may be dispensed with and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it prove neither damnable nor dangerous PART III. ARTICLE XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word AS to this Article Vindic. p. 100. there is indeed an Agreement between Monsieur de Meaux and Me so far as We handle the Question and keep to those general terms Of the Traditions being universally received by all Churches and in all Ages for in this Case We of the Church of England are perfectly of the same Opinion with them and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the Apostles with a like Veneration to that we pay to the written Word it self But after all this there is as the Vindicator observes a very material difference betwixt us viz. Who shall be judge when this Tradition is Vniversal He tells us Vind ibid. they rely upon the judgment of the present Church of every Age declaring her sense whether by the most General Council of that Age or by the constant practice and uniform voice of her Pastors and People And this is that to which he conceives every private person and Church ought to submit without presuming to examine how ancient that Tradition does appear to be or how agreeable it is to the Written Word of God Now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of Traditions for these two reasons 1. Because whether there were any such particular Doctrine or Practice received by the Primitive Church is a matter of fact and as such is in many cases distinctly set down by such Writers as lived in or near that first Age of the Church Now where the case is thus the Accounts that are given by these Writers are certainly to those who are able to search into them a better Rule whereby to judge what was an Ancient Doctrine and Tradition than either the Decree of a Council of a latter Age or the Voice and Practice of its Pastors and People For let these agree as much as they will in voting any Doctrine or Practice to have been Primitive yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing Men if the authentick Histories and Records of those times shew it to have been otherwise And this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the Councils and practised by the Pastors and People in the Roman Church we cannot look upon her late Decrees and Practices to be a good or a safe Rule for judging of the Antiquity or Vniversality of church-Church-Traditions But 2. There is yet a more cogent Reason against this Method which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and to give this Vnwritten Word the upper hand of the Written For according to this Method if the Church in any Age does but decree in Council or does generally Teach and Practice any thing as an ancient Tradition then this must obtain and be of force with all its Members tho' many of them should be perswaded that they cannot find it in nay that it is contrary to the Written Word of God Now this we cannot but look upon as an high affront to the Holy Scriptures And let them attribute as much as they please to the Decrees and Practices of their Church We cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon these grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the written Word of God In this Case we think it reasonable that the Church's Sentence should be made void and the Voice of her pretended Traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God ARTICLE XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church IN the two next Articles Vind. p. 101. concering the Authority of the Church I was willing to allow as much and come up as near to Mons de Meaux as Truth and Reason would permit This it seems made the Vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my Concessions But these his hopes are soon dasht when he finds me putting in some Exceptions and not willing to swallow the whole Doctrine as it is laid down in the Exposition Now the Exceptions that seem most to offend him are these 1. That the Church of Rome should be taken for a particular and not the Catholick Church 2. That She should be supposed as such either by Error to have lost or by other means to have prevaricated the Faith even in the necessary points of it 3. That any other Church should be allow'd to examine and judg of the Decisions of that Church 4. That it should be left to private or individual Persons to examine and oppose the Decisions of the whole Church if they are evidently convinced that their private belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Holy Word These are the Exceptions at which he is the most offended Vind. p. 103. The 1. of these he calls an Argument to elude the Authority of the Church of Rome and to shew the Fallacy of it he thinks it sufficient to say That they do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholick Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Now if this in truth be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholick Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholick as that of Rome it self For seeing it is the Purity or Orthodoxness of the Faith which is the bond of this Communion this renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholick with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocess and so makes it only a particular not the Vniversal Church But now should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of and that it were proper to understand by that name all those other Churches which are in Communion with her yet all this would not make her the whole or Catholick Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the World besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all Ages profess'd just the same Faith and continued just in the same Worship as She hath done And this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which have plainly for several Ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship So that in respect of these and the like Christian Churches which were not of her Communion She could not be looked upon as a Vniversal but only as a Particular Church Now if this be
