A VINDICATION OF THE BISHOP of CONDOM's EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Catholic Church In Answer to a Book Entituled An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England c. With a Letter from the said Bishop Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1686. A VINDICATION OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Catholic Church PART I. Containing an Answer to the Preface IT is no less strange than much to be deplored that Religion which ought to be the Common Band of Unity should by the subtilty of Satan become the Occasion of Discord and Contention amongst Christians And that all the Methods which the Catholic Church makes use of or the Means her dutiful Children can suggest should be so far from opening the Eyes of many otherwise clear-sighted and well-meaning Persons led away with the Prejudice of Education as to give them occasion to calumniate her Doctrines censure her Practices and condemn her Pastors One would have thought such a Book as is the Bishop of Condom's Exposition free from Passion grounded upon the Pure Doctrine of the Council of Trent and seconded by the greatest Authority in the Church next to that of the Council it self should have calm'd the Minds of them who pretend to be lovers of Peace and Unity and have made those who propose to themselves any thing of sincerity in matters of such high concerns to acknowledge the Doctrines of the Catholic Church to have been faithfully Expounded in it But we see the contrary and that a Book thus grounded upon the manifest Doctrine of a General Council approv'd as such by the Learned Prelates of divers Nations and by the Pope himself must be made to pass amongst our New Reformers as a Book which Palliates or Prevaricates the Doctrine of our Church and the very Approbations as meer Artifices to deceive the World and not as Sincere much less Authoritative Approbations either of the Nature or Principles of the same Doctrine Pref. p. 15. Had the Author indeed of this Calumny who pretends to lay down the Doctrine of the Church of England given us some more Authentic Testimonies for what he Publishes or taught us some better Method whereby to know the Doctrine of a Church he might have had a more plausible appearance of Reason to complain But when we see him giving us the Doctrines of his Church upon no better Testimony than his own and that of an Imprimatur when we see him to be so far from fixing himself to the known Doctrine of the Church of England exhibited in her Canons and Thirty nine Articles that in several places he asserts what is not to be found amongst them and when we hear him telling us he has forborn to set his Name to it Pref. p. 18. least perhaps any prejudice against his Person might chance to injure the Excellence of the Cause which he maintains I cannot without some wonder reflect upon his Censure and the Reception his Book is said to have had But it seems for him to tell us He is so assured he has not Palliated or Prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England in his Exposition Ibidem that he entirely submits himself and it to her Censure and the sight of an Imprimatur Carolus Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc Lond. prefix'd before it is sufficient in some Mens Judgments to Authorize an Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England when the Approbation of so many Learned Judicious and Pious Prelates of the Church of Rome together with that of the whole Assembly of the Clergy of France and of the Pope himself at two several times must by our Author be noted as proceeding from a Peculiar Art unknown to Protestants who are accustomed as he says to sincere dealing Pref. p. 13. But we shall have occasion shortly to examine whether he has made use of that sincerity to which he makes so strong Pretentions Indeed an Answer to his Book seems so needless that I often thought it would be sufficient to tell this Nameless Author That when his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has receiv'd from the Church of England as full and as Authentick a Testimony of being neither Palliated nor Prevaricated by him as hath the Exposition of the Bishop of Meaux from the Church Catholic and that when his Arguments appear so much as directly to confront the Bishops Exposition it would be time enough to Publish a Justification of that Work against his Calumnies But because this Author has declar'd tho rashly in the name of Protestants that they look upon those Opinions to be indefensible Pref. p. 16. which are not maintain'd against the Assaults of every one that pleases to write against them and that 't is an open and shameful forsaking of them not to take care to defend every thing that is Publish'd it may be some unwary Persons may look upon all he has said as Gospel unless his Discourse be unravell'd and the mistakes he has fallen under with the Sophistry of his Arguments be shewn But before I begin it will be necessary to give the Reader a short Account of the Bishop of Meaux's Intention in publishing this Book and what he expected from any one who should go about to Answer it which may serve for a true state of the Question And First as for his Intention having all along observ'd that our Doctrines were strangely Misrepresented and that not only the private Opinions of Scholastic Authors but even the Inventions of our Enemies were most commonly objected to us as the Tenets of our Church he thought it necessary to propose her Doctrine plainly and simply Expos p. 1. and to distinguish it aright from those Tenets which have been falsly imputed to her Note that the Quotations out of the Exposition are from the Impression published by His Majesty's Command by which he hop'd many of those false Notions of her Doctrine which divers Persons had form'd to themselves would have been remov'd and an Union much more easily obtain'd For it is a certain Truth That if the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church when truly Represented be Innocent and Pure and so far from destroying the acknowledg'd Foundations of the Christian Faith that it alone bears proportion and conformity to them then all the pretended Reformations of that Doctrine are but vain and unprofitable Labours and a Separation from that our ancient Mother-Church upon no better Grounds must be Schismatical and therefore all those who have broken the Unity of the Church upon such a pretended Reformation are oblig'd to return to her Bosom and Communion So that his Intentions were not so much to Argue or Dispute upon Points of Catholic Doctrine as to Propose them truly and render them Intelligible And therefore he pitch'd upon the Council of Trent as the fittest Compass by which he might
steer his Course resolving not to deviate from its Sence being that of the Catholic Church but meerly to separate Matters of Faith from such Opinions as are neither necessarily nor universally receiv'd Expos p. 2. And therefore he declar'd Secondly That they who would go about to Answer his Exposition ought not to undertake to Confute the Doctrine contain'd in it Expos p. 43. seeing his Design was only to Propose it without going about to Prove it That it would be a quitting the Design of his Treatise to Examine the several Methods which Catholic Divines make use of to Establish or Explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the different Consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it That it would avail them nothing Advert p. 20. either to object against us those Practises which they call general or the particular Opinion of Doctors because it suffices in one word to say That those Practices and Opinions be they what they will which are not found conformable to the Intent and Decisions of the Council are nothing to Religion nor to the Body of the Catholic Church nor ought by Consequence as the pretended Reform'd do themselves avouch Daillè Apol c. 6. p. 8. to give the least pretence to Separate from us because no one is oblig'd either to approve or follow them Expos p. 43. Lastly That to urge any thing solid against his Treatise and which may come home to the Point it must be prov'd that the Churches Faith is not faithfully Expounded in it and that by Acts which the same Church has oblig'd her self to receive or else it must be shown that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the Disputes untouch'd or in fine it must be precisely shown in what this Doctrine subverts the Foundation of Faith So that if they who Answer'd his Book brought only Arguments against the Doctrine deliver'd in it from private Authors holding particular Scholastic Opinions and not from Authentic Acts receiv'd by the Catholic Church or did not manifestly show the Bishop of Condom to have left out the chief Matters in Dispute and touched only lesser Difficulties or did not demonstrate how the Doctrine as Expounded by him subverted