cast out Devils and lay your hands upon the Sick and they shall Recover Then the 49 Psalm The Lord the Mighty God hath spoken c. After which they repeat again In my Name c. as before Then follows this Prayer Oremus Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum cum omni supplicatione rogemus ut hunc famulum suum N. per Angelum Sanctum suum visitare laetificare confortare dignetur Let us pray unto our Lord Jesus Christ and beseech him with all supplication that he would vouchsafe by his Holy Angel to visit make glad and comfort this his Servant Afterwards this Antiphona Succurre Domine Infirmo isti N. Medica eum spirituali Medicamine ut in pristinâ sanitate restitutus gratiarum tibi sanus referat Actiones Succour O Lord this Infirm Person N. and heal Him with a spiritual Medicine that being restored to his former Health when he is Well he may return thanks unto thee Then follows another Psalm and after it this Antiphona Sana Domine infirmum istum cujus Ossa turbata sunt cujus Anima turbata est Valdè sed tu Domine convertere sana eum eripe animam ejus Heal O Lord this sick Person whose Bones are troubled and whose Soul is very much afflicted but turn thou O Lord and heal him and deliver his Soul After this is said the 6th Psalm from whence the Antiphona was taken which being ended they anoint the sick Person in several parts but especially in that where the pain lies saying this Prayer Inungo te de Oleo sancto in Nomine Patris Filii Spiritûs Sancti ut non lateat in Te Spiritus immundus neque in membris neque in medullis neque in nullâ compagine membrorum sed in te habitet virtus Christi Altissimi Spiritûs Sancti quatenus per hujus Operationem Mysterii atque per hanc Sacrati Olei Vnctionem atque nostram deprecationem virtute Sanctae Trinitatis medicatus sive fotus pristinam immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem Per eundem I anoint thee with this Holy Oil Instead of this Arcudius gives us this Form out of a very ancient Manuscript in the Greek Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And in another Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arcudius de Sac. Ext. Vnct. p. 394. And the Prayers in the Office of the Euchelaion are all exactly conformable to what I have here observed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that no unclean Spirit my remain in thee but that the vertue of the most highest of Christ and the Holy Ghost may dwell in thee to the End that by the Operation of this Mysterie and through the Vnction of this holy Oil and our Prayers thou may'st be healed and restored by the Vertue of the Holy Trinity and receive thy former and better health Through the same Then follows this Prayer Domine Deus Salvator noster qui es vera salus Medicina à quo omnis Sanitas Medicamentum venit quique nos Apostoli documento instruis ut languentes Olei liquore Orantes tangeremus respice propitius super hunc famulum tuum N. quem languor curvat ad exitum virium defectus trahit ad Occasum medela tuae gratiae restituat in Salutem Sana quoque quaesumus omnium medicator ejus febrium cunctorum languorum Cruciatus aegritudinemque dolorum omnium dissolve tormenta viscerumque ac cordium interna Medica Medullorum quoque Cogitationum Sana discrimina ulcerum vanitatumque putredines evacua Conscientiarumque atque plagarum obducito cicatrices veteres immensasque remove passiones Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma delictorumque cunctorum veniam tribue sicque illum tua pietas jugiter custodiat ut nec ad Correptionem aliquando Sanitas nec ad perditionem nunc Te auxiliante perducat Infirmitas sed fiat illi haec Olei Sacri perunctio morbi languoris praesentis expulsio atque peccatorum omnium optata remissio Per Dominum nostrum O Lord God our Saviour who art the true Health and Medicine and from whom all Health and Medicine doth proceed who also by the Instruction of thy Holy Apostle hast taught us that we should anoint the Sick with Oil look down we beseech thee in mercy upon this thy Servant N and whom his weakness has brought down to Death and the decay of his strength draws towards his End Let the power of thy Grace restore to Health Heal we beseech thee his Feavours c. And let the Holy Vnction of this Oil be the Expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity and the remission of all his Sins Through Then let the Priest give him the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ and if occasion be let them repeat this seven days And the Lord shall raise him up and IF he be in Sins they shall be remitted The Priest ought also to say the Morning and Evening Service every day to the Sick Person adding the Hymn ‖ See the Hymn Cassaadr Oper. p. 287. Christe Coelestis Medicina Patris which is a Prayer entirely for the recovery of the Bodily Health This was the method of their Vnction in Pope Gregory's Missal and