Traditions for those which have been called so have been rejected even by the Roman Church it self or having received them they have laid them aside again In short they sometimes pretend to Traditions where there are none and where there are they have forsaken them and in several Cases they pervert them and turn them into another thing As they have done for instance with Purgatory-fire which the Ancients thought would be at the Day of Judgment and not till then but they have kindled already and would have us believe Souls are now frying therein As for ancient Customs sometimes called also Traditions they have not been always alike nor in all places one and the same But the Church of England declares That whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions i. e Customs and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly c. They are the very words of our XXXIVth Article of Religion Which teaches withal That every particular or National Church hath Authority to change and abolish such Ceremonies or Rites as were ordained by man's Authority c. And now what hath this Babbler to alledge out of our Bible against this Truly Nothing at all but only the word Tradition which he is very ignorant if he do not know that we own For we affirm That the Doctrines of the Holy Scripture are Traditions And of such the Apostle speaks in 2 Thess II. 15. 2 Thess II. 15. which is thus expounded by Theodoret Keep the Rule of Doctrine the words delivered to you by us which we both Preached when we were present with you and wrote when we were absent So that the things which were spoken were not different from those which were written but the very same He spoke when he was with them what he wrote when he was gone from them Whence it is clear indeed That the Traditions delivered by word of mouth were of equal Authority with what was written as this man gravely saith for they were the same And it is also certain as he adds That before the New Testament was written all was delivered by word of mouth But what then Therefore Apostolical Traditions are to be received Yes because what was delivered by word of mouth was the very same which afterwards was written But here is no shadow of proof that we are bound to receive Traditions which were never written Nor is there more in the next place 2 Thess III. 6. 2 Thess III. 6. but much less for there is not a syllable of word of mouth and Theodoret expresly says That by Tradition here the Apostle means not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Words but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Works that is he bids them follow his Example as St. Chrysostom also understands it which he proves to be the meaning by what follows where he saith the Apostle teaches what he had delivered by his Example For your selves know how ye ought to follow us for we behaved not our selves disorderly among you c. v. 7 8. Wherefore as I may better say than this man doth in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ let all good men withdraw ftom them who thus falsly pretend to Tradition when they dare not stand to the Interpretations of the best of the Ancient Fathers and walk disorderly by breaking their own Rule which requires them to interpret the Scriptures according to their unanimous consent Counc of Trent Sess IV. From hence he runs back like a distracted man who catches at any thing at random to the First Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 2. which one would have expected in the Front But perhaps he was sensible it had nothing in it but the bare word Tradition to his purpose and therefore brought it in after he hoped the Reader 's mind would be possessed with a false Notion which would make any thing go down with him And the truth is there is nothing here for his turn For if the Traditions mentioned by the Apostle be about matters of Order and Decency as one would think by what follows concerning Praying with the head covered or uncovered they themselves acknowledge such Traditions do not oblige in all places and times If the Apostle means other Traditions about matters of Doctrine how doth it appear that now they are not written As that about the Holy Communion is which the Apostle speaks of in the latter part of that Chapter v. 23 c. In which the Church of Rome hath very fairly followed Tradition I mean shamefully forsaken it by leaving off the ministration of the Cup to the people which according to what the Apostle saith he received from the Lord and delivered unto them ought to be given as much as the Bread Consider then I beseech you with what Conscience or Sense this man could say That we reject all Traditions when we receive this for instance more fully than themselves And how he abuses St. Paul in making him as schismatically uncharitable as himself by representing him as disowning us for his Brethren which St. Austin durst not do by the Donatists who are so far from forgetting him in all things that we remember him and his words better than they do and keep to his Traditions as I said just as he hath delivered them unto us Poor man he thinks he hath made a fine speech for St. Paul and made him say to us quite contrary to that he says to the Corinthians Whereas according to Theodoret another kind of Interpreter than he the Apostle dispraises the Corinthians as much as he makes him dispraise us For these words saith he do not contain true Praise but he speaks ironically and in truth reprehends them as not having kept the Orders which he had set them As if he had said You have full well observed the Traditions which I left with you when there is such