examined either ashamed of this Doctrin and recal it or else declare they admit to Authority in the Church and this I shall do as I examin his Exceptions in their order First Exception That the Church of Rome is only a particular Church Answered The Roman Catholic Church includes all particular Churches unâ—ted in Communion with her His first Exception is that the Church of rome is only a particular Church and therefore cannot be properly called the Catholic Church To this I answered that we did not intend by the Roman Catholic Church the particular Diocese of Rome but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome And that this alone was the Catholic Church I proved fully by the marks assigned by the Nicene Creed viz. of Vnity and by consequence of freedom from Schismes and Divisions of Sanctity and by consequence of being free from Heresies Idolatries Superstitions and other Essential Errors of Vniversality also with that Vnity and Sanctity and of being Apostolic that is grounded upon the Doctrins and Faith of the Apostles and deriving a continual Succession from them I proved I say the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Alone to be the Catholic Church which we believe in our Creed because no other Assembly of Christians can pretend to these marks but she But our Defender found this reason too solid to be eluded by his querks and therefore said nothing to it but justifies his exception by an Argument which I wonder any man of reason would offer to produce Now if this that we take all Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Desence pag. 78. for the Roman Catholic Church in truth says he be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholic Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholic as that of Rome it self What sense I pray is there in this Proposition thus worded If he mean as he must to make an Argument that every particular National Church in Communion with the Church of Rome has as good a title to the Name of the Catholic Church as all those particular National Churches joyned together have he will have much a do to perswade any Rational man to believe him who can but understand that a part is not the whole But if he mean that every particular National Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome has as good a title to the name of Catholic as the particular Diocese or National Church of Rome it self that is as he explicates himself presently after has the same Purity and Orthodoxness of Faith. Suppose we grant him it always allowing that difference betwixt the See of St. Peter and other Bishopricks as there is betwixt the head and the other members of the same Body what consequence will he draw from thence against us who allow all other Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be truly members of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor Oh says he This renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholic with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocese and so makes it only a particular not The Vniversal Church And what then I pray Who ever said that the particular Diocese of Rome is the Universal Church We say indeed that the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pastor of the whole Church of Christ which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church but this does not make the Suburbican Diocese to be this Catholic Church For as the Empire when it was in former times diffusd through most parts of Europe part of Asia and part of Africa was called the Roman Empire from the Imperial City Rome so is the Catholic Church spread over the face of the whole world called the Roman Catholic Church because every particular Member is joyned in Communion with the one Supreme Pastor whose See is at Rome And this Universal Church we say can neither fall into Error nor prevaricate the Faith in any necessary Points of it whatsoever a particular Church may do Hence it appears that his second and third Exceptions are nothing to the purpose §. 110. 2d and 3d Exceptions null as being grounded upon his notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken for the particular Diocess of Rome But now says he should we allow the Church of Rome as great an Extent as the Vindicator speaks of c. Ibid. yet all this would not make her the Whole or Catholic Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the world besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the same Faith The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her and continued just in the Same Worship as she hath done And this he conceives cannot easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which he says have plainly for several ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship This is the great Argument of Protestants who would willingly as I took notice in my Vindication have the Catholic Church to be composed of All those who profess the Faith of Christ spread over the face of the Whole World Pag. 104. All those who profess the Faith of Christ are not members of the Catholic Church whether they be Arians Nestorians Donatists Socinians Lutherans Calvinists Church of England Men Roman Catholics or others All which they acknowledge to be Members of the Catholic Christian Church tho' some of them may be Rotten putrid Members they may be true tho' corrupt Churches as a man may be truly a man and yet be very dangerously ill Plain mans reply pag. 14. Thus they provide for Universality in the Church but leave its Sanctity and Unity to shift for themselves unless what a late Author has produced will pass for a Vindication of their Unity Vindic. of the Ch. of England from Schism and Herisy Part. 1. Sect. x. who acknowledges that there may be a Schism from a particular Church but that A Separation from the Catholic Church taken in the most comprehensive sense is not Schism but Apostacy So that if what he says have any sense he must mean that All the different Sects of Christians in the world make up but one Church all which Sects ought to be at such an Union with one another as long as each one keeps within their respective Countries where their Religion is established by Law that no one ought to treat another as a Schismatic seeing there cannot be properly speaking any Schism from the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but only Apostacy which is a Total Defection from
Christiantiy But that if these or any of them should meet in a National Church the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church How Extravagant such a Doctrin as this is I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider And return to the Defenders Argument He tells us §. 111. that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic unless we can prove either first there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her or secondly that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united tho' professing known and condemned Heresies as wel as an Orthodox Church maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ or were called Christians or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ nor any Error in their Worship but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Savlation which is manifestly false or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic Church But this we cannot do unless we will open a Gate for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her And tell the world plainly that the Arians or any other Heresy may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians tho' Orthodox in their belief And if this be his meaning it follows that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church so long as they turn not Apostats and deny their Christianity All which is absurd in an eminent degree But if he mean only this that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic we must shew there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did we will joyn Issue with him and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any unbyassed judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome And that all other Churches in the world that were Orthodox professed just the same Faith as to all the Essential Points of it and practised the very same Essential Worship which shew now does That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced will appear to any man who considers that when we speak of the Catholic Church we speak of that Church which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ joyned with that Vniversality viz. Vnity without Schisms and Divisions Sanctity without Errors Heresies or damnable Doctrins and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrins in matters of Faith or Manners or those who like Corah and his companions set up an Altar against an Altar and chalenge to themselves a Function like that of Aarons without being lawfully called thereto To prove therefore this Truth §. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the the true Catholic Church proved that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is this true Catholic Church I must desire my Reader to consider 1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel he told them that they who did not believe should be condemned but they who did believe and were baptised should be saved 2. That these Believers were called Christians that is Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world to continue till the end of the same to preserve the Doctrins delivered to her to be one and therefore free from Schisms Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrins All which we express in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions which as they are destructive of Vnity and Sanctity the marks of his true Church so are they also impediments to Salvation and therefore must be avoided and seeing this Church must be free from them she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics from the Orthodox Christians and cut them off from being Members of her Communion 3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors or refused to pay a due Obedience and therefore if during their Separation other Heresies or Schisms should bud out the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third a fourth or a fifth But as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third and in a word all other succeeding Assemblies who either thus opposed the Truths delivered to her or refused to pay her a due obedience 4. These things thus considered it necessarily follows that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned her self condemned proud Schismatics and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and
