the Present Controversies as being the first thing that appeared in Print against Roman Catholics tho' the Author of the Present State of the Controversies would not take notice of it And they who seriously considered the timing of it the persons to whom it was spoken the severity of the accusation and the manner of Publishing it made their conjectures then that it was like a throwing out the Gantlet and bidding defiance to all the Catholics in England Some short remarks were made upon this Sermon in a Paper called a Remonstrance by way of Address from the Church of England to both Houses of Parliament This occasioned the Doctors reply in which he not only endeavored to vindicate himself but threw all the dirt he could upon the Catholic Church laying all the faults of particulars at the Churches Door after such a manner as shewed him neither to understand our Doctrin nor the Principles we go upon It appeared from hence that nothing was to be expected but clamor insincerity and misrepresentation and therefore tho' an Answer was prepared and approved of yet was it thought fit by those who were to be obeyed to let the Controversie dye rather than stir up a Religious Litigation upon a Point which not only the protestations of Catholics but their Practices had justified them in However seeing the Doctors Vindication as well as all the other Books Written since the Pretended Reformation had been chiefly filled up with mistakes or misrepresentations of our Doctrins all which were taken upon trust as Real Truths not only by the Vulgar but by many who tho' pretending to Learning had as appeared never Read any but their own party or at least but superficially Charity prompted a good Man to shew our Doctrins truly as they are in themselves without the Mixtures of the particular Opinions of Schoolmen or the Practices which are neither universally nor necessarily received And in order to this he Published a Book under the Title of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented Papist Misrepresented and Represented in which the Judicious and Learned Author shewed in one Column what was commonly received amongst the Vulgar as the Doctrin of Papists and in the opposite the true Doctrin of the Catholic Church was represented with all the sincerity and candor imaginable All moderate persons who would give themselves the liberty to Read and think acknowledged that Catholics and their Religion had been strangely misrepresented and were apt to lay great faults upon their Leaders who had even from their Pulpits seconded the common Cry. But that party being loath to be thought to have any faults could not endure to be looked upon as Misrepresenters and therefore notwithstanding they could not deny but all that was there exposed under the Title of a Misrepresenter was at least according to the common Notion People had of Popery yet was it not to be called Misrepresenting and tho' they could not deny but all Catholics believe according to that Doctrin which the Representer expresses yet must this pass for new Popery and we must be accused as if we receded from the Faith of our immediate Predecessors whilst we affirm that any change from the Faith delivered by a continual Succession from Christ and his Apostles must needs be damnable This occasioned several Tart Answers and Reply's till at last the Controversie dwindled into nothing but a Verbal Dispute whether telling the World that Popery is Idolatrous Disloyal bloody-minded c. be properly speaking a Misrepresentation or some other word During this dispute two Books were Published with the same Charitable and as was hoped inoffensive intention The first the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685. concerning Religion Acts of the General Assembly together with the complaint of the said General Assembly against the Calumnies Injuries and Falsities which the pretended Reformed have and do every day publish in their Books and Sermons against the Doctrin of the Church The Design of which Book was the same with that of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented with this only difference that in Representing the Tenets of Catholics it made use only of the words of the Council of Trent and the Profession of Faith extracted out of it and in Representing the Calumnies formed against our Doctrins observed Religiously the expressions of Protestant Authors whose very words were cited in the Margent This was so clear a proof of what the Representer had said that 't is supposed his Adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such plain and ample Testimonies The other was the Bishop of Meaux 's Exposition of the Doctrin of the Catholic Church in matters of Controversie The Exposition A Book received by all persons in the Catholic Church of all Ranks and Degrees as containing nothing in it but the Orthodox Doctrin of the Church But all the Repeated Testimonies of his Holiness and the Cardinals Prelates and