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
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
50 of them were of the Arian party that at their first Assembly they refused the Formula of Faith brought by * Socrat lib. 2. c. 29. p. 2â—0 F. Vrsacius and Valens from Sirmium they condemned Arianism and established the Nicene Faith and sent their Decrees to the Emperor desiring a dismission of the Assembly But the Emperor dissatisfied with this constancy would not give any answer to their Legates but ordered the Bishops to stay at Ariminum till his return from an Expedition against the Barbarians Socrat. Ibid. p. 262. F. Sozom. lib. 4. c 18. p 487. at which time he hoped they would concur with him To which they answered that they could not depart from the Sentence they had already pronounced and therefore begged leave again to return before Winter to their Churches to which the Emperor giving no answer Russin Hist lib. 1. c. 21. pag 203. several of them returned by stealth the others kept like prisoners which want of Freedom shewed this later part of the Council not to have been Legitimate at last deluded by the Emperors Agents and the specious pretences of a firm Peace and Union which would follow amongst the Western and Eastern Churches yielded to Subscribe a Form in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not rejected but omitted as being not well understood by the Latins But however this general Form was suspected by the Catholic Bishops and they would not Subscribe to it without some additions to secure the Churches Faith from Arianism and other misconstructions in which Additions they condemned Arius and all his perfidiousness and declared the Son to be Equal to the Father Severus Hist lib. â— Hier. dial adver Lucifer Apud Guide of Controvdise 2 §. 26. n. 5. pag. 117. Sozom. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. C. and without beginning or time and that he was not a Creature and pronounced and Anathema against all those who should offer to say that the son was not Eternal with his Father all which either shew the Son to be Consubstantial to his Father or that they are two Gods which the Arians denyed the Arians having consented to these Additions and the Catholic Faith being now thought secure the Council was dismissed But Valens and his Followers having now got a specious pretext proclaimed abroad that the Council of Ariminum had consented to the Arian Doctrin and condemned the Nicen Faith explicating the Formula to their own sense and pretending that when they said the Son was not a Creature they meant he was not a Creature as other Creatures were c. But the Western Bishops seeing themselves thus cheated by the subtilty of the Arians were highly vexed and protested against it and at this time it was that St. Jerome says the world admired to see it self become Arian all of a suddain not as if it were really so but because the equivocal words were easily turned by the Arians to their own sense and the People deceived by their pretences of a General Council Constantius also the Emperor resolved to make this Formula be Signed by all persons that were not at that Council or that had gone from it without his leave and hence a great Persecution arose and many Bishops amongst which (a) Sozom. lib. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. B. Pope Liberius was one were Banished others cruelly (b) Martyr Rom. Marcel de Schism Vrcis Dumas Apud Mainburg Hist de l' Arianism 1. Partie lib. 4. p. 39 Edit Paris in 4â—0 murdered as Gaudentius Bishop of Ariminum Rufinus and others So that it is plain from what has been here deduced from the best Historians of those times that neither the Pope nor Council nor Western Church condemned the Divinity of Christ Moreover it is to be remarked that St. Athanasius with all thee other Eastern Bishops of his party most of them either Deposed Banished or Persecuted by the Emperor and all these Western Prelates stood up for the defence of the Faith defined in the Council of Nice against the Arians who Innovated and would impose a sense upon Scripture which they had not been taught by their Forefathers but had taken up upon their own Private Judgments So that our Defenders Instance if rightly taken will be very much to his disadvantage and is a convincing proof against his assertion for it is manifest that to Imitate St. Athanasius a person ought to stand to the Definitions of a lawful General Council against all the Private Interpretations and pretended evident convictions of those who oppose it And ought to be so far from preferring his Private Sentiments of the sense of Scripture before the Judgment of the Church that he ought to suffer all manner of Persecutions and even Death it self rather than recede from her approved Faith. ART XXV Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy OUr Defender having layd down such a Principle in the foregoing Article of his Exposition §. 125. as rendred all Chruch-Authority ineffectual Yet as if he had forgot himself in the very next he tells us that he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith as bound thereto by a Subscription to the 39 Articles in the 20th of which that Authority is expressed And to shew us what he means by this just Authority he tells us that they allow such deference to her decisions Expos Church of Engl. p. 80. as to make them their directions what Doctrin they may or may not publickly maintain and teach in her Communion That is I suppose as much as to say they allow an exterior assent as far as Non-contradiction But even thus much is certainly inconsistent with that obligation which our Defender affirms Desence pig 80. particular persons lye under to support and adhere to their own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church if they be but evidently convinced that the Church has erred in her decisions I perceive he was Conscious of this Incongruity and therefore left a hole to creep out at Expos Church of Engl. pag. 81. telling us that they allow whatsoever submission they â—an to the Authority of the Church without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures So that thence it may as well be concluded as from his former Principle that every Private person Tinker Gobler or Weaver having received the Decrees of a General Council in to examin them himself by Scripture before he give his interior Assent and if having summoned together his own Extravagant Notions of the Word of God and its sense he be but evidently convinced as he imagines that the sentence of the Church thwarts the Scriptures he not only may but in our Defenders Principles is obliged to support and adhere to his own seeing as he thinks he cannot allow such a submission to her Authority without violating that of God c. And if so I would gladly ask him what is that just Authority which he tells
us the Church has in matters of Faith and when and whom it binds Object But perhaps it may be here asked What if the Church should Define there is no God no Jesus Christ no Heaven no Hell and I be fully convinced in my own judgment by reading Scripture that there is a God a Jesus Christ a heaven and a Hell would you have me quit the sense of Scripture in these plain Points in which I have evident conviction and follow that of the Church Before I answer I must needs say that I think this Question tho' it be the ground-work of our Defenders foregoing Position and without the supposal of which he can never pretend it to be reasonable yet will perhaps be derided by him when proposed in such plain terms For no man certainly can ever think that the whole Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell are never to prevail can fall into such a Total Defection as to Apostatize and oppose such places of Scripture as are plain to every understanding Moreover The Defender knows very well that the differences betwixt us and them lyes rather on the contrary side and that if the Scripture be plain for either side it is for * See several Books published upon this account as the Anchor of Christian Dodrin the 2d part of the Prudential Ballance Catholic Scripturist c. ours He knows how they have been often invited to shew one positive Text of Scripture against any one of our Tenets without their false glosses to it which make it no Scripture He knows or at least may be easily informed that we have shewn them positive Texts according to the Primitive Fathers interpretations both for our Articles and against their Innovations and the late Request to Protestants to produce plain Texts of Scripture in about 16 of their Tenets and the shufling answer to it are a sufficient Argument that it is unreasonable for them to pretend to it Answer My answer is therefore that the Defender and they who with him suppose the Church can ordain things directly opposite in necessaries either to Faith or Manners even in things clear to every understanding do not consider the notion of a Church nor the Promises that God has given to secure it from such Damnable Errors as must destroy its Essonce So that establishing a False notion without proving it for their ground no wonder if many Absurdities arise from it From which it will appear that a Libertines argument for his Debauches drawn from a supposition that there is no God no Heaven no Hell nor other Life is as conclusive as theirs who suppose the whole Church can or ever shall propose a truth to be believed or an action to be practised which is contrary to the express words of Scripture in places plain to every understanding or contradict Divinely delivered Truths However the Defender tells us that they allow a deference and that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council Expos Ch Engl. p. 81. the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General And that whensoever such an one which he says they much desire shall be freely and lawfully assembled to determin the Differences of the Catholic Church none shall be more ready both to assist in it and submit to it §. 126. The Council of Trent vindicated Upon this account I desired him to consider whether the Council of Trent had not the qualifications of a General and free Council and whether the Four first General Councils were not liable to the same exceptions as were made against the Council of Trent This he calls a new question hookt in and gives an old thread-bare answer to it as if we never had before confuted it 1. His first Exception that it was not General answered He says it was not so General because it was not called by so Great and Just an Authority as those were that is those were called by the Authority of the Emperors and this by the Authority of the Pope But what is there no Authority given to the Church to call her Pastors together in cases of necessity but that it must be the Temporal Power must do it If so then our Defender must condemn the first Council of the Apostles Act. 15. and all the other Councils held till Constantin the first Christian Emperors time But if he dare not do this but answer that the Church had the Priviledge at that time whilst the secular Power was Heathen I ask him how she came to lose it afterwards Did Princes by submitting themselves unto the Church rob their Mother of her just Authority T is true they assisted by interposing their Commands also and so strengthned the obligation of Assembling themselves But will any one say that such an accumalative power in assisting the Church was a depriving her of that Authority Moreover if he cannot deny but the Church had that Authority when the Secular Powers were heathens and enemies to Christianity I hope he will not deny her the same when some part of those Powers are Enemies to the Orthodox Faith for the Church is liable to the same dammages from an Heretical Prince as from an Unbelieving Again the whole practice of the Church is against what our Defender says It is well known Doctor Field of the Church pag. 697. apud Censid on the Council of Trent c. 3. §. 49. and consented to by Protestant Authors that the calling of a Diocesan Synod belongs to the Bishop that of a Provincial to the Metropolitan of a National to the Primate and of a Patriarchal to the Patriarch and why not that of a General to the Prime Patriarch unless he will say that God has taken care to provide for the unity of so many different Patriarchats and established a means to compose the differences that may arise in them but has not taken care of the whole Church Furthermore §. 127. The first 4 General Councils were called by the Pope our Defender is out in pretending that the four first General Councils were called by the Emperors For as to the First if we may believe the 6th Synod Act. 18. and Pope Damasue in Pontific it was called by the consent of Pope Sylvester 't is true Constantine having received Pope Sylvester's order promulgated the convocatory Letters and was at the expences of conducting the Bishops to the Council As to the Second General Council that of Constantinople Concurrer imus Coâ—st intinopolim ad vestre Reverentiâ— lâ—eras missa Ibeodosio suâ—â—ma pietate Inperatori Theodor. Hist lib. 5. c. 9. pag 403. B. Syâ—odum Epâ—esinam â—actam esse Cyrtssi industria Celestini authoritate Prolper in Chronico the Bishops there assembled in their Letters to Pope Damasus and to the Council then met with him at Rome tell him that they had met and assembled themselves at Constantinople according to the Letters he had sent to Theodosius the Emperor
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
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
A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRIN OF THE Church of England Being a Further VINDICATION OF THE Bishop of CONDOM'S Exposition of the Doctrin of the CATHOLIC CHURCH With a second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1687. THE PREFACE THEY who consider seriously the mischief which Heresie and Schism bring along with them §. 1. The mischief of Heresie and Schism not only to the individual persons that are guilty of them but also to the Nations in which they are propagated will certainly commend the endeavors of those Sons of Peace who labor to Establish Truth and Unity and condemn theirs who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other They also who cast an Eye upon the Controversies about Religion which have been agitated in this and the last Age and the miserable Broyls and other worse consequences that have attended them cannot but deplore the unhappy fate of Europe which has for so long time been the Seat of this Religious War. And they who will but impartially consider matters will find Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace that Catholics have upon all occasions sought the most advantagious means to procure this Christian Peace tho' to their grief they have still been hindred from effecting this good work by the ignorance of some and the malice or self-interest of others The Defender tells us in the beginning of his Preface that several Methods have been made use of in our Neighboring Nation to reduce the pretended Reformed to the Catholic Communion but that this of the Bishop of Meaux was looked upon as exceeding all others in order to that end This shews indeed the great Zeal those persons bad for the Salvation of their Brethren And tho' the Defender is pleased to call those excellent Discourses of the Perpetuity of the Faith and the Just Prejudices against Calvinists and M. Maimbourg's peaceable Method c. Sophistical and to represent M. de Meaux's Exposition as either palliating or perverting the Doctrin of his Church Yet seeing he only asserts the former without going about to prove it and has been so unsuccesful in the later charge as I shall fully shew in the following Treatise I hope the judicious Reader will suspend his Judgment till he has examined things himself and not take all for Gospel that is said with confidence He tells us also that the Great design of these several Methods Pag 4. has been to prevent the Entring upon particular Disputes And pretends it was because Experience had taught us that such particular Disputes had been the least favorable to us of any of them But the Truth is §. 