Heretical and Schismatical Assemblies and was not her self condemned or cut off by any sentence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church And tho' perhaps the number of those particular Heretical or Schismatical Assemblies one condemned in one Age and another in another some few of all which might perhaps survive even till our time might be considerable if taken altogether tho' inconsiderable in themselves yet being every one of them lawfully cut off by that Orthodox Church they can never stand in competition with her nor challenge a place in her Councils neither is she obliged to call in their help to Condemn any other New Heresy arising after them And if that New Heresy should pretend she was obliged such pretentions would be unreasonable This is the case with the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches now extant in the world §. 113. The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome having condemned the Arians in the first General Council of Nice the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was never condemned by any General Council needed not to call them in to help her to condemn Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the three following Councils The same Catholic Church that thus condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the four first General Councils condemned the followers of Origen in the 5th the Monothelites in the 6th the Iconoclasts in the 7th And the Schismatic Photius and his adherents in the 8th And as this Catholic Church needed not the assistance of those Heretics who were condemned in the first four General Councils to help her to condemn those that were extant when she called the 5th so did she not need the aid of them or of those that were condemned by the 5th or 6th to help her to condemn the Iconoclasts or Photius in the 7th or 8th And thus we can shew in following ages as Errors did arise still new Councils Called as the first second third See Binins Tom. 7. part 2. pag. 806. F. and fourth of Lateran in which last the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was defined against Berengarius and his followers the Albigenses by 400. Bishops and 800. Fathers After these the first and second of Lyons the later of which condemned the Errors which the Eastern Churches had fallen into by the delusion of Photius the condemned Schismatic Ibi compartunt Paleologus Impa Constaniinopoliâ—â—nas cuns magno comits u qui tertia decima vice in sententiam Romane Ecclesiae Graecos suos toties deficientes Conetilio necessario pertraxit Bin. Tom 7 â—onc pag. 891. c. and in which as Binius notes from Trithemius the Grecians returned the thirteenth time to the Roman Catholic Faith. Then followed that of Vienna in France against the Beguardes and the Beguines After which the Council of Florence Anno 1438. In which the Greeks and the Latins consented to these Points The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the belief of a Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome tho' through the negligence of the Emperor John Palaeologus occasioned by his too much sollicitude for wordly concerns and the calumnies of Mark the Metropolitan of Ephesus this Council had not its wished effect After this the 5th Council of Lateran Anno 1512. for the reestablishing the Unity of the Church and the condemnation of the Schism begun by the unlawful assembly at Pisa And lastly the Council of Trent Anno 1545. Against Luther Calvin and all the Modern Heresies Ths to be silent concerning the vast number of Provincial Councils we can shew eighteeen Oecumenical Councils All the General Councils that condemned Errors Communicated with the Church of Rome Generally received as such by all but those whose Errors were either condemned in them or some foregoing Councils The Members of all which Councils were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and none dissented from that Communion but such as had been thus condemned neither can Protestants ever shew that even the particular Church of Rome or any other in Communion with her were ever thus cut off by any General Council or the Doctrins that she holds condemned It is only she therefore and those Churches in Communion with her all which we call the Roman Catholic Church that can challenge the title of Orthodox that is of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic This Truth being thus established and it having been plainly shewed what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church I pass over his second and third Exception because as I have already said they are built upon a False notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken only for the Diocese of Rome or a particular Church and come to his 4th §. 114. the Defenders fourth Exception Exception which is as I said more intolerable than the rest and which since he goes about to justify it as a Doctrin of his Church for he has promised to give us no other he would have done well to have shewed us some Canon Article or Constitution for it without which others of his Brethren will I fear come off with this Excuse that he is a young man and does not well know the Tenets of his Church He tells us that it is left to every Individual person not only to examin the Decisions of the whole Church but to Glory in Opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his Own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word This I told him was a Doctrin that if admitted Maintains all Dissenters would maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are persons in the world Desence pag. 80. which consequences he confessEs to be ill but such as he thinks