Doctors of the Church were not enough to make our Adversaries believe it to contain our Doctrins truly so strangely had they been Misrepresented to them And therefore out comes presently another Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England c. In the Preface of which Book the Author pretended to shew that the Bishop of Meaux's design was only to palliate or pervert the Doctrins of his Church because forsooth his Manuscript Copy or if you will the Real first tho' not Authenticated impression differed in some points from what was Printed and allowed of as the first Impression But let us suppose for a moment if he will that what he says were true that the Bishop of Meaux's Manuscript was defective in some points and differently expressed from what it is now in others suppose the Bishop had permitted an impression to be made or as Cardinal Peron is said to have done and which it may be was all the Bishop did had caused a dozen or fourteen Copies to be Printed off to shew them to his friends before he would put the last hand to his Book nay if you will let us suppose that some of the Doctors of Sorbonne were of the number of those friends to whom he Communicated those Copies and that they had made some Corrections Observations or Additions what is all that as the Bishop says to the Book as it is at present We send them not to the Manuscript nor to the first Impression if a few such Copies could be properly called an Impression but to the Book as it is now Printed and and approved of as containing the Doctrin of the Catholic Church As for the Refutation of all the Defenders Arguments upon this head I shall refer my Reader to the Bishops own Letter Published in the Appendix Only whereas the Defender in his Preface to the Exposition page 2. insinuates that the late Mareschal de Turenne did not owe his Conversion to that Book but to some other personal Conferences or Papers to them unknown
things considered I think I had just reason to say that the present Church in every Age was to be judge of the universality or not universality of Tradition and that if she declared her self either by the most general Council that Age all things considered could afford or by the Constant Practice and Uniform voice of her Pastors and People every private Church or person ought to submit to her decisions But this Doctrin will not down with our Defender §. 106. Desence pag. 77.80 The Defenders Arguments against this judge of Tradition answered who has so great a deference for a Church that he is not afraid to say that any private or individual person may examin and oppose the decisions of the whole Church if he be but evidently convinced that his priate belief is founded upon the Authority of Gods Holy Word And he has two reasons he says why he cannot assent to this method of judging which is universal Tradition 1. Because it is a matter of fact whether such Doctrins were delivered or no 1. Objection and this matter of fact recorded by those who lived in or near that first Age of the Church if then the Records of those first Ages contradict the sentence of the Church any man who is able to search into them may more securely rely upon them than upon the Decrees of a Council of a later Age or the voice and practice of its Pastors and People And this he says is the case in many things betwixt them and us Answer But Good Sir weigh a little the force of your Argument and see whether it be not built upon a mere supposition that the Church has erred or may err in the delivery of her Doctrins even against the plain words of Scripture or positive Testimony of the Fathers But such an absurdity being supposed what wonder if many others follow after Again tell me are those Records you speak of plain to any one that is able to search into them If so I hope the Church is as clear sighted and able to search into them as any individual Church or person Or are they obscure And then I suppose you will allow the universal Church's constant practice in that Age or her declarations in her Councils to be at least a better Interpreter than such Private persons or Assemblies And if the Catholic Church examining those passages in the antient Fathers tells me they are so far from contradicting her Practices or Doctrins that if rightly understood they speak the same thing with her I think there lyes a greater obligation on me to submit my Judgment to that of the Universal Church than obstianately to follow my own sense or that of a particular Church dissenting from the whole And that this is the case betwixt Catholics and Protestants the Defender knows and the Reader may gather from this Treatise But the Defender has yet a more cogent reason against this method §. 