necessary to Salvation but dare not positively exclude the others from being a kind of particular Sacraments And seeing the Scripture mentions not the number either of three or seven why should not the voice and constant practice of the Church be heard before particular clamours As to the matter of the Eucharist if People would but once take a right notion of what we mean by a Real Presence and rightly understand what we mean by the Terms Corporal and Spiritual we should not have such large Volumns Written by those who pretend to believe all that Christ has said And in our disputes about the Church The Church and it's Authority what perpetual mistakes are their committed for want of considering what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church and by her Infallibility In a word §. 17. The Rule of Faith. would People take notice that we affirm the Total and only Rule of Catholic Faith to which all are obliged under pain of Heresie and Excommunication to be Divine Revelation delivered to the Prophets and Apostles and proposed by the Catholic Church in her General received Councils or by her universal Practice as an Article of Catholic Faith and that if either this Divine Revelation to the Prophets and Apostles or this proposal by the universal Church be wanting to a Tenet it ceases to be an Article or Doctrin of Faith Protestants will not distinguish betwixt faith and private opinions tho' it may be a truth which it would be temerarious to deny would they I say take notice of this and then examin what are those Doctrins which we hold to have been thus taught and proposed we should not only find our Controversie brought into a narrow Room but all the odious Characters of Popery and the Calumnies that are thrown upon us with the ill consequences of fears and jealousies c. would be removed and we might hope for Peace and Unity Whereas by the methods by which we see Disputes now carried on But prolong disputes upon unnecessaries one would think our Adversaries had no other end in all their Controversial Books or Sermons but to cry down Popery at any rate least they should suffer prejudice by it's increase which they are conscious it would do if what is of Faith were separated in all their Discourses from Inferior Truths or probable opinions And because I am not willing to prolong disputes §. 18. Which the Vindicator resolves to decline I do here declare that if the Defender do hereafter medle with such points as those which are not of necessary Faith I shall not think my self obliged to answer him tho' after that he may perhaps boast how he had the last word But if he please to answer any thing positively to those Doctrins acknowledged by all Catholics to be of Faith or to the Arguments I have brought in the XXIII and and XXIV Articles to prove the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the true Orthodox Catholic Church and that the voice of the Church in every Age is the best way to know what is Apostolical Tradition upon finishing which two last disputes all our Controversie would be ended he shall have a fair hearing But I may be bold to foretel without pretending to be a Prophet that nothing of all this will be done and that if he vouchsafe an Answer he will as to the first either still fly to the private Tenets and Practices of Particulars or Misrepresent our Doctrin and as to the others either fob my Arguments off with such an Answer as he thinks is sufficient against Monsieur Arnauld's Perpetuity Desence Pref. pag. 11. that is calling it a Logical subtilty which wants only Diogenes 's Demonstration to expose it's Sophistry A pretty quirk indeed were the case parallel or that it could be made out as clearly that the Church has erred as it could be shewn that Diogenes moved but what is the Point in Question must be always supposed as certain in our Defenders Logic or else he will send us to his beloved friends Monsieur Daille or Monsieur Claude as he has upon the like occasions or lastly endeavor to expose us by some contemptible Raillery as he has done the Bishop of Meaux to the Defenders own confusion amongst thinking Men. For It is not enough to Men of Sense to speak contemptibly of solid Arguments excellent Discourses or persons of known integrity Monsieur Arnauld 's Perpetuity of the Faith and the just Prejudices against the Calvinists will not loose their esteem amongst the Learned and Judicious because our Defender tels us they have been out-done by Huguenots neither will the Bishop of Meaux's credit be any ways impaired or his Exposition less esteemed because the Defender and such as he have endeavored to traduce him and make the World believe him to be Insincere or ignorant But such things as these are now a-days put upon the World without a blush and they who are this day ingenious Learned and honest Men shall be to morrow time-servers block-heads and knaves if they chance but to cast a favorable look towards Popery and hated abhorred and oppressed with injurles if they forsake their Errors to embrace the Truth even by those who pretend that Conscience ought not to be forced I must conclude this Preface with begging pardon of my Readers for the length of this work which will I fear deter some from the perusal of it but I hope they who are desirous to search for the True Faith which is but one amongst so many and without which it is impossible to please God will not think it much to spend a little time for their satisfaction which if they do I hope it will open their Eyes and they will see how much they have been hitherto kept in ignorance by those who pretend to be their guides but shew themselves by their Writing either to be blind or which is worse malitious For if they know our Doctrins and yet Misrepresent them to their People they must be convinced of Malice and if they know them not we are ready to inform them if they think we palliate or pervert our Doctrins to gain Proselites it shews how little they understand our Tenets For when they see us ready to lose our Estates our Liberties and our Lives rather than renounce one title of our Faith how can a reasonable Man be persuaded we would renounce it all to gain a Proselite who the very first time he should see us Practise contrary to our Doctrins would be sure to return and expose our Villany BEcause the Defender has been pleased to ask this Question in the close of his Discourse page 84. Where are the Vnsincere dealings the Falsifications the Authors Miscited or Misapplied I thought it might not be amiss to refer the Reader to some of them as they are detected in this following Treatise And tho' the Defender had not the sincerity to acknowledge them yet I dare
creditur Aug. lib. 4. de Baptis cenntra Donatistas c. 24. Tom. 7. pag. 433. A. St. Augustin's Rule we must necessarily conclude it to have come from the Apostles They who would establish a beginning of the use of Holy Water tell us that (b) Aquam enim sale conspersam populis benâ—dicimus ut ea cuncti aspersi sanctisicentur ac purificentur quod omnibus Sacerdotibus faciendum esse mandamus Ep. 1. decret Extat To. 1. Concil pag. 68. n. 5. C. Binn Alexander the First Bishop of Rome who lived you must know Anno 121. so near the Apostles commanded it to be practised But they who read his first Epistle will find that he did not command it as a new thing but as the antient Practice unless they will have him to have instituted the Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ and healing of the Sick which he there also seriously advises the Priests to celebrate often and devoutly Now if this be Incantation with him he may please to learn that the Aqua benedicta as Baronius tells us dissolves all Incantations and Magic frauds rather than introduces them being famed for sundry Miracles which God hath pleased to work thereby in several Ages witness Epiphanius S. Hierom in the Life of S. Hilarion Theodoret and others And as for Incense which is a Testimony of the (c) Omnes de Saeba venient Aurum Thus deferentes Esa 60.6 Muth 2.11 Adoration which is due to God of the fervor with which our (d) Dirigatur Oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo Ps 14.2 Prayers ought to ascend to him and of the good (e) Christi bonus odor sumus Deo. 2 Cor. 2.15 Life we ought to lead I suppose he will not defie * S. Dion Areop Eccles Hier. c. 4. pag. 281. A. S. Ambros in cap. 1. Lâ—e St. Dionysius the Areopagite nor St. Ambrose nor other Antient Fathers who upon occasion make mention of it nor condemn them and us of foul Idolatry or Wichcraft e. Incantation for the use of it Neither can he I hope condemn the solemn use of these Creatures in this particular For what doth the Church intend thereby but by the Water to shew the Purity and Holiness of that Sacred Utensil as it relates to our Blessed Redeemer the Lamb of God offered upon the Altar of the Cross And what by the Incense but the precious sweetness of that Mystery as I may call it the Church being willing to express her Devotion to her ever-blessed Redeemer by such Testimonies And he who likes them not 't is feared would not have