do not directly follow from this Doctrin as laid down in his Exposition But what if they follow indirectly or by an evident tho' secondary deduction would not that suffice to discountenance such a Doctrin as opens a gap to such licentiousness in Belief when Faith is but One and without which it is impossible to please God But let us see how he maintains it does not directly follow from what he has laid down in his Exposition First he tells us that he allows of this Dissent or Opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith where he supposes it to be every mans concern and Duty both to judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a judgment as he is able And secondly He tells us that as he takes the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to the made so be supposes 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 he found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion From these two wild Suppositions without any proof of them
as if they were first Principles which needed none he draws this Admirable Conclusion worth the consideration of every Member of the Church of England and for which the Dissenters will no doubt return him thanks If says he in Matters of Faith a man be to judge for himself and the Scriptures be a clear and sufficient rule for him to judge by it will plainly follow that if a man be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular Belief in necessary point of Faith is founded upon the Word of God and that of the universal Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church because he must follow the Superior not the Inferior guide Now from hence any Rational Man will certainly conclude that at least all Dissenters in necessary points of Faith of which I see not but that they themselves must be judges may make use of this Principle to maintain their Dissent And as long as they ground themselves upon the Scriptures interpreted by themselves and have but confidence enough to think they have examined them sufficiently what ever Church pretends to punish or compel them does an unjust action because they are obliged to follow the Superior not the inferior guide Neither is this method as the Defender acknowledges it is liable only to some Abuse Ibid. pag. 81. through the Ignorance or Malice of some men But the Universal Church and much more every particular is put into an incapacity of reducing either the Ignorant or the Malitious to their duty if they have but Pride enough to be positive in as well as conceited of their own Opinions But however this Method tho' thus liable to some abuses is certainly in the main most just and reasonable and agreeable to the constitutions of the Church of England which does not take upon her to be Mistress of the Faith of her Members See. â—rt 20. but alloows a higher place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions Thus He. I know not what thanks the genuine Sons of the Church of England will return him for thus destroying the Authority of their Mother §. 115. but I am sure the Dissenters will thank him for this liberty if he will but give them any assurance that it shall be maintained to them with all its consequences and such large concessions as these may Unite them all tho' the Anathemas of their Synods and all the Penal Laws and Tests have proved ineffectual It is not my business to go about to teach the Defender the Doctrin of his own Church Bishop Sparrows judgment of the Authority of a Church but had he read the Preface to the collection of Articles Canons c. by Bishop Sparrow he would have found a Doctrin diametrically opposite to this of his and that one of them misunjhderstood that 20th Article For the Bishop declares that without a Definitive and Authoritative sentence controversies will be endless and the Church's peace unavoidably disturbed and therefore the Voice of God and right Reason hath taught that in matters of Controversy the Definitive sentence of Superiors should decide the Doubt and whosoever should decline from that sentence and do presumptuously should be put to death that others might hear and fear and do no more presumptuously Deut. 17. which is to be understood mystically also of death spiritual by Excommunication by being cut off from the living body of Christ's Church Nay he there proves there is a double Authority in the Church the one of Jurisdiction to correct and reform those impure members by spiritual censures whom Counsel will not win and if they be incorrigible to cast them out of this Holy Society and the other a Legislative power to make Canons and Constitutions upon emergent occasions to decide and compose controversies c. and this he shews by Reason as he says and Gods own Rule by matter of fact by that very 20th Article of the Church of England which declares that the Church has power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith and the practice of the Primitive Church in her General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Calcedon whereas all these have no force with our Defender For he it may be is evidently convinced that those Texts of Scripture As my Father sent me so send I you John 20. All power is given to me go therefore and teach all Nations Matth. 28. Obey them that have oversight over you and watch for your Souls Heb. 13 c. were misapplyed by Bishop Sparrow or the Church of England in his days Nay moreover if he be but evidently convinced that the Holy Scriptures where or how I cannot conceive have taught the contrary and that the whole Church has erred in challenging this Authority both in the Primitive and later times he will think himself if he be constant to his Principle obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church because he must follow the Superior not the inferior guide That is in plain English if his Fancy tell him the Church has erred he must believe his Fancy rather than the Church he must follow the Superior not inferior Guide Let us now examin a little his two Postulata's upon which he grounds this Doctrin §. 