NO LONGER that which Nature fram'd viz. bread and wine but that which the Benediction of Consecration hath made it to be What 's that but the Body and Bloud of Christ adding further thus you will say perhaps I see an other thing Why do you tell me Jreceiue the Body of Iesus Christ How many Examples haue wee to proue that the force of Benediction is greater then that of Nature seeing that by Benediction euen nature it selfe is often changed Againe also This bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but when Consecration comes OF BREAD IT IS MADE THE FLESH OF CHRIST They that desire to see more testimonies to confirme this truth may finde them in Bellarmin libr. 3. de Eucharist cap 20. and in diuerse other Catholique Authours Euen the words of scripture it selfe taken in their proper and literall sense doe euidently shew that the only substance which is deliuer'd in this Sacrament is the Body of Christ and that the substance of bread is no more there For as he that pointing to an hogs-head of wine sayes this is wine and he that holding vp a purse-full of money says this is gold if he intends to speake truth must signify that the only liquour contain'd sub propria forma in the hogs-head is wine and all the money in the purse gold so our Sauiour Christ by saying this is my Body must giue vs to vnderstand that all the substance contained vnder the accidents he shew'd was his Body which could not be true vnless the substance of bread were changed into Christs Body or ceased to be in the Sacrament There 's a great deale of difference between these two propositions here is gold and this is gold He that holds a handfull of money of which halfe is gold and halfe syluer may truly say here is gold but he cannot truly say this is gold So is it in the B. Sacrament If there were both the substance of bread and of the Body of Christ in it wee might truly say shewing the Sacrament here is the Body of Christ or this is bread and the Body of Christ but not this is the Body of Christ. Seeing therfore our Sauiour at this last supper speaking of the Sacrament sayd this is my Body the meaning of his words must needs be that in what he then shewed there was no other substance but that of his Body whence it followes that there was a true conuersion of the substance of the bread which ceased to be any longer vnder the species of bread into the Body of Christ. 4. An other pretended errourof a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope is that of administring the B. Sacrament to the Layty vnder one kinde only of which wee hauc already spoken what may suffice in the precedent chapter Neuertheless to that little which the Relatour adds here wee answer briefly The authority of St. Thomas brought by the Bishop makes rather for vs then against vs. For he tells vs 't was a custome prouidently obserued in some Churches not to giue the Sacrament in forme of wine to the Laity His words are Prouidè in quibusdam Ecclesijs obseruatur vt populo Sanguis non detur This Prouision was made to auoyd the danger of spilling and other inconueniences which likewife mou'd the Council of Constance to make a Generall Decree to the same purpose although it be certain that not only in St. Thomas his time but in all times of the Church it were both publiquely allowed and commonly by some practised euen in Churches to receiue vnder one kinde only For otherwise how is it possible that the Manichees who by the principles of their Heresie neuer dranke wine nor communicated vnder the Forme of wine should yet finde liberty and opportunity to Communicate amongst Catholiques in Catholique Churches without beeing perceiu'd as 't is certaine they frequently did in St. Leo's time and after Likewife t is euident that all Heremites in the wildernefs communicated often vnder one kinde only So did trauellers in their iourneyes Sicke persons in their beds and others at home in their howses Lastly Children in the Church and little infants at home in their cradles in forme of wine only Wee grant that in ancient times when the number of Christians was but small it was the ordinary custome for all that would the Laity as well as others to receiue the Eucharist in both kindes but wee auerre this custome proceeded meerly out of free denotion and not out of any beleefe that it was absolutely necessary so to doe by vertue of Christs precept or that it was contrary to the substance of Christs institution to doe otherwise This therfore euinces not that which the Bishop was obliged to proue namely that receiuing vnder one kinde only is an errour contrary to the institution and intention of Christ but rather the contrary to that is manifest from the practice of the Church which always euen in the first fiue or six hundred years allowed it publiquely to be taken vnder the forme of bread only and that as well in the Church as out of it as Bellarmin likewise more largely shews lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 24. Whose authorities the Bishop shoul haue taken notice of and not thought it sufficient only to say this and that is an errour and contrary to Christs institution without shew of proofe For wee tell him the vniuersall practice of the Church is a better interpreter of Christs institution then the Bishop or any priuate person whatsoeuer and so wee doubt not but all sober-minded Christians not too much peruerted with Hereticall preiudice will in time acknowledge Howeuer the Relatour by his silence as to this particular giues vs leaue to goe on and consider his fourth obiected errour viz. Inuocation of Saynts to which he adds a fift also Adoration or worship of Images both of them wee confess beeing points admitted and defin'd by the Council of Trent which the Pope confirm'd 5. Against the Jnuocation of Saynts he tells vs in the first place that what the Fathers haue in fauour of it is only Rhetoricall flourishes for the stirring vp of deuotion as they thought Very good When the Fathers deliuer Propositions soe cleerly for vs that it is not possible for our aduersaries to wrest them to any contrary sense then all 's but Rhetorique and Hyperbolicall straines of 〈◊〉 but when they speake any thing that beares some shew against vs then they are dogmaticall that 's positiue Diuinity and the reall sense of the Fathers Is not this faire dealing But in the meane time how can it seeme to any that duly considers it but most extreamely partiall and strange to terme so many exhortations so many plaine and positiue assertions so many instances examples histories reports and the like which the Fathers frequently vse and afford in this kinde and that vpon occasions wherein dogmaticall and plaine deliuery of Christian doctrine and truth is expected