the remaining Maxims wherein both Protestants and we agree the Bishop might justly esteem their Answers not worthy his Reflection and that every Judicious Reader would grant his Pieces were as this Author terms them tho' in derision of a spirit and force sufficient to despise whatever Attempts could be made upon them of that nature Pref. p. 16. How true it is that nothing solid of this kind was objected by the Pretended Reform'd in France appears by his Advertisement And what our Author of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has Propos'd is now our Province to Examine And first as to his Preface He tells us of a first Edition suppress'd and another with Corrections publish'd in its place because the Sorbon refus'd to Approve the first He tells us of one Imbert and a Pastor of Mechlin Condemn'd the one by the Archbishop of Bourdeaux and the other by the Faculty of Lovain tho' they both alledg'd the Bishop of Condom's Exposition for proof of their Doctrines He tells us that Cardinal Capisucchi and Father Crasset have taught Doctrines contrary to that of the Exposition c. But suppose all he there says should be true what force can his Argument bear against the Doctrine as now Explicated in the later Editions of the Exposition what if some particular Persons have sustain'd Scholastic Opinions which in some sence seem to thwart the Doctrine of the Exposition as to such Scholastic Opinions and others like drowning Persons have grasp'd at any thing to save themselves whether for them or against them It follows not that the Exposition gives us not the Doctrine of the Church But to show the World what has been imposed upon them on this account by those who in their own Countries studied to maintain old Calumnies by new Inventions I shall here insert the Copy of a Letter lately sent me by that Learned and Pious Prelate in which they will see the true Matter of Fact as to those things alledg'd against his Exposition Very Reverend Father IT will not be difficult to answer your Letter of the Third Instant nor to solve the Objections drawn from Matters of Fact sent you out of England against my Exposition of the Catholic Doctrine The English Minister who has oppugn'd it and whose Objections you have sent me has done nothing but gather'd together the vain Inventions which our Huguenots endeavor'd to publish here and which are come to nothing of themselves without my being oblig'd to combat them This Author first tells us the Sorbon would not Approve to my Book But all the World here knows I never so much as thought of asking it The Sorbon is never us'd to Licence Books in Body If it did I should not need its Approbation having that of so many Bishops and being Bishop also my self That Venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops who are naturally and by their Character the true Doctors of the Church than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors when moreover most of those Bishops who have approv'd my Book are of the Body of the Sorbon and I my self also partake of that Honor. It is a great weakness to require of me to produce the Approbation of Sorbon when they see in my Book that of so many Learned Bishops that of the whole Clergy of France in the General Assembly of 1682 and that of the Pope himself You see by this Sir that it is a manifest Falsity to say that a first Edition of my Book was suppress'd because the Doctors of Sorbon had something to say against it I never did publish nor cause to be Printed any other Edition but that which is in the Hands of every one to which I never added nor diminish'd one Syllable and I never yet fear'd that any Catholic Doctor could find in it any thing worthy of Reprehension This to the first Objection of the English Author As for what he adds in the Second place That a certain Catholic whose Name he designs by a Capital Letter had written against me suppose it had been true so much the worse for that ill Catholic But this is as the rest an Invention of their own Heads Our Huguenots have in vain endeavour'd to vend such false Wares here no body ever yet heard of that Catholic they could never name him and all the World has scoffed at them for going about it In the Third place he tells us That Father Crasset a Jesuit has oppugned my Doctrine in a Book Entituled La veritable Devotion envers la Sainte Vierge I have not read that Book but neither did I ever hear it mention'd there was any thing in it contrary to mine and that
auec la Divine en la personne du Fils de Dieu Et quand cet homme se vante d'estre condamné pour auoir nié ces Erreurs que personne ne soûtint jamais il montre autant de malice que d'ignorance Pour le Pasteur de Sainte Marie de Malines qu'on dit estre un homme de merite j'ai vû un petit imprimé de luy intitulé motivum juris ou il auance que le Pape est dans l'Eglise ce que le President est dans un Conseil le premier Escheuin ou le Bourgmestre comme on l'appelle dans les Paysbas dans la commpaignie des Echeuins Chose tres eloignée de l'Exposition ou je reconnois le Pape comme un Chef établi de Dieu a qui on doit soumission obeissance Si donc la Faculté de Louvain a censuré cet ecrit je ne prends point de part dans cette dispute d'ailleurs mon Exposition est si peu rejettée dans les Paysbas qu'au contraire elle y parôit imprimée a Anuers en langue Flamande auec toutes les marques de l'autorité publique tant Ecclesiastique que Seculiere Pour ces pretendus passages qu'on pretend que j'ai corrigez dans une seconde Edtion de peur de fâcher la Sorbonne c'est comme vous voyez un conte en l'air je repete que je n'ai publié ni auoüé ni fait faire aucune edition de mon ouurage que celle que l'on connôit ou ie n'ai jamais rien changé Il est urai que comme ce petit Traité fût donné dabord ecrit a la main pour seruir a l'instruction de quelques personnes particulieres qu'il s'en repandit plusieurs copies on le fit imprimer sans order sans ma participation Personne n'en improuva la Doctrine moymême sans y rien changer que quelques choses de nulle importance seulement pour l'order pour une plus grande netteté du discours du style je le fis imprimer comme on l'a uû. Si la dessus on veut croire que jaie esté quelque sorte contraire a moymême c'est estre de trop facile croyance Mais quand ainsi seroit que pour mettre mon ouurage hors de toute atteinte je me serois en quelques endroits corrigé moymême ce que Dieu merci je n'ai pas eu besion de faire tant s'en faut qu'on en eût dêu moins estimer l'ouurage qu'au contraire ce seroit une preuve que je serois venu a bout de le mettre en si bon état que ni la Sorbonne ni qui que ce soit n'y pût rien trouver a redire comme en effet aucun Catholique n'y reprend rien La derniere objection que me sait le Ministre Anglois c'est que je suis assez fertile a faire des nouueaux liures mais que je ne reponds pas a ce qu'on écrit contre mes ouurages d'on il conclut que je reconois qu'on ne peut pas les deffendre Il est urai que j'ai fait trois petits Traitez de Controverse dont l'un est coluy de l'Exposition Sure celuyla comme on objectoit principalement que j'avois adouci deguisé la Doctrine catholique la meilleure reponse que je pouuois faire étoit de rapporter les Approbations qui me venoient naturellement de tous les costez de l'Europe celle du Pape même reiterée par deux fois Cette reponse est sans repartie j'ai dit ce qu'il falloit sur ce sujet la dans un Auertissement que j'ai mis a la teste de l'Edition de 1676. Si le Pere qui vous a enuoyé les objections du Ministre Anglois n'a pas connoissance de cet Auertissement je vous prie de le prendre chez Cramoisy en vertu de l'ordre que vous trouuerez dans ce paquét de l'enuoyer a ce Pere comme il a este imprimé en 1686. Parceque j'ai ajouté dans cette Edition l'approbation du Clergé de France une seconde Approbation tres Authentique du Pape Que si le Pere veut prendre la peine de joindre a la Traduction de l'Exposition celle de cet Avertissement des Approbations qui y sont jointes il rendra son travail plus profitable au public il fermera la bouche aux contredisants Quant aux deux autres petits Traitez que j'ai compose sur la Controverse l'un est sur la Communion sous les deux especes Et l'autre c'est ma Conference auec Monsieur Claude Ministre de Charenton sur l'autorité de l'Egiise auec des reflections sur les reponses de ce Ministre Dans ces Traitez je tache de preuoir les objections principales d'y donner des reponses dont les gents sensez soint contents Apres cela de multiplier les disputes de composer liures sur liures pour embroüiller les questions en faire perdre la piste ni la charité ne me le demande ni mes occupations ne me le permettent Vous pouvez enuoyer cette lettre en Angleterre Le R. Pere qui a desiré ces eclaircissements en prendra cequ'il trouvera convenable S'il trouve qu'il soit utile de dire qu'il a appris de moymême ce qui regarde ces faits mes intentions il le peut il peut aussi asseurer sans erainte qu'il ny a rien qui ne soit public certain Jeluy suis tres obligé de ses trauaux s'il desire quelqu'autre chose de moy je le ferai auec joye c. Mon Reuerend Pere Vostre bien humble tres Affectionè Serviteur ✚ J. Benigne E. de Meaux A POST-SCRIPT To the Author or Authors of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England c. I Doubt not but this Vindication will have the same fate with others of this nature that is it will not be long before some kind of Answer will be made to it for nothing can be so clearly express'd or so firmly establish'd but that a Person who intends to Cavil may either form a seeming Objection against it or wrest it into a different sence But for my part because I would not have the unbyass'd Readers who are desirous to examine Truth amus'd in the search of it nor have such things put into their Hands as answer not their Expectations but leave them to repent their ill spent Money and their Time therefore I would desire there might be such a right undestanding of the Case such fair dealing and such sincerity used amongst us that the World might be convinc'd we contend not for Victory but for Truth In