which I suppose shews that it had somewhat more than a bare respect to bodily Cures indeed was as I before affirm'd especially designed for them It were an easy matter to shew the very same to be the practice of the Greek Church at this Day insomuch that * Arcud de Sacram Extr. Unct. l. 5. c. 5. de formâ hujus Sacramenti Arcudius himself could not dissemble it But I shall close this with one Observation more which †Cassander Oper. p. 289. where he also cites Cusanus for the same Remark Cassander has given us that it was anciently the custom to anoint not only the Elder Persons but even Infants after the same manner not sure for the forgiveness of those remains of Sin which the former Sacraments had not sufficiently cleared but for the same End for which they then did all others the Recovery of their bodily Health ARTICLE XIII Of Marriage THat Marriage is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called Vindicat. p. 70. as the Council of Trent has defined it their own Authors sufficiently shew ‖ Cassaud Consult Art 13. de num Sacram in fine De Matrimonio verò non modò P. Lombardus negavit in eo gratiam conferri sed longè post eum Durandus disertè inquit non esse Matrimonium univocè Sacramentum sicut alia Sacramenta novae legis nam nec conferre gratiam non habenti nec augere habenti non esse itaque Sacramentum propriè ac strictè dictum Lombard denies that there is any Grace conferr'd in it and affirms it as a †Lib. 4. d. 2. l. C. p. 696. Fuit tamen Conjugium ante
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
we do indeed misunderstand the meaning of it we must at least profess it to be so far from any wilfull mistake that we do no more than what their greatest men have done before us And inded it still seems most reasonable to us that either this Sacrifice is no true and proper Sacrifice as they say it is or it is truly and properly offer'd as we affirm they understand it to be ARTICLE XXI Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine IF my Reflections in this Article be but as good Vindicat. p. 97. as my Exceptions in the foregoing have been just against their Doctrine what the Vindicator has said to these here will I believe be found as little to the purpose as what he endeavoured to reply to those before Tho' Christ be acknowledged to be really present after a Divine and Heavenly manner in this Holy Eucharist yet will not this warrant the Adoration of the Host which is still nevertheless only Bread and Wine from being what our Church censures it Rubrick about kneeling at the end of the Communion Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians nor will such a real presenting of our Blessed Lord to his Father to render him propitious to us make the Eucharist any more than a metaphorical not a true and proper propitiatory Sacrifice If these men please to fix upon us any other notion of the real presence than what has been said and which alone our Church allows of we are neither concerned in the Doctrine nor shall we think our selves at all obliged to answer for those consequences they may possibly draw from it ARTICLE XXII Communion under both Species TO prove the lawfulness of their denying the Cup to the Laity Vindicat. p 98. the Vindicator advances three Arguments from the publick Acts of our own Church The 1st false The 2d both false and unreasonable The 3d. nothing to the purpose 1st He says the Church of England allows the Communion to be given under one species in case of Necessity Art 30. This is FALSE The Article establishes both Kinds and speaks nothing at all of any Case of Necessity or what may or may not be done on that account See Art 30. Sparrow 's Collect pag. 102 and 219. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be administred to all Christian men alike 2dly Edward the sixth he says in his Proclamation before the order of Communion ordains 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 our Realms of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds That is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This as it is thus alledged by the Vindicator is both False and Vnreasonable FALSE for that Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing See Sparrow 's Collect. p. 17. but only says That Forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was ordain'd viz. That the most blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ should from thenceforth be commonly Administred to all persons under both kinds c. 