liked the Penitent Magdalen's Spikenard poured out on the Feet of her Lord. Neither can any man of the Church of England reasonably question the uses of these things which were in practice even in the Jewish Synagogue seeing the wisdom of the Church has beyond all exception thought fit to retain several of their solemn usages Sacrifices and Sabbaths being excepted Well but it may be that in the very Prayers this foul and notorious Idolatry is couched Certainly he dare not affirm that seeing they are immediately addressed to God himself to beg of him a Blessing upon that Creature and that he would impart the same Benediction to this Cross that he did to that upon which he suffered and grant that they who pray and bow down before this Cross PROPTER DEVM in honor of him who suffered upon it may so call to mind his Passion that they may find health both of Soul and Body through the same JESVS CHRIST c. Oh but after this Benediction the Bishop and as many as will of those that are present kneel down and devoutly ADORE it and kiss it Here I suppose is the foul and notorious Idolatry But let him consider their Intention Is not all this as well as the other PROPTER DEVM FOR GODS SAKE 1. Is it foul and notorious Idolatry to kneel down before a Cross or kiss it in honor of that God and Man who suffered on it for our Salvation 2. Or is it Idolatry to adore the Saviour of the world in presence of the Cross if we speak in a more proper sense and according to the Ecclesiastical style 3. Or lastly can he call it Idolatry to adore that is venerate unless he will always fix an univocal sense to an equivocal word that which represents unto us the Blessed Author and mysterious manner of our Redemption This would certainly render us Enemies of the Cross of Christ and condemn them who kiss the Bible or kneel to their Parents or God's vicegerents upon Earth much more those of the Church of England who Adore God before the Altar in their Public Devotions and Communions But he has one Question yet to ask of M. de Meaux and that is If the Church of Rome looks upon the Cross only as a memorative Sign to what end is all this Consecration so many Prayers shall I say or rather magical Incantations and how comes it to pass that a Cross without all this ado is not as fit to call to mind Jesus Christ who suffered upon the Cross as after all this Superstition not to say any worse in the dedication of it Pray Good Sir call to mind what you so much pretend to be a Scholar and a Christian As a Scholar change a little your Medium and see whether your Argument will not fall as heavy upon your selves as upon us And as a Christian remember that you must answer for every Idle word much more for every abusive term or scurrilous misrepresentation of another Do not you your selves use to set apart some Persons Things or Places to the Service of Almighty God which were of themselves after a sort proper for that purpose without such a busy Ceremony and would not you if a Dissenter observing your Ceremonies in Consecrating a Church or a Bishop should tell you that what you do is Superstition or magical Incantation would not you I say esteem such expressions little less than Blasphemy and look upon such accusers as Ignorant and Malicious not knowing what they say or of what they affirm If a Quaker I say should ask you what need of so many Prayers and Formalities to bless a place for the Burial of the Dead as if any Piece of Ground were not proper enough for that without such Superstition â—hould he call your Cross in Baptism your Ring in Marriage and your other Formalities magical Incantations I doubt not but you would bless your self from his Ignorance And yet all this which you condemn in others who oppose you you applaud in your selves when you would render us odious Turn then the Argument upon your self and retract this unchristian Censure and grant that tho'a cross Barr in a Window or a Turn-stile may put us in mind of the Instrument of our Redemption yet the Figure of the Cross may be justly set apart in order to bring those pious Thoughts to
them as with a Seal and gave the Pledge of the Holy Ghost in their Hearts I need not I suppose tell him that this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead signifies that we ought not to be ashamed to Consess the Faith of Christ Crucified as the Church of England expresses it in the Office for Baptism that the white Cloath or Fillet as he calls it is to put us in mind of the Purity we ought to maintain and keep the Garment of Innocence which we received in Baptism unspotted and that the Blow on the Ear is to teach us that we ought from thence forwards to suffer patiently all Injuries and Persecutions for the Faith. These and such like significant Ceremonies we use and tho' he and his party be pleased to joke at them yet having such Testimonies as we have of their Antiquity and Apostolical Institution we choose rather to glory in them than under the pretences of a Reformation to Renounce them and the Practice yea the Communion of the Universal Church ART XI Of Penance CErtainly the Defender never read what I offered §. 49. Defence pag. 41. otherwise he would never have said that I had not advanced any one thing to answer his Objections He says he proved at large that Penance was not truly and properly a Sacrament nor ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church How did he prove it By many bold Assertions without any Warrant And if I affirmed the contrary without Proof I had his Precedent for it The Bishop of Condom had proved the Sacrament of Penance by the Terms of the Commission granted by our Blessed Saviour to the Apostles and their Successors Matth. 18.12 John 20.23 of remitting and retaining sins Expos p. 18. the terms says he of which Commission are so general that they cannot without Temerity be restrained to public Sins Our Expositor's Answer to this was that the Primitive Christians had interpreted those passages of St. Matth. and St. John concerning Public Disciplin to which he supposes with them that principally at least if not only they refer I desired him to shew who those Primitive Christians were Vindic. pag. 64. and where they taught those passages to be only referred to a public Disciplin But to this he would not vouchsafe to give an Answer He objected that if Penance had been any thing more than a part of Christian Disciplin the Antient Church would not have presumed to make such changes in it nor Nectarius have begun to weaken it in his Church of Constantinople nor his Successor St. John Chrysostom have seconded him in it In answer to which I told him that Public Confession such as that which Nectarius and St. Chrysostom took away was a part of Disciplin and therefore alterable at pleasure Vindic. pag. 65. but that either Public or Private Confession was always necessary because it was always necessary a Judge should know the Case and a Physitian the Distemper before the one can pronounce a right Sentence or the other prescribe a wholsom Remedy But he thinks it a sufficient Reply to say he cannot take this upon my Word He had laid Scandals upon our Doctrin and Practice or at least insinuated them and therefore I looked upon my self as obliged to give my Readers a short Account of both and after I had done it I told him those were our Doctrins and Practices conformable to that of the Antient and Orthodox Churches and that I was astonished why they should be rejected and no better ground brought than we suppose Expos Doct. Church of England pag. 43. or we beg leave with Assurance to say that such Doctrins are directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture One would have thought in answer to this he should have shewn some better Proofs and have brought Testimonies of that Tradition or at least have produced some one of those plain and undoubted Texts of Scripture But alas he could not do that and therefore he passes it off by calling it Stuff and with a fulsome Joke upon my Ashonishment telling me that if ever I get so well out of it as to come to my Reason again and will undertake to prove Penance to be truly and Properly a Sacrament c. I shall have an ingenuous Reply to my Arguments In the mean time say I §. 50. The Church of England wishes it were re-established let him and his Church be so ingenuous as to restore the practice of Confession and Penance which they seem so much to wish for in the Ash-wednesday Office at least that in publick not to say any thing of the judgment of all the sober persons even amongst themselves who wish well to all Salutary Methods which Christ has left in his Church and particularly to this and then we might find a happy opportunity of proposing Arguments In Confirmation you make a shift to deny the Sacrament but have not renounced the Practice it may be for Episcopacy sake but in Penance the Practice has followed your renouncing the Sacrament And call you this a Reformation which seems to be more careful of the Dignity of the Pastor than of the Salvation of the Flock I think the Defender would do well to consider this and perhaps he will be astonished at their own proccedings I told him this Doctrin was established in England together with Christianity by St. Augustin and the Benedictin Monks and that if he would have us to relinquish it he must bring us either some manifest Revelations or demonstrative Reasons for nothing else could induce us to quit a possession of so long standing But he knew this would be impossible for him to do and therefore he resolved to keep at distance and put us upon the proof A proceeding which would not hold in Law where an uninterrupted Possession is a sufficient Evidence See Mr. Ricauâ—'s History Anno 1678. Ch. 12. What I have said of England I may say of all other both Eastern and Western Churches who unanimously held at the beginning of the Reformation that Penance was a Sacrament and looked upon the Doctrin as coming from the Apostles they having an uninterrupted Possession of it ART XII Of Extream Vnction IF the Defender had rightly considered the Question betwixt us §. 51. The Defender mistakes the Question he would have spared a great part of the pains he has taken in this Article and have let alone the pretended Proofs he brings from our Antient Liturgies as wholy impertinent Tho's he could not deny but that in Extream Unction there is both an outward Visible Sign and an inward and Spiritual Grace annexed to it yet because he was to oppose the Catholic Church he would have this to be only a Ceremony made use of in the Miraculous Cures of the Apostles And to prove this he affirmed that the Antient Rituals of the Roman Church for 800 Years