print them for every unbiass'd Reader may there see that the first Edition instead of proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as this Author says it did so loosly and favourably Pref. p. 2. that many undesigning Persons of that Communion were offended at it Ibid. p. 3. did on the contrary if any fault be to be found on that score propose the same Doctrine with too much strictness They may see also that the Sorbonne was so far from marking out as he says several of the most considerable Parts of it Ibid. wherein the Exposition by too much desire of palliating had absolutely perverted the Doctrine of their Church that this very Author in his Collections could not propose one Doctrine so perverted without a forced Interpretation of his own nay on the contrary he is sensible that in some places the Bishop had rather spoken with too much strictness and therefore after his wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention he tells his Reader Collect. p. 23. That th' other was really the true Sence of the Church but it was thought too ingenuous and 't is not fit Protestants should know it And in another place Ibid p. 32. That the first Exposition ran much higher than it seems the Spirit of the Gallicane Church could bear But it may be what was struck out of the Exposition to please the Correctors M. de Meaux recompensed in his Letter to satisfie his Holiness But if in some other Places he has either retrench'd or alter'd his Expression any one who is not willing to take every thing by a wrong Handle may easily see it was not out of such ill Designs as this Author endeavours to persuade us but purely to retrench what was not conformable to his Design of a bare Exposition or what had been sufficiently express'd before to keep himself more precisely to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent or to obviate any malicious Interpretations which Persons disposed to take all things in a wrong sence might force upon his Expressions if he worded them not more cautiously But above all it seems to me most strange that any especially one who dares publish to the World the Doctrine of a Church should make the alteration or retrenchment of some manner of Expressions in a Book writ as he owns four Years before so hainous a Crime that the Author must needs pass for one that either did not understand his own Doctrine Pref. p. 4. or at least had not the Sincerity to Expound it right He may wish it may be he had been as cautious in his own Book as the Bishop was in his However we have nothing to do with the first Impression 'T is this other put out by the Bishop of Meaux himself which has been presented to you and to which so many Authentic Approbations and Testimonies have been given And I affirm he must be strangely deceiv'd or wilfully blind who will not grant it to contain the true Doctrine of the Church according to the Sence of the Council of Trent But now to the Book it self PART II. ART I. INTRODVCTION SHould I undertake to examine all the Calumnies Misrepresentation unsincere Dealings and Falsifications of this Author in almost every Article I should swell this Answer beyond the Bounds I have prescrib'd to my self and make it tedious to the Reader yet some however I shall take notice of as they fall in my way from whence I hope we shall find this advantage that all those Books to which an Imprimatur Carolus Alston c. is prefixed will not hereafter be concluded free from Errours nor will every nameless Author who professes to be sincere pass hereafter for an Oracle His Introduction is Calumny in a high Degree and the State of his Question drawn from thence as unsincere He tells us of adoring Men and Women Crosses Introd p. 3 4 5. Images and Relics of setting up our own Merits and making other Propitiatory Sacrifices for Sin distinct from that of the Cross which he says P. 5. are contrary to our pretended Principles to wit That Religious Worship is due to God alone That we are to be sav'd only by Christ's Merits and That the Death of CHRIST was a perfect Sacrifice but yet are not as he tells us obscure Consequences drawn from our Doctrines but the plain and confessed Opinions of the Church of Rome the Practice and Prescription of the Chiefest Authority in it and therefore for us to refuse their Charge is to protest against a matter of Fact a Plea which even Justice it self has told us may without Calumny be rejected as invalid Were these Doctrines and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome he would 't is true have reason to say they contradict our Principles But seeing they are all so solemnly renounced by us that we detest the very thoughts of them and cannot hear these repeated Accusations without nauseating them and seeing he has been so often told that these Consequences are not only far-fetch'd obscure and disavowed but Consequences which are so false that no Connection can be found betwixt them and our Doctrines and Practices when truly represented we have just reason to refuse the Charge and tell him they have no more Justice to accuse us of them than Dissenters from the Church of England have to accuse her of Idolatry and Superstition for Bowing to the Altar and at the Name of JESUS or for using the Cross in Baptism or then the Quakers have for accusing them and us of breach of the First Commandment because we use the Civility of Hat and Knee to them who are but meer Creatures as we our selves But however these things must be charged upon us as an Introduction and then the Question must be stated after a new mode and we represented as consenting to it He tells us therefore Pag. 5. That they have got thus much at least by that Reflection that it shews them how they who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as INNOVATORS IN RELIGION are at last by our own Confession allowed to hold the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith and from this pretended Concession he draws up the State of the Controversie you may be certain favourably to himself But who is it I pray that allows him this Proposition That the New Reformers hold the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith and where do's he allow it The Exposition has Sect. 2. p. 2. 't is true a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reform'd Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion But how do's he from thence shew that Catholics reciprocally grant them to hold all those Fundamental Articles I say all for no body ever deny'd they held some of them This Author knows very well we are so far
