Is not this going too far? Would it not imply almost that Christ himself
could not righteously sacrifice himself, especially when we consider
that the Romanists would have a right to say, that Christ himself had
commanded it?
Bellarmine's conceit
is so absurd that
it scarce deserves the compliment of a serious confutation. For if
sacramental being be opposed to natural or material, as
noumenon
to
phænomenon
, place is no attribute or possible accident of it
in se
; consequently, no alteration of place relatively to us can
affect, much less destroy, it; and even were it otherwise, yet
translocation is not destruction; for the body of Christ, according to
themselves, doth indeed nourish our souls, even as a fish eaten sustains
another fish, but yet with this essential difference, that it ceases not
to be and remain itself, and instead of being converted converts; so
that truly the only things sacrificed in the strict sense are all the
evil qualities or deficiencies which divide our souls from Christ.
Ib.
p. 218.
That which we do is done in remembrance of that which was then done;
for he saith, Do this in remembrance of me.
This is a
metastasis
of Scripture.
Do this in remembrance of
me
, that is, that which Christ was then doing. But Christ was not
then suffering, or dying on the cross.
Ib.
p. 223.
That the Saints do pray for us in genere, desiring God to be
merciful to us, and to do unto us whatsoever in any kind he knoweth
needful for our good, there is no question made by us.
To have placed this question in its true light, so as to have allowed
the full force to the Scriptures asserting the communion of Saints and
the efficacy of their intercession without undue concessions to the
hierolatria
of the Romish church, would have implied an
acquaintance with the science of transcendental analysis, and an insight
into the philosophy of ideas not to be expected in Field, and which was
then only dawning in the mind of Lord Bacon. The proper reply to Brerely
would be this: the communion and intercession of Saints is an idea, and
must be kept such. But the Romish church has changed it away into the
detail of particular and individual conceptions, and imaginations, into
names and fancies.
N. B. Instead of the 'Roman Catholic' read throughout in this and all
other works, and everywhere and on all occasions, unless where the
duties of formal courtesy forbid, say, the 'Romish anti-Catholic
Church;' Romish — to mark that the corruptions in discipline, doctrine
and practice do for the worst and far larger part owe both their origin
and their perpetuation to the court and local tribunals of the city of
Rome, and are not and never have been the catholic, that is, universal
faith of the Roman empire, or even of the whole Latin or Western church;
and anti-Catholic, — because no other Church acts on so narrow and
excommunicative a principle, or is characterized by such a jealous
spirit of monopoly and particularism, counterfeiting catholicity by a
negative totality and heretical self-circumscription, cutting off, or
cutting herself off from, all the other members of Christ's Body.
12th March, 1824.
It is of the utmost importance, wherever clear and distinct conceptions
are required, to make out in the first instance whether the term in
question, or the main terms of the question in dispute, represents or
represent a fact or class of facts simply, or some self-established and
previously known idea or principle, of which the facts are instances and
realizations, or which is introduced in order to explain and account for
the facts. Now the term 'merits,' as applied to Abraham and the saints,
belongs to the former. It is a mere
nomen appellativum
of the
facts.
Ib.
c. 5. p. 252.
The Papists and we agree that original sin is the privation of
original righteousness; but they suppose there was in nature without
that addition of grace, a power to do good, &c.
Nothing seems wanting to this argument but a previous definition and
explanation of the term, 'nature.' Field appears to have seen the truth,
namely, that nature itself is a peccant (I had almost said an unnatural)
state, or rather no State at all,
Greek: ou stásis all' apóstasis
.
Ib.
c. 6. p. 269.
And surely the words of Augustine do not import that she had no sin,
but that she overcame it, which argueth a conflict; neither doth he
say he will acknowledge she was without sin, but that he will not move
any question touching her, in this dispute of sins and sinners.
Why not say at once, that this anti-Scriptural superstition had already
begun? I scarcely know whether to be pleased or grieved with that edging
on toward the Roman creed, that exceeding, almost Scriptural, tenderness
for the divines of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, which
distinguishes the Church of England dignitaries, from Elizabeth
inclusively to our Revolution in 1688, from other Protestants.
Ib.
c. 10. p. 279.
Derwent! should this page chance to fall under your eye, for my sake
read, fag, subdue, and take up into your proper mind this chapter 10 of
Free Will.
Ib.
p. 281.
Of these five kinds of liberty, the two first agree only to God, so
that in the highest degree Greek: to autexoúsion, that is, freedom
of will is proper to God only; and in this sense Calvin and Luther
rightly deny that the will of any creature is or ever was free.