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 ‖ Note That this order of Communion was the first thing of this kind that was done after the Reformation The Mass was yet left remaining and Edward the 6th afterwards published two other Books in which were considerable Alterations and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind It is in the next place VNREASONABLE to argue as to the present state of the Church of England from what was allow'd only and that in case of necessity too in the very first beginning of the Reformation It was indeed the singular Providence of God That in the 2d year of that Excellent Prince things were so far Reformed from those long and inveterate Errors in which the Ignorance and Superstition of Several Ages had involved the Church That they had allowed nay commanded the Holy Sacrament to be given under both kinds when for so many years it had been received only under one But that labouring still under their former prejudices they should in case of Necessity permit that which had been the universal practice of the Church without any necessity at all before this is neither to be admired in them then nor is it reasonable to urge it against us now His 3d Argument is not only Vnreasonable upon the account we have now said but were it never so proper is absolutely nothing to the purpose In the Rubrick at the end of the same Order of the Communion there is this Remark Note that the Bread that shall be consecrated Sparrow 's Collect p. 24. shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed and every of the said consecrated Breads shall be broken in two pieces at the least or more by the discretion of the Minister and so distributed And men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole but in each of them the whole Body of our Saviour Jesus Christ The meaning of which Rubrick is very plain That whereas the people who had hitherto been accustomed to receive the Wafer entire were now to have but a part of it given to them to prevent any mis-conceits upon that account as if because they did not receive the whole Wafer as they were wont to do they did not receive the whole Body i. e. the Flesh of Christ for as to the Blood that they received afterwards in the Cup It was thought fit for the prevention of this scruple to tell them That they must not think less to be received in part than in the whole but in each of them the whole Body of Jesus Christ which what it makes for their denyal of the Cup to the Laity I cannot very well apprehend And now how well this Author has proved it to be the Doctrine of the Church of England to dispence with the Cup in the Holy Eucharist in case of necessity I shall leave it to any indifferent person to judge Tho' after all did we indeed as some others do believe that the Church had power to do this How will this excuse them who without any necessary or but reasonable cause deny it to the people altogether Concil Trid. Sess 21. Can. 1 2. and damn all those that will not believe they had not only power but just cause and reason so to do And why will it not as well follow that they may take away if they please the whole Sacrament from them and Damn all those that will not believe that they had just cause and power to do this too since even that in Case of Necessity
de Valentia Vasquez Suares Perron Gamachaeus and last of all Father Nouet de la presence de Jesus Christ dans les tres saint Sacrement liv 4. c. 5. art 3 p. 285. Nouet in his Controversie against Monsieur Claude VI. This is indeed to cut the Knot when it was not to be untied and makes St. Chrysostome in effect to say thus much That the Nature of BREAD after the Consecration still remains though indeed the Nature be changed and only the Accidents continue And would it not have been an admirable Similitude to shew that the Humane Nature of Christ was not changed into the Divine as the Appollinarian pretended to alledge the Example of the Eucharist in which the Nature of the BREAD was changed into the very Nature of Christ's Body as the Papists believe VII But S. Chrysostome was not so absurd as these men would represent him and his other Expressions utterly overthrow this Evasion 1. He tells us plainly that all the Change that was made in the BREAD by Consecration was in the Name See this Argument managed by Monsieur Claude Rep. à Pere Nouet Partie 5. c. 6. p. 488. not the Substance That whereas before it was called BREAD by being consecrated it became worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY 2. Had St. Chrysostome believed the BREAD to have been truly changed and become the very Body of Christ would he have said that it became WORTHY to be CALLED the Body of Christ and not rather plainly have told us that it became the VERY BODY of Christ Do men use to say that the Heaven is worthy to be called the Heaven The Sun worthy to be called the Sun And why shall we think St. Chrysostome the only ridiculous man to use such a Phrase as no man in the World ever did or would have done besides But 3. And to put this point beyond all doubt When St. Chrysostome here speaks of the Nature of BREAD in allusion to the Nature of CHRIST if we will have him consistent with himself we must suppose him to have used that Expression with