weigh the reasons which move us to continue in the one and the Arguments he brings to make us quit it and walk in the other To effect this let us divide this Article into three Sections In the first of which I will shew what is the Doctrin which we maintain and what our opposers hold in the second I will endeavour according to my Ability to hint at some of the many reasons why we persevere in that Doctrin and in the last I intend to examin his Objections and shew the Fallacies of his Arguments SECT 1. Our and our Adversaries Tenets WHen we speak of Jesus Christ §. 64. Christ must be either really or only figuratively present in the Sacrament we speak of one who is both God and Man and when we speak of his Presence in a place we must either speak of the presence of his Manhood together with his Divinity by a real substantial presence or we must speak of his presence in a figurative manner seeing there cannot possibly be a Medium For either Christ who is God and Man is there body and Soul and Divinity or he is not there If then he be present in the blessed Sacrament he must be either really present which cannot be unless his Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity be there really and substantially or he must be there only morally or figuratively as signified by the exterior Signs of Bread and Wine and by them bestowing upon us the benefits which he purchased for us by taking our Natures on him Now Jesus Christ may be really §. 65. He may be really present after different manners essentially and Substantially present in a place after different manners For he rendred himself sometimes visible and palpable and sometimes not yet was his Body essentially the same when he was invisible and not to be felt as when otherwise His body was sown a Corruptible Body but is now raised a Spiritual Body yet is this Spiritual Body essentially and substantially the same with that which was once corruptible tho' it was never to see Corruption All Persons §. 66. All agree that Christ is morally present in the Sacrament Catholics and Lutherans that he is really present but not after a natural manner both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that Jesus Christ is morally or figuratively present in the Sacrament that is that the outward elements signify his Body and Blood that a lively Faith apprehends him there present and that he bestows upon the worthy Communicants the Graces purchased for us by his becoming Man and dying upon the Cross But Catholics and Lutherans agree further in this that Jesus Christ that is God and Man Flesh and Blood Soul and Divinity is not only morally there but also truly really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament tho' they both of them deny him to be there circumscriptivè as the Schools call it that is in his Natural Body after a natural manner with respect to place Their chief difference consists in this that the Lutherans will have him to be so present that Bread is also present with him which Catholics deny and tho' they pretend to submit their Faith to the acknowledgment of his real presence which they do not see yet will they follow Sense so far as to judge because they see the appearance of Bread to remain that is is really Bread also when the Substance of Bread is as invisible The Zuinglians c. say he is only figuratively there as that of the Body of Christ The Zuinglians Socinians c. admit nothing at all of real here The presence which they speak of is only figurative signified by the Bread and Wine so that as they see the Bread broken eaten c. and the Wine poured out c. so ought they to call to mind that Christ's Body was Crucified and torn c. for us which whil'st they reflect upon and receive they are by Faith or a strong Fancy made partakers as they think of the Benefits of that his Death and Passion the Blessings which the offering of his Body may procure But Calvin perceiving that if he said no more §. 67. Calvin would find a midle way he should find it an insuperable Task to answer all the plain expressions from Scripture and Fathers would seek a midle way where there can be none and therefore no wonder if he fell into such a contradiction as is that of a real presence and no real presence Sometimes he (a) Calv. Consinsus cum Pastoribus Tigurinis In sine affirms Christs Body to be only in Heaven and (b) Vere in Caena datur nobis corpus Christi ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem hoc est substantia Corporis Christi pascuntur animae nostrae ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo Calv. in cap. 26. Matth. sometimes to be truly in the Sacrament Sometimes (c) Porro de modo st quis me interroget faieri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vgel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat Id. lib. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 32. Telling us that it is a Mystery that we cannot comprehend much less explicate that Christs Flesh and Blood should come to us from such a distance and be our Food and (d) Interins vero hanc non aliam esse quam fidei manducationem fatemur ut nulla alia fingi potest Id. ibid. §. 5. at other times telling us that this Manducation is only by Faith and the like Absurdities and Contradictions some of which may be seen in Cardinal Bellarmin Lib. 1. de Euchar. Sacram. cap. 1. This Doctrin of Calvin being the most agreeable to the Polititians in King Edwards Reign and to Queen Elizabeth's Interest §. 68. Agreeable to our English Polititians who were desirous to accommodate a Religion to all parties and Factions no wonder if they embraced it And therefore lest Catholics or Lutherans should have any just cause to renounce their Communion for want of a Real presence their Catechism tels us the Inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechisim which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper But lest if this should be understood plainly as the words import the Sacramentarians should be against them therefore their 28 Article has taken care of them too and tels 'um that the Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner and the means by which this is done is Faith. But then again if this Article be a Faithful Comment upon their Catechism how shall the Primitive Fathers be answered and what will the Calvinists say To have an evasion therefore and to gain them this presence must be sometimes called a real presence and sometimes only a spiritual A spiritual Presence not only as 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
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
this Note another which I desire the Defender to take notice of that that Act of Parliament tho' it ordained Communion under both kinds unless in cases of necessity yet was so moderate as not to condemn thereby the usage of any Church out of the Kings Majesties Dominions Which moderation had he been endowed with he would not have expressed such detestation of the Doctrin nor passed so severe a Sentence against the Catholic Church for the Practice PART III. ART XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word THe Defender having so ingenuously confessed §. 103. Expos Doct. Ch. of England pag. 75.76 that the Vnwritten Word or Tradition as to that Gospel which our Blessed Saviour preached was the first Rule of Christians that this and the written Word are not two different Rules but as to all necessary matters of Faith one and the same and the unwritten Word was so far from losing its Authority by the addition of the written that it was indeed the more firmly established by it And having acknowledged for himself and his Church that they are ready to embrace any Tradition though not contained in the written Word provided that they can be assured it comes from the Apostles or that it can be made appear to have been received by All Churches in All Ages How to know Apostolic Tradition I thought it necessary to propose a certain means by which we might come to know what had been thus delivered and that grounded upon the very nature of Tradition But this the Defender now opposes and I shall endeavour to make clear In order to which we are to consider First §. 