I add, except as in God, and God in us. Now the latter alone is will;
for it alone is
ens super ens
. And here lies the mystery, which I
dare not openly and promiscuously reveal.
Ib.
Yet doth not God's working upon the will take from it the power of
dissenting, and doing the contrary; but so inclineth it, that having
liberty to do otherwise, yet she will actually determine so.
This will not do. Were it true, then my understanding would be free in a
mathematical proportion; or the whole position amounts only to this,
that the will, though compelled, is still the will. Be it so; yet not a
free will. In short, Luther and Calvin are right so far. A creaturely
will cannot be free; but the will in a rational creature may cease to be
creaturely, and the creature,
Greek: apóstasis
finally cease in
consequence; and this neither Luther nor Calvin seem to have seen. In
short, where omnipotence is on one side, what but utter impotence can
remain for the other? To make freedom possible, the
antithesis
must be removed. The removal of this
antithesis
of the creature
to God is the object of the Redemption, and forms the glorious liberty
of the Gospel. More than this I am not permitted to expose.
Ib.
p. 283.
It is not given, nor is it wanting, to all men to have an insight into
the mystery of the human will and its mode of inherence on the will
which is God, as the ineffable
causa sui
; but this chapter will
suffice to convince you that the doctrines of Calvin were those of
Luther in this point; — that they are intensely metaphysical, and that
they are diverse
toto genere
from the merely moral and
psychological — tenets of the modern Calvinists. Calvin would have
exclaimed, 'fire and fagots!' before he had gotten through a hundred
pages of Dr. Williams's Modern Calvinism.
Ib.
c. 11. p. 296.
Neither can Vega avoid the evidence of the testimonies of the Fathers,
and the decree of the Council of Trent, so that he must be forced to
confess that no man can so collectively fulfil the law as not to sin,
and consequently, that no man can perform that the law requireth.
The paralogism of Vega as to this perplexing question seems to lurk in
the position that God gives a law which it is impossible we should obey
collectively. But the truth is, that the law which God gave, and which
from the essential holiness of his nature it is impossible he should not
have given, man deprived himself of the ability to obey. And was the law
of God therefore to be annulled? Must the sun cease to shine because the
earth has become a morass, so that even that very glory of the sun hath
become a new cause of its steaming up clouds and vapors that strangle
the rays? God forbid!
But for the law I had not sinned
. But had I
not been sinful the law would not have occasioned me to sin, but would
have clothed me with righteousness, by the transmission of its
splendour.
Let God be just, and every man a liar
.
B. iv. c. 4. p. 346.
The Church of God is named the 'Pillar of Truth;' not as if truth did
depend on the Church, &c.
Field might have strengthened his argument, by mention of the custom of
not only affixing records and testimonials to the pillars, but books, &c.
Ib.
c. 7. p. 353.
Others therefore, to avoid this absurdity, run into that other before
mentioned, that we believe the things that are divine by the mere and
absolute command of our will, not finding any sufficient motives and
reasons of persuasion.
Field, nor Count Mirandula have penetrated to the heart of this most
fundamental question. In all proper faith the will is the prime agent,
but not therefore the choice. You may call it reason if you will, but
then carefully distinguish the speculative from the practical reason,
and the reason itself from the understanding.
Ib.
c. 8. p. 356.
Illius virtute (saith he) illuminati, jam non aut nostro, aut
aliorum judicio credimus a Deo esse Scripturam, sed supra humanum
judicium certo certius constituimus, non secus ac si ipsius Dei numen
illic intueremur, hominum ministerio ab ipsissimo Dei ore
fluxisse.
Greatly doth this fine passage need explanation, that knowing what it
doth mean, the reader may understand what it doth not mean, nor of
necessity imply. Without this insight, our faith may be terribly shaken
by difficulties and objections. For example; If all the Scripture, then
each component part; thence every faithful Christian infallible, and so
on.
Ib.
p. 357.
In the second the light of divine reason causeth approbation of that
they believe: in the third sort, the purity of divine understanding
apprehendeth most certainly the things believed, and causeth a
foretasting of those things that hereafter more fully shall be enjoyed.
Here too Field distinguishes the understanding from the reason, as
experience following perception of sense. But as perception through the
mere presence of the object perceived, whether to the outward or inner
sense, is not insight which belongs to the 'light of reason,' therefore
Field marks it by 'purity' that is unmixed with fleshly sensations or
the
idola
of the bodily eye. Though Field is by no means
consistent in his
epitheta
of the understanding, he seldom
confounds the word itself. In theological Latin, the understanding, as
influenced and combined with the affections and desires, is most
frequently expressed by
cor
, the heart. Doubtless the most
convenient form of appropriating the terms would be to consider the
understanding as man's intelligential faculty, whatever be its object,
the sensible or the intelligible world; while reason is the tri-unity,
as it were, of the spiritual eye, light, and object.