Peccatum institutum non utique propter Remedium sed ad Sacramentum Et d. 26. l. A. Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum propter peccatum exordium sumpserint Matrimonii Sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum à Domino Sacrament to have been instituted not only before Christ but even before the Fall and therefore was not cited either for Ostentation or for the silly Reason mention'd by the Vindicator * 4 Sent. d. 26. q. 3. Durandus in express terms declares that forasmuch as it neither confers Grace where it is not nor encreases it where it is it cannot be a Sacrament truly and properly so called It is therefore evidently false to say that Lombard is against me in this Matter and for the torrent of Fathers and †For his torrent of Fathers Bellarmine has been able to collect but six or seven of which not one to the purpose nor any very ancient And for the Scriptures Estius one of the wisest of their own Party is forced to confess Cum igitur hujus Doctrinae non poffit ex Scripturis haberi probatio saltem aperta evidens consequens est articulum hunc Matrimonii Sacramento gratiam conferri unum esse extraditionibus Ecclesiae non Scriptis ad Virbum Dei non scriptum sed traditum pertinere 4 Sent. d. 26. §. 7. p. 61. Scriptures which he talks of it would have been more to this purpose to have produced their Authorities than thus vainly to boast of that which we certainly know he is not able to perform ARTICLE XIV Of Holy Orders IF the Vindicator be truly agreed with Me in this Article Vindicat. p. 71. He must then renounce the number of his seven Sacraments I deny'd that there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture being only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded I affirm'd that several of his own Church had declared it not to be Essential to Holy Orders nor by consequence the outward Sign of a Sacrament in them In a word I said that the Grace conferr'd was no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament To all which he has thought fit not to offer one word in Answer ARTICLE 15 16 17 18. Of the Eucharist AS to the Business of the Eucharist Vindicat. p. 72. I had not entred on any Argument about it had not Monsieur de Meaux here thought fit to lay aside the Character of an Expositor to assume that of a Disputant For the words of Institution which are the principal part of this Controversy I proposed two Arguments to confirm the Interpretation which our Church gives of them One from the the natural import of the words themselves the Other from the intention of our Saviour in the institution of this Holy Sacrament To the former of these the Vindicator thought he could answer somewhat but for the latter it has been urged chiefly since Bellarmine's time and so our Author had nothing to say to it For the former then he tells us Ibid. first Of the insincerity of my Attacque Pag. 73 74. That the Bishop declared there was nothing in the words of Institution OBLIGING them to take them in a figurative sense to which I oppose only That there are such Grounds in them for a figurative Interpretation as NATVRALLY lead to it 'T is true I have not here used the very word OBLIGED but yet in my proof I proceed upon such Grounds as I said would NECESSARILY REQVIRE a figurative Expos Ch. of Eng. p. 47. Interpretation which is much the same thing And though I cannot tell what will Oblige Him to take those words in their true i. e. figurative sense yet if I have proved That there are such Grounds in those words as Naturally indeed necessarily lead to it any reasonable Man would think that joyn'd with the Other proof from the Reason of the thing it self might be sufficient to Oblige him to acquiesce in it But we will examine his Process which whether it argues more my unsincerity or the falseness of their Interpretation I shall leave it to the Reader to judg First He confesses as to my first Position Vindicat. p. 73. that the words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation No-Body says he ever deny'd but the words as they lie without considering the Circumstances and Practice of the Church delivering the Interpretation of them down to us might possibly lead to a figurative Interpretation Seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture As for Example I am a Door I am a Vine c. Which being always taken by the Church in a figurative sense we should esteem him a Mad-man that should think it possible after this to perswade all the World they ought to be taken in a literal And as it would be a madness to suppose all Mankind might in future Ages be so sottish as to renounce this figurative Interpretation of Jesus Christ's being a Dore and a Vine and fall so far into the literal sense as to believe him to be substantially present in them and pay the utmost adorations to him there set them up in Temples to be Adored and celebrate Feasts in honour of them ‖ This is the Pretence of Mr. Arnauld and at large refuted by Mr. Claude in his answer to him whose Works being in English I shall refer the Reader who desires to see the vanity of this Argument exposed to what he has there said So we cannot but think it to be irrational to imagine that if the Disciples and whole Church in all Nations had been once taught these words This is my Body were to be taken in a figurative sense it could ever have happen'd that the Visible Church in all Nations should agree to teach their Children the literal c. The meaning of which Discourse if I understand it aright is this Concession that the words of Institution do in themselves as naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation as those other Expressions I am a Vine I am a Door And the only thing which makes the difference is that the Church as he supposes has from the beginning interpreted the One according to the Letter the Other in a figurative Acceptation Secondly As to my Argument That if the Relative This in that Proposition this is my Body referr'd to the Bread which our Saviour held in his Hand the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and Christ's Body will NECESSARILY REQVIRE the figurative Interpretation This * De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. p. 462. l. D. speaking of Carolstrad's Opinion of the Eucharist Scripsit says he Verba Evangelistae Hoc est Corpus meum hunc facere sensum Hic Panis est Corpus meum quae sententia aut
