acknowledge theâ—… as our Betters but we are not nevertheless for their sakes to depart from the authority of holy Writ Nothing can be express'd with greater decency and therefore we may reasonably suspect false play in the Citations which would persuade us to the contrary To instance in the first Non ego quaero quid Ambrosius Augustinus Concilia c. dicunt Contra Reg. Angliae Lr. is there proving that no sort of Tradition a Non haec dico in contumeliam Santorum Patrum quorum labores venerari decet fuerunt magni viri sed viri tamen Comm. in Genes c. 2. p. 72. can make an Article of faith of what is not contain'd in Scripture and in this case if a thousand Ambroses or Councils should vote it such he would slight the decision This is plain from what immediatly follows Non disputo quid à quoquam dictum vel non dictum sit sed an hoc dictum necessarium sit servatu an sit articulus fidei an sit aequale verbo Dei c. I desire the Reader to trust his own eyes in consulting this Passage and then tell me whether this Man be not the foullest Trader in Quotations that ever he dealt with Indeed he is a very Procrustes in his way whatever he meets of other men's he unmercifully either stretches or curtails till he has made it exactly of a size with his own notions The rest of the Testimonies are highly impertinent and if they be look'd into 't will be found they signify no more then this the Fathers have err'd and therefore he cannot rely merely upon their authority and what is this more then their own Canus and Cajetan say that no man should detest a new sense of Scripture for this that it differs from the antient Doctors for God hath not say they ty'd exposition of Scripture to their senses a Can Loc. Com. L. 7. C. 7. where he quotes Cajetan too We have a surfet of Quotations here agen from the Colloquia but I have told him what credit they are like to find with us That from Captivitas Babylonica needs only to be propos'd intire It goes upon a supposition that Lr. had already shew'd the plain meaning of Scripture to be against the doctrine of the Mass. Here says he Quid dicimus ad authoritates Patrum Primum respondeo si nihil habetur quod dicatur satius est omnia negasse quam Missam sacrificium esse concedere ne verbum Christi negemus Very right supposing as he do's that Christ's words are express in the case But neither do's he rely on this Plea for in the very next line he reconciles the Fathers and Scripture and shew's there is no clash betwixt ' em What he wrote in commâ—…ndation of Melancthon before his works cannot be suppos'd so exact as to discover his judgment on the point but was only a complement strain'd a little too high in behalf of a friend I must leave the Track of the Discourse here to fetch in another instance of Lr. despising Church-Guides and yet arrogating to himself all the Authority of them 'T is at § 23. Which because I take to be the compleatest §. 23. piece of false dealing that ever was us'd 〈◊〉 paper I shall set down intire Upon the same presumption of his unerring judgment he by his single Authority alter'd the former public Litâ—…rgy and reform'd the service of the Mass. apud Hosp. fol. 20. The place cited in Hospinian has not one word of this but it has something directly contrary to it Luther began not the Reformation of the service of the Mass the Austin-Fryars did it a Hosp. fol. 20. without his knowledge when he was in his retirement after the Dyet of Worms and he wrote his book of the Abolition of the Mass afterwards only to confirm them in what they had done Carlstat too b Melch. Ad. V. L. while he was absent promoted a Reformation of the Mass and of several other abuses but in too tumultuous a manner so that Lr. upon his return to Wirtenburg complain'd of the violence of their proceedings Non quod impie fecissent sed quod non ordine damnare se Missam Papisticam c sed damnare solo verbo non violenta abrogatione The Mass then was abrogated without Ls. consent and not either by the single Authority of him or any one man else the whole University of Wirtenburg first gave in their reasons to D. Frederic and he himself comply'd with the alteration Luther afterwards prevail'd to have as much of the service as was innocent restor'd agen and he was deputed to throw out all that part of it that made the Sacrament a Sacrifice He did so but impos'd not even this form as obligatory for thus he speaks in the preface to it Nulli praejudicamus ne aliam amplecti formulam aut sequi liceat quin ex animo per Christum obsecramus ut siquid melius illis revelatum fuerit nos priores tacere jubeant ut communi opera rem communem juvemus and generally held in matters of Religion no Ecclesiastical i. e. human Laws obliging See before § 19. I have prov'd already that that Paragraph say's no such thing and that Lr. never disallow'd the power of the Church in things indifferent began a new