Ib.
c. 10. p. 358.
Of the Papists preferring the Church's authority before the Scripture.
Field, from the nature and special purpose of his controversy, is
reluctant to admit any error in the Fathers, — too much so indeed; and
this is an instance. We all know what we mean by the Scriptures, but how
know we what they mean by the Church, which is neither thing nor person?
But this is a very difficult subject.
Ib.
p. 359.
First, so as if the Church might define contrary to the Scriptures, as
she may contrary to the writings of particular men, how great soever.
Verbally, the more sober divines of the Church of Rome do not assert
this; but practically and by consequence they do.
if the Church
assign a sense contradictory to the true sense of the Scripture, none
dare gainsay it.
Ib.
This we deny, and will in due place improve their error herein.
That is, prove against, detect, or confute.
Ib.
c. 11. p. 360.
If the comparison be made between the Church consisting of all the
believers that are and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh,
so including the Apostles, and their blessed assistants the
Evangelists, we deny not but that the Church is of greater authority,
antiquity, and excellency than the Scriptures of the New Testament, as
the witness is better than his testimony, and the law-giver greater
than the laws made by him, as Stapleton allegeth.
The Scriptures may be and are an intelligible and real one, but the
Church on earth can in no sense be such in and through itself, that is,
its component parts, but only by their common adherence to the body of
truth made present in the Scripture. Surely you would not distinguish
the Scripture from its contents?
Ib
. c. 12. p. 361.
For the better understanding whereof we must observe, as Occam fitly
noteth, that an article of faith is sometimes strictly taken only for
one of those divine verities, which are contained in the Creed of the
Apostles: sometimes generally for any catholic verity.
I am persuaded, that this division will not bear to be expanded into all
its legitimate consequences
sine periculo vel fidei vel
charitatis
. I should substitute the following:
- The essentials of that saving faith, which having its root and its
proper and primary seat in the moral will, that is, in the heart and
affections, is necessary for each and every individual member of the
church of Christ:
- Those truths which are essential and necessary in order to the
logical and rational possibility of the former, and the belief and
assertion of which are indispensable to the Church at large, as those
truths without which the body of believers, the Christian world, could
not have been and cannot be continued, though it be possible that in
this body this or that individual may be saved without the conscious
knowledge of, or an explicit belief in, them.
Ib.
And therefore before and without such determination, men seeing
clearly the deduction of things of this nature from the former, and
refusing to believe them, are condemned of heretical pertinacy.
Rather, I should think, of a nondescript lunacy than of heretical
pravity. A child may explicitly know that 5 + 5 = 10, yet not see that
therefore 10 - 5 = 5; but when he has seen it how he can refrain from
believing the latter as much as the former, I have no conception.
Ib.
c. 16. p. 367.
And the third of jurisdiction; and so they that have supreme power,
that is, the Bishops assembled in a general Council, may interpret the
Scriptures, and by their authority suppress all them that shall
gainsay such interpretations, and subject every man that shall disobey
such determinations as they consent upon, to excommunication and
censures of like nature.
This would be satisfactory, if only Field had cleared the point of the
communion in the Lord's Supper; whether taken spiritually, though in
consequence of excommunication not ritually, it yet sufficeth to
salvation. If so, excommunication is merely declarative, and the evil
follows not the declaration but that which is truly declared, as when
Richard says that Francis deserves the gallows, as a robber. The gallows
depends on the fact of the robbery, not on Richard's saying.
Ib.
c. 29. p. 391.
In the 1 Cor. 15. the Greek, that now is, hath in all copies; the
first man was of the earth, earthly; the second man is the Lord from
heaven. The latter part of this sentence Tertullian supposeth to
have been corrupted, and altered by the Marcionites. Instead of that
the Latin text hath; the second man was from heaven, heavenly,
as Ambrose, Hierome, and many of the Fathers read also.
There ought to be, and with any man of taste there can be, no doubt that
our version is the true one.
of Ambrose and Jerome is worthy of
mere rhetoricians; a flat formal play of
antithesis
instead of
the weight and solemnity of the other.
According to the former the
scales are even, in the latter the scale of Christ drops down at once,
and the other flies to the beam like a feather weighed against a mass of
gold.
Append. Part. I. s. 4. p. 752.
