examined either ashamed of this Doctrin and recal it or else declare they admit to Authority in the Church and this I shall do as I examin his Exceptions in their order First Exception That the Church of Rome is only a particular Church Answered The Roman Catholic Church includes all particular Churches unâ—ted in Communion with her His first Exception is that the Church of rome is only a particular Church and therefore cannot be properly called the Catholic Church To this I answered that we did not intend by the Roman Catholic Church the particular Diocese of Rome but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome And that this alone was the Catholic Church I proved fully by the marks assigned by the Nicene Creed viz. of Vnity and by consequence of freedom from Schismes and Divisions of Sanctity and by consequence of being free from Heresies Idolatries Superstitions and other Essential Errors of Vniversality also with that Vnity and Sanctity and of being Apostolic that is grounded upon the Doctrins and Faith of the Apostles and deriving a continual Succession from them I proved I say the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Alone to be the Catholic Church which we believe in our Creed because no other Assembly of Christians can pretend to these marks but she But our Defender found this reason too solid to be eluded by his querks and therefore said nothing to it but justifies his exception by an Argument which I wonder any man of reason would offer to produce Now if this that we take all Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Desence pag. 78. for the Roman Catholic Church in truth says he be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholic Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholic as that of Rome it self What sense I pray is there in this Proposition thus worded If he mean as he must to make an Argument that every particular National Church in Communion with the Church of Rome has as good a title to the Name of the Catholic Church as all those particular National Churches joyned together have he will have much a do to perswade any Rational man to believe him who can but understand that a part is not the whole But if he mean that every particular National Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome has as good a title to the name of Catholic as the particular Diocese or National Church of Rome it self that is as he explicates himself presently after has the same Purity and Orthodoxness of Faith. Suppose we grant him it always allowing that difference betwixt the See of St. Peter and other Bishopricks as there is betwixt the head and the other members of the same Body what consequence will he draw from thence against us who allow all other Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be truly members of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor Oh says he This renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholic with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocese and so makes it only a particular not The Vniversal Church And what then I pray Who ever said that the particular Diocese of Rome is the Universal Church We say indeed that the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pastor of the whole Church of Christ which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church but this does not make the Suburbican Diocese to be this Catholic Church For as the Empire when it was in former times diffusd through most parts of Europe part of Asia and part of Africa was called the Roman Empire from the Imperial City Rome so is the Catholic Church spread over the face of the whole world called the Roman Catholic Church because every particular Member is joyned in Communion with the one Supreme Pastor whose See is at Rome And this Universal Church we say can neither fall into Error nor prevaricate the Faith in any necessary Points of it whatsoever a particular Church may do Hence it appears that his second and third Exceptions are nothing to the purpose §. 110. 2d and 3d Exceptions null as being grounded upon his notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken for the particular Diocess of Rome But now says he should we allow the Church of Rome as great an Extent as the Vindicator speaks of c. Ibid. yet all this would not make her the Whole or Catholic Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the world besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the same Faith The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her and continued just in the Same Worship as she hath done And this he conceives cannot easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which he says have plainly for several ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship This is the great Argument of Protestants who would willingly as I took notice in my Vindication have the Catholic Church to be composed of All those who profess the Faith of Christ spread over the face of the Whole World Pag. 104. All those who profess the Faith of Christ are not members of the Catholic Church whether they be Arians Nestorians Donatists Socinians Lutherans Calvinists Church of England Men Roman Catholics or others All which they acknowledge to be Members of the Catholic Christian Church tho' some of them may be Rotten putrid Members they may be true tho' corrupt Churches as a man may be truly a man and yet be very dangerously ill Plain mans reply pag. 14. Thus they provide for Universality in the Church but leave its Sanctity and Unity to shift for themselves unless what a late Author has produced will pass for a Vindication of their Unity Vindic. of the Ch. of England from Schism and Herisy Part. 1. Sect. x. who acknowledges that there may be a Schism from a particular Church but that A Separation from the Catholic Church taken in the most comprehensive sense is not Schism but Apostacy So that if what he says have any sense he must mean that All the different Sects of Christians in the world make up but one Church all which Sects ought to be at such an Union with one another as long as each one keeps within their respective Countries where their Religion is established by Law that no one ought to treat another as a Schismatic seeing there cannot be properly speaking any Schism from the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but only Apostacy which is a Total Defection from