116. His first is That he allows of this dissent or opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith. The Defenders first Postulatum answered Now I thought the Protestants of the Church of England had at least held the whole Church to be unerrable in Fundamentals or necessary Articles of Faith Our Defender knows very well that the most eminent of his Church have held so and if he have forgot it I will at another time refresh his memory If he answer it was only their private opinion but not the Doctrin of their Church I desire him to shew his assertion that the whole Church may err in necessary Articles of Faith and every private person is bound to dissent from her c. to be the Doctrin of their Church Their 19th Article says indeed that particular Churches have erred But affirms the Visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is Preached and the Sacraments be duly minisired according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the saine Now one would think that that Congregation of Faithful who Preach the pure Word of God an administer the Sacraments duly according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requiste to the same should be freed from error in those Necessaries But this is the new Protestancy our Defender endevors to expound and it is a hard case that we must beforced to teach those who pretend to expound the Doctrin
been the case of St. Athanasius in whose Seat Gaudentius had been placed by the Eusebians nor that these (d) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 540. c. 1. F. Fathers acknowledged that it would be the best and most agreeable thing that Priests from all Countries should have recourse to the Head that is to the Seat of Peter the Apostle nor that it was looked upon in this Age as an (e) Socrat. l. 2. Hist c. 5. p. 244. D. c. 11. p. 246. c. 13. Epist. Julii ad Orient Episc Apud St. Athan. Apol. 2. Sozâ—m lib. 3. c. 7. p. 446. F. c. 9. Established Law that nothing was to be determined without the concurrence of the Apostolic See all which considered he will find no just reason to reject this Epistle upon the Plea that it Establishes the Popes Authority I have already mentioned that the Second General Council that of Constantinople was called by the (f) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 667. A. Popes Authority And this (a) Can. 3. Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 661. B. Council ordained that the Patriarch of Consiantinople should have Prime Honor after the Bishop of Rome The Third General Council that of Ephesus (b) Bin. Tom. 2. Conc. p. 282. B. Deposed Nestorius as they say Compelled by the Sacred Canons and the Epistle of Pope Celestine and referred the more difficult case of John (c) Ibid. pag. 353. D. Patriarch of Antioch to the Pope The Fourth besides what I have already mentioned that they admitted â—he accusation brought against (d) Bin. Tom 3. Conc. p. 50. B. Dioscorus for having taken upon him to assemble a Council without the Popes Authority frequently calls Pope Leo the (e) Act. 1.2 3. passim Vniversal Bishop of the Church and affirms that our Blessed Lord had (f) Epist ad Leonem Ibid. p. 474. B. committed to him the care of his Vineyard that is his Church I will not mention any later Councils these may suffice to Protestants of the Church of England as by Law Established Seeing their Authority has been approved by (g) 1 Eliz. c. 1. Act of Parliament Neither will I go to the antient Canons of the Church but shall conclude That seeing it is manifest that ever since the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome did exercise this Universal Pastoral care over the whole Church Excommunicating offending Bishops in other Kingdoms and Countries restoring those that had been Excommunicated unjustly to their Sees and Confirming others calling General Councils and Presiding in them and that Appeals were usually made to him in greater Causes from all Countries no beginning of which can be shewn nor no opposition made to it in those Primitive Ages but only by the Arians or other Condemned Heretics Seeing I say this is clearly matter of fact we must necessarily conclude that this Authority was looked upon at that time as given him by Divine Right and as coming down in a constant practice from the Apostles For seeing all persons in all Ages and Countries are ready to defend their Privileges and oppose usurpations had this been such or had they been exempt from such Jurisdiction they would have Unanimously opposed it in some of the succeeding General Councils after they had seen such Epistles from the Popes challenging that Authority But we find them so far from this that his plea is admitted in those very Councils and not the least Opposition made From what I have already said it will appear how easy a thing it might be to shew him in the Primitive Fathers and Councils what is given by all Catholics at present to his Holyness or challenged by him as of Necessary Faith. As to the Popes being stiled Vniversal Bishop he knows that St. Gregory the Great declined that Title in one Sense tho' he challenged it in another that is he looked not upon himself as Universal Bishop in this sense as if there were no other Bishop but he Sicut docuit Beatus Gloriesorum Apostolorum Princeps cujus Cathedram