2. We neither decline particulars nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons We Appeal to Scripture we have never declined fighting with them at any Weapon nor refused upon occasion to enter upon each particular neither need we go to France for Instances we have enough at home Some even amongst the first pretended Reformers appealed to Scripture only neither would they admit of Primitive Fathers nor Councils and tho' these very persons who were for nothing but what was found in Scripture were convinced by the following Sects that their Reformation was defective if Scripture alone was to be the Rule of Reformation every Year almost since the first Revolt producing some new Reform of all those that had gone before And tho' Catholics might justly decline to argue from Scripture only till Protestants had proved it to be the Word of God by some of their own Principles yet were they not afraid to joyn Issue with them all even in the Point of Scriptures clearness for our Doctrins abstracting from the Primitive Fathers and Councils And thereupon besides several Catechisms the Catholic Scripturist and other excellent Books two Treatises were published here in England and never that I heard of Answered The first An Anchor of Christian Doctrin wherein the principal Points of Catholic Religion are proved by the only Written Word of God. in 4 Volums in 4o. Anno 1622. The other A Conference of the Catholic and Protestant Doctrin with the express words of Scripture being a second part of the Catholic Ballance Anno 1631. 4o. in which was shewn that in more than 260 Points of Controversie Catholics agree with the Holy Scripture both in words and Sense and Protestants disagree in both Other Protestants perceiving they could not maintain several Tenets and Practices of their own by the bare words of Scripture § 3. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages and despairing of Fathers and Councils of later Ages pretended at least to admit the first four General Councils and the Fathers of the first three or four hundred Years But how meer a pretence this was appeared by the many Books Written abroad upon that Subject as Coccius his Thesaurus Gualterus his Chronology and others and at home Dr. Pierce found it too hard a task to make a reply to Dean Crecy 's Answer to his Court Sermon and the present nibling at the Nubes Testium shew how hard a task they find it to elude their plain expressions A third sort of Protestants ventured to name Tradition as an useful means to arrive at the True Faith §. 4. To an uninterrupted Tradition but many excellent Treatises have shewn that no other Doctrins will bide that Test but such as are taught by the Catholic Church For Novelty which is a distinctive mark of Error appearing in the very Name of Reformation an uninterrupted Tradition can never be laid claim to by them who pretend to be Reformers And indeed the exceptions which they usually make and the General Cry against Fathers Councils and Tradition shew how little they dare rely upon them Nay there has not been any thing like an Argument produced against our Faith or to justifie their Schism but what has been abundantly Answered and refuted and yet the same Sophisms are returned upon us as Current Coyn notwithstanding they have been often brought to the Test and could not stand it Moreover Catholics have so far complyed with the infirmities of their Adversaries that they have left no Stone unturned to reduce them to Unity of Faith and that by meekness as well as powerful reasonings They have not only condescended to satisfie the curiosity of them who have most leisure by Writing large Volums upon every particular Controversie proving what they hold by Scripture Councils Fathers Reason and all other pressing Arguments but because most persons cannot get time to peruse such vast Treatises they have gon a shorter way to work and some have manifested the Truth of our Doctrin from the unerrable Authority of the Church of Christ against which he had promised that the Gates of
Exercises Taught and Practised by St. Augustin §. 8. This same Faith was delivered by continual Succession till in these later days it was weakned by H. the 8ths Schism were propagated down even till King Henry the 8ths time whose Lust and Rapines as they were insatiable so were the Actions which he did in order to the fulfilling of them unparallelled Every one who has Read any thing of our Histories knows that his first breach with Rome was because his Holiness would not allow him to separate from his Lawful Wife Queen Catharine that he might Marry Ann Daughter of Sir Tho. Bullen and that having once caused this Schism Millia dena unus Templorum destruit annâ—s he propagated it by Sacrilege pulling down Religious Houses turning the Inhabitants to the wide World giving their Lands and Revenues to Parliament-men and Courtiers by which rewards he gained their consent to what he designed It is sufficiently known also that he approved not of the new Doctrin that was brought in by Luther during his Reign neither would he permit such a pretended Reformation so that the whole contest during that time was only about the Supremacy of St. Peters See. But as Schism is most commonly followed with Heresie so in King Edward the 6ths time Edward the 6th the Protector who was tainted with Zwinglianism a Reform from Luther endeavored to set it up here in England and from that time the Catholic Doctrin which had been taught by our first Apostles and propagated till then begun to be rejected and accused as Erroneous Superstitious and Idolatrous and they who Professed it Persecuted But this Kings Reign being but short Queen Mary Catholic Religion begun again to bud forth under Queen Mary but that Bud being early nipped by her Death Queen Elizabeth by the advice of the new Council which she chose Queen Elizabeth and to secure her self in the Throne resolved to destroy the Catholic Interest and set up a Prelatic Protestancy which might have the face of a Church but other pretended Reformers opposed her Prelates and called their Orders Anti-christian and would needs have the Rags and Remnants of Popery as they called 'em taken away telling them that if the Word of God was to be the sole Rule of Reformation such things as were not to be found in that Rule were certainly to be rejected From that time this Nation has been variously agitated with Disputes The first pretended Reformers accused the Catholic Church with all bitterness imaginable and tho' they could not agree amongst themselves yet they set up unanimously their Crys against the Catholic Church as if she had been the Common Enemy and they were looked upon to be the best Subjects that could bring the most plausible Arguments against her Doctrins or move the Common People most to reject her Practices During this time the Pope was accused as Anti-christ the Church of Rome as the Whore of Babylon neither was there any thing committed by the Heathens worthy reprehension that was not laid to the charge of the Catholic Church so furious was their rage against the Truth But things growing calmer in King James They were more calm in K. K. Ch. the firsts time and King Charles the firsts time such Calumnies and Accusations were looked upon by the more Learned party as the effects of Passion and Moderation taught them to acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Mother Church that Salvation was to be had in her that many of those accusations which were brought against her were but the Dreams of distracted Brains and the more moderate persons begun to look upon her with a more favorable Eye but still the aversion which the Vulgar and less knowing People had imbibed from so long continued Slanders could not be taken away and the arising Factions in the State blew up the Coals afresh and pretended this Moderation was nothing but an inclination to Popery which so frighted the Mobile that they were ready to joyn with any party that pretended to suppress such a Monster as they thought it to be from hence came Rebellions and the horrid Murder of King Charles the first After which the Prelatic Party here in England were as much run down as the Catholic and underwent a common Banishment during which they entertained a fair Correspondence the Protestant finding by Experience that Catholics were Loyal Subjects conscientious Dealers and constant Friends This fair Correspondence abroad was the cause of a no less pleasing Union after the happy Restauration of King Charles the second King Charles the second during the beginning of whose Reign Catholics were not otherwise much molested by the Governing party but only kept out of Employments till Shaftsbury and his Adherents invented a malitious Calumny laying a pretended Plot to their charge by which they put the Nation into such a Flame that Papists were become the most odious People in the World and Popery the greatest Crime But the Truth of this Sham-Plot being detected by a subsequent real one the Innocent sufferings of Catholics raised Compassion in the more moderate Church of England Men and they seemed to be willing they who had suffered so unjustly should enjoy something a greater liberty but still the Laws enacted against them being in force there were persons enough ready to put them in Execution In this posture were Affairs King James the second when it pleased God to take to himself his late Majesty No sooner was his present Majesty Ascended upon the Throne but he declared himself a Catholic to the unspeakable joy of the Catholic Church and grief of others who did not stick to affirm that they saw nothing wanting in his Majesty fitting for a King but only as they thought a better Religion At his coming to the Crown his Majesty was pleased to declare that he looked upon the Church of England as proceeding upon Loyal Principles and that he would protect her this as it might well gained the hearts of that party who little expected such a gratious Declaration from one whom they had always looked upon as a Member of the Catholic Church whose Principles they had been taught were too cruel to make use of such Lenitives and this being again Repeated at the opening of the first Parliament had so much Power upon the minds of the Loyal party that notwithstanding the conclusion of a Sermon Preached before them Dr. Sherlocs Sermon May 29. 1685. in which it was declared that an English-man might be Loyal but not a Papist that Parliament testified it's Loyalty to such a Degree as will never be forgotten and would I am confident have proceeded in the same manner had not some factious Spirits animated the Pulpits Zeal and thrown fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were bigotted in their Religion Indeed this Sermon to the House of Commons was the occasion of our following Controversies §. 9. The rise of
with such Idolatry We find indeed that their Twenty second Article tells us that the Invocation of Saints is one of those Practices which are fond things vainly invented c. but it proceeds not so far as to call it Idolatrous And if the Book of Homilies to which he flies upon other occasions when he is prest to shew the Doctrin of his Church be more severe he is little versed in his own Doctrins if he be ignorant that several Eminent Divines of his own Church do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick Dogmatical Doctrin of the Church of England Bishop Montague Dr. Heylin Mr. Thorndike tho' they be all obliged to subscribe to it as containing a wholesome Doctrin I wish then there be not something more in the bottom of this than what appears at first sight Dr. Heylin tells us §. 2. The charge of Idolatry begun in Queen Eliz. time that when Queen Elizabeth beheld the Pope as her greatest Enemy in reference to her Mothers Marriage her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England Books were filled with bitter Revilings against the Church of Rome and all the Divine Offices Ceremonies and performances of it Cyprian Angl. pag. 342. 2d Edit but that in the next Ages the dangerous consequences of the Charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome began to be more calmly and maturely considered Rejected in King Charles the first 's time in so much that Arch-bishop Laud thought it necessary to endeavor with diligence to hinder the reprinting of those Books And what must the same Apprehensions be now again raised in the Peoples minds Must the Pope pass now for our greatest Enemy And must the common People be taught to hate Papists worse than Jews and Mahumetans Renewed at present to make us odious that the Pulpits ring again with such horrid accusations and every Book tho' pretending moderation brings now the charge of Idolatry along with it If this Author had not this design for I dare not accuse him of being a leading Man he might at least have foreseen the ill consequences which would follow in the Nation and for which I fear He and Those that set him on will one day answer before the Tribunal of the God of Peace and Unity But he thinks himself clear at least of Calumny Defence pa. 2. if he can shew that our Authors allow all that he has charged us with Calumny Not too fast I must in this also beg his pardon The consequence do's not follow that because some particular Members of the Church of Rome may have taught such Doctrins therefore the Church is guilty of them He has been often told and that according to all reason that we have nothing to do here with the Doctrin of the Schools that he must take our Doctrins from the Councils which contain the Public Authentic and Vniversally received Definitions and Decisions of the Church otherwise he touches not the necessary terms of Communion Des Pref. p. 19. But tho' he acknowledges this to be my Catholic Distinction yet he takes little or no notice of it throughout his whole Book but flies still to particular Authors to maintain his charge But what if our Authors allow not those things which he charges them with will he then acknowledge himself guilty of Calumny If he cannot bring any of our Authors that say Divine Worship is to be given to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed unless their expressions be miserably distorted or any persons that do practice it if our Missals and Pontificals do not command us to adore the Cross taking the word Adoration in that strict Sense and if I shew him in the following Articles that he mistakes the Doctrin of the Council of Trent about the Sacrisice of the Mass and the Churches Tenet about Merit I hope he will be so ingenuous as to confess that we deserve not so ill a Character and if he be so sensible of the account which must be given for idle words Close pag. 86. I hope he will likewise consult the Salvation of his Soul and repent and make satisfaction for those which are injurious to the reputation of a Church to which if he be what he professes he must acknowledg he owes some obligations as to a Mother But I charged him also with Vnsincerity in stating the Question betwixt Catholics and Protestants Unsincerity and this also touches his reputation I must confess I would willingly be tender of it but where so great a concern as the reputation of an Innocent Church is joyned with his single Honor I think I may be excused if I let the dirt fall where it ought when by wiping it off from one it must necessarily stick upon the other That which I condemned in his stating of the Question was §. 3. Catholics affirm that Protestants hold not all Fundamentals that he represented us as allowing them to hold the Antient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith. I told him that we do not allow that Proposition especially if he mean all Fundamentals Pag. 24. and that tho' the Bishop of Meaux has a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Protestants grant that Catholics hold all Fundamentals yet it do's not from thence follow that Catholics reciprocally grant them also to hold the same And what I pray is his answer to this That whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daille's Concessions Defence pa. 4. as to this Point will find it clear enough that he did if the Foundation consist of Fundamental Articles But really I have again and again considered what Monsieur de Meaux says in that Section and can find no such thing in it but that his is only Argumentum ad hominem M. de Meaux sense perverted by the Defender an Argument drawn from the Concessions of Monsieur Daillé and from what is manifest to every one viz. That we believe all those Articles which Protestants call Fundamental But he neither says nor insinuates Expos Sect. 2. pag. 3. nor so much as shews it to be his Opinion that the Protestants hold all those Articles which Catholics call Fundamental But he who can find That in the Bishops Argument The Vindicators sense perverted by the Defender Def. pag. 5. can find also that I my self confess that the Articles which we hold and they contradict do by evident and undoubted consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental I know not with what Spectacles he Reads but I think any judicious Reader will grant that I never said any such thing 'T is true I tell him Vindic. pa. 23. that were the Doctrins and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrins and