107.2 Objection which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and give this Unwritten word the upper hand of the Written Answer Had he said that this method would be apt to set up the Decrees of Councils and the judgment of the Church before the Private spirit or judgment of Particulars I should readily have granted what he said Tradition and Scripture are not Competitors But I see no competition in our case betwixt Scripture and Tradition but that they both strengthen each others Testimony unless he will have the Text and the most authentic Comment to be competitors Now the Defender looks upon it as a high affront to Scripture that the Church's decrees or practices should obtain and be in force with all its members when many of them may be perswaded that they cannot find what she decrees in nay that it is contrary to the word of God. And declares for himself and all his Party That they cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon those grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrin 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. For in this case he thinks it reasonable that the Church's sentence should be made void and the voice of her pretended Traditions silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God. But had he expressed himself clearly and according to the point in question he should have said that the sentence of the Church was in such cases to be made void and every mans private interpretation of Scripture if he be evidently convinced that it is according to the word of God preferred before the Decrees of General Councils or the uniterrupted Practice and Preaching of her Pastors But of this Argument more in the next Article ART XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church THe Authority of the Church is a point of so great Importance §. 108. that being once established all other Doctrins will Necessarily follow The Concessions which our Defender had made in his Exposition were indeed such as might very well have given us hopes he would have submitted to the natural consequence of them but we might well be surprised to see them so suddainly dashed by such wild Exceptions as do not only destroy all Church Authority but open a way to as many different Opinions in Religion as there are persons inclined to make various interpretations of Scripture and headstrong enough to prefer their Own sense before that of Others What I pray avails his Concessions The Desenders Concessions that the Catholic Church is ostablished by God the Guardian of Holy Scriptures and Tradition That she has Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline Expos pag. 76. pag. 78. but even of Faith too That it is upon her Authority they receive and reverence several Books as Canonical Pag. 76. and reject others as Apocryphal even before by their own reading of them they perceive the Spirit of God in them And Pag. 77. that if as universal and uncontroverted a Tradition had descended for the Interpretation of Scriptures as for the receiving of them they should have been as ready to accept of that too surely he does not mean such a Tradition as no one ever called in question for there is scarce a Book of Scripture but some Heretic or other has questioned whether it were Canonical or no What I say do such Concessions as these avail us when he allows every Cobler or Tinker nay every silly Woman for he excepts no body the liberty not only to examin the Church's Decisions but to prefer their Own sense of Scripture before that of the Whole Church This position is so Extravagant that I think I need only give it in his own words §. 109. to make him and all that party who he tells us have approved his Book HIs Exceptions
Practices of the Church of Rome he would have reason to say they contradict our Principles But I tell him also that we renounce those Doctrins and Practices that we detest the very Thoughts of them and that we see no more Connexion betwixt the Consequences of Idolatry and Superstition which he draws from our Doctrin if he take it in it's right sense than there is betwixt the same Consequence which Dissenters draw from their bowing to the Altar and at the Name of Jesus Catholics no more Idolaters than Protestants c. But he takes no notice of this Parallel when given him in such modest Terms and storms at the Method of giving it in the Dissenters Language which shews he has little to say to the Justice of the thing it self But he tells me Pag. 5. that I have mistaken the Question betwixt him and me For his business was only to give a true Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England Indeed had he followed that Design according to the Title of his Book and kept himself entirely to it without those wild Excursions against the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of Rome or only abstained from misrepresenting them I should not have undertaken to Vindicate the Bishops Exposition But perhaps he will say that he did it with Charity and Moderation and that if he had known any thing in his Book Expos Doct. C. of E. Pref. pa. 18. that without dissembling the Truth might have been omitted he sincerely professes he would most willingly have done it As if it were Charity and Moderation to begin with an accusation of our adoring Men and Women Protestant Charity and Moderation Crosses Images and Reliques c. Or as if this and the like did so belong to the Doctrin of the Church of England that he was necessitated in expounding her Doctrin to fix them upon us and could not omit them without dissembling the Truth If he had consulted the Learned of his own party they would have taught him more Charity and Moderation ART II. That Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone OUr Author of the Defence tells us §. 