104. I. The nature of Tradition in this case Divine Truths surpass the reach of Human reason as to the thing it self that we speak here of Divine Truths which surpass the reach of human Reason revealed to the Apostles which Truths the Apostles were obliged to teach to the Faithful then living without addition or diminution and the Faithful then living were also tyed under the same Obligation to deliver the same Divine Truths in like manner without addition diminution or alteration to their Successors and they to theirs in every Age. 2ly II. They were taught by the Apostles to all Countries These Truths were to be taught in all Countries and Kingdoms by the Apostles and their Successors and not only taught but practised So that what one Country or Nation learned from one Apostle the same was another to learn from another and a third from a third a fourth from a fourth c. 3ly III. And they wre obliged to deliver them to their Posterity without any Eslential alterations The obligation of delivering these Truths without addition diminution or alteration was and is the strictest that can possibly be imagined viz. the forefeiture of eternal Happiness and the incurring of eternal Torments So that whoever should undertake to teach his own Invention for a revealed Truth or to deny a known revealed Truth because it ws not agreeable to his Fancy or Interest and taught others to do the same could not but know that he did not perform his Obligation and therefore justly incurred that penalty 4ly IV. There must be Heresies But if such Men did arise as there must be Heresies who would not rely upon what had been taught them but proud and conceited of their own abilities would form to themselves new Notions of things and rely upon their own Wit or Judgment even to contradict those delivered Truths A connivance at them is damnable or interpose others not delivered A silent Connivance in Pastors and Teachers in that case suffering their Flock to be seduced would be a Crime not much inferïor to that of the Seducers and would deserve no less a punishment 5ly V. This Age must necessarily know what was taught in the last It is absolutely impossible that any thing can be taught in this Age contrary to what had been delivered in the immediate foregoing Age but that this Age must necessarily know it to be an Innovation And therefore it is absolutely impossible to make a whole Age believe they had not been taught a Doctrin as a delivered Truth when their Fathers of the immediately preceding Age had actually taught them that it was delivered 6ly It being thus manifest VI. Error cannot spread it self insensibly that it would be absolutely impossible for an Error against a delivered Truth to spread it self over the Face of the World without being perceived by them to whom that Truth had been delivered so is it absolutely inconsistent with the nature of Man to think that such an universal Deluge of wickedness and delusion should happen that all Pastors and People of whole Christendom should in any one Age combine together to deceive the next Age and either deliver to them an Error as a delivered Truth or make a delivered Truth pass for an Error when they could not but know that the doing of it must necessarily be a Sin which unrepented of would bring Damnation and that no Repentance could be without making a just satisfaction 7ly VII From hence I conclude that if in any one Age we find all Christians agreeing that such a particular Doctrin or practice was delivered to them as coming from the Apostls it must necessarily follow that the Age next preceding that All persons would never combine to damn their own Souls by renouncing what they had been taught did also believe it to be a Truth so delivered because no reason can be given nor cause assigned why the Pastors and People of so many different Countries and Interests otherwise sollicitous for their Salvation should all combine together to damn their own and their Posterities Souls and deliver that as a Tradition to their Successors which they had not received from their Predecessors 8ly From hence I also conclude VIII The pres ent Church in every age is the best judge of what is universal Tradition that the present Church in every Age is the best Judge of what is universal Tradition and what not and that the way to know her Judgment is to regard the uniform voice of her Pastors and People either declared to us by the most universal Councils that Age can afford or by her universal practice 9ly Moreover IX This Church is secured from error by Gods Promise besides this moral Impossibility that the whole Church in any one Age should conspire to teach a Doctrin as traditionary which they had not been taught by Tradition we have further the Promise of Almighty God that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church that he will send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who shall remain with her Pastors and Teachers to the end of the World and teach them all Truth that these Pastors and Teachers shall be our Guides lest we should be led away with every Wind of Doctrin and several other the like Promises So that 10th
Heretical and Schismatical Assemblies and was not her self condemned or cut off by any sentence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church And tho' perhaps the number of those particular Heretical or Schismatical Assemblies one condemned in one Age and another in another some few of all which might perhaps survive even till our time might be considerable if taken altogether tho' inconsiderable in themselves yet being every one of them lawfully cut off by that Orthodox Church they can never stand in competition with her nor challenge a place in her Councils neither is she obliged to call in their help to Condemn any other New Heresy arising after them And if that New Heresy should pretend she was obliged such pretentions would be unreasonable This is the case with the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches now extant in the world §. 113. The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome having condemned the Arians in the first General Council of Nice the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was never condemned by any General Council needed not to call them in to help her to condemn Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the three following Councils The same Catholic Church that thus condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the four first General Councils condemned the followers of Origen in the 5th the Monothelites in the 6th the Iconoclasts in the 7th And the Schismatic Photius and his adherents in the 8th And as this Catholic Church needed not the assistance of those Heretics who were condemned in the first four General Councils to help her to condemn those that were extant when she called the 5th so did she not need the aid of them or of those that were condemned by the 5th or 6th to help her to condemn the Iconoclasts or Photius in the 7th or 8th And thus we can shew in following ages as Errors did arise still new Councils Called as the first second third See Binins Tom. 7. part 2. pag. 806. F. and fourth of Lateran in which last the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was defined against Berengarius and his followers the Albigenses by 400. Bishops and 800. Fathers After these the first and second of Lyons the later of which condemned the Errors which the Eastern Churches had fallen into by the delusion of Photius the condemned Schismatic Ibi compartunt Paleologus Impa Constaniinopoliâ—â—nas cuns magno comits u qui tertia decima vice in sententiam Romane Ecclesiae Graecos suos toties deficientes Conetilio necessario pertraxit Bin. Tom 7 â—onc pag. 891. c. and in which as Binius notes from Trithemius the Grecians returned the thirteenth time to the Roman Catholic Faith. Then followed that of Vienna in France against the Beguardes and the Beguines After which the Council of Florence Anno 1438. In which the Greeks and the Latins consented to these Points The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the belief of a Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome tho' through the negligence of the Emperor John Palaeologus occasioned by his too much sollicitude for wordly concerns and the calumnies of Mark the Metropolitan of Ephesus this Council had not its wished effect After this the 5th Council of Lateran Anno 1512. for the reestablishing the Unity of the Church and the condemnation of the Schism begun by the unlawful assembly at Pisa And lastly the Council of Trent Anno 1545. Against Luther Calvin and all the Modern Heresies Ths to be silent concerning the vast number of Provincial Councils we can shew eighteeen Oecumenical Councils All the General Councils that condemned Errors Communicated with the Church of Rome Generally received as such by all but those whose Errors were either condemned in them or some foregoing Councils The Members of all which Councils were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and none dissented from that Communion but such as had been thus condemned neither can Protestants ever shew that even the particular Church of Rome or any other in Communion with her were ever thus cut off by any General Council or the Doctrins that she holds condemned It is only she therefore and those Churches in Communion with her all which we call the Roman Catholic Church that can challenge the title of Orthodox that is of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic This Truth being thus established and it having been plainly shewed what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church I pass over his second and third Exception because as I have already said they are built upon a False notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken only for the Diocese of Rome or a particular Church and come to his 4th §. 114. the Defenders fourth Exception Exception which is as I said more intolerable than the rest and which since he goes about to justify it as a Doctrin of his Church for he has promised to give us no other he would have done well to have shewed us some Canon Article or Constitution for it without which others of his Brethren will I fear come off with this Excuse that he is a young man and does not well know the Tenets of his Church He tells us that it is left to every Individual person not only to examin the Decisions of the whole Church but to Glory in Opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his Own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word This I told him was a Doctrin that if admitted Maintains all Dissenters would maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are persons in the world Desence pag. 80. which consequences he confessEs to be ill but such as he thinks do not directly follow from this Doctrin as laid down in his Exposition But what if they follow indirectly or by an evident tho' secondary deduction would not that suffice to discountenance such a Doctrin as opens a gap to such licentiousness in Belief when Faith is but One and without which it is impossible to please God But let us see how he maintains it does not directly follow from what he has laid down in his Exposition First he tells us that he allows of this Dissent or Opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith where he supposes it to be every mans concern and Duty both to judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a judgment as he is able And secondly He tells us that as he takes the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to the made so be supposes these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial enquirer should he found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion From these two wild Suppositions without any proof of them