Christiantiy But that if these or any of them should meet in a National Church the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church How Extravagant such a Doctrin as this is I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider And return to the Defenders Argument He tells us §. 111. that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic unless we can prove either first there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her or secondly that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united tho' professing known and condemned Heresies as wel as an Orthodox Church maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ or were called Christians or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ nor any Error in their Worship but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Savlation which is manifestly false or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic Church But this we cannot do unless we will open a Gate for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her And tell the world plainly that the Arians or any other Heresy may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians tho' Orthodox in their belief And if this be his meaning it follows that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church so long as they turn not Apostats and deny their Christianity All which is absurd in an eminent degree But if he mean only this that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic we must shew there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did we will joyn Issue with him and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any unbyassed judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome And that all other Churches in the world that were Orthodox professed just the same Faith as to all the Essential Points of it and practised the very same Essential Worship which shew now does That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced will appear to any man who considers that when we speak of the Catholic Church we speak of that Church which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ joyned with that Vniversality viz. Vnity without Schisms and Divisions Sanctity without Errors Heresies or damnable Doctrins and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrins in matters of Faith or Manners or those who like Corah and his companions set up an Altar against an Altar and chalenge to themselves a Function like that of Aarons without being lawfully called thereto To prove therefore this Truth §. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the the true Catholic Church proved that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is this true Catholic Church I must desire my Reader to consider 1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel he told them that they who did not believe should be condemned but they who did believe and were baptised should be saved 2. That these Believers were called Christians that is Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world to continue till the end of the same to preserve the Doctrins delivered to her to be one and therefore free from Schisms Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrins All which we express in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions which as they are destructive of Vnity and Sanctity the marks of his true Church so are they also impediments to Salvation and therefore must be avoided and seeing this Church must be free from them she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics from the Orthodox Christians and cut them off from being Members of her Communion 3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors or refused to pay a due Obedience and therefore if during their Separation other Heresies or Schisms should bud out the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third a fourth or a fifth But as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third and in a word all other succeeding Assemblies who either thus opposed the Truths delivered to her or refused to pay her a due obedience 4. These things thus considered it necessarily follows that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned her self condemned proud Schismatics and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and
them as with a Seal and gave the Pledge of the Holy Ghost in their Hearts I need not I suppose tell him that this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead signifies that we ought not to be ashamed to Consess the Faith of Christ Crucified as the Church of England expresses it in the Office for Baptism that the white Cloath or Fillet as he calls it is to put us in mind of the Purity we ought to maintain and keep the Garment of Innocence which we received in Baptism unspotted and that the Blow on the Ear is to teach us that we ought from thence forwards to suffer patiently all Injuries and Persecutions for the Faith. These and such like significant Ceremonies we use and tho' he and his party be pleased to joke at them yet having such Testimonies as we have of their Antiquity and Apostolical Institution we choose rather to glory in them than under the pretences of a Reformation to Renounce them and the Practice yea the Communion of the Universal Church ART XI Of Penance CErtainly the Defender never read what I offered §. 