4. he is but little concern'd in this Article Def. pag. 6. neither is it he says his business to examin whether I have truly distinguished betwixt that Honor which we pay to God and that which we give to Saints But really I think considering the stress he has put upon the word ADORATION in his following Discourse A necessary distinction not taken notice of by the Defender he ought to have taken notice of the distinctions which I here gave But he knew that had he done this all his Quotations out of our Liturgies c. would have signified just nothing neither could he have made so plausible an excuse for his Calumnies and Falsifications and therefore he thought it better to leave the true Explication of the Terms and the necessary distinctions betwixt Honor and Honor Worship and Worship Adoration and Adoration c. to others and make use of them still in his own confused Sense as if nothing had been said to rectifie his mistake I see then I must be forced to open the matter a little more plainly Which having once done I hope the Judicious Reader will take notice of what I say tho' he who opposes me may not think it for his purpose And first I must again tell him with Monsieur de Meaux that seeing in one Sense Adoration Invocation and the Name of Mediator I might add Justification Prayer c. are only proper to God and Jesus Christ it is no hard matter to misapply those Terms whereby to render our Doctrin odious And I must here conjure him not to obstruct the hopes of a more Christian Unity which he thinks is now in a fair way to come on by a future misapplication of those Terms To prevent which I must desire him to consider Secondly Respect Honor Worship Service Adoration Veneration c. are equivocal terms and are misapplied by the Defender That tho' we would willingly appropriate peculiar Names or Expressions to signifie the intention with which we do our actions calling that Honor which we pay immediately to God Divine Adoration or Latria That which we pay to Men upon account of natural or naturally acquired Excellencies only Civil and that which we pay to Saints Angels and Holy things Doulia or a Religious Honor not in the strictest Sense of the word but because it has a reference to God who is the Center of all Religious Honor to whom it ought finally to tend and in whom it is ultimately terminated yet the Terms Respect Honor Worship Service Adoration Veneration c. have been so variously used by our Fore-fathers both in our Native and in the Sacred Languages that it is impossible to make them speak uniformly Thus at this very day tho' we affirm that God is only to be Worshiped meaning with Divine Worship yet in the Protestant Common-Prayer Book in the Ceremonies of Marriage the Man says to the Woman with my Body I thee Worship And our Language teaches us to give the Titles of Worshipful or Right-Worshipful to Men of Quality Thus in the Sacred Scriptures Abraham is said to Adore the Children of Heth Josue an Angel c. What I have said of words is likewise to be understood of the exterior actions of the Body Bowing Kneeling Prostrating §. 5. Bowing Kneeling Prostrating c. are variously used Kissing c. all which are not so appropriated to God but that they are and have been in all Ages made use of to testifie our respect to our Kings Parents or Magistrates Lastly I must desire him to consider with us §. 6. The Honor pay'd by those words or actions is distinguished by the Object that this Bowing Kneeling Prostrating c. these Terms of Veneration Adoration Worship Honor c. tho' so promiscuously used are yet distinguished according to the Excellency of the Object on which they are Terminated for if the Excellency be Natural or Naturally or Extrinsical as Nobility Riches or the like the Honor which is due is only Civil or Human But where the Excellency is Supernatural we term the Honor Religious that is such an Honor as Faith and Religion teacheth Now Faith and Religion teacheth us also to make a distinction in Religious Honor according as the Supernatural Objects themselves are distinguished For the Supreme Independent Being is to be Worshiped with a Sovereign unlimited Religious Honor and this Honor which when we speak strictly we call Latria Divine honor called Latria only due to God. is only due to him But as God bestows his Supernatural Gifts upon his Creatures some in one degree some in another so is there an Honor due to them according to their several Degrees and tho' this Honor may be properly called Religious because of its Religious Motive Inferior honor called Doulia
