is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it, 653. and 654, n. 7, 8. & sequ.

R

R.

Real Presence.

THis, like other Mysteries, is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it, 182, §. 1.

Reason.

The power of it in matters of Religion [Page] 230, 231, §. 11. It is the best Judge of Controversies, 1014. Reason and authority are not things inconsistent, 1015. The variety of mens understandings in apprehending the consequent of things, as in the instances of Surge, Petre, macta & comede ▪ and the trial between the two Missals of Saint Ambrose and Saint Gregory, 1016.

Reformed.

Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops, 105, §. 32. Of the harmony of Confessions set out by the Reformed Churches, 899.

Regenerate.

The falseness of that proposition, That natural corruption in the Regenerate still remains, and is in them a sin, 876. The state of unregenerate men, 773. Between the regenerate and the wicked person there is a middle state, 774, n. 29. An unregenerate man may be convinced of and clearly instructed in his duty, and approve the Law, 780. An unregenerate man may with his will delight in goodness, and delight in it earnestly, 781. The contention between the Flesh and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration, but onely the contention between the Flesh and the Spirit, 781. The difference between the Regenerate, Profane, and Moral man, in their sinning, 782, n. 33. Whence come so frequent sins in regenerate persons, 783. How sin can be consistent with the regenerate estate, 783, n. 35. Unwillingness to sin no sign of Regeneration, 784, n. 36. An unregenerate person may not onely desire to doe things morally good, but even spirituall also, 784, n. 37. The difference between a regenerate and unregenerate man, 786, 787. An unregenerate man may leave many sins not onely for temporal interest, but out of reverence of the Divine Law, 785, n. 39. An unregenerate man may doe many good things for Heaven, and yet never come there, 786, n. 40. An unregenerate man may have received the Spirit of God, and yet be in a state of distance from God, 786, n. 41. It is not the propriety of the regenerate man to feel a contention within him concerning the doing good or evil, 788, n. 43. The regenerate man hath not onely received the Spirit of God, but is wholly led by him, 788. n. 44. Arguments to prove that St. Paul (Rom. 7.) speaks not of the Regenerate man, 773, n. 10.

Religion.

If it be seated onely in the understanding, not accepted to Salvation, 780. The character and properties of perfect Religion, 583, 584, n. 44. ad 48.

Remission of Sin.

What is the power of remitting and retaining sin, 836, n. 47.

Repentance.