unbecoming behaviour among you in the time of Divine Service Which no body need be told unless he be such an Ideot as this is not a form of Commendation but of Reproof Lastly He comes from express Scripture to none at all for he betakes himself to Reasoning and asks a very doughty question If nothing be to be believed but only what is left us written wherein should the Church have exercised her self from Adam to Moses the space of Two thousand six hundred years Let me ask him another How doth he prove nothing was written all this time Whence had Moses all that he writes of the Times before him if not out of Ancient Records It is more likely there were Writings before his than that there were not However our saying There were can no more be confuted than his saying There were not can be proved If the Reader be not satisfied with this he bids him see more Scriptures and names near a dozen places in
in the bond of Peace For he speaks here saith Theodoret of concord and the Rule is the Evangelical Preaching or Doctrine by which if we walk't it would help to procure agreement in matters of Faith But they of the Church of Rome are so far from this that they have broken all Communion by their Tyrannical impositions and making other rules besides the Evangelical Doctrine VI. Gal. 16. The next place evidently speaks of the self-same thing that there is no necessity of being Circumcised and observing the Law but if we be regenerated by the Christian Faith we are sure of the Divine Favour In short the Rule here spoken of is that of the New Creature mentioned in the foregoing words v. 15. But the 4th Text 2 Cor. X. 15. more fully shews this man to be a meer Trifler with words without their sense For in 2 Cor. X. 15. There is not a Syllable of the Rule or line of Faith as he dreams but only of the bounds and limits of those Countrys in which the Apostle had preach'd the Gospel as Menochius himself interprets it This he might have learnt if he had pleased by the very next words where the Apostle saith he did not boast in another man's line or rule of things made ready to his hand i. e. those Countreys and Provinces which had been cultivated by other Apostles glorying as Menochius well glosses in other mens Labours as if they had been his own Now this is a pretty infallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures by the Regions in which the Apostles preached An excellent proof that there is one Rule of interpreting Scripture because St. Paul had his own Rule and others had their Rule that is not one and the same for he took care not to preach the Gospel in another man's line i. e. in those places where others had done it already Are these Romish Emissaries in their wits when they write on this fashion Either they have no understanding of what they write or hope their Writings will fall into the hands of Readers who understand nothing else they would be ashamed of such wretched stuff 1 Cor. XI 16. From hence he carries us back to the First Epistle unto the Corinthians Chap. XI 16. which no doubt he would have put before the Second could he have found the Word Rule there which was all he sought for not regarding the Sense But alas he could find only the Word Custome in that place which he hoped his foolish Reader would be content to take for the same with Rule And what is this Rule as he will needs have it of which the Apostle is there speaking Is it about any matter of Faith No only about Womens praying bare-faced without a covering over them which the Apostle says was against the Custom of the Church So the same Menochius whom alone I mention of later writers in their Church because he saith in his Preface he hath gathered his Commentaries out of all the best Writers And what Church doth St. Paul here mean only one Church or all that he had planted He himself answers We have no such custom nor other Churches of God neither therefore you not only cross us but the whole Church as Theophylact expounds the words And to the same effect Theodoret he shows that these things did not seem so to him only but to all the Churches of God Let the Romanists show us any such Authority as this of all the Churches for any thing wherein we differ and see whether we will be contentious Tho' I must tell them that there are a vast many differences between the Decrees of the Pastors of late times tho' never so many hundreds and the Authority of those few Pastors as this man calls them which had the prescription only of twenty or thirty years after Christ For these few Pastors were the Apostles themselves infallible men and other Apostolical persons who were guided by their directions And now he comes to tell us by what other Titles this Rule of Faith is called in Scripture instead of telling us by what names the Infallble Rule for understanding Scripture is called For the good man when he had gone thus far had forgotten what he was about The Form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. VI. 17. will do him no service For it is Rom. VI. 17. saith Theophylact to live aright and with an excellent Conversation Or that Form of Doctrine saith Menochius which the Apostles had impressed upon the Romans by their preaching Unto which is there opposed not disunion and disorder c. as this Scribler pretends but their serving sin But he hoped his credulous Readers would never trouble themselves to look into the places he alledges else he would not have had the impudence if it were not meer ignorance and Folly that betrayed him into it to mention the next place of Scripture 2 Corinth X. 16. A thing made ready to hand 2 Cor. X. 16. He should have said