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
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
Hell should not prevail Others shewed it from the nature of Truth and Error and the impossibility that an Universal Tradition could fail especially when God had promised Isa 59.20 21. that the words he would put into their Mouths should not depart out of their Mouths nor out of the Mouth of their Seed nor out of the Mouth of their Seeds Seed from henceforth and for ever Others again as the Protestant Apology And shew the truth of our Doctrins from Protestants own Concessions proved the innocence and Antiquity of our Doctrin from the Testimony of Learned Protestants themselves of whom one held one Article and another another from whence they hoped at least to make our Doctrins be looked upon as less offensive But Protestants finding it a very difficult task to elude such strong Reasons as have and might be brought for the necessary and unerrable Authority of the Church §. 5. But Protestants fly to particular disputes and in them to the particular Tenets of Schoolmen still as if they were uneasie by all means endeavored to shuffle off such Arguments as would make short work of the business and flew out at every loop-hole to particular Disputes and the private Opinions of the Schools where they knew they could enlarge and talk so long that Years might pass before they could be silenced during which time they hoped the Readers as well as Writers would be tired and by that means they might get their ends And whereas Catholics all along desired them to inform themselves first what the Church held to be of necessary Faith before they entred into Dispute or Writ against us and thereupon to take their Doctrins from the Councils and Universally received Practices And at the last to down-right railing and not from Private Doctors or actions of particulars it was impossible to obtain of them to do it with calmeness but when ever any Argument pinched they fell to railing and began to blacken our Faith to misrepresent our Doctrins Caluminate our Practices and Ridicule our Ceremonies And as the World go's now he that could Rail the most being looked upon as having the better end of the Staff and Calumnies sinking deeper into the Memories of the Vulgar than solid Reasons Catholics grew by degrees to be looked upon as bad as Devils and their Doctrins as the Dictates of Hell it self Hence it was §. 6. Therefore a plain Exposition of our Doctrin was thought necessary that others again thought it necessary to deliver our Doctrin according to the Genuin and approved Sense of our Councils and abstracting from the private Disputes of School-men insist only upon those Doctrins which were universally and necessarily received Neither was the Bishop of Condom the first or only Man that did it Verron had preceded him in France and in the beginning of Queen Marys Days an Exposition was Published here in England much what of the same Nature tho' in a different Method To these I might add the Catechism of the Council of Trent and many others Published in every Country So 2 Tim. 4. that we may justly say we are now fallen into such like times as those which were foretold by St. Paul in which People will not endure sound Doctrin but having itching Ears after Novelties choose to themselves Teachers according to their own Desires Only this is our comfort that we have not been wanting in our Duty we have Preached the Word of God we have been instant in Season and out of Season we have reproved we have rebuked we have exhorted with all long-suffering and Doctrin but they have turned away their Ears from the Truth and believed Fables We have used all the means we can to calm the minds of People that being United in one Faith we might prove our selves to be the followers of Christ but hitherto all has been ineffectual through the ignorance of some whose credulity made them believe every Cry against Popery and the malice of others whose interest prompted them to defame us The Truth of which will appear more clearly §. 7. A Brief account of the Religion of our Ancestors from the first Conversion of this Nation till H. the 8ths Schism whilst I give a brief account of our Controversies in general and of that betwixt the Defender and me in particular In order to which I hope it will not be looked upon as too tedious if we cast an Eye backwards upon the Religion of our Ancestors It is not denyed by our Adversaries Catholic Religion early Established in our Nation but that the Christian Religion took very early Root in this Nation and some Remains of it were found when St. Augustin the Benedictin Monk was sent hither by St. Gregory the Great to reduce the Pagan Idolaters to the Faith of Christ St. Bede who Writes the History of his coming tells us there was carried before him a Banner with the Effigies of Christ upon the Cross and that he came in with a Procession Singing the Litanies c. He tells us also that notwithstanding the long want of intercourse with Rome and the Members of that Communion occasioned by great Oppressions and Persecutions during the Reign of Pagan Kings yet had there not many Errors crept into this Christian part of the Nation for St. Augustin only found two Customs amongst them which he could not Tollerate St. Augustin and the Brittans agree in all things but keeping Easter and some Ceremonies about Baptism the one their keeping Easter at a wrong time with the Quarto-decimani and the other some Errors in the Ceremonies of Administring Baptism these two he earnestly sollicited them to amend but they were obstinate and would not suffer any Reformation in those two Points till God was pleased to Testifie his Mission and the Authority he came with by the Authentic Seal of Miracles Our Adversaries also do most of them acknowledge that when St. Augustin came into England he taught most if not all the same Doctrins the Roman Catholic Church now Teaches and introduced those Practices which they now are pleased to call Superstitions But these Doctrins and Practices were either then Taught and exercised by the British Christians also or they were not If they were not taught by them certainly we should not have found them so easily submit to such Practices and Tenets as our Adversaries call plain and down-right Superstitions and Idolatries and if they were then taught also by the Brittish Christians they were certainly of a much longer standing than St. Augustins time and our Adversaries who pretend the reason why they separate from the Church of Rome is because she has introduced Novelties in matters of Faith may be from thence convinced of the Antiquity of those Doctrins they now call Novelties and must either grant they were introduced by the first Preachers of the Gospel here or shew evidently some other time before St. Augustin when this Church embraced them This Faith and these
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
Practices of the Church of Rome he would have reason to say they contradict our Principles But I tell him also that we renounce those Doctrins and Practices that we detest the very Thoughts of them and that we see no more Connexion betwixt the Consequences of Idolatry and Superstition which he draws from our Doctrin if he take it in it's right sense than there is betwixt the same Consequence which Dissenters draw from their bowing to the Altar and at the Name of Jesus Catholics no more Idolaters than Protestants c. But he takes no notice of this Parallel when given him in such modest Terms and storms at the Method of giving it in the Dissenters Language which shews he has little to say to the Justice of the thing it self But he tells me Pag. 5. that I have mistaken the Question betwixt him and me For his business was only to give a true Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England Indeed had he followed that Design according to the Title of his Book and kept himself entirely to it without those wild Excursions against the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of Rome or only abstained from misrepresenting them I should not have undertaken to Vindicate the Bishops Exposition But perhaps he will say that he did it with Charity and Moderation and that if he had known any thing in his Book Expos Doct. C. of E. Pref. pa. 18. that without dissembling the Truth might have been omitted he sincerely professes he would most willingly have done it As if it were Charity and Moderation to begin with an accusation of our adoring Men and Women Protestant Charity and Moderation Crosses Images and Reliques c. Or as if this and the like did so belong to the Doctrin of the Church of England that he was necessitated in expounding her Doctrin to fix them upon us and could not omit them without dissembling the Truth If he had consulted the Learned of his own party they would have taught him more Charity and Moderation ART II. That Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone OUr Author of the Defence tells us §. 4. he is but little concern'd in this Article Def. pag. 6. neither is it he says his business to examin whether I have truly distinguished betwixt that Honor which we pay to God and that which we give to Saints But really I think considering the stress he has put upon the word ADORATION in his following Discourse A necessary distinction not taken notice of by the Defender he ought to have taken notice of the distinctions which I here gave But he knew that had he done this all his Quotations out of our Liturgies c. would have signified just nothing neither could he have made so plausible an excuse for his Calumnies and Falsifications and therefore he thought it better to leave the true Explication of the Terms and the necessary distinctions betwixt Honor and Honor Worship and Worship Adoration and Adoration c. to others and make use of them still in his own confused Sense as if nothing had been said to rectifie his mistake I see then I must be forced to open the matter a little more plainly Which having once done I hope the Judicious Reader will take notice of what I say tho' he who opposes me may not think it for his purpose And first I must again tell him with Monsieur de Meaux that seeing in one Sense Adoration Invocation and the Name of Mediator I might add Justification Prayer c. are only proper to God and Jesus Christ it is no hard matter to misapply those Terms whereby to render our Doctrin odious And I must here conjure him not to obstruct the hopes of a more Christian Unity which he thinks is now in a fair way to come on by a future misapplication of those Terms To prevent which I must desire him to consider Secondly Respect Honor Worship Service Adoration Veneration c. are equivocal terms and are misapplied by the Defender That tho' we would willingly appropriate peculiar Names or Expressions to signifie the intention with which we do our actions calling that Honor which we pay immediately to God Divine Adoration or Latria That which we pay to Men upon account of natural or naturally acquired Excellencies only Civil and that which we pay to Saints Angels and Holy things Doulia or a Religious Honor not in the strictest Sense of the word but because it has a reference to God who is the Center of all Religious Honor to whom it ought finally to tend and in whom it is ultimately terminated yet the Terms Respect Honor Worship Service Adoration Veneration c. have been so variously used by our Fore-fathers both in our Native and in the Sacred Languages that it is impossible to make them speak uniformly Thus at this very day tho' we affirm that God is only to be Worshiped meaning with Divine Worship yet in the Protestant Common-Prayer Book in the Ceremonies of Marriage the Man says to the Woman with my Body I thee Worship And our Language teaches us to give the Titles of Worshipful or Right-Worshipful to Men of Quality Thus in the Sacred Scriptures Abraham is said to Adore the Children of Heth Josue an Angel c. What I have said of words is likewise to be understood of the exterior actions of the Body Bowing Kneeling Prostrating §. 5. Bowing Kneeling Prostrating c. are variously used Kissing c. all which are not so appropriated to God but that they are and have been in all Ages made use of to testifie our respect to our Kings Parents or Magistrates Lastly I must desire him to consider with us §. 6. The Honor pay'd by those words or actions is distinguished by the Object that this Bowing Kneeling Prostrating c. these Terms of Veneration Adoration Worship Honor c. tho' so promiscuously used are yet distinguished according to the Excellency of the Object on which they are Terminated for if the Excellency be Natural or Naturally or Extrinsical as Nobility Riches or the like the Honor which is due is only Civil or Human But where the Excellency is Supernatural we term the Honor Religious that is such an Honor as Faith and Religion teacheth Now Faith and Religion teacheth us also to make a distinction in Religious Honor according as the Supernatural Objects themselves are distinguished For the Supreme Independent Being is to be Worshiped with a Sovereign unlimited Religious Honor and this Honor which when we speak strictly we call Latria Divine honor called Latria only due to God. is only due to him But as God bestows his Supernatural Gifts upon his Creatures some in one degree some in another so is there an Honor due to them according to their several Degrees and tho' this Honor may be properly called Religious because of its Religious Motive Inferior honor called Doulia
of his Books from their Disciplin nothing gives them more trouble than the vehement desire they see in Parents to make their Children be Baptized when they are Sick or in danger of Death This Piety says he of the Parents is called by their Synods an infirmity It is a weakness to be concerned lest the Children of the Faithful should dye without Baptism One of their Synods had condescended that Children in evident danger of Death should be Baptised contrary to the Ordinary custom But the following Synod reproved this weakness And these fortified persons blotted that Clause out which shewed a concern for such danger because it opened a way to the opinion of the necessity of Baptism So that the Dispute betwixt the Bishop of Condom and the Hugonots The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument Exâ—â—â— pag. 17 was concerning the Necessity of Baptism and not the Consequence of that Necessity as our Defender would gladly have it And his Assertion is that both Catholics and Lutherans are astonished that such a Truth as the absolute Necessity of Baptism should be denyed which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the Faithful Had our Defender rightly taken this Dispute he would have spared himself the pains he has been at to search Hooker Bramhall Cassander Grotius and the Authors cited by them Some of which it may be thought not the Consequence drawn from the Belief of the absolute necessity of Baptism so clear as to be an Article of Faith whilst others especially Gerson were willing to perswade themselves that God Almighty notwithstanding his unlimited Decree might extend his Mercy to such Children But that his Decree being for all in General we ought to Pronounce according to that Decree because without a particular Revelation we ought not to make any Exception from that Rule But neither they nor any else before Calvin denyed the absolute necessity of Baptism as the Bishop Asserts And our Defender if he had any thing to say against him should have opposed that part A Falsification and not have corrupted his words and told us that he affirms that this denyal of Salvaton to Infants dying Vnbaptized was a Truth which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question No no the Bishop knew well enough that Gerson's Piety had made him cast an Eye upon the Mercies of God which he was willing to think might in some cases make him dispense with his Rule and thwart the necessity of the Deduction He knew that Biel and Cajetan were willing to follow singular opinions and therefore might be of the same mind He knew also no doubt of it that Grotius had cited St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustin for this opinion tho' they who look into those Fathers will find he was mistaken neither did St. Augustin in his cooler thoughts differ from himself when provoked by Pelagius tho' our Defender after Grotius dare argue that he did But neither they nor any other openly denyed the necessity of Baptism as the Calvinists do Nor do the Authors he mentions affirm any such thing and therefore it was needless for him to call them in to his help or to tell me I had wholy past by what seem'd the most to deserve an answer Upon this account one may see it was not so ridiculous as he would make it to tell him If he had been a Hugonot or a Puritan it might have seemed reasonable to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome for a Doctrin which they condemn But that I was astonished to see this Argument and to hear the Church condemned of Vncharitableness by one of the Church of England which as he says has it seems * The Church of England in the order for the buriâ—l of the dead rands however unbaprizeed Children with those that dye Excommunicated or have laid violent hands upon themselves Determined nothing of it But if he do not as he owns justify a Breach with us upon this account why I pray does he start the Dispute to keep it open or make it wider by such sinnter Defences ART X. Of Confirmation IF our Defender had §. 46. as he professes several of our own Party on his side persons who denyed the Divine Institution of this Sacrament he would not I believe have conceal'd their Names but would have been as ready to have stuffed his Margent with them as he was in the precedent Article with Cassander and Grotius whom he would make his Readers believe were of our most approved Authors tho' the first was censured for his rash attempt in the Interim and the other lived in opposition to the Church tho' it be thought he dyed in Communion with it Surely our Defender was sadly put to it when he was forced to fly to the silence of the Council of Trent and of its Catechism and to argue that because neither of them offered any thing to prove this Sacrament therefore forsooth it cannot be proved Was it not sufficient for those Books to explicate our Doctrin T is not surely the Business of a Council to prove Proved by Fathers and Scripture but to Assert our Belief And whether the Catechism has been wholy silent in this let the Readers Judge as also how bold and rash some persons will be in their Assertions The Chatechism tels us Catech. Rom. part 2. de Cinf c. 3. p. 158. that the Church has always taught and acknowledged that all things that belong to the Nature and Essence of a Sacrament are found in Confirmation and proves it from many Antient and Holy Popes and Fathers of the Church (a) Epist ad Episc Hisp c. 2. Et de Consec Dist 5. cap. Spiritus Sanctus St. Melchiades who lived Anno 315. (b) Ep. 4. ad Jultan Jul. St. Clement Anno 102. Also from (c) De Consec dist 5. Pope Vrban Anno 232. Fabianus Anno 253. And Eusebius Anno 311. Nay it shews us moreover that (d) De. Eccl. Hier. c. 2. St. Denys the Arepagite does not only speak of Confirmation but expresses the very Ceremonies and the manner of making the Chrism and that (e) Lib. 6. Hist Eccles c. 33. Eusebius of Cesarea thought that Novatus foll into his Heresy for neglecting in his Sickness to be Confirmed And tho' our Defender in his former Treatise was not so bold but only affirmed that the Council and Chatechism did not go about to prove either Christs Institution or the outward visible Sign or the inward Spiritual â—â—race by Scripture yet this Catechism shews that (f) Ambr. in fin c. 7. de lit qui myst init lib. 3. de Sacramentis c. 2. Tom. 4.436 pag. St. Ambrose and (g) Aug. lib. 2. cenâ—ra lit Petil. c. 104. St. Augustin were both of them so perswaded that no one could doubt of the truth of this Sacrament that they both of