ex eisdem aut percipimus aut in futurum expectamus Sparows Canons pag. 282. that the Holy Ghost did by the Mouths of the Apostles so far Honor the Name of the Cross so odious to the Jews that under it they did not only comprehend Christ himself Crucified but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion with all the comforts fruits and promises which we receive or expect thereby But if by we and us he only mean himself and desire me to oblige him so much as to inform him what Figure that is which makes the Cross signify Christ I must send him to the aforesaid Canon which I suppose he understood when he entred into the Ministry of the Church of England tho' he has now forgot it Neither let him say that he calls for a Figure which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross for he will not find our Hymns any more guilty of that than the expressions of St. Paul before mentioned in which he will find the foregoing nay in some of them the accompanying words distinguishing Christ from the Cross and yet according to his own thirtieth Canon the Holy Ghost under the word Cross did comprehend not only Christ crucisied but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion c. But to examin more particularly this Hymn which he instances He formerly bogled only at the Stroph O crux ave spes unica Exposit pag. 14. Hail O Cross our only hope c. In which as I then told him it is manifest the Church makes her addresses to the Cross with Christ that is to Christ Crucified upon the Cross Christ our only Hope as the words spes unica sufficiently demonstrate for he will not have us certainly to have two only Hopes neither will others surely whatsoever he does think us so silly as to make a formal Prayer to an insensible thing But in vindication of himself he brings St. Thomas acknowledging the worship of Latria due to the Cross and proving it as he says from this Hymn to which I have already answered and shall not here repeat it again and picks out at pleasure three other Strophs of that Hymn in which as he says the Cross is distinguished from Christ What if it be in those three Stanza's does it necessarily follow that it is so in this too For my part I see no such consequence And must certainly conclude that if the Apostles did by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost comprehend Christ and all the benefit of his Passion under the word Cross the Church which is also taught by the same Holy Spirit ought not to be censured for the same Of Reliques AS for Reliques §. 27. we are called here to a Verbal Disputation And because Veneration Worship and Adoration are frequently confounded in our Authors he endeavors from several of them to justifie his Translating of the Word Venerari in the Conncil of Trent by Worship in his Exposition I do not love to prolong Disputes and therefore shall readily give him leave to use the word Worship upon condition that he take it in the sense of those Authors who understand no more than an Honor or Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Remains of those Saints who were once the Temples of the living God and not a Worship or Adoration taken in its strict sense Only I must tell him that we do not seek to those Sacred Monuments for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance No Prayers to Reliques or Monuments as he very falsly insinuated from the Council and now to justify himself makes use of as great a piece of Scholarship as can well be paralleld I told him That the Words of the Council were That they who affirm that no â—â—â—eration or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or that those Reliques and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably Honored by the Faithful or that they the Faithful do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints to the end they may obtain their aid the aid of the Saints EORVM are wholly to be condemned as the Church does now and has formerly condemned them But alas it seems I did not understand the Latin or else I had a mind to Cavil for he tels his Reader my Citation of the words of the Council was only a Trick to deceive those who understood it only in my Translation that I transposed the Latin on purpose to raise a Dust to deceive the Reader the true Order being plainly as he before rendred it so that they who shall affirm That no Worship or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or That these and the like Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honored and that for the obtaining of their Help the Help of those Sacred Monuments A false Tranâ—ation EORVM the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented are to be condemned Certainly this was a great Crime and my throwing the false Translation upon him one of the reasons I suppose why he gave me that pious Admonition Presace pag. xvi Intreating me by the common name of Christian and those hopes of Eternity after which he believes we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend to consider how deagerous this way I have taken is what mischiesi it will bring in the Opinion of all good Men of what soever perswasion they be to the very cause that is maintained by such Means In a word what a sad parchase it will prove in the end if to lessen the reputation of an unknown obscure Adversary I should do that which shall lose me my own Soul. But really I must desire this Gentleman to cast once more his Eye upon the Latin and see whether of us two have rendred it right in English For my own part in his own words I thank God my Religion needs not such Defences Ibid. nor would I ever have used those means to assert it if it did I was always taught that no evil was to be done tho' for a good end nor was I ever brought up in any Schools that esteemed the Interest of the Church so Sacred as to be able to sanctify the worst of Means that can be made use of to promote it I have indeed heard some Roman Catholics accused as if they taught such Doctrins but I always found the Galumny stand at the Accusers Doors whose Art was only to cry Whore first And as for the Defender I hope if he be convinced he has done me and the Council of Trent I may say also the Catholic Church an Injury in this he will perform his Promise and think himself indispensably obliged to make a public Acknowledgment of it and thank the Vindicator that has called him to so necessary a Duty I appeal then to any Jury of Scholars in the World Whether when I Translated these words Ita ut affirmantes EORVM opis impetranda causâ memorias
they now adventure to say that were things clearly stated and distinguished one from another the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very grew a and that they can safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be will and rightly explained And he has advanced nothing but what is the Doctrin of the Council of Tront The Expositor and I were agreed in most things §. 30 Sanctification and Justification only I told him I thought he would be hard put to it to prove the Distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification to be the Doctrin of the Church of England and that he imposed upon us when he affirmed us so to make our Inward Righteousness a part of Justification that by Consequence we said our Justification it self is wrought by out good Works To the first It appears indeed he is hard put to it when he is forced to a Deduction how clear let others judge from their 11th and 12th Articles and from the Homily of Salvation which as he cites it calls the forgiveness of sins Justification but does not say that Justification is only the Remission of our sins which was his undertaking But had I told him of the little less than contradictions he fell under in that place he would have seen the difficulty of getting clear For having told us before that they confess with M. de Meaux Expos pag. 19. that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed but actually Communicated to the Faithful He here tels us Pag. 20. They believe their sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us Nay tho' he tell us their Church by Justification understands only the Remission of sins Contradictions and by Sanctification the Production of the habit of Righteousness in us yet within two lines he tells us that this Remission of sin is only given to those that Repent and that they who Repent are those in whom the Hoty Ghost produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and holiness of Life which is just as much as to say we distinguish Justification and Sanctification But no man can be Justifiel unless he be also Sanctified That our sins are Pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us but that his Merits are not only imputed but actudlly Communieated to us He will oblige us if he please to tell us how these agree as also how the Doctrin of their 11th Article We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour J. Christ by Faith and not for our own works and deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a wholesomt Doctâ—in and very full of comfost Art. 11. Sparrows Canons pag. 95. that we are Justified by Faith only is consistent with what he tells us pag. 19 of his Exposition that none of those things which precede our Justification whether our Faith or our Good works could Merit this Grace And what he summs up pag. 21. That Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commandments from time to time and if we persevere in this Cavenant Crowns us finally with Eternal Life Thus far he But Is awaking and answering to his Call is persevering in his Covenant no good works And if these be necessary to have God freely Justifie us and Grown us with Eternal Life how are we I pray Justified by Faith only As for the other part in which I told him §. 31. he imposed upon â—s as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of our Justification and so by consequence said that our Justification it self is wrought also by our Good works A false Imposition Doth he think that I told him he imposed upon us when he affirmed that we comprehend under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the Production of that inherent Righteousness which they call Sanctification No the Imposition did notilie in that part of the Proposition Our justification is gratis Gratis autem justificari ideo dicamur Quia nihileorum quae justificationem praeccdunt sive fides sive opera ipsam Justi ficationis gratiam promeretur Si enim Graâ—ia est jam non ex operibus Alioquin ut idem Apostolus inqun Gratia jam non est Gratia. Conc. Trid. Sess 6. de Justif cap. 8. but in the consequence which he drew viz. That we say our Justification is wrought also by our Good works This was the Imposition and if he had remembred what he had Copied out of the Bishops Exposition and the Bishop from the Council he would not have gone about to justifie his Accusation For the words are these We believe with him the Bishop of Meaux That our Sins are â—eely for given by Gods Mercy through Christ and that none of those things which precede Iustification whether our Faith or our good works could merit this Grace to which very words the Council of Trent adds this reason for if it Justification be a Grace it prâ—ceeds not from Good Works for other wise as the same Apostle says Grace would be nom no more Grace Well how do's he justifie his Imposition By a Canon of the Council forsooth which has not one word in it to his purpose but it seems he either did not understand it or else had a mind so to blunder it in his Translation that they who understood not the Latin might take it for granted to speak his Sense And by I know not what negligence of the Corrector fuerit was Printed instead of fiunt so that even those who did understand the Language could not find out the Error without consulting the Council it self The Council speaks of persons already Justified Si quiâ— dixerit konsinis justificati boma opers ita esse dexa Dei ut non sint etiam bona ipsim Justisicati merita aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei Gratiam Jesu Christi meritum cujus vivum membrum est fiunt non verè mereri augmentum Gratiae vitam aeternam iâ—siut vitae aeternae si tamen in gratia decesserit consecutioâ—em atque etiam Glorie augmentum Anathema sis and tells you that their good works performed through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Members they are do truly Merit Increase of Grace and Eternal Life and that they are not so the gifts of God but that they are also the
good Merits of the same Justified person But how do's all this prove that the good works of a person who is not Justified Merit his first Justification There 's the Point We say indeed that it is necessary the free Will should co-operate with the Grace of God and that a person should be disposed by convenient preparations to receive that Grace but still we say it is a Grace which is given us Gratis and as I said before from the Council which neither Faith nor good works which precede Justification could Merit for us His Translation is amiss in this A false Translation that he renders these words Aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus c. Thus Or that he being Justified by good works do's not truly Merit increase of Grace c. As if he were Justified by his good Works Whereas the Sense is manifestly this Or whoever shall say that he who is Justified do's not by his good works which are performed by him through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Member he is truly Merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life let him be Anathema That this was the Sense of that Canon he seems to have understood when in the next Page he expresses it thus that our Doctrin of Merits in that Canon is That Man being Justified by the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ do's then truly Meru both encrease of Grace and Eternal Life So that it appears manifestly tho' he would disguise it that we do not say our Works done out of the state of Grace are meritorious of Grace or Salvation But we say that those good works which are done in the state of Grace do Merit an increase of Grace and if they be persever'd in to the last the reward of Glory If he deny this let him speak plain but let him take care how he thwarts the many express Texts of Scripture which prove our Doctrin ART VI. Of Merits I Told him upon this Article that the Niceties of the Schools §. 