lasticis problematibus discrepantiam fratribus mutuò indulgere pertinaciter usque detrectemus? qui probè noverimus, quàm graves, horum respectu, errores (modo tales conceduntur) Servator noster benignissimus, in suis ipsius domesticis, silenter præterierit, mitissimèque tolerârit?

Tria omnino sunt, in quibus dissidere profitentur gravissimi utriusque partis Theologi:

Sat

PRIMUM illud est: sitne Dominus Jesus, non solùm juxta Divinam, sed etiam humanam naturam, vi unionis personalis, verè omniscius, omnipotens, omnipræsens? Esse quidem Dominum Jesum (Deum scil. et hominem) in utrâque naturâ suâ omniscium, omnipotentem, et omnipræsentem, utrisque in confesso est. Hôc dato, illud Juxta purè scholasticum est: quousque nimirum se extendat virtus unionis illius hypostaticæ, silet Spiritus, tutò nescit Christianus. Disputent, si volunt, Doctores, et problemate hôc ingenia, quantùm lubet, exerceant. erit homini Christiano, ut sciat, habere se Servatorem, eáv@pwTOV, cui omnia hæc divina attributa verè competant. Sed et Theologi ipsi habent in quo acquiescant, dummodo concessum hoc utrinque fuerit; etiam humanam naturam personaliter omnisciam, omnipræsentem, omnipotentem esse: quod nos omnes rotundè profiteri non dubitamus. O nos, osores pacis, si adhuc mavelimus litigare! In his omnibus, utinam animis nostris insideret illa Joh. Gersonis saluberrima distinctio: esse quædam de necessitate fidei, quædam verò de fidei devotione: de illis dubitare nefas; de his, absque omni periculo, vel éπéXew, vel aliter sentire licet.

SECUNDUM est de modo percipiendi Christum in Eucharistiâ. Inibi scilicet verè ac realiter exhiberi et manducari corpus Christi, unàque cum terrenis hisce elementis accipi, fatentur utrique. De indignis tantùm quæstio est. Indigna verò lis, quae pacem publicam interturbet! Facilè concedimus utrique, etiam indignos manducare istud, quod, unione Sacramentali, corpus Christi est; ac proinde reos esse corporis et sanguinis Jesu Christi; 1 Cor. xi. 27. Quid nunc ultra de orali indignorum manducatione litem movemus? Illud nempe curent Christiani, ut ipsi dignè communicent; de indignorum participatione parum solliciti sint. Quousque verò se extendat vis

among brethren for this slight difference that arises in the disputations of the Schools? while we know, moreover, how grievous errors, (for errors we grant they are,) in respect of these matters, our most gracious Saviour silently passed over, and most tenderly endured, even among those who lodged under the same roof with himself?

There are altogether three points, on which the most grave Divines of either party profess to differ:

THE FIRST is this: whether our Lord Jesus is, not only according to his divine, but also according to his human nature, by virtue of personal union, truly omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent? That the Lord Jesus (being both God and man) is in either nature, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, is allowed on both sides. This granted, that word, According to, is merely the phraseology of the Schools: for how far the virtue of that hypostatical union extends itself, the Holy Ghost says nothing, and the Christian can safely afford to remain in ignorance. Let Professors, if they choose, dispute, and exercise their skill, as far as may be agreeable, on this problem. It will be enough for the Christian to know, that he has a Saviour, God made man, with whom truly consist all these attributes of deity. But even Theologians themselves have something to agree upon, so long as this be conceded on both sides; that the human, as well as the divine nature, is personally omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent: a profession, which we hesitate not boldly and openly to avow. Oh, what haters must we be of peace, if we are still determined to contend! I would that, in all these cases, that most wholesome distinction drawn by John Gerson might rest upon our minds: that some things are of the necessity of faith, and some things of the devotion of faith; that on the former it is sin to doubt, but that on the latter a man may either hesitate or dissent without any danger.

THE SECOND point concerns the manner of apprehending Christ in the Eucharist. That in that ordinance the body of Christ is really and truly exhibited and eaten, and so, in conjunction with the elements of the earth, received, both parties acknowledge. The question is limited to the case of unworthy communicants: and verily, an unworthy strife it is, which tends only to disturb the public peace! Both of us readily grant, that even the unworthy eat that, which, by Sacramental union, is the body of Christ; and are therefore guilty of the body and blood of Jesus Christ; 1 Cor xi. 27. Why do we now unnecessarily stir up strife about the oral manducation of the unworthy? The concern of Christians ought to be, that they may communicate worthily themselves; and then they need not trouble themselves much about the participation of the unworthy. How

VOL. XI.

k k

unionis istius Sacramentalis, terminusque modi manducationis, sive oralis, sive spiritualis, litigent in scholis Theologi: non est quòd Christiani istud nimis anxiè disquirant; non est quòd, dum tam curiosa hæc opinionum momenta nobis mutuò indulgere recusamus, pax Ecclesiæ violetur.