his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation
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
examined either ashamed of this Doctrin and recal it or else declare they admit to Authority in the Church and this I shall do as I examin his Exceptions in their order First Exception That the Church of Rome is only a particular Church Answered The Roman Catholic Church includes all particular Churches unâ—ted in Communion with her His first Exception is that the Church of rome is only a particular Church and therefore cannot be properly called the Catholic Church To this I answered that we did not intend by the Roman Catholic Church the particular Diocese of Rome but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome And that this alone was the Catholic Church I proved fully by the marks assigned by the Nicene Creed viz. of Vnity and by consequence of freedom from Schismes and Divisions of Sanctity and by consequence of being free from Heresies Idolatries Superstitions and other Essential Errors of Vniversality also with that Vnity and Sanctity and of being Apostolic that is grounded upon the Doctrins and Faith of the Apostles and deriving a continual Succession from them I proved I say the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Alone to be the Catholic Church which we believe in our Creed because no other Assembly of Christians can pretend to these marks but she But our Defender found this reason too solid to be eluded by his querks and therefore said nothing to it but justifies his exception by an Argument which I wonder any man of reason would offer to produce Now if this that we take all Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Desence pag. 78. for the Roman Catholic Church in truth says he be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholic Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholic as that of Rome it self What sense I pray is there in this Proposition thus worded If he mean as he must to make an Argument that every particular National Church in Communion with the Church of Rome has as good a title to the Name of the Catholic Church as all those particular National Churches joyned together have he will have much a do to perswade any Rational man to believe him who can but understand that a part is not the whole But if he mean that every particular National Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome has as good a title to the name of Catholic as the particular Diocese or National Church of Rome it self that is as he explicates himself presently after has the same Purity and Orthodoxness of Faith. Suppose we grant him it always allowing that difference betwixt the See of St. Peter and other Bishopricks as there is betwixt the head and the other members of the same Body what consequence will he draw from thence against us who allow all other Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be truly members of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor Oh says he This renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholic with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocese and so makes it only a particular not The Vniversal Church And what then I pray Who ever said that the particular Diocese of Rome is the Universal Church We say indeed that the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pastor of the whole Church of Christ which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church but this does not make the Suburbican Diocese to be this Catholic Church For as the Empire when it was in former times diffusd through most parts of Europe part of Asia and part of Africa was called the Roman Empire from the Imperial City Rome so is the Catholic Church spread over the face of the whole world called the Roman Catholic Church because every particular Member is joyned in Communion with the one Supreme Pastor whose See is at Rome And this Universal Church we say can neither fall into Error nor prevaricate the Faith in any necessary Points of it whatsoever a particular Church may do Hence it appears that his second and third Exceptions are nothing to the purpose §. 110. 2d and 3d Exceptions null as being grounded upon his notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken for the particular Diocess of Rome But now says he should we allow the Church of Rome as great an Extent as the Vindicator speaks of c. Ibid. yet all this would not make her the Whole or Catholic Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the world besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the same Faith The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her and continued just in the Same Worship as she hath done And this he conceives cannot easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which he says have plainly for several ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship This is the great Argument of Protestants who would willingly as I took notice in my Vindication have the Catholic Church to be composed of All those who profess the Faith of Christ spread over the face of the Whole World Pag. 104. All those who profess the Faith of Christ are not members of the Catholic Church whether they be Arians Nestorians Donatists Socinians Lutherans Calvinists Church of England Men Roman Catholics or others All which they acknowledge to be Members of the Catholic Christian Church tho' some of them may be Rotten putrid Members they may be true tho' corrupt Churches as a man may be truly a man and yet be very dangerously ill Plain mans reply pag. 14. Thus they provide for Universality in the Church but leave its Sanctity and Unity to shift for themselves unless what a late Author has produced will pass for a Vindication of their Unity Vindic. of the Ch. of England from Schism and Herisy Part. 1. Sect. x. who acknowledges that there may be a Schism from a particular Church but that A Separation from the Catholic Church taken in the most comprehensive sense is not Schism but Apostacy So that if what he says have any sense he must mean that All the different Sects of Christians in the world make up but one Church all which Sects ought to be at such an Union with one another as long as each one keeps within their respective Countries where their Religion is established by Law that no one ought to treat another as a Schismatic seeing there cannot be properly speaking any Schism from the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but only Apostacy which is a Total Defection from
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
the Present Controversies as being the first thing that appeared in Print against Roman Catholics tho' the Author of the Present State of the Controversies would not take notice of it And they who seriously considered the timing of it the persons to whom it was spoken the severity of the accusation and the manner of Publishing it made their conjectures then that it was like a throwing out the Gantlet and bidding defiance to all the Catholics in England Some short remarks were made upon this Sermon in a Paper called a Remonstrance by way of Address from the Church of England to both Houses of Parliament This occasioned the Doctors reply in which he not only endeavored to vindicate himself but threw all the dirt he could upon the Catholic Church laying all the faults of particulars at the Churches Door after such a manner as shewed him neither to understand our Doctrin nor the Principles we go upon It appeared from hence that nothing was to be expected but clamor insincerity and misrepresentation and therefore tho' an Answer was prepared and approved of yet was it thought fit by those who were to be obeyed to let the Controversie dye rather than stir up a Religious Litigation upon a Point which not only the protestations of Catholics but their Practices had justified them in However seeing the Doctors Vindication as well as all the other Books Written since the Pretended Reformation had been chiefly filled up with mistakes or misrepresentations of our Doctrins all which were taken upon trust as Real Truths not only by the Vulgar but by many who tho' pretending to Learning had as appeared never Read any but their own party or at least but superficially Charity prompted a good Man to shew our Doctrins truly as they are in themselves without the Mixtures of the particular Opinions of Schoolmen or the Practices which are neither universally nor necessarily received And in order to this he Published a Book under the Title of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented Papist Misrepresented and Represented in which the Judicious and Learned Author shewed in one Column what was commonly received amongst the Vulgar as the Doctrin of Papists and in the opposite the true Doctrin of the Catholic Church was represented with all the sincerity and candor imaginable All moderate persons who would give themselves the liberty to Read and think acknowledged that Catholics and their Religion had been strangely misrepresented and were apt to lay great faults upon their Leaders who had even from their Pulpits seconded the common Cry. But that party being loath to be thought to have any faults could not endure to be looked upon as Misrepresenters and therefore notwithstanding they could not deny but all that was there exposed under the Title of a Misrepresenter was at least according to the common Notion People had of Popery yet was it not to be called Misrepresenting and tho' they could not deny but all Catholics believe according to that Doctrin which the Representer expresses yet must this pass for new Popery and we must be accused as if we receded from the Faith of our immediate Predecessors whilst we affirm that any change from the Faith delivered by a continual Succession from Christ and his Apostles must needs be damnable This occasioned several Tart Answers and Reply's till at last the Controversie dwindled into nothing but a Verbal Dispute whether telling the World that Popery is Idolatrous Disloyal bloody-minded c. be properly speaking a Misrepresentation or some other word During this dispute two Books were Published with the same Charitable and as was hoped inoffensive intention The first the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685. concerning Religion Acts of the General Assembly together with the complaint of the said General Assembly against the Calumnies Injuries and Falsities which the pretended Reformed have and do every day publish in their Books and Sermons against the Doctrin of the Church The Design of which Book was the same with that of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented with this only difference that in Representing the Tenets of Catholics it made use only of the words of the Council of Trent and the Profession of Faith extracted out of it and in Representing the Calumnies formed against our Doctrins observed Religiously the expressions of Protestant Authors whose very words were cited in the Margent This was so clear a proof of what the Representer had said that 't is supposed his Adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such plain and ample Testimonies The other was the Bishop of Meaux 's Exposition of the Doctrin of the Catholic Church in matters of Controversie The Exposition A Book received by all persons in the Catholic Church of all Ranks and Degrees as containing nothing in it but the Orthodox Doctrin of the Church But all the Repeated Testimonies of his Holiness and the Cardinals Prelates and Doctors of the Church were not enough to make our Adversaries believe it to contain our Doctrins truly so strangely had they been Misrepresented to them And therefore out comes presently another Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England c. In the Preface of which Book the Author pretended to shew that the Bishop of Meaux's design was only to palliate or pervert the Doctrins of his Church because forsooth his Manuscript Copy or if you will the Real first tho' not Authenticated impression differed in some points from what was Printed and allowed of as the first Impression But let us suppose for a moment if he will that what he says were true that the Bishop of Meaux's Manuscript was defective in some points and differently expressed from what it is now in others suppose the Bishop had permitted an impression to be made or as Cardinal Peron is said to have done and which it may be was all the Bishop did had caused a dozen or fourteen Copies to be Printed off to shew them to his friends before he would put the last hand to his Book nay if you will let us suppose that some of the Doctors of Sorbonne were of the number of those friends to whom he Communicated those Copies and that they had made some Corrections Observations or Additions what is all that as the Bishop says to the Book as it is at present We send them not to the Manuscript nor to the first Impression if a few such Copies could be properly called an Impression but to the Book as it is now Printed and and approved of as containing the Doctrin of the Catholic Church As for the Refutation of all the Defenders Arguments upon this head I shall refer my Reader to the Bishops own Letter Published in the Appendix Only whereas the Defender in his Preface to the Exposition page 2. insinuates that the late Mareschal de Turenne did not owe his Conversion to that Book but to some other personal Conferences or Papers to them unknown
I must tell him the Mareschal has more then once expressed the just esteem he had for that Book as for that which first opened his Eyes and gave him satisfaction and did frequently recommend it to others assuring them that if they considered it with diligence it would work the same effect in them If the Defender doubt of the truth of this the Right Honorable the Lord John Bellassise His Majesties Commissioner for the Treasury will assure him that he had it from his own mouth In the Body of the Book he runs through all the Points mentioned by the Bishop §. 10. The Controversie betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender still laying such Doctrins to our charge and backing them with such weak Reasons and falsified Authorities that I thought it my Duty as having Published the Bishops Exposition in our English Tongue to detect the fallacies and lay open the falsifications this I did in my Vindication shewing him upon all occasions that what he opposed as our Doctrin either was not at all our Doctrin and the Authorities he brought to back his Assertion falsified or misunderstood or else if it was the Doctrin of some particulars yet was it neither universally nor necessarily embraced by the Church and therefore not esteemed by us as of Catholic Faith. To this he has made a Reply in his Defence of the Doctrin of the Church of England In which they who Examin nothing but the bold Assertions of an Author will think that he had much the better of it and that the Vindicators Arguments were but silly and that the falsifications c. lay at his own Door But they who will either take the pains to examin matters throughly or Read this following Reply without prejudice will I hope see the matter cleared and that notwithstanding all our Defenders pretences he has not so much as vindicated one of his falsifications nor brought any one Argument but which is merely a fallacy against our Doctrin I shall not go about to prevent the Reader by running through the whole §. 11. The state of the Controversie in particulars but it will not be amiss to shew him wherein the chiefest difficulties of our Controversies ly that he may pass over when he Reads any of our Adversaries Books of which there is so great a glut what do's not make against us tho' it be never so plausible or pleasing for I dare be bold to say that if our Adversaries would but take care of this and write against nothing but what is truly our Doctrins our Controversie would be quickly at an end and all the large Volums that are now Written would dwindle into single sheets How do some People labor to prove §. 12. Honor due to Saints that we Adore Men and Women Stocks and Stones in the utmost propriety of the phrase and shew a great deal of Reading and an excess of Zeal in speaking against Idolatry and Superstition whereas it is no where to be found but in their false accusations For we assure them that we Adore none but God in the utmost propriety of the phrase We honor but adore them not but if you take Adore for Honor in an Inferior Degree we acknowledge that the Saints and Angels may be honored with such an Inferior honor nay all animated Creatures whatever according to their Dignity If you deny it to be lawful to give this Inferior honor to the Saints prove it and you write against us otherwise all your labor is but spent in vain As to Images we say that what we call Veneration for them is no other than an honor pay'd §. 13. Images where we truly owe it to those for whose sake we use such things otherwise then common things We have a Veneration for Images as for Sacred Utensils Dedicated to God and the Churches Service and that too in a less Degree than for our Chalices c. every one being permitted to handle an Image or a Crucifix but not those Vessels which have been rendred venerable by touching the Sacrament of the most pretious Body and Blood of our Redeemer We look upon them as proper Ornaments for a Sacred place as beneficial for the instruction of the ignorant and helps to keep our Minds from wandring or our Affections from being cooled In presence of them we pay our respect to the persons whom they Represent Honor to whom Honor Adoration to whom Adoration but not to the Images themselves which can Challenge nothing of that nature from us because as St. Thomas says inanimate Creatures are not capable of any honor If you dislike this produce your Arguments and you shall be heard But run not to any hard expressions of the Schools as of Absolute and Relative Latria c. if you be Sons of Peace all which tho' they may be perhaps defended in the Sense meant by them yet ought not to be the Subject of our present Controversie which should be only upon those Points which are universally and necessarily received Our positive Answer therefore to the (a) Pref. pag. 20. Defenders Question abstracting from the School Language which he calls Gibberish and containing our selves in the necessary Doctrin and Language of the Church in her Councils is that the (b) See this proved at large by Estius from the seventh General Council lib. 3. dist 9. ◠3.4 Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross is upon no account whatsoever to be Worshipped with Divine Worship That Worship being only due to God. I say however these expressions of the Schools may be easily defended when they explicate their own Sense if we consider also what they acknowledge to be necessary Articles of our Faith. Thus in this particular our necessary Doctrin is that God alone is to be Adored with Divine Worship This all persons consent to When therefore Scholastics speak of Adoration given to Images their expressions are to be interpreted so that they shock not this their first Principle They tell you indeed of a Relative Adoration but when they explicate what they mean by it it is no more than what our Defender himself must Practise for certainly when he makes an Act of Adoration to God or Jesus Christ he Forms an Idea or Image in his Mind for he will not I suppose say he has at those times the Beatifical Vision but that Image tho' it be only a faint Representative yet is in it's Representative nature one with the Object which it Represents and the Adoration which he pays to God he pays to him as Represented by that Image without making at all times a reflection of the difference betwixt that Image and the Object that it Represents and that Homage which he there pays is Divine Adoration not Absolute to the Idea or Image but Relative in Presence of the Idea to the Object which it Represents And thus say they we may Adore Jesus Christ in Presence of a Material Image neither is there any other
