this being that we are to enquire into let us see whether the Authorities I have brought have not the force I pretend against their Tenets And 1. LOMBARD writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time For having first asserted the real Presence in this Sacrament and the change which he supposed was made upon that account He goes on to that which the †Vind. p. 92. Vindicator is pleased to call a Scholastick Nicety and it was indeed at that time no other tho since become a matter of Faith Lombard l. 4. d. 11. lit A. p. 736. De modis Conversionis Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa Conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis desinire non sustineo Quibusdam esse videtur substantia is c. viz. What kind of Conversion is there made Whether formal or substantial or what else And for this he tells us freely He is not able to define it That some have thought it to be a SVBSTANTIAL CHANGE but for his part he will not undertake to determine it But 2dly SCOTVS is yet more free ‖ Dicendum says Scotus quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei Si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus Articuli cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem vericrem secundum apparentiam Dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae See 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 63. He declares our Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be the more easie and to all appearance the more true Insomuch that the Churches Authority is the * And before in Sect. Quantum ergo He profess'd Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet Romana Ecclesia In a Word Bellarmine himself cites Scotus for this Opinion Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767. L. D. Principal thing that moved him to receive their Doctrine †And again p. 768 L. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus quod minime probandum est Ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem He tells us that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very Ancient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran all which the Vindicator himself does in effect confess The same is Vind. p. 88. 3ly affirmed by * Suarez in 3 part D. Th. vol. 3 disp 50. § 1. p. 593. Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem Panis Vini in Corpus Sanguinem Christi Haec assertio est de fide Nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in Scriptura ea tamen docet Ecclesia ab Apostolis edocta docens simul ita esse intelligenda Verba formae in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri And then p. 594. col 2. adds 1mo Ex hac Fidei Doctrina colligitur corrigendos esse Scholasticos qui hanc Doctrinam de Conversione hac seu de Transubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos sunt Scotus Gabriel Biel lect 41. in Can. c. And then 2do infero Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi absentiam Panis neget tamen veram Conversionem unius in aliud in HAERESIN labi quia Ecclesia Catholica non solum duo priera sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet SVAREZ of GABRIEL and confess'd by the Vindicator who also contrary to his pretences calls this manner of Conversion an Assertion that is of Faith tho he confesses it is not expresly to be found in Scripture but deduced thence by the Interpretation of the Church Nay so opposite is he to the Opinion and Pretences of this Man that he declares in this very place which our good Author examined but amidst all his sincerity overlook'd this passage as not much for his purpose That if any one should confess the real Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Bread and yet deny the true CONVERSION of the one into the other he would fall into HEREST forasmuch as the Church has defined not only the two former but also the third likewise But 4thly The Prevarication of our Author in the next Citation is yet more unpardonable I affirmed That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper Sense of the Words the other might with as good reason have been received This he says is false Vind. p. 86. for that Cajetan says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article And then with wonderful assurance begins a rabble of Citations nothing to the purpose in the very next Words to those in which mine end For the better clearing of this Doctrine Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. p. 130. Col. 1. In comment circa praesentis sequentium Articulorum Doctrinam pro claritate ampliori intellectu difficultatum sciendum est ex Autoritate S. Scripturae de Existentia Corporis Christi in Sacramento Eucharistiae nihil aliud haberi expresse nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis Hoc est Corpus meum Oportet enim Verba haec vera esse Et quoniam verba sacrae Scripturae exponuntur dupliciter vel Proprie vel Metapherice Primus Error circa hoc fuit Interpretantium haec Domini Verba Metaphorice quem magister Sent. l. 4. d. 10. Tractat. Qui hoc Articulo reprobatur Et consistit VIS Reprobationis in HOC Quod verba Domini intellecta sunt ab ECCLESIA Proprie PROPTEREA oportet illa verificari proprie Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio c. Cited by the Vindicator says Cajetan we must know That as to the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist there is nothing to be had expresly from the Authority of the holy Scripture but the words of our Saviour saying This is my Body For it must needs be that these words are true and because the Words of Scripture may be expounded two ways either Properly or Metaphorically the first Error was of those who interpret these words Metaphorically which is rejected in this Article And the force of the Rejection consists in this That the words of our Saviour have been understood in their proper Sence by the Church and therefore must be properly true This the Vindicator was pleased to pass by tho' the very next words to those he cites Nay to say That Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appeal to any that should read it for the truth of it Should a Protestant have done this he would I believe have found out a great many hard Names for him to testifie his Zeal against Falshood and
may be dispensed with and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it prove neither damnable nor dangerous PART III. ARTICLE XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word AS to this Article Vindic. p. 100. there is indeed an Agreement between Monsieur de Meaux and Me so far as We handle the Question and keep to those general terms Of the Traditions being universally received by all Churches and in all Ages for in this Case We of the Church of England are perfectly of the same Opinion with them and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the Apostles with a like Veneration to that we pay to the written Word it self But after all this there is as the Vindicator observes a very material difference betwixt us viz. Who shall be judge when this Tradition is Vniversal He tells us Vind ibid. they rely upon the judgment of the present Church of every Age declaring her sense whether by the most General Council of that Age or by the constant practice and uniform voice of her Pastors and People And this is that to which he conceives every private person and Church ought to submit without presuming to examine how ancient that Tradition does appear to be or how agreeable it is to the Written Word of God Now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of Traditions for these two reasons 1. Because whether there were any such particular Doctrine or Practice received by the Primitive Church is a matter of fact and as such is in many cases distinctly set down by such Writers as lived in or near that first Age of the Church Now where the case is thus the Accounts that are given by these Writers are certainly to those who are able to search into them a better Rule whereby to judge what was an Ancient Doctrine and Tradition than either the Decree of a Council of a latter Age or the Voice and Practice of its Pastors and People For let these agree as much as they will in voting any Doctrine or Practice to have been Primitive yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing Men if the authentick Histories and Records of those times shew it to have been otherwise And this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the Councils and practised by the Pastors and People in the Roman Church we cannot look upon her late Decrees and Practices to be a good or a safe Rule for judging of the Antiquity or Vniversality of Church-Traditions But 2. There is yet a more cogent Reason against this Method which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and to give this Vnwritten Word the upper hand of the Written For according to this Method if the Church in any Age does but decree in Council or does generally Teach and Practice any thing as an ancient Tradition then this must obtain and be of force with all its Members tho' many of them should be perswaded that they cannot find it in nay that it is contrary to the Written Word of God Now this we cannot but look upon as an high affront to the Holy Scriptures And let them attribute as much as they please to the Decrees and Practices of their Church We cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon these grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the written Word of God In this Case we think it reasonable that the Church's Sentence should be made void and the Voice of her pretended Traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God ARTICLE XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church IN the two next Articles Vind. p. 101. concering the Authority of the Church I was willing to allow as much and come up as near to Mons de Meaux as Truth and Reason would permit This it seems made the Vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my Concessions But these his hopes are soon dasht when he finds me putting in some Exceptions and not willing to swallow the whole Doctrine as it is laid down in the Exposition Now the Exceptions that seem most to offend him are these 1. That the Church of Rome should be taken for a particular and not the Catholick Church 2. That She should be supposed as such either by Error to have lost or by other means to have prevaricated the Faith even in the necessary points of it 3. That any other Church should be allow'd to examine and judg of the Decisions of that Church 4. That it should be left to private or individual Persons to examine and oppose the Decisions of the whole Church if they are evidently convinced that their private belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Holy Word These are the Exceptions at which he is the most offended Vind. p. 103. The 1. of these he calls an Argument to elude the Authority of the Church of Rome and to shew the Fallacy of it he thinks it sufficient to say That they do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholick Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Now if this in truth be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholick Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholick as that of Rome it self For seeing it is the Purity or Orthodoxness of the Faith which is the bond of this Communion this renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholick with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocess and so makes it only a particular not the Vniversal Church But now should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of and that it were proper to understand by that name all those other Churches which are in Communion with her yet all this would not make her the whole or Catholick Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the World besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all Ages profess'd just the same Faith and continued just in the same Worship as She hath done And this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which have plainly for several Ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship So that in respect of these and the like Christian Churches which were not of her Communion She could not be looked upon as a Vniversal but only as a Particular Church Now if this be
Tradition of those before them I am content to give him that satisfaction For the First then That Monsieur Daillé himself look'd upon them as no other than such Addresses as I have characterized because * Expos Monsieur de Meaux pag. 4. §. 3. It will not be unuseful to take notice how those of the P. Reformation begin to acknowledge that the custom of Praying to Saints was established even in the fourth Age of the Church Monsieur Daillé grants thus much in that Book he publish'd against the Tradition of the Latin Church about the Object of Religious Worship Monsieur de Meaux has represented him as if he allow'd that the custom of praying to Saints was establish'd in the Church in the fourth Century I then cited his Opinion to the contrary and have now subjoyn'd it in his own words †Monsieur Daille's words are these Neque eum à vero longè aberraturum pato qui dixerit hunc fuisse apud Christianos primum ad Sanctos invocandos gradum cum calefacti atque inardescentes rerum praeclarè ab iis gestarum meditatione praedicatione atque exaggeratione animi ad eos denique Invocandos prorumperent Certè quae de 4º Seculo prima hujus Invocationis afferuntur Exempla ea ferè sunt hujus generis Ex Encomiasticis quorundam disertissimorum Eruditione Seculari florentissimorum hominum in Sanctos Orationibus desumpta Gregorii Nazianzeni in Cyprianum in Athanasium in Basilium Gregorii Nysseni in Theodorum qui ambo 4º sed jam praecipiti seculo celebres habebantur c. Adv. Lat. Tradit de cultas relig Objecto l. 3. c. 18. pag. 454. Secondly That these Addresses were really of this kind the several passages that are usually brought from these Fathers plainly shew And both the * The Examples I gave were from Greg. Naz. and they are these 1. Invectiv in Julian pag. 2. He thus bespeaks Constantius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon which the Greek Scholiast observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2dly Orat. 11. in Gorgon p. 189. l D. He thus addresses to his Sister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Examples I gave and the differences I assigned do abundantly prove it That they could not have allow'd of such an Invocation as is now practised in the Church of Rome I proved from this plain Argument * The opinion that the souls of just men do not go staright to Heaven seems to owe its rise to the Verses of the Sibylls which being very ancient within 140 years after Christ and by the most primitive Fathers taken for A thentick drew the whole stream of the Writers of those times into the same mistake Blondel in his Book of the Sibylline Oracles affirms l. 2. c. 9. p. 103. That all the Authors we have left us of the Second and as far as the middle of the Third Age were of that Opinion And adds that even in the following Ages many of those very men Monsieur de Meaux has alledged for the Invocation of Saints were involved very far in the same Error viz. S. Basil Ambrose Chrysostom and S. Augustine This is yet more fully shewn by Monsieur Daillè in his Book de Cult rel Obj. l. 3. c. 22. p. 474. seq and in another of his Rooks de Poenis Satisfact where to the Fathers last mentioned He adds S. Jerom l. 5 cap. 4 5 6. All which Sixtus Senensis himself confirms Bib. l. 6. annot 345. p. 569. and particularly as to the Fathers in question S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine p. 571 572. That they believed that the Saints departed were not admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their decease and therefore by the Papists own †Bellarm de Sanct. beat l. 1. c. 19. p. 2044. l. D. Not. est quia ante Christi adventum Sancti qui moricbantur non intrabant in Coelum nec Deum videbant vec cognoscere poterant ordinarie