of our selves make a true and proper satisfaction to God for Sin as he insinuates I would gladly therefore have this Author and with him all Protestants to consider whether what he says be a sufficient ground to break off from an establish'd Church and separate from her Communion All the Authority he brings is Pag. 24. We think the whole of this point to be the advancement of a Doctrine grounded upon no Authority of Scripture c. and we are persuaded that when ever God remits the Crime he remits the Punishment also Pag. 25. it being a way most suitable to his Divine Goodness He tells us indeed that this is the Doctrine of the Church of England but cites no Authority of Canons or Articles for it which is very strange seeing this Doctrine is of such concern that it gives more to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have Mercy upon us than all the Plenary Indulgences of the Catholic Church against which they make such clamours And here also I cannot but wonder that he who so often uses no other Argument but we are persuaded we think we suppose that in almost every Article he brings this as his chiefest Argument we suppose this is contrary to Scripture or we think this is not to be found in it or in Antiquity Pag. 25. should yet quarrel with the Bishop of Meaux for using that word and tell us he ought to have brought some better proof for so great a Doctrine than barely we suppose And this especially when the Bishop did not use the word but only nous croyons we believe and so it was rendred by me But it matters not this served to make a shew of an Argument Pag 25 27 31. and must be improved upon several occasions Indulgences INdulgences follow next Art 7. pag. 27. And here he tells us That the Bishop of Meaux has stated our Doctrine after a manner so favourable to them that he is persuaded he will find more in his own Church than in theirs to oppose his Doctrine We do not hear of any one yet that has opposed it nay on the contrary we see it almost every where approved If the Disputes in the Schools have descended to some particular Niceties not expressed by the Bishop neither he nor we are concerned in them and if some Abuses have crept in seeing he acknowledges that both the Council and the Bishop of Meaux seem willing to have them redressed Pag. 28. methinks it should suffice He tells us indeed of many Practices in the Church of Rome different as he says from that of the Primitive Church but these being neither necessary nor universally received we will not quarrel with him about them but content our selves with what he has promised if he will stand to his word That whenever the Penances shall be reduc'd to their former Practice they will be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described and as the Primitive Ages of the Church allowed of Purgatory THo' he will not allow a Purgatory Act. â— yet he is forced to acknowledge Prayer for the Dead in the very second Century Pag. 31. He would willingly attribute this to any other Intention than that of the Church of aiding or helping Souls departed nay further he tells us they will not condemn the Practice Pag. 32. so it be not made an Article of our Faith But since two General Councils have declared it that of Florence in which the Grecian Bishops were and that of Trent and since the Practice of all Nations and the Testimonies of every Age confirm the Custom of Praying for the Dead that they might receive help what can we say to them who make a Breach in the Church and condemn Antiquity upon no other grounds than a bare supposition that it is injurious to the Merits of JESVS CHRIST which yet has no other Proof but their vain Presumption ART VIII Of the Sacraments in general IN his second Part he tells us Art 9. pag. â—â— That the Doctrine of the Sacraments has always been esteemed one of the most considerable Obstacles to their Union with the Church of Rome That they cannot imagine why M. de Meaux should insinuate as if our Disputes about these except it be in the Point of the Eucharist were not so great as about other Matters unless says he it be to serve for an Excuse for his own passing so lightly over them or to make us less careful in examining their Doctrine One would think to hear this Discourse that this Author had something very material to bring against our Church neither has he given us any reason to suspect he would be careless in such a grand Concern We will trace him in each Sacrament and see whether the Arguments he brings be sufficient or no to justifie a Breach in the Church which has been the occasion of so great Evils And first in this Article we find little difference betwixt our Doctrines as to the Nature and Efficacy of the Sacraments or as to the Necessity of them or manner how they confer Grace or the Dispositions requisite to partake of their Effects the chief difference lying in the diversity of Expression And as for the number of Sacraments he has removed the chief Obstacle by telling us in the close of this Article That their own Church says but little more than what our greatest Schoolmen have voluntarily confessed But he needed not to have gone to the Schoolmen for if they exact this Notion of a Sacrament that it must be generally necessary to Salvation as their Catechism expresses it 't is true they will not find Seven Sacraments but I am afraid also they will scarce establish Two and if they add with this Author that the other Sacraments are not Sacraments after the same manner that Baptism and the Lords Supper are pag. 41. it will be readily granted them seeing the very Words of our Profession of Faith express much-what the same thing when it tells us there are Seven Sacraments of the New Law Instituted by JESVS CHRIST for the Salvation of Mankind tho' all be not necessary for every Man If the number of Seven Sacraments be not mentioned by the Ancient Fathers it is no wonder seeing they writ not Catechisms but neither do they limit them to Two It is sufficient that in discoursing upon any of these Seven they generally and properly call them Sacraments Neither can any Argument drawn from Scripture against this Number be of force since the Scripture do's not term any of them Sacraments but only Marriage It is sufficient Eph. 5. that the Scripture mentions an exteriour Ceremony and an interiour Grace annexed thereto which shews the nature of a Sacrament ART IX Of Baptism AS for Baptism we both agree Art 10. p. 35. That it is the Law of Christ which the Eternal Truth has established that seeing all men are
conceived and born in Sin none can enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and the Spirit What reason therefore they have to break Communion with an established Church because she will not be more Charitable than JESVS CHRIST whose Law this is I cannot understand But says he This Law as well as others must be interpreted according to the Rules of Natural Equity and since the Roman Church acknowledges that God sometimes accepts of the Will for the Deed the ardent Desire of Baptism for Baptism it self when it cannot be had why should we not think he will accept of the Desire of the Church and of the Believing Parents to satisfie for the want of Baptism in Children who die without it seeing St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 7. That the Seed of faithful Parentage is Holy from the very Birth I must confess I am astonished to see this Argument and to hear the Church condemned for her Uncharitableness in this Point by one who pretends to give us the Doctrine of the Church of England whereas she determines nothing of it Pag. 37. as he confesses If he had been a Huguenot or Puritan it might have seemed reasonable to justifie a Breach with the Church of Rome for a Doctrine which they condemn But for a Church of England Man to justifie a Breach for a Doctrine which he affirms his Church has determined nothing of is to me a Riddle but shews how little he esteems the Sin of Schism Certainly there is a vast difference betwixt the ardent Desire of those who are by Age capable of receiving Baptism and the Desire of the church or Parents The one proceeds from Faith working by Divine Charity already infused into the Soul of the Unbaptized Person which if he extinguish not by the neglect of a Precept will no doubt of it produce a good Effect The other is wholly extrinsecal to the Child and cannot affect the Soul of it unless by the application of that Sacrament which by the Institution of JESVS CHRIST must wash away our Original Guilt So is there also a vast difference betwixt a Legal Purity of which St. Paul speaks in the above-mentioned Text and a Cleanness from Original Sin of which we treat ART X. Confirmation HE acknowledges Confirmation Art 11. pag. 39 40. or Imposition of Hands upon those who had been Baptiz'd to have been very Antient in the Church and which the very Apostles themselves practis'd as also that the use of Chrism in Confirmation was very antient He tells us they allow none that is not of Episcopal Order to Confirm and that they piously hope the Blessing of the Holy Spirit descends upon those who receive it through the Prayer of the Bishop to enable them to keep their Baptismal Covenant to Arm them against Temptations and to assist them in the way of Vertue and Religion c. All which shew an outward visible Sign of an inward Spiritual Grace and the Divine Institution of this Sacrament seeing none but God can promise Grace to an outward Sign such as the Imposition of Hands and Chrism are and certainly strength to keep our Baptismal Covenant to resist Temptations and to practice Vertue are no small Graces which he at least piously hopes are granted by God through the Prayer of the Bishop he might have added Imposition of Hands also and should have given us a reason why they left off the use of Chrism which he grants was early in the Church and why they will not call this a Sacrament which has all these marks of it and which the Antient Fathers frequently termed so But if he will have it only to be a Sacrament not so generally necessary to Salvation as some others are we will not dispute about the name under so strict a notion tho' we affirm it to be a Sacrament properly speaking ART XI Of Penance and Confession HE wishes their Discipline were both more strictly required Art 12. p. 40. and more duly observ'd as to Penance and Confession than it is He tells us that their Canons require perhaps as much as the Primitive Christians themselves did but that it proceeds from the decay of Piety in the People rather than any want of care in their Church that they are not as well and as regularly practised He cannot deny but that Confession both public and private were very antiently practis'd both in the Eastern and Western Churches but supposes them to have been only a part of Christian Discipline and therefore tells us the Primitive Christians interpreted these Passages cited by the Bishop of Meaux Matth. 