Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body referred to the Bread that our Saviour held in his Hands the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and CHRIST's Body will necessarily required the Figurative Interpretation But unless he can prove that the Pronoun hoc this must necessarily relate to Panis Bread and not to Corpus Body his Argument will avail him nothing but that all his Logic will never be able to effect Pag. 45. His Argument is this What did he say was his Body but that which he gave to his Discipoles What did he give to his Disciples but that which he broke What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly He took Bread But what follows from all this but that JESVS took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat THIS IS MY BODY But he go's on What JESVS took in his Hands that he blessed What he blessed the same he brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But JESUS says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said THIS IS MY BODY But what do's all this argue against us unless he beg the Question and suppose that no real Change was made by those Words Which to shew how true it is let us propose an Example We will suppose and that not incongruously that our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these either mental or vocal Words This is Wine or let this be Wine Now here it is manifest the Word This was not determined but only signified Substance till the Word Wine was annexed This supposed if any one would see the force of his Argument let him change the Expression and instead of Bread use Water and instead of Body use Wine and then reflect whether he can from thence prove that these Words This is Wine must necessarily mean This Water is Wine or rather whether that would not be a Proposition which implies a Contradiction Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 19. SS prumum as Gratian and Cardinal Bellarmine prove in the foregoing Places cited by him of the like Proposition This is my Body But it will not be amiss to consider Cardinal Bellarmine's Argument to which this Author refers He tell us there how these Words Take and eat for this is my Body must necessarily infer either a real Change of the Bread as Catholics or else a metaphorical Change as the Calvinists hold but that they will by no means admit of the Lutheans sence Which Proposition he endeavours to prove against the Lutherans assirming the Words This is my Body to bear necessarily one of these three sences First This which is contained under the species of Bread is my Body which is the Catholic sence and supposes a Mutation The second is that of the Sacramentaries who admit of no Mutation and their sence is This Bread is the Figure of my Body The third which is that of the Lutherans who admit of no Change but yet allow a Real Presence must bear this Interpretation This truly Wheaten Bread is truly and properly my Body But this says he can by no means be admitted whether we speak of the thing it self or of the Proposition For it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another for it would be that thing and would not be that thing Moreover in an Affirmative Proposition it is necessary the Subjectum or thing of which any thing is affirmed and the Praedicatum or thing affirm'd of it should have a regard to the same thing Then follow the Words which he cites It cannot therefore be that that Proposition should be true in which the Subjectum or former part designs Bread and the Praedicatum or latter part the Body of CHRIST For Bread and the Body of CHRIST are two very different things This indeed may prove that the Words of the Institution may possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation but are far from proving that they oblige us to take them so which was what the Bishop of Condom affirmed and which he if he had used Sincerity should have oppugned and not have spent so much time to prove what was not the Question But as I said it is not my Business here to justifie our Tenets but to see what he has to say against the Exposition as such I do not find he pretends here that the Bishop of Meaux has palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But I observe he uses frequently the Word Corporeally and the Corporeal Presence which the Bishop has avoided keeping himself to the Terms of the Council of Trent which tells us only that JESVS CHRIST is truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament but uses not the Word Corporeally I suppose because it may bear a double sence and signifie either first that the Body is really and substantially present tho' not after a carnal gross manner with all the Qualifications of a Natural Body and this is the sence of those Catholics who make use of it Or secondly it may be taken as signifying the Body to be present after a corporeal carnal manner with all the Conditions and Qualities of a Natural Body which sence our Enemies are apt to impute to us as if it were our Doctrine tho very unjustly But had he been Faithful in giving us the Doctrine of the Church of England I doubt not but the Arguments he brings against the Bishop of Meaux would have proved as much against it as it do's against ours He tells us Pag. â—â— They confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but they deny that therefore it must be his very Body I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing it self but yet is more than a meer Gigure of it If he mean that it is not the Body Corporeally according to the Explication of the word as I have given it in the Second Sence we agree with him But if he mean by this somewhat more than a meer Figure that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful in the Lords Supper as their Church Catechism has it I see not also in what the difference consists betwixt us neither can I see how his Arguments oppugn our Doctrine without confuting theirs 'T is true their Twenty eighth Article tells us that The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and that the means whereby the Body of CHRIST is receiv'd and eaten in the Supper is Faith Yet because I am not willing to think their Canons and Church Catechism contradict one another I am willing to think the meaning of the saying that Faith is the means by which they
as the thing intended by the word Consubstantial was all along of Faith before that Council so was the thing intended by Transubstantiation ever believed by the Faithful in all Ages The thing intended by the word Transubstantiation is expressed by the Council of Trent in these words If any one shall say Sess 13. Can. 2. 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 Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church do's most aptly call Transubstantiation Let him be Anathema This Council having before expressed our Belief of the true Ibid. Can 1. Chap. 1. real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the most Holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it But because there are many sorts of Conversions of one Substance into another all which may be called Substantial Conversions and by consequence the word Transubstantiation might be properly enough used to express that Change therefore it is manifest the Church do's not intend here 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 This Matter is that which is of Faith and was always so before the Council of Lateran but as for the Manner how this Conversion is made it is even at present a disputable Question in the Schools It being then manifest that our Dispute with protestants is not about the Manner how JESUS CHRIST is present but only about the thing it self whether the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST be truly really and substantially present after the Words of Consecration under the species or appearance of Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine being not so present let us examine whether the Authorities he brings as to both his Assertions have any force against our Tenets He tells us first That Lombard Scotus and many others confess that there is not in Scripture any formal Proof of Transubstantiation and cites in the Margin Lombard 4. Sent. dist 10. But there is no such thing in him as I shall more fully shew in declaring his Doctrine He brings in Scotus also 4. Dist 2. Qu. 11. whereas there are only two Questions in that Distinction His next Quotation is Bellarmine Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. ff Secundo dicit who he says confesses and cites many others of the same Opinion That there is not any formal Proof from Scripture that without that Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it 'T is true Bellarmine here acknowledges that Scotus said there was not any Place in Scripture so express that it would evidently compel any one to admit of Transubstantiation without the Churches Declaration which he confesses is not altogether improbable For says he altho the Scripture which we have mentioned above do's appear to us so clear that it may compel a Man who is not perverse to believe it yet whether it be so or no we may justly doubt since Learned and Acute Men such as in the first place Scotus was have thought the contrary And this is all he says 'T is true also that Scotus in 4. Dist 11. Qu. 3. n. 5. brings this Objection That nothing is to be held as of the Substance