preces supplicantium ideo non fuisse consuetum in T. V. ut diceretur S. Abraham Ora pro me See again c. 20. p. 2060. l. B. Sect. atque ex his duabus collat cum pag. 2059. l. D. Sect. alii dicunt The same is Suarez's Opinion T. 2. in 3. D. Th. disp 42. Sect. 1. p. 435. col 1. l. E. Quod autem aliquis directâ— oraverit Sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent vel pro se orarent nusquam legimus Hic enim modus Orandi est proprius legis Gratiae in quo sancti videntes Deum possant etiam in Eo videre Orationes quae ad ipsos funduntur And this the common Doctrine of their Writers Confession ought to have believed that they could not be pray'd to To all which the Vindicator is pleased to return never a word In short That the Fathers of the fourth Century did herein begin to depart from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them I proved from this †This I before challeng'd the Answerer to do and he has not attempted it Bellarmin has but two within the first 300 Years One of Irenaeus mis-interpreted and one of Hilary as little to the purpose De Sanct. beat l. 1. c. 19. p. 2047 2043. That they are not able to produce any one instance of the three first Centuries of any such Invocation but rather have * So Cardinal Perron himself Repl. à la rep du Roy de la grande Eretagre liv 5. cap 11 19. Where he is forced to Monsieur de Meaux's shift of concluding from the following Ages what he could not prove from the preceding and at last to confess freely p. 1009. Quant aux Autheurs plus proches du siecle Apostolique des quels la persecution neusra ravis la pluspart des ecrits encore qu' il ne s'y trouve pas des Vestiges de cette coutûme _____ ill â—â—ffit _____ qu'it ne se trouve rien en leurs Ecrits de repugnant a l'Eglise de 4. premiers Conciles pour ce regard Which is no more than Monsieur de Meaux himself insinuates where to this very Assertion of Monsieur Daillé's I have made use of he has only this to say That 't is not likely that Monsieur Daillé should at this distance understand the sentiments of the Fathers of the first three Centuries better than those of the next Age did Expos Sect. 3. p. 4. All which he allow'd in express terms in his suppressed Edition See my Collect. n. 3 p. xxiii been forced to confess that nothing of that kind was to be found among them Besides that the Maxims of those Fathers concerning †I shall mention but two 1st That they constantly defined Prayer as due to God only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damascen c. And 2dly That it was the great Argument used by S.
they acted Neither had all they that were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing any assurance by that Cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins This again is false The Sin here promised to be forgiven is that for which the Sickness was sent if it was sent for any Now St. James expresly promise that in this case whenever the Health of the Body was restored this Sin should be forgiven too and therefore it must be false to say it was not He adds lastly That St. James promises that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up Which if it had been meant of bodily Health those only would have died in the Apostle's Time who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony And if it must be understood of the Soul's Health then it will follow that none were damned either then or now but what neglect this Advice or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Ceremony concerning the Truth of which the Vindicator may please to give us his Opinion But the Vanity of this Objection proceeds from the want of a true Notion of the Nature of these Gifts They who had the greatest measure of them could not yet exercise them when they would The same Spirit that helped them to perform the Miracle instructed them also when they should do it So that they never attempted it but when they saw the sick Person had Faith to be healed and that it would be for the greater Glory of God to do it St. Paul had doubtless this Gift of Healing and yet he neither cured Timothy of the weakness of his Stomach 1 Tim. 5.22 and his other frequent Infirmities and left Trophimus at Miletum sick 2 Tim. 4.20 That this Gift of Healing was in the Church at this time is not to be doubted though this place should not belong to it Will the Vindicator argue against this that then none died till it went out of the Church but such as refused the benefit of it or died suddenly before they had time to do it It may appear by this Vindicat. p. 69 70. how little they have to object against the true Design and Interpretation of this passage Nec ex verbis nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus à Discipulis exercendam in aegrotis Cajet Annot. in Loc. For Cardinal Cajetan's Authority the Vindicator tells us That had I said only that he thought it could not be proved neither from the Words nor the Effect that St. James speaks of the Sacramental Vnction of Extreme Vnction but rather of that Vnction which our Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick I had been a faithful Quoter of his Sense But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other is to impose upon him and the Readers As if when two Things only are in controversy for the Cardinal absolutely to exclude the one and apply it to the other were