to state the Case and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say that Christ is not Corporeally present in this Sacrament Or how that which is not the thing it self is yet more than a meer figure of it In answer to which I shall need seek no farther than those Testimonies I before alledged out of the publick Acts of our Church to satisfie him See the Church Catechism Our Catechism affirms That the inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST which are VERILY AND INDEED taken and received by the faithful in the Lords-Supper And the meaning of it our 28th ‖ Article 28. Article expounds thus The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper ONLY AFTER A SPIRITVAL AND HEAVENLY MANNER and the means by which this is done is FAITH So that to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same The Bread which we break is as St. Paul declares it The Communion of the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which we bless The Communion of the Blood of Christ In a word We say that the faithful do really partake of Christs Body after such a manner as those who are void of Faith cannot tho' they may participate the Outward Elements alike Whom therefore our Church declares * Article 29. To receive only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but to be no way partakers of Christ but rather as St. Paul again says to Eat and Drink their own Damnation not discerning the Lords Body *†See the Appendix N. V. in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same account of it These are the Words of our Church and the meaning is clearly this Christ is really present in this Sacrament inasmuch as they who worthily receive it have thereby really convey'd to them our Saviour Christ and all the benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs This great effect plainly shews it to be more than a meer Figure yet is it not his Body after the manner that the Papists imagine †Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office Christ's Body being in Heaven and not on the holy Table and it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one The Sacramental Bread and Wine then remain still in their very natural Substance nor is there any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood at the holy Altar The Presence we allow is Spiritual and that not only as to the manner of the Existence ‖ Vindicat. p. 77 78. which the Vindicator seems to insinuate for we suppose it to be a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Body That this Exposition is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ch. of England the Authorities already cited shew See also the Homily concerning the Sacrament part 1. p. 283. c. and the same is the Explication which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it as is evident by the Collation of them made by Bishop Cofins in his History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large p. 6. c. i. e. Corporal but as to the nature of the thing it self and yet it is Real too The Bread which we receive being a most real and effectual Communion of Christ's Body in that Spiritual and Heavenly manner which St. Paul speaks of and in which the Faithful by their Faith are made partakers of it Thus does our Church admit of a real Presence and yet †Vindic. p. 80. neither take the Words of Institution in their literal Sense * Ibid. p. 79. and avoid all those Absurdities we so justly charge them with As to the Authorities of their own Writers which I alledged to shew that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had no Grounds neither in Scripture nor Antiquity He is content to allow that the Scriptures are not so plain in this matter but that it was necessary for the Church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it Vind. p. 80 81. And for Antiquity he desires us to observe 1st That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon Ibid. p. 82. defined the. true real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation Sess 13. Can. 2. or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it Can. 2. If any one shall say That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholick Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation let him be Anathema The design of the Council in which Canon is evidently this To define not only the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentaries which before was done ‖ Can. 1. but also the manner or mode of his Presence against the Lutherans in two Particulars 1st Of the Absence of the Substance of the Bread and Wine 2ly Of the Conversion of their Substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But this the Vindicator will not allow but advances an Exposition so contrary to the design of the Council and Doctrine of his Church that it is wonderful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an Illusion It is manifest Vindic. p. 83. says he that the Church does not here intend to fix the manner of that Conversion but only to declare the matter viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ becomes truly really and substantially Present the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly really and substantially Present tho the Appearances thereof remain Now this is so evidently false that Suarez doubts not to say 't is HEREST to affirm it Forasmuch says he See Suarez cited below as the Council not only determines the Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Substance of the Bread but also the true Conversion of the one into the other thus establishing not only the two former but this last also as an Article of Faith Our dispute therefore is not only as this Author pretends about the real Presence of Christ's Body Vindic. p. 83. and Absence of the Substance of the Bread which he calls the thing it self but also about the Manner how Jesus Christ is Present viz. Whether it be by that WONDERFUL and singular CONVERSION which their Church calls so aptly TRANSUBSTANTIATION Now