of Faith but what is expresly to be had out of Scripture or is expresly declared by the Church or evidently follows from what is plainly contained in Scripture or plainly determined by the Church But that it neither appears manifestly from Scripture nor from the Churches Declaration nor is it evidently inferred from either that the Substance of Bread do's not remain in the Eucharist And answers it n. 15. thus That the Church has declared it in the Council of Lateran c. Firmiter Credimus In which Chapter he tells us the Truth of some things which are to be believed are more explicitly declared than they were in the Apostles Creed or in that of Nice or that of St. Athanasius So that from hence some have concluded that Scotus probably held this Assertion That the Scripture did not evince it as also the other That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not so explicitly believed before that Council of Lateran as it was since But this is no more than what he or any one might say of the Consubstantiality of the Son before the Council of Nice It is also to be taken notice that this Distinction of P. Lombard was wholly written upon the Manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament and other Scholastic Disputes of that nature and not upon the thing it self as of Faith and therefore no wonder if Scotus writing upon that Distinction should grant how that manner of Conversion which he thought was a Consequence of the Council of Laterans Definition was not so explicitly known before that Council as since or not clearly found in Scripture But if you look upon him Dist 10. qu. 1. n. 2 3. where he is to treat of the Real Presence of CHRIST's Body and Blood under the species of Bread and Wine he tells us that it is a Truth which was expresly delivered from the beginning even from the very time of the Institution of the Eucharist His Words are Ista enim veritas a principio fuit expressè tradita ex quo Eucharistia fuit instituta And he adds That the Foundation of that Authority are the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood which he says cannot be taken Figuratively if we observe the Rule of St. Augustin Aug. 83. Quest qu. 69. That the Circumstances of Scripture do clear the Sense of it For CHRIST having added to these Words This is my Body this Circumstance which shall be brokeâ— for you and to these Words This is my Blood thâ—â— Circumstance which shall be shed for you it is manifest they ought to be taken in a Literal sence Then he tells us That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the Words the other might with as good warrant have been received and quotes him in 3. D. Thomae qu. 75. art 1. But he says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article in which he tells us That we learn from the Truth of the Words of our Lord taken in their proper sence that the Body of CHRIST is truly in the Eucharist which is the first thing says he which we learn concerning this Sacrament from the Gospel
But the second continues he which the Gospel has not explicated we have expresly received from the Church that is the Conversion of Bread into the Body of CHRIST which he says we have not only received from the ancient Doctors of the Church but from the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third De Summa Trinit Fide Cath. Firmiter credimus where both Points are expressed viz. That the Body and Blood of CHRIST are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine which regards the first And it follows The Bread bein transubstantiated into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by Divine Power After this he speaks of the Reality of CHRIST's Body in the Eucharist and of the Manner how it becomes there viz. by Conversion and of the first he says Sciendum est omnes circa primam novitatem continentiae re voce consensisse dum omnes communiter fatemur corpus Christi prius non contentum sub hac hostia modo veraciter contineri quamvis circa modum quo continetur variae sint opiniones i.e. We must know that all Persons are at perfect agreement both as to the manner of Expression and as to the thing it self when we speak of the first new Change which is there made of the thing contained seeing we all commonly confess that the Body of CHRIST which was not at first contained under this Host is now truly there contained tho there be various Opinions concerning the manner how he is there contained Then summing up several of those Opinions as Whether it be by such a Change as is made by Nutrition or Whether the Bread be Annihilated or Whether it be by a true Conversion he undertakes to prove that it is by a Conversion which do's produce and effect the Presence of CHRIST in the Host and freely confesses that this Conversion is not explicitly mentioned in the Gospel but only deduced from the words This is my Body by the Doctors of the Church After which returning to his first Point in which he had concluded that the Body of CHRIST was truly in the Sacrament he tels us In hoc omnes fideles conveniunt sed modus quo est in disputationem vertitur All the Faithful agree in this but as to the manner how he is there that is a disputable Question This is in short the Intent of that Article which is far from what this Author has imposed upon him Next he tells us That the generality of our Commanion confess that if the Words of Consecration refer to the Bread which is changed by them they must be taken in their Figurative sence Pag. 74 75. But this has been sufficiently cleared already Lastly He tells us That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after CHRIST and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day What Doctrine do's he here mean Not that of the Schools concerning the manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament for a little after he tells us That Anathema's have been pronounced against them and they esteemed Heretics and Schismatics for opposing it But the Church never yet proceeded so far as to declare the Manner or censure any Opinions concerning it By this Doctrine then which he tells us was not of Faith till the Council of Lateran he must understand the Doctrine of the Church and say That the Body and blood of JESUS CHRIST was not till then believed to be truly really and substantially present under the species or appearances of Bread the Substance of Bread being not so present after Consecration But how do's he prove this He first brings Scotus cited by Bellarmine but we have already examined his Concessions pag. 84. which make but little for our Adversary Then he quotes Gabriel cited by Suarez T. 3. Disp 50. sect 1. But Suarez there undertaking to prove two Assertions the first That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is made by a true Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of CHRIST which he tells us is of Faith and the second That this Sacrament is made by a true Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body and of the Wine into the Blood of CHRIST he tells us That the word Transubstantiation taken in its proper and strict sence signifies transitum seu conversionem totius substantiae in totam substantiam a Transition or Conversion of a whole Substance into a whole Substance After which he concludes thus From this Doctrine of Faith we may gather first That the Scholastics as Scotus and Gabriel are to be corrected and secondly That the thing it self was ancient and perpetually believed in the Church Non suerit tam apertè explicata sicut mode est tho perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is In the last place he quotes Lombard L. 4. Dist 11. Lit. A. But it is manifest that Lombard speaks there only of a Scholastic Tenet Which to the end you may see as also what was esteemed of Faith in his time before the Council of Lateran I will give you a short account of his whole Doctrine as to this Point He begins his eighth Distinction telling us Lomb. in 4. dist 8. Lit. B. That the Blessed Sacrament was instituted when JESUS CHRIST after the Typical Lamb gave to his Disciples his Body and Blood in the Last Supper Then speaking of the Form This is my Body c. Lit. C. he tells us Cum haec verba proferuntur conversio fit panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi That when these words are pronounced there is made a Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of CHRIST Then speaking of a Sacrament as being the Sign of a Sacred thing Lit. D. he tells us what is the sign and what is the Thing in this Sacrament The Form i.e. Appearance says he of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Sign of the Sacred thing So that the species bear the Name of the Things which they were before that is of Bread and Wine But the thing signified is twofold the one contained under those species and signified by them the other signified but not contained The thing contained and signified is the Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us But the thing which is signified and not contain'd is the Unity of the Church in those who are Predestinated Called Justified and Glorified So that there are says he three things to be distinguish'd one which is only a Sacrament and not the thing viz. the visible species of Bread and Wine another which is the Sacrament and the thing viz. the proper Flesh and Blood of Christ and a third which is the thing and not the Sacrament viz.