things made ready if he would have stood to his promise of quoting express words of our Bible For so it is both in our Translation and in the Original and even in the Latin Translation it self By which is meant as the same Menochius judiciously observes Provinces or Countries already cultivated by the preaching of the Apostles and prepared thereby to bring forth fruit And so Theodoret he reproves those saith he who would not preach the Gospel among unbelievers c. Let the Reader here again look about and see if he can spy a word about disunion discord disobedience c. in this place of which this man saith there always is mention in the very Text which he alledges 1 Tim. VI. 20. In the next indeed there is mention of vain babling and opposition of Science falsly so called 1 Tim. VI. 20. Where he bids Timothy keep that which is committed unto his trust not the Churches trust as this man again shamefully corrupts both our Translation and the Text. And what is this depositum or trust but the plain Doctrine of the Gospel unto which he opposes the new Phrases and the new Doctrines which the School of Simon Magus had brought in as Menochius interprets it out of Theodoret whose words are these They that had their Original from Simon were called Gnosticks as much as to say men endued with Knowledge For those things in which the Holy Scriptures were silent they said God had revealed to them This the Apostle calls a false Knowledge From whence I think it clearly follows that Theodoret thought true Christian Knowledge to be contained only in the Holy Scriptures Which is the Doctrine he saith let the Romanists mind this which all that have the dignity of Priesthood ought carefully to keep and propose to themselves as a certain Rule and by this square all that they say all that they do In short Tertullian de Prescript C. 25. understands by the thing committed unto him that Doctrine
never a one of which there is any mention much less express mention of Tradition And in the last the Decrees which the Apostles are said to deliver are expresly written also in that very Chapter and place which he quotes XV. Acts 28. For it is said v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner c. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude and delivered the EPISTLE What an unlucky man is this to confute himself after this fashion As for his Fathers he durst not quote the words of any but two only St. Basil and St. Chrysostome The first of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Basil * De Spiritu Sancto c. 27. into which somebody hath foisted a discourse about Tradition which as it belongs not at all to his subject so it contradicts his sense in another place Particularly in his book of Confession of Faith where he saith It is a manifest infidelity and arrogance either to reject what is written or to add any thing that is not written But admit those words which this man quotes to be St. Basil's they are manifestly false by the confession of the Roman Church in that sense wherein he takes them For if those things which he reckons up as Apostolieal Traditions have equal force with those things which are written in the Scripture how comes the Church of Rome to lay aside several of them For instance the words of Invocation at the ostension of the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of Blessing the Consecration of him that is baptized standing in Prayer on the first day of the week and all the time between Easter and Whitsontide And how comes it about that others of them are left at liberty such as Praying towards the East and the Threefold Immersion in Baptism Both which they themselves acknowledge to be indifferent and yet are mentioned by this false St. Basil so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this among the things which are of equal force unto Godliness with those delivered in Scripture Nay he proceeds so far as to say in the words following that if we should reject such unwritten Traditions we should give a deadly wound to the Gospel or rather contract it into a bare Name A saying so senseless or rather impious that if these men had but a grain of common honesty they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world by such spurious stuff as I would willingly think they have wit enough to see this is As for St. Chrysostome it is manifest he speaks of the Traditions of the whole Church And unless they be confirmed by Scripture he contradicts himself in saying Traditions not written are worthy of belief For upon Psal 95. he saith expresly If any thing unwritten be spoken the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. understanding of the auditors halts and wavers sometimes inclining sometimes haesitating sometimes turning away from it as a frivolous saying and again receiving it as probable but when the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pag. 924. 