reference to both in the same sense As therefore in his Discourse immediately before and after by Nature with reference to CHRIST he does not mean the Properties only but the very Substance of his Humanity and Divinity so here in his allusion to the Eucharistical BREAD he must still mean the same the Substance of the BREAD and not barely the Properties or Accidents of it and of this I am perswaded no indifferent Person will make any doubt Secondly As to the design of this Allusion VIII The Apollinarians as we have seen affirm'd the Change of one Nature in Christ into the other That however before the Vnion they were two distinct things yet by being united the humane Nature became converted or if you will transubstantiated into the Divine IX Now the Falseness of this S. Chrysostom shews by the Example of the Eucharist That as there the BREAD by being consecrated becomes indeed worthy to be called CHRIST's BODY yet do's not lose its own Nature but continues the same BREAD as to its Substance that it was before So here the Humane Nature of Christ being by the Incarnation hypostatically united to the Divine did not cease to be a Humane Nature but still continued what it was before however united with the other in one Person X. So that as certainly then as the Humane Nature of Christ does now continue to be a Humane Nature notwithstanding that Incarnation so certainly does the BREAD in the Eucharist continue BREAD after this Consecration As certainly as Apollinarius was deceived in supposing the Manhood of Christ to be swallowed up and changed into the Godhead so certainly is the Papist deceived in imagining the Substance of the BREAD to be swallow'd up and converted into the Substance of CHRIST'S BODY in this Holy Sacrament XI Christ's Humane Nature being united to the Divine became worthy thereby to be called together with it by the same common Name of Christ Lord Jesus the Word the Son of God the BREAD being by Consecration mystically united to Christ's BODY becomes worthy to be called together with it THE LORD's BODY but that is all the Humane Nature still continues what it was before in the one the Nature of the BREAD still continues what it was before in the other and there is no Transubstantiation made in either XII In a word in the Hypostatick Vnion though there be two distinct Natures God and Man yet there is but one Person one Son made up of both So in the Holy Eucharist though there be two different things united the BREAD and CHRIST's BODY yet we do not say there be two Bodies but one mystical Body of Christ made up of both as the King and his Image to use the Similitude of the Antient Fathers are not two but one King Or in the Example of St. Chrysostome himself Christ and the Church are not two but one Body REFLECTION III. Of the Epistle it self and the Attempts that have been made against it I. ANd now when such is the force of this Epistle that it utterly destroys one of the principal Errors of Popery It is not at all to be wondred at if those men who were resolved not to be convinced by it themselves have used all imaginable means to provide that others should not II. Ann. 1548. It is now above 100 years since this passage was first produced by Peter Martyr in his Dispute with Gardiner Bishop of Winchester concerning the Eucharist He then profess'd that he had copied it out of the Florentine MS. and that the whole Epistle was put by him into Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Library Lovanii Confutatio Cavillationum c ad Obj. 201. This Gardiner could not deny who therefore in his Answer to him 1552. endeavour'd first to ascribe it to another John of Constantinople who lived about the beginning of the 6th Century Secondly to elude the force of this Passage by that strange interpretation of the Word Nature I have before mentioned and in which all the others have since follow'd him III. Libr. 1. de Euchar. cap. 18. Turrian who by his writing seems to shew that he had somewhere or other seen this Epistle contends in like manner and if we may believe Vasquez Vasquez dis 180. c. 9. n. 102. Valentia de Transub cap. 7. §. Similiter and de Valentia proves it too that this Epistle was not Chrysostom's but the other John's to whom the Bishop of Winchester had before ascribed it But yet still the Argument recurr'd upon them forasmuch as this other John was in the beginning of the 6th Age and Transubstantiation by consequence was not the Doctrine of the Church then IV. And indeed Gamachaeus is not very unwilling to acknowledge this for having with the rest assigned this Epistle to the other John he tells us Excusari posse quod nec Transubstantiatio ejus temporibus ita perspicuè tradita explicata fuerat sicut
