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
the Present Controversies as being the first thing that appeared in Print against Roman Catholics tho' the Author of the Present State of the Controversies would not take notice of it And they who seriously considered the timing of it the persons to whom it was spoken the severity of the accusation and the manner of Publishing it made their conjectures then that it was like a throwing out the Gantlet and bidding defiance to all the Catholics in England Some short remarks were made upon this Sermon in a Paper called a Remonstrance by way of Address from the Church of England to both Houses of Parliament This occasioned the Doctors reply in which he not only endeavored to vindicate himself but threw all the dirt he could upon the Catholic Church laying all the faults of particulars at the Churches Door after such a manner as shewed him neither to understand our Doctrin nor the Principles we go upon It appeared from hence that nothing was to be expected but clamor insincerity and misrepresentation and therefore tho' an Answer was prepared and approved of yet was it thought fit by those who were to be obeyed to let the Controversie dye rather than stir up a Religious Litigation upon a Point which not only the protestations of Catholics but their Practices had justified them in However seeing the Doctors Vindication as well as all the other Books Written since the Pretended Reformation had been chiefly filled up with mistakes or misrepresentations of our Doctrins all which were taken upon trust as Real Truths not only by the Vulgar but by many who tho' pretending to Learning had as appeared never Read any but their own party or at least but superficially Charity prompted a good Man to shew our Doctrins truly as they are in themselves without the Mixtures of the particular Opinions of Schoolmen or the Practices which are neither universally nor necessarily received And in order to this he Published a Book under the Title of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented Papist Misrepresented and Represented in which the Judicious and Learned Author shewed in one Column what was commonly received amongst the Vulgar as the Doctrin of Papists and in the opposite the true Doctrin of the Catholic Church was represented with all the sincerity and candor imaginable All moderate persons who would give themselves the liberty to Read and think acknowledged that Catholics and their Religion had been strangely misrepresented and were apt to lay great faults upon their Leaders who had even from their Pulpits seconded the common Cry. But that party being loath to be thought to have any faults could not endure to be looked upon as Misrepresenters and therefore notwithstanding they could not deny but all that was there exposed under the Title of a Misrepresenter was at least according to the common Notion People had of Popery yet was it not to be called Misrepresenting and tho' they could not deny but all Catholics believe according to that Doctrin which the Representer expresses yet must this pass for new Popery and we must be accused as if we receded from the Faith of our immediate Predecessors whilst we affirm that any change from the Faith delivered by a continual Succession from Christ and his Apostles must needs be damnable This occasioned several Tart Answers and Reply's till at last the Controversie dwindled into nothing but a Verbal Dispute whether telling the World that Popery is Idolatrous Disloyal bloody-minded c. be properly speaking a Misrepresentation or some other word During this dispute two Books were Published with the same Charitable and as was hoped inoffensive intention The first the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685. concerning Religion Acts of the General Assembly together with the complaint of the said General Assembly against the Calumnies Injuries and Falsities which the pretended Reformed have and do every day publish in their Books and Sermons against the Doctrin of the Church The Design of which Book was the same with that of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented with this only difference that in Representing the Tenets of Catholics it made use only of the words of the Council of Trent and the Profession of Faith extracted out of it and in Representing the Calumnies formed against our Doctrins observed Religiously the expressions of Protestant Authors whose very words were cited in the Margent This was so clear a proof of what the Representer had said that 't is supposed his Adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such plain and ample Testimonies The other was the Bishop of Meaux 's Exposition of the Doctrin of the Catholic Church in matters of Controversie The Exposition A Book received by all persons in the Catholic Church of all Ranks and Degrees as containing nothing in it but the Orthodox Doctrin of the Church But all the Repeated Testimonies of his Holiness and the Cardinals Prelates and Doctors of the Church were not enough to make our Adversaries believe it to contain our Doctrins truly so strangely had they been Misrepresented to them And therefore out comes presently another Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England c. In the Preface of which Book the Author pretended to shew that the Bishop of Meaux's design was only to palliate or pervert the Doctrins of his Church because forsooth his Manuscript Copy or if you will the Real first tho' not Authenticated impression differed in some points from what was Printed and allowed of as the first Impression But let us suppose for a moment if he will that what he says were true that the Bishop of Meaux's Manuscript was defective in some points and differently expressed from what it is now in others suppose the Bishop had permitted an impression to be made or as Cardinal Peron is said to have done and which it may be was all the Bishop did had caused a dozen or fourteen Copies to be Printed off to shew them to his friends before he would put the last hand to his Book nay if you will let us suppose that some of the Doctors of Sorbonne were of the number of those friends to whom he Communicated those Copies and that they had made some Corrections Observations or Additions what is all that as the Bishop says to the Book as it is at present We send them not to the Manuscript nor to the first Impression if a few such Copies could be properly called an Impression but to the Book as it is now Printed and and approved of as containing the Doctrin of the Catholic Church As for the Refutation of all the Defenders Arguments upon this head I shall refer my Reader to the Bishops own Letter Published in the Appendix Only whereas the Defender in his Preface to the Exposition page 2. insinuates that the late Mareschal de Turenne did not owe his Conversion to that Book but to some other personal Conferences or Papers to them unknown