30. Edit Sav. written Testimony of the Divine voice comes forth it confirms and establishes both the words of the speaker and the minds of the hearers V. Next he makes us affirm That a man by his own understanding or private spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture Answer THere is no such crude saying as this among us But that which we affirm is That a man may in the faithful use of such means as God hath appointed rightly understand the Holy Scripture so far as is necessary for his Salvation Who should understand or judge for him but his own understanding we can no more understand than who should see for him but his own eyes if he have any and be not blind And what is there to be found in our Bibles expresly against this The first place is far from express for the gift of Prophecying doth not to every one expresly signifie the interpreting of Scripture 1 Cor. XII 8. it having manifestly another signification in some places viz. Inditing Hymns Besides if this place were pertinent forbidding all to interpret Scripture but only such as have the Gift of Prophecy their Church must not meddle with that work for they have not that Gift no more than those that follow discerning of Spirits divers kinds of Tongues c. His second place is as impertinent 2 Pet. 1.20 21. for it doth not speak at all of interpreting the Scripture but of the Prophetical Scripture it self Which was not of private interpretation that is the proper invention of them that Prophecied for the Prophetical Oracles were given forth not at the will and pleasure of man but the Holy Prophets when they laid open secret things or foretold future were acted by the Spirit of God and spake those things which were suggested by Him These are the words of Menochius which are sufficient to show the gross stupidity of this mans Glosses who babbles here about a company of men and those very holy who are to do he knows not what which private and prophane men cannot do As if all private men were prophane and all companies of men were holy The Lord help them who follow such Guides as these The third place 1 Joh. IV. 1. if it say any thing to this purpose is expresly against him For it is a direction to every Christian not to be of too hasty belief But to try the Spirits that is Doctrines which pretended to be from the Spirit of God Now how should Christians try or examine them but by using their own understandings to discern between pretended inspirations and true If they must let others judge for them they cross the Apostle's Doctrine for they do not try but trust To tell us that their Church is infallible and therefore ought to judg for us is a pretence that must also be tried above all things else and in which every man 's particular judgment must be satisfied or else he cannot with reason believe it And to believe it without reason is to be a fool Nor doth the Apostle leave those to whom he writes without a plain rule whereby to judge of Spirits but lays down these two in the following words 1. If any man denied Jesus Christ to come in the flesh he was a deceiver v. 2. And 2ly if any man rejected the Apostles and would not hear â—hem he was not to be received himself v. 6. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error This makes it plain the Apostle did not leave them then without means of judging aright as he hath not left us now who are to try all things by the Doctrine of Christ and of his Apostles What this man means by the spirit of the whole Church which cannot be tried by particular men is past my understanding and I believe he did not understand it himself but used it as a big phrase to amuse
Doctrine There are no Papists but confess that the most excellent parts even of the visible Church in this world are invisible or hidden For none but God who searches the heart can know certainly who are truly good men and not hypocrites And there are no Protestants who maintain that they who profess the Christian Religion who are the Church have ever been hidden and invisible But this they say that this Church hath not been always visible free from corruption and that it hath not been at all times alike visible but sometimes more sometimes less conspicuous Now these men by the Visibility of the Church mean such an illustrious state as by its glory splendor and pomp all men may be led to it This is it and no more which Protestants deny And Mr. Chillingworth hath long ago told them that the most rigid Protestants do not deny the Visibility of the Church absolutely but only this degree of it For the Church hath not always had open visible Assemblies and so might be said to have been hidden and invisible when they met under ground and in obscure places There is nothing in the Texts of Scripture which he quotes contrary to this much less expresly contrary V. Mat. 14 15. The first of them V. Mat. 14 15. is manifestly a precept to the Apostles setting forth the duty incumbent upon them by their Office that they might gather a Church to Christ So the before-named Menochius interprets those words Ye are the light of the world who ought to illuminate the world by your Doctrine and Example You ought not to be hid no more than a City can be which is seated on a hill Men do not light a candle much less God to put it under a Bushel Our Saviour saith he exhorts his Disciples by this similitude that they should diligently shine both in their words and in their example and not be sparing of their pains or of themselves by withdrawing themselves from the work but communicate their light liberally to their neighbours But after the world was thus illuminated by their Doctrine which they could not always neither Preach in publick but some times only in private houses Christians were forced to meet together in some places and times very secretly not being able always to hold such publick visible Assemblies that all men beheld them and what they did The second we had before to prove the Church cannot err XVIII Matth. 