not in effect for I design'd not to translate his words to confess that it could belong only to that But that which is most considerable is that the Antient Liturgies of the Church and the publick practice of it for above 800 Years shew that they esteemed this Vnction to belong primarily to bodily Cures and but secondarily only to the sickness of the Soul And because these Rituals are not in every bodies hands to argue at once the truth of my Assertion and shew how little conversant the Vindicator has been in them I will here insert some particular proofs of it Upon the Thursday in the Holy Week when this Oil was wont to be consecrated they did it with this Prayer Ex S. Gregorii Libr. Sacram. p. 66. Fer. 5. post Palm Emitte domine Spiritum S. tuum paraclitum de Coelis in hanc pinguedidem Olivae quem de Viridi ligno producere dignatus es ad refectionem Corporis ut tuâ sanctâ benedictione sit omni hoc unguentum tangenti tutamen Mentis Corporis ad Evacuandos omnes Dolores omnesque infirmitates omnem aegritudinem corporis That by this Blessing it might become the Defence both of the Mind and Body The same is in effect the Prayer of the Greek Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euch. p. 863. Nor is it much different in that publish'd by Thomasius as P. Gelasius's Ritual before P. Gregories upon the same day p. 69. only that he generally joins Mentis Corporis to cure all Pains and Infirmities and sickness of the Body nothing else mentioned In the Office of Visiting the Sick several Introductory Prayers all for the Bodies Recovery are first said such as this pag. 251 c. Ad visitand infirm p. 251. Deus qui famulo tuo Hezekiae ter quinos Annos ad vitam donâsti ita famulum tuum N. à lecto aegritudinis tua potentia erigat ad salutem Per. O God who didst add to the 〈…〉 thy Servant Hezekiah fifteen Years let thy Power in like manner raise up this thy Servant from his Bed of Sickness Through c. Some of these being said the Priest goes on thus Domine Deus qui per Apostolum locutus es Infirmatur quis in Vobis S. James 5.14 15. inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae orent super eum ungentes eum oleo Sancto in Nomine Domini c. Cura quaesumus Redemptor noster gratiâ Spiritûs Sancti languores istius Infirmi sua sana vulnera ejusque dimitte peccata atque dolores cunctos cordis corporis expelle plenamque interius exteriusque sanitatem miserecorditer redde ut ope miserecordiae tuae restitutus Sanatus ad pristina Pietatis tuae reparetur Officia Per c. O Lord God who by thy Apostle hast said If any Man be sick let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord c Cure we beseech thee O our Redeemer by the Grace of the Holy Spirit the sickness of this infirm Person Heal his Wounds and forgive his Sins and expel all the Pains both of his Heart and of his Body and restore him mercifully to full health both inward and outward that being by thy merciful Aid Recovered and Healed he may be strengthned to the former Duties of thy Service Through c. Then the sick Person kneels down upon the right Hand of the Priest and this Antiphona is sung Dominus locutus est Discipulis suis In Nomine meo Daemonia ejicite super Infirmos manus vestras imponite bene habebunt Psalm Deus Deorum Dominus locutus est Et repetit In Nomine meo c. The Lord said unto his Disciples In my Name
Unsincerity and shew what a kind of Religion that must be Vind. p. 222. that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But I shall remit him wholly to the Reader 's Censure and his own Conscience for Correction As for my last Assertion Vindic. p. 88. That Transubstantiation was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after Christ They are the very words of Scotus cited by Bellarmine See p. 64. and all his Sophistry will not be able to prove that they make but little for my purpose Thus notwithstanding all the little Endeavours of the Vindicator to evade the truth of those Concessions made by the greatest of his own Communion in favour of our Doctrine my Argument still stands good against them and Transubstantiation appears to have been the monstrous Birth of these last Ages unknown in the Church for almost 1200 years Vind. p. 92 93. For what remains concerning the Adoration of the Host since he has thought fit to leave my Arguments in their full force I shall not need say any thing in defence of that which he has not so much as attempted to destroy ARTICLE XIX Of the Sacrifice of the Mass IF I affirmed Vindic. p. 94. The Sacrifice of the Mass to be one of those Errors that most offends us I said no more than what the Church of England has always thought of it And had the Vindicator pleased to have examined my Arguments instead of admiring them he would perhaps have found I had reason to do so * Canon 1. Siquis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo verum proprium Sacrificium aut quod offerri non fit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari Anathema fit * Canon 3. Siquis dixerit Missae Sacrificium tantum esse laudis gratiarum actionis aut nudam commemorationem Sacrificii in Cruce peracti non autem Propitiatorium vel soliprodesse sumenti neque pro Vivis Defunctis pro peccatis paenis satisfactionibus aliis necessitatibus offerri debere Anathema sit The Council of Trent affirms Concil Trid. Sess 22. p. 196. de Missa That