A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY.
Part I.
Ib. s. ii. p. 137.
The sentence of the Fathers in the third general Council, that at Ephesus;--"that it should not be lawful for any man to publish or compose another faith or creed than that which was defined by the Nicene Council."
Upon what ground then does the Church of England reconcile with this decree its reception of the so called Athanasian creed?
Ib. s. iv. p. 145.
We consider that the doctrines upon which it (Purgatory) is pretended reasonable, are all dubious, and disputable at the very best. Such are ... that the taking away the guilt of sins does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment; that is, that when a man"s sin is pardoned, he may be punished without the guilt of that sin as justly as with it.
The taking away the guilt does not, however, imply of necessity the natural removal of the consequences of sin. And in this sense, I suppose, the subtler Romanists would defend this accursed doctrine. A man may have bitterly repented and thoroughly reformed the sin of drunkenness, and by this genuine "metanoia" and faith in Christ crucified have obtained forgiveness of the guilt, and yet continue to suffer a heavy punishment in a schirrous liver or incurable dyspepsy.
But who authorized the Popes to extend this to the soul?
Ib. p. 153.
St. Ambrose saith that "death is a haven of rest."
Consider the strange and oftentimes awful dreams accompanying the presence of irritating matter in the lower abdomen, and the seeming appropriation of particular sorts of dream images and incidents to affections of particular organs and "viscera." Do the material causes act positively, so that with the removal of the body by death the total cause is removed, and of course the effects? Or only negatively and indirectly, by lessening and suspending that continuous texture of organic sensation, which, by drawing outward the attention of the soul, sheaths her from her own state and its corresponding activities?--A fearful question, which I too often agitate, and which agitates me even in my dreams, when most commonly I am in one of Swedenborg"s h.e.l.ls, doubtful whether I am once more to be awaked, and thinking our dreams to be the true state of the soul disembodied when not united with Christ.
On awaking from such dreams, I never fail to find some local pain, "circa-" or "infra-"umbilical, with kidney affections, and at the base of the bladder.
PART II.--INTRODUCTION.
P. 227.
But yet because I will humour J.S. for this once; even here also "The Dissuasive" relies upon a first and self-evident principle as any is in Christianity, and that is, "Quod primum verum."
I am surprised to meet such an a.s.sertion in so acute a logician and so prudent an advocate as Jeremy Taylor. If the "quod primum verum" mean the first preaching or first inst.i.tution of Christianity by its divine Founder, it is doubtless an evident inference from the a.s.sumed truth of Christianity, or, if you please, evidently implied therein; but surely the truth of the Christian system, composed of historical narrations, doctrines, precepts, and arguments, is no self-evident position, still less, if there be any tenable distinction between the words, a primary truth. How then can an inference from a particular, a variously proveable and proof-requiring, position be itself a universal and self-evident one?
But if "quod primum verum" means "quod prius verius," this again is far from being of universal application, much less self-evident. Astrology was prior to astronomy; the Ptolemaic to the Newtonian scheme. It must therefore be confined to history: yet even thus, it is not for any practicable purpose necessarily or always true. Increase in other knowledge, physical, anthropological, and psychological, may enable an historian of A.D. 1800 to give a much truer account of certain events and characters than the contemporary chroniclers had given, who lived in an age of ignorance and superst.i.tion.
But confine the position within yet narrower bounds, namely, to Christian antiquity. In addition to all other objections, it has this great defect; that it takes for granted the very point in dispute, whether Christianity was an "opus simul et in toto perfectum," or whether the great foundations only were laid by Christ while on earth, and by the Apostles, and the superstructure or progression of the work entrusted to the successors of the Apostles; and whether for that purpose Christ had not promised that his Spirit should be always with the Church.
Now this growth of truth, not only in each individual Christian who is indeed a Christian, but likewise in the Church of Christ, from age to age, has been affirmed and defended by sundry Lat.i.tudinarian, Grotian and Sociman divines even among Protestants: the contrary, therefore, and an inference from the supposition of the contrary, can never be p.r.o.nounced self-evident or primary.
Jeremy Taylor had nothing to do with these mock axioms, but to ridicule them, as in other instances he has so effectually done. It was sufficient and easy to shew, that, true or false, the position was utterly inapplicable to the facts of the Roman Church; that, instead of pa.s.sing, like the science of the material heaven, from dim to clear, from guess to demonstration, from mischievous fancies to guiding, profitable and powerful truths, it had overbuilt the divinest truths by the silliest and not seldom wicked forgeries, usurpations and superst.i.tions. J.S."s very notion of proving a ma.s.s of histories by simple logic, he would have found exposed to his hand with exquisite truth and humour by Lucian.
1810.
In the preceding note I think I took Taylor"s words in too literal a sense; the remarks, however, on the common maxim, "In rebus fidei, quod prius verius," seem to me just and valuable. 2. March, 1824.
Ib. p. 297.
When he talks of being infallible, if the notion be applied to his Church, then he means an infallibility antecedent, absolute, unconditionate, such as will not permit the Church ever to err.