17. and now it is served up again to prove it was never hid and this not expresly but by a consequence and that a very sensless one For whoever said or thought that no body can see a Church when it is not visible to every body It 's members no doubt see it even when it is invisible to others Any man may be seen by his Friends when he lies hid from his Enemies And a Church is visible in that place where it is planted and by them that belong to it though strangers perhaps take no notice of it especially those that are at a distance from it In the third place we have mention of the Gospel but not a word of the Church 2 Cor. IV. 3 4. which he puts in such is his honesty contrary to the express words of ours and of all Bibles Nor doth the Apostle deny the Gospel to be hid but expresly supposes it 2 Cor. IV. 3. that it is hid from those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world who shut their eyes against the clearest light even the light of the knowledg of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ One would think this man besides himself when he bids us behold the censure of St. Paul upon those who affirm the Gospel can be hid when his words are a plain supposition that it was hid to some people Not indeed because they could not for it was visible enough in it self but because they would not see it And I wish there be not too many of this sort in that Church for which this Writer stickles The last place is an illustrious Prophecy of the setting up the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ II. Isa 2. Which was very visible in its beginning when the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles and by them the Law that is the Christian Doctrine went out of Sion and the word of the Lord that is the Gospel from Jerusalem But did not always continue so when grievous Persecutions arose for the Gospel's sake and drove the visible Professors of the Religion into obscure places And I hope he will allow those Scriptures to be as true as these which say there shall be an Apostacy from the Faith and that the Church shall fly into the Wilderness 2 Thess II. 3. XII Revel 6. which is not consistent with such a visibility of the Church as this man dreams of As for the Prophecies which mention a Kingdom of Christ particularly VII Dan. 14. VII Dan. 14. they point at a state of his Church which is not yet come and when it doth come will be with a vengeance to the Roman Church Whose present state will be utterly overturned to make way for the setting up of Christ's Universal and Everlasting Kingdom Which is to be erected when the Mystery of God is finished X. Revel 7. XI 15. and that cannot be till Babylon that is Rome be thrown down XVIII Revel 2. XIX 1 2 6. And we are so far from thinking this Kingdom will be invisible that we believe it will be the most illustrious appearance that ever was of Christian Truth Righteousness Charity and Peace among men He bids us as his manner is see more in other places But if they had more in them than these we should have had them at length And his Fathers also some light touches of which he gives us just as he found them in a cluster altogether word for word in a Book called The Rule of Faith and the Marks of the Church which was answered above LXXX years ago by Dr. J. White who observes * VVay to the True Church Sect. 23. that when Origen whom upon other occasions they call an Heretick saith The Church is full of VVitnesses from the East to the VVest he speaks not of the outward state or appearance thereof but of the truth professed therein Which though clear to the World when he said so yet doth not prove it shall be always so for a Cloud of Apostacy might and did afterward obscure it St. Chrysostome doth not mean that the Church cannot be at all darkned but not so as to be extinguished no more than the Sun can be put out For he could not be so sensless as not to know that it had been for a time eclipsed When St. Austin saith They are blind who see not so great a mountain He speaks against the Donatists who confined the Church to themselves as the Papists now do And he justly calls them blind who
of Confirmation is not to be used Answer HE knew very well that tho we deny Confirmation to be a Sacrament yet we use it not as a Sacrament nor as absolutely necessary to Salvation for we have declared that children baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved but so necessary unto compleat Communion that we require the Godfathers and Godmothers to bring children baptized to the Bishop to be confirmed by him when they come to years of discretion and we admit none to the Holy Communion of Christ's Body and Blood till they be confirmed or be ready and desirous so to be Now where doth the Scripture say it is a Sacrament There is not a word of it in VIII Acts 14. VIII Acts 14. much less is it there expressly declared and declared to be necessary or so much as to be used by others but only that the Apostles laid their hands on those who were baptized and they received the Holy Ghost which I am sure no body can now communicate in such Gifts as were then bestowed But above all it is to be noted that there is nothing said here of the Chrysm or anointing with holy Oyl in which they make this Sacrament consist but only of laying on of hands unto which they have no regard For thus Confirmation is performed in the Roman Church the Bishop takes sanctified Chrysm as they call it made of Oyl and Balsom and therewith anoints a person baptized with the thumb of his right hand in the form of a Cross upon the forehead which is bound with a fillet on the anointing till it be dry and it is also accompanied with a box on the ear all which is plainly ordered to be done in their publick Office of Confirmation But nothing of laying on of Hands is there mentioned which they deny to be either the matter or the form of this Sacrament tho we read of nothing else but this laying on of hands either here or in what follows A clear Demonstration that this