say's the Bishop the Romanists will not endure because St. Thomas and the schoole generally agree in it that he went really no further then LIMBVS PATRVM I answer by denying his proposition There is no such agreement of parties as the Bishop pretends though the Church of Rome and the Church of England doe both agree that our Sauiour descended into hell yet they doe not both agree that by hell eyther in the Creed or in all places of Scripture where hell is mentioned is vnderstood the place of the damned Here therfore our aduersarie cleerly disputes ex falso supposito and the argument in truth may be much better retorted vpon himselfe thus Both parties agree that Christ descended into hell but both parties doe not agree that by hell is vnderstood here the place of the damned for the greater and better part of Diuines hold the contrary ergo 't is safer not to beleeue that he descended into the place of the damned then positiuely to assert it as some English Protestants doe His next instance is about the Sacraments beeing receiu'd in both kindes and as little to the purpose as the former For though wee agree that our Sauiour instituted the Sacrament that is made it himselfe and ordain'd it to be made by his Ministers in both kindes yet wee neither agree that he instituted with intention or gaue any command that it should be always receiu'd in both kindes by all the Faythfull nor doe wee grant possibility of Saluation to any that out of priuate Hereticall persuasion holds it ought to be receiu'd by all or out of contempt of the Churches order to the contrary doe receiue it in both kindes Our Sauiour gaue it in one kinde only to the two Disciples at Emmaus Lucae 24. as both St. Austin St. Chrysostome St. Hierome Theophylact and others of the Ancients witness whose example the Church following alwayes allowed the vse and manner of receiuing this Sacrament free as to the Faythfull viz. eyther to receiue it in both kindes if their deuotion inclin'd them thereto or only in one in case they desired no more till of later times the custome of receiuing it in forme of bread only growing more generall and inconueniences of receiuing it in both kindes multiplying the Council of Constance totally abrogated the manner of receiuing it in forme of wine and inioyn'd what is now in vse Whence likewise it appeares 't was not iniuriously as the Bishop pretends but iustly requir'd of the Bohemians not to condemne the practice of the Church for receiuing in one kinde when she dispensed with them to receiue in both To what he obiects against the doctrine of concomitancy inuented as he sayes by St. Thomas of Aquin and contrary to truth for that the Eucharist is a Saerament of Bloud shed and powred forth and not of Bloud contained in the Body I answer that howeuer the term it selfe might perhaps be first vsed by the Angelicall Doctour yet the thing thereby signify'd was always the constant doctrine of the Catholique Church which euer taught that by Consecration vnder each species the entire Sacrament or whole Christ was putt and therfore vnder each of them as well the Body as the Bloud and as well the Bloud as the Body was contain'd notwithstanding it be certaine that the precise words in the Consecration of bread express noe more then Christs Body nor those vsed in the Consecration of the chalice any more then Christs Bloud Wherfore to shew what is in the Sacrament by force of the precise words of Consecration and what by vertue of naturall connexion or vnion Diuines commonly make vse of this distinction ex vi verborum and per Concomitantiam Ex vi verborum or by vertue of the precise words of Consecration Christs Body only is vnder the forme of bread and his Bloud only vnder the forme of wine but per Concomitantiam by reason of naturall connexion or vnion wherby the parts of Christs Humanity are neuer to be diuided one from an other the Bloud is vnder the forme of bread also and his Body vnder the forme of wine and his foule and diuinity or Godhead vnder both And this the Bishop must grant if he hold the reall presence except he would haue vs thinke that Christ is dead in the Sacrament contrary to St. Paul who plainly tolls vs Rom. 6. 9. He dyes no more As for the Priest that consecrates there is a double necessity for him to receiue vnder both kindes The first is gathered from Christs words spoken to his Apostles at the institution of this Sacrament and interpreted to vs by the vniuersall doctrine and practice of the Church The second grounded vpon the nature of the thing which is not only a Sacrament to be distributed amonge the Faythfull but a true proper and perfect Sacrifice representing that vpon the Cross where not only Christs Body was Crucifyed but also his Bloud was shed for vs. And therfore the Priest who offers this Sacrifice of the Altar must not only consecrate in both kindes but receiue in both kindes to compleate the sacrifice His third instance is about the Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist wherein he pretends that they and wee agree But this is false speaking in the Protestants sense or of such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice as excludes that which is reall and proper Where did Catholiques euer agree with Protestants that it was not 〈◊〉 sin in them to deny the true reall and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist or that they might be saued acknowledging only such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist as they doe Lett one only Author of the Roman Church be named who teaches this or that bread broken and wine powred out vnderstanding naturall and substantiall bread and wine as the Bishop must doe according to Protestant principles were in true and proper sense a Commemoratiue Sacrifice amongst Christians For this were to say in effect that Christians vnder the Gospell did really Sacrifice to God naturall bread and wine and therby adde another Sacrifice to that of Christs Body which were a very gross errour In his fourth about the intention of the Priest in Baptisme he lapses againe For what wee agree with Protestants in wee stand to as most safe to be done in order to Saluation Now this is only in the present case that due matter and forme must necessarily be vsed for the validity of Baptisme Doe any of vs or can any man deny but it is safer in order to Saluation to vse due matter and forme in the Sacrament of Baptisme then not to vse them The Bishop indeed would gather from hence that wee must also account due matter and forme sufficient without intention But this is more then the rule obliges vs to doe The rule certainly bindes A. C. to no more then to acknowledge the thing wherein differing parties agree to be saser then the contrary or negatiue of it which wee doe