the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice offered to God a Sacrifice not only of Praise and Thanksgiving nor yet a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross but truly Propitiatory for the Dead and the Living and for the Sins Punishments Satisfactions and other Necessities of both of them †Ibid. Cap. 2. p. 191. Una eademque est Hostia idem nunc offerens Sacerdotum Ministerio qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit sola offerendi ratione diversa A Sacrifice wherein the same Christ is now offered without Blood that once offer'd himself in that bloody Sacrifice of the Cross the same Sacrifice the same Offerer Christ by his Priests now who then did it by himself offering himself only differing in the manner of Oblation This is in short what their Council has defined as to this Mass-Sacrifice and what we think we have good reason to be offended at That there should be any true and proper Sacrifice truly and properly Propitiatory after that of the Cross that Christ who once offer'd up himself upon the Tree for us should again be brought down every day from Heaven to be Sacrificed a new in ten thousand places at a time on their Altars And by all these things so great a dishonour done to our Blessed Lord as most evidently there is and our Writers have unanswerably proved in the whole design Practice and Pretences of it How little the Doctrine of the real Presence Vindicat. ib. as understood by the Church of England will serve to support this Innovation is at first sight evident from the Exposition I before gave of it That those who are ordained Priests ought to have power given them to Consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ and make them present in that holy Eucharist after such a manner as our Saviour appointed and as at the first Institution of this Sacred Mystery they certainly were this we have always confessed and our †In the ordering of Priests when the Bishop imposes his hands he bids him be a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments And again when he delivers him the Bible Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments c. Sparrow Collect. p. 158. Rituals shew that our Priests accordingly have such a Power by Imposition of Hands conferred on them But that it is necessary to the Evangelical Priesthood that they should have power to offer up Christ truly and properly as the Council of Trent defines this we deny and shall have reason to do so till it can be proved to us that their Mass is indeed such a Sacrifice as they pretend and that our Saviour left it as an Essential part of their Priesthood to offer it For the rest Vindic. p. 95. If with the Council of Trent he indeed believes the Mass to be a true and proper Sacrifice he ought not to blame us for taking it in that Sence in which they themselves understand it For certainly it is impossible for words to represent a Sacrifice more strictly and properly than the Council of Trent has defined this ARTICLE XX. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews TO elude the authority of this Epistle Vindicat. p. 96 97. the Vindicator after Monsieur de Meaux thinks it sufficient to tell us That they understand the word Offer when they apply it to the Mass Mr. de M's Expos p 31. in a larger signification than what the Apostle there gives it as when we are said to offer up to God whatever we present before him And that 't is thus they pretend to offer up the Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Mass Vind. p. 96. in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him That this is to prevaricate the true meaning of that phrase the Doctrine of the foregoing Article plainly shews If Christ be in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice as was there said it will necessarily follow that then he must be truly and properly sacrificed ‖ Sacrificium verum reale veram realem Occisionem exigit quando in Occisione ponitur Essentia Sacrificii Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. cap. 27. p. 1663. A. And one essential Propriety and which they tell us distinguishes a Sacrifice from any other Offering being the true and real destruction of what is offered insomuch that where there is not a true and proper destruction neither can there be as they themselves acknowledg a true and proper Sacrifice It must be evidently false in these men to pretend that by Offering in this matter is meant only a presenting of Christ before God and not a real change and destruction of his Body offered by them If in this Exposition of their Doctrine