place is expresly against their pretended Sacrament of Confirmation VI. Hebrew 1. is so far from being contrary to our Doctrine that some of their own Authors * Salmero Justinianus think it doth not speak of Confirmation at all but of the Benediction of Catechumens and others and some of our Authors think it doth even Mr. Calvin himself But then it is expresly said to consist in laying on of hands and ought not to be turned into a Sacrament but look'd upon as a solemn Form of Prayer as St. Austin calls it for Youth who being grown beyond Childhood made a Profession of their Faith and thereupon were thus blessed Which pure Institution as Mr. Calvin's words are is to be retained at this day and the Superstition corrected Behold how vilely the Protestant Doctrine is calumniated by such wretched Writers as this who seem not to understand Common Sense For he saith Confirmation is here called not only one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ but a Foundation of Repentance when all but such as himself clearly see that the Apostle here makes the Foundation of Repentance from dead Works to be one of the Principles of Christ's Doctrine as laying on of hands is another He betrays also notorious ignorance or falshood in the Citations of his Fathers to which he sends us For Tertullian plainly speaks of the Vnction which accompanied Baptism in his Country not of a distinct Sacrament from Baptism And Pacianus also mentions it as a solemn Right in the Sacrament of Baptism wherein Children are regenerated So doth St. Cyprian likewise even in that place which he mentions where is no such sense as he dreams For he disputes for the Re-baptizing of Hereticks because it is not enough if hands be laid upon them unless they receive the Baptism of the Church for then they are fully sanctified and made the Children of God if they be born by both Sacraments for it is written Vnless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. This latter part this Man conceals which shows St. Cyprian speaks altogether of Baptism in which there were then Two Rites Washing with Water and Laying on of Hands Which were not Two Sacraments properly but Two parts of the same Sacrament which he calls both the Sacraments of Baptism Just as Hulbertus Carnotensis calls the Body and Blood of Christ in the Communion Two Sacraments which in truth are but one For speaking of three things necessary to Salvation he saith of the Third that in it Two Sacraments of Life that is the Lords Body and his Blood are contained St. Hierom likewise speaks of Laying on of Hands but not as a distinct Sacrament For he earnestly contends in that Book that the Spirit is conferred in Baptism and that there can be no Baptism of the Church without the Spirit I have not taken any notice of St. Ambrose for those Books of the Sacrament which gounder his Name are none of his XXXIX That the Bread of the Supper of the Lord was but a Figure or Remembrance of the Body of Christ received by Faith and not his true and very Body Answer THIS is Fiction and false Representation For we expresly declare in the XXVIII Article of our Religion That it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death in so much that to such as rightly worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. And in our Catechism we also declare That the inward and spiritual Grace in this Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper And Mr. Calvin himself saith as much But if we had not been of this mind his first place of Scripture XXII Luke 15. XXII Luk. 15. would have proved nothing against us for it speaks only of eating the Passeover in which he instituted this Sacrament but that followed after Here he speaks only of the Paschal Feast Insomuch that Menochius thus interprets it He most earnestly desired to eat the Paschal Lamb of this year and this day in which the Eucharist was to be instituted and shortly after it was to be shown by his Death how much he loved Mankind whom he so redeemed It was not therefore the Pasche as this Man speaks of his true Body and Blood which our Saviour thus desired to eat This is an idle fancy of a dreaming Divine who hath a Divinity by himself which forbids him to admit Faith to have been in the Son of God But St. Peter was a better Divine than he who applies those words of David to our Blessed Saviour My flesh shall rest in hope because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell c. II. Acts 26 27. Now I would fain know of this Learned Divine whether there can be any Hope without Faith which made him confidently expect
if he had it is to be supposed there was Wine as well as bread else it will prove it is lawful for their Church to consecrate as well as to give the Communion in one kind alone Nor are there any of the ancient Interpreters who thus expound it St. Austin and Theophylact only apply it allegorically and mystically to the Sacrament as Jansenius ingenuously acknowledges the vertue of which may be here insinuated as Theophylact phrases it not expresly declared to enlighten the eyes of men The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew is thus to be understood or else we must make St. Paul's breaking bread in the Ship among the Soldiers and Mariners Acts XXVIII to be giving the Sacrament for that Writer joins this together with the other The later Scholastick Writers all expound it of common breaking of bread such as Albertus Magnus Bonaventure Dionys Cathusianus nay Tho. Aquinas himself whatsoever this man is pleased to say as any one may be satisfied who can look into him in Tertull. Dist XXI Q. 55. It is more impudence to quote