the Sea Apostolique touching the matter and by consequence doe not in this case so fully represent the chiefe Pastour of the Church but that this further confirmation is necessary Jn this therfore and in all other like cases 't is necessary that the Pope doe actually confirme the Decrees of Generall Councils to make them infallible or that it may be infallibly certaine to vs that such or such a Generall Council err'd not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Fayth So that Exclusiuely to the Popes consent or confirmation wee can neuer be infallibly certain which hath happened till the Pope ioynes and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council Wee may express the matter in some sort by the kings consent to Acts of Parlament Le Roy veut added to a Bill presented from both Howses makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdome which before it was not Soe the Popes consent or confirmation added to the definitions of Generall Councils makes them articles of Christian Beleefe no longer now to be questioned much less contradicted by any but absolutely to be beleeu'd with infallible Fayth Now this presupposed wee answer the Relatours argument directly thus To the first part of it if the Councill erred c. wee agree with him the Pope ought not to confirme the Decree adding more ouer that it is impossible he should confirme it And to the second viz. that if it erred not then the definition was true before the Pope confirm'd it wee confess this also for the Popes confirmation makes not the definition to be true in it selfe but it makes vs infallibly certaine that it is true Gods Reuelation it selfe towitt of the things deliuer'd in scripture makes them not to be true in themselues for so they are and were whether he had reuealed them or no but it makes them infallible truths to vs or such truths as both may and must be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians So wee say the doctrine of Generall Councils was true in it selfe before the Popes confirmation but it was not so sufficiently and infallibly declar'd that it could be beleeu'd with an act of true Christian Fayth that Prerogatiue belonging to Decrees of Generall Councils only as they include the Head of the Church and not otherwise But whereas then the Bishop inferrs that the Popes confirmation adds nothing but only his own consent to the Councils decree wee vtterly deny the consequence especially vnderstanding it in the Relatours sense viz. for no more then the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch For wee auerre that it is the assent of the Chiefe Pastour of the Church absolutely necessary to the compleating and giuing full force to the acts of such Councils and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility or absolute Certaintie of truth to all their decrees in matter of Fayth which surely is more then nothing 3. Well But now the Relatour aduances againe with his instances to witt of pretended errours in the doctrine of Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope thence concluding against vs that euen the Popes confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils infallible The errour 〈◊〉 obiects is against the Council of Lateran confirm'd by Pope Innocent the Third where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation which as the Bishop affirms was neuer heard of in the Church before this Council nor can it Sayth he be prou'd by Scripture and taken properly is inconsistent with the grounds of Christian religion But first what a strange manner of proceeding is this to assert a point of so great importance without soluing or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs our Authours bring both out of scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he so mainly affirmes The Relatour should not haue sayd but prou'd that Transubstantiation is an errour contrary to scripture and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion at least he should haue cleer'd his own Assertion and in some manner or other haue explain'd how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly as his words insinuate But surely this was a conception of the Bishops so new and singular that 't will hardly finde any defendants Of all the words which the Church vseth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion there is none methinks less apt to be peruerted to a Metaphoricall or Figuratiue sense then this of Transubstantiation Wee deny not but this terme or word Transubstantiation was first publiquely Authoris'd in the sayd Council of 〈◊〉 as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby our Sauiours Eternall and Consubstantiall Deity is signifyed was in the Council of Nice and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Diuine Incarnation was in the Council of Ephesus But for the thing it selfe signified by this terme which is a reall conversion of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into his Bloud 't is cleere enough that it was euer held for a Diuine Truth Witness S. Cyprian or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist sayth This common Bread CHANG'D JNTO FLESH AND BLOVD giueth life and againe The Bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples BEEING CHANG'D not in its outward forme or semblance but in its inward NATVRE or substance for so the word Nature must and doth always signifie when 't is oppos'd to the Accidents or Qualities of any thing by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH Witness St. Gregory Nyssen With good reason doe wee beleeue sayth he that the Bread of the Eucharist beeing Sanctifyed by Gods word viz. the words of Consecration is CHANG'D into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD and a little after The nature of the things wee see beeing TRANSELEMENTED into him What can here be fignify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element but what the Church now stileth Transubstantiation Witness S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserue our Beleefe that he hath also changed wine into Blou'd wherfore let vs receiue with all assurance of Fayth the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ Seeing vnder the SPECIES or Forme of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN and vnder the SPECIES or Forme of wine HIS BLOVD IS GIVEN c. knowing and holding for certaine that the bread which wee see IS NOT BREAD though it SEEME TO THE TAST to be Bread but THE BODY of Iesus Christ likewise that the wine which wee see though to the sense it SEEME to be wine is NOT WINE for all that but the Bloud of Iesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholique to express his own or the Churches beleefe of this Mystery in more full plaine and effectuall terms witness also S. Ambrose who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated sayth IT IS