The Roman doctrine about Repentance, 312, c. 2. §. 1. They teach that Repentance is not necessary till the article of death, 312. Their Church enjoyns not the internal, but the external ritual Repentance, 313. What Contrition is, 314. The Church of Rome makes Contrition unnecessary, 314. According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin, and satisfies not the Conscience, 315, c. 2. §. 2. The Roman Doctors prevaricate in the whole Doctrine of Repentance, 321. What the Penitentiary Priest was, and by whom taken away, 473, 474, 492, 493. The Controversie between Monsieur Arnauld & Petavius about Repentance, 568. The Covenant of Repentance when it began, 574, 575. How Repentance and Perfection Evangelical are consistent, Chap. 1. ss. 3. per tot. n. 47. That Proposition rejected, That every sinner must in his Repentance pass under the terrours of the Law, 587. [...] and [...] how they differ, 596, 597. All that was insupportable in Moses's Law was onely the want of this, 580, n. 33. Of the notion of Repentance when joyned with Faith, 599, n. 1. It is a whole change of state and life, 597. The parts of it, 599, n. 9. and 820, n. 2. The difference between the Repentance preached to the Jews and the Gentiles, 601, n. 5, 6, 7. It may be called Conversion, 602, n. 10. Repentance onely makes sins venial, 622, n. 34. What Repentance single acts of sin require, 646, n. 43. A general Repentance when sufficient, 647, n. 47. Some acts of sin require more then a moral revocation, or opposing a contrary act of vertue in Repentance, 648, n. 50. That Proposition proved, That no man is bound to repent of his sin instantly after the committing it, 654. The danger of deferring Repentance, 654, 655. Deferring Repentance differs but by accident from final impenitence, ibid. How the severities of Repentance were retrenched in several Ages, 804, n. 14, 15, 16. The severity of the Primitive Church in denying Absolution to greater Criminals upon their Repentance, was not their Doctrine, but their Discipline, 805, n. 21. Repentance of sinful Habits to be performed in a distinct manner, 669, n. 31. Seven Objections against that Proposition answered, 675. Objections against [Page] the Repentance of Clinicks, 678, n. 57. and 677, n. 56. and 679, n. 64. Heathens newly baptized, if they die immediately, need no other repentance, ibid. The Objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered, 681, n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against death-bed repentance, 682, n. 66. The manner of repentance in habitual sinners who begin Repentance betimes, 687, n. 1. The manner of repentance by which habitual sins must be cured in them who return not till old age, 691, n. 12. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed, 695, n. 25. Considerations shewing how dangerous it is to delay Repentance, 853, n. 98. and 695, n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks, 696, n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have, taken out of the Writings of the Fathers of the Church, 696, 697, n. 30. The manner how the Ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks, 699, n. 5. The particular acts and parts of Repentance that are fittest for a dying man, 700, n. 32. The penitent (in the opinion of the Jewish Doctors) preferred above the just and innocent, 801. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks, 804. The practice of the ancient Fathers excluding from repentance murtherers, adulterers and idolaters, 804, 805. Penitential sorrow is rather in the understanding then the affections, 823, n. 12. Penitential sorrow is not to be estimated by the measures of sense, 823, n. 15. and 824, n. 17. A double solemn imposition of hands in Repentance, 840, n. 57. As our Repentance is, so is our pardon, 846. A man must not judge of his Repentance by his tears, nor by any one manner of expression, 850, n. 99. He that suspects his Repentance should use the suspicion as a means to improve his Repentance, 850. Meditations that will dispose the heart to Repentance, 851, n. 88. No man can be said truly to have grieved for sin, which at any time after remembers it with pleasure, 851, n. 92. The Repentance of Clinicks, 853, n. 96. Sorrow for sin is but a sign or instrument of Repentance, 853, n. 99. That Repentance preached to the Jews was in different methods from that preached to the Gentiles, 601, n. 6, 7. Two kinds of Conversion; one the same with Repentance, the other different from it, 602, n. 10. The synonymal terms by which Repentance is signified in Scripture, 602, n. 11, 12. Every relapse after Repentance makes the sin less pardonable, 815, n. 11, 61, 64. Repentance is not true, unless the sinner be brought to that pass, that he seriously wishes he had never done the sin, 827, n. 21. The method and progression of Repentance, 827, n. 22. The method of Repentance in the Primitive Church, 832, 833. The usual acts of Repentance what they are, 845, n. 74. Tertullian's description of Repentance, 848, n. 80. The penitent must take care that his Repentance injure not his health, 852, n. 94. and 858, n. 112.

Restitution.

Considered as a part of Repentance, 849, n. 84. No Repentance is entire without Restitution, where it is required, 648, n. 50.

Book of the Revelation.

Chap. 19. v. 9. Blessed are they that are called to the marriage of the Lamb explained, 679, n. 62.

Righteousness.

What was the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, 673, n. 45. The Righteousness of the Law and Gospel how they differ, 673, n. 46.

Romanists.

