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
refer my self to any unbyassed Readers Judgment in the case betwixt us Calumnies pag. 3.32 36 47. Falsifications pag. 31.37 50 54 62 70 126 155. False Translations pag. 42.48 Unsincerities Uncharitable Accusations Wilful mistakes of our Doctrin Affected Misapplications of Equivocal words False Impositions Authors Misapplied Plain Contradictions pag. 46.86 In almost every Article A CATALOGUE OF AUTHORS Cited in the following BOOK With their Editions A ACts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy Engl. 1685. S. Ambros Basileae 1567. Aquinatis Summa Theol. fol. Parisiis 1632. S. Athana Ex Officina Commeliniana An. 1601. S. Augustini Opera Basileae 1569. S. Augustini Opera Imperf Cont. Julian B S. Basilei Opera Paris 1618. Bellarm. de Scrip. Eccl. Colon. 1622. Bellarm. Opera Lugduni 1587. Col. Agrip. 1619. Biblia Sacra vulgat English Protestant Bible Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniae 1618 Brereley Protestant Apology 1608. Liturgy of the Mass Col. 1620. Breviarium Monasticum Paris 1675. C Card. Cajetan in D. Thomam Venetiis 1612. Card. Capisucchi Capit. Theol. Selec Cassandri Opera Paris 1616. Ejusd Consultatio vid. Grotii via ad Pacem Catechismus Romanus Antverpiae ex Officina Plant. 1606. Chemnitii Examen Concil Trid. Francof 1574. Sti. Chrysostomi Epistola ad Caesarium Sti. Chrysost Edit Commelian 1596. item 1603. Frontoduc 1616. The Book of Common-Prayer London 1686. Summa Conciliorum Bail fol. Par. 1675. Concilia Binii Paris 1636. Concilia Gen. Provinc Colon. 1578. Concilium Tridentinum Paris 1674. Cressy against Dr. Pierce 's Court Sermon 1663. Sti. Cypriani Opera Paris 1648. Cyprian Angl. 2d Edit D Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England 1686. Dionys Areopag Eccles Hierarch Paris 1644. Durandus in Sententias Lud. 1569. E Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England 1686. S. Ephrem Edit Ger. Vossii Colon. 1616. Error Non-plust 1673. Estius in 4 Libros Sententiarum Parisiis 1672. Eusebii Historia Ecclesisastica Basileae G The Guide in Controversie 1673. Sti. Gregor Mag. Paris 1533. Sti. Gregorii Opera Sti. Gregor Nazianzeni Opera Paris 1609. Sti. Greg. Nyssen Paris 1615. Antwerpiae 1572. Grotii via ad pacem cum Consult Cassandri 80. 1642. Gualteri Chronologia Lugduni 1616. H Hist Anglic. Harpsfeldei Duaci 1622. Book of Homilies fol. 1673. Hen. Huntingdoniensis Hist Francofurti 1601. I Sti. Irenaei Adversus Haeres Colon. 1596. Sti. Justini Mart. Parisiis 1615. item Edit Commel 1593. L Lombardi Sentent apud Scotum M Maimburg Hist de l' Arianism Edit Paris 4o. 1673. Maldonat in Evang. fol. Mogunt 1611. In Prophet as Minores 40. Mongutiae 1611. Monsieur de Meaux Exposition Eng. 4o. by Hen. Hills 1686. French 5 Edit 12o. A Paris An. 1681. Traité de la Communion sous les deus especes 12o. A Paris 1682. Missale Romano Monasticum Paris 1666. N Nubes Testium 1686. O Origines old Character 1512. P Du Perron Replique a la Reponse du Roy de la Grande Bretaigne fol. Paris 1620. De l'Eucharistie fol. Paris 1629. Plain Man's Reply 1687. Polyd. Virgilius Hist Anglic. Basileae 1534. Pontificale Romanum fol. Romae 1645. Protestant Apology 1608. R Roman Catholic Doctrin no Novelties See Cressy against Dr. Pierce Court Sermon Rufini Historia Basileae S Scotus in Magistrum Sententiarum Antverp 1620. Sherlocks Sermon before the House of Commons 1685. A short Summary of the Principal Controversies 1687. Sixti Senensis Bibl. Sancta Coloniae 1576. Socratis Sozomen c. Histo Basileae Sparrows Collections of Cannons London 1675. 4o. Suarez Venetiis 1597. T Tertulliani Opera Regaltii Paris 1664. Theodoreti Historia Basileae Thorndike just Weights and Measures 4o. London 1662. Epilogue fol. London 1659. V Vasques Antwerp 1620. Vindication of the Church of England from Schism and Heresie 1687. Vindication of the Bishop of Condoms Exposition 1686. A REPLY TO THe DEFENCE OF THE Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England ART I. INTRODVCTION THat he who accuses another of Great and Heinous Crimes §. 1. Def. p. 1. ought to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself of those Faults which he condemns in others is certain But whether this Author of the Defence or I have governed our selves by this Maxim is to be cleared and I suppose the Judicious Readers will neither take his nor my bare assertion for a proof and therefore to avoid more words I commit the whole to their Examen in the following Articles I shall pass by also what he says concerning the Authority of an Imprimatur Carolus Alston c. which he equalizes to a Permissu Superiorum tho' I hope he will not contend with those Testimonies which are given to the Exposition and proceed to the Point in question If Calumny and Vnsincerity be now the Catholic Cry §. I. it is because Idolatry Idolatry and Superstition Prot. Cry and Calumnies at present Superstition and I know not what more harsh names are now the Protestants There was a time as this Author knows in which the genuin Sons of the Church of England excused the Roman Catholic Church of that odious Imputation of Idolatry and acknowledged the Doctrin of the Church as to that particular to be innocent Dr. Jackson Dr. Field Arch-Bishop I and Dr. Heylin Mr. Thern 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammand c. He knows too that some persons never Excommunicated nor censured by the Church of England for it have maintain'd that the Sons of the Church of England cannot defend the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome without denying that Church to be a true Church Other Protestants thought the charge unjust and by consequence without contradicting themselves without going against the intention of the Reformation which was not to make a new Church but to restore a Sick Church to it's Soundness a Corrupted Church to it's Purity Thorn like Just weights and measures Chap. 1.2 Chap. 1.3 Chap. 2. p. 9. without casting the Sin of Schism at their own Dores and being answerable for all the Ill consequences of it Nay more that he who takes the Pope for Antichrist and the Papists for Idolaters can never weigh by his own Weights and mete by his own Measures till he hate Papists worse than Jews or Mahumetans of which the Presbyterian and the Puritan have been guilty but the Clergy and Gentry of the Church of England have been hitherto more Christian I would gladly therefore know how it comes to pass Defence p. 88. that at this time when he acknowledges there was never more cause to hope for an Vnion and wishes that all such things as heighten our Animosities might on all sides be buried in eternal Oblivion An Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England should be ushered in with that odious Imputation of Adoring Men and Women Crosses and Images c. Where do's he find the Church of England in her Thirty Nine Articles or publick Testimonies of her Dogmatical Doctrin charging the Church of Rome
may be called a particular Sacrament and being now far from agreeing to any thing which has once been esteemed by them a difficulty he therefore says he denyed there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed This indeed he tels us in his Defence but in his Exposition he was far more moderate The outward Sign of it says he there we confess to have been Imposition of Hands and as such we our selves observe it From whence a lover of Peace in the Church would have rationally enough concluded that the Church of England was agreed with the Catholic in this Point when he says they use Imposition of Hands as an outward sign of it of what of the Particular Sacrament Yea. But it seems I was out in my conjecture for he intends not to contribute any thing to the healing of the Church in any Punctilio and therefore tho' we be half Friends as to all appearance yet some new Scruple must be thrown in the way to quash all hopes of Accommodation (a) Expos pag 46. We do not read says he that Christ instituted that sign much less tyed the promise of any certain Grace to it (b) Def. pag. 53. All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture is only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded See how some Men can digest any thing Are not three or four places of Holy Scripture shewing the Practice of it a sufficient Testimony that it was commanded Were the Apostles for will-worship uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies did they things on their own Head without their Lords Order or his least Innuendo My Adversary thinks it seems that nothing is commanded but what he can read commanded No unwritten Tradition now with him At other times perhaps hee 'l grant there may be some But now we read not Therefore c. Whereas we read not any Command by Christ for the observation of the Lords Day only three or four Examples of the practice of it that is all the Authority c. If Scripture be his rule of Faith let him shew us a greater authority then the example of three or four places contradicting our Tenets and he will have reason to Dispute with us As for those of our own who as he says maintain that Imposition of Hands is not essential to Holy Orders if they be not worth his naming they are not worthy my concern We are not to answer for the particular Sentiments of Scholastics as I have often told him But the Grace conferred is no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament Thus our Defender Whereas in his Exposition he acknowledged that Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders is accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost A Blessing do you say and why not a Grace seeing St. Paul expresly calls it so 2 Tim. 1.6 admonishing St. Timothy to stir up the Grace of God which was given him by the Imposition of his Hands 1 Tim 4.14 and in another place exhorting him not