in this point upon this particular Text or no is little material 'T is sufficient they acknowledge the thing we contend for viz. the Prerogative of Infallibility and Immunity from errour in the Church and that they generally derive it from our Saviours special Promises unto the Church and his Presence with it which Presence and Promises this Text with others of like nature do clearly contain as the Bishop himself acknowledges Wherefore with far greater reason we return the challenge upon himself and press the Relatours party to produce any one Father that ever deny'd the sense of this place to reach to infallible assistance granted thereby to all the Apostles Successours in such manner as we maintain it The like answer of our satisfies his exposition of the third place John 14. 16. For what was promis'd there for ever must in some absolute sense so far as is necessary to the preservation of the Church from errour be verified in future ages He frames also an answer to a fourth place viz. John 16. 13. which speaks of leading the Apostles into all truth This he restrains to the persons of the Apostles onely And he needs not tells us so often of simply all For surely none is so simple as not to know that without his telling it But we contend that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart 't is also to be understood in relation to their Successours assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church 5. Now one main reason of this difference between the Apostles and succeeding Pastours of the Church I take to be this that every Apostle apart had receiv'd an immediate Power from our Saviour over the whole Church so that whatever any one of them taught as Christian Faith all the Church was oblig'd to believe and consequently had he err'd in any thing the whole Church would have been oblig'd to follow and believe that errour Whereas on the other side the succeeding Bishops generally speaking were not to be Pastours of the whole Church but each of his own respective Diocess so that if particular Pastours preach'd any errour in Faith the whole Church was unconcern'd in it having no obligation to believe them But in regard those respective Pastours when they are assembled in a lawful Representative or General Council are in quality of the Pastours of the whole Church if they should erre in such a body the whole Church would be oblig'd to erre with them which is against the promises of our Saviour Hence also it follows in proportion that the Bishop of Rome being Pastour of the whole Church when he teacheth any thing in that quality viz. as Pastour of the whole Church and intending to oblige the whole Church by his Definition cannot in the common opinion erre for the same reason 6. To give also the Fundamentall Reason for this Exposition one and that a certain way to know when our Saviours words spoken immediately to the Apostles are to be extended to their Successours in all ages is this that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christs words in future ages no less then it requir'd it in the Apostles times then we are to understand that his words extend themselves to those ages unless there be some express limitation added to his words tying them to the Apostles onely Thus when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to Preach Baptize Remit sins Feed their Flocks c. Seeing these actions are as necessary for all future ages as they were in the Apostles time 't is manifest they were to reach to all succeedinga ges Again in regard he also promised John 16. 13. to lead the Apostles by his Holy Spirit into all truth and seeing 't is as necessary now for those who act as Pastours of the whole Church as all succeeding Bishops do when they meet in a lawful Oecumenicall Council to be led into all those truths into which he promis'd to lead the Apostles for the reason but now alledged it evidently follows by vertue of our Saviours promise that they are alwayes and effectually so led And though it would be boldness as the Relatour terms it to enlarge that promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles so far as to give to every single succeeding Bishop as Infallible a leading into all truth as each of the Apostles had yet may it without any boldness at all be affirmed that the succeeding Bishops assembled as abovesaid have an infallible leading into all truth as being then Representative Pastours of the whole Church to teach and instruct her what she is to believe St. Austins words therefore which the Bishop cites calling them in a manner Prophetical are not with the least shadow of reason applyable to us but to a world of Phanaticks sprung from the stock of Protestancy and who still pass under the general notion of Protestants And this I may boldly assert in regard 't is clear that the said great Saint and Doctor held the self-same Doctrine we here maintain while for instance he accounts our obligation to communicate Fasting to have proceeded from the Holy Ghost of which Will of the Holy Ghost we are not ascertain'd by any Text of Scripture but by the Church alone 'T is manifest sayes he that when the Disciples first received the Body and Blood of our Lord they did not receive Fasting Must we therefore calumniate the Universall Church for alwayes receiving Fasting Since the Holy Ghost was pleased herewith that in honour of so great a Sacrament the Body of our Lord should enter into a Christians mouth before any other meat For this cause this Custom is observ'd throughout the world I might easily produce several other instances to the same effect if this one were not sufficient as I presume it is 7. Neither hath the Bishop any ground to averre that this promise of settling the Apostles in all truth was for the persons of the Apostles onely because the Truths in which the Apostles were settled were to continue inviolably in the Church What wise man would go about to raise a stately Building to continue for many ages and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for few years Our Saviour the wisest of Architects is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable Building of the Church upon sand which must infallibly have happened had he not intended to afford his continuall Assistance also to the succeeding Pastours of the Church to lead them when assembled in a General Council into all those Truths wherein he first settled the Apostles as Vincentius Lirinensis above attests The Church never changes nor diminishes nor addes any thing at all nihil unquam no she changes nothing She neither cuts off any thing necessary nor adjoyns any thing superfluous she loses not what is her own she usurps not what belongs to another c. but onely