ordination of Bishops and Ministers descending from him after having declar'd their former unction null and God's Church to be only that where the Gospel was purely preacht that was his I have shewn that he 's far from declaring their former Unction null since in the Smalcald Articles he allows their Ordinations to be valid Nor did â—…e ever deny that the true Gospel was preach'd under the Papacy Nos fatemur they are his words sub Papata plurimum esse boni Christiani imo omne bonum Christianum imo verum nucleum Christianitatis a Ep. de Anabapt By the same Authority assisted by the Power of the Prince he made new Bishops and put them in the places of the deceas'd against the Canonical Election of another made his intimate Friend Amsdorf Bishop of Neoburg see Melch. Ad. vit p. 150. George Auhaltinus Bishop of Mersburg That he made new Bishops we admit not out of choyce but necessity following as he thought in this case the practise of the Church mention'd in that well-known passage of St. Austin's in Alexandria per totam AEgyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter But that he put these Bishops in the places of the deceas'd by his 〈◊〉 Authority is notoriously false for the D. of Saxony alwayes presented as the following story will evince when freed from the disguises he has put upon it and honestly told The Canons of Neoburg upon a vacancy presented one Psugius to the Bishopric who was refus'd unanimously ab Ecclesia ab Ordinibus Patroniâ—… Ecclesiae say's Adams a Ad. in Vit. Amsdorfii The D. of Saxony had always the
he yielded to in the dispute was the conviction of those arguments which he himself had before reform'd upon The objections the Tempter rais'd from hence to discourage his Faith and shake his constancy those he withstood and baffled What is there then in this Encounter that can be lay'd hold of to Ls. disadvantage Is it that he convers'd with the Devil He did not we see the dispute was manag'd in animo atque in corde by suggestions within not without by any personal appearance But had he really enter'd into Dialogue yet the President our Savior has given would have been his warrant And would one ransack the Life 's of their Popes Sylvester the 2d Gregory 7 Benedict 8 Hildebrand c. 't were easy to retaliate and shew how much greater intimacies have been maintain'd between Satan and some of them Is it that his Doctrine of the Mass was struck out in this Conflict or that it gave him any occasion of Reforming in this point We have evidently made out the contrary by an elder date of some works of his which establish these very opinions Yet should it have been so the actions of their own Saints would justify Ls. management For their admir'd Dominic reform'd the Religious of his Covent upon just such another rancounter with the Devil a Vid Antonin Chron. 3. Part. Tit. 23. Cap. 4. 6. and made use of his accusation tho' contrary to the intention of the accuser Is it that Lr. comply'd with the Tempter's arguments no such matter The supposition he allow'd because 't was his own but deny'd the Sequel which his disputant would have fasten'd upon him Yet should what he yielded to have been Satan's own proposition it do's not follow that he was therefore in the wrong for Lying is not the indelible Character even of the Father of Lyes sometimes a Truth serves his turn better He quoted Texts right upon our Savior tho' he expounded em wrong and surely he told no ly when he confess'd Christ-Jesus to be the Son of the living God Do's this story carry such scandalous impressions along with it that even Chillingworth himself own 's it as one of his motives for deserting our Communion But pray take in the other part of the account too and consider how he laugh'd at it when he return'd So that after a search into particulars all we find true in this affair is that the Devil once made a solemn onset upon L r. as before he had done on his Redeemer A Calumny which we are so far from disowning that we are proud on 't The Devil had great reason to employ all his Engines against a Man who had made such ravage in his Kingdome and he took a good time to make his attacq's when Lr. was in his solitudes at the Castle of Wartsburg for there it was I think that the scene of the Temptation lay Upon the whole then our Author's modesty seem's to be unexampled who upon so slight grounds nay upon no grounds at all could be bold enough to say that the whole Platform of p. 71. the Reformation proceeded originally from the Devil and agen that the Devil is the Original Founder and Abetter of the p. 72. Reformation These are such sawcy expressions upon a Religion establish'd by Law as deserve rather to be burnt then confuted The manage and address of my author has been spent to no purpose in tricking up this story for after all we see it has no hideous appearance He 's resolv'd now in contradiction still to the method laid down of considering works only and not disputing to baffle the arguments the Opponent urges in the dispute and shew how slight the propositions were which Lr. let go for good So that p. 72. the Tables are turn'd and whereas the Scene before lay betwixt Lr. and Satan 't is now betwixt the Devil and the Considerer And for my part to give every one his due I think the Devil has much the best on 't I shall pass by the little skirmishings on either side and touch onely on what 's material The Devil argues against private Masses §. 