II. Act. 42. to prove one kind to be sufficient when all acknowledge this Action was performed in the Apostolical Assemblies by giving the Wine as well as the Bread Therefore breaking of bread is used as a short form of Speech to signify they had Communion one with another at the same holy Feast He durst not here quote so much as one single Father as hitherto he hath done every where else because they are all manifestly against him As not only Cassander and such as he acknowledge but Cardinal Bonel * Rer. Liturg l. 2. c. 18. himself saith that Always and every where from the beginning of the Church to the Twelfth Century the faithful communicated under the Species of Bread and Wine XLI That there is not in the Church a true and proper Sacrifice and that the Mass is not a Sacrifice Answer HE began to speak some truth in this Proposition but could not hold out till he came to the end Falshood is so natural to them that it will not let them declare the whole truth when that which they said already would directly lead them to it For having said we do not believe there is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church why did he not conclude that we deny the Mass to be a proper Sacrifice This had been honest for it is the very thing we have constantly said because proper sacrificing is a destructive Act by which that which is offered to God is plainly destroyed That is so changed that it ceases to be what before it was This they themselves confess and it is from this principle among others that we conclude there is no proper Sacrifice in the Sacrament Malachy I. 11. It is manifest Mal. I. 17. from the current Consent of the Ancient Interpreters speaks of an improper Sacrifice viz. prayer and thanksgiving represented by the Incense So Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Chrysostome and divers others His reasoning upon this place therefore is very childish for the Offering here spoken of is neither Christ sacrificed on the Cross nor Christ in the Sacrament for he cannot be often sacrificed But if we will apply it to the Sacrament it is the Commemorative Sacrifice which is there made of the Sacrifice of Christ with the sacrifice of Prayer Praises Thangsgivings and the oblation of our selves Souls and Bodies to him Such a Sacrifice we acknowledge is offered in the Holy Communion The Psalmist in CX Psam 4. Psal CX 4. speaks of the Priesthood of Christ which endures for ever in Heaven not of any Sacrificing Priest here on Earth where he presents himself to God in the most holy place not made with hands Nothing can be more contrary to the Scripture than to say Melchisedeck sacrificed Bread and Wine unless we will make his offering them to Abraham unto whom he brought them forth as several of the Fathers consent to be a proper Sacrifice But what dare not such men say when he affirms that Christ exercises an eternal Priesthood upon Earth tho the Apostle expresly tells us the contrary VIII Heb. 4 Some of the Fathers indeed make an Analogy between the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist and that which Melchisedeck brought forth but this is against the Popish Notion who will not have Bread and Wine to be sacrificed in the Eucharist though the Fathers expresly say they are His Argument from XXII Luke 19. is very idle For when Christ saith This is my Body which is given for you the meaning is which I have offered to be a Sacrifice to God X. John 17. and am about actually to give in Sacrifice for you And so their own Vulgar Interpreter understood it and translates this word 1 Cor. XI 24. tradetur not which was then given but was to be given viz. to die And so he constantly interprets the other part not is shed but shall be shed And if he spake here in the next words XXII Luke 20. of what was given to the Apostles in the Sacrament it would prove that the Blood of Christ is shed in the Sacrament which is directy contrary to their own Doctrine which makes it an unbloody Sacrifice All the other Scriptures speak of the Priesthood of Christ which none can exercise but Christ himself See them who will he will find this true Not one of his Fathers have a word of a proper Sacrifice much less of a Propitiatory but of a reasonable unbloody mystical heavenly Sacristce which proves the contrary to what they would have As the Fathers do also when they say it is a Sacrifice and then immediately correct themselves in some such words as these or rather a Commemoration of a Sacrifice viz. of Christ on the Cross a Memorial instead of a Sacrifice And thus Aquinas himself understood it XLII That Sacramental Vnction is not to be used to the Sick Answer THERE are many things Sacramental which are not Sacraments and others called Sacraments by the Ancients which are not properly so as the Sign of the Cross the Bread given to Catechumens washing of the Saints Feet c. because they were Signs and Symbols of some sacred thing So was Vnction but not appointed by our Saviour to be a Sacrament of the New Testament This he should have proved if he could have perform'd any thing and that it confers grace from the work done or hath a power by Divine Institution to cause holiness and righteousness in us as the Roman Catechism defines a Sacrament But it was impossible and therefore he uses these dubious words Sacramental Vnction which we see no reason to use unless we could hope for such miraculous Cures as were performed therewith by the Apostles V. Jam. 4. His first Text V. Jam. 4. hath not a word of Sacrament or Sacramental in it and plainly speaks not of their Extream Vnction which is for the health of the Soul when a man is a