to neglect the Grace in him which was given him by Prophecy that is according to the particular revelation made to St. Paul concerning him with the Imposition of the Hands of Priesthood He goes on If it may be called a Grace Expos ibid. yet not a Grace common to all Christians but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ And therefore we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are Pray Sir who ever said that the Grace which is given in Holy Orders is a Grace common to all Christians or that it is a common Sacrament of the whole Church Is it not sufficient for a Sacrament that it be the visible sign of an invisible Grace bestowed upon some particular persons segregated to a special employ for the benefit of the whole Church must all persons be Deacons all persons Priests all Bishops or else Holy Orders no Sacrament Oh but it is not a Justifying Grace What do you mean by a Justifying Grace Is not this Grace given in Holy Orders a Grace that renders the persons who receive it acceptable to God Almighty and enables them to perform the functions to which they are called Does not this Sacrament confer at least an increase of Sanctifying Grace tho' it be not instituted to confer the first Grace of Remission of Sin If you will have nothing else to be a justifying Grace but what is instituted primarily for the Remission of Sin I am afraid you will hereafter conclude the Eucharist to be no Sacrament because it does not primarily confer such a Grace Thus you see the whole business of our Defender is nothing but Shifts If it may be called a particular Sacrament yet is it not common to the whole Church If a Grace be given in it yet not a sanctifying Grace a Grace common to all Christians If we find three or four places in Scripture mentioning Imposition of Hands in order to the conferring of some Grace whatever ever it be yet we do not find it commanded What is all this but puttings off and a begging the Question by supposing that nothing can be truly a Sacrament which is not General to all Christians But I am afraid I have been too long upon these particulars seeing the Next great Article challenges an exact Examen ART XV XVI XVII XVIII Of the Eucharist IT is not a little Astonishment to see what an Agreement there is in all Antiquity concerning the Sense of these four Words §. 63. Defence pag. 54. Two hundred several senses put upon these four words this is my body This is my body and what various Interpretations have been made of them in this last 150 Years when our Reformers left every Man his Liberty to interpret Scripture for himself without any controlment (a) Repetâ—â— 1. de Euchar. c. 10. Apud Gualter Cron. Sect 16. pag 808. Claudius Sanctesius has collected no less than 84 (b) Gerd contr 1. cap. 28 pag. 202. de Ecclesia others 200 various Senses put upon these four plain Words which before this new pretended Reformation begun were generally understood in a literal Sense Every one contends his Sense to be the best and seeing as the Bishop of Meaux well observed they all of them fly from the literal and adhere to a figurative it behoves them to shew the necessity of taking the Words in that Sense whereas we who find nothing in those Words obliging us to quit the literal Sense need no other reason for our so doing but that we follow the plain and beaten Road. We follow the beaten Road. But our Defender thinks he has found sufficient reasons to oblige us to acquiesce and quit our High-Road for his By-path But first before we consent to him let us view both ways and
Hebrews concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to the Offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered and makes his Advantage of it Whereas if he had added the next words they would have solved the Difficulty A Falsification For the Bishops words are that the Aposile concludes we ought not only to Offer up no more Victims after Jesus Christ but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once Offered up to Death for us But these last words were overseen by our Expositor or he was loath to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for Peace I might also take notice how cautiously the Defender avoids my question concerning 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 and properly speaking or no tho' possibly not in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the words To all which he returns a profound silence As for the Reflections upon what has been said I leave the Reader to make them himself and hope if he have a True Zeal for the Salvation of his Soul he will seriously consider the premises and heartily beseech Almighty God to enlighten his mind to the knowledge of his True Faith without which it is impossible to please him ART XXII Communion under both Species THe Vindicator tells me § 102. The Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither faise unreasonable nor frivolous that I advance Three Arguments in this Article from the public Acts of their own Church The first false The second both false and unreasonable And the third nothing to the purpose By which I see he is not unskilled in Multiplication and very willing to cast the Lyer upon me if he could But the false the unreasonable and the impertinent will be found perhaps to lye at the Accusers Door My Argument was but one and I think neither unreasonable nor impertinent He had told me from their 30th Article Art. 30. That the Church of England declared that the Cup ought not to be denyed to the Lay-people for as much as both parts of the Lords Supper by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be adminisired to all Christian men alike From hence I Argued that if the Church of England allowed the Communion to be given under one Species in cases of Necessity she was not consonant to her self nor agreed with her 30th Article which looked upon it as the express Command of Jesus Christ to give it under both Species and his express Commands are certainly indispensible Also that if she did allow it lawful to give it under one kind in cases of necessity the Arguments which the Bishop of Meaux had brought against the Calvinists of France were equally in force against the Church of England viz. that they must not deny but that both Species were not by the Institution of Christ Essential to the Communion seeing no necessity could require us to go contrary to an Essential Ordinance of Christ But that the Church of England did allow her people to Communicate under one Species in case of Necessity I proved from Edward the Sixths Proclamation before the Order of Communion In which I said he had ordained That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and Administred unto all persons within this 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 This he says as thus alledged is False because Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing but only says that forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was Ordained Therefore He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it Let it be so if you please that Edward the 6th did not by vertue of this Proclamation ordain it yet the inserting of that Act of Parliament into that Proclamation served as a Rubrick to inform all those who were to Administer that Sacrament that if necessity required it they might give it in one kind And my Argument has gathered strength by being opposed seeing it has now not only a Proclamation but an Act of Parliament to back it But he says it is also unreasonable to Argue as to the present State of the Church of England from what was allowed only and that in case of necessity too in the very beginning of the Reformation If the Church of England had Repealed this Act of Parliament or by some Authentic Act or Canon declared it to be void it might have seemed unreasonable in me to produce it But if this Act be still in force I see no reason why we may not justly conclude that the Church of England holds it lawful in cases of necessity to Communicate only under one Species which if she do all her Arguments against Catholics as if they deprived the people of an Essential part of the Sacrament violated Christs Ordinance gave but a half Communion and the like have as much force against her self as us And if she leave it to her Ministers to judge when necessity requires it to be given only under one kind why will she deprive the Catholic Church representative of that Power And if a natural Reason such as is a loathing of Wine may induce private Pastors not to give the Cup to some particular persons why may not a Supernatural Reason such as is the detection and by that means the refutation of an Heresy not to mention the avoiding of many indignities c. induce such a Church representative to command that which was already practised by most Christians especially knowing that she deprived them of nothing which was Essential to a Sacrament As for the Note I made use of it only as a thing fit to be remarked and not as an Argument against communicating under both kinds However I might justly conclude that if under one Particle the whole Body of Jesus Christ be contained and this Body be now a living Body which it cannot be unless the Flesh and Blood the Soul and Divinity be united They who receive one Particle receive whole Christ and with him his Gifts and Graces that is a full Sacrament So that the first Falsity he accuses me of is as you see a plain mistake I do not say he had no Reason for it because the Printer had indeed placed the Citation in the Margent over against a wrong place but had he considered the sense he might have saved that ungenteele Answer The second Argument as he calls it is neither false in the bottom nor unreasonable And if the last be not so convincing an Argument yet does it not want some force And I will add to