40. n. 3. from the nature of Christ's institution when he distributed it about to his disciples and said Do this c. From St. Paul's Comment on these words 1 Cor. 11. from the usage of the Primitive Church a See Annot. in Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Cap. 6. Where this usage is confess'd and from the term Communion which she allways express'd it by Here the Answerer has nothing to say but that the Priest in these Masses is ready to communicate the Sacrament to all that offer themselves But this is not enough for the Devil's quaestion is whether it be not against the notion of a Sacrament that the Consecrater alone should partake of it He urges farther that neither have they any intention of communicating it because the words of Consecration are pronounc'd according to the Canon of the Mass with a Whisper and so not defign'd for the peoples Ears And to all this there 's not a word reply'd The Devil goes on to object that as Lr. had withheld all the Sacrament in private Masses so neither did he give it entire in public ones To §. 40. n. 4. this the answerer returns nothing but that the practise of the primitive Church is sufficient warrant that the words of institution are not so to be expounded as if both kinds were necessary But this bold assertion has been so fully vanquish'd in a late Reply to the Bishop of Meaux's treatise on this subject that I shall not stop here to expose it The Reader will there find that not a single instance of Communion in one kind is to be found in all the Records of antiquity At least if our word will not be taken that of the Council's will which decreed it with a non-obstante to the custome of the Primitive Church Satan argues §. 40. n. 5. against their form of ordination which seem's rather to give the power of offering a Sacrifice then distributing a Sacrament For the words he says of the Suffragan when he deliver's the Chalice into the Priest's hands are Take thou Power of consecrating and Sacrificing for the Quick and the Dead What say's the Replyer Why that Sacrificare in the Churches sense takes in the distributing part too But we know this is not the Church-sense and referr our selves to the Trent-Catechism to expound it There a Cap. de Euch. §. 75. the Eucharist is said to be instituted upon a double account the one that it might be a Spiritual food for our Souls the other that it might be a Sacrifice for our Sins So that whatever belong's to it as it is the food of our Souls belong's to it as a Sacrament and certainly the ministring of it to the people belong's to it as it is the food of our Souls and therefore as a Sacrament not a Sacrifice Besides the notion
of Sacrificing has nothing in it of distribution 'T is offering something slain by the hands of a Priest to God Now this is all done before it comes to be distributed to the People as they who allow private Masses must needs acknowledge It avails not the Considerer here to urge another part of the office where the Priest is said to be ordain'd in totum Presbyteratus officium for if in the most solemn clause of it where the power is specify'd and convey'd no mention be made of a power of imparting the Sacrament why should not the totum officium be rather reduc'd to this then this to that Nor do's this prejudice L s. Orders at all for since no set form of words is prescrib'd by God as essential to Ordination we doubt not but that where the Church intends to convey this it is actually convey'd tho the form of doing it should be a little defective which is all the Devil here pretends to make out and which yet I don't see how his Adversary has answer'd Satan proceeds to another objection against his using the Mass as a Sacrifice propitiatory for sins contrary to Christ's institution Our Author says 't is a propitiatory Sacrifice onely as those under the Law are said to be so with respect to that on the Cross. But by his leave we deny the Parallel for the quaestion we would put isn't whether the Sacrament of the Mass be as truly propitiatory as those under the Law but whether it be as truly a Sacrifice If so then 't is a true proper Sacrifice without relation to that of the Cross for such the Jewish Sacrifices were and is not onely commemorative or representative as we are told at a push Even as the annual offering of the Paschal