Beatitudini tuae credidit Christus optimus Pastor Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 681. c. 2. D. Non enim ignorâ—s ejus ingenium qui quotidie a Sacro doctore tuo Petro doceris oves Christi per totum habitabilem mundum creditas tibi pascere non vi sed sponte coactus Ibid. P. but yet in this other as he was the Supreme visible head of Christs Church upon Earth And for the Proof of this Title besides what I have already mentioned I will send our Defender to the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Pope Symmachus in which they do not only acknowledge him to have been placed in the Chair of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles by Christ the chief Pastor but that all the Sheep of Christ in the whole habitable world were committed to him to Feed And in this sense I suppose it is that he was called Vniversal Bishop and Patriarch in the Council of * Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 246. 250. Chalcedon That the Pope was usually stiled the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ upon Earth is so noted in Antiquity that I wonder the Defender would desire me to direct him to the places I have already shewn him some of them which I hope may suffice if his business be not to Cavil The last Authority which he says the Pope lays claim to is that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him The terms of which Proposition are very ambiguous and therefore when our Defender has explicated his meaning more clearly and shewn that all Catholics allow it in the sense he intends I will undertake to shew him that the same Authority was acknowledged to be due to him even in the Primitive times For the Church has not innovated in this any more than in her other Doctrins The Close to the Defender Sir HAving so fully answered all the objections you have made against me or our Doctrin §. 132. and in the soregoing Articles not only vindicated what was delivered by the Bishop of Meaux as the Doctrin of the Catholic Church and Council of Trent but also shewn the consent of Antiquity for the truth of it I hope you will excuse me if I tire not my Reader by a repetition of the same in Answer to your recapitulation under the reflecting Titles of Old and new Popery I shall therefore only refer you and them to what has been said in the body of the Book and most commonly in the close of every Article for an answer to what was not particularly mentioned in your Defence where I hope I have convincingly made it appear that your Parallel is wholly grounded upon your mistake not to give it any worse title of our Doctrin You know very well Sir that I might in exchange have given you a Parallel of New and Old Protestancy if that can be called old which is not of above 150 Years standing with a
may be given to Creatures and because it has God for it's Ultimate Object for whose sake and upon account of whose Gifts we Honor them yet is it in a Degree Infinitely Inferior to that which we pay to God because the Object which it Regards is Infinitely Inferior to him This Inferior Honor we when we speak in proper terms call Doulia The distination of Latria and Doulia is acknowledged by sober Protestants to have its use Vostus c. nothing hinders them to be taken as no ds of art use to be taken to signifie peculiar conceptions in Christianity Thorndike Epilogue lib. 3. c. 30. pag. 364. for Hyperdoulia signifies nothing but a higher Degree of this Inferior Honor the highest Degree bearing still no proportion to that which we call Latria the one being pay'd to an Infinite increated Object the other to a finite Created Being This Inferior Religious Honor is sometimes also pay'd to Inanimate things §. 7. As in the Old Law to the Ark to Arons Rod c. and now in the New to the Sign of our Redemption to the Bible to the Altar c. If this distinction betwixt Supreme Religious Honor or Worship called Latria and inferior Religious Honor or Worship called Doulia and that which we call Civil do not please him but that he will admit only of the two Extreams and reject that Middle inferior Honor I must ask him what he will call that Honor which was payd to the Ark in the Old Law before which King a 2 Reg. 6. David Danced for the touching of which Oza was slain and the b â— Reg. 6.19 Bethsamites to the Number of 70 Men and 50000 of the Populace for having only looked into it and which was c Psal 98.5 compared with the 1 Paral. 28.2 Commanded by the Royal Prophet to be Adored Nothing of Religion here Nothing of Reverence what will he call that Reverence which God himself Commanded to be done to his Sanctuary Levit. 19.30 Must it not be called Religious Certainly the Church of England as I take it implies at least as much when amongst her Canons she enters this as one That Churches be not profaned Seeing nothing can be profaned but what hath a Religious Respect What will he call that Honor which * Sum Prineâ—pt exercitus Dominl Cecidit Josue pronus in terram Es Adorans alt Josue 5.14 Protestants pay an inferior Religious Honor to mere Creatures Josue paid to the Angel after he had told him that he was only Prince of the Army of the Lord when his own Translation says he fell on his Face to the ground and WORSHIPED I will not urge their Adoration before the Altar nor their Kneeling at the Communion because he will perhaps say they Reverence not the Altar but God and Honor not the Elements of Bread and Wine but Jesus Christ represented by them However tho' they are loath to confess it for fear of giving advantage yet they must needs allow a Religious respect to both seeing I hope he will grant that both the Altar and the Elements may be profaned Is this Respect a