Hell should not prevail Others shewed it from the nature of Truth and Error and the impossibility that an Universal Tradition could fail especially when God had promised Isa 59.20 21. that the words he would put into their Mouths should not depart out of their Mouths nor out of the Mouth of their Seed nor out of the Mouth of their Seeds Seed from henceforth and for ever Others again as the Protestant Apology And shew the truth of our Doctrins from Protestants own Concessions proved the innocence and Antiquity of our Doctrin from the Testimony of Learned Protestants themselves of whom one held one Article and another another from whence they hoped at least to make our Doctrins be looked upon as less offensive But Protestants finding it a very difficult task to elude such strong Reasons as have and might be brought for the necessary and unerrable Authority of the Church §. 5. But Protestants fly to particular disputes and in them to the particular Tenets of Schoolmen still as if they were uneasie by all means endeavored to shuffle off such Arguments as would make short work of the business and flew out at every loop-hole to particular Disputes and the private Opinions of the Schools where they knew they could enlarge and talk so long that Years might pass before they could be silenced during which time they hoped the Readers as well as Writers would be tired and by that means they might get their ends And whereas Catholics all along desired them to inform themselves first what the Church held to be of necessary Faith before they entred into Dispute or Writ against us and thereupon to take their Doctrins from the Councils and Universally received Practices And at the last to down-right railing and not from Private Doctors or actions of particulars it was impossible to obtain of them to do it with calmeness but when ever any Argument pinched they fell to railing and began to blacken our Faith to misrepresent our Doctrins Caluminate our Practices and Ridicule our Ceremonies And as the World go's now he that could Rail the most being looked upon as having the better end of the Staff and Calumnies sinking deeper into the Memories of the Vulgar than solid Reasons Catholics grew by degrees to be looked upon as bad as Devils and their Doctrins as the Dictates of Hell it self Hence it was §. 6. Therefore a plain Exposition of our Doctrin was thought necessary that others again thought it necessary to deliver our Doctrin according to the Genuin and approved Sense of our Councils and abstracting from the private Disputes of School-men insist only upon those Doctrins which were universally and necessarily received Neither was the Bishop of Condom the first or only Man that did it Verron had preceded him in France and in the beginning of Queen Marys Days an Exposition was Published here in England much what of the same Nature tho' in a different Method To these I might add the Catechism of the Council of Trent and many others Published in every Country So 2 Tim. 4. that we may justly say we are now fallen into such like times as those which were foretold by St. Paul in which People will not endure sound Doctrin but having itching Ears after Novelties choose to themselves Teachers according to their own Desires Only this is our comfort that we have not been wanting in our Duty we have Preached the Word of God we have been instant in Season and out of Season we have reproved we have rebuked we have exhorted with all long-suffering and Doctrin but they have turned away their Ears from the Truth and believed Fables We have used all the means we can to calm the minds of People that being United in one Faith we might prove our selves to be the followers of Christ but hitherto all has been ineffectual through the ignorance of some whose credulity made them believe every Cry against Popery and the malice of others whose interest prompted them to defame us The Truth of which will appear more clearly §. 7. A Brief account of the Religion of our Ancestors from the first Conversion of this Nation till H. the 8ths Schism whilst I give a brief account of our Controversies in general and of that betwixt the Defender and me in particular In order to which I hope it will not be looked upon as too tedious if we cast an Eye backwards upon the Religion of our Ancestors It is not denyed by our Adversaries Catholic Religion early Established in our Nation but that the Christian Religion took very early Root in this Nation and some Remains of it were found when St. Augustin the Benedictin Monk was sent hither by St. Gregory the Great to reduce the Pagan Idolaters to the Faith of Christ St. Bede who Writes the History of his coming tells us there was carried before him a Banner with the Effigies of Christ upon the Cross and that he came in with a Procession Singing the Litanies c. He tells us also that notwithstanding the long want of intercourse with Rome and the Members of that Communion occasioned by great Oppressions and Persecutions during the Reign of Pagan Kings yet had there not many Errors crept into this Christian part of the Nation for St. Augustin only found two Customs amongst them which he could not Tollerate St. Augustin and the Brittans agree in all things but keeping Easter and some Ceremonies about Baptism the one their keeping Easter at a wrong time with the Quarto-decimani and the other some Errors in the Ceremonies of Administring Baptism these two he earnestly sollicited them to amend but they were obstinate and would not suffer any Reformation in those two Points till God was pleased to Testifie his Mission and the Authority he came with by the Authentic Seal of Miracles Our Adversaries also do most of them acknowledge that when St. Augustin came into England he taught most if not all the same Doctrins the Roman Catholic Church now Teaches and introduced those Practices which they now are pleased to call Superstitions But these Doctrins and Practices were either then Taught and exercised by the British Christians also or they were not If they were not taught by them certainly we should not have found them so easily submit to such Practices and Tenets as our Adversaries call plain and down-right Superstitions and Idolatries and if they were then taught also by the Brittish Christians they were certainly of a much longer standing than St. Augustins time and our Adversaries who pretend the reason why they separate from the Church of Rome is because she has introduced Novelties in matters of Faith may be from thence convinced of the Antiquity of those Doctrins they now call Novelties and must either grant they were introduced by the first Preachers of the Gospel here or shew evidently some other time before St. Augustin when this Church embraced them This Faith and these
Exercises Taught and Practised by St. Augustin §. 8. This same Faith was delivered by continual Succession till in these later days it was weakned by H. the 8ths Schism were propagated down even till King Henry the 8ths time whose Lust and Rapines as they were insatiable so were the Actions which he did in order to the fulfilling of them unparallelled Every one who has Read any thing of our Histories knows that his first breach with Rome was because his Holiness would not allow him to separate from his Lawful Wife Queen Catharine that he might Marry Ann Daughter of Sir Tho. Bullen and that having once caused this Schism Millia dena unus Templorum destruit annâ—s he propagated it by Sacrilege pulling down Religious Houses turning the Inhabitants to the wide World giving their Lands and Revenues to Parliament-men and Courtiers by which rewards he gained their consent to what he designed It is sufficiently known also that he approved not of the new Doctrin that was brought in by Luther during his Reign neither would he permit such a pretended Reformation so that the whole contest during that time was only about the Supremacy of St. Peters See. But as Schism is most commonly followed with Heresie so in King Edward the 6ths time Edward the 6th the Protector who was tainted with Zwinglianism a Reform from Luther endeavored to set it up here in England and from that time the Catholic Doctrin which had been taught by our first Apostles and propagated till then begun to be rejected and accused as Erroneous Superstitious and Idolatrous and they who Professed it Persecuted But this Kings Reign being but short Queen Mary Catholic Religion begun again to bud forth under Queen Mary but that Bud being early nipped by her Death Queen Elizabeth by the advice of the new Council which she chose Queen Elizabeth and to secure her self in the Throne resolved to destroy the Catholic Interest and set up a Prelatic Protestancy which might have the face of a Church but other pretended Reformers opposed her Prelates and called their Orders anti-Anti-christian and would needs have the Rags and Remnants of Popery as they called 'em taken away telling them that if the Word of God was to be the sole Rule of Reformation such things as were not to be found in that Rule were certainly to be rejected From that time this Nation has been variously agitated with Disputes The first pretended Reformers accused the Catholic Church with all bitterness imaginable and tho' they could not agree amongst themselves yet they set up unanimously their Crys against the Catholic Church as if she had been the Common Enemy and they were looked upon to be the best Subjects that could bring the most plausible Arguments against her Doctrins or move the Common People most to reject her Practices During this time the Pope was accused as Anti-christ the Church of Rome as the Whore of Babylon neither was there any thing committed by the Heathens worthy reprehension that was not laid to the charge of the Catholic Church so furious was their rage against the Truth But things growing calmer in King James They