ground that it was no ground at all and so of all other particulars we must conclude that all of them put together could give no just cause for such a Rent or Rebellion in the Church I told him that he ought to have given us some better Reason for his Assertion that whenever God remits the Crime he remits the Punishment than we think so or we are perswaded especially seeing this Doctrin is of such concern that it gives more to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon us Protestants grant more efficacy to a Lord have Mercy upon us than Catholics to a Plenary Indulgence than all the Plenary Indulgences of the Catholic Church But this I perceive puts him on the Fret and therefore he calls it a shameful Calumny and tells me he is confident I did not believe it my self Pray Good Sir Is it not your Position That when ever God forgives the Guilt be forgives the Punishment Is it not your Tenet also that God is ready to forgive the Guilt whenever a Sinner truly repents Tell me then suppose a Great Sinner is so suddenly taken out of the World that tho' he was truly forry for his Sine yet had only time to express his Sorrow by a bare Lord have mercy upon me Will you say such a Man cannot reap the Benefits of God Almighties Favor or have the guilt of his Sin forgiven him If you dare not say this tell me your opinion Whether does he go If you say To Heaven straight I say you give more to a bare Lord have mercy upon me than we do to a Plenary Indulgence for a Plenary Indulgence remits the Penalty due to Sin only upon Account of some other Satisfactions in the Churches style But you will it may be tell me this is not a bare Lord have mercy upon me but is as I now suppose accompanied with a sorrow for his Sin. I grant it and so must the Person who gains the Indulgence be not only sorry for his sins but confess them resolve to amend them quit the Occasions and make some other Satisfactions not only to the Persons whom he has injured but to God by Prayers Almes-deeds or Fasting In the last place §. 36. he finds fault with my Remark upon his Reflection upon the Bishop of Meaux for bringing only we suppose to establish this Doctrin when yet very often he did no more himself A Falsification But he takes no notice that I told him he had falsified M. de Meaux in that very expression for his words were we believe nous croyons which words were conformable to his design of an Exposition not of a proof However he tels me he belleves I can hardly find any one Instance where that is the only Argument he brings for their Doctrin In answer to which I dare confidently affirm that strip him of the Calumnies Misrepresentations of our Doctrin and Falsifications he has scarce an Argument in his Book of greater force than his we suppose And to shew he thinks it to be strong he lays a stress upon it in this place and tell us that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient not to receive our Innovations till we can bring them some better Arguments to prove they ought to quit their Supposition Nay he puts us upon the proof and pretends that they cannot find any Footsteps of our Doctrins in Scripture or Antiquity and has good reason by the weakness of our attempts to believe there are not any Certainly the Defender is not so ignorant in Controversy nor so little read in Polemic Divines as he here shews himself to be What! do our Authors never shew him any footsteps of our Doctrins in Scriptures or in Antiquity Are our attempts to prove our Doctrin so feeble that People have reason to think a mere Supposition will ruine our Foundations No no! the Defender certainly did not believe himself when he writ this tho' he was willing others should believe him Have we not besides our bringing the Authority of the Universal Church besides the lasting possession which we enjoy besides the Express Definitions of Councils acknowledged to be General not only by all the Bishops in England before the Reformation but by all Christendom besides the express Sentences of the Fathers in all Ages We are in a well grounded possession and therefore are not to quit it for bare Suppositions have we not I say besides all these Proofs offered also the plain Texts of Scripture and Challenged Protestants to shew so much as one positive Text for their Negative belief so much as one Father unless wrested contrary to his intention on their side or so much as one Council for any of those Points in which they differ from us And would it not be a folly for any one to quit a possession grounded upon such Proofs for a bare we suppose the Contrary They who doubt of what I say would do well to read our Books and compare the Arguments of our Authors and see whether Scripture or Antiquity will shew the footsteps of our Doctrin or of theirs And as for Antiquity if they will not believe us let them believe their own Protestant Authors who are so little confident of the Fathers being on their side that they accuse them of Errors not only in the Point of Satisfactions but in almost all the Points in Controversy as has been sully shewn by Brereley in his Protestant Apology First Part and by several others And as for Scripture amongst many others let them read the Anchor of Christian Doctrin and the Catholic Scripturist ART VIII SECT 2. Of Indulgences WHat I said before I say again That if any abuses §. 