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
refer my self to any unbyassed Readers Judgment in the case betwixt us Calumnies pag. 3.32 36 47. Falsifications pag. 31.37 50 54 62 70 126 155. False Translations pag. 42.48 Unsincerities Uncharitable Accusations Wilful mistakes of our Doctrin Affected Misapplications of Equivocal words False Impositions Authors Misapplied Plain Contradictions pag. 46.86 In almost every Article A CATALOGUE OF AUTHORS Cited in the following BOOK With their Editions A ACts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy Engl. 1685. S. Ambros Basileae 1567. Aquinatis Summa Theol. fol. Parisiis 1632. S. Athana Ex Officina Commeliniana An. 1601. S. Augustini Opera Basileae 1569. S. Augustini Opera Imperf Cont. Julian B S. Basilei Opera Paris 1618. Bellarm. de Scrip. Eccl. Colon. 1622. Bellarm. Opera Lugduni 1587. Col. Agrip. 1619. Biblia Sacra vulgat English Protestant Bible Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniae 1618 Brereley Protestant Apology 1608. Liturgy of the Mass Col. 1620. Breviarium Monasticum Paris 1675. C Card. Cajetan in D. Thomam Venetiis 1612. Card. Capisucchi Capit. Theol. Selec Cassandri Opera Paris 1616. Ejusd Consultatio vid. Grotii via ad Pacem Catechismus Romanus Antverpiae ex Officina Plant. 1606. Chemnitii Examen Concil Trid. Francof 1574. Sti. Chrysostomi Epistola ad Caesarium Sti. Chrysost Edit Commelian 1596. item 1603. Frontoduc 1616. The Book of Common-Prayer London 1686. Summa Conciliorum Bail fol. Par. 1675. Concilia Binii Paris 1636. Concilia Gen. Provinc Colon. 1578. Concilium Tridentinum Paris 1674. Cressy against Dr. Pierce 's Court Sermon 1663. Sti. Cypriani Opera Paris 1648. Cyprian Angl. 2d Edit D Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England 1686. Dionys Areopag Eccles Hierarch Paris 1644. Durandus in Sententias Lud. 1569. E Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England 1686. S. Ephrem Edit Ger. Vossii Colon. 1616. Error Non-plust 1673. Estius in 4 Libros Sententiarum Parisiis 1672. Eusebii Historia Ecclesisastica Basileae G The Guide in Controversie 1673. Sti. Gregor Mag. Paris 1533. Sti. Gregorii Opera Sti. Gregor Nazianzeni Opera Paris 1609. Sti. Greg. Nyssen Paris 1615. Antwerpiae 1572. Grotii via ad pacem cum Consult Cassandri 80. 1642. Gualteri Chronologia Lugduni 1616. H Hist Anglic. Harpsfeldei Duaci 1622. Book of Homilies fol. 1673. Hen. Huntingdoniensis Hist Francofurti 1601. I Sti. Irenaei Adversus Haeres Colon. 1596. Sti. Justini Mart. Parisiis 1615. item Edit Commel 1593. L Lombardi Sentent apud Scotum M Maimburg Hist de l' Arianism Edit Paris 4o. 1673. Maldonat in Evang. fol. Mogunt 1611. In Prophet as Minores 40. Mongutiae 1611. Monsieur de Meaux Exposition Eng. 4o. by Hen. Hills 1686. French 5 Edit 12o. A Paris An. 1681. Traité de la Communion sous les deus especes 12o. A Paris 1682. Missale Romano Monasticum Paris 1666. N Nubes Testium 1686. O Origines old Character 1512. P Du Perron Replique a la Reponse du Roy de la Grande Bretaigne fol. Paris 1620. De l'Eucharistie fol. Paris 1629. Plain Man's Reply 1687. Polyd. Virgilius Hist Anglic. Basileae 1534. Pontificale Romanum fol. Romae 1645. Protestant Apology 1608. R Roman Catholic Doctrin no Novelties See Cressy against Dr. Pierce Court Sermon Rufini Historia Basileae S Scotus in Magistrum Sententiarum Antverp 1620. Sherlocks Sermon before the House of Commons 1685. A short Summary of the Principal Controversies 1687. Sixti Senensis Bibl. Sancta Coloniae 1576. Socratis Sozomen c. Histo Basileae Sparrows Collections of Cannons London 1675. 4o. Suarez Venetiis 1597. T Tertulliani Opera Regaltii Paris 1664. Theodoreti Historia Basileae Thorndike just Weights and Measures 4o. London 1662. Epilogue fol. London 1659. V Vasques Antwerp 1620. Vindication of the Church of England from Schism and Heresie 1687. Vindication of the Bishop of Condoms Exposition 1686. A REPLY TO THe DEFENCE OF THE Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England ART I. INTRODVCTION THat he who accuses another of Great and Heinous Crimes §. 1. Def. p. 1. ought to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself of those Faults which he condemns in others is certain But whether this Author of the Defence or I have governed our selves by this Maxim is to be cleared and I suppose the Judicious Readers will neither take his nor my bare assertion for a proof and therefore to avoid more words I commit the whole to their Examen in the following Articles I shall pass by also what he says concerning the Authority of an Imprimatur Carolus Alston c. which he equalizes to a Permissu Superiorum tho' I hope he will not contend with those Testimonies which are given to the Exposition and proceed to the Point in question If Calumny and Vnsincerity be now the Catholic Cry §. I. it is because Idolatry Idolatry and Superstition Prot. Cry and Calumnies at present Superstition and I know not what more harsh names are now the Protestants There was a time as this Author knows in which the genuin Sons of the Church of England excused the Roman Catholic Church of that odious Imputation of Idolatry and acknowledged the Doctrin of the Church as to that particular to be innocent Dr. Jackson Dr. Field Arch-Bishop I and Dr. Heylin Mr. Thern 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammand c. He knows too that some persons never Excommunicated nor censured by the Church of England for it have maintain'd that the Sons of the Church of England cannot defend the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome without denying that Church to be a true Church Other Protestants thought the charge unjust and by consequence without contradicting themselves without going against the intention of the Reformation which was not to make a new Church but to restore a Sick Church to it's Soundness a Corrupted Church to it's Purity Thorn like Just weights and measures Chap. 1.2 Chap. 1.3 Chap. 2. p. 9. without casting the Sin of Schism at their own Dores and being answerable for all the Ill consequences of it Nay more that he who takes the Pope for Antichrist and the Papists for Idolaters can never weigh by his own Weights and mete by his own Measures till he hate Papists worse than Jews or Mahumetans of which the Presbyterian and the Puritan have been guilty but the Clergy and Gentry of the Church of England have been hitherto more Christian I would gladly therefore know how it comes to pass Defence p. 88. that at this time when he acknowledges there was never more cause to hope for an Vnion and wishes that all such things as heighten our Animosities might on all sides be buried in eternal Oblivion An Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England should be ushered in with that odious Imputation of Adoring Men and Women Crosses and Images c. Where do's he find the Church of England in her Thirty Nine Articles or publick Testimonies of her Dogmatical Doctrin charging the Church of Rome
that whether you will or not every Petition to a Prince or a Court of Justice is necessarily a Prayer and he that makes it Invocates or calls upon that Prince or Court for Favor or for Justice 2. Iid. Saints may be Honored I must also with the same Mr. Thorndike say that to dispute whether we are bound to Honor those whom we call properly Saints or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not For if God hath said I will Honor those who Honor me it becomes as certainly to Honor them too And that whether this Honor be Religious or Civil becomes disputable only for want of words vulgar use not having provided proper terms to signify all conceptions which come not from common sense 3. I suppose Mr. Saints pray for us Thorndike as in them spoke also the sense of his Church when he tels us and proves it from undeniable (a) Apoc. v. 8. viii 3. Gen. xxvi 5.24 Exod. xxxii 13. Deut. ix 27. 1 Kings xi 1.32 33 34. xv 4 2 Kings viii 19. xix 34. xx 6. Esd xxxvii 35. 1 Kings xviii 36. 1 Chron. xxix 28. Texts of Scripture and (b) St. Cyprian St. Jerome St. Augustin St. Leo St. Gregory and many more which he could bring passages of the Fathers Ibid. pag. 354. Ibid. pag. 355. Whether they be our Mediators Intercessors or Advocates is only a contention about words That it is not to be doubted that the Saints in Happiness pray for the Church Militant and that therefore whatsoever may be disputed whether Saints or Angels in this regard may be counted Mediators Intercessors or Advocates between God and us will be mere contentions about words which I intend to avoid if I can in all controversial Discourses So that the difference betwixt Catholics and moderate Protestants is not Whether Saints or Angels are to be Honored with an inferior Honor or whether they pray for us but Whether it be lawful for us to Pray to them not in that Sense as if we intended by that Prayer to do that to them which they do to God for us for that as the same Mr. Ibid. pag. 356. Thorndike well observes still really and actually as the same Author notes apprehending them to be creatures which prevents Idolatry could not be said without Idolatry but Whether it be lawfull for us to beseech or intreat them to pray for us And the question betwixt the Defender and us is We may desire them to pray for us Whether such kind of Addresses as these are of such a Nature as to make Gods as he calls them of Men and Women a very disrespectful Term for the Saints who reign with God whom we acknowledge to be our fellow-creatures however exalted to such a glorified State. Perhaps he will here tell me with the same Mr. Thorndike §. 9. That there may be three sorts of Prayers to Saints Three for is of Prayer to Saints accordidg to Mr. Therndike Ibid. The first of those that are made to God but to desire his blessings by and thro' the Merits and Interecession of the Saints The second of those Prayers which are reduced to an Or apronobis And the third when one desires immediately of the Saints the same Blessings Spiritual and Temperal Ibid. pa. 357. which all Christians require of God That as to the first he acknowledges it to be utterly agretable with Christianity Tho' he cannot go so far with Mr. Therâ—â—â—â— as to allow of the word Meris in those Prayers which he thinks makes the Merits of our Saints râ—â— Parallel with the Merits of Christ That the second had the Begâ—â—â—ing in the â— flourishing vines of the Church after Constantine * This is Mr. Thorndikes assertion who affirmas that the lights of the Greek and Letin Churches Bassi Nazlanzen Nyssene Ambrose Jerom Augustin Chrysostom both the Cyrlls Theodoret Fulgeutlus Gregory the Great Leo more or rather all after that time have all of them spoken to the Saints departed and desired their assistance Ibid. pag. 358. but that they were rather 〈…〉 and Rhetorical Flights then direct Prayers and that in them they begun to depart from the practice and Tradition of the three Ages before them But as to the third that he has sufficiently shewn in his Appendix to this third Article that the Church of Rome's Devotions to the Saints are such and that therefore she adores Men and Women To all which I will as briefly as I can give him positive Answers and examin his grounds because he taxes me with negligence in that Point And First §. 10. As to what he says that Monsieur Daillè himself had the same Notion he has of the Expressions of the Primitive Fathers of the Fourth Age viz. that they were rather Innocent wishes and Rhetorical flights than Prayers I do not doubt of it but I think the Rhetoric lies at his door who flies to such a poor shift It seems these were some of the Duriores loci more difficult passages which some only nibled as others could not disgest and he only shifts off under the notion of Rhetorical flights or novelties And therefore Monsieur de Meaux was not out as this Gentleman seems to Insinuate when he said Exposit Sect. 3. page 4. that Protestants in General obliged by the sirength of Truth begin to acknowledge the Custom of Praying to Saints and Honoring their Reliques was Established even in the Fourth Age of the Church Pretestants grant Praying to Saints to have been established in the fourth Age. or that M. Daillè grants as much For certainly his accusing the Fathers of that Age of altering in that Point the Doctrin of the three foregoing Ages and his mincing the Boldness of his Assertion by his Neque 〈◊〉 à vere longe aberr aturum puto and his ferè sunt bujus generis shews that he could not deny but that many of them could not pass for such Defence pa. 7. Howeves the Defender is of Monsieur Daillè's Religion in this §. 11. point and tells us that these Addresses were really of this lind â—nd proves it first from two Examples of St. Gregory Natianzen â—nd from the opinion of those Ages that the Saints departed were â—t admitted to the sight of God immediatly upon their Decease But his first Argument is altogether insufficient The Prayers of the Primitive Fathens to Saints were not Rhetorical slights only For a I say suppose for with leave of the Greek Scollast the patticle If dos not always denote â— doubt but rather takes it for granted So in this place if St. Gregory iustead of hear O Great Soul of Constintint if live last hear me had sald as this Author would have him hear O Grees Soul but I know not â—â—better thou dest or no the Rhetotlcal slight had been spoyled How much rather then may we supâ—e that the Sense of this Pather