were more calm in K. K. Ch. the firsts time and King Charles the firsts time such Calumnies and Accusations were looked upon by the more Learned party as the effects of Passion and Moderation taught them to acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Mother Church that Salvation was to be had in her that many of those accusations which were brought against her were but the Dreams of distracted Brains and the more moderate persons begun to look upon her with a more favorable Eye but still the aversion which the Vulgar and less knowing People had imbibed from so long continued Slanders could not be taken away and the arising Factions in the State blew up the Coals afresh and pretended this Moderation was nothing but an inclination to Popery which so frighted the Mobile that they were ready to joyn with any party that pretended to suppress such a Monster as they thought it to be from hence came Rebellions and the horrid Murder of King Charles the first After which the Prelatic Party here in England were as much run down as the Catholic and underwent a common Banishment during which they entertained a fair Correspondence the Protestant finding by Experience that Catholics were Loyal Subjects conscientious Dealers and constant Friends This fair Correspondence abroad was the cause of a no less pleasing Union after the happy Restauration of King Charles the second King Charles the second during the beginning of whose Reign Catholics were not otherwise much molested by the Governing party but only kept out of Employments till Shaftsbury and his Adherents invented a malitious Calumny laying a pretended Plot to their charge by which they put the Nation into such a Flame that Papists were become the most odious People in the World and Popery the greatest Crime But the Truth of this Sham-Plot being detected by a subsequent real one the Innocent sufferings of Catholics raised Compassion in the more moderate Church of England Men and they seemed to be willing they who had suffered so unjustly should enjoy something a greater liberty but still the Laws enacted against them being in force there were persons enough ready to put them in Execution In this posture were Affairs King James the second when it pleased God to take to himself his late Majesty No sooner was his present Majesty Ascended upon the Throne but he declared himself a Catholic to the unspeakable joy of the Catholic Church and grief of others who did not stick to affirm that they saw nothing wanting in his Majesty fitting for a King but only as they thought a better Religion At his coming to the Crown his Majesty was pleased to declare that he looked upon the Church of England as proceeding upon Loyal Principles and that he would protect her this as it might well gained the hearts of that party who little expected such a gratious Declaration from one whom they had always looked upon as a Member of the Catholic Church whose Principles they had been taught were too cruel to make use of such Lenitives and this being again Repeated at the opening of the first Parliament had so much Power upon the minds of the Loyal party that notwithstanding the conclusion of a Sermon Preached before them Dr. Sherlocs Sermon May 29. 1685. in which it was declared that an English-man might be Loyal but not a Papist that Parliament testified it's Loyalty to such a Degree as will never be forgotten and would I am confident have proceeded in the same manner had not some factious Spirits animated the Pulpits Zeal and thrown fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were bigotted in their Religion Indeed this Sermon to the House of Commons was the occasion of our following Controversies §. 9. The rise of
our Mind which of it self perhaps remotely it is apt to do His 3d. Argument was from the Good Fryday's Service §. 25. Pag. 19. Good Frydays Office. I had here also shewn his unsincere tricks in adding and diminishing words to make our Church speak as he would have it Do's he deny the Fact No but yet calls my Challenging him a Cavil and after giving a larger account of that Ceremony he tells his Reader that he refers it to any reasonable Man to consider whether he had reason or not to apply as he did the Adoration to the Cross and whether he had not some cause to say then what he cannot but repeat here again That the whole solemnity of that Days Service plainly shews that the Roman Church do's Adore the Cross in the utmost propriety of the Phrase The Accusation runs high and had need to have good prooss to back it if the Jury be not packt A Calumny But he knows he shall have an Ignoramus if the Vulgar be called in to give their Verdicts and he has learnt a Machivelian trick Fortiter calumniare aliquid semper adhaer biâ— to keep them from seeing what is as clear as the Sun by casting so thick a mist of Calumnies as can scarce be so suddainly dissipated but that he may in the mean time gain his ends What is there I pray in all this Ceremony unless wrested by such Calumnies which is not only good and holy in it self but wonderfully efficacious to stir up in all those who are present a true Sense of our Blessed Saviours sufferings upon that Good day for Us What Christian can call to mind the ignominious Death his Redeemer that day suffered for the love of him and not be ready to profess his gratitude by all the exterior Signs imaginable Who is there I wonder that has any Sense of his own former misery or grateful Affection for his Redemption that can look especially on this day upon the Resemblance of his Crucified Saviour and not feel his heart melt with compassion love and a grateful acknowledgment for these Mercies And at that time what offence can it be for his sake to Kiss to Embrace to Reverence that Sacred Instrument which calls those Blessings to our remembrance He that Kisses the Picture of his Wife in her absence testifies the Conjugal Affection which he bears her but is no Fool nor Idolater and must he that Kisses the Crucifix in Testimony of the Love he bears to his Lord and Master needs pass for either He who Kisses the Bible in Veneration of the Truths that are there contained will be rationally interpreted a Pious Christian and must he be counted an Idolater that Kisses the Resemblance of him who is the great Mediator of the New Testament The words that are Sung by the Priest in the first part of the Action are Behold the Wood of the Cross upon which the Saviour of the World did hang. And the whole Quire Kneeling down Sing Let us Adore not the Cross in the ut most propriety of the phrase as our Calumniator would have it but the Saviour of the World who hung upon it Behold and see our Idolatry Then the Priest having layd the Cross upon a place prepared before the Altar goes and puts off his Shoos and Kneeling thrice Kisses it And the rest of the Clergy and Laics two and two do the same These are uncouth and unusual Ceremonies to Men who have been estranged from Devotion But what is it here the putting off their Shoos or the Kneeling or the Kissing that he brands with Idolatry Yes he knew all these exterior actions might easily be represented to the undevout Vulgar as containing in them Horrid Superstition and Idolatry and therefore his Argument must be managed with a respect to them But pray good Sir consider what our Intentions are by those exterior Actions Are they not to pay our Adorations to the Saviour of the World who this day hung upon the Cross A Falsification words which you left out in your Exposition and would now have to be useless to explicate our intention tho' with as little Justice It is evident that by puting off our Shoos a Ceremony which God Commanded once and never repeal'd as yet a Ceremony which speaks an ardent Devotion but no Superstition It is evident by Kneeling and by Kissing of the Cross we intend no more to Adore that material Cross than Moyses intended to Adore the Holy Ground on which he stood Exod. 3.5 or the Jews intended to Adore the Ark when they bowed before it or than Protestants themselves intend to Adore the Bible when they Kiss it or the Name of Jesus when they bow at the hearing of it or the Altar when they bow toward it But our intentions pass further as that of Moyses did to God whose presence hallowed that Ground as that of the Jews did to God who tho' he dwell not in Tabernacles made with hands yet would have them there make their Addresses to him after a more peculiar manner He will never have done For our Rubric calls this an ADORING of the CROSS and one of the Hymns which is Sung by the Quire begins with these words WE ADORE THY CROSS O LORD and therefore this shews that we Adore the Cross it self in the utmost propriety of the phrase As to the Rubric if he be not satisfied by what I have said already I desire him to peruse Bellarmin de Imaginibus Sanctorum Cap. 22.23 24 25. who will tell him that if he take Adoration in a strict Sense it is not properly speaking given to the Image but to Jesus Christ represented by that Image And as for that Hymn as he calls it the very a Crucem tuam adâ—ramus Domine Et Saâ—ctam rejurre lionâ—m tuam â—â—udamus glorisicamus Ecce emm proster lignum vening gaudium in universo muad. next Sentence shews By the Cross is meant Christs Pason that by the word Cross there is meant the Passion of our Saviour as St. b Galâ—t 6.14 Paul did when he said far be it from me that I should glory in any thing but in the CROSS of our Lord JESVS CHRIST The words are We Adore thy Cross O Lord And praise and glorifie thy holy Resurrection for behold by the Wood that is because of thy suffering upon the Wood joy is come to the universal World. And now let any reasonable Man consider whether he had cause to repeat his first accusation that the whole solemnity of this days Service plainly shews that the Roman Church do's Adore the CROSS in the VTMOST PROPRIETY OF THE PHRASE No no here is no Idolatry if the Primitive Christians if the Apostles were to be Judges for St. Paul looks on it as no Superstition to fall on our face in the Assembly and Worship God 1 Cor. 14.25 Which if any should practise now it would be counted Popery tho' no Image were