TERTIUM est fatale illud Prædestinationis theorema, de quo variè sententiam suam exprimunt utriusque partis Theologi; modestè quidem prudenterque. In plurimis maximisque conspirant utrorumque judicia: nempe, liberrimam gratuitamque esse miserentis Dei Electionem; nullam, in electis, aut causam aut occasionem invenisse Deum, cujus intuitu hi potiùs quàm illi eligerentur: sed ab æterno Deum, in peccatis et infidelitate perseverantes, ad æternam damnationem prædestinâsse et reprobâsse; non rigido aliquo et absoluto decreto, absque omni respectu peccati, sed justissimo suo judicio; ita ut omnis sive causa sive culpa in hominibus ipsis meritissimò quærenda sit. In illo hærent: quòd gravissimi Theologi Saxonici prævisionem fidei ac perseverantiæ præstituunt actui Electionis divinæ; præordinâsse quippe ab æterno Deum, quos prævidit in tempore credituros, etc. Certè inter omnes de Prædestinatione quæstiones, levissima illa est, quæ de ordine decreti solet agitari: quandoquidem nobis certum sit, uno et simplicissimo actu, totum hoc ab Infinito et Sapientissimo Rerum Moderatore peragi. Nihil certius est, quàm Deum prævidisse credituros, et salvandos prædestinâsse: detur hoc modò, quod iidem Saxonici non illibentes profitentur, Fidem unicum Dei ipsius donum, et quicquid boni in electis sit, ex merâ liberrimâ Dei gratiâ, quæ illis in Jesu Christo ab æterno data fuit, originaliter provenire; nihil profectò esse potest periculi in illâ Prævisionis sententiâ. Præviderit ab æterno Deus, quod ipse ab æterno dare decrevit in tempore credituris. Tuta sunt istic omnia, nec est quòd iste contentionis funis ultra protrahatur.

In omnibus verò istis, exosculor piam hanc, ac verè fraternam, ἐπιεικείαν καὶ φιλησυχίαν. Sic nempe oportet Christianos, sic Theologos. Fallor, nisi modestia hæc, et tempestiva animorum sedatio, firmam perpetuamque Ecclesiæ pacem præsagiat. Annue tandem, ô Deus Pacis! Exaudi tuorum preces;

far the virtue of this Sacramental union reaches, and what are the respective limits of oral and spiritual manducation; these are topics, on which Divines may be left to battle in the Schools: there is no reason why Christians should discuss the subject with so much anxiety; there is no reason why, while we refuse mutually to indulge each other in these so minute and curious speculations, the peace of the Church should be violated.

THE THIRD is that fatal question of Predestination; on which the Divines of either party express their opinions differently; though both of them with modesty and discretion. On the most and greatest points, the judgments of both parties coincide to wit, that Election is the free and gratuitous act of a compassionate God; that God found no cause or occasion in the elect, at the sight of which, they, rather than others, should be chosen: but that God from eternity predestinated and reprobated to eternal damnation those who abide in sin and unbelief; yet not by any rigid and absolute decree, without respect of sin, but according to his own most just judgment; so that the whole cause, and the whole blame, is most properly to be sought in men themselves. This is the point, on which they quarrel: that the most venerable Divines of Saxony make the foreknowledge of faith and perseverance antecedent to the act of divine Election; that is to say, that God foreordained from eternity such as he foresaw would in time believe, &c. Certainly, among all the questions relative to Predestination, that is the least considerable, which is so often agitated, concerning the order of the decree: forasmuch as we know undoubtedly, that, by a single and most simple act, the whole of this transaction is accomplished by the Infinite and Most Wise Ruler of events. Nothing is more certain, than that God foresaw those that would believe, and predestinated them to salvation: only let this be granted, which the same Divines of Saxony are not unwilling to confess, That farth is the alone gift of God himself, and that whatsoever good there is in the elect, comes originally of the mere and most free grace of God, which was given them from eternity in Christ Jesus; and surely there can be no danger in that doctrine of Prevision. God may be said to have foreseen from eternity, what he himself decreed from eternity to give to those who should believe in time. Here, all things are safe, nor is there any reason why this cord of contention should be extended further.

In all these things, however, I welcome this pious and truly brotherly meekness and love of rest. So should all Christians, so should all Divines be. If I am not much mistaken, this modesty, and seasonable quieting of the minds of men, presages a firm and lasting peace to the Church. Be favourable unto us at length, O God of Peace! Hear the supplications of thy

faxisque, ut sit Christianis omnibus cor unum, via una, donec, Te Viam, perducamur ad Te Vitam! Amen, Amen.

per

Ita supplex assiduè et adnixè vovet,

Datum in Palatio Exon :

Februarii 25, 1634.

JOS. EXON.

Miserat ad Dominum Episcopum Exoniensem postmodùm idem D. Johannes Duraus exemplar Decreti cujusdam pii ac pacifici, in Conventu Ordinum Francofurtensi communibus votis hác de re sanciti ac promulgati; petieratque ipsius de modo ac ratione promovendi hujus sacri negotii judicium; tulitque subinde hoc responsum :

VIRO

INTEGERRIMO, DOCTISSIMO, AMICISSIMO,

D. JOHANNI DUREO,

SALUTEM PLURIMAM.

NoN sine summâ voluptate animi perlegi, mî Duræe, apographum Decreti illius Irenici, quod illustres Ordines ac Deputati Evangelici, in Francofurtensi Conventu, nuper unanimes consignârunt: quo nihil (ut mihi quidem videtur) prudentius, nihil religiosius excogitari potuit. Neque video quid (uti se res habent) vel sperari ultra potuerit; vel paci publicæ (quam tantopere sitimus boni omnes) provehendæ accommodatius proponi statuive. Sic nempe oportuit Sanctos Ecclesiæ cives, sic pios proceres, Christiani orbis concordiæ ac saluti studiosè providere. Benedictus verò sit boni omnis Largitor, pacis Author, Deus, qui salutares hasce curas, ac sana consilia, nobilissimis istorum pectoribus ingesserit! Idemque Summus Optimusque