the number of Italian Bishops answered Chap. 10. §. 167. that those who being present did set themselves to oppose Error and Corruption were perpetually run down and out voted by shoals of new made Bishops sent out of Italy for that purpose This has been answered beyond reply by the Author of the Considerations on the Council of Trent who has not only shewn how naturally it must have followed that more Italian Bishops would be there than of any other Country by reason of the nearness of the place and their not being impeded by National colloquies c. as the Germans were That their presence there cannot be blamed they having all of them Lawful Votes tho' the absence of others might be excused that as the Pope was diligent to send in these so was he earnest to procure a fuller Representative from other Nations and the Council had proceeded to lay heavy Mulcts upon the absent had not the Ambassadors interceded Sâ—ave pig 504.558 559. But he has also shewn from Soave his History That the Italian Bishops were much more addicted to their own Princes in things wherein their Ambassadors craved their assistance than to the Pope and that the Venetian and Florentine Bishops were upon such occasions divided from those of the Papacy That nothing could be passed in the Council if a considerable part contradicted tho' a major part favored it and certainly the Representatives of all other Nations were always esteemed a considerable part so that if the Italians might hinder any thing from being carried by Vote yet could they never of themselves obtain it to be carried That the Pope needed not any such contrivance for the Protestant Controversies in condemning of which Soave confesses the Votes of the whole Council concurred and that * Pag. 282 183. See the unanimous consent of the council as to these following points in Sâ—ave Original sin pig 175.184 Justification p. 223. Confession p. 348. Transubstantiation and Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist p. 324.326 Mass and a Propitiatory Sacrifice p. 544.554.738 Lawfulness and Sufficiency of Communicating under one kind p. 324.325.519 Purgatory Invocation of Saints and Veneration of Images p. 799.803 as to those points like a City Beleagred the Factions among Them ceased and all joyned against the common Enemy And lastly that where the Popes single interest was more nearly concerned he had no such assistance of the greatest part of the Italian Bishops nor the major part of the Council at his command § 168. If then these points being cleared we consider the Exceptions which Arius and his followers with the Socinians at this day make against the Council of Nice and the other condemned parties against the other Three Councils I think I had just reason to ask him whether the Council of Trent was not as General and Free a Council as any of the Four And if such I desire him to remember his promise to allow a much greater deference to it than to a National Church or Council If our Defender think it convenient to go on with his calumnies against this Council I would desire him first to peruse the Considerations of the Council of Trent and not to argue as if nothing had been ever said in defence of it §. 130. The Authority of the Holy See from antient Fathers Exposit Doct. Ch. Engl. pag. 81. As to the Authority of the Holy See he told us he was content to yield him the Bishop of Rome whatsoever Authority the antient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the Holy Fathers have always taught the Faithful to give him If he be serious in this I hope he will not refule to say with St. Irenaeus that (a) Ad bancenim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam S. Iren. lib. 3. advers haer c. 3. it is necessary that every Church should have recourse to that of Rome by reason of its more powerful Principality And will with the same antient Father allow him a Power to (b) Euseb l. 5. Hist c. 23. p. 69. Excommunicate even the Eastern Bishops and much more those sure under the Western Patriarchate With * De Monogamia c. 8. p. 529. Edit Rigaâ—t â—Paris 1664. Tertullian (c) Epist 55. p. 91 Epist 71. ad Quintum Fra trem p. 140. Edit Paris 1648. St. Cyprian (d) Ad ps 131. St. Hilary and generally with all the antient Fathers before the Council of Nice that the Church was built upon St. Peter tho' some of those who lived after the rise of the Arian Heresy added also the Confession of St. Peter that Christ was the Son of the living God as a Fundamental Truth upon which the Church was built With (e) Et tamen Primatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus Amb. Tom. 5. in crp. 12. Epist 2. ad Corinth St. Ambrose that St. Peter had the Primacy given him tho' St. Andrew was first called And that the (f) Scribo tibiut scias quemodo Ecclesiam ordines quae est domus Dei ut cum totus mundus Dei sit Eclesia tamen demâ—â—s ejus dicatur cujus hodie Redor est Damasus Tom. 5. in cap. 3. Epist 1. ad Tim. Pope is the Governor of the House of God the Church the Pillar and ground of Truth With (g) At dich super Petrum Pundatur â—eâ—â—â—sia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos siat cunlli claves regni Coelorum accipiant ex aequo super cos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus elagitur ut capite constitute Schismatis tollatur occasio Tom. 2. lib. 1. contra Jovinian c. 14. St. Jerome that even amongst the Apostles a Head was chosen that an occasion of Schism might be taken away (h) Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatnudini tuae i. e. Cathedrae Peâ—ri communione consocior Super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Quicunque extra hane domum agnum comederit profanus est Si quis in Arca Noe non fuerit peribit regnante diluvio Quicunque â—ecum non colligit spar git Quam brem obtestor Beatitudinem â—uam per Crucifixum per mundi saluâ—em per Homousion Trinitatem at mihi Epistolis tuis five tacendarum sive dicendarum Hypostaseon detur Authoritos Hier. Epist 57. ad Damasum Papam That he following no other Leader but Christ is in Communion with his Holyness that is with the Chair of St. Peter Upon that Rock he knows the Church is built Whosoever Eats the Lamb out of this House is profane Whoever is not in the Ark of Noah shall perish in the Flood That whoever does not gather with him the Bishop of Rome scatters And therefore I hope as he did so will our Defender if he think good to stand to his promise conjure his Holyness by our Crucified Lord c. to give him Authority
great deal more reason than you have done of Popery and have shewn you the many Alterations that have been made during this last Age even in your Rubrics Liturgies Doctrins Disciplin and form of Ordination without descending to that varlety of Contradictions which are found even among your Approved Authors But because this Answer has swelled above the bounds I intended I shall let that alone to another hand or till some other opportunity be offered And here I might take my leave of you but that a tender concern for the salvation of your Soul and for all those others who are misled by you calls upon me to admonish you of your Duty §. 133. The Defender's obligation to make Satisfaction to the Church Non tollitur peccatum nisi restituatur oblatam Sir You know when an injury is done to any particular person and either their Goods or Good-name are taken from them a restitution must be made and that under pain of eternal Damnation for St. Augustin's rule is without exception unless in cases of an impossibility that the sin is not remitted unless the injury be repaired by restitution But when the Calumny passes from particulars to whole Communities as the Crime becomes much greater so does the Obligation of making Satisfaction become more Cogent And seeing no Community is so Holy as that of Christs Immaculate Spouse his Church those Calumnies that are forged against her must be expiated by a more than ordinary Satisfaction And where her same has been struck at in Public nothing but a Public Recantation can make Attonement I must therefore here Sir call upon you once more and mind you of your Necessary Duty that is of making a Public acknowledgment of those Calumnies you have thrown upon the Church and the misrepresentations unsincerities and Falsifications you have made use of to back those Accusations This I tell you is a necessary Duty and without which you cannot expect your Sin can be Forgiven you and therefore I must in almost your own words intreat you by the hopes of Eternity to consider how dangerous this way you have taken is and what a sad purchace it will be if to gain some reputation or Temporal Interest in this world you do or omit that which will unavoidably lose your own Soul. You ask me whether you have Calumniated us or misrepresented our Doctrins and where are the Vnsincere dealings Falsifications Authors miscited or misapplied Sir I know these are harsh words and I wish for your reputation sake I could smother the Crimes but alas they are too obvious to be concealed and in Every Article almost you are guilty of them This I have sufficiently Demonstrated and if Sense and Reason can be Judge in any thing even in their proper objects I appeal to that which is common in every man for the truth of what I say I will not again return to Particulars lest I should seem to take too much Satisfaction in having my Adversary at an advantage No! I should have been contented to have let these or any other Injuries pass had they only affected me but where the Church which must be Holy is struck at and such Arts used to blacken her should I hold my Peace my silence would be a Guilt It is not of an Error or two of the Press nor yet of the omission of some words which were not pertinent nor material that I here complain I speak of words left out which prevaricate the plain sense I speak of misconstructions and misapplications contrary to the intent of the Authors and this not only to shew a pretended difference amongst our selves but to back most horrid calumnies which you have uttered against that Church which is without spot or blemish and this in the very entrance into your Exposition There is certainly Sir no Crime so black as that of Idolatry Expos Doct. Ch. of Engl. p. 3. 