Priestly Function to have any commerce with Rome and a capital crime even to hear Mass or but harbour a Priest And what I pray is true piety in Gods sight if all these be capital offences But enough of this Parallel His Lordship even during the Schisme of Jeroboam will yet needs have Israel a True Church But I answer They were no true Church because they rejected the Authority of the High Priest refused to communicate in the Sacrifices and Worship of God at Jerusalem and adored the golden Calves of Jeroboam 'T is true there were many holy persons inhabitants of the same Countrey with the rest who kept themselves undefiled from those Idolatries and Divisions who though they were not perhaps suffered to go up to Jerusalem to worship yet never consented to go to Dan or Bethel These we acknowledge remained parts of the True Church notwithstanding the Schisme as many Catholiques do now continue true members of the Roman Church though living dispersedly in Heretical Countreys And the Prophets who were amongst them were also a part of the True Church at Jerusalem for which reason for the most part the Kings of Israel persecuted them as Catholiques also now are commonly persecuted by Heathen Mahumetan and Heretical Princes The having-Prophets therefore among them argues the Ten Tribes no more to be parts of the true Church then it would argue the Protestants in Holland to be parts of the Roman Church if some Roman Catholique should be found among them having the spirit of Prophesie But his Lordship will prove by some Texts of Scripture that the ten Tribes continued a Church notwithstanding their Schisme and Idolatry But to that of 〈◊〉 9. 17. I answer first this Prophet prophesied both against Juda and Israel and the word Israel being an Appellative common to all the seed of Jacob 't is not certain he alwayes means by it the ten Schismatical Tribes onely and not sometimes the Tribe of Juda also Secondly I say the Relatours Gloss addes to the Text. God doth not there threaten to cast Israel away in non Ecclesiam as the Bishop speaks that is to un-church them as if forsooth before that threatning they had been a true Church this is the Relatours own voluntary addition or fiction rather but he threatens simply to deprive them of his wonted protection to deliver them into their enemies hands and as the very next words shew to make them wanderers among the Nations that should take them captive To that of 4. Reg. 9. 6. where they are called the people of the Lord I answer in a general sense all Abrahams seed according to the flesh are styled the people of God by reason of that promise of God made to Abraham Gen. 18. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee but Abraham's seed only according to the spirit that is the faithful make the True Church To his last Argument which he advanceth as ad hominem that Multitude is a note of the Church I answer we do not contend that of Christians the greater multitude is an infallible mark of the true Church There was a time when the Arrians were reported to be more numerous then the Orthodox 3. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father was a Truth alwayes acknowledg'd in the Church of God and receiv'd in General Councils long before the Controversie touching that point arose between the Latins and the Greeks Witness that Epistle of St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria which he wrote as Bellarmin tells us from the Council of Alexandria to that of Ephesus wherein are these words Spiritus appellatus est veritatis veritas Christus est unde ab isto similiter sicut ex Patre procedit The Holy Ghost saith he is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth whence follows that he proceeds as well from him as from the Father Thus he Now this Epistle of St. Cyril and the Council of Alexandria as Bellarmin likewise shews was receiv'd not only by the Council of Ephesus which was about the year of our Lord 434. but also by four other General Councils held in Greece it self and consequently the Doctrine of the Holy Ghosts Procession was a Truth so anciently known in the Church that it could not well seem a novelty to any when the express confession of it came to be more frequent and publick in the Latin Church It matters not much in what capacity it was promulgated by the Church of Rome whether as a particular Church as the Bishop contends or as Head of the Church Universal as we think For either way it could not but be very lawful for that Church to do it nor can it help his Lordships cause which way foever it was done For supppose a particular Church may in some case promulgate an Orthodox Truth not as yet Catholiquely receiv'd or defined by the whole Church doth it thence follow that a particular Church or Churches may repeal and reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and Definitively received Surely no. Yet this is his Lordships and the Protestants case 4. Hence the Relatours egregious Fallacy is manifest while from the adding of a Word onely by some particular Church for Explication of a known ancient and generally received Truth such as was the Procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and Son he pretends to inferre both these Propositions viz. That a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent and that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholique where the whole Church is negligent or will not For though the former of these Propositions be not so enormious as the latter because it supposes not any actual errour contrary to Catholique Doctrine to be maintained by the whole Church but onely a Non declaration or at most some negligence to promulgate a Catholick Truth whereas the other supposes errour of something uncatholick to be taught or admitted by the whole Church yet are they both utterly Paradoxical and False and no way to be inferr'd from the example or practise of the Roman Church in declaring the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son for that was of a point anciently and generally received in the Church Much 〈◊〉 can it justifie the Protestants proceedings whose Declarations Promulgations Confessions or what ever you will call them made upon their several pretended reformations were onely of new and unheard of Doctrines directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholique Truths For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began was not the Real Presence of our Saviours Body and Blood in the Eucharist by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine generally held by the whole Church Was not the Real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believ'd Was not Veneration