The arts by which they have managed the Article of Transubstantiation, Ep. Ded. to Real pres. 174. It is acknowledged by them that Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture, 187, §. 2. and 298. They and the Non-conformists have always in England encreased alternately, as the State minded the reducing either, Pref. to Diss. pag. 2, 3. They make Propositions which are not in Scripture to be Articles of Faith, which is condemned by the Fathers, Pref. pag. 4, 5. The Character of the Roman Catholick Religion as it is professed by the Irish, Pref. to Diss. pag. 6, 7, 8. Where the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to be found, 313, c. 2. §. 1. How that Church abuseth Contrition, 314. The Roman Doctors prevaricate in the whole Doctrine of Repentance, 321. They teach, the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it, 322. That one man may satisfie for the sins of another, is their Doctrine, 322, c. 2. §. 6. They hold, that habits of sin are no sins, 322, c. 2. §. 6. It is no excuse for them to say, This is the opinion but of one Doctor, 325, c. 2. §. 7. They teach, that neither Attention nor Devotion are required in our Prayers, 327, c. 2. §. 8. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayers, 328, c. 2. §. 8. They teach the Invocation of Saints, 329, 332. and that with the same style as they pray to God, ibid. They teach, that Christ, being our Judge, is not fit to be our Advocate, 329, c. 2. §. 9. They [Page] interpret the Blessed Virgin to be the Throne of Grace, 329. Of their Exorcisms, 333, §. 10. They attribute the conveying of Grace to things of their own inventing, 337, §. 11. The Sacraments, they teach, do not onely convey Grace, but supply the defect of it, 337. They teach Lying and Equivocation, 340. They teach that a man may steal or lie for a good end, 341, c. 3. §. 1. They keep no Faith with Hereticks, 341. They teach the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God, 342. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken, to save the life of a King or the whole State, 343, c. 3. §. 2. The Pope hath power, as they teach, to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians, 344. An Excommunicate King, they teach, may be deposed or killed, 344, c. 3. §. 3. A Son or Wife they absolve from their duty to Husband or Father, if the Husband or Father be heretical, 345. Their Religion no friend to Kings, 345. Their Opinions so injurious to Kings are not the Doctrines of private men onely, 345. They have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical, 361. Of what Authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists, 376, 377. They hold the Scripture for no infallible Rule, 381, §. 1. Even among them the Authority of General Councils is but precarious, 391. The great uncertainties the Romanists do relie upon, 397, 400. Instances of some Doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide, by others not to be de fide, 398. Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome, 403. The Character of the Church of Rome, 403. Neither the Church of Rome, nor the Fathers, nor School-men, are agreed upon the definition of a Sacrament, 404. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians, 425. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to their Sacraments, 429. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed in that Article of the Catholick Church, by restraining it to the Roman, 448. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches, 449. They teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture, 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome, they teach, is greater then that of the Scripture, 450. Their Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of the Popes among the Holy Scriptures, 451. Of the Miracles wrought now-a-days by the Romanists, 452. The uncharitableness of that Church, 460. That Church arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences, 461. The Church of Rome imposes Articles of her own devising, as necessary to Salvation, 461. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church, ibid. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling Propositions into their Faith, 462. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death, 464. The dangers in which they are that live in the Roman Communion, 466, 467. Of their worshipping the Host, 467. Their doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men, 473, 477. Divers other instances wherein they teach for doctrines the Commandments of men, 494. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere Innovation, 531, 532. That Church would have sold the Rite of Confirmation to the Greek, but they would not buy it, Ep. Ded. to the Treatise of Confirmation, pag. 5. They teach that Confirmation is a Sacrament, and yet hold it not necessary, 3. b.

Epistle to the Romans.

Chap. 5. v. 12. ad 19. explained, 887, 888, 889, 900, 901, 903. Chap. 5. v. 12. largely explained, 885, 887, 888, 889. Chap. 6.23. The wages of sin is death explained, 621, n. 33. Chap. 6.13, 20. explained, 667, n. 27. Chap. 7.23. explained, 723, n. 52. Chap. 7.14. explained, 671, n. 40. Chap. 6.7. explained, 672, n. 44. Chap. 7.7. explained, 689, n. 5. Chap. 5.12. explained, 709, 710. Chap. 5.13, 14. explained, 710, n. 7, 11. Chap. 7.23. explained, 773, and 772. Chap. 7.15, 19. explained, 772, 773. Saint Augustine restrained the words of this Apostle, (Rom. 7.15.) to the matter of Desires and Concupiscence, and excluded all evil actions from the meaning of that Text, 775, n. 18. Reasons against that Interpretation given by that Father, 776, n. 19. Chap. 7.9. 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