32. Vindic. pag. 48. Scholastic Niceties to be avoided as they make no Division in the Church so ought they not to make any amongst Christians But yet for all this our Defender must have recourse to them for want of better hold The Opinions of Bellarmin Vasquez Scotus c. must be brought again and their words quoted in the Margent as if the whole stress of the cause lay there But would he have considered what he was forced to acknowledge that Bellarmin is against Scotus Vasquez against Bellarmin c. and have reflected that all of them were Catholics united in the Principles of one Faith tho' dissenting in these School Questions I say would he but have considered these things he would have saved himself a great deal of pains and his Readers much trouble But he says he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our Greatest Men whose names were neither less nor less deservedly celebrated in their Generations than M. de Meaux 's or the Vindicators forsooth can be now No doubt those persons Names were and are deservedly Celebrated in Generationibus suis and whatever proportion the Bishop of Meaux may Challenge in the esteem of the World amongst these Celebrated Writers the Vindicator defires only to rest in his obscurity But to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our greatest Men is what may pass in Discourse or from the Pulpit where no body contradicts him but should not have been exposed to view in Print because it will not abide the Tryal I never heard that these persons writ direct Expositions upon the Council it self tho' they make use of it for the establishment of their private opinions And to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools when he had recourse to Merit de Condigno and the various opinions of Catholic Divines upon that Question is such a piece of Boldness Bellarmin having summed up the three opinions the Defender mentioned and rejected the first and third tho' he affirmed them to be far from Heresie says he looks upon the middle Sentence to be the more probable Nobis media sententia probabiltor esse videtur de Justif lib v. c. 17. A. pa. 1122. The very Titles also of the Chapters cited by the Desender shew that what Vasquez there disputes of is only a Scholastic Question In operibus justerum non esse meritum simpliciter aut condignum vitae aeternae nonnulli Scholastici docuerunt Vasquez Quaest 114. disp 213. cap. 3. Tit. See also the Titles of the 1 2 3 and 4. Chapters of his next Disputation that cannot pass the honest Readers censure What I have already observed of the various opinions of Catholic Divines summed up by those Authors he mentions in the respective Chapters is a sufficient proof of what I say and I shall not trouble my Readers with any other But the Council of Trent has he says spoken so uncertainly in this point § 33. as plainly shews either they did not know themselves what they would establish or were unwilling that others should How great pity it is so learned and sincere a Censor as this Defender is lived not in that Age or assisted not at that very Council What is it they did not know Was it the Doctrin of the Church concerning Merits Or was it the Doctrin of the Schools Neither the one nor the other But this he may say and that truly that they were not willing to enter into the particular disputes of the Schools nor to mix uncertainties tho' of the highest probability with what they had been always taught to be of Faith No wonder therefore if they speak not so positively in those differences he proposes seeing they are not Doctrins of the Church but the opinions of our Schools I say therefore to him that if he like not Vasquez nor the Cardinals opinion pray let him follow that of Scotus and he will be still a Catholic as to that point But Maldonate comes in The Defender says my Exception against his false Quotation is Impertinent Why so good Sir To tell you A mutilation that you mutilate Sentences at pleasure and give us what you please for the Sense of our Authors His words were We do as properly and truly when we do well together with the Grace of God Merit areward as we do Merit punishment when we do ill without it And is it Impertinent to tell you you read the Author in hast or copied the words from some other which made you leave out those words together with the Grace of God Yes says he It is impertinent as to them who dispute not the Principle but the Merit of Good Works Pray who ever maintained that Good Works had any Merit or were acceptable unless joyned with the Principle the Grace of God And if you will not take the Principle
together with the Action which is therefore Meritorious because joyned with that Principle you dispute not against us no more than they would do who to deny the power of Water in Baptism to wash away Original Sin should speak nothing of the Power of God annexed to the Sacrament or tell us it is impertinent to mention it c. St. Paul said Omnia possum in co qui me confortat that he could do all in him that strengthened him he tells us that he labored more than all the rest but yet not he but the Grace of God with him Jam non ego sed Gratia Dei mecum Nay The Churches Doctrin our Blessed Saviour tells us that we can do nothing without him sine me nihil potestis facere Will any one say Cum enim ille ipse Christus Jesus tanquam caput in membra tanquam vitis in palmites in ipsos Justificatos jugiter virtutem influat quae virtus bona corum opera somper antecedit comitatur subsequitur sine qua nuto paâ—â—o grata meriteria esse possent Nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est quo minus plene illis quidem operibus quae in Deo sunt facta Divinae legi pro hujus vitae statu satisfecisse vitam aeternam suo etiam tempora si lamen in gratia decesserint consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur Cum Christus Salvator noster aicat si 〈◊〉 biberit ex aqua quam ego dabo ti non sities in aternum sed fiet in eâ— sons aquae salientis invitem 〈◊〉 Conâ— Trid. sess 6. de Justif cap. 16. that St. Paul did nothing all this time because if he had not had that Divine Assistance he could not have done it Or would it have been impertinent to keep such Disputants to the words of the Text They who would see our Doctrin upon this Point need but look into the Council of Trent where notwithstanding all the Obscurity he pretends they will find it clearly expressed that we only therefore think the Good Works of Justified persons to be Meritorious and Acceptable to God because being performed in the Grace of Jesus Christ who at all times showers down a Powerful Influence upon Justified persons as the Head upon the Members and as the Vine into it's Branches which Powerful Influence preceeds accompanies and follows all their actions they want nothing to make them truly Meritorious seeing our Lord himself has told us that if any one drink of the Water that he will give him he shall not thirst for ever but it shall be in him a Fountain of Water springing into Eternal Life ART VII SECT 1. Of Satisfactions AFter having given so full an Account of the Doctrin of the Council of Trent §. 34. Defence p. 32. from the Council it self in my Vindication I little thought any one would have charged me and Monsieur de Meaux with going contrary to the Council without any further proof of the Accusation but a bare citation in the Margent of the very Chapter I had almost entirely rendred into English and the Canon expressing that same Doctrin He would have done well to have shewn in what place the Council ascribes to our Endeavors quatenus ours atrue and proper Satisfaction This would have been indeed proper to his Business But to fly again to Bellarmin and Vasquez and bring them in as affirming us to make a proper Satisfaction for our sins and that in such Disputes as they themselves only call probable avails little Had he shewn us that any Council of the Church nay I may boldly say any approved Divine had said No Satisfaction without the Grace of God and Merits of Christ That Man of his own self without the Grace of God accompanying his actions and without being justified first by Gods free Mercy and Goodness can properly satisfie for his Sins he would have had reason to condemn such Doctrin But when I have shewn him how the Council says expresly Thu Satisfaction which we make for our Sins is not so ours that it is not Jesus Christs for we who of our selves can do nothing can do all things with him who serengthens us c. And he himself having taken notice in the Margent how those Authors whom he cites mention those Works only to be Satisfactory which are done after the guilt of sin is remitted and the Sinner justified and received into Favor and that the Works which are Satisfactory must be done also together with the Grace of God methinks hè might have spared his pains in this point But perhaps he will tell me he disputes not the Principle but the Value c. as he told me in his last Article If so I must again tell him if he separate the Principle from the Action he Disputes not against us but his own Chimera's As for his first Quotation from Bellarmin I wonder how he would have had me to seek for it He cites Bellarmin as affirming That it is we who properly satisfy for our sins and that Christ's Satisfaâ—tioâ— serves only to make ours Valid Whereas the words he cites from Bellarmin are very different for answening an Objection that if Christs Satis faction be applyed to us by our Works either there are two Satisfactions joyned or but one c. He says first with some Divines there is but one Sitisfaction and that Christs and that we do not properly satisfy 2. With others that there are two Satisfactions but one depending on the other But the third says he videtur PKOB ASILIOR seems more PROBABLE that there is only one actual Satisfactian and that ours neither is Christ or his Satasfaction excluded by this for by his Saisfactian we have the Grace by which we sathfy And after this manner it is that Christs satisfaction is said to be applied to us not that his Sactification does immediately take away the temporal pain which is due to us but mediately that is in as much as from is we receive Grace without which our Satisfaction would have no value How does this third Answer agree with our Defenders Proposition when he grants there was an Error in the Press And I doubt not but all those who read his English and compare it with the Latin he now cites in the Margent will excuse me that I did not find it for really he must be a more skilful Man in Languages than I that can find that Position as he words it in the place he cites It would have been more ingenuous to have given us the words of the Author at length than by such a turn as he has done to make the Proposition as it lies neither Bellarmin's Sense nor tenable I know the Doctrin of Satisfactions §. 35. was not the sole pretence of their Separation tho' it was represented as one of the most necessary But if it be proved that this alone was so far from being a sufficient
ground that it was no ground at all and so of all other particulars we must conclude that all of them put together could give no just cause for such a Rent or Rebellion in the Church I told him that he ought to have given us some better Reason for his Assertion that whenever God remits the Crime he remits the Punishment than we think so or we are perswaded especially seeing this Doctrin is of such concern that it gives more to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon us Protestants grant more efficacy to a Lord have Mercy upon us than Catholics to a Plenary Indulgence than all the Plenary Indulgences of the Catholic Church But this I perceive puts him on the Fret and therefore he calls it a shameful Calumny and tells me he is confident I did not believe it my self Pray Good Sir Is it not your Position That when ever God forgives the Guilt be forgives the Punishment Is it not your Tenet also that God is ready to forgive the Guilt whenever a Sinner truly repents Tell me then suppose a Great Sinner is so suddenly taken out of the World that tho' he was truly forry for his Sine yet had only time to express his Sorrow by a bare Lord have mercy upon me Will you say such a Man cannot reap the Benefits of God Almighties Favor or have the guilt of his Sin forgiven him If you dare not say this tell me your opinion Whether does he go If you say To Heaven straight I say you give more to a bare Lord have mercy upon me than we do to a Plenary Indulgence for a Plenary Indulgence remits the Penalty due to Sin only upon Account of some other Satisfactions in the Churches style But you will it may be tell me this is not a bare Lord have mercy upon me but is as I now suppose accompanied with a sorrow for his Sin. I grant it and so must the Person who gains the Indulgence be not only sorry for his sins but confess them resolve to amend them quit the Occasions and make some other Satisfactions not only to the Persons whom he has injured but to God by Prayers Almes-deeds or Fasting In the last place §. 36. he finds fault with my Remark upon his Reflection upon the Bishop of Meaux for bringing only we suppose to establish this Doctrin when yet very often he did no more himself A Falsification But he takes no notice that I told him he had falsified M. de Meaux in that very expression for his words were we believe nous croyons which words were conformable to his design of an Exposition not of a proof However he tels me he belleves I can hardly find any one Instance where that is the only Argument he brings for their Doctrin In answer to which I dare confidently affirm that strip him of the Calumnies Misrepresentations of our Doctrin and Falsifications he has scarce an Argument in his Book of greater force than his we suppose And to shew he thinks it to be strong he lays a stress upon it in this place and tell us that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient not to receive our Innovations till we can bring them some better Arguments to prove they ought to quit their Supposition Nay he puts us upon the proof and pretends that they cannot find any Footsteps of our Doctrins in Scripture or Antiquity and has good reason by the weakness of our attempts to believe there are not any Certainly the Defender is not so ignorant in Controversy nor so little read in Polemic Divines as he here shews himself to be What! do our Authors never shew him any footsteps of our Doctrins in Scriptures or in Antiquity Are our attempts to prove our Doctrin so feeble that People have reason to think a mere Supposition will ruine our Foundations No no! the Defender certainly did not believe himself when he writ this tho' he was willing others should believe him Have we not besides our bringing the Authority of the Universal Church besides the lasting possession which we enjoy besides the Express Definitions of Councils acknowledged to be General not only by all the Bishops in England before the Reformation but by all Christendom besides the express Sentences of the Fathers in all Ages We are in a well grounded possession and therefore are not to quit it for bare Suppositions have we not I say besides all these Proofs offered also the plain Texts of Scripture and Challenged Protestants to shew so much as one positive Text for their Negative belief so much as one Father unless wrested contrary to his intention on their side or so much as one Council for any of those Points in which they differ from us And would it not be a folly for any one to quit a possession grounded upon such Proofs for a bare we suppose the Contrary They who doubt of what I say would do well to read our Books and compare the Arguments of our Authors and see whether Scripture or Antiquity will shew the footsteps of our Doctrin or of theirs And as for Antiquity if they will not believe us let them believe their own Protestant Authors who are so little confident of the Fathers being on their side that they accuse them of Errors not only in the Point of Satisfactions but in almost all the Points in Controversy as has been sully shewn by Brereley in his Protestant Apology First Part and by several others And as for Scripture amongst many others let them read the Anchor of Christian Doctrin and the Catholic Scripturist ART VIII SECT 2. Of Indulgences WHat I said before I say again That if any abuses §. 37. Councils have redressed the abuses in them either by negligence of Pastors or Covetousness of inferior Officers have been Practised in Promulging Indulgences our Councils not only desiring that they may be redressed but having made such severe and wholsom Laws in order to it I wonder persons should from thence take occasion to quarrel with us I say also Trident. Sess 2â— Decreto de Indulg that I will not undertake to defend Practices which are neither necessarily nor Universally received as of Faith. We defend not practices which are neither necessarily nor universally received But then the Defender asks me Whether it be not necessarily nor universally received to believe that Indulgences satisfie for the Temporal pain of Sin If he speak of pains due in the Court of God I must with Veron in his Rule of Faith Chap. xvi tell him That it is no Article of our Faith no Council has ever Defined it and several approved Divines deny it and have not been censured for it All that we are obliged to believe §. 38. Our necessary Tenets Profâ—ff of Faith. is that the power of Indulgences has been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ and that the use of