good Merits of the same Justified person But how do's all this prove that the good works of a person who is not Justified Merit his first Justification There 's the Point We say indeed that it is necessary the free Will should co-operate with the Grace of God and that a person should be disposed by convenient preparations to receive that Grace but still we say it is a Grace which is given us Gratis and as I said before from the Council which neither Faith nor good works which precede Justification could Merit for us His Translation is amiss in this A false Translation that he renders these words Aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus c. Thus Or that he being Justified by good works do's not truly Merit increase of Grace c. As if he were Justified by his good Works Whereas the Sense is manifestly this Or whoever shall say that he who is Justified do's not by his good works which are performed by him through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Member he is truly Merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life let him be Anathema That this was the Sense of that Canon he seems to have understood when in the next Page he expresses it thus that our Doctrin of Merits in that Canon is That Man being Justified by the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ do's then truly Meru both encrease of Grace and Eternal Life So that it appears manifestly tho' he would disguise it that we do not say our Works done out of the state of Grace are meritorious of Grace or Salvation But we say that those good works which are done in the state of Grace do Merit an increase of Grace and if they be persever'd in to the last the reward of Glory If he deny this let him speak plain but let him take care how he thwarts the many express Texts of Scripture which prove our Doctrin ART VI. Of Merits I Told him upon this Article that the Niceties of the Schools §. 32. Vindic. pag. 48. Scholastic Niceties to be avoided as they make no Division in the Church so ought they not to make any amongst Christians But yet for all this our Defender must have recourse to them for want of better hold The Opinions of Bellarmin Vasquez Scotus c. must be brought again and their words quoted in the Margent as if the whole stress of the cause lay there But would he have considered what he was forced to acknowledge that Bellarmin is against Scotus Vasquez against Bellarmin c. and have reflected that all of them were Catholics united in the Principles of one Faith tho' dissenting in these School Questions I say would he but have considered these things he would have saved himself a great deal of pains and his Readers much trouble But he says he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our Greatest Men whose names were neither less nor less deservedly celebrated in their Generations than M. de Meaux 's or the Vindicators forsooth can be now No doubt those persons Names were and are deservedly Celebrated in Generationibus suis and whatever proportion the Bishop of Meaux may Challenge in the esteem of the World amongst these Celebrated Writers the Vindicator defires only to rest in his obscurity But to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our greatest Men is what may pass in Discourse or from the Pulpit where no body contradicts him but should not have been exposed to view in Print because it will not abide the Tryal I never heard that these persons writ direct Expositions upon the Council it self tho' they make use of it for the establishment of their private opinions And to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools when he had recourse to Merit de Condigno and the various opinions of Catholic Divines upon that Question is such a piece of Boldness Bellarmin having summed up the three opinions the Defender mentioned and rejected the first and third tho' he affirmed them to be far from Heresie says he looks upon the middle Sentence to be the more probable Nobis media sententia probabiltor esse videtur de Justif lib v. c. 17. A. pa. 1122. The very Titles also of the Chapters cited by the Desender shew that what Vasquez there disputes of is only a Scholastic Question In operibus justerum non esse meritum simpliciter aut condignum vitae aeternae nonnulli Scholastici docuerunt Vasquez Quaest 114. disp 213. cap. 3. Tit. See also the Titles of the 1 2 3 and 4. Chapters of his next Disputation that cannot pass the honest Readers censure What I have already observed of the various opinions of Catholic Divines summed up by those Authors he mentions in the respective Chapters is a sufficient proof of what I say and I shall not trouble my Readers with any other But the Council of Trent has he says spoken so uncertainly in this point § 33. as plainly shews either they did not know themselves what they would establish or were unwilling that others should How great pity it is so learned and sincere a Censor as this Defender is lived not in that Age or assisted not at that very Council What is it they did not know Was it the Doctrin of the Church concerning Merits Or was it the Doctrin of the Schools Neither the one nor the other But this he may say and that truly that they were not willing to enter into the particular disputes of the Schools nor to mix uncertainties tho' of the highest probability with what they had been always taught to be of Faith No wonder therefore if they speak not so positively in those differences he proposes seeing they are not Doctrins of the Church but the opinions of our Schools I say therefore to him that if he like not Vasquez nor the Cardinals opinion pray let him follow that of Scotus and he will be still a Catholic as to that point But Maldonate comes in The Defender says my Exception against his false Quotation is Impertinent Why so good Sir To tell you A mutilation that you mutilate Sentences at pleasure and give us what you please for the Sense of our Authors His words were We do as properly and truly when we do well together with the Grace of God Merit areward as we do Merit punishment when we do ill without it And is it Impertinent to tell you you read the Author in hast or copied the words from some other which made you leave out those words together with the Grace of God Yes says he It is impertinent as to them who dispute not the Principle but the Merit of Good Works Pray who ever maintained that Good Works had any Merit or were acceptable unless joyned with the Principle the Grace of God And if you will not take the Principle
them confirmed it from many Testimonies of Holy Scripture as one of them from Ephes 4.30 affirming these words And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby ye are Sealed to be meant of the Sacrament of Coâ—firmation And the other concluding that the Pretious Ointment of which the Psalmist speaks Ps 132.2 which being poured forth upon Aarons Hend ran down upon his Beard and the Skirts of his Garment as also that of St. Paul Rom. 5.5 where he tels us that the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given unto us to be referred to Confirmation And certainly the best way of proving things from Scripture is to bring the Interpretations of Fathers who lived before out Disputes arose T is true the Catechism after this general Proof of its Antiquity and its being a Sacrament descending to particulars chooses rather to use the plain Testimony of * Laodic c. 48. Cartb 2. ca. 3. Councils and Antient Fathers as of (a) Fab. Pap. in inst Epist 2. quae est ad Episc Oriental Tom. 2. Concil citatur de Consc dist 3. cap. lit vestris St. Fabianus Pope and Martyr (b) S. Dionys de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. ct 4. St. Denys c. to which might be added (c) Aug. in Ps 44. v. 9. et lib. 13. de Trin. c. 26. St. Augustin (d) Ambr. in Ps 118. St. Ambrose (e) Cypr. Epist 70. and St. Cyprian c. than the words of Scripture alone which it knew would be contested by them who make it their business to oppose the Church and make the Scriptures speak as they would have them But as I said the best way of proving things from Scripture is to shew that Antiquity understood it so As to the Argument I brought from his own Concessions §. 