this being that we are to enquire into let us see whether the Authorities I have brought have not the force I pretend against their Tenets And 1. LOMBARD writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time For having first asserted the real Presence in this Sacrament and the change which he supposed was made upon that account He goes on to that which the †Vind. p. 92. Vindicator is pleased to call a Scholastick Nicety and it was indeed at that time no other tho since become a matter of Faith Lombard l. 4. d. 11. lit A. p. 736. De modis Conversionis Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa Conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis desinire non sustineo Quibusdam esse videtur substantia is c. viz. What kind of Conversion is there made Whether formal or substantial or what else And for this he tells us freely He is not able to define it That some have thought it to be a SVBSTANTIAL CHANGE but for his part he will not undertake to determine it But 2dly SCOTVS is yet more free ‖ Dicendum says Scotus quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei Si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus Articuli cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem vericrem secundum apparentiam Dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae See 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 63. He declares our Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be the more easie and to all appearance the more true Insomuch that the Churches Authority is the * And before in Sect. Quantum ergo He profess'd Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet Romana Ecclesia In a Word Bellarmine himself cites Scotus for this Opinion Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767. L. D. Principal thing that moved him to receive their Doctrine †And again p. 768 L. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus quod minime probandum est Ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem He tells us that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very Ancient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran all which the Vindicator himself does in effect confess The same is Vind. p. 88. 3ly affirmed by * Suarez in 3 part D. Th. vol. 3 disp 50. § 1. p. 593. Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem Panis Vini in Corpus Sanguinem Christi Haec assertio est de fide Nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in Scriptura ea tamen docet Ecclesia ab Apostolis edocta docens simul ita esse intelligenda Verba formae in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri And then p. 594. col 2. adds 1mo Ex hac Fidei Doctrina colligitur corrigendos esse Scholasticos qui hanc Doctrinam de Conversione hac seu de Transubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos sunt Scotus Gabriel Biel lect 41. in Can. c. And then 2do infero Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi absentiam Panis neget tamen veram Conversionem unius in aliud in HAERESIN labi quia Ecclesia Catholica non solum duo priera sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet SVAREZ of GABRIEL and confess'd by the Vindicator who also contrary to his pretences calls this manner of Conversion an Assertion that is of Faith tho he confesses it is not expresly to be found in Scripture but deduced thence by the Interpretation of the Church Nay so opposite is he to the Opinion and Pretences of this Man that he declares in this very place which our good Author examined but amidst all his sincerity overlook'd this passage as not much for his purpose That if any one should confess the real Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Bread and yet deny the true CONVERSION of the one into the other he would fall into HEREST forasmuch as the Church has defined not only the two former but also the third likewise But 4thly The Prevarication of our Author in the next Citation is yet more unpardonable I affirmed That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper Sense of the Words the other might with as good reason have been received This he says is false Vind. p. 86. for that Cajetan says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article And then with wonderful assurance begins a rabble of Citations nothing to the purpose in the very next Words to those in which mine end For the better clearing of this Doctrine Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. p. 130. Col. 1. In comment circa praesentis sequentium Articulorum Doctrinam pro claritate ampliori intellectu difficultatum sciendum est ex Autoritate S. Scripturae de Existentia Corporis Christi in Sacramento Eucharistiae nihil aliud haberi expresse nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis Hoc est Corpus meum Oportet enim Verba haec vera esse Et quoniam verba sacrae Scripturae exponuntur dupliciter vel Proprie vel Metapherice Primus Error circa hoc fuit Interpretantium haec Domini Verba Metaphorice quem magister Sent. l. 4. d. 10. Tractat. Qui hoc Articulo reprobatur Et consistit VIS Reprobationis in HOC Quod verba Domini intellecta sunt ab ECCLESIA Proprie PROPTEREA oportet illa verificari proprie Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio c. Cited by the Vindicator says Cajetan we must know That as to the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist there is nothing to be had expresly from the Authority of the holy Scripture but the words of our Saviour saying This is my Body For it must needs be that these words are true and because the Words of Scripture may be expounded two ways either Properly or Metaphorically the first Error was of those who interpret these words Metaphorically which is rejected in this Article And the force of the Rejection consists in this That the words of our Saviour have been understood in their proper Sence by the Church and therefore must be properly true This the Vindicator was pleased to pass by tho' the very next words to those he cites Nay to say That Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appeal to any that should read it for the truth of it Should a Protestant have done this he would I believe have found out a great many hard Names for him to testifie his Zeal against Falshood and