made so slight of it nor called upon me for some reasonable proof for the Falseness and Impertinence of his Assertion that the Primitive Fathers in praying for the Dead had several other intentions but not that of assisting them or freeing them from Purgatory Tho' the eldest of the Councils I mention was 1400 Years after Christ yet if he consider that it was before Protestancy that both the Eastern and Western Bishops in it consented to that Decree that the Acts of this Council were received by the much Major and Superior part of the whole Christian World as conformable to a Practice delivered to them by their Fore-fathers as of Faith And withal that this Council was seconded by another as Genreal as the circumstances of Time could afford I say This proof comprehends Scripture Fathers Tradiction and universal practice if he reflect upon these Heads he will see that I was not hard put to it for Arguments but that I comprised them all in one and sending him to the Councils I sent him at the same time to Scripture Fathers Tradition and the Universal Practice of Gods Church upon all which their Desintions were manifestly founded They who have been hitherto deceived by the Defender and those of his Coat and made to believe we have nothing to say in defence of our Tenets would do well to peruse our Authors and read the * The Author of Nubes restium has collected some of the many Testimonies where they who read them will see whether they prayed only for the Intentions mentioned by our Author and not rather for their help and assistance they will see also that the Fathers deliver it as an Apostolic Doctrin and therefore lest it not to us to believe or not believe at pleasure Fathers If so they will find that we establish our Doctrin upon the Primitive Practice not only of the Church of Christ but of the Jewish Synagogue and that we have both Scripture and a sufficient number of Fathers on our side Nay they will see also that it was neither false nor foolish which I said That since the Practice of all Nations and the Testimonies of every Age confirm the Custom of Praying for the Dead that they may receive help what can we say to them who make a Breach in the Church and condemn Antiquity Vendic p. 59. upon no other grounds than abare Supposition that it is injurious to the Merits of Jesus Christ a Supposition which yet has no other Proof but their vain Presumption How often have we called upon them to shew us one sole passage of the Antients or one sole Text of Scripture positively assirming there is no Purgatory No Fathers nor Scripture against it or that the Prayers which are offered up for the Faithful departed avail them nothing But if they cannot shew this it is neither foolish nor false to tell them they go upon bare Suppositions and their own Presumption whilst Scripture Fathers and Universal Practice are for us PART II. ART VIII Of the Sacraments in General IF our Defender have a mind to see how we prove all the Seven Sacraments to have Outward Signs of an Inward Grace § 43. and that they were instituted by Christ he may be pleas'd to cast his Eyes a little upon our Divines where he will find it amply proved But to say That not one of our Church has yet been able to do it is so manifest a Falsity as will appear also in the Sequel that it does not need any Endeavors to disprove it But however these things must be said lest People should open their Eyes and see the Truth and they who pretend to be Lovers of Peace and Unity resolve to multiply Accusations to hinder such good effects Where lies the Sincerity ART IX Of Baptism THe Dispute in this Article is a meer Cavil §. 44. proceeding from the want of a right understanding of the Bishop of Meaux and a willingness to shew at least some kind of Opposition to overy thing that is said Roman Catholics Protestants of the Church of England The Church of England and Lutherans hold Baptism absolutely necessary Expos Doâ—t Ch. of Eng. pag. 6. and Lutherans are agreed as to the Absolute Necessity of Baptism and that seeing we are all conceived and born in Sin none can enter into the Kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and the Holy Spirit This the Defender in his Exposition tells us is the Law of Christ which the Eternal Truth has established and whosoever shall presume to oppose it let him be Anathema From this received Principle the Bishop of Meaux deduced That Children dying without Baptism do not partake of the Grace of Redemption but that dying in Adam Therefore Children dying without it have no part in Christ they have not any part in Jesus Christ and the reason he gave for this his Assertion was because Children cannot supply the want of Baptism by Acts of Faith Hope and Charity nor by the Vow or Desire to receive this Sacrment Now because my Opponent argued against this Consequence deduced from the absolute Necessity of Baptism telling us that we our selves acknowledge the Desires c. of Persons come to Years of Understanding to besufficient to supply the wants of their Actual Reception of Baptism and that the Desire of the Church for Children that dye without it may in like manner suffice I answered There is a vast difference betwixt the ardent Desire of those who are by Age capalbe of receiving Baptism and the Desire of the Church or Parents the one proceeding from Faith working by Divine Charity already infused into the Soul of the Vnbaptized Person will no doubt of it produce a good Effect if he extinguish it not by the neglect of a Precept but the other being wholly extrinsecal to the Child cannot affect the Soul of the Child unless by the application of that Sacrament which Jesus Christ has instituted as necessary to wash away our Original Guilt Against this Argument he had nothing to say but that he is not concerned whether it be better than his or no tho he thinks I am very much that is just nothing But however the Bishop of Meaux must be run down §. 45. and exposed as a man talking with great rashness c. But to clear the Bishop I must desire it may be considered that tho' we and the Lutherans are agreed as to the absolute Necessity of Baptism yet the Calvinists accord not with us For they do not only say that they cannot determin whether Children dying without Baptism may not be Saved by the Faith of their Parents but positively affirm they are saved by that Faith The Calvinists oppose this necessity Trâ—â—â—se of Communim under both Species 2d Part. §. 6. Disc c.xi. ri vi Objerv and that Baptism is not necessary insomuch that as the Bishop of Meaux expresses it in another
the manner for the Defender thinks it is a plain Contradiction Defence pag 61. that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal but as to the nature of the thing it self but yet it is real too A Jargon What kind of Jargon is this and what Absurdities must needs follow from such palpable Contradictions Christ is really present §. 69. Pag. 60. line 32. says the Defender in the Sacrament in as much as they who worthily receive it have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ and all the Benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs and therefore it is more than a meer Figure One would think this enough Oh but his Body is not there How is Christ there and not his Body Yes his Body is not there after the manner that the Papists imagine there is no corporeal Presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood Rulric at the end of the Communion Office. for his Body is only in Heaven and it is against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one How is it then that he is there will you acknowledge Casâ—â—b Epist ad â—â—rd Pâ—â—en with King James the First that you believe a Presence no less true and real than Catholics do only you are ignorant of the manner If so tell us and recal what you have said that it is a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal I suppose you mean with all the qualities of a natural Body seeing it may be there after a manner which you are ignorant of No this would be to give up the Cause to Catholics And further the late Church Rubric whose Fate has been so various and the * I A B. Do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever and that the Sacrifice of the Mass as it is now used in the Church of Rome is Superstitious and Idolatrous 30 Car. 2. Test The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the first time contradict the Religion professed in that Kings days for now at least you know by a new Revelator that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not there by Transubstantiation otherwise you would not impose the belief of it upon all persons in any public Employments and make them swear and subscribe to it under such forfeitures and penalties This is the Doctrin we are invited to believe which how inconsistent it is with it self appears to every one who rightly apprehends the Terms of Real and Spiritual and Figurative Let us now see what is the Doctrin of Roman Catholics The Council of (a) Sess 13. c. 4. Trent tels us §. 70. The Roman Catholic Doctrin that because Christ our Redeemer did truly say that that was his Body which he offered under the species of Bread therefore it was always believed in the Church of God and this Holy Synod does now again declare it that by the Consecration of Bread and Wine there is made a conversion or change of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into the substance of his Blood which change is conveniently and properly called by the Catholic Church Transubstantiation And the same (b) Ib. can 1. Council pronounces an Anathema against all those who shall deny the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be truly really and substantially contained in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist or that shall affirm it to be there only as in a Sign or in Figure or Vertue Thus we believe a true real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament that is of his Body and Blood Soul and Divinity The Lutherans agree with us in it but will have Bread to remain too which we deny And the Calvinists seem at least in words to confess the same but will have the presence to be Spiritual by which as I told them if they intend only that Christs presence is not there after a natural circumscribed corporeal extensive manner we admit of it but if they mean by this spiritual manner that Christ who is both God and Man is not truly really essentially substantially present we deny it They who affirm §. 71. Three manners of a Real presence as we do that Christs Body is really present in the Sacrament Propose several ways by which they think it may be done all which may be reduced to Three First that his Body may be present together with the Bread as Fire is together with Iron when red hot Water with Ashes c. Secondly present so as that the Bread remaininig Bread is also the true Body of Christ Or Thirdly that the Substance of the Body of Christ should be there the Substance of Bread ceasing to be As to the first the words of the Institute are against it For if Christ had rendred his Body present after that manner he would not have said Hoc est corpus meum but Hîc est corpus meum Here is my Body The second manner is acknowledged by English Protestants to be wholy impossible as implying a manisest Contradiction that it should be Bread and not Bread the Body of Christ and not the Body of Christ The third is the true Catholic Doctrin and is called by the Church Transubstantiation that is a Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the true Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood as I have mentioned from the Council And thus Christ is really present in the Sacrament Now this existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is not after a natural corporeal extensive manner because it is neither visible nor palpable But yet for all this the same substantial Body may be really present after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament We have Examples of this from Holy Writ For if we doubt not but that he could free his Body from being visible palpable and heavy and could make it so spiritual as to pass from his Virgin mothers Womb without breach of her Virginity and through the Doors when shut can we doubt his Power in rendring it present without local extension or the other qualifications of a common natural Body And tho' this presence cannot be called spiritual in a strict sense yet may it be so called in that sense which St. Paul uses when he tels us that the Body is sown a corruptible Body and is raised a spiritual Body As to those seeming Contradictions of a Bodies
being present in more places than one c. First we affirm them to be no Contradictions A contradiction being an Affirmation and Negation of the same thing in the same time place manner and and all other circumstances but such an Affirmation and Negation are not made of Christs presence in several Hosts See the Guld in Controverly dâ—sc 1. ch 6. § 65 66. seqq And secondly all those who affirm a real Presence as the English Protestants seem to do have the same difficulties to overcome and none but the Sacramentarians who affirm the presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be meerly figurative as the King is said to be present in his Picture Coin or Charter are free from them Having thus explicated our Tenets with respect to those of our Adversaries we come now to shew upon what Grounds we believe them SECT 2. Some Reasons for our Doctrin THe Doctrin of the true real §. 72. All the proofs for an Article of Fatith concur for this and substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread is so certainly a revealed Truth that there is scarce any one Article of Christian Faith that Christ seems to have taken so much care to establish as this All the usual Arguments that are brought at any time to confirm us that a Truth has been revealed occur here and by an united Force confirm one another and strengthen our Belief beyond exception If we cast our Eyes into the Old Testament we there find the (a) The Bread and Wine offered by Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 The Bread of Proposition Exod â—0 23 1 Sam 31.40 seâ—q The Bread which the Prophet Elias having eaten by the command of an Angel walked in the strength of it sorty days to the Mountain of God Horeb. 3 Reg. 19.6 The Paschal Lamb Exod. 12. The Blood of the Testament Exod. 24.6 Heb. 9.20 Manna Exod. 16. compared with John 6.49 1 Cor. 10.2 If any one doubt whether these were sigures of the Eucharist or noâ— let them read St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Jerome and the other Autient Fathers cited by Cardinal Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 3. Figures of this Unbloody Sacrifice which must necessarily express something more excellent than themselves If we look into the (b) Isaâ—as 25.6 Zach. 10.17 Malac 1.11 Prophets we find their Prophecies cannot be fulfilled in a Figurative presence If we come to the New Law we find not only an express (c) John 6.51 The Bread which I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world Promise from Christ himself but (d) Matth. 26.26 Marc. 14.22 This is my Body This is my Bloâ—d of the New Testament which shall be shed for many or as the Protestants â—ender it which is shed for many for the remission of sin Luke 22.19 This is my Body which is given i. offered for you from whence the antient Fathers conclude not only the real presence but its presence as a Sacrifice Altho Sense tell the it is Bread yet it is the Body according to his words Let Faith confirm thee judge not by Sense After the words of our Lord let no doubt rise in thy mind Cyril Mystag 4. Of the verity of Fiesh and Blood there is left no place to doubt by the profession of our Lord himself and by our Faith it is Flesh and Blood indeed Is not this true To them be it untrue who deny Jesus Christ to be true God. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit vers 10 This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Blood which Chalice shall be or i. shed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It appeared to Beza so clear that if it was the Cup or Chalice that was shed for us it must contain in it truly the Blood of Christ and be properly a Sacrifice that he could find no evasion but to call it a Soloecism or Incongruity of Speech or else that the words which yet he confesses to be in all Copie Greek and Latin were thrust into the Text out of the Margent See his Annotations upon the New Testament 1556. Three Evangelists and (e) 1 Cor. 10.6.11.24 St. Paul relating the Institute in such words that many of our Adversaries themselves confess that if they must be taken literally we have gained our Cause If we look into Antiquity and the Writings of the (f) See Nubes Testâ—um from pag. 99. to 150. Conseusus veterum And the many other Books formerly writtes upon this Subject as Gualters Cronology Coâ—cii Thesaurus c. In which you may see a Collection of the plain Testimony of Fathers and eminent Writers in every Age from the Apostles time to our Ages not only concerning this Article of Transubstantiation but most others now in Controversy Primitive Fathers of the first 600 Years we find the manifest (g) All the antient Liturgies are a sufficient Testimony of this in which as Blondel himself tho a Hugonot confesses the Prayer in the Consecration of the Elements was to this purpose That God trould by his Holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. The Adoration also which was payd to our Blessed Saviour there present shews their Belief See St. Ambr. de spir lib. 3. c. 12. and St. Aug. in ps 98.5 who upon these words Adorate scabellum pedum ejus tels us that Christ has given his Flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation Now no man eats this except he first Adore it And moreover says he we do not only not sin by adoring it but we should sin if we did not adore it See Considerations upon the Council of Trens chap. 16. §. 32. Digress §. 20. c. Also Protestant Apolegy Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subd 2. Practice of this belief If into the later Ages we find for above (h) This has been sufficiently shewn by the aforesaid Authors and Monsieur Arnold in his Perpetuite de la foy and the Plain concession of Protestants as may be seen in the Protestant Apology 1000 Years such an Uniformity amongst all Christians that scarce one person who deserved the name of Pastor that is scarce one Bishop either in the (i) As to the consent of the Greek and Latins see the Guide in Controversy disc 3. ch â— Greek or Latin Church but embraced it There is scarce any Nation in the World in which a Synod has been held since this last 600 Years that is since Berengarius begun to broach the contrary Error but has declared their constant belief of Transubstantiation And the most (k) Guide in Controversy dise 1. ch 6. §. 57. general Councils that those Ages could afford have confirmed it by their Definitions and condemned the contrary Opinions with their Anathema's So that if Councils both national and General have any Authority if the consent
is more according to the literal sense of the words and has less difficulties in it than Consubstantiation but it does not follow that Scotus thought his Adversaries assertion to be more easy much less more true But our Defender goes farther and tells us that Scotus held this Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran and cites Bellarmin for it tho' he render his words ill in English * For Bellarmin does not say that Scotue held the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient but only that it was not an Article of Faith dogma fidei before that Council which are two very different things §. 88. Suarez Non fnerit tam aperte explicata sicut modo est Suar. in 3. D. Tho. vol. 3. disp 50. §. 1. How much better would it have been for him to go to the Fountain it self and have shewn us this in Scotus But he will scarce find it there and suppose he could one Swallow makes no Summer and I think it will appear far more reasonable to any thinking man to believe that Scotus erred in saying so than the Council of Lateran in which there were 400 Bishops and 800 Fathers in declaring that to be the Faith of the Church which was not so Thirdly Suarez he says acknowledges the same of Scotus and Gabriel Biel Suppose they had held that Doctrin what would follow but as Suarez Argues that they deserve reproof seeing the thing it self was antient and perpetually believed in the Church tho' perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is As for my overlooking that passage of Suarez which affirms the conversion of one substance into another to be of Faith and the Defenders arguing upon that account that Suarez is opposite to my opinion and pretences I have already told him that he proceeds upon a mistake of my meaning which being rectified he will find that Suarez is nothing against me nor am I guilty of any prevarication Fourthly §. 89. Cajectan The Defender tells me that my Prevarication in the next citaton viz. of Cardinal Cajetan is more unpardonable And why Because he affirmed that the Cardinal acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words Defence pag. 65. the others might with as good reason have been received and I told him that Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appealed to any that should read it for the truth of what I said This he says is such a Prevarication that should a Protestant have done it I would he believes have found out many hard names for him to testify my zeal against Falshood and Vnsincerity Id. pag. 66. and shewn what a kind of Religien that must be that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But that he will remit me wholly to the Readers Censure and my own Conscience for Correction I am glad he allows me the Readers to be of my Jury I hope he will give me leave to except against all those that are so far byassed in their affections to him and his party that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards Popery forsooth tho' against Justice Equity and Conscience Take but away I say such byassed and Ignoramus Juryes as these and I will appeal to any Learned Judicious and Conscientious men whether that Proposition he advanced be to be found in that Article of Cajetan or no. The Defender was so far from shewing this in Cajetan that he has pitched upon a place which has as little to the purpose as one would wish He tells us indeed that we have no other express Authority from Scripture for the belief of the Existence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament but only the words of our Saviour This is my Body for these words must of necessity be true And because the words of Scripture may be Expounded two ways Properly or Metaphorically The first error in this particular was of them who interpreted the words of our Lord Metaphorically which Error was treated of by the Master of Sentences and is reproved by St. Thomas in this Article And the force of the rejection consists in this that the words of our Lord have been understood by the Church properly and therefore they must be verified properly Which is as much as to say that St. Thomas and Cardinal Cajetan after him looked upon the Churches having always understood the words of our Saviour literally to be the strougest Argument against the Sacramentarians who Erred in understanding them Metaphorically But what is that to our Defenders Proposition And where does the Cardinal say there is as much reason for the one as the other abstracting from the Churches declaration which is the sense of his Proposition Wherefore now it comes to my turn to remit him as he does me to the Readers Censure and his own Conscience for correction His last Argument is drawn from the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist in these words §. 90. Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist Expos Dâ—ct Ch. of Engl. pag. 60. Since it is certain that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised nor the Church for above a 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament neither could they according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles who holds that the Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as Believe it without all scruple to the Adoraton of it have believed the Corporeal presence of our Blessed Saviour in it The Antecedent he goes about to prove first from the Scriptures silence in this matter ssect 91. I. which tho' it says Take Eat Do this in remembrance of me yet never says This is my Body fall down and worship it And from St. Paul who when he reproved the Corinthians for violating this Holy Sacrament did not tell them tho' it was obvious and much to his purpose that in profaning this Holy Sacrament they were not only guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ which it was Instituted to represent to us but even directly Affronted their Blessed Master Corporeally present there and whom instead of Profaning they ought as they had been taught to Adore in it Secondly II. From the new practices of Elevating the Host introduced says he in the 7th Century to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross but not to expose it to the People to Adore it from the Bell the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament the Pomp of carrying it through the streets Exposition of it upon the Altars Addresses to it in cases of Necessity and performing the chief Acts of Religion in its presence all which he pretends are but Inventions of yesterday or were never mentioned in Antiquity Lastly III. Because the Primitive Christians instead of
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
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
things considered I think I had just reason to say that the present Church in every Age was to be judge of the universality or not universality of Tradition and that if she declared her self either by the most general Council that Age all things considered could afford or by the Constant Practice and Uniform voice of her Pastors and People every private Church or person ought to submit to her decisions But this Doctrin will not down with our Defender §. 106. Desence pag. 77.80 The Defenders Arguments against this judge of Tradition answered who has so great a deference for a Church that he is not afraid to say that any private or individual person may examin and oppose the decisions of the whole Church if he be but evidently convinced that his priate belief is founded upon the Authority of Gods Holy Word And he has two reasons he says why he cannot assent to this method of judging which is universal Tradition 1. Because it is a matter of fact whether such Doctrins were delivered or no 1. Objection and this matter of fact recorded by those who lived in or near that first Age of the Church if then the Records of those first Ages contradict the sentence of the Church any man who is able to search into them may more securely rely upon them than upon the Decrees of a Council of a later Age or the voice and practice of its Pastors and People And this he says is the case in many things betwixt them and us Answer But Good Sir weigh a little the force of your Argument and see whether it be not built upon a mere supposition that the Church has erred or may err in the delivery of her Doctrins even against the plain words of Scripture or positive Testimony of the Fathers But such an absurdity being supposed what wonder if many others follow after Again tell me are those Records you speak of plain to any one that is able to search into them If so I hope the Church is as clear sighted and able to search into them as any individual Church or person Or are they obscure And then I suppose you will allow the universal Church's constant practice in that Age or her declarations in her Councils to be at least a better Interpreter than such Private persons or Assemblies And if the Catholic Church examining those passages in the antient Fathers tells me they are so far from contradicting her Practices or Doctrins that if rightly understood they speak the same thing with her I think there lyes a greater obligation on me to submit my Judgment to that of the Universal Church than obstianately to follow my own sense or that of a particular Church dissenting from the whole And that this is the case betwixt Catholics and Protestants the Defender knows and the Reader may gather from this Treatise But the Defender has yet a more cogent reason against this method §. 107.2 Objection which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and give this Unwritten word the upper hand of the Written Answer Had he said that this method would be apt to set up the Decrees of Councils and the judgment of the Church before the Private spirit or judgment of Particulars I should readily have granted what he said Tradition and Scripture are not Competitors But I see no competition in our case betwixt Scripture and Tradition but that they both strengthen each others Testimony unless he will have the Text and the most authentic Comment to be competitors Now the Defender looks upon it as a high affront to Scripture that the Church's decrees or practices should obtain and be in force with all its members when many of them may be perswaded that they cannot find what she decrees in nay that it is contrary to the word of God. And declares for himself and all his Party That they cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon those grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrin which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the Written word of God. For in this case he thinks it reasonable that the Church's sentence should be made void and the voice of her pretended Traditions silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God. But had he expressed himself clearly and according to the point in question he should have said that the sentence of the Church was in such cases to be made void and every mans private interpretation of Scripture if he be evidently convinced that it is according to the word of God preferred before the Decrees of General Councils or the uniterrupted Practice and Preaching of her Pastors But of this Argument more in the next Article ART XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church THe Authority of the Church is a point of so great Importance §. 108. that being once established all other Doctrins will Necessarily follow The Concessions which our Defender had made in his Exposition were indeed such as might very well have given us hopes he would have submitted to the natural consequence of them but we might well be surprised to see them so suddainly dashed by such wild Exceptions as do not only destroy all Church Authority but open a way to as many different Opinions in Religion as there are persons inclined to make various interpretations of Scripture and headstrong enough to prefer their Own sense before that of Others What I pray avails his Concessions The Desenders Concessions that the Catholic Church is ostablished by God the Guardian of Holy Scriptures and Tradition That she has Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline Expos pag. 76. pag. 78. but even of Faith too That it is upon her Authority they receive and reverence several Books as Canonical Pag. 76. and reject others as Apocryphal even before by their own reading of them they perceive the Spirit of God in them And Pag. 77. that if as universal and uncontroverted a Tradition had descended for the Interpretation of Scriptures as for the receiving of them they should have been as ready to accept of that too surely he does not mean such a Tradition as no one ever called in question for there is scarce a Book of Scripture but some Heretic or other has questioned whether it were Canonical or no What I say do such Concessions as these avail us when he allows every Cobler or Tinker nay every silly Woman for he excepts no body the liberty not only to examin the Church's Decisions but to prefer their Own sense of Scripture before that of the Whole Church This position is so Extravagant that I think I need only give it in his own words §. 109. to make him and all that party who he tells us have approved his Book HIs Exceptions