47. tho' it was not so fully concluding as it might have been yet let him answer me Why they now continue the imposition of Hands if it was not left by the Apostles to be continued in the Church and if it was left by them for what end did they leave it if not for the same for which it was instituted the giving of the Holy Ghost and Grace to confirm and strongthen us in our Faith And if the Eucharist it self do not certainly and infallibly give Grace to all those that receive it but only to them that receive it worthily I suppose he will not expect any more from Confirmation Let him therefore tell me Whether if a person duly prepared come to receive this Imposition of Hands the Grace of the holy Ghost does not certainly descend at that Holy Rite for those great ends the Prayers design If these things be as I think he can scarce deny them he cannot deny also but that this looks somewhat like a Sacramènt But if as he says this be only a meer indifferent Ceremony continued only in imitation of the Apostles and to which no Blessing is ascribed that may not equally be allow'd to any other the like Prayer Why might not this Prayer be reiterated as well as others Why must this Ceremony be only allowed to be performed by Bishops and why are persons so much exhorted not to neglect it But if he think not this a sufficient Argument Bellarm. de Saer Conjirm lib. 2. I would desire him to consider that I might by only making use of Bellarmin have shewn him from plain Texts of Scripture at least looked upon by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as such that Imposition of Hands which we call Confirmation is a Sacred sign of an Interior Grace given with the Holy Ghost to the Faithful I might have shewn him Ten Popes the last of which was no less than St. Gregory the Great all of them affirming the Holy Ghost or his Gifts to be given by this Sacrament some of them calling it a great Sacrament and others mentioning both Chrism and Imposition of Hands I might have shewn him no less than three General Councils and eight others on our side some of them very antient I might have shewn him also nine Greek Fathers and as many of the Latin of which St. John Damascen and St. Augustin are the last all whose Testimonies are so full that our Defender will be ill at ease to give a civil Answer All this he knew I might do besides many others which joyned with the perpetual practice of the Church and the unanimous consent of Christians before the Pretended Reformation are certainly good Arguments in our behalf But he tells us Des pag. 40. it is wonderful to see with what Confidence those of the Church of Rome urge the Aposiles Imposition of Hands for proof of Confirmation when this Imposition of Hands is resolved to be but an Accidental Ceremony and accordingly in our practice wholy laid aside It is a sign our Defender did not look into our Pontifical when he Writ this nor considered what he cited from Estius in the Margent For we have not left off Imposition of Hands neither does Estius affirm it but only that the necessity of it is ceased as if the words he quotes be true But our Bishops says he Lay on Hands after the Apostles Example §. 48. but yours Anoint make Crosses in the Forehead tye a Fillet about their Heads give them a Box on the Ear c. for which there is neither Promise Precept nor Example of the Apostles Such an Argument as this might a Dissenter from the Church of England bring against the several Ceremonies used in their Ordination and what our Defender would answer to him I desire he would apply to himself The Ceremonies Explicated Several Ceremonies he knows are used to shew the effects of the Sacraments and if he do not know the meaning of these let him look again into the Catechism of the Council of Trent and he will there find that Oyl expresses the plenitude of Grace which by the Holy Ghost flows down from our Head Christ Jesus upon all his Members Ps 132. Ps 44. Josn 1. from whose fulness we have all received he being anointed with the oyl of Gladness above his Fellows he will find also there that Balsom puts us in mind that we ought to be the Good Odor of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 2.15 and keep our selves from all Putrefaction and the Contagion of Sin. If he also search into the antient Expositors of Scripture * Ambr. iib. de lis qui initiantur Mysteriis c. 6 7. Tom. 4. pag. 424. 425. Ed. Basil 1567. St. Ambrose St. Anselm (a) In Commentario 2 Cor. 2.21 Theodoret and others he will find that both this Anointing and this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead are plainly expressed or alluded to in Scripture where the Apostle St. Paul tells the Corinthians that it was God who confirmed them with him in Chirst that it was god who anointed them signed
them and now indeed he seems to grant that this Reason of his was silly and throws it upon the Vindicator as if it had not been his own But notwithstanding all this Yet new Cavils must be raised new Difficulties must be raised by this pretended Son of Peace and being beaten off from the outward Sign which is so apparent in Scripture and Fathers he flies to the Inward Grace and tells us that Cassander affirms that P. Lombard and Durandus denied that Grace was conferred in it But they who diligently view P. Lombard §. 56. Lombard does not deny Grace to be given in this Sacrament l. b. 4. Dist 2. A. will not find this in him They will find indeed that he does not esteem it a Sacrament as Baptism is which is not only a Remedy against Sin but confers Gratiam adjutricem whereas Marriage is only instituted as a Remedy But he does not absolutely say that Marriage does confer no Grace for the very Remedy he mentions implies a Conscience of the Divine Law otherwise 't is using the Woman not the Wife but only not in so large a degree as Baptism as not being primarily instituted for that end This will appear much more clearly Sacramentum est mâ—â—sibilis Graâ—iae v sil ilâ— forma â—â—b 4. dist 1. lit A. Sacramentum proprâ—e dicitur quod ita signum est Gratie Dei invisibilis Gratiae forma ut ipsius Imaginem gerat causa existat ibid. Illa premitâ—ebant tantum signisicavant haec autem dant Salutem ibid. lâ— E. If Durandus did he is often singular when we consider that this Master of Sentences having a little before defin'd a Sacrament to be a Visible Sign of an Invisible Grace and that it must be so a Sign of this Invisible Grace that it must bear the Image and be the Cause of it Having also told us from St. Angustin that the difference betwixt the Sacraments of the old and New Law consisted in this that the Sacraments of the old Law only promised and signified but those of the New give Salvation He tells us often here that Marriage is one of the Sacraments of the New Law as it was also one of the old from whence it manifestly follows in his sense that as it did signify Grace before the Fall of Adam so it does now confer it whil'st it consers a Remedy As for Durandus the only man he can name if the desire he had to be as much esteemed as St. Thomas of Aquin by opposing him has made him singular many times and given to Paradoxes who can help his Infirmity But such as he are the only Authors our Defender can bring against us He tels me I vainly boasted of what I was not able to perform §. 57. The Primitive Fathers during the first Four General Councils acknowledge it to be a Sacrament when I spoke of a Torrent of Fathers on our side For Bellarmin could only bring six or seven and those nothing to the purpose nor very antient neither But had he told his Readers that the Fathers the Cardinal brings are no other than St. Leo St. Chrysostom St. Ambrose St. Augustin St. Cyril and the Holy Popes Syricius and Innocentius all of them living within the time of the first Four General Councils Had he told them also that these Fathers do not only call it a Mystery but a Sacrament and tell us that it (a) Vndecum Societon nuptiarunt ita ab iniâ—â—o constituta sit ut praeter Sexuum conjunctionem haberet inâ—se Christi Ecclesiae Sacramentum dubium non est eam mulierem non pertinere ad Matrimenium in quâ— docetur nuptiale non fuisse mysterium St. Leo Epist. 92. ad Rusticum Narbonensem Episcopum c. 4. Chrysost Hom. 20. in Epist ad Ephes expresses the Vnion betwixt Christ and his Church Had he told them that they call the violation of it not only a sin against God and a breach of his Law (b) Qui sic egerit peceat in Deum cujus legem violat gratiam solvit Et ideo quia in Deum peccat Sacramenti Coelestis amittit consortinum Ambr. Lib. 1. de Abraham c. 7 â—â—t ex Comment in c. 5. ad Ephes but a dissolving of Grace a losing the Consert of a heavenly Sacrament and a (c) Syricius Papa Epist 1. cap. 4. Sacriledge Had he told them that (d) Cyrillus lib. 2. in Joan. c. 22. St. Cyril affirms that Christ did not only sanctify Marriage but prepare Grace for it that our entrance into this Life might be blessed and that (e) In Civitate Domins in monte Sancto ejus hoe est in Ecclesia nuptiarum non solum vinculum sed Sacramentum commendatur Lib. de fide operibus St. Augustin frequently tells us that Marriage amongst Heathens and those that are not of the Church is only a Tye or civil Contract Vinculum but that it is a Sacrament in the Church they would it may be have thought the Authority of those Father 's not to be so contemptible and such plain expressions something to the purpose tho our Defender thinks otherwise of them But let him tell us plainly §. 58. Is Marriage nothing but a civil Contract and that of persons unbaptised of equal perfection and as indissoluble as that of Christians Upon what account is it in the Law of Grace made Inseparable and tyed to one and one if it neither signify the Union betwixt Christ and his Church nor have a Grace annexed to it to enable persons to overcome the innumerable difficulties which attend that state and possess their Vessel as the Apostle speaks in Sanctification and honor and not in passion of Lust and Ignominie to preserve Conjugal Chastity in Sickness and necessary Absence to sweeten cohabitation and to enable them to bring up their Children in the Faith and Fear of God For our parts we acknowledge Gods Mercy in giving a Grace in this Sacrament for those great ends Marriage is grown contemptible in England since it was denied to be a Sacrament But it has been observed by some learned Men that in this little time since Matrimony was disowned for a Sacrament there has been more Brangles Disquietudes Adulteries Suing for Divorces and Alimony and more Petty Treasons that is Murdering of Husbands c. in England than was to be heard of many hundred of Years before and what other do you guess should be the reason of this but the neglect of that Grace which God is ready to confer upon those who prepare themselves aright for this Sacrament and the looking upon it only as a civil Contract There is one thing more the Defender is angry at §. 59. It is proved from St. Paul. Eph. 5.32 that is that I should say we have plain Texts of Scripture for us as interpreted by the Fathers I need not bring any other than that of St. Paul who having exhorted married