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, [Page] 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 [Page] 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. 2. §. 6. It destroys holy life, ibid. That one may satisfie for the sins of another, is the Roman doctrine, 322, c. 2. §. 6. That habits of sins are no sins, held by them, 322, §. 6. The Pope is to be obeyed, according to the doctrine of the Romanists, though he command sin, 345. Nectarius abolished the custom of having sins published in the Church, 474, 488, 492. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist, 484, 485. Between the least mortal and the greatest venial sin no man can distinguish, 610, n. 2. The folly of that assertion, We are free to sin, but not to good, 874. The falseness of that Proposition, That natural Corruption in the regenerate still remains, and is in them a sin, 876. How these words, Sin and Sinner, are sometimes used in Scripture, 712, n. 16.885, 898, 902. Sins are not equal, 611, n. 5. How they are made greater or less, ibid. No sin is venial, 613, n. 9, 10. The smallest sins are destructive of our friendship with God, 614, n. 12. The Doctors of the Roman Church do not rightly define venial sins, ibid. The smallest is against Charity, 618, n. 24. The smallest sin is a turning from God, 619, n. 26. The smaller the sin, the less excusable, if done with observation, 619, 620, n. 27. Sins differ in degree, but not in their essential order to punishment, 621, 622, n. 33. Among the Ancients the distinction of sins into mortal and venial meant not a distinction of kind, but degree, 627, 625, n. 44. Some sins destroy not holiness, 626, n. 45. The distinction of sins into mortal, and venial, cannot have influence on us to any good purposes, 626, n. 46. Whether every single act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour, 640, n. 22. Single acts of sin without a habit give a denomination, 641, n. 25. Sins are damnable that cannot be habitual, 641, n. 24. Single acts of mortal sin displease God, and are forbidden, but are not a state of death, 642, n. 29. What repentance single acts of sin require, 646, n. 43. How a single act of sin sometimes is habitual, 648, n. 49. The word Sin often in Scripture used for the punishment of sin, 711, n. 15. Leaving of sin the best sign of hating it, 829. How sin can be consistent with the regenerate state, 783. He that leaves a sin out of fear may be accepted, 785. The violence of the temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin, 793. Of the pardon of sins after Baptism, 802. Some sins styled unpardonable, but in a limited sense, 806, n. 22. 814, n. 57, 59. God punishes not one sin with another, 859, n. 112. One sin may cause or procure another, ibid. Every sin is directly against God's Law, and therefore is damnable, 617, n. 21. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment, 618, n. 24. [Page] He that commands another man to sin is not guilty of that man's sin, but of his own command, 640, n. 20. What sins are damnable in the single act, 640, sect. 2. per tot. There is no natural necessity of sinning lies upon any man, 755, n. 15. The Principles by which sin pollutes the manners of men, 727, n. 66. The sinner's unwillingness to sin does not always lessen his sin, but aggravate it sometimes, 784, n. 36. There is in us no natural necessity of sinning, 754, n. 15. The whole nature of mankind in its universal capacity cannot be guilty of sin, 765, n. 29. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin, 766, n. 32. What kind of inclination to evil is sin, ibid, n. 33. How we are sinners in Adam, 752, n. 12.

Sins of Infirmity.

Of them, Chap. 8. per tot. That which some men call a state of infirmity is a state of sin and death, 779.

Sins Venial.

No sin is properly venial, 613, n. 9, 10. Venial sins distinguished into such as are venial by the imperfection of the Agent, or the smalness of the matter, or venial in the whole kind, 620, n. 28. That no sins are venial in their nature or whole kind, 620, n. 31. No sins are venial but by Repentance, 626, n. 44.622, n. 34. The absurdity of the Roman Doctrines concerning venial sins, 624, n. 39. The inconveniences following from the doctrine of venial sins, 623, n. 35. The Roman Doctors do not rightly define venial sins, 614, n. 12. It is not safe to enquire into the veniality of a sin before we commit it, 627, n. 57, 53. What sins are venial cannot be known to us, 627, n. 47. We should have judged some sins venial, if it had not been otherwise revealed in Scripture, 627, n. 48. Sins that we account in their nature venial, by their multitude become damnable, 629, n. 52. The means of expiating venial sins appointed by some Roman Doctors, 631, n. 57. Sins are made greater or less by complication, 612, n. 6, 7. Three degrees of venial sins, 628, n. 28. That distinction opposed, 620, n. 28, 29. & sequ. The mischief that is consequent to the distinction of sins into Mortal, and Venial, 610, and 623, n. 36. & sequ. What Repentance is to expiate venial sins, 630, 631, 632, n. 56, 57, 58. & sequ. There is some degree of veniality in every sin, till it come to an unpardonable estate, 626, n. 44. Venial means either actually pardoned, or onely pardonable, 626, n. 44. Sins are venial in relation to the state of Grace and Repentance, 628, n. 47.