49. Defence pag. 41. otherwise he would never have said that I had not advanced any one thing to answer his Objections He says he proved at large that Penance was not truly and properly a Sacrament nor ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church How did he prove it By many bold Assertions without any Warrant And if I affirmed the contrary without Proof I had his Precedent for it The Bishop of Condom had proved the Sacrament of Penance by the Terms of the Commission granted by our Blessed Saviour to the Apostles and their Successors Matth. 18.12 John 20.23 of remitting and retaining sins Expos p. 18. the terms says he of which Commission are so general that they cannot without Temerity be restrained to public Sins Our Expositor's Answer to this was that the Primitive Christians had interpreted those passages of St. Matth. and St. John concerning Public Disciplin to which he supposes with them that principally at least if not only they refer I desired him to shew who those Primitive Christians were Vindic. pag. 64. and where they taught those passages to be only referred to a public Disciplin But to this he would not vouchsafe to give an Answer He objected that if Penance had been any thing more than a part of Christian Disciplin the Antient Church would not have presumed to make such changes in it nor Nectarius have begun to weaken it in his Church of Constantinople nor his Successor St. John Chrysostom have seconded him in it In answer to which I told him that Public Confession such as that which Nectarius and St. Chrysostom took away was a part of Disciplin and therefore alterable at pleasure Vindic. pag. 65. but that either Public or Private Confession was always necessary because it was always necessary a Judge should know the Case and a Physitian the Distemper before the one can pronounce a right Sentence or the other prescribe a wholsom Remedy But he thinks it a sufficient Reply to say he cannot take this upon my Word He had laid Scandals upon our Doctrin and Practice or at least insinuated them and therefore I looked upon my self as obliged to give my Readers a short Account of both and after I had done it I told him those were our Doctrins and Practices conformable to that of the Antient and Orthodox Churches and that I was astonished why they should be rejected and no better ground brought than we suppose Expos Doct. Church of England pag. 43. or we beg leave with Assurance to say that such Doctrins are directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture One would have thought in answer to this he should have shewn some better Proofs and have brought Testimonies of that Tradition or at least have produced some one of those plain and undoubted Texts of Scripture But alas he could not do that and therefore he passes it off by calling it Stuff and with a fulsome Joke upon my Ashonishment telling me that if ever I get so well out of it as to come to my Reason again and will undertake to prove Penance to be truly and Properly a Sacrament c. I shall have an ingenuous Reply to my Arguments In the mean time say I §. 50. The Church of England wishes it were re-established let him and his Church be so ingenuous as to restore the practice of Confession and Penance which they seem so much to wish for in the Ash-wednesday Office at least that in publick not to say any thing of the judgment of all the sober persons even amongst themselves who wish well to all Salutary Methods which Christ has left in his Church and particularly to this and then we might find a happy opportunity of proposing Arguments In Confirmation you make a shift to deny the Sacrament but have not renounced the Practice it may be for Episcopacy sake but in Penance the Practice has followed your renouncing the Sacrament And call you this a Reformation which seems to be more careful of the Dignity of the Pastor than of the Salvation of the Flock I think the Defender would do well to consider this and perhaps he will be astonished at their own proccedings I told him this Doctrin was established in England together with Christianity by St. Augustin and the Benedictin Monks and that if he would have us to relinquish it he must bring us either some manifest Revelations or demonstrative Reasons for nothing else could induce us to quit a possession of so long standing But he knew this would be impossible for him to do and therefore he resolved to keep at distance and put us upon the proof A proceeding which would not hold in Law where an uninterrupted Possession is a sufficient Evidence See Mr. Ricauâ—'s History Anno 1678. Ch. 12. What I have said of England I may say of all other both Eastern and Western Churches who unanimously held at the beginning of the Reformation that Penance was a Sacrament and looked upon the Doctrin as coming from the Apostles they having an uninterrupted Possession of it ART XII Of Extream Vnction IF the Defender had rightly considered the Question betwixt us §. 51. The Defender mistakes the Question he would have spared a great part of the pains he has taken in this Article and have let alone the pretended Proofs he brings from our Antient Liturgies as wholy impertinent Tho's he could not deny but that in Extream Unction there is both an outward Visible Sign and an inward and Spiritual Grace annexed to it yet because he was to oppose the Catholic Church he would have this to be only a Ceremony made use of in the Miraculous Cures of the Apostles And to prove this he affirmed that the Antient Rituals of the Roman Church for 800 Years