of all Churches for a 1000 Years have any weight If the clear Writings of antient Fathers long before our Contest have any force if Scripture it self both old and new when thus interpreted be of any moment we must necessarily conclude that Jesus Christ gave his Disciples truly really and substantially his Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Had we not such clear proofs from Antiquity yet certainly the Consent of the much major and superior part of Christians for this last 600 Years would be sufficient to any reasonable mind who would but consider that if it had not been taught by Jesus Christ those persons who introduced it and those who followed them would have been guilty of Idolatry as the Test and some Protestants now accuse us to be and by consequence the whole Church which taught and practised it during that time would have erred in Fundamentals and taught a damnable Doctrin destructive of Salvation contrary to the Promise of Jesus Christ that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her But when we find that the Council of Lateran and those others in Berengarius's time were so far from pretending that they introduced a new Doctrin excogitated by themselves or invented by some of their learned Predecessors that they freely and fully declared that it had been delivered to them as a Doctrin taught by Christ and his Apostles that their predecessors in their several respective Countries had taught them the same and practised it that all their Historians and antient Writers had confirmed it when we consider also how impossible it is that if the figurative presence had been once the established Doctrin of the Church the Doctrin of the real presence could have gained such credit that all Christians in all Countries should consent to it and commit manifest Idolatry wilfully against their former belief no one of the Many Learned Pious and Couragious Bishops who were vigilant in opposing the smallest growing Errors ever speaking of this as an erroneous Doctrin or as a novelty I say when we consider all these things which have been so fully and so often proved that nothing but Impudence can deny them how can we have the least Difficulty in believing this Doctrin to be that of Jesus Christ or his words not to be literally true Thus much for our Grounds I come now to shew the weakness of my Opponents Arguments against them and our Doctrin SECT 3. Objections answered BEfore I begin to answer my Adversaries Objections §. 73. I must desire my Reader to consider that Catholics are in Possession of this Belief of the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and that Protestants who would throw us out of Possession are the aggressors Now as a Possessor of an estate time out of mind is not condemned if he proceed upon a supposition that the Deed of gift by which his Ancestors first possessed that estate was good In like manner must it be with us We believe that Jesus Christ pronouncing those words This is my Body Catholics being in Possession are the Defenders Protestants the Aggressors changed the Bread into his Body we received this belief from our predecessors and they from theirs we therefore who are in Possession and are to defend our right cannot be condemned if we suppose our Belief to be true But as on the other hand an Aggressor is not to be heard if he only suppose the Deed of gift to be void and argue from thence that the Possession is unlawful So ought it also to be with them who oppose us If they only suppose our Blessed Savior did not change the Bread into his Body by those words this is my Body and argue merely upon that supposition they ought not to be heard They are to prove he did not make that change Protestants must therefore bring clear and undeniable proofs against our Possession and not only to suppose it They are to prove his words cannot possibly be taken in a literal Sense and not only that they may be taken figuratively They are to prove that we are obliged to take the words in a figurative sense and not only to shew they they may lead us to it Our Possession is a manifest proof against their supposition and we need no more This being considered let us now weigh my Adversaries Arguments Arguments from Scripture answered And first those from Scripture His first Argument is reduced by himself to this Syllogism If the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body §. 74. First objection From the words of the Institute then it must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That Proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or t is plainly absurd and Impossible The Major or first Proposition he tels us is our common Concession In answer to which I say Answered If he understand the Major in Luthers sense as Bellarmin and Gratian do whom he cites for it that is that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body should so signify Bread that the meaning of it is This truly wheaten Bread remaining such is also truly the Body of Christ I grant it for as I told him before from the Cardinal it implies a contradiction for it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another because it would be that thing and not that thing But if he mean by his Major that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body has such a reference to Bread that the meaning is This Bread is my Body that is this substance of Bread which I take in my hands I do by these words change into the substance of my Body I deny it neither is it our common Concession for in that sense it is neither an absurdity nor impossibility to understand the Proposition literally So that you see Luther will have no change and will yet have the words to be understood literally and we call that an absurdity Catholics admit of a change and so understand them literally which is far from being either impossible or absurd We argue that the Proposition in Luthers sense admitting of no change is false absurd and impossible unless it be taken figuratively But in our own fense admitting a change is true and genuine and need not be taken figuratively His Minor or second Proposition he tels us is Bellarmins own grant nay what he contends for Is this Learned Cardinal then so great a Blockhead as to maintain that the words ought to be taken literally and yet at the same time to
this Worship did as he says many things utterly inconsistent with it as Burning in some Churches what remained of the Holy Sacrament permitting the People to carry it home that had communicated sending it abroad by Sea and Land without any regard that we can find had to its Worship burying it with their Dead making Plaisters of the Bread mixing the Wine with their Ink which certainly says he are no instances of Adoration Before I begin to Answer this Objection §. 92. I must beg leave to shew our Belief in this matter and the Grounds we go upon First we believe It is lawful to Adore God and Christ wherever they are whoever acknowledges Jesus Christ to be God and Man may lawfully Adore him wherever he has a Rational ground to believe him to be present yet is he not at all times obliged to pay this actual Adoration because otherwise the Apostles must have done nothing else but Adore when ever they were in the presence of their Lord. Secondly the Grounds of our Belief that our Blessed Saviour is really Present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are undoubtedly Rational as I think I have sufficiently shewn and therefore all those who believe him Present may lawfully Adore him there We cannot always pay this actual adoration tho' they are not always Obliged actually to pay that Adoration otherwise they must do nothing in presence of the Sacrament but Adore Him. Thirdly It is worthy our Remark that the words Sacrament Host or Eucharist are sometimes taken for Christ alone sometimes for the Species alone VVe adore Christ in the Sacrament not what is sensible and sometimes for both Christ and the Species but when we speak properly of Adoring the Sacrament we speak only of Adoring Christ in the Sacrament For we do not adore what is Visible Tangible or any ways Sensible in the Sacrament but only Christ Jesus whom we believe to be under those Visible Tangible and Sensible Elements Lastly The Church being confirmed in this Belief has Authority as occasion serves to command the payment of this Adoration which is Due at all times and to set apart some solemn Festivals or Ceremonial Rites to invite her Children to perform this Duty These Considerations being premised I deny his Antecedent §. 