18.18 Joh. 20.23 with respect to Public Discipline If he had produced those Fathers and shown that they taught it to be only the Orders of a Public Discipline of the Church and not an obligation upon a Sinner either to confess publicly or privately to the Priest which was sometimes called Confession to God as Absolution was called Absolution from God it would have been some satisfaction to the Reader He insinuates as if we permitted every Priest to hear Confessions and only just to hear them and then without any more ado to say Pag. 41. I ABSOLVE THEE But this it is not to understand our Discipline which permits none to hear Confessions but such as are approv'd of after a diligent examen of their Learning and Capacity that they may be not only as Judges to pass a right Sentence upon the Enormity of the Crimes the various species of them the Obligations of Restitution c. but also as Physicians to prescribe wholesome Remedies to prevent Relapses c. which cannot be done without the Knowledge of the Case And therefoe tho' we assert the great convenience of Private or Auricular Confession to take away the occasions of Fear Shame and Scandal yet our Dispute is not so much upon that as upon a necessity of declaring our Sins to a Spiritual Physician which whether it be publicly or privately matters not so it be done and without doing which we say neither can a Judge pronounce a just Sentence nor a Physician prescribe wholesome Remedies We grant therefore that Public Confession was much in use in the Primitive Church for Public Sins and that it was follow'd with a Public Penance for them but that was most commonly either after or accompanied with Private Confession of their Secret Sins also That this Public Confession was a part of Discipline and therefore alterable at pleasure we deny not but that either Public or Private Confession were necessary we affirm He tells us Pag. 4â— That the Church of England refuses no sort of Confession either Public or Private which may be any ways necessary to the quieting of Mens Consciences or to the exercising of that Power of binding and loosing which our Saviour CHRIST has left to his Church That her Absolution is so full Pag. â—â— that the Church of Rome it self could
Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body referred to the Bread that our Saviour held in his Hands the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and CHRIST's Body will necessarily required the Figurative Interpretation But unless he can prove that the Pronoun hoc this must necessarily relate to Panis Bread and not to Corpus Body his Argument will avail him nothing but that all his Logic will never be able to effect Pag. 45. His Argument is this What did he say was his Body but that which he gave to his Discipoles What did he give to his Disciples but that which he broke What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly He took Bread But what follows from all this but that JESVS took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat THIS IS MY BODY But he go's on What JESVS took in his Hands that he blessed What he blessed the same he brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But JESUS says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said THIS IS MY BODY But what do's all this argue against us unless he beg the Question and suppose that no real Change was made by those Words Which to shew how true it is let us propose an Example We will suppose and that not incongruously that our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these either mental or vocal Words This is Wine or let this be Wine Now here it is manifest the Word This was not determined but only signified Substance till the Word Wine was annexed This supposed if any one would see the force of his Argument let him change the Expression and instead of Bread use Water and instead of Body use Wine and then reflect whether he can from thence prove that these Words This is Wine must necessarily mean This Water is Wine or rather whether that would not be a Proposition which implies a Contradiction Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 19. SS prumum as Gratian and Cardinal Bellarmine prove in the foregoing Places cited by him of the like Proposition This is my Body But it will not be amiss to consider Cardinal Bellarmine's Argument to which this Author refers He tell us there how these Words Take and eat for this is my Body must necessarily infer either a real Change of the Bread as Catholics or else a metaphorical Change as the Calvinists hold but that they will by no means admit of the Lutheans sence Which Proposition he endeavours to prove against the Lutherans assirming the Words This is my Body to bear necessarily one of these three sences First This which is contained under the species of Bread is my Body which is the Catholic sence and supposes a Mutation The second is that of the Sacramentaries who admit of no Mutation and their sence is This Bread is the Figure of my Body The third which is that of the Lutherans who admit of no Change but yet allow a Real Presence must bear this Interpretation This truly Wheaten Bread is truly and properly my Body But this says he can by no means be admitted whether we speak of the thing it self or of the Proposition For it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another for it would be that thing and would not be that thing Moreover in an Affirmative Proposition it is necessary the Subjectum or thing of which any thing is affirmed and the Praedicatum or thing affirm'd of it should have a regard to the same thing Then follow the Words which he cites It cannot therefore be that that Proposition should be true in which the Subjectum or former part designs Bread and the Praedicatum or latter part the Body of CHRIST For Bread and the Body of CHRIST are two very different things This indeed may prove that the Words of the Institution may possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation but are far from proving that they oblige us to take them so which was what the Bishop of Condom affirmed and which he if he had used Sincerity should have oppugned and not have spent so much time to prove what was not the Question But as I said it is not my Business here to justifie our Tenets but to see what he has to say against the Exposition as such I do not find he pretends here that the Bishop of Meaux has palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But I observe he uses frequently the Word Corporeally and the Corporeal Presence which the Bishop has avoided keeping himself to the Terms of the Council of Trent which tells us only that JESVS CHRIST is truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament but uses not the Word Corporeally I suppose because it may bear a double sence and signifie either first that the Body is really and substantially present tho' not after a carnal gross manner with all the Qualifications of a Natural Body and this is the sence of those Catholics who make use of it Or secondly it may be taken as signifying the Body to be present after a corporeal carnal manner with all the Conditions and Qualities of a Natural Body which sence our Enemies are apt to impute to us as if it were our Doctrine tho very unjustly But had he been Faithful in giving us the Doctrine of the Church of England I doubt not but the Arguments he brings against the Bishop of Meaux would have proved as much against it as it do's against ours He tells us Pag. â—â— They confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but they deny that therefore it must be his very Body I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing it self but yet is more than a meer Gigure of it If he mean that it is not the Body Corporeally according to the Explication of the word as I have given it in the Second Sence we agree with him But if he mean by this somewhat more than a meer Figure that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful in the Lords Supper as their Church Catechism has it I see not also in what the difference consists betwixt us neither can I see how his Arguments oppugn our Doctrine without confuting theirs 'T is true their Twenty eighth Article tells us that The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and that the means whereby the Body of CHRIST is receiv'd and eaten in the Supper is Faith Yet because I am not willing to think their Canons and Church Catechism contradict one another I am willing to think the meaning of the saying that Faith is the means by which they