after Christ shew the practice to have had the primary respect to Bodily Cures and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confessed the words of St. James could belong to no other and from thence concluded they had reason to leave off this Extream Unction because Miracles are now ceased In answer to this A Falsification of Cajetan I told him First that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as he affirmed he did But what if he had Would it be sufficient to reject a practice coming down from the Apostles and from Age to Age visibly continued in all Christian Churches both of the East and West for 800 Years as he himself confesses notwithstanding that the Gifts of Miracles were ceased and this upon the Testimony of one Mans affirming that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture What if it may be proved by the Universal Practice and Tradition of the Church is not that Practice and Tradition the best Interpreter must that be laid aside because a Cajetan or some few persons in these latter Ages think St. James in that passage had an Eye to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles when it is most likely the Unction mentioned by the Holy Evangelist St. Mark had a respect at least as a Figure to this Sacrament 2. §. 52. It has a respect to bodyly Cures As to the Antient Rituals I told him that ours also agree with them that this Sacrament has a respect to bodily Cures as well as those of the Mind and therefore I told him that unless he could manifestly prove that the Unction mentioned by St. James and practised by the Primitive Church for the first 800 Years had no relation to the Sickness of the Soul as a Sacrament but only to the Body in order to miraculous Cures He would prove nothing against us who acknowledge that the Sick persons do many times by it obtain health of Body when it is expedient for the Salvation of their Souls But this he saw was impossible However something must be said tho' to no purpose and therefore to make the unwary Reader think he had much the better on it St. Gregory's Ritual and the other antient Forms used in the Greek and Latin Church for 800 Years must be quoted at large and all the passages in them that tend to the Cures of the Body varied in a different Character but where the Mind is concerned the ordinary Character must serve and thence as wild a Conclusion must be drawn that this Unction had more than a bare respect to bodily Cures nay that it was especially or as he said before primarily designed for them How did the Greek and Latin Churches for the first 800 Years practise this Unction and do Protestants §. 53. who pretend to reform according to the Primitive purity reject it Yes but They practised it with a primary respect to Bodily Cures and we to those of the Soul. Sanctisying Grace Assistance against Temptations and Remission of Sin are the Primary Effects No wonder if we call Sanctifying Grace Assistance against Temptations in the last Agony and Remission of Sin the primary effects in Dignity whilst the corporal Cure may be the primary in Order and only with respect to the other But how does he prove that the Unction used by the Primitive Christians for the first 800 Years respected miraculous Cures only All the Prayers and Ceremonies says he shew it And do they not also shew a respect to those of the Soul Is there not mentioned a Tutamen mentis as well as Corporis Defence p. 46. in the Benediction of the Oyl Ejusque dimite peccata Ibid. Eripe animam ejus pag. 48. In te habitet Virtus Christi Altissimi Spiritus Sancti p. 49 Viseerumque ac cordium interna medica Medullarum quoque cogitationum sana discrimina Does not the Priest pray for the Remission of his Sins a delivery of his Soul that the Power or Vertue of Christ the most High and of the Holy Ghost way dwell in him He prays also tho' the Defender did not think it convenient to tell his Readers so in English That the interior of his Heart and Cogitations may find a remedy that God would heal the Distempers of the inward parts and thoughts that the corruptions of his Vlcers and Vanities may be evacuated that God would skin over the antient Scars of his Conscience and Wounds that he would take away his mighty Passions Vlcerum vanitatumque putredines evacua Conscientiarumque atque plagarum abducito cicatrices veteres immensasquo remove Passiones Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma DELICTORVMQVE cunctorum veniam tribue fiat illi haec Olei Sacri perunctio morbi languoris praesentis expulsio atque PECCATORVM omnium OPTATA REMISSIOt Per Dom. pag. 50.51 and Pardon all his Sins and which is worthy our remark does not this Prayer end with begging that this anointing him with Holy Oyl may be an expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity and the desired Remission of all his Sins Through our Lord Jesus Christ c. Again How had these a respect to miraculous Cures only when the Fathers of those Times tell us that such Miracles ceased presently after the Apostles Times Does not their practising of this after the cessation of those Miracles shew that they expected an interior Assistance of the Soul rather than a miraculous Cure of the Body Well might I therefore tell him that his sense of the words of St. James and of the intention of this Extream Unction was contrary to what we were taught by all Antiquity I told him also §. 54. that the very words of St. James evinced it And I have heard of some Protestant Anabaptists that think so and therefore use it Luther However he knows who they were that threw off the Epistle partly upon that account Infirmatur quis in vobis The words of St. James Evince it says the Apostle If any one or whoever is Sick amongst you The words belong to all Christians But if he had spoken of miraculous Cures only he needed not have invited them their own Wants would have perswaded them sufficiently to send for those who had the Gift of Miracles as the Centurion sent to our Blessed Saviour Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Let him bring in the Priests the Clergy the Ordinary standing Rulers of the Church of which as I told him All had not the Gift of Healing and some who were not of the Clergy had it 'T is manifest then the Apostle would have said send for those who have the Gift of Healing be they Clergy or Lay persons had he spoken of miraculous Cures only But says the Defender if all had it not 'T is very like St. James meant They should be sent for that had it whereas first this is clear against the Text which speaks at Large send for the Priests Secondly It would have been to no