Sinner.

How every sinner is God's enemy, 602, n. 11. God is ready to forgive all and the greatest sinners, 801, n. 5. How the word Sinner is sometimes used in Scripture, 712, n. 16. and 885, 898, 902. Saint Chrysostome's notion of a Sinner, 760, n. 22.

Sorrow.

Concerning it as it is a fruit of Repentance, 845, n. 74. Rules concerning sorrow as it is a part of Repentance, 859. A Caution to those that minister comfort to such as are afflicted with immoderate sorrow for their sins, 852, n. 95. Sorrow for sin is but a sign or instrument of Repentance, 853, n. 99. Cautions concerning the measure of this sorrow, 860. Penitential sorrow is rather in the understanding then in the affections, 823, n. 12. There is no Repentance without sorrow, 821, n. 50.828, n. 24. Penitential sorrow is odium rather then dolor, 823, n. 12. We must not account of our sorrow in repentance by the measure of sense, but Religion, 823, n. 15. External expressions of sorrow and the like are not necessary to the integrality of Repentance, 824, n. 17. The usefulness of sensual sorrow in Repentance, 826, n. 20. Of that device, to be sorrowful that they cannot sorrow, 827, n. 22. Directions to a Penitent when he finds not his sorrow proportionable to his desires of Repentance, 850, n. 88. Penitential sorrow should be rather natural and constant, then solemn, 851, n. 89.

Soul.

That Proposition, Anima est tota in toto, & tota in qualibet parte corporis, in what sense it is true, 242, §. 11. Silhon thinks a moral demonstration to 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 [Page] 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

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 [Page] 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 Transubstantiation, 231, §. 11. Stapleton, to confute the Lutheran Consubstantiation, uses arguments drawn from the absurdity and unreasonableness of the opinion, 231, §. 11. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation, 234, §. 11. Thomas Aquinas acknowledged more difficulties in it then in the whole Creation, 234, §. 11. Why may not Transubstantiation be believed notwithstanding the many impossibilities, as well as the Trinity? this Objection answered, 242, §. 11. The absurdities of Transubstantiation, 246, 247, §. 11. The absurdities of the Romanists in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ, 247, §. 11. The true Notion of the word Transubstantiation, 250, §. 12. and 251. Of the ground of that slander cast upon the Primitive Christians, that they did in their religious solemnities eat the flesh of a Child, 254, §. 12. Perron affirms, that by their doctrine the Romanists are [...], but not [...], 254, §. 12. Tertullian against Transubstantiation, 256, 257, 258, §. 12. and 300. The authority of Origen, Justin Martyr, Clem. Alexandrinus and S. Cyprian against Transubstantiation, 258, §. 12. The authority of Eusebius, S. Ephrem Syrus, Epiphanius,[Page]Macarius, Gregory Nazianzen, Saint Ambrose, Saint Chrysostome, against it, and Saint Augustine, 259, 260, 261, 262, §. 12. The Council of C P. against it, 262, §. 12. The words of Theodoret considered, 264, 265, §. 12. The words of Galesius, 265, §. 12. The authority of Suidas and Hesychius against Transubstantiation, 265, 266, §. 12. The authority of Dionysius Areopagita against Transubstantiation, 266, §. 12. The question of Transubstantiation was disputed amongst the Catholicks themselves A. D. 880.266, §. 12. and 299. In England, till Lanfrank's time, it was lawful to believe Transubstantiation, or reject it, 266, §. 12. Aelfric, Abbot of Saint Albans, in his Saxon Homily, determines on the Protestants side in the Question of Transubstantiation, 266, §. 12. The words of the Gloss upon the Canon-law against it, 266, 267, §. 12. Scotus affirms it was not de fide before the Lateran Council, 267, §. 12. The Lateran Council did not determine Transubstantiation. How the word and doctrine grew into credit, 267, §. 12, 299, c. 1. §. 5. Pe [...]. Lombard's Argument against Transubstantiation, 299, c. 1. §. 5. Strange questions appendant to that doctrine, 301, c. 1. §. 5. The Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is impossible, and implies contradictions, 301. The testimonies of Scotus, Odo Cameracensis, (by mistake quoted Ocam) Roffensis, Biel, Lombard, in the question of Transubstantiation vindicated and made good, 517, 518. What passed in the Lateran Council concerning Transubstantiation, 519. Neither this Article nor any thing else was decreed in the Lateran Council, 519. The same Pope or Council that made Transubstantiation an Article of Faith, made Rebellion and Treason to be the duty of Subjects, 520. The opinion of Durandus in the Article of Transubstantiation, 520. This consequence is good, It is not common bread, therefore it is bread, 206, 523. The testimony of Eusebius against Transubstantiation, 524. The authority of St. Austin in the question of Transubstantiation, 525. Concerning the words of Transubstantiation, 969, n. 6. Of Berengarius when he was condemned by Pope Nicolas, 993.