his Mystical Body that is his Church but the visible species are the Sacrament or Sign of both these things Then in his Ninth Distinction speaking of a two fold Manducation the one Sacramental in which the good and bad do Eat the Body of Christ and the other only Spiritual in which only the good are made partakers of it which is by Faith he proceeds to tell us of the Errours of some who held that the bad did not receive the Body of Christ and affirms that it must be undoubtedly held that it is received by the good not only Sacramentally but Spiritually whereas the bad receive it only Sacramentally that is under the visible species of Bread and Wine they receive that Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us but not the Mystical Body that is the benefits of his presence All which he there proves from St. Gregory and St. Augustin and explicates some ambiguous terms which might give occasion of errour His next Distinction cited by this Author which Bist 10. treats De hoeresi aliorum c. Of the Heresie of others who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in Sign tells us That there are others who transcend the madness of the former Heretics who measuring the Power of God according to the manner of natural things do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth affirming that the Body and Blood of Christ are not on our Altars and that the substance of Bread and Wine are not converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood and take occasion of erring from the words of Truth whence began the first Heresie against this Truth amongst Christ's Disciples Then shewing what pretensions they make for their Errour both from Scripture and Fathers and having solved them he says Satis responsum est Hoereticis objectionibus eorum We have sufficiently answered Heretics and their Objections who deny the true Body of Christ to be on our Altars and the Bread to be changed into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a Mystical Consecration Then setting down his proofs out of the Fathers to confirm our Doctrine he concludes this Distinction with these words Ex his aliisque pluribus constat c. From these and many others it is manifest that the true Body and Blood of Christ is on our Altars yea that whole Christ is there under both species and that the Substance of Bread is converted into his Body and the substance of Wine into his Blood Having thus confirm'd the substance of our Faith as to the thing Dist 11. Lib. A. he proceeds in his next Distinction cited also by this Author to treat of the manner how this Conversion is made whether it be Formal or Substantial or of some other kind and this being a pure Scholastic Nicety he tell us he dare not undertake to define it but declares that if we ask him about the manner he will give us this short answer Lit. C. Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest investigari salubriter non potest A Mystery of Faith may be safely believ'd but not safely searched into This is the Doctrine of Lombardus who lived before the Council of Lateran and this is the Doctrine we now hold without the least alteration and this Doctrine was always held ever since the Institution tho' it was thought convenient by the Primitive Fathers to conceal it from the Enemies of Christianity and from those who were not Initiated so that it may be said that it is now more publicly taught than it was then but was always equally believ'd by the Faithful These things being thus cleared and the charge he has made against us being found to be thus false the consequences he has drawn from thence will fall upon himself and we must needs tell him that we cannot but admire the Power of Truth and hope that God has permitted him thus to misrepresent our Tenets to disguise the Truth and to cite Authors contrary to their Intentions that the Eyes of of all those of his Communion may be opened and that they may see what blind guides they follow who either take up things upon trust or wilfully prevaricate the Text that they may keep them in Ignorance Moreover this Author affirms Pag. 61. the Church never taught nor practised the Adoration of the Sacrament for above 1000 years that the Elevation of it was not heard of till the Seventh Century and then used not to expose it to the People to be adored but to represent the lifting up of CHRIST upon the Cross that all the Circumstances of this Worship are but Inventions of yesterday that the Primitive Christians did several Actions which seem inconsistent with Adoration c. And we must take all these Assertions upon his bare word for Truths I shall nto go about to swell this Answer by proving an Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament within the first 400 years and the Expressions of the first Ages which argue an Elevation nor the other Proofs we have for a Real Presence nor the Consent of the most Learned Protestants this has been too frequently done to repeat it here The Reader who is desirous of searching into the Truth may see if he understand French what M. Arnold has writ in Three Volumes of the Perpetuity of Faith or else what Brierlay has written concerning the Sacrifice of Mass what Coccius in his Thesaurus and what many others have published upon those Accounts in which they will find that our Doctrine is conformable to Scripture that it has been continued down to our time by an uninterrupted Succession and that our Practices have been always conformable to our Doctrine which is sufficient to evince the Truth of it and shew the unjust Pretences of a Reformation ART XVI Of the Sacrifice of the Mass IN his Twentieth Article Of the Sacrifice of the Mass Pag. 62. which he tells us is justly esteemed one of the greatest and most dangerous Errours that offends them he yet acknowledges That seeting aside the Foundation of the CORPOREAL PRESENCE on which the Bishop builds and his Consequence That this Service is a TRVE AND REAL PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE which he says they are persuaded his manner of Expounding it will never bear there is little in it besides but what they could readily assent to but if he cannot allow of the Corporeal Presence will be with the Church of England in her Catechism allow a Real Presence If he do I would gladly know whether that Foundation be not solid enough to build those Doctrines on which M. de Meaux has founded upon that Reality If he will not allow of a Real Presence how is he of the Church of England Again I would gladly know of him what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly
us Do we not firmly believe the Holy Scriptures according to the Sence and unanimous consent of the Antient and Primitive Fathers Do we not embrace the three Creeds nay and believe all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Do you not acknowledge us to be true Members of the Catholic Church and by Consequence your Brethren tho' you will have us to be unsound and weak If we maintain any Doctrines different from yours do we not shew you plain Texts of Scriture for most of them and the consent of Primitive Fathers and the acknowledged Practices of the Church for above 1000 Years for every one of them Do we not fix our Grounds upon the undoubted Word of God deliver'd down to us either by Writing or uninterrupted Tradition and explicated by the unanimous consent of the Pastors and Teachers in all times and places If we tell you a due Honour is to be paid to Images purely upon the account of being Representatives and not for themselves is it not agreeable to your own Practice who bow to the Altar keep uncover'd in a Church bend the Knees at the Name of JESVs not for the sake of the Altar Fabric or Sound but with a reference to the Victim which Consecrates the Altar to God who is in a peculiar manner present in the Church and to JESVS CHRIST the Son of God understood by that sound which Honour if it may be called Religious in some respect it is not manifestly because it tends ultimately to God himself If we desire the Saints and Angels who Reign in Heaven to Pray with us and for us to their and our Common Creator and if we acknowledge such Prayers are good and beneficial to aid and help us in our necessities we know no more injury is done to JESVS CHRIST our sole Redeemer by such Addresses than by your own to a Parent or a Friend we detest that Religion of Angels mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2. 18. accoding to that Sence that place manifestly bears and as the Antient Fathers understood it but we think with the same Fathers that a due Honour ought to be given them as to the Messengers and Friends of God And any undue Worship which elevates them above the pitch of our fellow Creatures we detest What more can any one in reason desire of us And if we pronounce Anathema's against those who deny it to be lawful to make such innocent Addresses or to pay such a due and limited Honour it is because they contradict Antiquity and the approved Fathers of the Church We acknowledge 't is true a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of JESVS CHRIST under the Species or Appearances of Bread and Wine and are we not assured of it by the very Words of JeSVS CHRIST by the manifest consent of Antiquity by the continual practice of both the Greek and Latin Churches If we be ignorant of the manner at least we are not of the thing And do's not your Chatechism and your most Learned Divines acknowledge as much your Confession of your ignorance of the manner of his being present do's not hinder you from acknowledging the Body and Blood of our Blessed Saviour to be verily and indeed taken and receiv'd not only by Faith but by the Faithful in the Lords Supper This Real Presence is grounded upon the Words of our Blessed Saviour This is my Body taken literally from whence also it necessarily follows that after the words of Consecration 't is not more Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of JESVS CHRIST This Consequence of the Real Presence many Protestants themselves confess and acknowledge that if the words must be taken literally they must necessarily grant both Transubstantiation Adoration and all the rest of our Doctrines about this Sacrament And if any one ask us why we take it literally we may with the Bishop of Condom say they may as well ask us why we keep the High Road that is all the Fathers of the Church in all Ages having taken it in that Sence we ought no more to deviate from it than from a beaten Road. If we adore our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament it is but a necessary Consequence of his Real Presence and what they who believe him present cannot but think themselves oblig'd to do We acknowledge that where Gods Commands are Positive they are indispensible and therefore if we judge Communion under both kinds not to be positively Commanded we judge so because the Church in all Ages dispensed with it and you your selves grant that in cases of necessity eveyr Pastor may give it under one kind only and is he not left judge when that case occurs and when he may make use of it These things considered I must use your own words Men and Brethren Pag. 84. consider we conjure you these things and if you please consider us too what we are and what our Manners and Conversation amongst you has been even when Perjury and Faction loaded us with all the Injuries Hell it self could invent and exercised their utmost severities upon us What also we are at present and how our change of Fortune makes us neither remember former Injuries nor desire to revenge them Believe us at least that we have no other ends but Truth no designs but to convince your Judgments and if we dare not be over curious in enquiring into the manner how the Mysteries that are revealed can possibly be true 't is because we know they are revealed and doubt not of Gods Veracity Believe us that we have no other Interest but the Salvation of our own Souls and those of others by endeavouring to represent our Doctrines as they truly are and soliciting the Children of the Church to return to their Mothers Bosome We are in possession the Proofs you bring against us are only Negatives and meer Conjectures you think them convincing Arguments but are not certain but that you may fail in your Concjectures You cannot shew one positive Argument against the Invocation of Saints either from Scripture or from Fathers Not one against the Doctrine of the Real Presence Transubstantiation Veneration of Images upon account of their Representations not one against the number of Sacraments not one to prove Communion under both kinds to be indispensible or that Children dying without Baptism are saved In a word you cannot shew one positive Argument against any one Doctrine of our Church if you state it right All you can say is it do's not appear to us out of Scripture it do's not appear to us from Antiquity shew us you say your Authentic Records your Deeds of Gift your Revelation and we will believe as if uninterrupted possession were not sufficietn Proof Our Plea is good olim possidio prior possidio If you will dispute our Title you must shew your positive Records of a more Antient Date But what need of so much bitterness whilst you plead your Cause Is it not enough to dispossess us
as it is his Resemblance neither is that Statue his Delegate but a memorative Sign of him and which we honour as such and thus as the Indignities offered to that Statue are interpretatively offered to the King so is the Honour which is shewn it as representing him interpretatively offered to the King whom it represents In like manner that Homage which we pay to JESVS CHRIST represented by the Cross is properly speaking Adoration But nothing at all is due to the Cross for it self for that is an inanimate Being capable of no Honour but that Adoration is due to him who being an animate Nature is called to our Minds by that Resemblance The want of taking this our Doctrine in a right sence has been the occasion of that Author 's prolix Discourse of about Twenty three Leaves in which he has not at all combated our Doctrine but only some Scholastic Opinions and that with so few Additions of any new Difficulties that all he has said has been formerly refuted in the Just Discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet 's Vnjust Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome to which I will refer the Reader and return to my other Antagonist and see what he brings against this our Doctrine First he tells us That St. Thomas and his Followers were never Censured for maintaining in plain terms That the Image of the Cross ought to be worshipped with the same Worship as that Saviour who suffered on it Expos of the Doct. of the Ch. of Engl. p. 14. In answer to this I need only tell him We are not here to maintain every Opinion held by the Schools nor is it necessary the Church should Censure them unless they formally contradict her Doctrine which St. Thomas is far from being guilty of But if he had been sincere he ought to have taken notice of the Reason