so then the Vindicator himself allows Vind. p. 102. 2dly That a Particular Church may either by Error lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in the necessary points of it Indeed that promise of our Saviour Matt. 16.18 That the gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church seems on all hands acknowledged to refer to his whole Church not to any one particular Branch or Portion And therefore tho' the particular Church of Rome should have fallen into gross Errors both in matters of Faith and Practice yet the Catholick Church of Christ may still as to other of its members retain so much Truth and Purity as to keep it from falling away or being guilty of an intire Infidelity And then for the 3d. Exception The allowing any other Particular Church to examine and judg of the Decisions of this Church of Rome If She her self be but a particular Church and has no more Command or Jurisdiction over the Faith of other Churches than they have over hers then every other National Church is as much impow'red to judg for her self as She is and has an equal right to examine her Decisions as those of other Churches and may either receive or reject what by Gods Grace directing her She Judges to agree or disagree with his Holy Word Nor do's one Branch of Christ's Church in this respect invade the Prerogative of another since they do herein only follow the Apostles Rule in trying all things and holding fast that which is good But the 4th Exception he says Vind. p. 102. is yet more intollerable than all the rest That it should be left to every individual Person not only to examine the Decisions of the whole Church but also to glory in opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word Ibid. p. 103. This he says is a Doctrine which if admitted will maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World These indeed are very ill Consequences but such as do not directly follow from this Doctrine as laid down in my Exposition For 1st I allow of this Dissent or Opposition only in necessary Articles of Faith where it is every Mans concern and duty both to judg for himself and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able And 2dly As I take the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to be made so do I suppose these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial Enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion Now these two things being supposed that in matters of Faith a man is to judg for himself and that the Scriptures are a clear and sufficient rule for him to judg by it will plainly follow That if a man be evidently convinced upon the best Enquiry he can make that his particular Belief is founded upon the Word of God and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in Opposition to that of the Church And the Reason of this must be very evident to all those who own not the Church but the Scriptures to be the ultimate rule and guide of their Faith For if this be so then individual Persons as well as Churches must judg of their Faith according to what they find in Scripture And tho it be highly useful to them to be assisted in the making of this Judgment by that Church of which they are Members yet if after this Instruction they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith between the Voice of the Church and that of the Scripture they must stick to the latter rather than the former they must follow the superior not inferior Guide And however this method may through the Ignorance or Malice of some men be liable to some Abuse yet certainly in the main it is most Just and Reasonable and most agreeable to the Constitutions of the Church of England which do's not take upon her to be Absolute Mistress of the Faith of her Members See Article 20. but allows a higher Place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions As to the Authority by which I back'd this Assertion viz. that of St. Athanasius tho' it is not doubted but that that Expression of his being against the whole World and the whole World against him did refer chiefly to the Eastern Bishops and was not so literally true as to those of the West yet if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and Sirmium and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith sent to him from Ariminum and was for that reason deposed from his Bishoprick and banished out of Italy yet afterwards when the Emperor Constantius sent for him to Sirmium and required his assent to a form of Faith in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted Sozomen Eccl. Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. he yielded thus far and was thereupon restored to his Bishoprick I say if we consider these and the like Particulars related by the Church Historians we shall have little reason to believe that the Western Bishops or even the Pope himself did throughly adhere to the Faith of St. Athanasius and therefore that neither was He or I much in the wrong in affirming That he stood up in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils and almost the whole Church fell away ARTICLE XXVI Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy IN this Article the Vindicator is pleased to declare that he has nothing to say against the Opinion of the Church of England Vindic. p. 106. only he thinks fit to advise me to enquire What that Authority is which the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give the Pope Indeed a very little inquiry will serve the turn to let a man see that their Pope do's at this day lay claim to a great deal more than those Councils or Fathers did ever allow him And we should be glad he would direct us to those places either in the first Councils or the Primitive Fathers where the Pope is stiled the Vniversal Bishop or the Supreme Head on Earth of the whole Christian Church where it is said That he is Christs immediate Vicar and that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him These are things which he do's now pretend to but we can find no Footsteps of them in the first Councils or Fathers of the Church On the contrary we find innumerable passages which