37. Councils have redressed the abuses in them either by negligence of Pastors or Covetousness of inferior Officers have been Practised in Promulging Indulgences our Councils not only desiring that they may be redressed but having made such severe and wholsom Laws in order to it I wonder persons should from thence take occasion to quarrel with us I say also Trident. Sess 2â— Decreto de Indulg that I will not undertake to defend Practices which are neither necessarily nor Universally received as of Faith. We defend not practices which are neither necessarily nor universally received But then the Defender asks me Whether it be not necessarily nor universally received to believe that Indulgences satisfie for the Temporal pain of Sin If he speak of pains due in the Court of God I must with Veron in his Rule of Faith Chap. xvi tell him That it is no Article of our Faith no Council has ever Defined it and several approved Divines deny it and have not been censured for it All that we are obliged to believe §. 38. Our necessary Tenets Profâ—ff of Faith. is that the power of Indulgences has been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ and that the use of
of his Books from their Disciplin nothing gives them more trouble than the vehement desire they see in Parents to make their Children be Baptized when they are Sick or in danger of Death This Piety says he of the Parents is called by their Synods an infirmity It is a weakness to be concerned lest the Children of the Faithful should dye without Baptism One of their Synods had condescended that Children in evident danger of Death should be Baptised contrary to the Ordinary custom But the following Synod reproved this weakness And these fortified persons blotted that Clause out which shewed a concern for such danger because it opened a way to the opinion of the necessity of Baptism So that the Dispute betwixt the Bishop of Condom and the Hugonots The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument Exâ—â—â— pag. 17 was concerning the Necessity of Baptism and not the Consequence of that Necessity as our Defender would gladly have it And his Assertion is that both Catholics and Lutherans are astonished that such a Truth as the absolute Necessity of Baptism should be denyed which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the Faithful Had our Defender rightly taken this Dispute he would have spared himself the pains he has been at to search Hooker Bramhall Cassander Grotius and the Authors cited by them Some of which it may be thought not the Consequence drawn from the Belief of the absolute necessity of Baptism so clear as to be an Article of Faith whilst others especially Gerson were willing to perswade themselves that God Almighty notwithstanding his unlimited Decree might extend his Mercy to such Children But that his Decree being for all in General we ought to Pronounce according to that Decree because without a particular Revelation we ought not to make any Exception from that Rule But neither they nor any else before Calvin denyed the absolute necessity of Baptism as the Bishop Asserts And our Defender if he had any thing to say against him should have opposed that part A Falsification and not have corrupted his words and told us that he affirms that this denyal of Salvaton to Infants dying Vnbaptized was a Truth which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question No no the Bishop knew well enough that Gerson's Piety had made him cast an Eye upon the Mercies of God which he was willing to think might in some cases make him dispense with his Rule and thwart the necessity of the Deduction He knew that Biel and Cajetan were willing to follow singular opinions and therefore might be of the same mind He knew also no doubt of it that Grotius had cited St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustin for this opinion tho' they who look into those Fathers will find he was mistaken neither did St. Augustin in his cooler thoughts differ from himself when provoked by Pelagius tho' our Defender after Grotius dare argue that he did But neither they nor any other openly denyed the necessity of Baptism as the Calvinists do Nor do the Authors he mentions affirm any such thing and therefore it was needless for him to call them in to his help or to tell me I had wholy past by what seem'd the most to deserve an answer Upon this account one may