brought by St. Thomas and his Followers which shews That it is purely upon account of JESVS CHRIST represented that is brought to our remembrance by it and not upon any account of the Cross it self Which Reason if rightly understood speaks no more than this That whilst I see the Figure of our Blessed Saviour Crucified I by bowing in presence of that Crucifix adore him in Heaven and if I bow or kneel or prostrate my self before that Crucifix that Bowing Kneeling or Prostration may be termed Adoration because it tends to JESVS CHRIST the true Object of our Adoration who is represented to my Mind by that Crucifix It is therefore an Adoration of JESVS CHRIST represented by the Crucifix but not an Adoration of the Crucifix it self For this Holy Doctor declares 3. Qu. 25. Art 3. in Corpore That no Reverence is due to any thing for it self but to a Rational Nature but that an Irrational Creature may be honoured with respect to a Rational Nature which it represents which Honour do's not terminate in the Irrational Creature but in the Rational Nature upon which account he maintains That that Honour is the same with that which is paid to that Rational Nature The Pontifical also says he admits the same In the same sence I grant but not in that which he would willingly make us believe it do's He tells us indeed That in the Prayers for Blessing the Image of the Cross he who performs that Ceremony amongst other Prayers begs of God That as many as bow down before it may find Health both of their Souls and Bodies by it Which he will have to be irreconcilable with the Bishop of Condom's Doctrine and that of the Council of Trent which forbids us to believe any Divinity or Vertue tied to Images for which they ought to be adored c. But if he had dealt ingenuously he would not have suppressed the Reason of that Bowing mentioned by the Pontifical which would have easily reconciled the whole The Words are these See also the same quoted and falsly rendred in English by the Answerer to the Papist Protesting pag. 76. Vt orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam Crucem inveniant corporis animoe sanitatem But he thought it better to leave out the words propter Deum for the sake of God And this is his usual way of citing Authors All the rest of his Expressions drawn from the Pontifical are of the same nature either lame or patch'd up from several Places and therefore if they make any thing against us are not worthy our regarding But he has another Argument and that from an Authentic Act of the Church her self in her Good-Friday Solemnity in which the whole Church addresses her self says he to the Cross in these very dangerous words Behold the Wood of the Cross come let us adore it And he tells us the whole solemnity of that days Service plainly shews we do adore it in the utmost propriety of the Phrase But here he has been also so unfortunate as not to give us all the Words of the Church and to add another which is not there to make it speak his Sence The Words sung by the Church in that Service are these Ecce Lignum Crucis in quo pependit Salus Mundi venite Adoremus Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World did hang come let us Adore He saw well enough these words taken altogether would be a clear Explication of our Doctrine and shew it was not the Cross we adored but the Saviour of the World who hung upon it and therefore he concealed these last Words and added the word it and so gives us this mutilated Sentence Behold the Wood of the Cross come let us Adore IT instead of the other But do's not the Church in her Hymns of the Passion and Invention pray to the Cross in express terms In this indeed he seems to have some shew of reason but how often has he been told these are Poetical Expressions and that the word Cross by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets signifies JESUS CHRIST Crucified to whom we pray in those Hymns Now as the Honour which we pay to Images is referr'd to those who are represented by them so likewise is that Honour and Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Relics of those Saints who were Victims to God entirely referr'd to them whose remains they are He tells us If that be the state of the Question which the Bishop of Condom has propos'd pag. 17. they confess that the Explication of it has taken away a great part of the difficulty and that if this be all M. de Meaux desires of them they are ready to profess their Opinion that they judge it to be neither offensive to God nor fit to be scrupled by Man But least we should be thus agreed the Bishop must not be allow'd to have explicated our Tenets right and therefore either some practices or abuses which might have past amongst those which he says we complain of must be brought against him or else the Council
Cardinal Cajetan thought it could not be proved Nec ex verbis nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus JESUS a discipulis exercendam in aegrotis Cajet Annot. in loc neither from the Words nor from the Effect that the Words of St. James speak of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction but rather of that Vnction which our Lord JESVS instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick he had been a faithful Quoter of Cajetan's Sence But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other is to impose upon him and his Readers He tells us They anoint not their Sick for the Recovery of their Bodily Health because the Miraculous Power of Healing to which that Ceremony ministred is ceased in the Church But unless he can manifestly prove the Unction had no relation to the Sicknesses of the Soul and this from clearer Testimonies than the continued Practice of the Church till this last Age he brings nothing against our Possession nor can he justifie the laying it aside ART XIII Of Marriage HE tells us concerning Marriage Art 14. p. 45. That M. de Meaux says nothing of it but what they willingly allow and we desire no more He supposes that all true and proper Sacraments ought to be generally necessary to Salvation Pag. 46. and after the same manner a Sacrament as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are and cites Lombard quoted by Cassander on their side But this I suppose was only for ostentation for no Catholics ever esteemed Marriage to be a Sacrament generally necessary to Salvation otherwise as he grants himself they would never have prohibited the Use of it to the Clergy But if he intend his Quotations should refer to the Reason he gives why it cannot be a Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the Holy Encharist are because as he says it wants an Outward Sign to which by CHRIST's Promise a Blessing is annex'd he will not only find this Author against him but the whole Torrent of the Fathers and the plain Texts of Scripture as interpreted by them ART XIV Of Holy Orders HE tells Art 15. p. 46. That the Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Spirit may perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament but because the Grace that is conferred by it is not common to all Christians he thinks it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are So that thus far I find no difference betwixt us He tells us also That they will not raise any Controversie about the distinction of Orders below Deacons because he acknowledges them to be ancient in the Church and I am satisfied with that Acknowledgment and would not willingly raise new Disputes ART XV. Of the Eucharist WE come now to the Article of the Eucharist