enjoy the Beatifical Vision till the day of Judgment yet seeing it is true and confessed by the most * Chemuitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part 3. de Invoc SS Vossius disp 2 Thes 1. Bishop Forbes commends Bishop Montagues candor in acknowledging S. Augustin to allow Invocation of Martyrs and censures Bp. Andrews for denying it Lib. de Invocat Sanctorum c. 4. n. 3. Dr. Fulk in his Rejoynder to Bristow pag. 5. Spalatensis Repub. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12. n. 25. affirms the same of St. Augustin and several others These are cited by S. C. in his answer to Dr. Pierce's Court Semon pag. 192. 198. 199. See also Thorndike cited before pag. 14. ingenuous Protestants that they also held it lawful to invocate the Saints that they not only prayed to them themselves but exhorted others to do the sam◠and this without ever giving them the least caution that their Expressions were only Rhetorical Flights it necessarily follows that Bellarmins Argument would have been of no force with them as indeed it was not with St. Augustin who tho' he durst not decide whether it was the Saints themselves who appeared sometimes at the Memorials and who heard the Prayers or the Angels for them yet made no difficulty to pray to them himself and to record the many benefits which others obtained by Praying to them as may be seen throughout his whole 22d Chapter of his 8th Book De. Civitate Dei. But it seems our Adversaries are forced to great Straits when they are constrained to catch hold of every little Argument which they think ill Managed and rather than not maintain their Novelities cast Dirt in the Face of all the Antient Fathers and accuse that Primitive Church it self whose Purity they profess to imitate and acdording to whose Doctrin they say they have Reformed not only of such gross Errors as are contrary to express Texts of Scripture but of such Ignorance that they held Opinions not only incoherent but even (a) This is one of the Protestants usual amusements to make St. Augustin quarrel with St. Augustin St. Chrysostom with St. Chrysostom c. contradictory to several other expressions in their own Writings How much more Christian like had it been for him to have imitated (b) Proinde cum apud priscos Ecclesiae Doctores legis Justorum animas vivere aut in sinu Abrabae aut in Paradisi nemore aut sub Altare Dei aut in abditis recepriculit lbique expectare suiurae gloriae praemia non statim suspiceris animas Sancterum carere divini intuitus Gleria Sed intellige eas nondum potiri perfecta consummats illa felleitate quam post corporis resurrectionem expectant Bibl. Sancta Lib. 6. Annot. 345. pag. 621.1 Sixtus Senensis whom he cites who after having related the several obscure passages of the Father affirming The Souls of the Just to remain till the day of Judgment in the shades of Paradice under the Altar of God or in hidden receptacles expecting the Future Reward of Glory tels us We must not presently imagic they intend as if the Souls enjoyed not the Beatifical Vision but only that they did not yet possess that entire Felicity which they expect after the Resurrection of the Body What if some of the Fathers believed that Saints departed were not admitted to the highest Heaven immediately upon their deceases Do's not our Lord himself tell us there are many Mansions in his Fathers House and Saint Paul that as the Stars do differ in Glory so do the Saints in Heaven We need not enquire how one may be subordinate to another as the degrees of Angels are Let us let that alone till we come thether However let Monsieur Daillè and this Gentleman take heed lest while they deny any Invocation of the Saints they stumble not upon Purgatory Certainly what ever sense may be put upon the Primitive Fathers Writings the constant practice and Tradition of the Church shews that she always believed some persons to enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after their departure out of this life tho there remains a further complement of their Glory at the general Resurrection when Soul and Body shall be united Another piece of the like Veneration for the Antient Fathers follows §. 13. Primitive Fathers calumniated by the Defender where he accuses those of the 4th Age of departing from the practice and Tradition of the Ages before them and endeavours to prove it from the profound Silence of the Fathers of the Three first Ages from whom he challenges me to bring him any one Instance of such Intercession Had he consulted his Brethren the Centurists of Magdeburg §. 14. Prayers to Saints within the 1st 300. years he would not have made so bold a Challenge for they acknowledge that Origen who lived Anno 226. (*) The Centurists of Magdeburg Cent. 3. col 83. lin 49. alledge Origen saying O Beate Job or a pronobis miseris Prayed to Holy Job and admitted the d Invocation of Angels they affirm also that there are manifest steps of the Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that Antient Age. Had he also consulted Cardinal Perron whom he cites he would have seen that the Fathers of the 4th Age were so far from departing from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them that they make mention of that foregoing practice Thus St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon upon the Aniversary of St. Cyprian (a) Again Cent. 3. col 75. line 29. they say Angelos etiam Origines invocenlos putavit Hom. 1. in Ezech. I em cent 3. c. 4. col 83. line 47. Videat in Dectorum hujus saeculi scriptis non obscura vestigia invecationis Sancterum Apud Protestnat Apology Tr. 2. sect 3. subd 7. pag. 95 in margine n. 26 27 28. who flourished in the year 250 not only prays to him but relates a History how St. Justina being in danger of making Shipwrac of her Chastity by the Magical Art of St. Cyprian before he was converted to the Catholic Faith had recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary begging of her to assist her whose Virginity was in danger By which relation whether he was mistaken in the Cyprian he mentions or no it matters not he at least plainly shews that the practice did not arise in his time but was the common Custom of the precedent Age. What then if the few Writings of the Antients of the First 300 years which remain be silent in this particular does it follow that they approved not the practice or is there nothing now to be believed in the Church but what must be found in their Writings This indeed might be a Socinians plea but I did not think those of the Church of England as by law Established would have stood upon it when an Act of Parliament obliges them to Venerate the 4 first General Councils Stat. 1 Eliz. c. 1. so far as not to judge any matter or
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
SANCTORVM frustra frequent ari omnino damnandos esse after this manner so that they who affirm the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented for the obtaining their Aid that is the Aid of the Saints are to be condemned fixing Eorum to its Substantive Sanctorum which follows in the same Sentence rather than to Monumenta in the foregoing from whence it is separated in most of the Editions I have seen by a Hyppooolon I say I appeal to any Jury of Scholars Whether I did not give the true sense of the Sentence and whether the Defender be not short in his Translation But if he have a mind still to pursue the Cavil all I can do is to wish him a clearer sight or to send him to the Words as they are Printed in Bail 's Summa Conciliorum Sess 25. de Invocat Venerat c. pag. 701. E. Where he will find the Word Eorum quite left out which will I hope satisfy him that we neither make our Prayers I'a ut affirâ—â—â—tes Sanctâ—rum Reliquits veneratienem at que benerem non debevi veleas aliaque sacra Monum â—ta a filelibâ—â— inuâ—iliter bonâ—rari atque opis impetrande causi Saâ—â—orum Memorias frustra frequentars ommine damnindes esse c. Memoriae Sancterum alia sacra Monumenta are the same and therefore if corum hâ—d been referred to the Monuments or Memorials it ought to have been of the seminine gender in that sentence thus earum memoriarum opis in petrandae causa Non qued credatur inesse aliqua in its Diviâ—itas vel virtus propâ—er quam sint colâ—â—dae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid peiendum vel quod fidutia in Lâ—â—agin but sit figâ—â—da c. to the Monuments nor to the Reliques nor Memorials of the Saints The Council then as appears plainly by the words of it condemns three forts of persons The first those who affirm that Veneration and Honor is not due to the Reliques of Saints The second those who affirm That Reliques and other Holy Monuments are unprofitably honored and the third those who say that the Memorials of the Saints are in vain frequented in order to obtain the aid and assistance of those Saints and they who give another sense wrest the Words and impose a Doctrin which never any Divine of the Church of Rome held nor any that I have met with but the Defender accused them of and yet this must be again repeated in his Close as a piece of old Popery but he should rather have called it new Calumny and a fearful Blunder of his own They who doubt whether I speak truth or no may be pleased to Read the Council it self and some Lines further they will find that it professes it does not believe that any Divinity or Vertue is in Images for which they ought to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or any trust to be put in Images and I think the same case holds in Monuments There remains one Objection from Bellarmin §. 28. concerning the Veneration of Images mentioned by the Defender in his Close which is Bellarm. de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 21. p. 1697. Ch. 22. Non esse dicendum Iataginibus deberi culium Latriae Ch. 23. Imagines Christi improprie velper accidens posse honorari culiu Latriae Ch. 24. Imagines â—er se propries non esse colendâ—â—â—o cultu quo 〈◊〉 ipsum colitur Ch. 25 Quina conelusio Culous qui per se proprie debetur Imaginibus est Cusius quidam impersedus qui a 〈◊〉 reductive peranet ad speciens ajue Culius qui debeiur examplari That he affirms the Images of Christ and his Saints are to be Venerated not only by accident and improperly but also by themselves and Properly so that the Veneration is terminated in them as they are considered in themselves and not only as they are the Representatives of the Originals But had he looked into his Explication he would have found that the Veneration he there speaks of is only such as is given the Book of Gospels or the Sacred Utensils of the Church And the Titles of his three following Chapters and the Conclusion he draws from them in the fifth shew that the Vindicator and he did not differ in their Faith. ART V. Of Justification THe Defender is very free in his Accusations §. 29. Desence pag. 25. but very unfortunate in his Proofs He tels us of sirange abuses with which the true Doctrin of Justification was over-run at the beginning of the Reformation and wonders at my confident denial of it without any Proof when at the same time he brings no other himself but a bare affirmation that he must be very ignorant in the Histories of those times The Catholic Church falsely accused c. I must confess we shall find in those Ages strange Accusations of the Catholic Doctrin but who ever peruses the Acts of our Councils will find they were only mere Calumnies and Misrepresentations I need not send oun Defender further than to the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685 Where he will find those Calumnies Injuries and Falsities proved out of their own Authors But what our Defender means now by the true Doctrin of Justification is not very easie to Guess unless he State it in Calvins way or the 11th Article of his Church which yet he knows tho' he have a mind to keep counsel is disavowed by the best and honestest Divines of the English Church I speak not here of Mr. Thorndike but of many others as Dr. Taylor Dr. Hammond Mr. Bull and who must be set by himself Mr. Baxter Nay Report too says that the Pulpits also as many as do not persevere in Calvinism do directly declare against it and that with all the reason in the World that Men may no longer perish by wresting St. Pauls difficulter expressions to their own Damnation which 't is believed (a) 2 Pet. 3.16 St. Peter points at we are sure (b) Jac. 2.20 26. St. James doth Yes yes time was they tell us that the Church of Rome was loudly accused of Erring in Fundamentals because she taught Justification by Faith and Works without which Faith is but Dead but now the Fundamental Error is found to lye elsewhere God be thanked and yet Justification must still remain for so goes the Game a Bone of Contention Want of Charity will always keep us asunder and tho' we be agreed yet the spite of it is we will not agree The Defender knows upon what Politic motives things are so managed and who are to be gratified at this Juncture lest there should appear a possibility of union * See the Advertisment to the Bp. of Condoms Exposition pag. 8. Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England pag. 21. with that Church from which they separated themselves principally upon account of our Doctrin of Justification tho'
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
them as with a Seal and gave the Pledge of the Holy Ghost in their Hearts I need not I suppose tell him that this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead signifies that we ought not to be ashamed to Consess the Faith of Christ Crucified as the Church of England expresses it in the Office for Baptism that the white Cloath or Fillet as he calls it is to put us in mind of the Purity we ought to maintain and keep the Garment of Innocence which we received in Baptism unspotted and that the Blow on the Ear is to teach us that we ought from thence forwards to suffer patiently all Injuries and Persecutions for the Faith. These and such like significant Ceremonies we use and tho' he and his party be pleased to joke at them yet having such Testimonies as we have of their Antiquity and Apostolical Institution we choose rather to glory in them than under the pretences of a Reformation to Renounce them and the Practice yea the Communion of the Universal Church ART XI Of Penance CErtainly the Defender never read what I offered §. 49. Defence pag. 41. otherwise he would never have said that I had not advanced any one thing to answer his Objections He says he proved at large that Penance was not truly and properly a Sacrament nor ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church How did he prove it By many bold Assertions without any Warrant And if I affirmed the contrary without Proof I had his Precedent for it The Bishop of Condom had proved the Sacrament of Penance by the Terms of the Commission granted by our Blessed Saviour to the Apostles and their Successors Matth. 18.12 John 20.23 of remitting and retaining sins Expos p. 18. the terms says he of which Commission are so general that they cannot without Temerity be restrained to public Sins Our Expositor's Answer to this was that the Primitive Christians had interpreted those passages of St. Matth. and St. John concerning Public Disciplin to which he supposes with them that principally at least if not only they refer I desired him to shew who those Primitive Christians were Vindic. pag. 64. and where they taught those passages to be only referred to a public Disciplin But to this he would not vouchsafe to give an Answer He objected that if Penance had been any thing more than a part of Christian Disciplin the Antient Church would not have presumed to make such changes in it nor Nectarius have begun to weaken it in his Church of Constantinople nor his Successor St. John Chrysostom have seconded him in it In answer to which I told him that Public Confession such as that which Nectarius and St. Chrysostom took away was a part of Disciplin and therefore alterable at pleasure Vindic. pag. 65. but that either Public or Private Confession was always necessary because it was always necessary a Judge should know the Case and a Physitian the Distemper before the one can pronounce a right Sentence or the other prescribe a wholsom Remedy But he thinks it a sufficient Reply to say he cannot take this upon my Word He had laid Scandals upon our Doctrin and Practice or at least insinuated them and therefore I looked upon my self as obliged to give my Readers a short Account of both and after I had done it I told him those were our Doctrins and Practices conformable to that of the Antient and Orthodox Churches and that I was astonished why they should be rejected and no better ground brought than we suppose Expos Doct. Church of England pag. 43. or we beg leave with Assurance to say that such Doctrins are directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture One would have thought in answer to this he should have shewn some better Proofs and have brought Testimonies of that Tradition or at least have produced some one of those plain and undoubted Texts of Scripture But alas he could not do that and therefore he passes it off by calling it Stuff and with a fulsome Joke upon my Ashonishment telling me that if ever I get so well out of it as to come to my Reason again and will undertake to prove Penance to be truly and Properly a Sacrament c. I shall have an ingenuous Reply to my Arguments In the mean time say I §. 50. The Church of England wishes it were re-established let him and his Church be so ingenuous as to restore the practice of Confession and Penance which they seem so much to wish for in the Ash-wednesday Office at least that in publick not to say any thing of the judgment of all the sober persons even amongst themselves who wish well to all Salutary Methods which Christ has left in his Church and particularly to this and then we might find a happy opportunity of proposing Arguments In Confirmation you make a shift to deny the Sacrament but have not renounced the Practice it may be for Episcopacy sake but in Penance the Practice has followed your renouncing the Sacrament And call you this a Reformation which seems to be more careful of the Dignity of the Pastor than of the Salvation of the Flock I think the Defender would do well to consider this and perhaps he will be astonished at their own proccedings I told him this Doctrin was established in England together with Christianity by St. Augustin and the Benedictin Monks and that if he would have us to relinquish it he must bring us either some manifest Revelations or demonstrative Reasons for nothing else could induce us to quit a possession of so long standing But he knew this would be impossible for him to do and therefore he resolved to keep at distance and put us upon the proof A proceeding which would not hold in Law where an uninterrupted Possession is a sufficient Evidence See Mr. Ricauâ—'s History Anno 1678. Ch. 12. What I have said of England I may say of all other both Eastern and Western Churches who unanimously held at the beginning of the Reformation that Penance was a Sacrament and looked upon the Doctrin as coming from the Apostles they having an uninterrupted Possession of it ART XII Of Extream Vnction IF the Defender had rightly considered the Question betwixt us §. 51. The Defender mistakes the Question he would have spared a great part of the pains he has taken in this Article and have let alone the pretended Proofs he brings from our Antient Liturgies as wholy impertinent Tho's he could not deny but that in Extream Unction there is both an outward Visible Sign and an inward and Spiritual Grace annexed to it yet because he was to oppose the Catholic Church he would have this to be only a Ceremony made use of in the Miraculous Cures of the Apostles And to prove this he affirmed that the Antient Rituals of the Roman Church for 800 Years