they acted Neither had all they that were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing any assurance by that Cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins This again is false The Sin here promised to be forgiven is that for which the Sickness was sent if it was sent for any Now St. James expresly promise that in this case whenever the Health of the Body was restored this Sin should be forgiven too and therefore it must be false to say it was not He adds lastly That St. James promises that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up Which if it had been meant of bodily Health those only would have died in the Apostle's Time who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony And if it must be understood of the Soul's Health then it will follow that none were damned either then or now but what neglect this Advice or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Ceremony concerning the Truth of which the Vindicator may please to give us his Opinion But the Vanity of this Objection proceeds from the want of a true Notion of the Nature of these Gifts They who had the greatest measure of them could not yet exercise them when they would The same Spirit that helped them to perform the Miracle instructed them also when they should do it So that they never attempted it but when they saw the sick Person had Faith to be healed and that it would be for the greater Glory of God to do it St. Paul had doubtless this Gift of Healing and yet he neither cured Timothy of the weakness of his Stomach 1 Tim. 5.22 and his other frequent Infirmities and left Trophimus at Miletum sick 2 Tim. 4.20 That this Gift of Healing was in the Church at this time is not to be doubted though this place should not belong to it Will the Vindicator argue against this that then none died till it went out of the Church but such as refused the benefit of it or died suddenly before they had time to do it It may appear by this Vindicat. p. 69 70. how little they have to object against the true Design and Interpretation of this passage Nec ex verbis nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus à Discipulis exercendam in aegrotis Cajet Annot. in Loc. For Cardinal Cajetan's Authority the Vindicator tells us That had I said only that he thought it could not be proved neither from the Words nor the Effect that St. James speaks of the Sacramental Vnction of Extreme Vnction but rather of that Vnction which our Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick I had been a faithful Quoter of his Sense But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other is to impose upon him and the Readers As if when two Things only are in controversy for the Cardinal absolutely to exclude the one and apply it to the other were not in effect for I design'd not to translate his words to confess that it could belong only to that But that which is most considerable is that the Antient Liturgies of the Church and the publick practice of it for above 800 Years shew that they esteemed this Vnction to belong primarily to bodily Cures and but secondarily only to the sickness of the Soul And because these Rituals are not in every bodies hands to argue at once the truth of my Assertion and shew how little conversant the Vindicator has been in them I will here insert some particular proofs of it Upon the Thursday in the Holy Week when this Oil was wont to be consecrated they did it with this Prayer Ex S. Gregorii Libr. Sacram. p. 66. Fer. 5. post Palm Emitte domine Spiritum S. tuum paraclitum de Coelis in hanc pinguedidem Olivae quem de Viridi ligno producere dignatus es ad refectionem Corporis ut tuâ sanctâ benedictione sit omni hoc unguentum tangenti tutamen Mentis Corporis ad Evacuandos omnes Dolores omnesque infirmitates omnem aegritudinem corporis That by this Blessing it might become the Defence both of the Mind and Body The same is in effect the Prayer of the Greek Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euch. p. 863. Nor is it much different in that publish'd by Thomasius as P. Gelasius's Ritual before P. Gregories upon the same day p. 69. only that he generally joins Mentis Corporis to cure all Pains and Infirmities and sickness of the Body nothing else mentioned In the Office of Visiting the Sick several Introductory Prayers all for the Bodies Recovery are first said such as this pag. 251 c. Ad visitand infirm p. 251. Deus qui famulo tuo Hezekiae ter quinos Annos ad vitam donâsti ita famulum tuum N. à lecto aegritudinis tua potentia erigat ad salutem Per. O God who didst add to the 〈…〉 thy Servant Hezekiah fifteen Years let thy Power in like manner raise up this thy Servant from his Bed of Sickness Through c. Some of these being said the Priest goes on thus Domine Deus qui per Apostolum locutus es Infirmatur quis in Vobis S. James 5.14 15. inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae orent super eum ungentes eum oleo Sancto in Nomine Domini c. Cura quaesumus Redemptor noster gratiâ Spiritûs Sancti languores