Art 16. p. 47. in which we cannot but with him testifie our just regret that this Sacrament of Love and Charity should become now an Occasion of Contention It is not my Province to examine the Arguments he brings against our Doctrine they having been so often and so fully answered by others or to shew how weakly he oppugns the Bishop of Condom's Reasons but only to justifie his Exposition Yet however I cannot but take notice how insincerely he begins his Attaque from whence we may judge what is to be expected in the Sequel He tells us That M. de Meaux seems to allow that in two Cases it might have bene lawful to forsake the Literal Interpretation of these Words This is my Body Ibidem The first is If there be such grounds in those Words for a Figurative Interpretation as naturally lead to it Which having supposed to be grantted by the Bishop he undertakes to prove from Gratian and Bellarmine that the Words do lead to a Figurative Interpretation and endeavours to confirm it by the Words of the Institution and other Examples of Scripture But what will he say now when I shall shew him that he imposes upon the Bishop and has not proved one tittle either against him or us The Bishop's Words are these Expos pag. 19. As for us who find nothing in the Words which JESVS CHRIST makes use of in the Institution of this Mystery OBLIGING VS to take them in a Figuration Sence we think that a sufficient Reason to determine us to the Literal He speaks here you see of our being OBLIGED to take those Words in a Figurative sence which both he and all Catholics affirm can never be proved against us but no body ever denied 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 sence we should esteem him a Madman that should think it possible after this to persuade 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 become so sottish as to renounce this Figurative Interpretation of JESVS CHRIST's being a Door and a Vine and fall so far into the Literal sence 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 So we cannot but think it to be very irrational to imagine that if the Disciples and the whole Church in all Nations had been once taught these Words This is my Body were to be taken in a Figurative sence it could ever have hapned the Visible Church in all Nations should agree to teach their Children that it ought to be taken in a Literal and proceed so far as to pay their Adorations to what they knew was but a morsel of Bread expose it to be worshipped c. which they could not but know was an Idolatry would bring inevitable Damnation to them and their Posterity who should be guilty of it And further We cannot see how it can enter into the Minds of Rational men that this so grand an Errour should either overspread the Church in a moment or so insensibly creep into it that she who was so vigilant in all other Errours of lesser moment should yet be so blind as not to see this or so wicked as not to take notice of it He should then if he would have opposed M. de Meaux or the Catholic Church have undertaken to prove That the very Words of the Institution oblige us to take them in a Literal sence He tells us indeed That if the
receive it is that they cannot receive the benefit of Christs Presence without a lively Faith but should rather Eat and Drink their own Damnation as is more fully express'd in the next Article and also that the expressions of a Heavenly and Spiritual manner are only to oppose that Carnal and Gross manner which a Natural Body has as having local extention c. which Body as such cannot possibly be in more places then one as St. Augustin affirms and to which that part of the Article in Edw. Sparrow's Canons pag. 49. the Sixths days to which this has succeeded do's allude If he think I impose upon their Church I desire him to let us know by some Authentic Testimony what is the meaning of that part of the Article and to shew us how it can stand with the Doctrine deliver'd in the Church Chatechism which affirms as I have told you that The inward thing signified is the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST which is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful it do's not say by Faith but by the Faithful As also how it agrees with these words of the same Article The Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of CHRIST and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of CHRIST If then he admit with King James Causab Ep. ad Card. Per. that they believe JESUS CHRIST to be as really present in the Sacrament as Roman Catholics do but only know not the manner Pag. 61. What becomes of all his Sarcasms of Worshipping a Deity whose substance they first form'd and then spake it into a God c. He knew full well that such Objections were the very Calumnies of the Heathens who did not only object to Christians their eating of their God but also of eating Mans Flesh in their Sacrifices of drinking Childrens Blood and several other such like accusations all which proceeded from some imperfect knowledge they had got of the Christian Sacrifice notwithstanding all the care the Primitive Christians took to conceal that Adorable Mystery from Infidels and even Catechumens What becomes of all the Arguments brought from pretended contradictions and an impossibility of being present in many places at once Do's not their real Participation if as the Bishop says there be any Sence in the Words fall under the same censures And what becomes of all his Objections rais'd from the difference betwixt some Schoolmen who endeavour to explicate the manner of his presence and the free acknowledgment of others that we are ignorant of it Do not they themselves profess the same And if we cannot comprehend how God can be three and one or the Divinity be Incarnate must we necessarily therefore deny the Blessed Trinity or the Incarnation In a word what will become of all the Arguments in General brought against Transubstantiation substantiation Adoration Sacrifice of the Altar Communion under one Species c. seeing Learned Protestants themselves confess that if the words of the Institution be taken in a Literal Sence without which a Real Presence can never be admitted they must yield up the Cause in all those Points to Roman Catholics This Brerelay has shown in his Liturgy of the Mass Printed Anno 1620. pag. 225 339. from several of their own Authors But he tells us that many of our Schoolmen acknowledge there is not in the Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation that there is not any Texts that without the declaration of the Church would be able to evince it that it was not a matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran and then triumphs as if these expressions were a perfect yielding up of our Cause But I would gladly have him to consider upon what account it is these Learned Men use those expressions and examine a little their Reasons and then I doubt not but if he observe the Connection of their Discourse he will not find such an occasion of triumphing It is an usual thing with Novelists to pretend nothing must be admitted as a matter of Faith but what can be manifestly proved from plain Texts of Scripture This Catholics deny and tell them such a proposition destroys all our Faith because no body can prove for example by Scripture the Books of the Gospels or the Epistles of St. Paul to be the Word of God or Divine Revelation and if they cannot prove those Scriptures to be Divine but by Tradition and the Interposition of the Church and yet tell us Tradition and Church