purpose Defence pag. 44. seeing by his own Confession they who had the greatest measure of those Gifts could not exercise them when they would but only when the Spirit of God instructed them And lastly Seeing he assures us that they never attempted those miraculous Cures but when the same Spirit taught them that the sick person had Faith to be healed and that it would be to the Glory of God to do it I desire he would at his leisure let us know how it came to pass that the Primitive Christians exercised this Extream Unction if it tended only to miraculous Cures after Miracles were ceased For it is manifest that if they never did or if it were unlawful for them to use this anointing with Oyl for miraculous Cures but when the Spirit of God dictated to them that they should be healed this Extream Unction mentioned by St. James and generally practised for the first 800 Years most of which Time there was few such Miracles wrought cannot be that miraculous Unction of which he speaks When therefore St. James adds let them Pray over him anointing him in the Name of the Lord he speaks of an ordinary dispensation and gives us hopes of the effect I told him Miraculous Cures were wrought in the Lame and the Blind but the Apostle includes not them Here to shew his Learning he tels us that the Greek word may include them also But does the Apostle speak of such as are well and Heart-whole as we say the Lame and the Blind may be such as do not keep their Beds or does he not rather speak of Decumbents in Sickness in your own sense for they only can be raised up I added that the Power of Miracles was not tied to Unction only From whence it followed that if the Apostle had only spoken of miraculous Cures he would not have limited them to that Ceremony But the Defender thinks this was the ordinary Sign the most common and frequent amongst them and grounds his thoughts upon St. Mark 6.13 But the Evangelist only tels us there that the Apostles did anoint many sick people and cure them But seeing the same Holy Evangelist Ch. 16. v. 18. tells us that Christ promised that those who believed in him should lay their Hands upon sick people and heal them why may not this Imposition of Hands be looked upon as no less common and frequent nay more frequently used in those miraculous Cures than Unction because more ready and easy to be performed upon any occasion And if so had the Apostle intended only to invite persons not to neglect those miraculous Cures by our Authors Argument he should have mentioned that Imposition of Hands I told him further that all those that were anointed were not cured But this he says is false and dishonorable to the Spirit by which they acted How were all those that were anointed for the first 800 Years cured If not let him tell us when those miraculous Cures ceased and why the Spirit of God which he says taught them when they should anoint and when they should not did not also teach them to discontinue the Practice of it when the Church needed not Miracles to confirm her Doctrins and how it is that Protestants are become so learned at present as to reject it after above 1600 Years perpetual practice Moreover I said that all those who were cured by them that had the Gift of Healing had not an assurance by that cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins This again he says is false From which and the foregoing Assertion it would follow in our Defenders sense That no persons either died or were damned that had this Extream Unction given them till the Spirit of God left the Church and she fell into an Error using it with a primary respect to the Soul when God had instituted it only for miraculous Cures And therefore I had reason to tell him that if St. James's expression the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up had been meant of bodily Health those only would have died in the Apostles Time I might have added as long as the Church understood that passage in his sense which he thinks was for 800 Years who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony An argument which because he could not answer he was willing to throw Dust in his Readers Eyes by retorting of it and telling us that if it were to be understood of the Souls Health it would follow that none were damned either then or now but they who neglect this Advice or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Sacrament Of the Truth of which he desires my Opinion I answer him That it is a Truth never doubted of in the Church that all those who receive this Sacrament with due preparation and in that state which is required as necessary by the Curch and fall not into new mortal sins before their Deaths are saved And if he do but consider that the Church requires the person who rightly receives this Sacrament should be in the state of Grace it being one of those which only augments Grace but does not restore it when lost he will rest of this Opinion ART XIII Of Marriage THe Bishop of Meaux having told us §. 55. Maâ—th 19.5 that Jesus Christ has given a new Form to Marriage reducing this Holy Society to two persons immutably and indissolubly united Eph. 5.32 The Bishop of Meaux and the Defender agreed â—xpos Doct. Church of England pag. 45. that this inseparable Vnion is the Sign of his eternal Vnion with his Church and that therefore we have not any difficulty to comprehend how the Marriage of the Faithful is accompanied by the Holy Ghost and by Grace And the Defender having told us in his Exposition that for the Point of Marriage Monsieur de Meaux has said nothing but what they willingly allow of I was in hopes the Dispute would have been at an end because as I told him we require no more And to clear the Point further We demand no more I told him that tho' Catholics esteem Marriage to be a Sacrament truly and properly so called yet not in so strict a sense as he would bind the word Sacrament to that is it is not a Sacrament after the same manner as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are nor generally necessary to Salvation The Reasons he then brought why it was not strictly a Sacrament were first because as he said it wanted an outward Sign to which by Christs Promise a Blessing is annexed And secondly because the Church of Rome denying it to the Clergy did not esteem it generally necessary to Salvation As for his last Reason I say I acknowledged it was not a Sacrament in that strict manner but as for the first I told him it might easily be evinced by the whole Torrent of Fathers and plain Texts of Scripture as interpreted by
persons to love one another as Christ loved his Church and because they are two in one Flesh tels them this is a great Sacrament but I speak in Christ and in the Church which words shew plainly what I have already mentioned that Marriage is truly a Sacrament in the Church and in Christ tho' it be only a civil Contract out of it It is a Sacrament instituted by Christ to represent the indissoluble Union betwixt him and his Church and therefore has his Grace annexed to it that it might truly represent that Union for an uncomfortable Marriage does not well represent it nor one that may be dissolved But here the modern Innovators after Erasmus cry out the word Sacrament is a false Translation the Greek word being Mystery But this is only a Trick of Protestants who as they were wont in their first Bibles to leave out the word Church whereever they met with it in Scripture and put in Congregation because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would bear that sense so here because the Greek has no other word but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express a Sacrament and a Mystery therefore it must be rendred Mysiery lest their People should with their Forefathers understand Marriage to be properly a Sacrament But certainly they who are not willing to be imposed upon will rather follow the Interpretation of all the antient Fathers and Commentators upon this place who unanimously agree that St. Pauls sense was that Matrimony is properly a Sacrament and that a great one because it signifies the Vnion betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church than these novel Criticks Indeed where persons have a mind to cavil there is no Text of Scripture so plain but may be wrested to a different sense and therefore we are forced upon those occasions to fly to the Tradition of the Church By Universal Tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches and the unanimons consent of those Interpreters who lived before that Dispute arose And thus it is no wonder that Estius should say we have not any Text of Scripture that plainly and evidently proves this Doctrin without having recourse to the Tradition of the Church But when this Tradition is such that not only the antient Fathers as St. Hierom St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophilact St. Augustin St. Anselme and generally all Commentators till Erasmus agreed in it but also the whole Church both of the East and West consented to it as appears not only by the general consent of all their Divines for the last 600 Years but by the Definitions of Councils held since that time and particularly that of Florence where the Greek and Latin Fathers were agreed upon this point as also by the Testimony of Hierimias Patriarch of Constantinople for the Greeks who in his own name as Cardinal Bellarmin observes Bellarmin de Mâ—rim Sacrant lib. 1. c. 4. pag. 1304 B. and in the name of all the Grecian Bishops declared against the Augustan Confession of the Lutherans in this point of Marriage being a Divine Sacrament as he did also against all their other Innovations I say when this Tradition is so antient clear and universal what a madness must it be to reject it because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Mystery as well as it does a Sacrament One thing more remains §. 60. Marriage not necessary for every one which has been thought a witty Objection against the Church that she makes Matrimony a Sacrament and yet denies it to her Clergy for a Sacrament say they must be Generally necessary to Salvation But this is plainly a forced Principle taken up upon begging the Question about the number of the Sacraments and besides is not so heartily believed in the Two which Protestants pretend to maintain For the Sons of the Church of England for any thing yet appears are not much perswaded of any such great necessity I speak not of what they call Superstitious Vnction but even of the Eucharist it self for dying persons For unless they can get company to Communicate besides the Decumbent he must lye in his Agony and venture into the other World without his Viaticum As for the Churches scrupling Marriage to her Clergy it is a difficulty to those who consider not the Sanctity of Priesthood If there be any state more perfect than another I hope it belongs to the Priest but the state of Marriage is more imperfect than the state of a resolved Virginity as you dare not deny shall not the Church than give leave to her Hierarchy who are or ought to be the most perfect to degrade themselves amongst the conjugate when she always maintained an order of Virgins even in the weaker female Sex or rather may she not direct them to follow the Evangelic counsel of being Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God But I will not dilate upon this The Church appoints her Sacraments where they are proper She does not appoint Marriage for all nor Extream Unction to the Lusty nor Holy Orders to every one You make a profession to scruple the use of Marriage at some solemn times if you dissemble not and the Church upon the same reasons scruples Marriage it self to some certain Orders of Men. ART XIV Of Holy Orders IN this Article §. 61. as well as in the last the Defender hath shewn us how much he is a Man of Peace and what hopes we may have of composing Differences He gave us indeed a fair Overture for an Agreement in his Exposition and I told him I was glad of it But what will his party say if he seem to close with Rome and therefore all his fair appearances and concessions must be now cast off and of a closing Friend as he then appeared he is now become an open Enemy If the Vindicator says he be agreed with me in this Article what then he does not say I am glad of it we draw neer to Unity no that would be to incur the Censure of those who live by breaking the Churches Peace but he says If we be agreed he musi renounce the number of his Seven Sacraments How For my part I thought he had spoken his mind sincerely before and the sense of his Church Expos pag. 46. when he told us That Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders The Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost might perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament and therefore I told him that we said no more and that we denyed it to be a Sacrament common to the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are and so far I found no difference betwixt us One would have thought upon this account that he had rather renounced his number Two than I my Seven Sacraments seeings in effect he allowed Holy Orders to be a third Oh but he only said §. 62. His new Evasions answered perhaps it
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
of Judicature that gave Sentence against him still inventing new Cavils and pretending that X. * This is the Defenders answer to the parallel case I brought him from our Blessed Saviour's turning Water into Wine by these or the like words This is Wine the weakness of which put off will appear from what I premised as a consideration at the beginning of this Section begs the Question supposing there was a change of Dominion made by those words This is your estate and that his Predecessors understood it so but that for his part he supposes the Contrary and he can find some persons even in the first ages that said the estate of A. did resemble the estate of B. And he does not see but that his supposition is of as much weight as that of X's and his interpretation as sound and seeing all Courts of Judicature are fallible and those words of A. are the rule he must go by seeing he cannot perswade himself the words ought to be taken any otherwise than figuratively he will not acquiesce to any Court Would not any one think that such an obstinate Sophister as this ought to be thrown out of Court and forbid ever to put in his claim to disturb it This is truly our case I leave the Defender to make the application and the Reader to judge whether obstinacy in Religion be not a greater crime than in Law and whether a Supreme Court of Ecclesiastical Judicature has not more reason to pronounce an Anathema against those who disturb the setled peace of the Church by opposing her received Doctrins than a High Court of Justice to condemn a litigious person as a common Barreter Thus much to his first Argument It seems I committed a fault before §. 76. Second Objection From the practice of the Jews Defence pag. 54. in not taking notice of our Authors second Argument drawn as he pretends from our Saviours intention An Argument which he tels us has been urged chiefly since Bellarmins time and therefore I had nothing to say to it a great sign of its force and Antiquity An Argument used by the Jews against Christians and therefore fit to be taken up by our new Reformers Expos Doctrin Church of England pag. 50. Let us now therefore see it As in the Jewish Passover says he the Master of the house took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt Ibid. pag. 49. so in the Holy Sacrament our Saviour after the same manner took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is broken for you do this in remembrance of me But as it is evident that that Bread which the Jews every year took and Brake and said This is the Bread of Affliction c. was not that very Bread which their Ancestors so many Generations before had eaten there but was design'd only to be the Type or Figure of it So neither could our Saviours Disciples to whom he spake and who as Jews had so long been acquainted with that Phrase ever believe that the Bread which he held in his hands which he Brake and gave them saying This is my Body which is broken for you c. was the very actual real Body of Christ Therefore they understood it to be a Type or Figure of that Body which was about to be broken for them In answer to this I say First If not only the Bread but the Paschal Lamb it self was a Type and Figure of this Sacrament and Sacrifice after the Order of Melchisedec this being Instituted as our Author confesses for the like end which the Passover had been and now for ever to succeed in its place Expes pag. 49. certainly the thing Figured ought to be more perfect than the Figure the Substance than the Shadow But if the Perfection of the Substance consisted only in signifying our Blessed Saviours sufferings certainly that Bread of affliction was as Perfect a Type as this and the Paschal Lamb a much more Perfect Figure of his Passion Secondly All the whole Argument you see runs upon a supposition that our Blessed Lord spoke figuratively because the Master of the Feast in the Passover did so which is as unconclusive an Argument as if in my last Example h. should argue thus the Predecessors of A. when they shewed the Map of their Estate were wont to say This is my Estate therefore when A. said to B this is your estate he gave him only the Map and not the Estate it self Thirdly Expes pag. 50. I cannot but admire that our Defender should think the Bishop of Meaux obliged to make less exceptions against this Argument because it was the Original remark of the very Jews themselves long before the Reformation You will not send us sure to the Jews to know whether our Blessed Saviour was the true Messias or no and will you send us to them to know whether he gave his Body and Blood to his Disciples in the Sacrament They Crucified the Lord of life as a Malefactor and must they be believed in the highest Mysteries of our Religion No wonder if they who esteemed him to be mere Man should esteem his Blessed Sacrament to be more Bread. Lastly You tell us the Master of the Feast took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which your Fathers eat in Egypt From whence have you this for I find it not in Scripture T is true we find Deut. 16.3 that God commanded the Jews to eat for seven days the Bread of Affliction without leaven to the end they might remember that it was with fear and trembling that they went out of Egypt But was it not true Bread they there eat and why shall we not then believe it is the true Body of Christ tho' we eat it in remembrance of his bitter Passion I need not take notice of his other insignificant Arguments drawn from Scripture §. 77. Third Objection From its being called Bread after Consecration as that the Apostle cals the Sacrament Bread even after Consecration that to break Bread was the usual Phrase in the Time of the Apostles for receiving the Holy Communion Every common Catholick can tell him that Eve was called Bone of Adams Bone Moyses his Rod Expos Doct. Ch. Eng pag. 50. 1 Cor. 10.16 c. 11.26 Act. 2.46 c. when changed into a Serpent was still called a Rod The Wine at the Marriage in Cana was called Water the Blind are said to see and the Lame to walk He has also been often told that the Scripture usually speaks according to the appearance of things and therefore as it called the Angels Men because they appeared like Men c. so does it call the Eucharist Bread because it has the outward Appearance of Bread. Moreover by Bread in the Jewish language was usually understood any