Religious Honor or is it only Civil If he cannot for shame say it is only Civil nor dare not say it is Divine he must admit of a Middle sort of Honor which how he will Term I know not if he call it not Religious in an inferior Degree These Notions being Cleared I hope where ever he meets with the Words Worship or Adore he will not immediately judge God or an Idol to be the object of that Cult or that a Sovereign and Divine Honor is meant by those Words but that he will give a right distinction according to the different objects Qui bene distimguit bene decet to which those Words and Actions are Appropriated which if he do I hope I shall easily make him understand our Doctrin in the following Articles What I have here said pag. 90. Clears Maldonat's Expression Cited in the close And as to what he tells us from the Index Expurgatorius that it has ordered these Words that God only is to be Adored and that no Creature is to be Adored to be Blotted out of St. Athanasius and other Authors in which they do occur I wish he had Weighed and Examined well what he Writ For tho' I have not seen the Index Expurgatorius which he mentions In libris autem Catholicorum veterum nihil mutere fas sit nisi ubi aut fraude Haereticorum aut Typographi incurpa manifestius error irrepserit yet I have Consulted the Rules Appointed at the end of the Council of Trent for the Correction of Books and the 4th § de Correctione orders that nothing be Corrected in old Catholic Authors but where a manifest Error has crops in either by the deceit of Heretics or the negligence of the Printers And the Books of Origen and Tertullian c. Si quid autem majoris momenti animadversione dignum accurrerit liceat in novis editiquibus vel ad margines vel in Scholiis adnotare ca inprimis adhibiea diligentis an ex Dodrina locisque collatis ejusdem auctoris sentenlia difficilior illustrari ac mens ejus planius explicari possit which are Printed by Catholics without any Castigations are a plain proof of our Integrity and therefore I doubt not but that our Defender is either out in his Citation or that the word Adore is taken by them in a less strict Sense and only inserted in the Margent or Indexes of St. Athanasius contrary to his Sense and Meaning ART III. Invocation of Saints THis being one of those Points in which as he says he has promised to shew §. 8. that we adore Men and Women by such as Invocation as cannot possibly belong to any but God only and that we make the Merits of our Saints to run Parallel with the Merits of Christ it will be necessary that I shew him wherein his Mistake lyes and the injustice of that Imputation In order to which Prayer Invocation c. are equivocal terms abused by the Defender Epilogue Of the Laws of the Church c. 30. pag. 353. as in the last Article I shewed That the terms of Honor Respect Worship Adoration c. were equivocal so must I here also First premise that the words Prayer Invocation calling upon Address c. are as Mr. Thorndike himself says whose Testimony I all along alledge not so much as the Bishop of Condom says of Mr. Daille to convince them by the Authority of their most Learned Ministers who were never that I heard of censured by their Church as because what he says is in it self evident or may be in spite of our Hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unless we use that Diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Man neither are they so proper to God but
in sight But the case is this As the Church of England in general for Gravity and Reverend behavior exceeds the Conventicles or other Reformed Churches so the Cathedrals of the Church we confess are more Solemn than the Country Churches the Catholics as 't is fit far beyond the English Cathedrals And what is the issue The Churches of England are censured as Superstitious by the Kirkmen and Conventiclers the Cathedrals are censured as such by the Parish Churches and the Catholic is censured also by the Reformed Cathedral Still the more Solemn and Devout Church is censured for Idolatrous by the less I shall shut up this with the following Story whilst I ask my Antagonist this Question Suppose he had been present in the City of c St. Athan. de Imagine Domint nostri J. Christs qualiter Crucifixa est in Syria in urbe quae Berthus dicitur Tem. 2. p. 17. c. 1. B. Berthus in Syria in St. Athanasius his time and had seen the Jews as the same Saint relates using all the Indignities to a Crucifix which a Christian had accidentally left behind him whilst he removed from his Lodgings that their Predecessors had done to our Blessed Saviour himself would he not have looked upon those actions as intended against our Blessed Saviour and not terminated in that Wood Would he not have condemned those Jews as guilty of the same Crimes they were who Scourged him Buffeted him and Nailed him to the Cross Would he have excused them because they did those actions to an inanimate Being Or would he not rather have interpreted their intention as passing from the Cross to our Blessed Saviour whom it represented If he cannot deny but that he should have been concerned at these Indignities or the like which as it is reported are done by the Renagado Christians when submitting to the Alcaron they shoot at the Picture of our Saviour I see no reason why he should not in like manner interpret these exterior Testimonies of our respect not to terminate in the Crucifix but to tend to him who suffered upon the Cross Indeed in our Days we have seen such contempt shewn to the Images When Sir Will Wader burnt the Crucifix even of our Blessed Saviour himself in the publick Eye of the World that the Enemies of Christianity blushed for Christians crying shame upon those who acknowledged him to be their God and yet treated his Resemblance with such disrespect Now comes his last Argument taken from the Hymns of the Church and because I said he had been often told §. 