Authority are not sufficient what will become of all the Articles contain'd in those Books Nay further Catholics tell them that if they rely only upon the bare words of Scripture without having recourse to the Authority of a Church and the Consent of Pastors and Teachers in all Ages and Places they will never be able to demonstrate any one Doctrine that is they can never prove it so clearly as to convince those who rely wholly upon their Reason and will admit of nothing for a proof in such weighty matters but what is so clear that whoever understands the Terms and Propositions must necessarily consent to the Conclusion drawn from them The Schoolmen do not only instance the Real Presence and Transubstantiation in proof of this but the Trinity also and Incarnation and in a word all the Articles of our Creed And the very opposition which Heretics in the several Ages of the Church have form'd against those Doctrines is a clear proof of this seeing they upon all occasions pretended Scripture for their grounds and because Catholics could not bring any Text of Scripture against them so clear but they could elude it by some seeming Exposition therefore Scripture alone could never decide the Controversies but the voice of the Church in her Councils was in all Ages esteem'd necessary to stop their Mouths and her Decisions and Declarations of the Sence of Scripture was that which confounded all their Errors Thus it was that Arius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Nice not by the sole words of Scripture but by the words of Scripture as understood and explicated by the consent of the Catholic Church and thus it was that Berengarius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Lateran and several others and that Condemnation confirm'd by that of Trent He tells us moreover That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran Pag. 56 1200 years after CHRIST and had not That and the Council of Trent interposed it would not have been so to this very day And cites Lombard Scotus Gabriel and Bellarmine for this Assertion Let us examine his Quotations but first we will represent the State of the Question as the best Method to understand their Meanings We must therefore take notice that the word Transubstantiation was first publicly used in the Council of Lateran as the word Consubstantial was in the first Council of Nice but that
and properly speaking tho' not possibly in such a rigorous sence as may be put upon the Words If she do not what means her Ordination and the Title of Priesthood which her Ministers challenge with so much earnestness And if she do why will he quarrel with the Council of Trent for calling it a True and Proper Sacrifice Sess 22. c. a True and Proper Priesthood especially since the same Council tells us that this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished upon the Cross to perpetuate the Memory of it to the end of the World Sess 22. c. r. and so apply to us the saving virtue of it for the remission of those Sins which we commit every day In a word The Bishop of Meaux has expressed himself so clearly and consequently to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and of the Catholic Church that I cannot but admire any one who affirms as this Author do's that the Doctrine the Bishop of Meaux has express'd Pag. 63. is truly the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and such as the Church of England has never refus'd and except it be their doubt of the Corporeal Presence Mons de Meaux had certainly reason to expect there was nothing in it which they could justly except against I cannot I say but admire he should upon no better grounds than a pure Cavil about the Name and Nature of a Sacrifice when taken in the strictest Sense and the word Corporeal instead of Real Pag. 62. affirm this to be one of the most dangerous Errours that offend them But the Breach must be kept open and widened too if possible And because the offering of Christ once made is that proper Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World and because there is no other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone Article 31. as their Article expresses it and we allow therefore this Author must from thence conclude that the Representation Commemoration and Application of that first Offering by those who are Members of that Priesthood according to the Order of Melchisedec which the Apostle tells us was to be perpetual must not be called a True Heb. 6. Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice tho' it be only Commemorative and Applicatory ART XVII Of the Epistle to the Hebrews BUT the next Article shews us more manifestly Art 21. p. 67. that all this Dispute is purely de Nomine In which it manifestly appears that he mistakes the Sence of the word Offer Pag. 32. as used by the Catholic Church in this place for the Bishop of Meaux tells us the Catholic Church forms her Language and her Doctrine not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scripture and therefore tho' in that strict sence in which the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the word Offer JESUS CHRIST cannot be said to be now offered neither in the Eucharist nor any where else yet because in other places of Scripture the word is used in a larger signification where it is often said we offer to God what we present before him therefore she do's not doubt to say that she offers up our Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Eucharist in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him But this must not suffice for then that which he calls the principal and most dangerous Errour would appear to be none at all and therefore because the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of one Offering which has fully satisfied for our Sins of one Offering which was no more to be offered that is of an Offering in a strict Sence in which there must be a Real Suffering and Death of the Victim therefore this Epistle must be against the Doctrine of the Roman Church tho' she speak only of an Unbloody Sacrifice of a Commemorative Sacrifice which without the Sacrifice of the Cross would be no Sacrifice which takes its Virtue Efficacy and very Name from it because it refers to it and applies the Virtue of it to our Souls Let any one judge if this be not next door to a wilful misunderstanding of our Tenets Pag. 63. especially when he had before confessed that the presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us and that if this were all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it This is what she means by it that is an application of the Merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross which was to be but once offered and from whence it takes all its value But this he will not have to be our Doctrine and I see no reason for it but because if he admit it to be so one of the greatest grounds of their pretended Reformation must needs vanish ART XVIII Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine HIs Reflections upon this Doctrine run altogether upon the same strain Art 22. p. 69. and therefore what I have said will suffice in answer to that Article If he admit a Real Presence with the Church of England Reason must necessarily assure us that where Christ is really he ought to be Ador'd and where he really presents himself to his Father to render him Propitious to us he may be said to offer up himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice And those who will admit the Reality or not