other Councils named by Bellarmin But I answer our dispute is about lawfull Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope such as neither of these were nor any of those other which Bellarmin mentions in the place quoted by the Bishop neither can it bee sayd that those subsequent Councils which reformed the errours concluded at Ariminum and Ephesus were called by the Authority of the whole Church in generall but by the Pope in the same manner as that of Trent and others were Hee grants that the Church though it may erre hath not only a Pastorall power to teach and direct but a Pretorian also to controule and censure too where errours or crimes are against points Fundamentall or of great consequence Are not the Reall Presence Purgatory praying to Saynts the fiue Sacraments of seauen which Protestants denie and diuerse other points wherein they differ from us and the Church things of great consequence And did not the whole christian Church generally teach and profess these points both long before and at the time of Luthers departure from the Roman Church why was it not then in the power of the Church to controule and censure him with all his followers for opposing her Doctrine in the sayd points Againe if wee ought to obey the Church in points Fundamentall and of great consequence as the Bishops doctrine here cleerly implies why must wee not obey her likewise in taking those points to bee Fundamentall and of great consequence which shee holds to bee such and by her definition declares to bee such Certainly Heretiques will neuer want reason to iustifie their disobedience to the Church if allowing her authority to controule and censure only in points Fundamentall and of great consequence wee allow them the liberty to iudge and determin what points are such what not His instance of a mothers authority viz. that Obedience due to her is not to bee refused vpon her falling into errour holds not in the Church because the authority of a naturall mother is not in order to Beleefe but to Action and it does not follow that because shee hath commanded amiss in one thing that her child is not to obey her in an other which it shall not know to bee vnlawfull But the authority of the Church ouer her children consists not only in directing them what they are to doe but in obliging them to beleeue firmly and without doubt what euer shee shall esteem necessary to difine and propound to them as matter of Beleefe Now its impossible that the vnderstanding which can assent to nothing but what it apprehends to bee true nor infallibly beleeue but what it apprehends to bee infallibly true should bee mou'd with any respect due to the Church to beleeue without doubt any defined point which it did not before so long as it giues way to this opinion viz. that shee may and has defin'd and also commanded vs to beleeue as a point of Fayth a thing false in it selfe As to his citing St. Austins authority in the margent touching that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 27. not hauing Spot nor wrinckle c. it maks nothing against vs. For St. Austin doth not deny those words to bee vnderstood of the Church Militant but only that they are not to bee vnderstood of her in the sense giuen them by the Pelagians my meaning is hee doth not deny the doctrine of the Catholique Church vniuersally receiu'd or defin'd as matter of fayth to bee without Spot of errour but hee denies the liues of Christians euen of the most iust and perfect in this life to bee altogether without Spot of sin Neither doth St. Austin read vs any such lesson as this that the Church on earth is no freeer from wrinckles in doctrine and discipline then it is from Spots in life and conuersation but it is the Bishops own voluntary scandalous and inconsiderate assertion if hee speaks of doctrine vniuersally receiu'd and approu'd by the Church if only of doctrine and errours taught by priuate persons what is it to the purpose An other thing considered is that if wee suppose a Generall Council infallible and that it proue not so but that an errour in fayth bee concluded the same erring opinion which maks it thinke it selfe infallible makes the errour of it irreuocable and so lenues the Church without remedy I answer grant false antecedents and false premisses enough and what absurdities will not bee consequent and fill vp the conclusion an Anti-scripturist may argue this way against the infallibility euen of the Bible it selfe in the Bishops own style thus This Booke which you call the Bible and suppose to bee Gods word immediate Reuelation of Jnfallible Truth in enery thing it sayes IF IT PROVE NOT SO but that it were written only by man and containes errours THE SAME ERRING OPINION that makes you thinke 't is Gods word c. makes all the sayd errours contain'd in it wholy irreuocable and of necessity for euer to bee beleeu'd as Gods word and Diuine Reuelation Can any man deny this consequent granting the Bishops antecedent if it proue not so The inconuenience therfore which the Relatour here obiects beeing only conditionall and the condition vpon which it depends such as wee are neuer like to grant nor our aduersaries to proue wee pass it by as signifying else nothing but how willing his Lordship was to heap vp obiections against vs though such as hee and his party must answer 5. But how does the Bishop proue that a Generall Council hath erred Thus. Christ sayth hee instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in both kindes To breake Christs institution is a damnable errour this errour was committed by the Council of Constante whose words are these cited and englished by the Bishop LICET CHRISTVS c. Though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament and gaue it to his Disciples after supper vnder both kindes of bread and wine yet NON OBSTANTE notwithstanding this it ought not to bee consecrated after supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faythfull vnder both kindes yet this custome that it should bee receiu'd by Laymen only vnder the kinde of bread is to bee held for a law which may not bee refused And to say this is an vnlawfull custome of receiuing vnder one kinde is erronious and they which persist in saying so are to bee punished and driuen out as Heretiques The force of the obiection depends wholy on the words NON OBSTANTE which the Bishop conceiues to import that the Council defin'd receiuing vnder both kindes not to bee necessary NOTWITHSTANDING that our Sauiour so instituted it viz. in both kindes I answer Bellarmin rightly obserues that the words non obstante haue no reference to receiuing vnder both kindes but to the time of receiuing it after supper which though the Bishop bee not satisfy'd with but obiects that the NON OBSTANTE