see it was not so ridiculous as he would make it to tell him If he had been a Hugonot or a Puritan it might have seemed reasonable to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome for a Doctrin which they condemn But that I was astonished to see this Argument and to hear the Church condemned of Vncharitableness by one of the Church of England which as he says has it seems * The Church of England in the order for the buriâ—l of the dead rands however unbaprizeed Children with those that dye Excommunicated or have laid violent hands upon themselves Determined nothing of it But if he do not as he owns justify a Breach with us upon this account why I pray does he start the Dispute to keep it open or make it wider by such sinnter Defences ART X. Of Confirmation IF our Defender had §. 46. as he professes several of our own Party on his side persons who denyed the Divine Institution of this Sacrament he would not I believe have conceal'd their Names but would have been as ready to have stuffed his Margent with them as he was in the precedent Article with Cassander and Grotius whom he would make his Readers believe were of our most approved Authors tho' the first was censured for his rash attempt in the Interim and the other lived in opposition to the Church tho' it be thought he dyed in Communion with it Surely our Defender was sadly put to it when he was forced to fly to the silence of the Council of Trent and of its Catechism and to argue that because neither of them offered any thing to prove this Sacrament therefore forsooth it cannot be proved Was it not sufficient for those Books to explicate our Doctrin T is not surely the Business of a Council to prove Proved by Fathers and Scripture but to Assert our Belief And whether the Catechism has been wholy silent in this let the Readers Judge as also how bold and rash some persons will be in their Assertions The Chatechism tels us Catech. Rom. part 2. de Cinf c. 3. p. 158. that the Church has always taught and acknowledged that all things that belong to the Nature and Essence of a Sacrament are found in Confirmation and proves it from many Antient and Holy Popes and Fathers of the Church (a) Epist ad Episc Hisp c. 2. Et de Consec Dist 5. cap. Spiritus Sanctus St. Melchiades who lived Anno 315. (b) Ep. 4. ad Jultan Jul. St. Clement Anno 102. Also from (c) De Consec dist 5. Pope Vrban Anno 232. Fabianus Anno 253. And Eusebius Anno 311. Nay it shews us moreover that (d) De. Eccl. Hier. c. 2. St. Denys the Arepagite does not only speak of Confirmation but expresses the very Ceremonies and the manner of making the Chrism and that (e) Lib. 6. Hist Eccles c. 33. Eusebius of Cesarea thought that Novatus foll into his Heresy for neglecting in his Sickness to be Confirmed And tho' our Defender in his former Treatise was not so bold but only affirmed that the Council and Chatechism did not go about to prove either Christs Institution or the outward visible Sign or the inward Spiritual â—â—race by Scripture yet this Catechism shews that (f) Ambr. in fin c. 7. de lit qui myst init lib. 3. de Sacramentis c. 2. Tom. 4.436 pag. St. Ambrose and (g) Aug. lib. 2. cenâ—ra lit Petil. c. 104. St. Augustin were both of them so perswaded that no one could doubt of the truth of this Sacrament that they both of
us the Church has in matters of Faith and when and whom it binds Object But perhaps it may be here asked What if the Church should Define there is no God no Jesus Christ no Heaven no Hell and I be fully convinced in my own judgment by reading Scripture that there is a God a Jesus Christ a heaven and a Hell would you have me quit the sense of Scripture in these plain Points in which I have evident conviction and follow that of the Church Before I answer I must needs say that I think this Question tho' it be the ground-work of our Defenders foregoing Position and without the supposal of which he can never pretend it to be reasonable yet will perhaps be derided by him when proposed in such plain terms For no man certainly can ever think that the whole Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell are never to prevail can fall into such a Total Defection as to Apostatize and oppose such places of Scripture as are plain to every understanding Moreover The Defender knows very well that the differences betwixt us and them lyes rather on the contrary side and that if the Scripture be plain for either side it is for * See several Books published upon this account as the Anchor of Christian Dodrin the 2d part of the Prudential Ballance Catholic Scripturist c. ours He knows how they have been often invited to shew one positive Text of Scripture against any one of our Tenets without their false glosses to it which make it no Scripture He knows or at least may be easily informed that we have shewn them positive Texts according to the Primitive Fathers interpretations both for our Articles and against their Innovations and the late Request