the Defender need not fear that St. Chrysostom should lose his credit amongst us or that we shall henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation since we cannot any longer suppress his Doctrin No no neither he nor Theodoret were against the Doctrin of the Real and Substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament tho' our Adversaries by all their Arts endeavor to draw one obscure passage out of either of them as favoring their opinion As for St. Chrysostom I must tell the Defender with Bigotius Integrum librum conficerem si ex Chrysostomo locos omnes excerperem in quibus de Sacratissima Eucharèstia similiter loquitur sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit eos in fonte legisse that should I extract all the places out of his works in which he uses the like plain expressions of the Real presence it would make a Book by it self They who desire farther satisfaction may go to the Fountain it self and if they will but spend some sew hours in a Library and there Read entirely and not by parcels his 83 Hom. in Mattb. his 21 Hom. in Act. and his 24 in 1 Cor. they will there find how contrary St. Chrysostoms opinion is to what the Defender would make us believe (a) Expost Doctr. Ch. of Eng. p. 56. His next Argument is from the Schoolmen §. 84. Argument from Schoolmen who as he says and cites these Authors in the (b) Lomb. 4. dist 10. Scotus 4. dist 2. qu. 11. Margent for it confess that there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation (c) Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 13. ss secundo dicit where he cites many others of the same opinion That there is not any that withot the Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it (d) Cajeta◠in 3. D. Th. qu. 75. Art. 1. That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words the other might with as good warrant have been received (e) See Scotus cited by Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss Vnum tamen See also Gabricl cited by Suarez T. 3. disp 50. Sect. 1. So Lembard l. 4. sent dist 11. lit A. And that this Doctrin was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 Years after Christ and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day In answer to this Argument I told him first Vindi◠pag. 80. that if the Schoolmen used those Expressions that There was no formal proof in Scripture for Transubstantiation which could evince it without the Declaration of the Church it is but what they also affirm as to the Trinity and consubstantiality of the Son nay even as to all the Principal Articles of our Faith and as to the Scriptures themselves their being the word of God all which stood in need of the Churches Declaration to make them clear and convincing either to obstinate Heretics who were always ready to drop Texts of Scripture or to Atheistical persons who would rely upon nothing but Sense and Reason Secondly Ibid. pag. 82 83. I desired him to state the Question right and to distinguish betwixt the Doctrin of the Church and the Doctrin of the Schools I told him the Doctrin of the Church was contained in the Canons of the Council of Trent which Anathematised all those who should say that the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Sess 13. can 2. together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ or should deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood the species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation But I told him that the Schoolmen tho' they all agreed as to the matter yet might have had several opinions concerning several possible manners of explicating Transubstantiation all which opinions as they were not of necessary belief so were they not to enter as a part of our Dispute with Protestants And upon this account I told him Lastly that he mistook the meaning of our Authors who when they spoke of the matter that is of the real and substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and absence of Bread which is made by that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of one into the other called by the Church Transubstantiation they were all at perfect agreement asserting it as a matter of Faith always believed in the Church tho' more explicitely declared in the Council of Lateran and other succeeding Councils upon account of the opposition made by Berengarius and his Followers But that as to the manner of explicating this Transubstantiation as whether it were by Production or Adduction or Annihilation Lombard says Cum haec verba proferuntur conversto fit Panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi Lomb. in 4. dist 8. li◠C. He also in his 10 dist shews it to have been an Herosy in his time not to have believed that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of ids Body and Blood. Tho' in the 11 dist he consesses he knows isot the manner how this conversion is made See the Vindic. pag. 91. the disputes that might arise amongst them regarded not our Faith which only tels us there is a true and real Conversion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which Conversion the Church calls Transubstantiation The Reply our Defender makes to this §. 85. A mistake of the Vindicators sense Defence pag. 62. seqq is ushered in with a Mistake grounded perhaps upon my not so cautiously wording a sentence which if taken alone might bear the sense he draws it to tho' if one regard what went before and followed after it cannot reasonably be wrested to it a Mistake I say affirming me to have advanced an Exposition quite contrary to the Doctrin of our Church and design of the Council of Trent which did not only define the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentarians but also the Manner or Mode as he calls it of his presence in the Sacrament against the Lutherans in two particulars 1. Of the absence of the substance of Bread and Wine 2. Of the Conversion of their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But I assure him it was never my intention to deny the Doctrin of a true Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ but only to affirm that the manner how that Conversion is made was controverted in the Schools and therefore what he brings against this mistake 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
they will have the Essence of a Sacrifice to consist in a slaying of the Victim but by that act only there is a true Immolation of Jesus Christ viz. a separation of his Body from his Blood by â—he words of Consecration tho' the natural concomitance hinder the Blood or Soul from being truly separated from the Body Against this reason after other Arguments he brings this Denique vel in Missa fit vera vealis Christi mactatie occisio vel non sit Si non fit non est verum reale Sacrificium Missa Sacrisâ—eium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrisicii Si autem sit ergo verum erit dicere à Sacerdotibus Christianis verè realiter Christium occidi at hâ—o Sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur de Missa lib. 1. cap. 27. pag. 873. A. In the Sacrifice of the Mass either there is says he a true and real mactation and slaying of Jesus Christ or there is not If there be not then according to you the Mass is no real Sacrifice for when the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in being slain as it is your opinion a true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real slaying But if there be then we might truly say that Christ is truly and really slain by Christian Priests but this is rather a Sacrilege than a Sacrifice From this manner of Arguing any one may see that it is neither the Cardinals §. 100. The essence of a Sacrifice consills not in slaying the Victim nor the Churches opinion that the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in Slaying of the Victim But yet we acknowledg a True and Real Sacrifice in the Mass And had he gone a little farther in this Author he would have seen how all the Essential parts of a Sacrifice are contained in it Our Defender in his Exposition tells us there are Four things required to make a Sacrifice Pag. 66. Four things reqired to a Sacrifice 1. That what is offered be something that is Visible 2. That of profane which it was before it be now made Sacred 3. That it be offered to God. And 4 ly by that offering suffer an Essential destruction And supposes the greatest part of these conditions nay all of them to be evidently wanting Now Bellarmin in this same place tells him that three of these Conditions are fund in the Consecration of the Eucharist and the other is evidently included in them First says he a Profane or common thing Bread is by Consecration made the Body of Christ the Visible Species of Bread remaining neither does it follow from thence that Bread is only Sacrificed but that which remains the change being made 2. That Sacred thing which remains under the Visible species is offered to God by being placed upon the Altar Lastly From hence it appears how falsely our defender in his Exposition pag. 65. accused the Cardinal of saying that Either Christ Sacrificed in Eating or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it Read his 7. Proposition in the same 27. Ch. of his 1. Book Sacramenti consumptio ut fit a Sacerdote Sacrificante pâ—rs est essentialn sed non tots Essentia And the 8th Consecratio Eucharislia ad Essentiam Sacrificii pertinet The words of Bellarmin which he cited are these Christus isse out Consecrando consumendo Sacrificavit aus nullo modo Sacrificavit But it was not to his purpose to put in consecrando By Consecration that which is offered is ordained to a True Real and external change and destruction which was necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice for by Consecration the Body of Christ receives the form of food but food is ordained to be Eaten and by that to a change and destructon neither is that any objecton that the Body of Christ suffers not nor loses its natural being when we receive the Eucharist for it loses its Sacramental being and thereby ceases to be really upon the Altar ceases to be a sensible food The Cardinal being thus Vindicated I say Our Defender cannot deny Malac. 1 11. 3. 3. Esay 66.21 but that the Prophets in the Old Law foretold and that in the time of Antichrist the dayly Sacrifice should be taken away He cannot also deny but that the New Testament speaks of Altars and Priesis Dan 11 3â— 12.11 hebr 13. 10. compared with the 1 Cor. 10. And that the Fathers of the Primitive Church usually called the Eucharist a Sacrifice an Oblation an unbloody Sacrifice a Sacrifice which * Pervenit ad Sanctum magnumque Concâ—tium quod in quibusdam locir civitatibus Presbyteris gratiam Sacrae communionis Diaconi porrigant quod nec regula nec consuetudo tradidit ut ab his qui potessatem non habent offerendt illi qui offerunt Christi corpus accipiant Conc. Nic. Primum can 18. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 344. Deacons had not power to offer but only Priests and the like Expressions Upon what ground then can he pretend that all these Expressions were Metaphorical and endeavour to elude all these by sticking firm to his Notion of a Sacrifice that there can be no true offering without suffering And because Christ does not suffer in the Mass therefore he is not truly Offered The Bishop of Meaux one would have thought has fully removed that difficulty telling him that if we take the word Offer in the sense it is made use of in the Epistle to the Hebrews as implying the Actual death of the Victim we will publickly consess that Jesus Christ is now no more Offered up neither in the Eucharist nor any where else But because this word has a larger signification in other places of Scripture where it is often said we offer up to God what we present before him the Church which forms her Language and her Doctrin not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scriptures is not afraid to say that Jesus Christ Offers up himself to God wherever he appears before his Face upon our behalf and that by consequence he Offers up himself in the Eucharist according to the Holy Fathers expressions We affirm then that in the Mass is Offered up to God a True proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice A Sacrifice in remembrance of that on the Cross and applying to us the benefits there purchased for us A Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ is both the Priest and the Victim But yet no bloody Sacrifice Here is no Death of the Victim but in Mystery and representation But however it is a True and proper Sacrifice as Christ is truly and properly a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec I might here have taken notice how this Expositor brings in the Bishop of Meaux §. 101. Expos Ch. of Eng. pag. 67. observing that the Author of the Epistle to the
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
X. And Lastly I say Tho' it were possible according to Nature that all Mankind should at once be so forgetful of their Happiness as to combine to damn themselves and their Posterity by teaching what they had not been taught yet has Gods Promise of being always with his Church secured her from falling into such a damnable State and therefore we may securely rely upon her Testimony and particular persons or Churches are obliged to submit to her Sentence and not to contradict those Doctrins upon a suppolal as our Expositor does That they are so far from being the Doctrin of the Apostles Expos Dect Ch. of Engl. pag. 76. or of all Churches and in all Ages that they are periwaded they are many of them directly contrary to the written Word Having thus explicated the progress of Truth §. 105. and shewn what natural means God has established to secure us in the knowledge of it and how impossible it is for the whole Church in any Age to deviate from it The nature of Error with the rise and progress of it it will not be amiss in few words to shew also the rise and progress of Error and by what Arts it is usually propagated which-will be the ready way to detect it And in order to this we may reflect 1. I. All Error against Faith is of a later date then Faith. That an Error in Faith is Twofold either affirmative or negative A negative is a denyal of a Truth which had been revealed and propagated over the whole World An affirmative is an Affirmation of a falsehood for a revealed Truth when it had not been so revealed nor propagated from whence it necessarily follows That all Error against Faith is of a later date than Faith it self and being such can never tho' it pretend to it shew an uninterrupted Tradition from those to whom revealed Truths had been first committed 2. II. Truth is so amiable in it self that if Error did not endeavor to cloath it self in its Dress no persons would embrace it but it is impossible for Error so to counterfeit Truth but that there must be some Essential difference Error cannot imitate Truth in all things some characteristical note by which the one may be fully distinguished from the other 3. These Errors being as I said either the forsaking of a known Truth delivered to that Age by the foregoing or an introducing of a Novelty which had not been Delivered It manifestly follows that amongst all the pretences which Error can make for it self it can never at its first rise challenge to have been delivered by the immediate foregoing Age Error at its first rise can never pretend an uninterrupted Tradition but must take a leap to some forgotten time and pretend the immediate foregoing age to have been deceived and either through negligence to have forgotten what had been taught to their Predecessors or for want of Vigilance to have suffered Errors to creep into her by degrees till they spread over the face of the whole World. The letter of Scripture suffering various Interpretations IV. An uniterrupted Tradition is the distinguishing note betwixt Truth and Error it is plain that Error may pretend to Scripture the antient Fathers being likewise dead and not able to vindicate themselves their writings may be wrested and Error may make use of them to back it self Reason too being byassed by Interest Education Passion Society c. may be led away and form specious Arguments for what is false Fancy also may be led astray and as experience tells us may pretend new lights which like the ignis fatuus leads men into error Tradition only rests secure and Error can never plead for that without pretending some interruption Thus tho' the Arians Pretended Scripture the writings of the Fathers of the first Age Reason and it may be a fancied Light within them yet could they not pretend to an uninterrupted Tradition because that Age in which they first begun to teach withstood them and they themselves accused that and the foregoing Age of Error It is then the distinguishing note of Error V. Error always accuses the Church in the preceding age to cry out against Tradition or the Unwritten word and her plea is always as I said either the Foregetfulness of the preceding Ages or their want of Vigilance and thereupon she dares never stand to the Judgment of that present Age in which she Begins to appear but appeals forsooth to the purer times next the Apostles to the fountain head to the written Word to some dark expressions of the Fathers of the first Ages or the like VI. But the Constitution of the Church the Nature of the Doctrins of Christ and her Ceremonies condemn this Plea. as thinking her self secure because she can give some plausible reasons for her Tenets But if we examin her plea we shall find it groundless For if we consider the constitution of the Church of Christ and the nature of the Doctrine which she teaches we must necessarily Conclude that it is impossible for her either to be so Negligent as to forget the Essential Truths delivered to her or so Careless as to suffer destructive Errors to spread themselves insensibly The Constitution of the Church is such VII that there are Vigilant Pastors and Teachers set over the whole flock by Almighty God who are obliged to watch over their people let they should be led away into Error and have had the promise of the same Omnipotent God that he will be with them to the end of the World teaching them All Truth and by consequence securing them from Destructive Errors So. that tho' it were possible by the course of Natural causes that all the Pastors and Teachers in the World should in some one Age or other forget to teach a delivered Truth or be so negligent as to suffer an Error to creep in by degrees and spread it self from Country to Country or from Age to Age till some more vigilant persons should arise to reestablish Truth or detect falsehood Yet if we consider the promises of Almighty God and the Vigilance he has over his Church we may securely rely upon him that he will never suffer his Church to be thus prevailed against nor such an Universal Negligence or Lethargy to predominate in her Moreover even her Speculative Doctrins are so mixed with Practical Ceremonies which represent them to the Vulgar and instruct even the meanest capacities in the obstrusest Doctrins that it seems even impossible for any to make an alteration in her Doctrin without abrogating her Ceremonies or changing her constant practices And it must needs appear to any considering man even abstracting from the aforesaid promises of Almighty God that it is impossible that any Age should forget to practise what the preceding Age had taught them or cast off universally her received Ceremonies and neither Pastors nor people speak against such Innovations These