And again he saith, that every soul, immediately upon the departure
hence, is in this appointed invisible place, having there either pain,
or ease and refreshing; that there the rich man is in pain, and the
poor in a comfortable estate. For, saith he, why should we not think,
that the souls are tormented, or refreshed in this invisible place,
appointed for them in expectation of the future judgment?
This may be adduced as an instance, specially, of the evil consequences
of introducing the
idolon
of time as an
ens reale
into
spiritual doctrines, thus understanding literally what St. Paul had
expressed by figure and adaptation. Hence the doctrine of a middle
state, and hence Purgatory with all its abominations; and an instance,
generally, of the incalculable possible importance of speculative errors
on the happiness and virtue of man-kind.
Folio 1628. — Ed.
The following letter was written on, and addressed with,
the book to the Rev. Derwent Coleridge. — Ed.
P. L.
III. 487. — Ed.
i. 27. See
Aids to Reflection
. 3d
edit
. p. 17. n. — Ed.
— — whence the soul
Reason receives, and reason is her being,
Discursive or intuitive.
P. L.
v. 426. — Ed.
The reader of the
Aids to Reflection
will recognize in
this note the rough original of the passages p. 313, &c. of the 3d
edition of that work. — Ed.
See
Table Talk
, 2d edit. p. 283. Melancthon's words
to Calvin are:
Tuo judicio prorsus assentior. Affirmu etiam vestros
magistratus juste fecisse, quod hominem blasphemum, re ordine judicata,
interfecerunt.
14th Oct. 1554. — Ed.
'But to circle the earth, as the heavenly bodies do,' &c.
'So we may see that the opinion of Copernicus touching the rotation of
the earth, which astronomy itself cannot correct, because it is not
repugnant to any of the phænomena, yet natural history may
correct.'
Advancement of Learning
, B. II. — Ed.
That Christ had a twofold being, natural and sacramental;
that the Jews destroyed and sacrificed his natural being, and that
Christian priests destroy and sacrifice in the Mass his sacramental
being. — Ed.
Fides catholica, says Bellarmine, docet omnem
virtutem esse bonam, omne vitium esse malum. Si autem erraret Papa
præcipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere
vitia esse bona et virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam
peccare.
De Pont. Roman
. IV. 5. — Ed.
The ordinary Greek text is:
Greek: ho deúteros anthropos, ho Kyrios ex ouranousee previous image
The Vulgate is:
primus homo de terra,
terrenus; secundus homo de cœlis, cœlestis.
Ed.
Notes on Donne1
There have been many, and those illustrious, divines in our Church from
Elizabeth to the present day, who, overvaluing the accident of
antiquity, and arbitrarily determining the appropriation of the words
'ancient,' 'primitive,' and the like to a certain date, as for example,
to all before the fourth, fifth, or sixth century, were resolute
protesters against the corruptions and tyranny of the Romish hierarch,
and yet lagged behind Luther and the Reformers of the first generation.
Hence I have long seen the necessity or expedience of a threefold
division of divines. There are many, whom God forbid that I should call
Papistic, or, like Laud, Montague, Heylyn, and others, longing for a
Pope at Lambeth, whom yet I dare not name Apostolic. Therefore I divide
our theologians into,
- Apostolic or Pauline:
- Patristic:
- Papal.
Even in Donne, and still more in Bishops Andrews and Hackett, there is a
strong Patristic leaven. In Jeremy Taylor this taste for the Fathers and
all the Saints and Schoolmen before the Reformation amounted to a
dislike of the divines of the continental Protestant Churches, Lutheran
or Calvinistic. But this must, in part at least, be attributed to
Taylor's keen feelings as a Carlist, and a sufferer by the Puritan
anti-prelatic party.
I would thus class the pentad of operative Christianity: —
|
Prothesis
Christ the Word |
|
Thesis
The Scriptures |
Mesothesis
The Holy Spirit |
Antithesis
The Church |
|
Synthesis
The Preacher |
|
The Papacy elevated the Church to the virtual exclusion or suppression
of the Scriptures: the modern Church of England, since Chillingworth,
has so raised up the Scriptures as to annul the Church; both alike have
quenched the Holy Spirit, as the
mesothesis
of the two, and
substituted an alien compound for the genuine Preacher, who should be
the
synthesis
of the Scriptures and the Church, and the sensible
voice of the Holy Spirit.
Serm. I. Coloss. i. 19, 20. p. 1.
Ib.
E.
What could God pay for me? What could God suffer? God himself could
not; and therefore God hath taken a body that could.