Trinity.

Why the many impossibilities should not be as well an objection against the belief of the Trinity, as against the belief of Transubstantiation, 242, §. 11. To picture God the Father or the Trinity is against Primitive practice, 307. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists, that the Writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence of God the Father and the Holy Trinity, 550, 554. Pope John XXII. caused those to be burnt for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity, 555.

Truth.

The value of it, and that it is to be preferred before some degrees of Peace, 882. Truth and Peace compared in their value, 883.

U

U.

Venial sin.

BEtween the least mortal and the greatest venial sin no man can distinguish, 610, n. 2. Vid. tit. Sin in S.

Vertue.

An act of sorrow for the committing sin is an imperate act of the contrary vertue, 684, n. 68. As of the pleasantness of the sin much is to be imputed to the habit, so would vertue be pleasant and easie if it were made habitual, 688, n. 2. What vertue was in the opinion of the ancient Philosophers, 770, c. 8. n. 1. The difference of vertues is in relation to their objects, 649, n. 56. Theology findeth a medium between Vertue and Vice, 673.

Blessed Virgin.

The Romanists interpret the Blessed Virgin to be the Throne of Grace, 329. The Lady's Psalter composed by Bonaventure, 332, §. 9. Her Psalter, 328. A Rosary what it is, ibid. The manner of their prayers to her, 331.

Vnderstanding.

Religion, if it be seated onely in the Understanding, not accepted to salvation, 780. Of the duty of submitting the Understanding to humane authority, 952, n. 12.

Voluntary.

Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause, but not in the effect, is to be punished, 719, 720, n. 45. Unwillingness to sin no sign of Regeneration, 783, 784.

W

[Page]

W.

Will.

WHen it is that it serves for the deed, 593, n. 23. A man's Will hath no infirmity, 794, n. 62. The Will is not moved necessarily by the Understanding, ibid. Between the Will and the inferiour appetite there is in nature no real distinction, 825, n. 19. The sinner's unwillingness to sin does not always lessen the sin, but sometimes increase it, 784, n. 36. No act of the Will can destroy the will, 755, n. 15. and 765, n. 29. How the necessity of Grace is consistent with the doctrine of Free-will, 754, n. 15. Of Free-will, 730. How the Will of man is depraved, 754, n. 15.

Works.

Reasons why with a Covenant of Works God began his entercourse with man, 575. The Covenant of works when it began, 573, 584. Reasons shewing the justice of that dispensation of God's beginning his entercourse with man by the Covenant of Works, 576. The Law of Works imposed on Adam onely, 587.

Worship.

The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to exhibit 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, according to their own doctrine, are many times in danger of Idolatry inevitably, 268, 269, §. 13. Heathens could not worship an Image terminativè, 338. The Romanists worship the Cross terminativè, 338. The worship of Images is Idolatry, 337, 338. Of worshipping the Host, 467. Of worship of Angels, 467. Of the worship of Images, 468. Vid. Tit. Images. Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord, and were reproved for it, 545.