Taylor himself was infected with the spirit of casuistry, by which saving faith is placed in the understanding, and the moral act in the outward deed. How infinitely safer the true Lutheran doctrine: G.o.d cannot be mocked; neither will truth, as a mere conviction of the understanding, save, nor error condemn;--to love truth sincerely is spiritually to have truth; and an error becomes a personal error, not by its aberration from logic or history, but so far as the causes of such error are in the heart, or may be traced back to some antecedent un-Christian wish or habit;--to watch over the secret movements of the heart, remembering ever how deceitful a thing it is, and that G.o.d cannot be mocked, though we may easily dupe ourselves: these, as the ground-work with prayer, study of the Scriptures, and tenderness to all around us, as the consequents, are the Christian"s rule, and supersede all books of casuistry, which latter serve only to harden our feelings and pollute the imagination. To judge from the Roman casuists, nay, I ought to say, from Taylor"s own "Ductor Dubitantium," one would suppose that a man"s points of belief and smallest determinations of outward conduct,--however pure and charitable his intentions, and however holy or blameless the inward source of those intentions or convictions in his past and present state of moral being,--were like the performance of an electrical experiment, and would blow a man"s salvation into atoms from a mere unconscious mistake in the arrangement and management of the apparatus.
See Livy"s account of Tullus Hostilius"s unfortunate experiment with one of Numa"s sacrificial ceremonies. The trick not being performed "secundum artem," Jupiter enraged shot him dead.[A] Before G.o.d our deeds, which for him can have no value, gain acceptance in proportion as they are evolutions of our spiritual life. He beholds our deeds in our principles. For men our deeds have value as efficient causes, worth as symptoms. They infer our principles from our deeds. Now, as religion or the love of G.o.d cannot subsist apart from charity or the love of our neighbour, our conduct must be conformable to both.
Ib. p. 305.
Only for their comfort this they might have also observed in that book,--that there is not half so much excuse for the Papists as there is for the Anabaptists; and yet it was but an excuse at the best, as appears in those full answers I have given to all their arguments, in the last edition of that book, among the polemical discourses in folio.
Nay, dear Bishop! but such an excuse, as compared with your after attempt to evacuate it, resembles a coat of mail of your own forging, which you boil, in order to melt it away into invisibility. You only hide it by foam and bubbles, by wavelets and steam-clouds, of ebullient rhetoric: I speak of the Anabaptists as Anti-paedobaptists.
Ib. s. i. p. 337.
"Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth; but I have called you friends, for all things I have heard from the Father I have made known to you."
I never thought of this text before, but it seems to me a stronger pa.s.sage in favour of Psilanthropism, or modern Socinianism,--a doctrine which of all heresies I deem the most fundamental and the worst (the impurities of madmen out of the question),--than I have ever seen, and far stronger than that concerning the day of judgment, which in its apparent sense is clearly high Arianism, or teaching the super-angelical, yet infra-divine, nature of Christ. We must interpret it [Greek: kat" a.n.a.logian piste_os], not as "all things" absolutely, but as "all things" concerning your interests, "all things" that it behoves you to know. Else it would contradict Christ"s words, "None knoweth the Father but the Son," that is, truly and totally. For Christ does not promise in this life to give us the same degree of knowledge as he himself possessed, but only a "quantum sufficit" of the kind. This is clear by St. John"s "all things," which a.s.suredly did not include either the discoveries of Newton or of Davy.
14 August, 1811.
Ib. s. iii. p. 348.
The Churches have troubled themselves with infinite variety of questions, and divided their precious unity, and destroyed charity, and instead of contending against the devil and all his crafty methods, they have contended against one another, and excommunicated one another, and anathematized and d.a.m.ned one another; and no man is the better after all, but most men are very much the worse; and the Churches are in the world still divided about questions that commenced twelve or thirteen ages since, and they are like to be so for ever, till Elias come, &c.
I remember no pa.s.sages of the Fathers nearer to inspired Scripture than this and similar ones of Jeremy Taylor, in which, quitting the acute logician, he combines his heart with his head, and utters general, and inclusive, and reconciling truths of charity and of common sense. All amounts but to this:--what is binding on all must be possible to all.
But conformity of intellectual conclusions is not possible. Faith therefore cannot reside totally in the understanding. But to do what we believe we ought to do is possible to all, therefore binding on all; therefore the "unum necessarium" of Christian faith. Talk not of bad conscience; it is like bad sense, that is, no sense; and we all know that we may wilfully lie till we involuntarily believe the lie as truth; but "causa causae est causa vera causati."
Ib. p. 347.
But if you mean the Catholic Church, then, if you mean her, an abstracted separate being from all particulars, you pursue a cloud, and fall in love with an idea and a child of fancy.
Here Taylor uses "idea" as opposed to image or distinct phantasm; and this is with few exceptions his general sense, and even the exceptions are only metaphors from the general sense, that is, images so faint, indefinite and fluctuating as to be almost no images, that is, ideas; as we say of a very thin body, it is a ghost or spirit, the lowest degree of one kind being expressed by the opposite kind.
Ib. p. 380.
"Miracles" were, in the beginning of Christianity, a note of true believers: Christ told us so. And he also taught us that Anti-Christ should be revealed in lying signs and wonders, and commanded us, by that token, to take heed of them.
An excellent distinction between a note or mark by which a thing already proved may be known, and the proofs of the thing. Thus the poisonous qualities of the nightshade are established by the proper proofs, and the marks by which a plant may be known to be the nightshade, are the number, position, colour, and so on, of its filaments, petals, and the rest.
Ib.
The "spirit of prophecy" is also a pretty sure note of the true Church, and yet...I deny not but there have been some prophets in the Church of Rome: Johannes de Rupe Scissa, Anselmus, Marsica.n.u.s, Robert Grosthead, Bishop of Lincoln, St. Hildegardis, Abbot Joachim, whose prophecies and pictures prophetical were published by Theophrastus Paracelsus, and John Adrasder, and by Paschalinus Regiselmus, at Venice, 1589; but (as Ahab said concerning Micaiah) these do not prophesy good concerning Rome, but evil, &c.