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
Christiantiy But that if these or any of them should meet in a National Church the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church How Extravagant such a Doctrin as this is I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider And return to the Defenders Argument He tells us §. 111. that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic unless we can prove either first there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her or secondly that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united tho' professing known and condemned Heresies as wel as an Orthodox Church maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ or were called Christians or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ nor any Error in their Worship but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Savlation which is manifestly false or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic Church But this we cannot do unless we will open a Gate for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her And tell the world plainly that the Arians or any other Heresy may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians tho' Orthodox in their belief And if this be his meaning it follows that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church so long as they turn not Apostats and deny their Christianity All which is absurd in an eminent degree But if he mean only this that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic we must shew there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did we will joyn Issue with him and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any unbyassed judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome And that all other Churches in the world that were Orthodox professed just the same Faith as to all the Essential Points of it and practised the very same Essential Worship which shew now does That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced will appear to any man who considers that when we speak of the Catholic Church we speak of that Church which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ joyned with that Vniversality viz. Vnity without Schisms and Divisions Sanctity without Errors Heresies or damnable Doctrins and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrins in matters of Faith or Manners or those who like Corah and his companions set up an Altar against an Altar and chalenge to themselves a Function like that of Aarons without being lawfully called thereto To prove therefore this Truth §. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the the true Catholic Church proved that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is this true Catholic Church I must desire my Reader to consider 1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel he told them that they who did not believe should be condemned but they who did believe and were baptised should be saved 2. That these Believers were called Christians that is Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world to continue till the end of the same to preserve the Doctrins delivered to her to be one and therefore free from Schisms Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrins All which we express in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions which as they are destructive of Vnity and Sanctity the marks of his true Church so are they also impediments to Salvation and therefore must be avoided and seeing this Church must be free from them she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics from the Orthodox Christians and cut them off from being Members of her Communion 3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors or refused to pay a due Obedience and therefore if during their Separation other Heresies or Schisms should bud out the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third a fourth or a fifth But as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third and in a word all other succeeding Assemblies who either thus opposed the Truths delivered to her or refused to pay her a due obedience 4. These things thus considered it necessarily follows that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned her self condemned proud Schismatics and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and
as if they were first Principles which needed none he draws this Admirable Conclusion worth the consideration of every Member of the Church of England and for which the Dissenters will no doubt return him thanks If says he in Matters of Faith a man be to judge for himself and the Scriptures be a clear and sufficient rule for him to judge by it will plainly follow that if a man be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular Belief in necessary point of Faith is founded upon the Word of God and that of the universal Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church because he must follow the Superior not the Inferior guide Now from hence any Rational Man will certainly conclude that at least all Dissenters in necessary points of Faith of which I see not but that they themselves must be judges may make use of this Principle to maintain their Dissent And as long as they ground themselves upon the Scriptures interpreted by themselves and have but confidence enough to think they have examined them sufficiently what ever Church pretends to punish or compel them does an unjust action because they are obliged to follow the Superior not the inferior guide Neither is this method as the Defender acknowledges it is liable only to some Abuse Ibid. pag. 81. through the Ignorance or Malice of some men But the Universal Church and much more every particular is put into an incapacity of reducing either the Ignorant or the Malitious to their duty if they have but Pride enough to be positive in as well as conceited of their own Opinions But however this Method tho' thus liable to some abuses is certainly in the main most just and reasonable and agreeable to the constitutions of the Church of England which does not take upon her to be Mistress of the Faith of her Members See. â—rt 20. but alloows a higher place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions Thus He. I know not what thanks the genuine Sons of the Church of England will return him for thus destroying the Authority of their Mother §. 115. but I am sure the Dissenters will thank him for this liberty if he will but give them any assurance that it shall be maintained to them with all its consequences and such large concessions as these may Unite them all tho' the Anathemas of their Synods and all the Penal Laws and Tests have proved ineffectual It is not my business to go about to teach the Defender the Doctrin of his own Church Bishop Sparrows judgment of the Authority of a Church but had he read the Preface to the collection of Articles Canons c. by Bishop Sparrow he would have found a Doctrin diametrically opposite to this of his and that one of them misunjhderstood that 20th Article For the Bishop declares that without a Definitive and Authoritative sentence controversies will be endless and the Church's peace unavoidably disturbed and therefore the Voice of God and right Reason hath taught that in matters of Controversy the Definitive sentence of Superiors should decide the Doubt and whosoever should decline from that sentence and do presumptuously should be put to death that others might hear and fear and do no more presumptuously Deut. 17. which is to be understood mystically also of death spiritual by Excommunication by being cut off from the living body of Christ's Church Nay he there proves there is a double Authority in the Church the one of Jurisdiction to correct and reform those impure members by spiritual censures whom Counsel will not win and if they be incorrigible to cast them out of this Holy Society and the other a Legislative power to make Canons and Constitutions upon emergent occasions to decide and compose controversies c. and this he shews by Reason as he says and Gods own Rule by matter of fact by that very 20th Article of the Church of England which declares that the Church has power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith and the practice of the Primitive Church in her General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Calcedon whereas all these have no force with our Defender For he it may be is evidently convinced that those Texts of Scripture As my Father sent me so send I you John 20. All power is given to me go therefore and teach all Nations Matth. 28. Obey them that have oversight over you and watch for your Souls Heb. 13 c. were misapplyed by Bishop Sparrow or the Church of England in his days Nay moreover if he be but evidently convinced that the Holy Scriptures where or how I cannot conceive have taught the contrary and that the whole Church has erred in challenging this Authority both in the Primitive and later times he will think himself if he be constant to his Principle obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church because he must follow the Superior not the inferior guide That is in plain English if his Fancy tell him the Church has erred he must believe his Fancy rather than the Church he must follow the Superior not inferior Guide Let us now examin a little his two Postulata's upon which he grounds this Doctrin §. 116. His first is That he allows of this dissent or opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith. The Defenders first Postulatum answered Now I thought the Protestants of the Church of England had at least held the whole Church to be unerrable in Fundamentals or necessary Articles of Faith Our Defender knows very well that the most eminent of his Church have held so and if he have forgot it I will at another time refresh his memory If he answer it was only their private opinion but not the Doctrin of their Church I desire him to shew his assertion that the whole Church may err in necessary Articles of Faith and every private person is bound to dissent from her c. to be the Doctrin of their Church Their 19th Article says indeed that particular Churches have erred But affirms the Visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is Preached and the Sacraments be duly minisired according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the saine Now one would think that that Congregation of Faithful who Preach the pure Word of God an administer the Sacraments duly according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requiste to the same should be freed from error in those Necessaries But this is the new Protestancy our Defender endevors to expound and it is a hard case that we must beforced to teach those who pretend to expound the Doctrin
of their Churcy what it she holds Let him therefore I say shew this to be the Doctrin of his Church before he build other Doctrins upon it And when he has done that there will remain some other Obstacles to be removed before his Supposal will be admitted by us One of which is how he proves it obligatory for every individual person to dissent from the Church or oppose her Doctrins in those necessary Articles of Faith upon their being evidently convinced in their judgments that they have hit upon the right sense of Scripture and the Church has not and yet will not allow them the same Liberty upon the same Evidence in matters which are not so necessary One would think that if they be obliged to submit to the Church in non-necessaries they should be so much the more in necessaries Unless he will have the Church to be an unerring guide in non-necessaries and mans particularl judgment of the sense of Scripture Errable and on the contrary mans particular judgment of the sense of Scripture infallible in Necessaries and the Church's judgment fallible No But his reason is because it is every mans concern and duty hoth to Judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able when the Dispute is about necessaries whereas he is not so bliged about non-necessaries I deny not but that it is every mans concern and duty to make the best Judgment he can about necessaries to his Salvation when a less care is required in non-necessaries But is it not the Church's concern and interest to do the same and when she has done that will right reason teach every particular man to prefer his sense before hers in either of them No certainly but on the contrary will dictate to him that the best and securest means he can take not to be deceived in his Judgment is to rely upon the Churches sentence because God has given a Promise to secure his Church from Error whereas there is no Promise to Individuals that they shall not be Deceived in searching the sense of Scripture If the Defender can shew such a Promise he will instead of destroying the Popes Infalliblity set up as many infallible Popes as persons For to be Infallible in this case is no more than seriously and impartially to follow an Infallible rule which is so clear in it self that every serious and Impartial Enquirer shall certainly understand the right sense of it Every individual person therefore according to our Defenders supposition who is fully convinced that he has made use of the best endeavors he can his Employments Capacity Learning c. considered to come to the right sense of Scripture which Scripture is in it self Infallible may assure himself that he has Infallibly hit upon the true sense of Scripture from whence it would necessarily follow truth being but one that we should have no Errors in the world but amongst those who are neither serious nor impartial in their enquiry For the fault must either first be in that they do not use their best endevors or secondly that their Rule they go by is faulty or thirdly that they take that for a Rule which is not rruly so and guiding themselves by a Rule which was not given them to be their Guide to wonder if they go astray His second Postulatum is that the Holy Scripture is the Rule §. 117. His second Postulatuns answered Ibid. pag. 80. and that those Scriptures are so clearly written that as to what concerns those necessary Articles it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his opinion It seems the Defender would gladly be nibling at Doctor Stillingfleets principle Princip 15. That the Scripture contains the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation But seeing how unable the Doctor was to defend it See Error non-plust he gives some limits to it as afraid to speak out what he would willingly have believed And therefore does not positively say That the Scripture is so clear and sufficient a Rule in necessaries that every sober Enquirer cannot miss of the right sense of it but that it is so clear c. that it can hardly happen that any one Man any serious and impartial Enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his opinion Now what he says can hardly happen may at least happen sometimes and if it do what must that one Man do He is then obliged says the Defender to adhere to his own Belief in opposition to that of the Church How is Scripture the Rule of Faith Is this Rule clear and sufficient in Necessaries to every sober Enquirer and is it not clear to the whole Church Or does the whole Catholic Church of Christ cease to enquire seriously and impartially Yes if this Man be but evidently convinced that he is the sober Enquirer and she is not he must prefer his own sense before hers says the Defender But what is this Evident Conviction here required If all Mankind for Example tell me this is the Year 1687 since Christ and I should stand stifly against their Account and tell them it is but the Year 1686 certainly I should be esteemed mad by all Mankind and my pretending my being evidently convinced in my own imagination or my really being so would not hinder me from being justly condemned of the greatest Folly and Impudence imaginable as preferring my own sense and sentiments before the common sense and sentiments of the whole World But this it seems which would be esteemed Folly in such temporal concerns would be Prudence with our Defender in the necessary concerns of Faith and eternal Happiness for with him tho' it be highly useful to individual persons or Churches Ibid. pag. 81. to be assisted in making their judgment by that Church of which they are Members yet if after this instruction they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith between the voice of the Church and that of the Scripture they must stick to the latter rather than the former they must follow the Superior not Inferior Guide §. 118. What are necessary Articles of Faith I would gladly know of our Defender what he means by Necessary Articles all which are so clear in Scripture Are they all those which are contained in the three Creeds Or will he run to Hobs his necessaries only a belief in Christ If he take in all the Creeds as certainly he is bound by his Church or if at least he admit that of St. Athanasius in which he declares that except a Man believe all that is contained in it he cannot be saved let him tell me and prove it when he can that all the Articles contained in it are so clear in Scripture that every individual person every sober Enquirer
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
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
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