his Mystical Body that is his Church but the visible species are the Sacrament or Sign of both these things Then in his Ninth Distinction speaking of a two fold Manducation the one Sacramental in which the good and bad do Eat the Body of Christ and the other only Spiritual in which only the good are made partakers of it which is by Faith he proceeds to tell us of the Errours of some who held that the bad did not receive the Body of Christ and affirms that it must be undoubtedly held that it is received by the good not only Sacramentally but Spiritually whereas the bad receive it only Sacramentally that is under the visible species of Bread and Wine they receive that Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us but not the Mystical Body that is the benefits of his presence All which he there proves from St. Gregory and St. Augustin and explicates some ambiguous terms which might give occasion of errour His next Distinction cited by this Author which Bist 10. treats De hoeresi aliorum c. Of the Heresie of others who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in Sign tells us That there are others who transcend the madness of the former Heretics who measuring the Power of God according to the manner of natural things do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth affirming that the Body and Blood of Christ are not on our Altars and that the substance of Bread and Wine are not converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood and take occasion of erring from the words of Truth whence began the first Heresie against this Truth amongst Christ's Disciples Then shewing what pretensions they make for their Errour both from Scripture and Fathers and having solved them he says Satis responsum est Hoereticis objectionibus eorum We have sufficiently answered Heretics and their Objections who deny the true Body of Christ to be on our Altars and the Bread to be changed into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a Mystical Consecration Then setting down his proofs out of the Fathers to confirm our Doctrine he concludes this Distinction with these words Ex his aliisque pluribus constat c. From these and many others it is manifest that the true Body and Blood of Christ is on our Altars yea that whole Christ is there under both species and that the Substance of Bread is converted into his Body and the substance of Wine into his Blood Having thus confirm'd the substance of our Faith as to the thing Dist 11. Lib. A. he proceeds in his next Distinction cited also by this Author to treat of the manner how this Conversion is made whether it be Formal or Substantial or of some other kind and this being a pure Scholastic Nicety he tell us he dare not undertake to define it but declares that if we ask him about the manner he will give us this short answer Lit. C. Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest investigari salubriter non potest A Mystery of Faith may be safely believ'd but not safely searched into This is the Doctrine of Lombardus who lived before the Council of Lateran and this is the Doctrine we now hold without the least alteration and this Doctrine was always held ever since the Institution tho' it was thought convenient by the Primitive Fathers to conceal it from the Enemies of Christianity and from those who were not Initiated so that it may be said that it is now more publicly taught than it was then but was always equally believ'd by the Faithful These things being thus cleared and the charge he has made against us being found to be thus false the consequences he has drawn from thence will fall upon himself and we must needs tell him that we cannot but admire the Power of Truth and hope that God has permitted him thus to misrepresent our Tenets to disguise the Truth and to cite Authors contrary to their Intentions that the Eyes of of all those of his Communion may be opened and that they may see what blind guides they follow who either take up things upon trust or wilfully prevaricate the Text that they may keep them in Ignorance Moreover this Author affirms Pag. 61. the Church never taught nor practised the Adoration of the Sacrament for above 1000 years that the Elevation of it was not heard of till the Seventh Century and then used not to expose it to the People to be adored but to represent the lifting up of CHRIST upon the Cross that all the Circumstances of this Worship are but Inventions of yesterday that the Primitive Christians did several Actions which seem inconsistent with Adoration c. And we must take all these Assertions upon his bare word for Truths I shall nto go about to swell this Answer by proving an Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament within the first 400 years and the Expressions of the first Ages which argue an Elevation nor the other Proofs we have for a Real Presence nor the Consent of the most Learned Protestants this has been too frequently done to repeat it here The Reader who is desirous of searching into the Truth may see if he understand French what M. Arnold has writ in Three Volumes of the Perpetuity of Faith or else what Brierlay has written concerning the Sacrifice of Mass what Coccius in his Thesaurus and what many others have published upon those Accounts in which they will find that our Doctrine is conformable to Scripture that it has been continued down to our time by an uninterrupted Succession and that our Practices have been always conformable to our Doctrine which is sufficient to evince the Truth of it and shew the unjust Pretences of a Reformation ART XVI Of the Sacrifice of the Mass IN his Twentieth Article Of the Sacrifice of the Mass Pag. 62. which he tells us is justly esteemed one of the greatest and most dangerous Errours that offends them he yet acknowledges That seeting aside the Foundation of the CORPOREAL PRESENCE on which the Bishop builds and his Consequence That this Service is a TRVE AND REAL PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE which he says they are persuaded his manner of Expounding it will never bear there is little in it besides but what they could readily assent to but if he cannot allow of the Corporeal Presence will be with the Church of England in her Catechism allow a Real Presence If he do I would gladly know whether that Foundation be not solid enough to build those Doctrines on which M. de Meaux has founded upon that Reality If he will not allow of a Real Presence how is he of the Church of England Again I would gladly know of him what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly
and properly speaking tho' not possibly in such a rigorous sence as may be put upon the Words If she do not what means her Ordination and the Title of Priesthood which her Ministers challenge with so much earnestness And if she do why will he quarrel with the Council of Trent for calling it a True and Proper Sacrifice Sess 22. c. a True and Proper Priesthood especially since the same Council tells us that this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished upon the Cross to perpetuate the Memory of it to the end of the World Sess 22. c. r. and so apply to us the saving virtue of it for the remission of those Sins which we commit every day In a word The Bishop of Meaux has expressed himself so clearly and consequently to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and of the Catholic Church that I cannot but admire any one who affirms as this Author do's that the Doctrine the Bishop of Meaux has express'd Pag. 63. is truly the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and such as the Church of England has never refus'd and except it be their doubt of the Corporeal Presence Mons de Meaux had certainly reason to expect there was nothing in it which they could justly except against I cannot I say but admire he should upon no better grounds than a pure Cavil about the Name and Nature of a Sacrifice when taken in the strictest Sense and the word Corporeal instead of Real Pag. 62. affirm this to be one of the most dangerous Errours that offend them But the Breach must be kept open and widened too if possible And because the offering of Christ once made is that proper Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World and because there is no other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone Article 31. as their Article expresses it and we allow therefore this Author must from thence conclude that the Representation Commemoration and Application of that first Offering by those who are Members of that Priesthood according to the Order of Melchisedec which the Apostle tells us was to be perpetual must not be called a True Heb. 6. Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice tho' it be only Commemorative and Applicatory ART XVII Of the Epistle to the Hebrews BUT the next Article shews us more manifestly Art 21. p. 67. that all this Dispute is purely de Nomine In which it manifestly appears that he mistakes the Sence of the word Offer Pag. 32. as used by the Catholic Church in this place for the Bishop of Meaux tells us the Catholic Church forms her Language and her Doctrine not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scripture and therefore tho' in that strict sence in which the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the word Offer JESUS CHRIST cannot be said to be now offered neither in the Eucharist nor any where else yet because in other places of Scripture the word is used in a larger signification where it is often said we offer to God what we present before him therefore she do's not doubt to say that she offers up our Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Eucharist in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him But this must not suffice for then that which he calls the principal and most dangerous Errour would appear to be none at all and therefore because the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of one Offering which has fully satisfied for our Sins of one Offering which was no more to be offered that is of an Offering in a strict Sence in which there must be a Real Suffering and Death of the Victim therefore this Epistle must be against the Doctrine of the Roman Church tho' she speak only of an Unbloody Sacrifice of a Commemorative Sacrifice which without the Sacrifice of the Cross would be no Sacrifice which takes its Virtue Efficacy and very Name from it because it refers to it and applies the Virtue of it to our Souls Let any one judge if this be not next door to a wilful misunderstanding of our Tenets Pag. 63. especially when he had before confessed that the presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us and that if this were all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it This is what she means by it that is an application of the Merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross which was to be but once offered and from whence it takes all its value But this he will not have to be our Doctrine and I see no reason for it but because if he admit it to be so one of the greatest grounds of their pretended Reformation must needs vanish ART XVIII Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine HIs Reflections upon this Doctrine run altogether upon the same strain Art 22. p. 69. and therefore what I have said will suffice in answer to that Article If he admit a Real Presence with the Church of England Reason must necessarily assure us that where Christ is really he ought to be Ador'd and where he really presents himself to his Father to render him Propitious to us he may be said to offer up himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice And those who will admit the Reality or not condemn the belief of it in others ought not to condemn the necessary Consequences of it in us into which we have penetrated better than they ART XIX Communion under both Species COmmunion under one kind being also a Consequence of the Doctrine of the Real Presence Art 23. p. 72. Those who admit the Real Presence or condemn it not ought not to condemn the Consequence of it He refers us to the Answer to M. de Meaux's Book of Communion and I refer him to M. de Meaux's Book which so fully explicates and proves this Doctrine that all the effects against it are but vain But if the Church of England allow the Communion to be given under one Species in case of necessity See Art 30. how will it stand that she esteems it to be the express Command of JESUS CHRIST which is certainly indispensable Edw. Sparrows Canons p. 15. the Sixth in his Proclamation before the Order of Communion ordains That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST should from thenceforth be commonly deliver'd and administred unto all Persons within our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require And after the Order of Communion there is this Annotation Note that the Bread that shall be Consecrated shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed And every of the said Consecrated Breads shall be broken into two pieces at
least or more by the discretion of the Minister and so distributed And Men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole but in each of them the whole Body of JESVS CHRIST In the Proclamation it is ordain'd that it shall be commonly deliver'd under both kinds except necessity otherwise require which shews manifestly that the Church of England thought then that one kind was sufficient in case of necessity and that whole Sacrament was contained under one kind for half a Sacrament is no Sacrament And if a necessary occasion be sufficient to dispense with the Administration of it in both kinds who ought to be Judge but the Pastors and Teachers in every Age or the Church Representative which shews that this is a part of Discipline and not of Faith since both sides confess that in case of necessity it may be given in one kind and that by receiving each Particle one receives the whole Body of JESUS CHRIST as appears by the Annotation so that the Bishop of Condom's Argument against the Calvinists of France has its full force against the Church of England ART XX. Of the wrÃtten and unwritten Word IN the next Articlé we are agreed in the main Art 24. p. 75. We both acknowledge the unwritten Word to have been the first Rule of Christians and that it was so far from losing any thing of its Authority by addition of the Written Word that it was indeed the more firmly established We receive with equal veneration the Written and the Unwritten Word when we are assured they come from the Apostles And as we do not admit of every thing which is called Tradition so what is made appear to have been received in all Churches and in all Ages we are ready to embrace as coming from the Apostles Our difference consists only in this who shall be judge when this Tradition is Universal We rely upon the Judgment of the present Church in every Age either assembled in the most general Council that Age can afford or else declaring her Doctrine by her constant practice and the uniform Voice of her Pastors and People and are assured it is not sufficient for any Private Persons or Church to say we suppose or we are persuaded they are contrary to the Written Word or we find it not there to make the Churches Sentence void or justifie a dissent ART XXI Of the Authority of the Church IN his next Article Art 25. p. 76. of the Authority of the Church he grants many things which the Bishop of Meaux had asserted from which we might expect great Fruit but he presently nips all our hopes in the very bud He grants the Catholic Church to be the Guardian of the Holy Scriptures Pag. 76 77. and of Tradition and that it is from her Authority they reeeive both That they never deny the Church to have an Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline Pag. 78. but even of Faith too That they neither fear the entire defection of the Catholic Church nor that she should fall into such an entire Infidelity as should argue her not to be a Church Pag. 80. And in his next Article he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith and declares as a Doctrine of his Church that they allow such a deference to a Churches Decisions as to make them their directions what Doctrine they may or may not publicly maintain and teach in her Communion that they shew whatever submission they can to her Authority without violating that of God declared to us in the Holy Scripture And lastly that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General In which none shall be more ready to assist nor to which none shall be more ready to submit These are fair offers to establish a Church-Authority and did he manifestly destroy all he has here said by some other exceptions we might have hoped some good effects of such a Submission He tells us Pag. 79. and that truly that any particular Church may either by errour lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in necessary points of it And yet notwithstanding he do's not only set up a particular Church to examin the Churches Decisions Pag. 78. which he tells us after all may err but even every individual Person who according to his Doctrine may not only examine the Decisions of the whole Church but glory in opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word His words are these Pag. 79. Tho' we suppose the Scriptures