26. The Churches Hymns that there were Poetical Expressions in those Hymns and that the word Cross by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets signifies Iesus Christ Crucified to whom we pray in our Hymns he is brisk and confident and has a mind to expose our Literature as well as our Idolatry and tells me he will not ask me by what Authority I send them to the Poets for interpreting the Churches Hymns But if I please to inform them what that Figure is which in the same place makes the Cross to signifie Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross and who those Poets are to whom this Figure is sufficiently known I shall oblige them Nay he tells me that they are amazed at the very report of such a Figure and believe it next a Kin to Cransubstantiation In answer to this I hope it is not a Crime in me to send him for the interpretation of the Church Hymns to the Poets that made them Poets I say unless he will be so far an Hypocritic as to deny Prudentius and Fortunatus to be of that number But if he look into his Corpus Poetarum he will find them to have a place amongst the other Poets and if he look into their Works he will find this very Hymn he boggles at and it may be if he cast an Eye upon the Title of it he will call to mind what Figure it is he there uses for I do not pretend that there is only one Figure in all the Hymns sometimes we find Metonymias sometimes Prosopopeias and sometimes others his Title is not de Cruce of the Cross but de Passione Domini of the Passion of our Lord And if under the term Cross he understand Christ and his sufferings upon it our Defender need not be amazed at it nor endeavor to make the Figure by which it is done so ridiculous He will find it very familiar to St. Paul I have told him already how that Apostle when he gloried in Christ and his sufferings said Gal. 6.14 The Cross taken for Christ c. God forbid I should glory saving in the Cross of Christ by which the World is Crucified to me and I to the World. And I may now bid him look into the first Chapter of his Epistle to the Collossians v. 20. and he will see that he calls the Blood of our Redemption the Blood of the Cross Into the third Chapter to the Philippians v. 18. where he calls the Enemies of Christ the Enemies of Christs Cross Into the first Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians v. 17. and 18. where he calls the frustrating of Christs Passion the making void of his Cross the Preaching of his Gospel the Preaching of his Cross And into the sixth of the Galathians ver 12. where he calls the Persecution that was suffered for professing the Faith of Christ Crucified the Persecution of the Cross As also into the twelfth of the Hebrews v. 2. Where speaking of our Blessed Saviour's sufferings he says he endured the Cross Yet these are things concealed from him he is amazed at the report of such a Figure and believes it next a Kin to Transubstantiation I hope if they be so near a Kin when he becomes a Convert to St. Paul in one of them he will also be in the other But what dos he mean by Vs and We all along as when he tells us that this noted Figure has been so long concealed from Vs Do's he vouch for his whole party or only for himself Not surely for his whole party for if he do they will beg his pardon at least some them and in particular Mr. a Reyn. c. 8. divis 2. pa. 412.413 Reynolds if my Author cite him truly who tells us that St. Paul after a Figurative manner of speech by the Cross meant Christ Crucified Nay I may say all those of the Church of England as by Law Established will certainly deny themselves to be of his confederacy otherwise what I pray means their 30th Canon in which their Church acknowledges b Imo Spiritus Sanctus per Apostolorum ora ipsum Crucis nomen Judaeis utique invisum usque adeo honoravit ut non modo Christum ipsum Crucifixum sub eodem comprehenderet sed mortis ac passionis Christi vires effectus ac merita una cum selattis fructibus ac promissis universis quae nos
ex eisdem aut percipimus aut in futurum expectamus Sparows Canons pag. 282. that the Holy Ghost did by the Mouths of the Apostles so far Honor the Name of the Cross so odious to the Jews that under it they did not only comprehend Christ himself Crucified but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion with all the comforts fruits and promises which we receive or expect thereby But if by we and us he only mean himself and desire me to oblige him so much as to inform him what Figure that is which makes the Cross signify Christ I must send him to the aforesaid Canon which I suppose he understood when he entred into the Ministry of the Church of England tho' he has now forgot it Neither let him say that he calls for a Figure which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross for he will not find our Hymns any more guilty of that than the expressions of St. Paul before mentioned in which he will find the foregoing nay in some of them the accompanying words distinguishing Christ from the Cross and yet according to his own thirtieth Canon the Holy Ghost under the word Cross did comprehend not only Christ crucisied but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion c. But to examin more particularly this Hymn which he instances He formerly bogled only at the Stroph O crux ave spes unica Exposit pag. 14. Hail O Cross our only hope c. In which as I then told him it is manifest the Church makes her addresses to the Cross