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
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
may be dispensed with and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it prove neither damnable nor dangerous PART III. ARTICLE XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word AS to this Article Vindic. p. 100. there is indeed an Agreement between Monsieur de Meaux and Me so far as We handle the Question and keep to those general terms Of the Traditions being universally received by all Churches and in all Ages for in this Case We of the Church of England are perfectly of the same Opinion with them and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the Apostles with a like Veneration to that we pay to the written Word it self But after all this there is as the Vindicator observes a very material difference betwixt us viz. Who shall be judge when this Tradition is Vniversal He tells us Vind ibid. they rely upon the judgment of the present Church of every Age declaring her sense whether by the most General Council of that Age or by the constant practice and uniform voice of her Pastors and People And this is that to which he conceives every private person and Church ought to submit without presuming to examine how ancient that Tradition does appear to be or how agreeable it is to the Written Word of God Now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of Traditions for these two reasons 1. Because whether there were any such particular Doctrine or Practice received by the Primitive Church is a matter of fact and as such is in many cases distinctly set down by such Writers as lived in or near that first Age of the Church Now where the case is thus the Accounts that are given by these Writers are certainly to those who are able to search into them a better Rule whereby to judge what was an Ancient Doctrine and Tradition than either the Decree of a Council of a latter Age or the Voice and Practice of its Pastors and People For let these agree as much as they will in voting any Doctrine or Practice to have been Primitive yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing Men if the authentick Histories and Records of those times shew it to have been otherwise And this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the Councils and practised by the Pastors and People in the Roman Church we cannot look upon her late Decrees and Practices to be a good or a safe Rule for judging of the Antiquity or Vniversality of Church-Traditions But 2. There is yet a more cogent Reason against this Method which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and to give this Vnwritten Word the upper hand of the Written For according to this Method if the Church in any Age does but decree in Council or does generally Teach and Practice any thing as an ancient Tradition then this must obtain and be of force with all its Members tho' many of them should be perswaded that they cannot find it in nay that it is contrary to the Written Word of God Now this we cannot but look upon as an high affront to the Holy Scriptures And let them attribute as much as they please to the Decrees and Practices of their Church We cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon these grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the written Word of God In this Case we think it reasonable that the Church's Sentence should be made void and the Voice of her pretended Traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God ARTICLE XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church IN the two next Articles Vind. p. 101. concering the Authority of the Church I was willing to allow as much and come up as near to Mons de Meaux as Truth and Reason would permit This it seems made the Vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my Concessions But these his hopes are soon dasht when he finds me putting in some Exceptions and not willing to swallow the whole Doctrine as it is laid down in the Exposition Now the Exceptions that seem most to offend him are these 1. That the Church of Rome should be taken for a particular and not the Catholick Church 2. That She should be supposed as such either by Error to have lost or by other means to have prevaricated the Faith even in the necessary points of it 3. That any other Church should be allow'd to examine and judg of the Decisions of that Church 4. That it should be left to private or individual Persons to examine and oppose the Decisions of the whole Church if they are evidently convinced that their private belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Holy Word These are the Exceptions at which he is the most offended Vind. p. 103. The 1. of these he calls an Argument to elude the Authority of the Church of Rome and to shew the Fallacy of it he thinks it sufficient to say That they do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholick Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Now if this in truth be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholick Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholick as that of Rome it self For seeing it is the Purity or Orthodoxness of the Faith which is the bond of this Communion this renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholick with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocess and so makes it only a particular not the Vniversal Church But now should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of and that it were proper to understand by that name all those other Churches which are in Communion with her yet all this would not make her the whole or Catholick Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the World besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all Ages profess'd just the same Faith and continued just in the same Worship as She hath done And this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which have plainly for several Ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship So that in respect of these and the like Christian Churches which were not of her Communion She could not be looked upon as a Vniversal but only as a Particular Church Now if this be