condemn the belief of it in others ought not to condemn the necessary Consequences of it in us into which we have penetrated better than they ART XIX Communion under both Species COmmunion under one kind being also a Consequence of the Doctrine of the Real Presence Art 23. p. 72. Those who admit the Real Presence or condemn it not ought not to condemn the Consequence of it He refers us to the Answer to M. de Meaux's Book of Communion and I refer him to M. de Meaux's Book which so fully explicates and proves this Doctrine that all the effects against it are but vain But if the Church of England allow the Communion to be given under one Species in case of necessity See Art 30. how will it stand that she esteems it to be the express Command of JESUS CHRIST which is certainly indispensable Edw. Sparrows Canons p. 15. the Sixth 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 deliver'd and administred unto all Persons within our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require And after the Order of Communion there is this Annotation Note that the Bread that shall be Consecrated shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed And every of the said Consecrated Breads shall be broken into two pieces at
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 JESVS CHRIST In the Proclamation it is ordain'd that it shall be commonly deliver'd under both kinds except necessity otherwise require which shews manifestly that the Church of England thought then that one kind was sufficient in case of necessity and that whole Sacrament was contained under one kind for half a Sacrament is no Sacrament And if a necessary occasion be sufficient to dispense with the Administration of it in both kinds who ought to be Judge but the Pastors and Teachers in every Age or the Church Representative which shews that this is a part of Discipline and not of Faith since both sides confess that in case of necessity it may be given in one kind and that by receiving each Particle one receives the whole Body of JESUS CHRIST as appears by the Annotation so that the Bishop of Condom's Argument against the Calvinists of France has its full force against the Church of England ART XX. Of the wrÃtten and unwritten Word IN the next Articlé we are agreed in the main Art 24. p. 75. We both acknowledge the unwritten Word to have been the first Rule of Christians and that it was so far from losing any thing of its Authority by addition of the Written Word that it was indeed the more firmly established We receive with equal veneration the Written and the Unwritten Word when we are assured they come from the Apostles And as we do not admit of every thing which is called Tradition so what is made appear to have been received in all Churches and in all Ages we are ready to embrace as coming from the Apostles Our difference consists only in this who shall be judge when this Tradition is Universal We rely upon the Judgment of the present Church in every Age either assembled in the most general Council that Age can afford or else declaring her Doctrine by her constant practice and the uniform Voice of her Pastors and People and are assured it is not sufficient for any Private Persons or Church to say we suppose or we are persuaded they are contrary to the Written Word or we find it not there to make the Churches Sentence void or justifie a dissent ART XXI Of the Authority of the Church IN his next Article Art 25. p. 76. of the Authority of the Church he grants many things which the Bishop of Meaux had asserted from which we might expect great Fruit but he presently nips all our hopes in the very bud He grants the Catholic Church to be the Guardian of the Holy Scriptures Pag. 76 77. and of Tradition and that it is from her Authority they reeeive both That they never deny the Church to have an Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline Pag. 78. but even of Faith too That they neither fear the entire defection of the Catholic Church nor that she should fall into such an entire Infidelity as should argue her not to be a Church Pag. 80. And in his next Article he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith and declares as a Doctrine of his Church that they allow such a deference to a Churches Decisions as to make them their directions what Doctrine they may or may not publicly maintain and teach in her Communion that they shew whatever submission they can to her Authority without violating that of God declared to us in the Holy Scripture And lastly that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General In which none shall be more ready to assist nor to which none shall be more ready to submit These are fair offers to establish a Church-Authority and did he manifestly destroy all he has here said by some other exceptions we might have hoped some good effects of such a Submission He tells us Pag. 79. and that truly that any particular Church may either by errour lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in necessary points of it And yet notwithstanding he do's not only set up a particular Church to examin the Churches Decisions Pag. 78. which he tells us after all may err but even every individual Person who according to his Doctrine may not only examine the Decisions of the whole Church but glory in opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word His words are these Pag. 79. Tho' we suppose the Scriptures are so clearly written that it can hardly happen that in necessary Articles of Faith any one Man should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion He had told us a little before that any particular Church such as he esteem'd the Church of Rome to be might either by Errour lose or by any other means prevaricate the Faith even in necessary points of it and yet what he there wishes they had not too great cause to fear the Church of Rome has in effect done he here tells us can hardly happen to one particular Man But what follows is more intolerable and since he gives us it as a Doctrine of the Church of England I desire him to tell us in what Canon Article or Constitution it is contain'd But says he if such an one were evidently convinc'd that his belief was founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word so far would it be from any Errour to support it against the whole Church that it is at this day the greatest Glory of St. Athanasius that he slood up alone against the whole World in defence of Ghrists Divinity when the Pope the Councils the whole Church fell away Behold here a Doctrine which if admitted will not only maintain all the Dissenters that are but that ever can be from a Church a Doctrine which will establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World every one of which may if he be but evidently convinced that is if he have but impudece enough to think he is so that his belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Word not only oppose the whole Church but glory in it And a Doctrine backed by as false and Authority as the Assertion it self is false and scandalous for never any one yet before this Man said that the Pope the Councils and the whole Church fell in St. Athanasius his time on the contrary it is manifest to all those who have read any thing of History that the Pope and all the Western Churches and the approved General Councils of those times all stood up for St. Athanasius and if he said he was against all and all against him it was only to express the great number of Eastern Bishops that oppos'd his Doctrine