Y

Y.

Young.

SIns of Infirmity not accounted to young men as to others, 793.

Z

Z.

[...].

OF the importance of that word, 638, n. 14.

To the Title of Baptism adde,

Of baptizing Infants, 1040, 1041, sect. 18. per tot.

ERRATA.

PAGE 2. line 35. for wave, reade have. 4. l. 13. reade ever more. l. 15. r. and it is. 6. l. 33. r. mutual concurse. 19. l. 5. r. bind. 22. l. 11. r. [...]. 23. l. 11. r. [...]. 23. margin, l. 18. r. ad Sect. 88.24. l. 4. r. [...]. 26. l. 19. r. in the principle. l. 22, 23. r. (who are not— Rulers are) 28. l. 57. r. into the judgement. 35. l. 45. r. Adde to this. Epist. before Episc. p. 2. l. 28. dele are. 46. l. 11. r. procellosissimae. 51. l. 18. r. were of the number. 57. l. 33. r. [...]. 79. l. 44. r. than Ecclesiae. 90. l. 58. for hath, r. have. 101. l. 32. r. [...]. ibid. r. [...]. 122. l. 5. r. preside. 133. l. 3. f. r quinque, r. quique. 135. l. 10. r. blundering. 152. l. 47. r. [...]. l. 52. r. [...]. 162. l. 6. r. Sicut. 165. l. 60. r. Aërians. 167. l. 51. r. distinct. 182. l. 42. r. [...]. 184. l. 59. r. impossible. 185. l. 38. r. suspects. 190. l. 38. r. ineffective. 191. l. 8. r. confutation. l. 39. r. instrumenta. 193. l. 53. r. Banquet. 208. l. 55. r. Tropical. 211. l. 49. r. body. 218. l. 15. r. corradere. l. 57. r. Statues. 222. l. 60. r. conversing. 232. l. 62. r. exitum. 236. l. 57. r. in thesi. 268. l. 46. r. Hoc est corpum meum. Pref. to Dissuasive, p. 3. l. 30. r. [...]. 314. l. 24. r. weakens and. 320. l. 4. r. or no. 322. l. 53. r. is the true. 328. l. 51. r. fil'd upon. 352. l. 43. r. hath proved. 356. l. 52. r. is it reasonable—? 397. l. 41. r. conciliariter. 431. l. 43. r. baptized. 438. l. 9. r. for no more. 466. l. 37. r. infinite. 469. l. 45. r. Sacrament. 472. l. 20. r. publick. 487. l. 47. r. judge. 515. l. 55. r. [...]. 518. l. 18. r. change. 524. margin, l. 24. r. [...]. 525. l. 10, 11. for satisfaction, r. falsification. 529. l. 46. r. no difference. 534. l. 34. r. that made Hebrew. 553. l. 32. for many, r. man. l. 40. r. & nulli. 572. l. 28. r. may be bold. 579. l. 59. r. dispassionate. 580. l. 16. r. impossible. 596. l. 50. r. same chapter. 617. l. 21. r. [...]. 626. l. 46. r. unavoidable. 632. marg. l. 1. r. See chap. 8.676. l. 44. r. is so far. 713. l. 28. r. inflicted. 728. l. 61. for Ninth, r. Tenth. 735. l. 24. r. [...]. 855. l. 39. r. [...]. 872. l. 39. r. Nemo est tam prope tam proc [...]lque nobis. 873. l. 14. r. chiefs. 903. l. 29. for healed, r. treated. 904. l. 3. r. treated like. 952. l. 19. for subscribe, r. prescribe. 960. l. 43. r. Damasus. 969. l. 7. r. higher. 975. l. 13. r. reviews. 982. l. 9. for useless, r. useful. 998. l. 3. r. causally.

THE END.

Books Printed and Reprinted for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Amen-corner.

[Page]

§

Written by Dr. JER. TAYLOVR.

THE Great Exemplar of Sanctity and Holy life according to the Christian Institution; Described in the History of the Life and Death of the ever-Blessed JESUS CHRIST, the Saviour of the World. With Considerations and Discourses upon the several parts of the Story; and Prayers fitted to the several Mysteries. In three Parts. In Folio.