93. and to his Proofs I answer To the first I say the Scriptures silence is no more an Argument against us in this I. The Scriptures silence no Argument against a perpetual practice than it is against the Adoration of our Lord when present in the flesh for tho' we find there a Command of going to Christ and following him yet will he scarce find an express place in the Gospels where Christ commands his Disciples to Adore him This Adoration depending wholly on his being God it was sufficient that he convinced them of his Divinity and we being thus convinced by his own words that he is present in the Sacrament we are obliged to adore him there And if St. Paul did not Argue as our Defender would have had him yet does he do it with no less force and Energy It was sufficient to tell them it was the Body and Blood of Christ that to receive it was an Annunciation of his Death that they who received it unworthily were guilty of the Body and Blood of their Lord that they cat and drunk their own Condemnation not Discerning the Lords Body That therefore there were many sick and weak amongst them and many died These as they were sufficient Arguments to perswade them not to profane the Sacrament so were they sufficient Arguments to convince them and us of the Obligation to Adore him Present in it tho' St. Paul did not put them in mind of that Necessary consequence To the Second §. c 4. II. The Church condemns arising Herefies by Her practice It has always been the custom of the Church to condemn Heresies by her Practice as well as her Anathema's commanding the Glory be to the Father c. to be said or sung after every Psalm in opposition to the Arian Error and the Feast of the Blessed Trinity to condemn the Antitrinitarians c. no wonder therefore if when this pernicious Heresy of the Sacramentarians begun Atque sic quidem operâ—uit victrâ—cem reâ— itatem de mendacio heresi triumphum agere ut ejus adversarts in conspectu tanti splendoris in tanta untversae Ecclesiae laetitia positi vel debilitati fracti tabescant vel pudore affecti confusi allquendo resipiscant Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. she testified her Adorations by new practices and solemnities Tho' therefore the Feast of Corpus Christi the Exposition the Elevation c. May not be very Antient yet was it no new thing to Adore Christ in the Sacrament And it was but necessary that when Heretics begun to offer Indignities to that Sacred Mystery the Church should injoyn new Prayses Honours and Adorations to her celestial Spouse to the end as the Council says that Truth might by this means triumph over Lyes and Heresy and that its Adversaries at the sight of so much splendor and amidst such an universal joy of the Church being weakned and disenabled might decay or through shame and confusion at last repent To the last I answer §. 95. III. Particular practices hurt not the Universal Doctrin That if some things were done to avoid inconveniencies or others out of a heat of Zeal which are not agreeable to our practices at present they were not generally received nay censured by the Church when once they grew more public or layd aside when the inconveniencies were removed But these practices did not shew a disbelief of the Real Presence tho' our Defender may perhaps shew that they tended to a disrespect upon which account it was that the Church abolished them If it was a custom for some time Hesych in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. in the Church of Jerusalem to burn what remained after Communion Was it not a shew of Reverence and Respect lest perhaps the Sacred Symbols might fall into the hands of those Burgr hist l. 4. c. 35. who would Profane them And the same may be said of the custom in the Church of Constantinople of giving the remaining particles of the immaculate Body of Jesus Christ our God as the Historian expresses it to young Children But this I hope was consistent with a belief of the real Prerence If also the Primitive Christians permitted the Faithful to carry it home with them or sent it by Sea or Land to the Sick or to them with whom they would testify their unity it was not I hope any sign of their disrespect but rather a testimony of their Veneration and a practice which did not derogate from their belief of its being the Body of their Lord. If a St. Benedict caused the Blessed Sacrament to be laid upon the breast of a dead Corps which the Grave
Imitate the Magi who Adored him in the Manger whereas we see him not in the Manger but on the Altar not in the Arms of a Woman but the Priest standing by him and the Spirit with great power hovering over the proposed Mysteries In his Liturgy we find the Priest the Deacon and the People ordered to adore with Piety and Devotion He tells us also that their custom was then to (h) Hom. 41. in 1 Cor. Pray to the Lamb lying there for the souls of the Dead He affirms The Angels to be (i) De Sacerdâ—tio l. 6. c. 4. Hon. 1. de Verbis Isâ—iae Nuc. Orat. 11. que est de â—orgonia sorore present at this wonderful table and to compass it about with reverence and in confirmation of it reports that an aged holy man to whom God had revealed many mysteries was thought worthy by almighty God to see such an Angelic Vision St. Gregory Nazianzen reports how his Sister Gorgonia being sick proserated her self before the Altar and calling upon him who is worshipped on it c. O Miracle says he she went away presently in perfect health We Read also in St. Basil S. Basit de Spiritu Sundo c 27. where mentioning several unwritten Traditions he says Invocationis verba dum estenditur panis Eucharistiae poculum benedictionis quis scripto reliqunâ— that in his time there was a prescribed form of Prayer or words of Invocation when the Blessed Sacrament was shewed to the people In a word all Antiquity speaks of this Adoration all the Liturgies both of the Latin and Greek and Abyssine Churches shew the Practice of it long before our Defender speaks of so that a Treatise might be made a part of this to the eternal shame of those who are so bold as to say that the Church neither required nor taught it for above a thousand years From these and several other the like passages of antient Fathers I conclude quite contrary to the Defender that seeing the Primitive Christians did adore our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament and Pray to him they did believe him to be really present in it I pass by the wonderful respect that was shewn to the Sacred Vessels Corporals and other Utensils §. 97. consecrated to the Service of the Altar neither Lay persons nor yet they who had only taken the miâ—â— Orders being permitted to handle those which had touched that Adorable Sacrament I omit the Reverence with which it was received and the wonderful care lest any drop or particle should fall to the ground and the punishment inflicted upon them that should let it sall which caution was not used towards the water of Baptism though Holy also neither will I insist upon the receiving it fasting as St. Augustin says in honorem tanti Sacramenti in honor of so great a Sacrament nor of the admonition that was given to married persons to live continent certain days before their Communion nor of the manner of reserving the Sacrament in Silver Doves in Golden Towers and Tabernacles nor the care they had lest Insidels or the Catechumens should be present at those Sacred Mysteries These were not accidental or at hap-hazard but the-deliberate practices of those Primitive Ages and I think ought rather to be considered than those pretended instances brought in by my Antagonist They who desire to see more §. 98. let them read the two Discourses lately published concerning this point and Brierley's Lyturgy of the Mass I will conclude with this one Reflection which I desire all thinking persons to consider If the Doctrin of the real and substantial Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament carried with it so many Absurdities as our Modern Authors would make us believe and the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament was so manifest an Idolatry as they pretend all Christians certainly who were tender of their Salvation must needs have had an abhorrence of and so much the greater aversion from that practice by how much it was more contrary to their great Principle that God only was to be Adored Seeing then it is manifest by the concession of Protestants and public Records of every Nation that the Adoration of the Sacrament was publicly practised not in one corner of the World only but throughout all Christendom for this last 800 Years and that no persons that we know of ever contradicted that practice but such as were immediately condemned as Heretics Seeing also the plain expressions of the Primitive Fathers shew this to have been also practised in their days and that no beginning of this practice can be shewn we must necessarily conclude that our Modern Authors are deceived both as to the Absurdities with which they charge the Doctrin and the Idolatry of the Practice and that the Church in all those Ages did believe as we do that Christs Body and Blood was truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament and there to be adored ART XIX XX XXâ—â— Of the Sacrifice of the Mass HAving been of necessity so prolix in the foregoing Article § 99. What a Sacrifice is I hope my Readers will excuse me if I be short in these which follow and are but consequences of a Real and Substantial presence The word Sacrifice has various acceptations Some times it is taken Improperly or Metaphorically for any act of Devotion referred to the Honor and Worship of God as Prayer Alms-deeds Praise Contrition c. But when we speak properly we intimate an External act of Religion whereunto the office or function of a Priest is ordained Hebr. 5.1 And according to this acceptation we define a Sacrifice to be An External act of Religion whereby a Priest lawfully called offereth unto God alone some Sensible and Permanent thing with alteration or real change thereof in due acknowledgment of Gods sovereign Dominion over us and our all-dependance on his power and providence Our Defender in this and the following Articles as formerly in his Exposition seems to lay the stress of the cause upon the Council of Trents calling this truly and properly a Sacrifice whereas he thinks it is only Metaphorically so And will have nothing to be called truly and properly a Sacrifice in which there is not a true and real destruction or slaying of the thing Sacrificed and cites Bellarmin in the Margent for it In answer to which I need only give that very objection of the Cardinal at length in which any one will see that our difference here is more in the Name than in the Thing tho' however this must be represented as one of those Errors which most offend the Church of England and our bleeding divisions must be kept open to the ruin of both Church and State. Cardinal Bellarmin being about to shew the several opinions concerning the Essence of a Sacrifice Cardinal Bellarmin vindicated and in what part of the Mass it consists tells us that some place it in the Consecration for this reason because
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