greatest and most considerable pair of the Catholique Church what reason could the Apostle haue to shy that the doctrine of forbidding Marriage and eating certaine meats was a doctrine of 〈◊〉 and that those who held it should sall from the 〈◊〉 why might not the teachers of such doctrines be a part of the Catholique Church as well as the Donatists and those that maintaine other dangerous opinions which in the Bishops iudgement doe Shake but doe not ouerthrow the Foundation of true Fayth necessary to Saluation or if they might be a part of the Catholique Church notwithstanding their departure from the Fayth by holding of such doctrines what shall hinder but the Arians and all other Heretiques whatsoeuer if they 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Christ may notwithstanding their errours and how euer they vnderstand the words of Christ pretend to be parts of the Catholique Church whose common voyce wee 〈◊〉 bound to heare and with all submission to obey 〈◊〉 see here good Reader what a Church the Bishop assigns the to heare and follow vnder paine of beeing in as bad or perhaps in 〈◊〉 worse condition then an Heathen and Publican 4. His Lordship next taske is to impugn the Argument which A. C. brings to proue that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Saluation because both parties viz. Catholiques and Protestants doe agree that Saluation may be had in it but doe not both of them agree that it may be had in the Protestant Church and Religion The Bishop brings 〈◊〉 instances to shew that this Agreement of both parties is no sufficient ground to thinke that ours is the safer way His first instance is this The Baptisme of the Donatists was held true and valid both by 〈◊〉 Donatists themselnes and the Orthodox also but that of the Orthodox was held true and valid only by the Orthodox and not by the Donatists yet none of vs grant that the Orthodox were bound to embrace the Baptisme of the Donatists as the safer way of the two How then does it follow that a man ought to embrace the Roman Church and Religion as the safer way to heauen because both parties agree that in the Roman Church there is possibility of Saluation but doe not agree there is the like possibility among Prorestants This is the Summe and 〈◊〉 of his first instance To which J answer that no Orthodox could embrace the 〈◊〉 of the Donatists as the safer way but he must committ two sins the one of disobedience to the Orthodox Church which so bad communication with Donatists and all other Heretiques in diuine Rites such as the administration of Sacraments is the other against Fayth which obliged him to beleeue the Baptisme of the Orthodox to be as safe as the other Now how could any man be fuyd to take the safer way to Saluation by embracing the Baptisme of the Donatists for the agreement of both parties touching its validity when the greatest and most considerable 〈◊〉 to witt that of the Orthodox hold it cannot be done except in case of necessity without damnable 〈◊〉 which dobarrs the soule from heauen 〈◊〉 whereas the case put by vs is quite different from this For wee suppose Protestants grant a man may line and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall 〈◊〉 his Saluation whatsoeuer motiues he may know to the 〈◊〉 But no 〈◊〉 did euer grant that a man might with a snse Conscience embrance the donatists Baptisme knowing the 〈◊〉 reasons and command of the Orthodox Church to the contrary or that a man who had so embrac't the Baptisme of Donatists might liue and dye with possibility of Saluation except he acknowledg'd his fault and repented of his 〈◊〉 You will say perhaps that as a man ought not to receiue the Donatists Baptisme thought valid in the iudgement of both parties because the Orthodox held it 〈◊〉 and forbad it vnder paire of sinne so 〈◊〉 may a Protestant who is taught by scripture or otherwise and is fully persuaded that the Roman Church and Religion containes many gross errours contrary to Gods words embrace the Roman Church and Religion though both 〈◊〉 great possibility of Saluation in the sayd Church and Religion J. answer and acknowledge that as a few 〈◊〉 or Arian is not bound to embrace the Orthodox Faith of Christians so long as he is fully persuaded that its a false and 〈◊〉 beleefe so neither is a protestant bound to embrace 〈◊〉 Religion so long as his conscience tells him that it 〈◊〉 errours and superstitions contrary to Gods word But J say withall that as a few Mahumetan and 〈◊〉 were bound to alter their iudgement concerning the pretended erroncousness and falsity of the Orthodox Fayth if sufficient motiues were propounded to him and that according to the principles of both parties the Orthodox Fayth were the safer way to Saluation so likewise a Protestant would be oblig'd to embrace our Religion if sufficient motiues to alter his present iudgement concerning our pretended errours were offer'd to him and that it could be prou'd by the ioynt principles of both Protestants and Catholiques that Catholique Religion were the safer way to Saluation Now that by the ioynt principles or doctrine both of Catholiques and Protestants our Religion or Fayth is the safer way wee haue already prou'd in our first Argument and that Protestants may haue sufficient motiues to alter and depose their present iudgement touching our pretended errours whensoeuer they will attend to them is sufficiently euidenced from hence seeing an infinite multitude of persons who haue as good naturall witts as themselues as tender consciences as themselues haue read and ponder'd the controuerted passages of scripture as much as themselues vnderstand all contrary reasons and obiections as well as themselues yet belecue with absolute certainty as diuine Truths those very points which Protestants conceiue to be errours 5. Tho other instances which he brings seeme rather to argue a weakeness in the Relatour's iudgement then in the Argument he impugns In the point of the Eucharist sayth he all sides agree in the Fayth of the Church of England that in the most Blessed Sacrament the worthie receiuer is by his Fayth made spiritually partaker of the true and reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ truly and really Your Roman Catholiques adde a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then euen for this consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England then with the Roman and Lutheran because all agree in this truth not in any other opinion Here are many words spent to small purpose For first can a man be sayd in any true sense to communicate rather with the Church of England then with the Roman or Lutheran only by beleeuing that where in they all agree and yet the Bishops Argument supposes this But put case by