to Protestants to produce plain Texts of Scripture in about 16 of their Tenets and the shufling answer to it are a sufficient Argument that it is unreasonable for them to pretend to it Answer My answer is therefore that the Defender and they who with him suppose the Church can ordain things directly opposite in necessaries either to Faith or Manners even in things clear to every understanding do not consider the notion of a Church nor the Promises that God has given to secure it from such Damnable Errors as must destroy its Essonce So that establishing a False notion without proving it for their ground no wonder if many Absurdities arise from it From which it will appear that a Libertines argument for his Debauches drawn from a supposition that there is no God no Heaven no Hell nor other Life is as conclusive as theirs who suppose the whole Church can or ever shall propose a truth to be believed or an action to be practised which is contrary to the express words of Scripture in places plain to every understanding or contradict Divinely delivered Truths However the Defender tells us that they allow a deference and that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council Expos Ch Engl. p. 81. the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General And that whensoever such an one which he says they much desire shall be freely and lawfully assembled to determin the Differences of the Catholic Church none shall be more ready both to assist in it and submit to it §. 126. The Council of Trent vindicated Upon this account I desired him to consider whether the Council of Trent had not the qualifications of a General and free Council and whether the Four first General Councils were not liable to the same exceptions as were made against the Council of Trent This he calls a new question hookt in and gives an old thread-bare answer to it as if we never had before confuted it 1. His first Exception that it was not General answered He says it was not so General because it was not called by so Great and Just an Authority as those were that is those were called by the Authority of the Emperors and this by the Authority of the Pope But what is there no Authority given to the Church to call her Pastors together in cases of necessity but that it must be the Temporal Power must do it If so then our Defender must condemn the first Council of the Apostles Act. 15. and all the other Councils held till Constantin the first Christian Emperors time But if he dare not do this but answer that the Church had the Priviledge at that time whilst the secular Power was Heathen I ask him how she came to lose it afterwards Did Princes by submitting themselves unto the Church rob their Mother of her just Authority T is true they assisted by interposing their Commands also and so strengthned the obligation of Assembling themselves But will any one say that such an accumalative power in assisting the Church was a depriving her of that Authority Moreover if he cannot deny but the Church had that Authority when the Secular Powers were heathens and enemies to Christianity I hope he will not deny her the same when some part of those Powers are Enemies to the Orthodox Faith for the Church is liable to the same dammages from an Heretical Prince as from an Unbelieving Again the whole practice of the Church is against what our Defender says It is well known Doctor Field of the Church pag. 697. apud Censid on the Council of Trent c. 3. §. 49. and consented to by Protestant Authors that the calling of a Diocesan Synod belongs to the Bishop that of a Provincial to the Metropolitan of a National to the Primate and of a Patriarchal to the Patriarch and why not that of a General to the Prime Patriarch unless he will say that God has taken care to provide for the unity of so many different Patriarchats and established a means to compose the differences that may arise in them but has not taken care of the whole Church Furthermore §. 127. The first 4 General Councils were called by the Pope our Defender is out in pretending that the four first General Councils were called by the Emperors For as to the First if we may believe the 6th Synod Act. 18. and Pope Damasue in Pontific it was called by the consent of Pope Sylvester 't is true Constantine having received Pope Sylvester's order promulgated the convocatory Letters and was at the expences of conducting the Bishops to the Council As to the Second General Council that of Constantinople Concurrer imus Coâ—st intinopolim ad vestre Reverentiâ— lâ—eras missa Ibeodosio suâ—â—ma pietate Inperatori Theodor. Hist lib. 5. c. 9. pag 403. B. Syâ—odum Epâ—esinam â—actam esse Cyrtssi industria Celestini authoritate Prolper in Chronico the Bishops there assembled in their Letters to Pope Damasus and to the Council then met with him at Rome tell him that they had met and assembled themselves at Constantinople according to the Letters he had sent to Theodosius the Emperor