answer to which I would only ask them Whether God has established a Faith or no which must be one and without which it is impossible to please him If they cannot deny this as being the plain words of Scripture I ask again what is opposite to Faith but Error in its essentials where therefore has God promised in Scripture that a man who errs in the essentials of his Faith shall not have that Error imputed to him when on the contrary he tells us that without Faith it is impossible to please him If he say these people are in an invincible ignorance and God will not punish that I must answer him that God has not left the generality of mankind without an easy general and Infallible means to overcome that ignorance if they will but make use of it And this secure §. 181. easy universal and infallible means is that which we Catholics make use of viz. an attention and (a) Luc. 10.16 Maâ—th 18.17 submission to the voice of the Catholic Church which is (b) Eph. 4.4 5 6 13. Cant. 6.9 John 16.16 John 17.20 Uniform in it self established by Christ as an (c) Isa 35.8 Easy means for the instruction of all both Learned and Unlearned as an Universal means she being (d) Ps 19.4 Isa 2.2 Ps 86 9. Dan. 7.14 spread for that end throughout All Nations as a (e) Masth 5.14 15 c. Ps 19.4 Isa 59 21.60.1 3.11.62 6. Ezech. 37.26 Dan. 7.14 Visible means being continued through All Ages by an uninterrupted Succession of Pastors and People As an Infallible means being (f) John 16.13 1 Tim. 3.15 guided in Truth and secured from Error especially in Necessary matters of Faith and Salvation by the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost So that all persons whatsoever whether Learned or Unlearned may (g) Deut. 17.8 c. Math. 23.3 Isa 2.2 3. Marth 18.17 securely rely upon what this Church teaches especially in Necessaries If our Defender after better reflections acknowledge the Catholic Church to be infallible in Necessaries or Fundamentals and enquire which is this Catholic Church I must desire him to peruse with a serious application what I have already proved and not to pass over my Arguments so slightly as shews he never weighs their force But our Defender has made use of an Instance to prove his admirable Doctrin by §. 122. The Instances from St. Athanasius answered an Instance which if any Catholic had brought the like he would have called false and Impertinent An Instance which hath been often brought and Refuted and yet nothing is said to the refutation but the Objection is still repeated by those who are conscious they cannot defend their Cause and yet have not sincerity enough to repent Lastly an Instance which may pass current amongst them who will believe no body but their own party but can have no force with men of Reason I told him in my Vindication that the story which he tells of St. Expos Doct. Ch. of England pag. 80. Athanasius his standing up alone against the whole world in Defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils nay the whole Church fell away was very falsly represented And he now grants the Expression of St. Athanasiu's being against the whole world and the whole world against him Desence pag. 81. did refer chiefly to the Eastern Bishops and was not so literally true as to those of the West from whence an ordinary Reader would inser See Liberius his Letter to the Oriental Bishops apud Socrat. lib. 4. c. 11 12. Tom. 1. Conâ— pag. 584 St. Basil Epist 75. pag. 877.293 pig 1058. Edit Paris 1518. cited by the Guide in Controversy Dise 2. §. 27. n. 2. p. 119. The History of Pope Liberius and the Council of Ariminum §. 123. that it was literally true as to those of the East But they who examine things more maturely will find that even at that time the Body of the Eastern Prelates tho' suffering much from the other savoured party remained Catholics However he thinks that if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and. Sirmium and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith sent to him from Ariminum c. yet subscribed to another at Sirmium in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted c. he was not much out when he said that St. Athanasius stood up in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Council and almost for he is now more moderate the whole Church fell away But what will he say if neither Liberius nor the Latin Prelates in the Councils of Sirmium or Ariminum ever denied the Divinity of Christ or subscribed to the Arian Heresy Had he looked into our Authors he would have found it proved beyond exception and that from the best Historians that tho' Liberius who was sent into Banishment to Beroea by Constantius because he would not condemn St. Athanasius in the Council at (a) Sozom l. 4. â— 10. p. 481. Ibeod lib. 2. c. 16. pag. 371. B. Milan without a hearing at last out of fear and impatience in his exile subscribed to a Collection presented by Basil and other Eastern Bishops containing in it the Decrees against Paulus Samosatenus and the Sirmian Formula against Photinus Socrat. lib. 2. c. 5. p. 244. as also that drawn up at the Consecration of the Church of Antioch all which contained nothing but Catholic Doctrin except the leaving out the word Consubstantial which they pretended was abused by some not understood by others and was not found in Scripture yet did he then Excommunicate all those who affirmed the Son not to be like his Father in Substance and all other things Sez lib. 4. c. 14. pag. 483. The Sirmian Formula was explicated by St. Hilarius in a Catholic Sense and it is worthy remark that in these Formula's they professed the Son to be of the Fathers Substance that he was in all things like his Father even as to Essence and Substance and that he was before all Times and Ages So that tho' Liberius cannot be excused for his complyance with the Emperor and the scandal which he gave to those who refused the least Communication with the Arians yet does it no ways follow that he fell from the Faith Act. Liber Soz. lio 4. c. 18. p. 487. B. And he regained his credit afterwards by his firmness to the first Orthodox Decrees of the Council of Ariminum resolving rather to live and die in the Catecombes than Sign what had been consented to by the Bishops at the later end of that Council when it was not free and the design of the Arians was made public c. As to the Council of Ariminum §. 124. if we consider all things maturely we shall find that of the 400 Bishops that appeared there only 80 or as St. Athanasius says
As to the Third that of Ephesus S. Prosper tells us it was assembled by the Authority of Pope Celestine and the Industry of Cyril whom he appointed to preside in his place and with his authority And concerning the Fourth that of Chalcedon not to mention the Emperor and his Sister Pulcheria's letter to Pope Leo in order to the calling of it His Legates in the very first Act accused (a) Judicii sui necesse est cum dare rationem quia cum nec personam judicandi haberet subvepsit Synodum ousns est steere sine auihoritate Sedis Apostolicae quod nunquam rite factum est nec fieri lionit Summa Conc. Tem. 1. pag. 246. b. A. Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria for calling a Synod without the Authority of the Apostolic See which they say never was rightly done nor was lawful to be done which accusation they would certainly never have brought nor would the Council have admitted of it had they themselves been guilty of the same or if it had not been at that time a constant and known practice that his consent and approbation was necessary according to the Antient Canon and Custom (b) Aug. Epist 91. Athan. Apol. 2. p. 575.1.1 Apud Cons Conc. Yâ—ent §. 45. Secrat l. 2. c. 13. p. 247 C. Soz. l. 3. c. 7. p. 466. F. Nothing is to be determined without the Bishop of Rome Lastly to remove the least scruple in this point it is manifest the Council of Trent was called by the Pope as the Learned Author of the (c) §. 80 c. Considerations of the Council observes after having first had the consent nay after much sollicitation and importunity as (d) Lib. 6. pag. 551. apud Consid Conc. Trid. §. 81. Soave says of the Emperor and all other Christian Princes excepting those that were Protestants and Henry the 8th who being the much less number were either to be concluded by the contrary vote of the rest or else there can never be any General Council hereafter it being evident that seeing Christianity is now divided into so many Sovereign and Independent States and no Heresy can ever need the remedy of a General Council but such as has got the Patronage of some Christian Prince if every such Prince be allowed a negative voice against the rest there will never want some or other whose Extravagances in Religion will make him averse from such Assemblies which he cannot but foresee will Condemn and out-vote his party Soave p. 8.12 Nay moreover it was called by him after the Protestant Princes had declared a great necessity of it and Luther and his Party had appealed to it The Second Exception which the Defender makes against this Council is §. 128. His Second Exception that it was not free answered that it was not free because those who had most to say in the Defence of the Truth durst not appear at Trent being sufficiently forewarned by what others had lately suffered in a like oase at Constance How often has our Author been shewn that this pretence is nul And the Council of Sonstance that of Trent and the whole Catholic Church vindicated from that odious imputation of believing that Faith and Plighted promises were not to be kept with Hereticks Had the Defender perused our Moral Divines as well as Controvertists he would have found it to be a Catholic Doctrin That Faith is as much to be kept to Heretics Insidels Heathens Enemies nay even Subjects in Rebellion Princes having at such times parted with their own Rights as to Catholics themselves in all respects and that no exceptions are made but such as judicious Protestants grant ought to be made even betwixt themselves as where the Faith given was not absolute but conditional and that condition was not performed or if the matter of the Faith Oath or Promise was a thing unlawful to be done either by some Divine or Human Law if in respect of that Human Law it were a Faith given by inferiors and subjects to such Laws How often has he also been shewn §. 128. The Story of John Husse that it is more than Probable that Husse's safe Conduct from the Emperor was either conditional which Conditions were not kept he flying from the Council without leave or at most no other than what was granted by that Council afterwards to Hierom of Prague and upon which he also thought fit to venture himself that is that he should have a safe conduct from violence Justitiâ semper salvâ but not from Justice Seeing neither he nor his adherents who at that time writ the relation of his Death ever claimed the privilege of such a safe Conduct or accused any of the Breach of it How often has it been made manifest haec Sâ—ncta Syne dus Johan Husse attente quod Ecclesia Dei non habecat ultra quid gerere valeat judicio saeculari relinquere ipsum Curiae saeculari relinquendum fore decernit Sess 15. that if any fault was here committed it was by the Secular Power and not the Ecclesiastical for the Church proceeds not to the Sentence of Death but after her having convicted them of Heresy or Schism turns them over as she did Husse to the Secular Power so that if the Secular Power had given him a safe Conduct not only from violence but from the Execution of Justice that Secular Power was to blame to break it but the Church was not concerned in it nor the Council whose safe Conduct he never did demand Neither let the Defender here produce the Councils Decree in the 19 sess to prove that that Council held it lawful to break Faith with Heretics and dispensed with the Emperor in his Duty for that Decree was made after the Execution of Husse and it only pretends that the Emperor by his safe Conduct cannot prejudice the authority of another So that the Ecclesiastical Judge having always an Authority to examin Heretics and proceed against them with the Spiritual Sword The Temporal Authority cannot by giving a safe Conduct deprive her of that Jurisdiction How often has it been shewn that the Delegates of Bohemia who were Hussites about 16 Years after repaired to the Council of Basil upon the fecurity of the Council and the Emperor Sigismond's safe Conduct which they would never have done had they not been convinced that the terms of John Husse and Hierom of Prague's safe Conducts were too narrow to shield them from the execution of Justice tho' it might Secure them from any injury Lastly is it not plain that the Council of Trent gave them a safe Conduct with a non-obstante to the Decree of the Council of Constance and yet notwithstanding all these plain Testimonies have been produced over and over again the Defender moves not one jot from the first Accusation but infinuates it as if it were a known and approved Truth His Third and last Exception is §. 129. His Third Exception against
been the case of St. Athanasius in whose Seat Gaudentius had been placed by the Eusebians nor that these (d) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 540. c. 1. F. Fathers acknowledged that it would be the best and most agreeable thing that Priests from all Countries should have recourse to the Head that is to the Seat of Peter the Apostle nor that it was looked upon in this Age as an (e) Socrat. l. 2. Hist c. 5. p. 244. D. c. 11. p. 246. c. 13. Epist. Julii ad Orient Episc Apud St. Athan. Apol. 2. Sozâ—m lib. 3. c. 7. p. 446. F. c. 9. Established Law that nothing was to be determined without the concurrence of the Apostolic See all which considered he will find no just reason to reject this Epistle upon the Plea that it Establishes the Popes Authority I have already mentioned that the Second General Council that of Constantinople was called by the (f) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 667. A. Popes Authority And this (a) Can. 3. Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 661. B. Council ordained that the Patriarch of Consiantinople should have Prime Honor after the Bishop of Rome The Third General Council that of Ephesus (b) Bin. Tom. 2. Conc. p. 282. B. Deposed Nestorius as they say Compelled by the Sacred Canons and the Epistle of Pope Celestine and referred the more difficult case of John (c) Ibid. pag. 353. D. Patriarch of Antioch to the Pope The Fourth besides what I have already mentioned that they admitted â—he accusation brought against (d) Bin. Tom 3. Conc. p. 50. B. Dioscorus for having taken upon him to assemble a Council without the Popes Authority frequently calls Pope Leo the (e) Act. 1.2 3. passim Vniversal Bishop of the Church and affirms that our Blessed Lord had (f) Epist ad Leonem Ibid. p. 474. B. committed to him the care of his Vineyard that is his Church I will not mention any later Councils these may suffice to Protestants of the Church of England as by Law Established Seeing their Authority has been approved by (g) 1 Eliz. c. 1. Act of Parliament Neither will I go to the antient Canons of the Church but shall conclude That seeing it is manifest that ever since the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome did exercise this Universal Pastoral care over the whole Church Excommunicating offending Bishops in other Kingdoms and Countries restoring those that had been Excommunicated unjustly to their Sees and Confirming others calling General Councils and Presiding in them and that Appeals were usually made to him in greater Causes from all Countries no beginning of which can be shewn nor no opposition made to it in those Primitive Ages but only by the Arians or other Condemned Heretics Seeing I say this is clearly matter of fact we must necessarily conclude that this Authority was looked upon at that time as given him by Divine Right and as coming down in a constant practice from the Apostles For seeing all persons in all Ages and Countries are ready to defend their Privileges and oppose usurpations had this been such or had they been exempt from such Jurisdiction they would have Unanimously opposed it in some of the succeeding General Councils after they had seen such Epistles from the Popes challenging that Authority But we find them so far from this that his plea is admitted in those very Councils and not the least Opposition made From what I have already said it will appear how easy a thing it might be to shew him in the Primitive Fathers and Councils what is given by all Catholics at present to his Holyness or challenged by him as of Necessary Faith. As to the Popes being stiled Vniversal Bishop he knows that St. Gregory the Great declined that Title in one Sense tho' he challenged it in another that is he looked not upon himself as Universal Bishop in this sense as if there were no other Bishop but he Sicut docuit Beatus Gloriesorum Apostolorum Princeps cujus Cathedram Beatitudini tuae credidit Christus optimus Pastor Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 681. c. 2. D. Non enim ignorâ—s ejus ingenium qui quotidie a Sacro doctore tuo Petro doceris oves Christi per totum habitabilem mundum creditas tibi pascere non vi sed sponte coactus Ibid. P. but yet in this other as he was the Supreme visible head of Christs Church upon Earth And for the Proof of this Title besides what I have already mentioned I will send our Defender to the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Pope Symmachus in which they do not only acknowledge him to have been placed in the Chair of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles by Christ the chief Pastor but that all the Sheep of Christ in the whole habitable world were committed to him to Feed And in this sense I suppose it is that he was called Vniversal Bishop and Patriarch in the Council of * Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 246. 