14. to accuse therefore a Church of committing it by adoring men and women Crosses and Images and that in the utmost propriety of the Phrase the proofs ought certainly to be clear and demonstrative but when we find nothing but wresting of places and words and mutilations of Sentences to make them speak what you please I think the most moderate term we can give such accusations is to say they are Calumnies The Truth of what I say has been abundantly shewn in the foregoing Articles and I admire after such accusations Defence p. 84 85. that you can talk so confidently of a peaceable Exposition kindly and charitably performed and which you were willing to hope might be received with civility Is this the way to heal our Breaches to bring that Peace and Vnity which you say you so much long for You tell us indeed that our Errors are many of them disavowed by us and is not that enough Ibid. p. 103. Why so much pains then to prove us guilty of them Why is there not an union at least in those points Why must we be still called Idolaters c We know our selves Innocent and we assert it we know the Church was always so and we prove it but yet the most solemn assertions and the clearest proofs must pass for nothing amongst those who pretend to Civility Peace and Charity I conjure you therefore Sir by all that is Sacred by the common name of Christian by that Unity that ought to be in the Church of Christ as well as by its Sanctity by the Eternal God and his Son Christ Jesus that as you tender the Salvation of your own Soul and those of so many others as have been induced by you to an imitation of those Calumnies that you retract the false witness you have born against your Neighbors and hinder not that union which might otherwise be hoped for in the Church of Christ by hindring those who have gone astray from returning to the Arms of their Innocent Mother I know the pride of our nature is apt to hinder persons from retracting what they have once advanced but certainly they who consider that Eternity is at stake and that an injustice which will render us miserable for that Eternity cannot be expiated without making satisfaction will not find it so difficult to acknowledge their mistake tho' wilful rather than run into inevitable damnation And pray God give you this serious thought and resolution And when you are serious Sir and resolved to do your duty pray consider also First the obligation you have brought upon your selves by such accusations Consider Secondly the danger you have thrown your selves and your adherents into by your separation and Lastly consider the many advantages you are deprived of by being separated from our Communion If you accuse us Catholics of Idolatry and of those other Errors and Crimes you mention I. §. 134. The obligation the Defender has laid upon himself by accusing the Catholic Church of Idolatry I see not how you can pretend us to be members of the
Church of Christ one of whose inseparable marks is that of Sanctity which is certainly inconsistent either with such Crimes or Errors for as a man cannot be accounted a sound man if he have a mortal distemper on him so neither can a Church be accounted Holy if it teach a damnable Doctrin And if we cannot be accounted members neither can they who preceded us in the same Practices and Doctrins and therefore you who lay this accusation oblige your selves to shew a visible Church distinct from that of ours which has in all ages been free from such Errors and damnable Idolatries but this as I have formerly taken notice your Book of Homilies to which you subscribe thinks impossible and without considering the consequences of denying Christ to have such an Innocent Church tells us plainly that for above 800 Years All men Third part of the Homilie against peril of Idolatry pag. 143. fol. Anno 1673. women and Children of whole Christendom fell into the damnable Sin of Idolatry Shew us such an Innocent and Holy Church as this and we will Communicate with her But if you cannot shew such an one you must give us leave to believe our Blessed Saviour who promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church and that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who should remain with her to the end of the world c. rather than with such Calumniators accuse him of the breach of his promise and affirm that he had no Holy Church on Earth for above 800 nay as others say for above 1000 Years And seeing we know our selves Innocent of those Crimes of which we are accused as well as they how can we communicate with our and their accusers I would not have you Sir to fly to your usual Parallel and tell us that God had always his Wheat among the Tares in the field of his Church The Parable is just if rightly understood that is there shall be always good and bad in her Community But if you compare the Wheat to the orthodox Doctrin of Christ and the Tares to Errors or Heretical Tenets they certainly who were guilty of those Errors must be accounted Tares and if as your Book of Homilies affirms the whole Christian world was guilty of them both in Head and Members for above 800 Years where was the Wheat all that time The belief of some true Doctrins mixed with many Errors would not secure them unless you will say that the same individual Root might bear both Wheat and Tares and be at the same time gathered into the Granary and burnt with unquenchable fire But if you say there were at that time orthodox Christians and a Church which Preached the word of God and administred the Sacraments rightly and was free from the Tares of false Doctrin let it or its Members be shewn and we will Communicate with them But it is easier to talk this out of a Pulpit than prove it to men of Sense Secondly II. §. 135. The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion the danger you are in by being thus Separated from the Church of Christ is such that any one I think who considers it seriously with its consequences cannot but desire to free himself You deny not but that the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was a true Church and that Salvation was and is to be had in it that she had and has true Pastors true Sacraments true Creeds the true Word of God c. Only you say Errors have crept into her since the First 400 Years and that you have reformed them by the Example of those first Ages and by the infallible Word of God. But besides that it is a question to which it will be difficult to give a satisfactory answer from whence they had it who assumed that Authority to reform and what testimony they can give of their mission I would only ask you Sir what assurance you can give me that your pretended Reformers in this last Age see more clearly the sense of this infallible writing or know more exactly what was the practice of the First 400 Years than all your Forefathers of those preceding ages If you cannot give a satisfactory answer to this and shew such an assurance that you have hit upon the right Faith and they did not such an assurance I say upon which we may trust the Salvation of our Souls which being a matter of the highest concern the security ought also to be the highest we shall have reason to doubt you have been out in your reformation and that whilst you pretended to reform you have on the contrary made a breach in the Unity of the Church and have rent the Seamless garment of our Lord and torn his mystical Body a Crime not much unlike theirs who Scourged Buffeted and Crucified him and will be as severely punished If you say they were evidently convinced that Scripture was against the universal practice and belief of the Church and therefore they were obliged to follow the Superior not Inferior Guide I desire to know how they came to be evidently convinced and if you cannot shew some secure and unerring principle to rely upon for that conviction I must exhort you to consider the hazard you have run your self into by following them the danger which all those who are misled by you incur and how strict an account you and they must one day give if that Principle of yours That every individual person may dissent from the Catholic Church so his judgment be convinced he follows the right sense of Scripture and she does not be found false and you and they deluded by it into disobedience For seeing our Blessed Saviour himself bids us look upon them that will not hear the Church as no other than Heathens or Publicans such disobedience must needs be followed with a punishment answerable to those crimes Lastly III. §. 136. The advantages he is deprived of by being out of the Church as for the advantages which you are deprived of by being separated from the Catholic Church I beg of you to consider them not only in general but in Particular And to this end pray read seriously the conclusion of the Third Discourse of the Guide in Controversy and compare the times which preceded your pretended reformation with those which have followed it and see what a deerease of Truth Piety Devotion Humility Love and Obedience has hapned since you separated from your unerring Mothers arms and betook your selves to the guidance of your own fallible interpretations Which if you do I hope you will with the Prodigal Son return to the embraces of your tender Parent who with expanded arms and a compassionate bleeding heart Sollicits her Almighty Spouse for your Conversion FINIS A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter to the Vindicator Meaux 13. May. 1687. Mon Reverend Pere. LES nouvelles objections que vous m'envoyez sur le