with Christ that is to Christ Crucified upon the Cross Christ our only Hope as the words spes unica sufficiently demonstrate for he will not have us certainly to have two only Hopes neither will others surely whatsoever he does think us so silly as to make a formal Prayer to an insensible thing But in vindication of himself he brings St. Thomas acknowledging the worship of Latria due to the Cross and proving it as he says from this Hymn to which I have already answered and shall not here repeat it again and picks out at pleasure three other Strophs of that Hymn in which as he says the Cross is distinguished from Christ What if it be in those three Stanza's does it necessarily follow that it is so in this too For my part I see no such consequence And must certainly conclude that if the Apostles did by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost comprehend Christ and all the benefit of his Passion under the word Cross the Church which is also taught by the same Holy Spirit ought not to be censured for the same Of Reliques AS for Reliques §. 27. we are called here to a Verbal Disputation And because Veneration Worship and Adoration are frequently confounded in our Authors he endeavors from several of them to justifie his Translating of the Word Venerari in the Conncil of Trent by Worship in his Exposition I do not love to prolong Disputes and therefore shall readily give him leave to use the word Worship upon condition that he take it in the sense of those Authors who understand no more than an Honor or Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Remains of those Saints who were once the Temples of the living God and not a Worship or Adoration taken in its strict sense Only I must tell him that we do not seek to those Sacred Monuments for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance No Prayers to Reliques or Monuments as he very falsly insinuated from the Council and now to justify himself makes use of as great a piece of Scholarship as can well be paralleld I told him That the Words of the Council were That they who affirm that no â—â—â—eration or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or that those Reliques and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably Honored by the Faithful or that they the Faithful do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints to the end they may obtain their aid the aid of the Saints EORVM are wholly to be condemned as the Church does now and has formerly condemned them But alas it seems I did not understand the Latin or else I had a mind to Cavil for he tels his Reader my Citation of the words of the Council was only a Trick to deceive those who understood it only in my Translation that I transposed the Latin on purpose to raise a Dust to deceive the Reader the true Order being plainly as he before rendred it so that they who shall affirm That no Worship or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or That these and the like Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honored and that for the obtaining of their Help the Help of those Sacred Monuments A false Tranâ—ation EORVM the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented are to be condemned Certainly this was a great Crime and my throwing the false Translation upon him one of the reasons I suppose why he gave me that pious Admonition Presace pag. xvi Intreating me by the common name of Christian and those hopes of Eternity after which he believes we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend to consider how deagerous this way I have taken is what mischiesi it will bring in the Opinion of all good Men of what soever perswasion they be to the very cause that is maintained by such Means In a word what a sad parchase it will prove in the end if to lessen the reputation of an unknown obscure Adversary I should do that which shall lose me my own Soul. But really I must desire this Gentleman to cast once more his Eye upon the Latin and see whether of us two have rendred it right in English For my own part in his own words I thank God my Religion needs not such Defences Ibid. nor would I ever have used those means to assert it if it did I was always taught that no evil was to be done tho' for a good end nor was I ever brought up in any Schools that esteemed the Interest of the Church so Sacred as to be able to sanctify the worst of Means that can be made use of to promote it I have indeed heard some Roman Catholics accused as if they taught such Doctrins but I always found the Galumny stand at the Accusers Doors whose Art was only to cry Whore first And as for the Defender I hope if he be convinced he has done me and the Council of Trent I may say also the Catholic Church an Injury in this he will perform his Promise and think himself indispensably obliged to make a public Acknowledgment of it and thank the Vindicator that has called him to so necessary a Duty I appeal then to any Jury of Scholars in the World Whether when I Translated these words Ita ut affirmantes EORVM opis impetranda causâ memorias