so then the Vindicator himself allows Vind. p. 102. 2dly That a Particular Church may either by Error lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in the necessary points of it Indeed that promise of our Saviour Matt. 16.18 That the gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church seems on all hands acknowledged to refer to his whole Church not to any one particular Branch or Portion And therefore tho' the particular Church of Rome should have fallen into gross Errors both in matters of Faith and Practice yet the Catholick Church of Christ may still as to other of its members retain so much Truth and Purity as to keep it from falling away or being guilty of an intire Infidelity And then for the 3d. Exception The allowing any other Particular Church to examine and judg of the Decisions of this Church of Rome If She her self be but a particular Church and has no more Command or Jurisdiction over the Faith of other Churches than they have over hers then every other National Church is as much impow'red to judg for her self as She is and has an equal right to examine her Decisions as those of other Churches and may either receive or reject what by Gods Grace directing her She Judges to agree or disagree with his Holy Word Nor do's one Branch of Christ's Church in this respect invade the Prerogative of another since they do herein only follow the Apostles Rule in trying all things and holding fast that which is good But the 4th Exception he says Vind. p. 102. is yet more intollerable than all the rest That it should be left to every individual Person not only to examine the Decisions of the whole Church but also to glory in opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word Ibid. p. 103. This he says is a Doctrine which if admitted will maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World These indeed are very ill Consequences but such as do not directly follow from this Doctrine as laid down in my Exposition For 1st I allow of this Dissent or Opposition only in necessary Articles of Faith where it is every Mans concern and duty both to judg for himself and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able And 2dly As I take the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to be made so do I suppose these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial Enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion Now these two things being supposed that in matters of Faith a man is to judg for himself and that the Scriptures are a clear and sufficient rule for him to judg by it will plainly follow That if a man be evidently convinced upon the best Enquiry he can make that his particular Belief is founded upon the Word of God and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in Opposition to that of the Church And the Reason of this must be very evident to all those who own not the Church but the Scriptures to be the ultimate rule and guide of their Faith For if this be so then individual Persons as well as Churches must judg of their Faith according to what they find in Scripture And tho it be highly useful to them to be assisted in the making of this Judgment by that Church of which they are Members yet if after this Instruction they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith between the Voice of the Church and that of the Scripture they must stick to the latter rather than the former they must follow the superior not inferior Guide And however this method may through the Ignorance or Malice of some men be liable to some Abuse yet certainly in the main it is most Just and Reasonable and most agreeable to the Constitutions of the Church of England which do's not take upon her to be Absolute Mistress of the Faith of her Members See Article 20. but allows a higher Place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions As to the Authority by which I back'd this Assertion viz. that of St. Athanasius tho' it is not doubted but that that Expression of his being against the whole World and the whole World against him did refer chiefly to the Eastern Bishops and was not so literally true as to those of the West yet if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and Sirmium and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith sent to him from Ariminum and was for that reason deposed from his Bishoprick and banished out of Italy yet afterwards when the Emperor Constantius sent for him to Sirmium and required his assent to a form of Faith in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted Sozomen Eccl. Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. he yielded thus far and was thereupon restored to his Bishoprick I say if we consider these and the like Particulars related by the Church Historians we shall have little reason to believe that the Western Bishops or even the Pope himself did throughly adhere to the Faith of St. Athanasius and therefore that neither was He or I much in the wrong in affirming That he stood up in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils and almost the whole Church fell away ARTICLE XXVI Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy IN this Article the Vindicator is pleased to declare that he has nothing to say against the Opinion of the Church of England Vindic. p. 106. only he thinks fit to advise me to enquire What that Authority is which the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give the Pope Indeed a very little inquiry will serve the turn to let a man see that their Pope do's at this day lay claim to a great deal more than those Councils or Fathers did ever allow him And we should be glad he would direct us to those places either in the first Councils or the Primitive Fathers where the Pope is stiled the Vniversal Bishop or the Supreme Head on Earth of the whole Christian Church where it is said That he is Christs immediate Vicar and that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him These are things which he do's now pretend to but we can find no Footsteps of them in the first Councils or Fathers of the Church On the contrary we find innumerable passages which