istius Infirmi sua sana vulnera ejusque dimitte peccata atque dolores cunctos cordis corporis expelle plenamque interius exteriusque sanitatem miserecorditer redde ut ope miserecordiae tuae restitutus Sanatus ad pristina Pietatis tuae reparetur Officia Per c. O Lord God who by thy Apostle hast said If any Man be sick let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord c Cure we beseech thee O our Redeemer by the Grace of the Holy Spirit the sickness of this infirm Person Heal his Wounds and forgive his Sins and expel all the Pains both of his Heart and of his Body and restore him mercifully to full health both inward and outward that being by thy merciful Aid Recovered and Healed he may be strengthned to the former Duties of thy Service Through c. Then the sick Person kneels down upon the right Hand of the Priest and this Antiphona is sung Dominus locutus est Discipulis suis In Nomine meo Daemonia ejicite super Infirmos manus vestras imponite bene habebunt Psalm Deus Deorum Dominus locutus est Et repetit In Nomine meo c. The Lord said unto his Disciples In my Name
the Image but to Jesus Christ represented by that Image Vindicat. ib. p. 31. Mons de Meaux Expos p. 8 9. Of Reliques Old Popery New Popery †Thom. 3. par qu. 25. Art 6. p. 54. See above p. 22 23. SEeing we Adore the Saints of God we must also Adore their Reliques Thomas This is an undoubted truth amongst Catholicks That the Reliques of the Saints Vasquez in 3 part D. Tho. disp 112. p. 808. whether they be any parts of them as Bones Flesh Ashes or some other things that have toucht them or belonged to them are to be adored Vasques See above Art 4. p. 50. ‖ Ita ut affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis Venerationem atque Honorem non deberi vel eas aliaque sacra Monumenta à fidelibus inutilitier honorari atque eorum opis impetrandae causa Sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari omnino damnandi sunt p. 292 293. Those are to be condemned who assirm that no Worship or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints or that those sacred Monuments are unprofitably revered by the Faithful or that for obtaining their Help men ought not to frequent the Memories of the Saints Concil Trid. Sess 25. c. de Invocat c. WE honour Reliques as we do Images for those whom they belong'd to Vind. p. 40. We will not quarrel how we ought to call this Respect and Honour p. 43. Vind. but it is not Worship Ib. p. 42. We seek not to them for any Aid and Assistance to cure the Blind c. and are therefore falsly charged with so doing Vind. p. 41. Of Justification Old Popery New Popery * Conc. Trid. Sess 6. Cap. 7. p. 31. BY Justification is to be understood not only Remission of Sins but Sanctification and renewing of the inward Man Concil Trid. If any one shall say that men are Justified either by the alone Imputation of Christs Righteousness or only by the Remission of Sins excluding Grace and Charity which is diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost and inheres in them or that the Grace by which we are Justified is only the Favour of God Let him be Anathema Concil Trid. ib. See above Art 5. p. 53. * See above Art 5. p. 27. If any one shall affirm the works of a justified man to be so the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of the justified man himself or that he being justified by the good Works which are perform'd by him through the Grace of God and Merit of Jesus Christ whose living Member he is do's not truly merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life let him be Anathema Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 32. THey impose upon us who say that we make our inward righteousness a part of Justification and by Consequence hold that our Justification it self is also wrought by our good Works Vind. p. 47. Of Merits Old Popery New Popery WE do as truly and properly Maldonat in Ezek. 18 20. p. 425. when we do well by Gods Grace merit Rewards as we do deserve Punishment when without his Grace we do ill Maldonat The Works of just Persons Bellarmin de Justificatione lib. 5. cap. 17. are truly equal to the Reward of Eternal Life as the Work of those who labour'd in the Vineyard to the peny which they earned And God by his Covenant is bound to accept it for the reward of Eternal Life This is the Doctrine of the Council of Trent Bellarmin see art 6. above They Vasquez in D. Th. 12ae q. 114. disp 214. p. 800. therefore are to be condemned who think our Works of themselves not to be worthy of Eternal Life but to have the whole nature of Merit that is in them from the Covenant and Promise of God This was the Opinion of Scotus condemn'd above Art 7. p. 31 31. Christ indeed Vasquez ibid. p. 917. c. first obtain'd Grace for us whereby we might be enabled to work out our own Salvation but this being done we have no more need of Christ's Merits