Ductor Dubitantium; or, The Rule of Conscience in all her general measures; Serving as a great Instrument for the determination of Cases of Conscience. In Folio.

[...]. A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the Year. Fitted to the great Necessities, and for the supplying the wants of Preaching in many parts of this Nation. With a Supplement of Eleven Sermons preached since His MAJESTIE's Restauration. Whereunto is adjoyned a Discourse of the Divine Institution, Necessity, Sacredness, and Separation of the Office Ministeriall. With Rules and Advices to the Clergy. In Folio.

The Rules of Holy Living and Dying, in 8o.

The Golden Grove, in 12. being a choice Manuall of Prayers.

The Worthy Communicant, (Printed for John Martin) in 8o.

§

Written by Dr. HENRY HAMMOND, in IV Volumes.

Vol. I.

A Collection of Discourses chiefly Practicall. In a large Folio, newly printed.

Vol. II.

A Collection of Discourses in Defense of the Church of England.

1. Against the Romanists.

2. Against other Adversaries.

Vol. III.

A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament.

Vol. IV.

A Paraphrase and Annotations upon the Books of the Psalms.

A Paraphrase and Annotations upon [the Ten first Chapters of] the Proverbs, M S.

§

ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΑ. The Works of KING CHARLES the Martyr: With a Collection of Declarations, Treaties, and other Papers concerning the Differences betwixt His said MAJESTY and His Two Houses of Parliament.

The Works of the Pious and profoundly-Learned Mr Joseph Mede, sometime Fellow of Christ's College in Cambridge; in a large Folio.

The Christian Sacrifice. 12. Advice to a Friend. 12. By the Authour of the Devout Christian.

Reflexions upon the Devotions of the Roman Church, in large Octavo, New.

A Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Non-conformist, the first and second Parts, in Octavo.

Animadversions upon a Book intituled, Fanaticism Fanatically Imputed to the Catholick Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and written by a Person of Honour. New.

Information about this book

Title statement

Symbolon theologikon, or, A collection of polemicall discourses wherein the Church of England, in its worst as well as more flourishing condition, is defended in many material points, against the attempts of the papists on one hand, and the fanaticks on the other : together with some additional pieces addressed to the promotion of practical religion and daily devotion / by Jer. Taylor ...

Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.

Edition statement

1674

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A71177

ID [STC]

Wing T399

ID [STC]

ESTC R17669

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

11875707

ID [OCLC]

ocm 11875707

ID [VID]

50225

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A71177)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50225)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 828:1 or 829:1)

Source

— Symbolon theologikon, or, A collection of polemicall discourses wherein the Church of England, in its worst as well as more flourishing condition, is defended in many material points, against the attempts of the papists on one hand, and the fanaticks on the other : together with some additional pieces addressed to the promotion of practical religion and daily devotion / by Jer. Taylor ..., Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.. The third edition enlarged..

Extent

2 pts. ([45], 1079; [11], 70, [35] p.) : ill., 4 p. of plates.

Printed by R. Norton for R. Royston ...,. London :: 1674.. (Reproduction of originals in Huntington Library and Duke University Library.) (Index: p. [1]-[34] at end.) (Reel 829:1 lacking all after page 555.) (Errata: p. [34] at end.) (Entry for T302 cancelled in Wing (2nd ed.).) ([pt.1] -- [I] An apology for authorized and set forms of liturgy. -- [II] Of the sacred order and offices of episcopacy -- [III] The real presence and spiritual of Christ in the blessed sacrement proved against the doctrine of transubstantiation -- [IV] A dissuasive from popery. The first part -- [V] The second part of the dissuasive from popery -- [VI] Unum necessarium, or, The doctrine and practice of repentance -- [VII] Deus justificatus, or, A vindication of the glory of the divine attributes, in the question of original sin -- [VII] Theolotia eklektike, or, A discourse of the liberty of prophesying -- [pt.2] -- [I] Chrisis teleiotiche, a discourse of confirmation ... also a discourse of the nature, offices and measures of friendship -- [II] Two letters to persons changed in their religion -- [III] Three letters written to a gentleman.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.