J am they neuer say or thinke he is there by such a spirituall presence as Protestants meane that is exclusiue of his truly-reall presence and by Fayth only or that he is not there as truly and really as he is in heauen whether wee exercise an act of Fayth or no. Now when the Bishop insists so much vpon a spirituall participation of the true and reall Body and Bloud of Christ truly and really by Fayth eyther he meanes such a participation as is proper to this Sacrament and cannot be had saue only in the orall and actuall receiuing of the Sacramentall elements or he meanes such a participation of Christs Body and Bloud as deuoute persons may haue in their soules whether they receiue those elements corporally or no. If he meanes this second only then both parties cannot be sayd to agree in the proper point of Sacramentall participation seeing it is now suppos'd to be such but only a spirituall kinde of receiuing Christ common to other devoute offices of Christian pietie as well as to the Sacrament If he meanes the first viz. such a participation of Christs Body as is proper only to the Sacrament and cannot be had but when the Sacrament is orally and actually receiu'd to make it appeare that wee agree with Protestants in it they must first shew what it is and particularly that it is something really different and distinct from a deuoute eleuation of heart remembrance of Christs Passion trust and application of his merits etc. otherwise they relapse into the former difficulty viz of putting such a participation of Christ as is not proper to the Sacrament for certainly none of all those participations of Christ last mentioned are proper to the Sacrament but may be exercised at other times and by other meanes as namely when one eates his common food at the table when he drinks wine or beere when he looks vpon a Crucifix when he prayes meditates or the like But this neither the Bishop not any of his partie can shew standing to Caluin and their own principles that is they cannot shew what their spirituall participation or receiuing of Christ signifies in effect more then a deuoute eleuation of heart remembrance of Christs Passion trust and application of his merits or something of like nature done and performed oftentimes as really without the Sacrament as with it and consequently it can neuer be sayd that both parties viz. Roman-Catholiques and Protestants are of the same sentiment or doe agree in any reall reception or participation of Christ proper to the Sacrament For all the world knows the 〈◊〉 participation of Christ in the Sacrament which Catholiques beleeue signifies a quite different thing from this 7. Lett vs now consider what his Lordship has to say to A. C. for his resolute affirming there is no perill of any damnable Heresie Schismo or other sinne in resoluing to line and dye in the Roman Church This the Relatour cannot digest therfore he replies not so neither For he that lines in the Roman Church with such a resolution is presum'd to beleene as that Church beleenes and he that doth so in the Bishops opinion is guilty more or less not only of the schisme which that Church caused at first by her corruptions and now continues by her power but of her damnable opinions too in point of misbeleefe and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbeleefe of that Church leads him into He seemes by this plainly to retract what he formerly granted touching possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques For how can they possibly be sau'd that liue and dye in the guilt of damnable opinions and sins or what sort of Catholiques are they whome the Relatour thinks may possibly be in state of Saluation are they such only as doe not beleeue as that Church viz. the Roman beleeueth but only liue in outward Communion with her and making only outward shew and feigned profession to beleeue that which in heart they disbeleeue He giues indeed some cause to thinke that this is his meaning when he tells vs how willing he is to hope there are many among vs which wish the superstitions of the Roman Church abolished and would haue all things amended that are amiss if it were in their power etc. and of such particularly professeth that he dares not deny them possibility of Saluation But how could it possibly sinke into a sober mans head to iudge him capable of Saluation that for temporall and sinister ends only contrary to knowledge and the light of his own conscience complies outwardly with superstition and many other sinfull and Jdolatrous practices all his life long and deny it to him who hates all superstition and sin in his very soule and would not comply with any if he knew it but adheres to the doctrine and practices of the Roman Church meerly for conscience sake and for noe other reason but because he simply and sincerely beleeues all her doctrine to be true and consonant to Gods word and all her allowed customes and obseruances to be pious and holy what is this but to say he is an honest man that takes his neighbours goods wittingly and willingly from him knowing them to be his and that he is a knaue and deserues to be hang'd that takes them vnwittingly and verily beleeuing that they are his own Secondly he tells vs that 't is one thing to liue 〈◊〉 Church and not to comunicate with it in Schisme or in any false worship and an other thing to liue in a Schismaticall Church and to Communicate with it in the schisme and corruptions which that Church teacheth wee grant it beeing our selues in some sort an instance of this truth whome the Catholique Church permuts both in England Germany and other Countries to liue amonge those she esteems both sehismatiques and Heretiques too though wee thinke this is not properly speaking to liue in a schismaticall Church yet she does not permit vs to communicate with them in their shisme But when he proceeds therevpon to charge the Roman Church with beeing worse and more cruell then the Church of Israell euen vnder Achab and Jezabel was when so many worshiped the calues in Dan and Bethel because forsooth he doth not finde that this doctrine YOV MVST SACRIFICE IN THE HIGH PLACES or this YOV MVST NOT SACRIFICE AT THE ONE ALTAR IN HIERVSALEM was eyther taught by the Priest or maintained by the Prophets or enioyned by the Sanedrim Whereas the Church of Rome sayth he hath solemnly decreed her errours and imposed them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties yea and erring hath decreed withall that she cannot erre wee answer this is not to argue as a Logician should ex concessis or probatis but rather vpon false and vnproued suppositions to bring in lieu of argument railing accusation against our superiours which the Apostle Jude 8. 9. vtterly condemned Is it sufficient for the Relatour to say that Transubstantiation Purgatory