Hebrews concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to the Offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered and makes his Advantage of it Whereas if he had added the next words they would have solved the Difficulty A Falsification For the Bishops words are that the Aposile concludes we ought not only to Offer up no more Victims after Jesus Christ but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once Offered up to Death for us But these last words were overseen by our Expositor or he was loath to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for Peace I might also take notice how cautiously the Defender avoids my question concerning what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly and properly speaking or no tho' possibly not in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the words To all which he returns a profound silence As for the Reflections upon what has been said I leave the Reader to make them himself and hope if he have a True Zeal for the Salvation of his Soul he will seriously consider the premises and heartily beseech Almighty God to enlighten his mind to the knowledge of his True Faith without which it is impossible to please him ART XXII Communion under both Species THe Vindicator tells me § 102. The Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither faise unreasonable nor frivolous that I advance Three Arguments in this Article from the public Acts of their own Church The first false The second both false and unreasonable And the third nothing to the purpose By which I see he is not unskilled in Multiplication and very willing to cast the Lyer upon me if he could But the false the unreasonable and the impertinent will be found perhaps to lye at the Accusers Door My Argument was but one and I think neither unreasonable nor impertinent He had told me from their 30th Article Art. 30. That the Church of England declared that the Cup ought not to be denyed to the Lay-people for as much as both parts of the Lords Supper by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be adminisired to all Christian men alike From hence I Argued that if the Church of England allowed the Communion to be given under one Species in cases of Necessity she was not consonant to her self nor agreed with her 30th Article which looked upon it as the express Command of Jesus Christ to give it under both Species and his express Commands are certainly indispensible Also that if she did allow it lawful to give it under one kind in cases of necessity the Arguments which the Bishop of Meaux had brought against the Calvinists of France were equally in force against the Church of England viz. that they must not deny but that both Species were not by the Institution of Christ Essential to the Communion seeing no necessity could require us to go contrary to an Essential Ordinance of Christ But that the Church of England did allow her people to Communicate under one Species in case of Necessity I proved from Edward the Sixths Proclamation before the Order of Communion In which I said he had ordained That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and Administred unto all persons within this our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This he says as thus alledged is False because Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing but only says that forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was Ordained Therefore He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it Let it be so if you please that Edward the 6th did not by vertue of this Proclamation ordain it yet the inserting of that Act of Parliament into that Proclamation served as a Rubrick to inform all those who were to Administer that Sacrament that if necessity required it they might give it in one kind And my Argument has gathered strength by being opposed seeing it has now not only a Proclamation but an Act of Parliament to back it But he says it is also unreasonable to Argue as to the present State of the Church of England from what was allowed only and that in case of necessity too in the very beginning of the Reformation If the Church of England had Repealed this Act of Parliament or by some Authentic Act or Canon declared it to be void it might have seemed unreasonable in me to produce it But if this Act be still in force I see no reason why we may not justly conclude that the Church of England holds it lawful in cases of necessity to Communicate only under one Species which if she do all her Arguments against Catholics as if they deprived the people of an Essential part of the Sacrament violated Christs Ordinance gave but a half Communion and the like have as much force against her self as us And if she leave it to her Ministers to judge when necessity requires it to be given only under one kind why will she deprive the Catholic Church representative of that Power And if a natural Reason such as is a loathing of Wine may induce private Pastors not to give the Cup to some particular persons why may not a Supernatural Reason such as is the detection and by that means the refutation of an Heresy not to mention the avoiding of many indignities c. induce such a Church representative to command that which was already practised by most Christians especially knowing that she deprived them of nothing which was Essential to a Sacrament As for the Note I made use of it only as a thing fit to be remarked and not as an Argument against communicating under both kinds However I might justly conclude that if under one Particle the whole Body of Jesus Christ be contained and this Body be now a living Body which it cannot be unless the Flesh and Blood the Soul and Divinity be united They who receive one Particle receive whole Christ and with him his Gifts and Graces that is a full Sacrament So that the first Falsity he accuses me of is as you see a plain mistake I do not say he had no Reason for it because the Printer had indeed placed the Citation in the Margent over against a wrong place but had he considered the sense he might have saved that ungenteele Answer The second Argument as he calls it is neither false in the bottom nor unreasonable And if the last be not so convincing an Argument yet does it not want some force And I will add to