Mother lies almost dissolved in tears for the divisions of her Children and her dutiful Sons on both sides are praying and endeavouring with all their industry to close them like an unnatural off-spring divert themselves in the quarrel find a harmony in her groans and make a droll of that which had they indeed any true zeal for Religion they ought to wish rather they could with their dearest Blood be so happy as to redress For what remains of the Vindication Vindicat. p. 106 107. I shall say but very little to it He enters upon his Conclusion with a tragical harangue of the hardships they have suffer'd both by and ever since our Reformation and how well we deserve their Excommunication upon that account And 't is no hard matter when men so well disposed as this Author seems to be to speak evil of us are to draw our Character to make it appear as odious and deformed as they desire Were I minded to recriminate I need not tell those who are but very little acquainted with the true History of these things what a fair field I should have for a requital The corruptions of the Church when this Reformation begun the unchristian lives of those Religious Inhabitants that he says were turn'd by us into the wide world the Cheats and Ignorance of the Clergy the Tricks and Artifices of their Popes to prevent that Reformation which many of their own Party no less than the Protestants desired both in the Head and the Members And since he mentions Cruelties the barbarous Butcheries executed on the Reformed in Savoy Bohemia Germany Ireland and to say no more the proceedings at this day in one of our Neighbour Countries whereof we have been our selves Eye-witnesses and of which the noble Charity of our Royal Soveraign towards these poor distressed Christians See the words of His Majesty's Brief notwithstanding all the vain endeavours of some to hide it suffers no honest Englishman now to doubt All these would furnish out matter enough for a Reply and satisfie the World that were the Reformed as bad as Hell it self could represent them the Romanists yet would of all men living have the least cause to complain of them But I desire not to heighten those Animosities which I so heartily wish were closed and would rather such things as these might on all hands be buried in eternal oblivion than brought forth to prevent that Union we had never more cause to hope for than at this time And for our Laws which he says have been made against them he knows well enough what occasion was given to Queen Elizabeth and King James the 1st to establish them and I shall rather refer him to the ‖ See that and a Vindication of it by the Secular Priests An. 1601. published with some other pieces in a Collection called The Jesuits Loyalty 4to Answer which my Lord Burleigh made above 100 years since to this complaint than take the opportunity he has so fairly given me to revive the Reasons As for those injuries he tells us that Perjury and Faction loaded them with Vindicat. p. 111. we are not concerned in them It is well known that the Church of England was no less if not more struck at in those times than themselves If their present change of fortune makes them indeed neither remember those injuries nor desire to revenge them it shews only that the favour of Providence has not made them forgetful of their duty nor their present prosperity unmindful of their future Interest This is not our concern who have never that we know of injured them unless to take all fair and lawful ways to defend our Religion as by Law established may possibly in some mens apprehensions be esteemed an injury The peace and liberty which we enjoy we do not ascribe to their Civility it is Gods Providence and our Soveraign's bounty whom the Church of England has ever so Loyally served whose Rights She asserted in the worst of times when to use our Authors own words Perjury and Faction for this very cause loaded her with all the injuries Hell it self could invent But we gloried to suffer for our duty to Him then and shall not fail should there ever be occasion to do it again And we have this testimony from our King which no time or malice shall be able to obliterate That the Church of England is by principle a Friend to Monarchy and I think cannot be charged to have ever been defective in any thing that might serve to strengthen and support it For what remains with reference to the Points in Controversie the foregoing Articles are but one continued confutation of his vain pretences And I shall only add this more to them that whenever he will undertake to make good any one thing that he has advanced against us either in his Book or Conclusion I will not fail to prove what I now affirm That there is not a word of truth in either of them In the mean time before I close this I cannot but take notice how much the state of our controversie with these men has of late been changed and what hopes we are willing to conceive from thence as to the sober part of their Communion that those Errors shall in time be reformed which they already seem not only to have discovered but to be ashamed of When our Fathers disputed against Popery the Question then was Whether it were lawful to Worship Images to Invocate Saints to Adore Reliques to depend upon our own Merits for Salvation and satisfie for the pain of our own Sins This was their task and they abundantly discharged it in proving these things to be unlawful contrary to our duty towards God and to the Authority of Holy Scripture But now in these our days there is started up a new Generation of men too wise to be imposed upon with those illusions that in blind and barbarous Ages had led the Church into so much Error and Superstition These see too clearly that such things as these must if possible be deny'd for that they cannot be maintain'd And they have accordingly undertaken it as the easier task by subtile distinctions and palliating expressions to wrest the definitions of their Councils to such a sense as may serve the best to protect them from these Errors rather than to go on in vain with their Predecessors to draw the Scripture and Fathers into the Party to defend them And that it may not be said I speak this at all adventures I will beg leave in a short recapitulation of what is largely proved in the foregoing Articles to offer a general view of it Of Religious Worship Old Popery New Popery 'T IS a wicked and foolish Error of the Lutherans and Calvinists to attribute * Impius Imperitus Lutheranorum Calvinistarum Error est nullum nisi Deo Religionis honorem tribuentium Maldonat in Matt. 5.34 pag. 126. B. Index Expurgat in Athanas