so then the Vindicator himself allows Vind. p. 102. 2dly That a Particular Church may either by Error lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in the necessary points of it Indeed that promise of our Saviour Matt. 16.18 That the gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church seems on all hands acknowledged to refer to his whole Church not to any one particular Branch or Portion And therefore tho' the particular Church of Rome should have fallen into gross Errors both in matters of Faith and Practice yet the Catholick Church of Christ may still as to other of its members retain so much Truth and Purity as to keep it from falling away or being guilty of an intire Infidelity And then for the 3d. Exception The allowing any other Particular Church to examine and judg of the Decisions of this Church of Rome If She her self be but a particular Church and has no more Command or Jurisdiction over the Faith of other Churches than they have over hers then every other National Church is as much impow'red to judg for her self as She is and has an equal right to examine her Decisions as those of other Churches and may either receive or reject what by Gods Grace directing her She Judges to agree or disagree with his Holy Word Nor do's one Branch of Christ's Church in this respect invade the Prerogative of another since they do herein only follow the Apostles Rule in trying all things and holding fast that which is good But the 4th Exception he says Vind. p. 102. is yet more intollerable than all the rest That it should be left to every individual Person not only to examine the Decisions of the whole Church but also to glory in opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word Ibid. p. 103. This he says is a Doctrine which if admitted will maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World These indeed are very ill Consequences but such as do not directly follow from this Doctrine as laid down in my Exposition For 1st I allow of this Dissent or Opposition only in necessary Articles of Faith where it is every Mans concern and duty both to judg for himself and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able And 2dly As I take the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to be made so do I suppose these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial Enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion Now these two things being supposed that in matters of Faith a man is to judg for himself and that the Scriptures are a clear and sufficient rule for him to judg by it will plainly follow That if a man be evidently convinced upon the best Enquiry he can make that his particular Belief is founded upon the Word of God and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in Opposition to that of the Church And the Reason of this must be very evident to all those who own not the Church but the Scriptures to be the ultimate rule and guide of their Faith For if this be so then individual Persons as well as Churches must judg of their Faith according to what they find in Scripture And tho it be highly useful to them to be assisted in the making of this Judgment by that Church of which they are Members yet if after this Instruction they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith between the Voice of the Church and that of the Scripture they must stick to the latter rather than the former they must follow the superior not inferior Guide And however this method may through the Ignorance or Malice of some men be liable to some Abuse yet certainly in the main it is most Just and Reasonable and most agreeable to the Constitutions of the Church of England which do's not take upon her to be Absolute Mistress of the Faith of her Members See Article 20. but allows a higher Place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions As to the Authority by which I back'd this Assertion viz. that of St. Athanasius tho' it is not doubted but that that Expression of his being against the whole World and the whole World against him did refer chiefly to the Eastern Bishops and was not so literally true as to those of the West yet if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and Sirmium and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith sent to him from Ariminum and was for that reason deposed from his Bishoprick and banished out of Italy yet afterwards when the Emperor Constantius sent for him to Sirmium and required his assent to a form of Faith in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted Sozomen Eccl. Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. he yielded thus far and was thereupon restored to his Bishoprick I say if we consider these and the like Particulars related by the Church Historians we shall have little reason to believe that the Western Bishops or even the Pope himself did throughly adhere to the Faith of St. Athanasius and therefore that neither was He or I much in the wrong in affirming That he stood up in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils and almost the whole Church fell away ARTICLE XXVI Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy IN this Article the Vindicator is pleased to declare that he has nothing to say against the Opinion of the Church of England Vindic. p. 106. only he thinks fit to advise me to enquire What that Authority is which the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give the Pope Indeed a very little inquiry will serve the turn to let a man see that their Pope do's at this day lay claim to a great deal more than those Councils or Fathers did ever allow him And we should be glad he would direct us to those places either in the first Councils or the Primitive Fathers where the Pope is stiled the Vniversal Bishop or the Supreme Head on Earth of the whole Christian Church where it is said That he is Christs immediate Vicar and that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him These are things which he do's now pretend to but we can find no Footsteps of them in the first Councils or Fathers of the Church On the contrary we find innumerable passages which