are so clearly written that it can hardly happen that in necessary Articles of Faith any one Man should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion He had told us a little before that any particular Church such as he esteem'd the Church of Rome to be might either by Errour lose or by any other means prevaricate the Faith even in necessary points of it and yet what he there wishes they had not too great cause to fear the Church of Rome has in effect done he here tells us can hardly happen to one particular Man But what follows is more intolerable and since he gives us it as a Doctrine of the Church of England I desire him to tell us in what Canon Article or Constitution it is contain'd But says he if such an one were evidently convinc'd that his belief was founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word so far would it be from any Errour to support it against the whole Church that it is at this day the greatest Glory of St. Athanasius that he slood up alone against the whole World in defence of Ghrists Divinity when the Pope the Councils the whole Church fell away Behold here a Doctrine which if admitted will not only maintain all the Dissenters that are but that ever can be from a Church a Doctrine which will establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World every one of which may if he be but evidently convinced that is if he have but impudece enough to think he is so that his belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Word not only oppose the whole Church but glory in it And a Doctrine backed by as false and Authority as the Assertion it self is false and scandalous for never any one yet before this Man said that the Pope the Councils and the whole Church fell in St. Athanasius his time on the contrary it is manifest to all those who have read any thing of History that the Pope and all the Western Churches and the approved General Councils of those times all stood up for St. Athanasius and if he said he was against all and all against him it was only to express the great number of Eastern Bishops that oppos'd his Doctrine
But any thing must pass now to deceive the vulgar tho' Men of Sence see the contrary Another Argument he brings to delude the Authority of the Church of Rome is to make her apss only for a particular Church But how often have they been told that Catholics do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholic Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome And that this is the true Church appears by the marks of it deliver'd in the Nicene Creed no other Church being able to pretend to that Unity Sanctity Universality and Antiquity which she is manifestly invested with The true Church must be one and by conquence free from Schism which destroys that notion which some of late have held that the true Church is that Catholic Church which is composed of all Christians the Roman the Grecians the Armenians Prtoestants c. all which they acknowledge to be Members of the True Church tho' they may be rotten ones and this notion our Author seems to have of it when he tells us that the Roman Church has in all ages made up but a part of the Church Pag. 77. and that not always the greatest neither The true Church must be also Holy and must by consequence be free from Heresie and teach no Erroneous Doctrine which how it stands with that Idea which this Author insinuates that the Church of Rome has erred event in necessary points of Faith and is yet a Member of the True Church is worthy a mature Consideration This indeed made the first Reformers who accused the Roman Catholic Church of Idolatry and Superstition say that the Church of JESUS CHRIST was hidden fled into the Wilderness See the Protestant Authors cited by Brereley in his Protestant Apology Tract 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. and invisible for 1000 or 1200 years that the Pope was Antichrist and the Church of Rome Antichristian But the Men of our Age being sufficiently convinced that the Church of Christ was to have Kings and Queens for Nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers that she was to have Pastors and Teachers in all Ages Whitakers contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 260. that the Administration of the Sacraments and the Preaching of the true word of God were the Essential Proprieties of the Church c. and that all these marks do necessarily denote a Visible Church and finding moreover they could never prove any Christian Kings before Luther Converted to Protestancy or any visible Pastors or Teachers of their Doctrine or any Assembly that Administred the Sacraments as they do or Preached the word of God in their Sence and finding they could not deny the Conversion of many Kings and Nations to the Religion established in the Church of Rome found themselves obliged also to admit her as a part of the True Church tho' a corrupted one and would rather destroy the Sanctity of Christs Church and her Vnity than acknowledge themselves to be justly cut off from being Members of her The third Mark is Catholic which is universal as to Place Time and Doctrine that Church cannot be the true Church the sound whereof is not gone through the whole Earth and is not it self spread over and visible in all Nations that cannot be the true Church which has not continued in all Ages Visible Holy and Uniform neither lastly can that be the true Church which either adds or diminishes from the Doctrines revealed by God to the Prophets and Apostles so that those are as guilty of the Breach of Faith who refuse to believe what has been taught as those who impose new Doctrines The last mark of the Church is that she must be Apostolic that is grounded upon the Doctrines and Faith of the Apostles and deriving a continual Succession from them All which marks are so far from being applicable to the Church of England or to the Universal Church according to the notion given of it be these late Writers that a Man of the smallest judgment if Impartial cannot but see the fallacy thereof ART XXII Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy AS for his two other Articles The Opinion of the Church of England as to the Authority of the Church and that of the See Apostolic and Episcopacy I have nothing to say to him but to desire him to remember his promises Pag. 81. and to enquire what is the Authority the Antient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the Holy Fathers have always taught the Faithful to give to the Successour to St. Peter and whether the first Four General Councils might not be termed neither General nor Free with as much Reason as the Council of Trent or those others acknowledged by all the Western World and most of the Eastern Churches before the new pretended Reformation The Conclusion I Come now to his Close in which he sums up all the Poison of his Book lays what he pleases to our charge and draws what Consequences he will to inflame his Reader He tells us of Bitter and Vnchristian Hatred we have conceiv'd against them Pag. 82. and desires to know what warrant we have for it I desire all unprejudic'd Persons to consider whether we have not more reason to complain than he Here was a Church established in England Truths delivered to her with Christianity it self were here Practis'd and Preach'd Religious Houses were here endow'd with ample Revenues c. when behold a Pretended Reformation comes destroys this Church dissolves all the Constitutions of it changes the established Doctrines and alters many of its antientest Practices pulls down Religious Houses and Churches alienates the Revenues turns the Religious Inhabitants into the wide World make Laws against all those who should defend that Doctrine Imprisonment loss of Goods and Fortunes nay even of Life it self are the Punishments ordained for them who are found guilty of Practising or Preaching that Religion And what less could such a Church do than Excommunicate they who thus Renounc'd her Doctrines Contemned her Authority and persecuted her Children But this Excommunication must be called Severity and unchristian hatred And if we declare that all those who forsake the Unity of the Church are guilty of Schism and they who will not acquiess to those Points of Faith which God has Revealed and the Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth has declar'd to have been so Reveal'd are guilty of Heresie and that Heresie and Schism will bring inevitable damnation to all those who die without repenting of them we must be esteem'd uncharitable I must therefore Retort his Popular Argument and ask him and all unprejudic'd Protestants what they can find in all our Doctrines when truly Represented to warrant that bitter and unchristian hatred they have conceiv'd against us a hatred which has occasioned so many Penal and Sanguinary Laws and still makes them use all endeavours to keep them in full force against