enjoy the Beatifical Vision till the day of Judgment yet seeing it is true and confessed by the most * Chemuitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part 3. de Invoc SS Vossius disp 2 Thes 1. Bishop Forbes commends Bishop Montagues candor in acknowledging S. Augustin to allow Invocation of Martyrs and censures Bp. Andrews for denying it Lib. de Invocat Sanctorum c. 4. n. 3. Dr. Fulk in his Rejoynder to Bristow pag. 5. Spalatensis Repub. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12. n. 25. affirms the same of St. Augustin and several others These are cited by S. C. in his answer to Dr. Pierce's Court Semon pag. 192. 198. 199. See also Thorndike cited before pag. 14. ingenuous Protestants that they also held it lawful to invocate the Saints that they not only prayed to them themselves but exhorted others to do the sam◠and this without ever giving them the least caution that their Expressions were only Rhetorical Flights it necessarily follows that Bellarmins Argument would have been of no force with them as indeed it was not with St. Augustin who tho' he durst not decide whether it was the Saints themselves who appeared sometimes at the Memorials and who heard the Prayers or the Angels for them yet made no difficulty to pray to them himself and to record the many benefits which others obtained by Praying to them as may be seen throughout his whole 22d Chapter of his 8th Book De. Civitate Dei. But it seems our Adversaries are forced to great Straits when they are constrained to catch hold of every little Argument which they think ill Managed and rather than not maintain their Novelities cast Dirt in the Face of all the Antient Fathers and accuse that Primitive Church it self whose Purity they profess to imitate and acdording to whose Doctrin they say they have Reformed not only of such gross Errors as are contrary to express Texts of Scripture but of such Ignorance that they held Opinions not only incoherent but even (a) This is one of the Protestants usual amusements to make St. Augustin quarrel with St. Augustin St. Chrysostom with St. Chrysostom c. contradictory to several other expressions in their own Writings How much more Christian like had it been for him to have imitated (b) Proinde cum apud priscos Ecclesiae Doctores legis Justorum animas vivere aut in sinu Abrabae aut in Paradisi nemore aut sub Altare Dei aut in abditis recepriculit lbique expectare suiurae gloriae praemia non statim suspiceris animas Sancterum carere divini intuitus Gleria Sed intellige eas nondum potiri perfecta consummats illa felleitate quam post corporis resurrectionem expectant Bibl. Sancta Lib. 6. Annot. 345. pag. 621.1 Sixtus Senensis whom he cites who after having related the several obscure passages of the Father affirming The Souls of the Just to remain till the day of Judgment in the shades of Paradice under the Altar of God or in hidden receptacles expecting the Future Reward of Glory tels us We must not presently imagic they intend as if the Souls enjoyed not the Beatifical Vision but only that they did not yet possess that entire Felicity which they expect after the Resurrection of the Body What if some of the Fathers believed that Saints departed were not admitted to the highest Heaven immediately upon their deceases Do's not our Lord himself tell us there are many Mansions in his Fathers House and Saint Paul that as the Stars do differ in Glory so do the Saints in Heaven We need not enquire how one may be subordinate to another as the degrees of Angels are Let us let that alone till we come thether However let Monsieur Daillè and this Gentleman take heed lest while they deny any Invocation of the Saints they stumble not upon Purgatory Certainly what ever sense may be put upon the Primitive Fathers Writings the constant practice and Tradition of the Church shews that she always believed some persons to enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after their departure out of this life tho there remains a further complement of their Glory at the general Resurrection when Soul and Body shall be united Another piece of the like Veneration for the Antient Fathers follows §. 13. Primitive Fathers calumniated by the Defender where he accuses those of the 4th Age of departing from the practice and Tradition of the Ages before them and endeavours to prove it from the profound Silence of the Fathers of the Three first Ages from whom he challenges me to bring him any one Instance of such Intercession Had he consulted his Brethren the Centurists of Magdeburg §. 14. Prayers to Saints within the 1st 300. years he would not have made so bold a Challenge for they acknowledge that Origen who lived Anno 226. (*) The Centurists of Magdeburg Cent. 3. col 83. lin 49. alledge Origen saying O Beate Job or a pronobis miseris Prayed to Holy Job and admitted the d Invocation of Angels they affirm also that there are manifest steps of the Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that Antient Age. Had he also consulted Cardinal Perron whom he cites he would have seen that the Fathers of the 4th Age were so far from departing from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them that they make mention of that foregoing practice Thus St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon upon the Aniversary of St. Cyprian (a) Again Cent. 3. col 75. line 29. they say Angelos etiam Origines invocenlos putavit Hom. 1. in Ezech. I em cent 3. c. 4. col 83. line 47. Videat in Dectorum hujus saeculi scriptis non obscura vestigia invecationis Sancterum Apud Protestnat Apology Tr. 2. sect 3. subd 7. pag. 95 in margine n. 26 27 28. who flourished in the year 250 not only prays to him but relates a History how St. Justina being in danger of making Shipwrac of her Chastity by the Magical Art of St. Cyprian before he was converted to the Catholic Faith had recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary begging of her to assist her whose Virginity was in danger By which relation whether he was mistaken in the Cyprian he mentions or no it matters not he at least plainly shews that the practice did not arise in his time but was the common Custom of the precedent Age. What then if the few Writings of the Antients of the First 300 years which remain be silent in this particular does it follow that they approved not the practice or is there nothing now to be believed in the Church but what must be found in their Writings This indeed might be a Socinians plea but I did not think those of the Church of England as by law Established would have stood upon it when an Act of Parliament obliges them to Venerate the 4 first General Councils Stat. 1 Eliz. c. 1. so far as not to judge any matter or
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