Church of Christ one of whose inseparable marks is that of Sanctity which is certainly inconsistent either with such Crimes or Errors for as a man cannot be accounted a sound man if he have a mortal distemper on him so neither can a Church be accounted Holy if it teach a damnable Doctrin And if we cannot be accounted members neither can they who preceded us in the same Practices and Doctrins and therefore you who lay this accusation oblige your selves to shew a visible Church distinct from that of ours which has in all ages been free from such Errors and damnable Idolatries but this as I have formerly taken notice your Book of Homilies to which you subscribe thinks impossible and without considering the consequences of denying Christ to have such an Innocent Church tells us plainly that for above 800 Years All men Third part of the Homilie against peril of Idolatry pag. 143. fol. Anno 1673. women and Children of whole Christendom fell into the damnable Sin of Idolatry Shew us such an Innocent and Holy Church as this and we will Communicate with her But if you cannot shew such an one you must give us leave to believe our Blessed Saviour who promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church and that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who should remain with her to the end of the world c. rather than with such Calumniators accuse him of the breach of his promise and affirm that he had no Holy Church on Earth for above 800 nay as others say for above 1000 Years And seeing we know our selves Innocent of those Crimes of which we are accused as well as they how can we communicate with our and their accusers I would not have you Sir to fly to your usual Parallel and tell us that God had always his Wheat among the Tares in the field of his Church The Parable is just if rightly understood that is there shall be always good and bad in her Community But if you compare the Wheat to the orthodox Doctrin of Christ and the Tares to Errors or Heretical Tenets they certainly who were guilty of those Errors must be accounted Tares and if as your Book of Homilies affirms the whole Christian world was guilty of them both in Head and Members for above 800 Years where was the Wheat all that time The belief of some true Doctrins mixed with many Errors would not secure them unless you will say that the same individual Root might bear both Wheat and Tares and be at the same time gathered into the Granary and burnt with unquenchable fire But if you say there were at that time orthodox Christians and a Church which Preached the word of God and administred the Sacraments rightly and was free from the Tares of false Doctrin let it or its Members be shewn and we will Communicate with them But it is easier to talk this out of a Pulpit than prove it to men of Sense Secondly II. §. 135. The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion the danger you are in by being thus Separated from the Church of Christ is such that any one I think who considers it seriously with its consequences cannot but desire to free himself You deny not but that the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was a true Church and that Salvation was and is to be had in it that she had and has true Pastors true Sacraments true Creeds the true Word of God c. Only you say Errors have crept into her since the First 400 Years and that you have reformed them by the Example of those first Ages and by the infallible Word of God. But besides that it is a question to which it will be difficult to give a satisfactory answer from whence they had it who assumed that Authority to reform and what testimony they can give of their mission I would only ask you Sir what assurance you can give me that your pretended Reformers in this last Age see more clearly the sense of this infallible writing or know more exactly what was the practice of the First 400 Years than all your Forefathers of those preceding ages If you cannot give a satisfactory answer to this and shew such an assurance that you have hit upon the right Faith and they did not such an assurance I say upon which we may trust the Salvation of our Souls which being a matter of the highest concern the security ought also to be the highest we shall have reason to doubt you have been out in your reformation and that whilst you pretended to reform you have on the contrary made a breach in the Unity of the Church and have rent the Seamless garment of our Lord and torn his mystical Body a Crime not much unlike theirs who Scourged Buffeted and Crucified him and will be as severely punished If you say they were evidently convinced that Scripture was against the universal practice and belief of the Church and therefore they were obliged to follow the Superior not Inferior Guide I desire to know how they came to be evidently convinced and if you cannot shew some secure and unerring principle to rely upon for that conviction I must exhort you to consider the hazard you have run your self into by following them the danger which all those who are misled by you incur and how strict an account you and they must one day give if that Principle of yours That every individual person may dissent from the Catholic Church so his judgment be convinced he follows the right sense of Scripture and she does not be found false and you and they deluded by it into disobedience For seeing our Blessed Saviour himself bids us look upon them that will not hear the Church as no other than Heathens or Publicans such disobedience must needs be followed with a punishment answerable to those crimes Lastly III. §. 136. The advantages he is deprived of by being out of the Church as for the advantages which you are deprived of by being separated from the Catholic Church I beg of you to consider them not only in general but in Particular And to this end pray read seriously the conclusion of the Third Discourse of the Guide in Controversy and compare the times which preceded your pretended reformation with those which have followed it and see what a deerease of Truth Piety Devotion Humility Love and Obedience has hapned since you separated from your unerring Mothers arms and betook your selves to the guidance of your own fallible interpretations Which if you do I hope you will with the Prodigal Son return to the embraces of your tender Parent who with expanded arms and a compassionate bleeding heart Sollicits her Almighty Spouse for your Conversion FINIS A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter to the Vindicator Meaux 13. May. 1687. Mon Reverend Pere. LES nouvelles objections que vous m'envoyez sur le
Esprit qu'il a tort quand il dit si souvent dans l'Escriture que les Saincts ont fait ce que Dieu à fait par eux a leurs prieres Si ces facons de parler se trouvent dans l'Escriture pourquoy ne voudroit-t-on pas qu'elles se trouvent aussi dans les prieres de l'Eglise Mais peut-t-on s'expliquer plus clairement que fait l'Eglise sur ce sujet Puisque pour une fois quil se trouvera encors dans les Hymnes les ouvrages de Poësies que les Saincts sont prié de faire d'accorder quelque chose il se trouvera Cent fois tres biens expliqué qu'ils le font par leurs intercessions par leurs prieres Et si la chose n'estoit pas encors expliquées par les pricres de l'Eglise pouvoit il rester aucun doute apres les explications que jay raportées du Catechisme du Concile apres les decisions du Concile mesme Car je vous prie pensons un peu entre nous ce qu'il enseigne dans la Session 25. Ne pose-t-il pas pour fondement de l'invocation qu'on leur addresse qu'ils offrent des prieres pour nous Par consequent le dessein est d'enseigner que leur puissance est dans leurs prieres Et on nous demande apres cela des nouvelles explications comme si le Concil de Trent ne s'estoit pas assez expliqué sur une matiere d'aillieurs tres claire En Verité Mon Reverend Pere cela aslige un Coeur Chrestien de voir que le sens de l'Eglise estant si bien esclaircy dans ses decisions on continüe encors a nous chicaner sur des Mots Je ne vous parleray point de l'affair de Monsieur de Witte Pasteur de St. Marie de Maline je ne vois rien la dedans qui me regarde en particulier non plus que dans les lettres du Clergé sur le sujet de quelques Brefs du Pape On ne pretend jamais offenser sa Saincteté ni diminuer le moins du monde l'Authorité de son Siege en disant qu'il en peut emaner des choses ou l'on pretend que la regle nest pas toujours observée au contraire de tels Exemples deuroient fair voir aux Protestans comment une Eglise peut respecteusement soustenir ce quelle croit estre de ses droits sans rompre l'unité sans blesser la subordination Excusez Mon Reverend Pere si je vous fais si tard cette reponse d'autres occupations qui ne m'en ont pas laissé le loisir me serviront d'excuse s'il vous plaist Je finis en loüant vôtre Zele qui ne vous permet de vous relascher dans le desir qui vous presse de Sauver vos freres Je suis avec un Estime particuliere Mon Reverend Pere Vôstre tres humble tres Affectionè Serviteur ✚ J. Benigne de Meaux A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter to the Vindicator ✚ From Meaux May the 13th 1687. New Style Reverend Father THE new Objections you send me upon the Subject of my Exposition are so slight and inconsiderable that if I were not assured by a Person of your Merit they are thought of some weight by the English Protestants I should think my time lost to reply to them For after all this bustle what matters it whether this Book were reduced to what it is by the Censure of the Sorbon as they would have it thought or by my own proper reflections Which soever it was it is sufficient that the Sorbon has nothing now to say against it neither do's any Catholic contradict it on the contrary the whole Clergy of France and a multitude of Doctors of all other Nations as also of Cardinals famous for their Learning and Piety nay even the Pope himself approves it What needs any one who searcheth after Truth concern himself to inquire by what means I came to Write approved Doctrin seeing 't is certain they cannot deny mine to be so throughout the whole Church nor that I am in the Profession of this Doctrin Vniversally acknowledged to be an Orthodox Bishop in Communion with the Holy See and all other Catholic Bishops They who notwithstanding all this say he cannot be a Catholic who retains the Faith which I so loudly and so publickly profess take pains to blind themselves and will not see the light at Noon-day If after this I persist to say as I do that my Book was never submitted to the Censure of the Sorbon and that being supported by a greater Authority than That I never Dream't of asking it's Approbation It will plainly appear that it is not the Advantage of my Book but the Testimony of Truth that makes me say so I continue still to say there was never any Edition of my Book own'd and avowed by me but that which is now every where spread abroad and Translated into so many Languages But if some Body has been pleased to tack the Kings Approbation and Privilege with the Name of Cramoisy to some other Edition it is but a weak Argument to give the lie to what I say But what if I had made some Additions to a Printed Impression before it was made public what if I had corrected in it what I thought fit or if they please altogether changed it What consequence can they draw from thence against me upon account of those Alterations Let us put the case also if they please that some Body should have been so vainly curious as to take the trouble to find out this Impression before I had thus corrected it who has ever undertaken to quarrel with an Author for such trifles Is it not plain that such Men as take so much pains to publish such foolish things seek not the Truth but to juggle and perplex the World with Tricks After all Reverend Father if they still continue to talk of these Observations which do not deserve so much as to be reflected on and that you Judge it profitable for the Conviction of Opiniators to have an Attestation of the Sorbon to make it appear that their Approbation was not so much as demanded to my Book or that it was not at all submitted to their censure you may answer with assurance that they will send it in the most Authentic Form that contentious Spirits can desire This to the first Objection As to the Second I do readily acknowledge that the Edition of my Book which I published differs in some things from my Manuscript of which as I told you in my last many Copies had been scattered about for you must always remember that it was at first made for the instruction of some particulars and not to be Printed And for the same Reason I do not doubt but they may find in the Edition which I did not approve some things not
agreeing word for word with the True one but a little Justice must needs make them acknowledge the difference there to regard only the Beauty or Conciseness of the Style and not at all the Substance of the Faith. This is visible even in the instances which you say they produce from that pretended first Edition Had I said for Example that the honor which is given to the Blessed Virgin ought to be blamed if it were not Religious that is to say if it did not refer to God who is the Object of Religion there is nothing but truth in that expression if we examin it to the bottom And if afterwards I have given it another Turn it is only that I might speak with more Brevity and avoid the Pitiful Equivocations which are every day made upon the Word Religious I would fain ask the Protestants of England if the Feasts they there Celebrate in honor of the Saints do not make a part of the Religious Worship they pay to God in Testimony of their thanks for his having Sanctified them and Crown'd them with Glory In a word that I may not lose time in discussing such trivial things and slight changes that I can scarce remember 'em my self let such as are minded to maintain them to be more considerable than I say they are only put their pretended Edition into the hands of some person of Credit where I may have it seen by some of my Friends and I do then engage my self either to shew the manifest Falsity of it or if it has been truly Printed after my Manuscript to make appear as clear as the day that the differences they so much magnifie deserve not even to be thought upon You see Reverend Father that I persue as far as I can the design of your Charity towards the weak for as to my self once more what have I to do to defend such slight corrections seeing I should be very ready to acknowledge great faults had I been so meanly instructed to commit them with much hearty Thankfullness towards God who had open'd my Eyes to see them There is nothing in the Third Objection that particularly concerns me and I must tell you freely I am so far from being moved by the Epistle of St. Chrysostom which your Ministers tax the Sorbon to have supprest that on the contrary I am perswaded it is very advantagious to the Church Insomuch that I am so far from suppressing of it That I shall always advise it should be Published as all the other works of the Fathers in which there is only some difficulties in appearance but never any solid Objections against the Doctrin of the Church But this is the Subject of another entertainment and I must speak at present of the Objections they bring you against my Exposition In the Fourth Objection they will have it that a Catholic has Writ against my Book because they have as they say heard M. Conrart say that he had seen the Writings With their Permission who make such vain Objections what do they pretend to conclude from thence And suppose upon the Credit of Monsieur Conrart a Huguenot hot headed if any one ever was with his Religion they should suffer themselves to be persuaded that a Catholic did Write against me Are there not Good and had Catholics Jealous Indiscreet and Ignorant ones And what can any one think of such a Catholic who has none but Huguenots for his Confidents in a work he undertakes against a Bishop of his own Communion Certainly it shews a great weakness to magnifie such poor Objections And they who suffer themselves to be imposed on by them must needs have a mighty inclination to be deceived Fifth Objection I still continue to say that I have never Read Father Cressets Book which they bring against me I know well indeed that Monsieur Jurieux Objected it to me but seeing Protestants themselves acknowledge this Author to mingle True False and doubtful things together I do not think I am at all obliged to inform my self of the greatest part of the Objections that he brings against me any more than I do to answer him I will only add here that Father Cresset himself troubled and offended that any one should report his Doctrin to be different from mine has made his complaints to me and in a Preface to the Second Edition of his Book has declared that he varied in nothing from me unless perhaps in the manner of expression which whether it be so or no I leave to them to Examin who will please to give themselves the trouble Moreover every body knows that when we would understand what is Doctrinal we must consider what is Written Theologically and precisely in a Dogmatical work and not some exaggerations which may have escaped in some Books of Devotion In this Fifth Objection they also take notice of what I said in my Pastoral Letter touching that which passed in the Diocess of Meaux and several others as I was informed by the Bishops my Brethren and other my Friends And I do again assert in the Presence of God who is to Judge the Living and the Dead that I spoke nothing but the Truth and that the Author de la Republique des Lettres received very bad intelligence when he said that I intended to strike that Clause out of the following Editions whereas for my part I never so much as Dreamt of doing it As for what they Object in the Sixth place about Cardinal Capisucchi you see as well as I Reverend Father that it is a weak Objection which runs upon the Equivocation of the word Latria you understand the School Distinctions between Absolute and Relative Worship And in short all this falls so visibly into a Dispute about words that I cannot imagin how Men of Sense can amuse themselves about it As for me who never engaged my self to defend the expressions of the School tho' never so easie to be explicated but only the Language of the Church in her decisions of Faith I was not obliged to enter into those subtilties And Cardinal Capisucchi who has Writ an express Treatise of them has said nothing in the whole that contradicts me The Seventh Objection is a Letter Written to me some Years since by one Imbert who hoped he should obtain some Protection from me by telling me he suffered Persecution upon account of the same Doctrin taught by me in the Book of my Exposition I did not believe him because I was too well acquainted with my Lord the Arch-bishop of Bourdeaux his Diocesan of whom he made his complaint But as I had always lived in a strict correspondence and Friendship with that Archbishop I wrote to him upon this Subject and understood that this Mr. Imbert was a hot-headed Man who had done even in the Church very remarkable extravagancies which he was more cautious than to boast of to me His conduct had been tainted with many other irregularities which indeed hindered me from
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