250. Chalcedon That the Pope was usually stiled the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ upon Earth is so noted in Antiquity that I wonder the Defender would desire me to direct him to the places I have already shewn him some of them which I hope may suffice if his business be not to Cavil The last Authority which he says the Pope lays claim to is that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him The terms of which Proposition are very ambiguous and therefore when our Defender has explicated his meaning more clearly and shewn that all Catholics allow it in the sense he intends I will undertake to shew him that the same Authority was acknowledged to be due to him even in the Primitive times For the Church has not innovated in this any more than in her other Doctrins The Close to the Defender Sir HAving so fully answered all the objections you have made against me or our Doctrin §. 132. and in the soregoing Articles not only vindicated what was delivered by the Bishop of Meaux as the Doctrin of the Catholic Church and Council of Trent but also shewn the consent of Antiquity for the truth of it I hope you will excuse me if I tire not my Reader by a repetition of the same in Answer to your recapitulation under the reflecting Titles of Old and new Popery I shall therefore only refer you and them to what has been said in the body of the Book and most commonly in the close of every Article for an answer to what was not particularly mentioned in your Defence where I hope I have convincingly made it appear that your Parallel is wholly grounded upon your mistake not to give it any worse title of our Doctrin You know very well Sir that I might in exchange have given you a Parallel of New and Old Protestancy if that can be called old which is not of above 150 Years standing with a
interesting my self for him any further in the business or to intercede for one in whom I had found nothing but weakness mixed with Ignorance Nevertheless Protestants Print this Mans Letter and the single Allegation of such a Witness must become God willing a proof against me I speak it in the Presence of God Reverend Father my Heart is grieved to see Objections of so poor a Nature seriously pressed in Books And I beg of Almighty God in the anguish of my Soul O Lord wilt thou still continue to suffer Christian Souls to let themselves be caught in such weak and miserable Snares The Extracts from Cardinal Bona which they bring in the last Objection regard the Common difficulty so often proposed by Protestants about Prayer to Saints The Difficulty consists in this that as they who Pray with efficacy and obtain the effect of their desires are sometimes considered as the doers of the things after their manner It happens also sometimes that instead of saying to the Saints Pray for us they say do this always understanding that it is by their Prayers they do it By such Objections the Holy Ghost might be blamed for saying so often in the Scriptures that the Saints have done that which God has done by them and at their Prayers If such manners of speaking be familiar in Scripture why will they not also have them used in the Prayers of the Church But is it possible to explain ones self more clearly than the Church does upon this Subject seeing for one time you find and that in the Hymns and other Poetical works that we Pray the Saints to do or to Grant some thing you will meet with it a Thousand times Explicated that they do it only by their Intercession and Prayers And had not the thing been already explicated by the Prayers of the Church could there yet remain any doubt after the Expositions I have brought out of the Councils Catechism and after the decision of the Council it self For I beseech you let us weigh a little with our selves what it Teaches in the Twenty fifth Session does it not put this as a Foundation of the Invocation which we make to them that they offer up Prayers for us And consequently it's design is to shew us their Power is in their Prayers and yet new Explications are still demanded as if the Council of Trent had not sufficiently declared her Doctrin in a matter otherwise very clear Truly Reverend Father it extreamly troubles a Christians Heart to see tho' the Sense of the Church be made so very Evident in her decisions People should continue still thus to Juggle and Cavil with us about words I will say nothing about Mr. De Witte Rector of St. Maries of Meckline I find nothing in that Objection which concerns me in particular nor in the Letters of the Clergy upon the Subject of some briefs from the Pope Nobody ever pretends to offend his Holiness or in the least title to diminish the Authority of his See by saying that things may proceed thence which may not always be according to Rule On the contrary Protestants my observe from such Examples that a Church may with respect maintain what she thinks to be her Right without either breaking Vnity or hurting Subordination Pardon me Reverend Father for making this return so late my Employments of another Nature which would not give me leisure sooner must with your leave be my excuse I conclude praising your Zeal which will not suffer you to mitigate the urgent desires you have for the Salvation of your Brethren I am with particular Esteem Reverend Father Your most humble and most Affectionate Servant ✚ J. Benigne de Meaux The INDEX to the PREFACE THE Mischief of Heresie and Schism § 1. Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace Ib. We neither decline particulars nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons § 2. We Appeal to Scripture Ib. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages § 3. To an uninterrupted Tradition § 4. And shew the Truth of our Doctrins from Protestants own Concessions Ib. But Protestants fly to particular disputes and in them to the particular Tenets of School-men § 5. And at last to down-right rayling Therefore a plain Exposition of our Doctrin was thought necessary § 6. A Brief account of the Religion of our Ancestors from the first Conversion of this Nation till Henry the 8ths Schism § 7. A like account from Henry the 8ths time till his present Majesty § 8. The Rise of the present Controversie § 9. Of the betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender § 10. The state of the Controversie Misrepresented by Protestants who flie to Private Opinions and stick not to what is of necessary Faith. § 11. Honor due to Saints § 12. Images and Relics § 13. Justification Merit and Satisfaction § 14. Purgatory Indulgences § 15. Sacraments Church § 16. Rule of Faith. § 17. Protestants will not distinguish betwixt Faith and Private Opinions Ib. But prolong Disputes about unnecessaries which the Vindicator resolves to decline § 18. THE INDEX to the BOOK ARTICLE I. Introduction pag. 1. IDolatry and Superstition is the Protestant Cry and Calumny at present § 1. Other Protestants thought the Charge unjust Ib. It was begun in Queen Elizabeths time Rejected in King Charles the 1sts And now renewed to make us odious § 2. Catholics are allowed by Protestants to hold all Fundamentals but not Protestants by Catholics § 3. Monsieur de Meaux and the Vindicators Sense perverted by the Defender Catholics no more guilty of Idolatry than Protestants An Instance of the Defenders Charity and Moderation Ib. ARTICLE II. Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone page 6. A Necessary distinction in Respect Honor Worship Adoration c. Which are Equivocal Terms and misapplied by the Defender § 4. As also in Bowing Kneeling c. § 5. The Honor pay'd by these words or actions is distinguished by the Object § 6. Divine Honor call'd Latria is due to God only Inferior Honor called Doulia may be given to Creatures proved by 1. Scripture § 7. 2. and the Practice of Protestants § 7. ARTICLE III. Invocation of Saints pag. 10. PRayer Invocation c. are Equivocal terms misapplied by the Defender § 8. Saints may be Honored They Pray for us We may desire them to Pray for us proved Three sorts of such Prayers § 9. By the Practice of the Primitive Fathers in the Fourth Age as Protestants grant § 10. These Prayers were not Rhetorical flights § 11. in St. Gregory Nazianzen St. Ephrem St. Basil St. Gregory Nissen The Primitive Fathers wrongfully accused by the Defender as if they held that the Saints were not admitted to the sight of God till the day of Judgment § 12. Wrongfully accused as if they had departed from the Practice and Tradition of the foregoing Ages § 13. They prayed to Saints within the first 300 Years
of all Churches for a 1000 Years have any weight If the clear Writings of antient Fathers long before our Contest have any force if Scripture it self both old and new when thus interpreted be of any moment we must necessarily conclude that Jesus Christ gave his Disciples truly really and substantially his Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Had we not such clear proofs from Antiquity yet certainly the Consent of the much major and superior part of Christians for this last 600 Years would be sufficient to any reasonable mind who would but consider that if it had not been taught by Jesus Christ those persons who introduced it and those who followed them would have been guilty of Idolatry as the Test and some Protestants now accuse us to be and by consequence the whole Church which taught and practised it during that time would have erred in Fundamentals and taught a damnable Doctrin destructive of Salvation contrary to the Promise of Jesus Christ that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her But when we find that the Council of Lateran and those others in Berengarius's time were so far from pretending that they introduced a new Doctrin excogitated by themselves or invented by some of their learned Predecessors that they freely and fully declared that it had been delivered to them as a Doctrin taught by Christ and his Apostles that their predecessors in their several respective Countries had taught them the same and practised it that all their Historians and antient Writers had confirmed it when we consider also how impossible it is that if the figurative presence had been once the established Doctrin of the Church the Doctrin of the real presence could have gained such credit that all Christians in all Countries should consent to it and commit manifest Idolatry wilfully against their former belief no one of the Many Learned Pious and Couragious Bishops who were vigilant in opposing the smallest growing Errors ever speaking of this as an erroneous Doctrin or as a novelty I say when we consider all these things which have been so fully and so often proved that nothing but Impudence can deny them how can we have the least Difficulty in believing this Doctrin to be that of Jesus Christ or his words not to be literally true Thus much for our Grounds I come now to shew the weakness of my Opponents Arguments against them and our Doctrin SECT 3. Objections answered BEfore I begin to answer my Adversaries Objections §. 73. I must desire my Reader to consider that Catholics are in Possession of this Belief of the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and that Protestants who would throw us out of Possession are the aggressors Now as a Possessor of an estate time out of mind is not condemned if he proceed upon a supposition that the Deed of gift by which his Ancestors first possessed that estate was good In like manner must it be with us We believe that Jesus Christ pronouncing those words This is my Body Catholics being in Possession are the Defenders Protestants the Aggressors changed the Bread into his Body we received this belief from our predecessors and they from theirs we therefore who are in Possession and are to defend our right cannot be condemned if we suppose our Belief to be true But as on the other hand an Aggressor is not to be heard if he only suppose the Deed of gift to be void and argue from thence that the Possession is unlawful So ought it also to be with them who oppose us If they only suppose our Blessed Savior did not change the Bread into his Body by those words this is my Body and argue merely upon that supposition they ought not to be heard They are to prove he did not make that change Protestants must therefore bring clear and undeniable proofs against our Possession and not only to suppose it They are to prove his words cannot possibly be taken in a literal Sense and not only that they may be taken figuratively They are to prove that we are obliged to take the words in a figurative sense and not only to shew they they may lead us to it Our Possession is a manifest proof against their supposition and we need no more This being considered let us now weigh my Adversaries Arguments Arguments from Scripture answered And first those from Scripture His first Argument is reduced by himself to this Syllogism If the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body §. 74. First objection From the words of the Institute then it must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That Proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or t is plainly absurd and Impossible The Major or first Proposition he tels us is our common Concession In answer to which I say Answered If he understand the Major in Luthers sense as Bellarmin and Gratian do whom he cites for it that is that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body should so signify Bread that the meaning of it is This truly wheaten Bread remaining such is also truly the Body of Christ I grant it for as I told him before from the Cardinal it implies a contradiction for it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another because it would be that thing and not that thing But if he mean by his Major that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body has such a reference to Bread that the meaning is This Bread is my Body that is this substance of Bread which I take in my hands I do by these words change into the substance of my Body I deny it neither is it our common Concession for in that sense it is neither an absurdity nor impossibility to understand the Proposition literally So that you see Luther will have no change and will yet have the words to be understood literally and we call that an absurdity Catholics admit of a change and so understand them literally which is far from being either impossible or absurd We argue that the Proposition in Luthers sense admitting of no change is false absurd and impossible unless it be taken figuratively But in our own fense admitting a change is true and genuine and need not be taken figuratively His Minor or second Proposition he tels us is Bellarmins own grant nay what he contends for Is this Learned Cardinal then so great a Blockhead as to maintain that the words ought to be taken literally and yet at the same time to