to supply our defects But our own good Works are of themselves sufficient to Salvation without any Imputation of his righteousness Vasquez See above l. c. ETernal Life ought to be proposed to the Children of God as a Grace that is mercifully promised to them by the Medition of our Lord Jesus Christ and a recompence that is faithfully render'd to their good Works and Merits in Vertue of this Promise Expos M. de M. p. 11. We ask all things we hope all things we render thanks for all things through our Lord Jesus Christ we confess that we are not acceptable to God but in and by him Ib. p. 12. Of Satisfactions Old Popery New Popery TO this Question whether our Works are to be called truly and properly Satisfactory ‖ Bellarm. de Poenit. lib. 4. cap. 7. Bellarmin replies That they are so that we may be said truly and properly to satisfie the Lord. See above Art 7. ‖ Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purgat cap. 10. It is immediately our Satisfaction and Christs only in as much as we receive Grace from him whereby we our selves may be able to satisfie Id. ib. Art 7. As to mortal Sins Vasquez in 3 part disp 2. See above Art 7. Gods Grace being supposed to be given to us in Christ Vasquez declares We do truly satisfie God for our Sins and Offences As for venial Sins we do so satisfie as not to need any Grace or Favour of God to forgive our Sins or accept our Satisfaction but our Satisfaction is such as doth in its own nature blot out both the stain and punishment of Sin Vasquez above l.c. ‖ Quidam asserunt Nos proprie non satisfacere sed solum facere aliquid cujus intuitu Deus applicat nobis Christi Satisfactionem Quae sententia erronea mihi videtur Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. p. 1899. A. B. There are some who say That we do not properly satisfie but do somewhat for the sake of which God applies to us Christs Satisfaction This Opinion seems to me to be Erroneous Bellarm. THey impose upon us who say that we believe that by our own endeavours we are able to make a true and proper Satisfaction to God for Sin Vindicat. p. 54 55. That which we call Satisfaction following the Example of the Primitive Church is nothing but the Application of the infinite Satisfaction of Jesus Christ M. de M. Expos p. 15. Of Indulgences Old Popery New Popery THere being in all Sins a temporal Punishment to be undergone after the Eternal Bellarm. de Indulgentiis lib. 1. cap. 1. p. 3. by the Sacrament of Penance is remitted We call Indulgence the Remission of those Punishments that remain to be undergone after the forgiveness of the Fault and Reconciliation obtain'd by the Sacrament of Penance The Foundation of these Indulgences Ibid. cap. 2. is the Treasure of the Church consisting partly
Orat 46. p. 722. c. but to have been always with him consubstantial with the Divinity which Divinity therefore by consequence suffer'd and was mortal which Epiphanius Theodoret but especially Gregor Nazianzen has at large related Only since some for the more distinct conception of the Apollinarian Heresie have thus distinguish'd it from that of Eutyches afterwards that the Eutychian affirm'd That our blessed Saviour took nothing from the blessed Virgin Theodoret. Haeretic Fab. l. 4. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eutyches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the very Logos the Word it self being as Theodoret expresses it immutably converted and made Flesh only passed through the Virgin whereas Apollinarius supposed the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin to be converted into the Divine Nature It appears by Gregory Nazianzen that this was no certain distinction forasmuch as the Apollinarian too affirmed oftentimes the same thing that as the Father expresses it in the place I before cited Naz. orat 46. supr dict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apollinarius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 722. our Saviour was even before he descended the Son of Man and descending brought his Flesh along with him which he had whilst he was in Heaven before all Ages and consubstantial with his Essence Which is what Theodoret long since observed when in his 3. Dialogue speaking with relation to them both he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who have patcht together this various and many-form'd Heresie sometimes say that the Word is become Flesh sometimes that the Flesh is changed into the Word Wherefore laying aside these subtleties this we may undoubtedly conclude That whatever their other differences were whether as to his Body which we see is uncertain or to his Soul in which the variety was more constant and more discernable the Eutychian affirming the Vnion of the two intire Natures the Humane and Divine whereas the Apollinarian deny'd that our Saviour ever assumed the reasonable Soul at all certain it is for what concerns our present purpose See Petav Dogm Theolog. Tom. 4. l. 1. c. 15. pag. 71. §. 