Peccatum institutum non utique propter Remedium sed ad Sacramentum Et d. 26. l. A. Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum propter peccatum exordium sumpserint Matrimonii Sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum à Domino Sacrament to have been instituted not only before Christ but even before the Fall and therefore was not cited either for Ostentation or for the silly Reason mention'd by the Vindicator * 4 Sent. d. 26. q. 3. Durandus in express terms declares that forasmuch as it neither confers Grace where it is not nor encreases it where it is it cannot be a Sacrament truly and properly so called It is therefore evidently false to say that Lombard is against me in this Matter and for the torrent of Fathers and †For his torrent of Fathers Bellarmine has been able to collect but six or seven of which not one to the purpose nor any very ancient And for the Scriptures Estius one of the wisest of their own Party is forced to confess Cum igitur hujus Doctrinae non poffit ex Scripturis haberi probatio saltem aperta evidens consequens est articulum hunc Matrimonii Sacramento gratiam conferri unum esse extraditionibus Ecclesiae non Scriptis ad Virbum Dei non scriptum sed traditum pertinere 4 Sent. d. 26. §. 7. p. 61. Scriptures which he talks of it would have been more to this purpose to have produced their Authorities than thus vainly to boast of that which we certainly know he is not able to perform ARTICLE XIV Of Holy Orders IF the Vindicator be truly agreed with Me in this Article Vindicat. p. 71. He must then renounce the number of his seven Sacraments I deny'd that there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture being only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded I affirm'd that several of his own Church had declared it not to be Essential to Holy Orders nor by consequence the outward Sign of a Sacrament in them In a word I said that the Grace conferr'd was no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament To all which he has thought fit not to offer one word in Answer ARTICLE 15 16 17 18. Of the Eucharist AS to the Business of the Eucharist Vindicat. p. 72. I had not entred on any Argument about it had not Monsieur de Meaux here thought fit to lay aside the Character of an Expositor to assume that of a Disputant For the words of Institution which are the principal part of this Controversy I proposed two Arguments to confirm the Interpretation which our Church gives of them One from the the natural import of the words themselves the Other from the intention of our Saviour in the institution of this Holy Sacrament To the former of these the Vindicator thought he could answer somewhat but for the latter it has been urged chiefly since Bellarmine's time and so our Author had nothing to say to it For the former then he tells us Ibid. first Of the insincerity of my Attacque Pag. 73 74. That the Bishop declared there was nothing in the words of Institution OBLIGING them to take them in a figurative sense to which I oppose only That there are such Grounds in them for a figurative Interpretation as NATVRALLY lead to it 'T is true I have not here used the very word OBLIGED but yet in my proof I proceed upon such Grounds as I said would NECESSARILY REQVIRE a figurative Expos Ch. of Eng. p. 47. Interpretation which is much the same thing And though I cannot tell what will Oblige Him to take those words in their true i. e. figurative sense yet if I have proved That there are such Grounds in those words as Naturally indeed necessarily lead to it any reasonable Man would think that joyn'd with the Other proof from the Reason of the thing it self might be sufficient to Oblige him to acquiesce in it But we will examine his Process which whether it argues more my unsincerity or the falseness of their Interpretation I shall leave it to the Reader to judg First He confesses as to my first Position Vindicat. p. 73. that the words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation No-Body says he ever deny'd but the words as they lie without considering the Circumstances and Practice of the Church delivering the Interpretation of them down to us might possibly lead to a figurative Interpretation Seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture As for Example I am a Door I am a Vine c. Which being always taken by the Church in a figurative sense we should esteem him a Mad-man that should think it possible after this to perswade all the World they ought to be taken in a literal And as it would be a madness to suppose all Mankind might in future Ages be so sottish as to renounce this figurative Interpretation of Jesus Christ's being a Dore and a Vine and fall so far into the literal sense as to believe him to be substantially present in them and pay the utmost adorations to him there set them up in Temples to be Adored and celebrate Feasts in honour of them ‖ This is the Pretence of Mr. Arnauld and at large refuted by Mr. Claude in his answer to him whose Works being in English I shall refer the Reader who desires to see the vanity of this Argument exposed to what he has there said So we cannot but think it to be irrational to imagine that if the Disciples and whole Church in all Nations had been once taught these words This is my Body were to be taken in a figurative sense it could ever have happen'd that the Visible Church in all Nations should agree to teach their Children the literal c. The meaning of which Discourse if I understand it aright is this Concession that the words of Institution do in themselves as naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation as those other Expressions I am a Vine I am a Door And the only thing which makes the difference is that the Church as he supposes has from the beginning interpreted the One according to the Letter the Other in a figurative Acceptation Secondly As to my Argument That if the Relative This in that Proposition this is my Body referr'd to the Bread which our Saviour held in his Hand the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and Christ's Body will NECESSARILY REQVIRE the figurative Interpretation This * De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. p. 462. l. D. speaking of Carolstrad's Opinion of the Eucharist Scripsit says he Verba Evangelistae Hoc est Corpus meum hunc facere sensum Hic Panis est Corpus meum quae sententia aut