proved § 14. By Confession of Protestants By the Testimony of the Fourth Age. Of the Fourth General Council Of Origen and St. Methodius The Defenders affected misapplication of the word Prayer § 15. No Scripture against the Invocation of Saints § 16. Catholics imitate the Scripture Phrase § 17. The word Merit Equivocal and often misapplied by the Defender § 18. The use of it in our Prayers conformable to the Language of Holy Writ Ib. ARTICLE IV. Images and Relics pag. 25. I. THE benefit of Images § 19. 1. To inform the Ignorant 2. To encrease Devotion 3. To persuade to a good Life 4. A Holy Imitation 5. To encrease our Reverence and Respect II. No danger of Idolatry now from the use of Images § 20. From the Nature of Christianity and The Nature of Idolatry § 21. III. Objections Answered § 22. 1. From St. Thomas of Aquin. § 23. 2. The Pontifical § 24. The Use of Incense and Holy-water very Antient. 3. Good-Fryday Office. § 25. 4. The Churches Hymns § 26. Of Relics §. 27. We Pray not to them nor to Monuments Ib. The Defender renders the Councils expression falsely We Honor them and Images as Sacred Utensils § 28. ARTICLE V. pag. 45. Of Justification §. 29. THE Catholic Church falsely accused Ib. Justification and Sanctification § 30. Our Justification is Gratis § 31. ARTICLE VI. Of Merits pag. 49. SCholastic Niceties to be avoided § 32. The Churches Doctrin ART VII Sect. 1. pag. 52. Of Satisfactions §. 34. NO Satisfaction without the Grace of God and Merits of Christ Ib. Protestants grant more Efficacy to a Lord have mercy upon us than Catholics to a Plenary Indulgence § 35. We believe or we suppose ought not to be an Argument against our Possession § 36. SECTION II. Of Indulgences pag. 55. COuncils have redressed the Abuses in them § 37. We defend not Practices which are neither Necessarily nor universally received Ibid. Our necessary Tenets § 38. No buying or selling of Indulgences § 39. Protestant Indulgences sold in the Spiritual Court. Ib. They give greater Power to a Simple Minister than Catholics as Catholics give to the Pope § 40. What a Jubilee is § 41. SECTION III. Purgatory pag. 59. PRov'd by two General Councils which proof comprehends Scripture Fathers Tradition and Universal Practice § 42. No Fathers nor Scripture against it Ib. PART II. ARTICLE VIII pag. 60. Of the Sacraments in General §. 43. ARTICLE IX Of Baptism Ibid. LVtherans and those of the Church of England hold Baptism absolutely necessary § 44. Whether Children dying without it have any part in Christ Ib. The Calvinists oppose this necessity § 45. The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument Ib. ARTICLE X. Of Confirmation pag. 63. PRoved by Fathers and Scripture § 46. 47. The Ceremonies Explicated § 48. ARTICLE XI pag. 67. Of Pennance §. 49. THe Church of England wishes it were re-established § 50. ARTICLE XII Of Extream Unction pag. 70. THe Defender mistakes the Question § 51. This Sacrament has a respect to Bodily cures § 52. Sanctifying Grace assistance against Temptations and Remission of sins are the Primary effects proved from the Antient Rituals § 53. The words of St. James Evince it § 54. ARTICLE XIII Of Marriage pag. 75. THe Bishop of Meaux and the Defender agreed We demand no more and yet new Cavils must be raised § 55. Lombard do's not deny Grace to be given in it § 56. If Durandus did he is often singular Ib. The Fathers in the time of the first four General Councils acknowledge it to be a Sacrament § 57. Marriage is grown contemptible in England since it was denied to be a Sacrament § 58. It is proved to be a Sacrament from St. Paul and by the Universal Tradition both of the Greek and Latin Church § 59. Not necessary for every one § 60. ARTICLE XIV Of Holy Orders pag. 80. THe Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament § 61. His new Evasions Answered § 62. ARTICLE XV. XVI XVII XVIII Of the Eucharist pag. 83. TWo hundred several Senses put upon these four words hoc est Corpus meum Catholics follow the beaten Road Protestants by-paths § 63. SECTION I. pag. 84. Ours and our Adversaries Tenets §. 64. CHrist must be either really or only figuratively present in the Sacrament Ib. He may be really present after different manners § 65. All agree that he is Morally present in the Sacrament Ib. Catholics and Lutherans agree that he is Really Present but not after a Natural manner § 66. The Zuinglians c. say he is only Figuratively present Ib. Calvinists and the Church of England would gladly hold a middle way § 67. 68. The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the firsts time § 69. The Roman Catholic Doctrin § 70. Three manners of Real Presence § 71. SECTION II. Some Reasons for our Doctrin pag. 89. ALL the proofs for an Article of Faith concur for this § 72. SECTION III. pag. 92. Objections Answered §. 73. Objections from Scripture The first The words of the Institute § 74. 75. The second The custom of the Jews § 76. The third From it's being called Bread after Consecration § 77. Fathers and School-men § 84. 1. From St. Chrystoms Epistle to Cesarius § 78. c. 2. Lombard § 86. 3. Scotus § 87. 4. Suarez § 88. 5. Cajetan § 89. Adoration of the Host § 90. This Adoration shewn to be very Antient and taught long before the time prefixed by the Defender § 96. c. 1. The Scripture commands it not Answered § 93. 2. The Elevation of the Host now Answered § 94. 3. Several Practices of the Antients inconsistent with the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament Answered § 95. ARTICLE XIX XX XXI pag. 123. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass §. 99. WHat a Sacrifice is The Essence of a Sacrifice consists not in slaying the Victim § 100. Four things required to a Sacrifice all which concur in the Eucharist Ibid. ARTICLE XXII Communion under both Species pag. 127. THe Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither false unreasonable nor frivolous § 102. PART III. ARTICLE XXIII pag. 129. Of the Written and unwritten word §. 103. HOw to know Apostolic Traditions § 103. 104. The Nature of such Traditions § 104. The Present Church in every Age is the best Judge Proved Ib. The nature of Error with the rise and progress of it § 105. The Defenders Arguments against this Judge of Tradition answered § 106. 1. Objection Ib. 2. Objection § 107. ARTICLE XXIV XXV pag. 136. Of the Authority of the Church §. 108. THe Defenders Concessions Ib. His Exceptions Examined § 109. First Exception that the Church of Rome is only a particular Church Answered Ib. His second and third Exceptions Null § 110. The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her § 110. 111. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the True Church proved § 112. 113. His fourth Exception maintains all Dissenters from a Church § 114. 115. His first Postulatum answered § 116. His second answered § 117. What are necessary Articles of Faith. § 118. Scripture Interpreted by Private Reason cannot be our Rule of Faith. § 119. Nor by the Private Spirit § 120. But by the Catholic Church § 121. His Instance from St. Athanasius answered § 122. The True History of Pope Liberius and the Council of Ariminum § 123. 124. ARTICLE XXV pag. 158. Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy §. 125. THe Council of Trent Vindicated § 126 c. His first Exception that it was not General answered Ib. The first four General Councils called by the Pope § 127. His second Exception that it was not free answered and the Story of John Husse shewn to be misrepresented § 128. His third Exception against the number of Italian Bishops answered § 129. The Authority of the Holy See. §. 130. From Antient Fathers Ib. From Councils § 131. Nothing Antiently was to be determined without the concurence of the Apostolic See. Ib. The Close to the Defender §. 132. THe Defenders obligation to make Satisfaction to the Church § 132. The Obligation he has laid upon himself by accusing the Roman Catholic Church of Idolatry § 144. The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion § 133. The advantages he is deprived of by being out of the Church § 136. To be added pag. 30. line 14. BVt this is the Language of our Defender The Opinions of the most Learned Doctors tho' esteemed such by his own Party are called Reveries Des pag. 16. The Pious and significant Ceremonies of the Church tho' imitated in their own Assemblies Ib. pag. 18.19 are termed Magical Incantations The Rhetorical Expressions of the Greatest Saints if they thwart his Notions must pass for Horrid Blasphemies St. Thomas heretofore Styled the Angelic Doctor is by a dash of our Defenders Metamorphosing Pen Appendix â—â—â— 110. turn'd Raver St. Germain St. Anselme the Devour St. Bernard the Abbot of Celles St. Antonine and St. Bernarâ—â—â—no Horrid Blasphemers And Christs Holy Catholic Church Idolatrous and guilty of Magical Incantations And yet we must remember that he who Writes this is a Scholar and a Christian nay one who Writes nothing but peaceable Expositions with all the Kindness 〈…〉 85. Charity and Moderation imaginable FINIS