Lamb was not only commemorative of that first Paschal Lamb but also in it self exclusively to that respect an entire proper sacrifice But if he shall say 't is not of it's self a true proper sacrifice 't will follow that neither can it be so with respect to that on the Cross for whatever is not in it's own nature a true proper sacrifice can never be made so by a relation to some other that is The Parallel then is wide For the immolations under the law were first in their own nature Sacrifices and then propitiatory in vertue of that last offering upon the Cross whereas the Sacrament of the Eucharist has not that first ground of a real Sacrifice and so nothing to support it's propitiatory vertue upon But learned Protestants he says have long since yielded up §. 45. this argument and quotes Mede and Perkins for it They say indeed that the Eucharist is a sacrifice in representation and who ever said otherwise but deny expressly that 't is really and properly such Our Author wonders they should relieve themselves with this distinction and yet own the Legal Sacrifices tho' representative to be proper and real But I hope his wonder will abate a little now I have shew'd him the difference between ' em St. Paul's authority brought from 1 Cor. 10. 18. is beside the purpose The Apostle is there arguing against the Gnostics who joyn'd in the Idol-Feasts and whom he therefore accuses of participating of the Idol-God even as those he says who joyn in the Christian-Feast participate of Iesus Christ. Therefore the one is as much a Sacrifice as the other No! But therefore the one is as much an act of Religious worship as the other and a confederating with him to whom the Sacrifice is offer'd for upon that the Apostles argument runns Satan had therefore reason to say that Christ instituted not the Sacrament to be either a Sacrifice or singly receiv'd for look upon the words of institution Do this Do what no doubt on 't what I did that is bless the bread and wine and distribute it So that where this is not done there is no Sacrament and where it is done no sacrifice For nothing is done but what Christ did Now he did not offer up himself for then what need of the oblation of the Cross afterwards as 't was well urg'd by near half the Divines and Fathers of Trent a Counc of Trent pag. 545. Who asserted also that neither Scripture Fathers Canon of the Mass or any Council ever said that Christ offer'd up himself in the last supper But I am weary of saying what has been so often said and shall therefore leave Satan and my Author to dispute it out as not being much concern'd which way the victory goes for the strength of the cause I suppose do's not depend upon either of their talking Indeed since the main of the argument has prov'd good 't is a needless task to vindicate particulars If what is said in the lump be suppos'd of force enough to ground Ls. aversion against the Mass 't is all we desire So that had I leisure to pursue the minutes of the discourse yet the argument would be but where it was for one demonstration upon a subject is as good as a thousand The disputing part might have been spar'd here because 't is forreign to the first design of proposing bare Works and by them making an estimate of doctrines But I must be content to follow my Guide in his own way Should I have set aside every thing that was impertinent my Answer must have lain within the room of one of his paragraphs But this hadn't been deference enough to an Author of his bulk and the dwarf had look'd too despicably little to encounter the Gyant He comes now to make his reflections upon this dry § 41. 42 tedious story He guesses it probable that the Devil intended by this Dialogue to fix Luther's notions of the Mass more strongly upon him and I guess otherwise His only way to confute me will be to shew that those notions are bad till that 's done we are not to be mov'd by conjectures Here is a digression about Zuinglius § 44. which yet §. 44. contrary to the rule of Episode has nothing in it surprizing Zuinglius dreamt it seem's one night of a Text which upon recollection he found very pat to his Doctrine of the Eucharist and what thoughtful man is there that has not met with such lucky hints sometime or other without thinking himself oblig'd to the Devil for the discovery The next Paragraph recapitulates and has been Answer'd §. 45. §. 46. already He beginn's then to make his Concessions Luther he thinks discover'd not these wiles of Satan but inferr's that he was therefore the more dangerous §. 47. instrument and so takes occasion to tell us the story of Vaninus and lay out bigotry and false confidence in all it's colors Some people have dy'd by suspension at Tyburn he says some by fire at Smithfield with an equal resolution for two contradictories This is a darling Point and he 's every wery where full of it you 'll find him at it in