3. that they both agreed in this That after the Vnion of the Word and Flesh there was but one only Nature common to both the Substance of the two that were before being now confused and permixt from whence they were both of them afterwards called by Apollinarius by St. Chrysostom Eutyches by others St. Chrysostom and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their confusion of the two Natures into one and making not only one Person as the Catholick Church did but one Nature too alone in Christ REFLECTION II. St. Chrysostme's Argument from the Eucharist against the Apollinarians consider'd and explain'd SUch is the Account which the antient Fathers have left us of the Apollinarian Heresie and the same we find to have been the Notion which St. J. Chrysostom in this Epistle had of it He proves the divine and humane Natures to be distinct in Christ that the Properties of the one ought no otherwise to be confounded with the other than as they are united in the same Person He charges the Apollinarians with saying that our Saviour's Body is converted into the Divinity and upon that account attributing Passion to the Deity and finally he concludes all with this Exhortation to Caesarius whom he designed by this Epistle to recover from their Errours Wherefore dearly beloved says he laying aside the novel Phrases and vain Speeches of these men let us return to what we have before said that it is pious most pious indeed that we should confess our Saviour Christ who died for us to be perfect in the Godhead perfect in the Manhood one only begotten Son not divided into two but bearing in himself together the unmixt proprieties of two distinct Natures Not two different Persons God forbid But one and the same Lord Jesus God Word cloathed with our Flesh and that not inanimate without the rational Soul as the wicked Apollinarius pretends Let us then assent to these things let us fly those who would divide him for though the Natures be distinct yet is there but one undivided and indivisible Union to be acknowledged in the same one Person and Substance of the Son II. And now if this be the Catholick Doctrine which this Holy Father here designs to bring Caesarius to such the Errours which by the subtlety of the Apollinarians he was involved in It will be very easie to conceive the Allusion he here makes between the two Natures united in Christ and the two Parts which the Catholick Church has ever acknowledged in the Holy Eucharist to the destruction of the Romanists Pretences of Transubstantiation and to the solid Establishment of the real Presence of Christ in this sacred Mystery such as the Church of England believes and has been established by me in the foregoing Discourse III. The Words of St. See below ☜ Chrysostome in this Epistle are these Christ is both GOD and MAN GOD in that he is impassible MAN for that he suffer'd yet but one SON one LORD He the same without doubt having one Dominion one Power of two united Natures Not that these Natures are consubstantial forasmuch as either of them does without confusion retain its own Properties and being two are yet inconfused in him For as in the Eucharist before the BREAD is Consecrated we call it BREAD but when the Grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it it is no longer called BREAD but is esseemed worthy to be called the LORD's BODY although the Nature of BREAD still remains in it and we do not say there be TWO BODIES but ONE BODY of the Son So here the DIVINE NATURE being joyned with the Humane BODY they both together make up but one Son one Person But yet they must be confess'd to remain without confusion after an indivisible manner not in ONE NATURE but in TWO PERFECT NATURES IV. In which Passage whether we consider the Expressions themselves or the Application of them they are utterly destructive of Transubstantiation First as to the Expressions themselves They tell us plainly That the Nature of BREAD remains in the Eucharist after the Consecration That our not calling it BREAD but CHRIST's BODY does not therefore intend to signifie that the Nature of BREAD is at all changed for that the BREAD by Consecration becomes indeed worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY but yet still retains its own Nature of BREAD V. These are such plain expressions of the Bread's continuing in its own Nature after Consecration that the Papists themselves have not been able to deny it So that their only Refuge is that by the BREAD'S retaining still its own Nature we are they say to understand only this that its Accidents remain but for its Substance that is changed into the BODY OF CHRIST See most of these cited by Albertinus de Eucharist l. 2. pag. 533. in Chrysostome c. 1. Thus Gardiner Turrian Bellarmine Gregory