this being that we are to enquire into let us see whether the Authorities I have brought have not the force I pretend against their Tenets And 1. LOMBARD writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time For having first asserted the real Presence in this Sacrament and the change which he supposed was made upon that account He goes on to that which the †Vind. p. 92. Vindicator is pleased to call a Scholastick Nicety and it was indeed at that time no other tho since become a matter of Faith Lombard l. 4. d. 11. lit A. p. 736. De modis Conversionis Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa Conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis desinire non sustineo Quibusdam esse videtur substantia is c. viz. What kind of Conversion is there made Whether formal or substantial or what else And for this he tells us freely He is not able to define it That some have thought it to be a SVBSTANTIAL CHANGE but for his part he will not undertake to determine it But 2dly SCOTVS is yet more free ‖ Dicendum says Scotus quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei Si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus Articuli cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem vericrem secundum apparentiam Dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae See 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 63. He declares our Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be the more easie and to all appearance the more true Insomuch that the Churches Authority is the * And before in Sect. Quantum ergo He profess'd Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet Romana Ecclesia In a Word Bellarmine himself cites Scotus for this Opinion Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767. L. D. Principal thing that moved him to receive their Doctrine †And again p. 768 L. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus quod minime probandum est Ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem He tells us that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very Ancient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran all which the Vindicator himself does in effect confess The same is Vind. p. 88. 3ly affirmed by * Suarez in 3 part D. Th. vol. 3 disp 50. § 1. p. 593. Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem Panis Vini in Corpus Sanguinem Christi Haec assertio est de fide Nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in Scriptura ea tamen docet Ecclesia ab Apostolis edocta docens simul ita esse intelligenda Verba formae in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri And then p. 594. col 2. adds 1mo Ex hac Fidei Doctrina colligitur corrigendos esse Scholasticos qui hanc Doctrinam de Conversione hac seu de Transubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos sunt Scotus Gabriel Biel lect 41. in Can. c. And then 2do infero Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi absentiam Panis neget tamen veram Conversionem unius in aliud in HAERESIN labi quia Ecclesia Catholica non solum duo priera sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet SVAREZ of GABRIEL and confess'd by the Vindicator who also contrary to his pretences calls this manner of Conversion an Assertion that is of Faith tho he confesses it is not expresly to be found in Scripture but deduced thence by the Interpretation of the Church Nay so opposite is he to the Opinion and Pretences of this Man that he declares in this very place which our good Author examined but amidst all his sincerity overlook'd this passage as not much for his purpose That if any one should confess the real Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Bread and yet deny the true CONVERSION of the one into the other he would fall into HEREST forasmuch as the Church has defined not only the two former but also the third likewise But 4thly The Prevarication of our Author in the next Citation is yet more unpardonable I affirmed That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper Sense of the Words the other might with as good reason have been received This he says is false Vind. p. 86. for that Cajetan says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article And then with wonderful assurance begins a rabble of Citations nothing to the purpose in the very next Words to those in which mine end For the better clearing of this Doctrine Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. p. 130. Col. 1. In comment circa praesentis sequentium Articulorum Doctrinam pro claritate ampliori intellectu difficultatum sciendum est ex Autoritate S. Scripturae de Existentia Corporis Christi in Sacramento Eucharistiae nihil aliud haberi expresse nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis Hoc est Corpus meum Oportet enim Verba haec vera esse Et quoniam verba sacrae Scripturae exponuntur dupliciter vel Proprie vel Metapherice Primus Error circa hoc fuit Interpretantium haec Domini Verba Metaphorice quem magister Sent. l. 4. d. 10. Tractat. Qui hoc Articulo reprobatur Et consistit VIS Reprobationis in HOC Quod verba Domini intellecta sunt ab ECCLESIA Proprie PROPTEREA oportet illa verificari proprie Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio c. Cited by the Vindicator says Cajetan we must know That as to the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist there is nothing to be had expresly from the Authority of the holy Scripture but the words of our Saviour saying This is my Body For it must needs be that these words are true and because the Words of Scripture may be expounded two ways either Properly or Metaphorically the first Error was of those who interpret these words Metaphorically which is rejected in this Article And the force of the Rejection consists in this That the words of our Saviour have been understood in their proper Sence by the Church and therefore must be properly true This the Vindicator was pleased to pass by tho' the very next words to those he cites Nay to say That Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appeal to any that should read it for the truth of it Should a Protestant have done this he would I believe have found out a great many hard Names for him to testifie his Zeal against Falshood and