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
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
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
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
50 of them were of the Arian party that at their first Assembly they refused the Formula of Faith brought by * Socrat lib. 2. c. 29. p. 2â—0 F. Vrsacius and Valens from Sirmium they condemned Arianism and established the Nicene Faith and sent their Decrees to the Emperor desiring a dismission of the Assembly But the Emperor dissatisfied with this constancy would not give any answer to their Legates but ordered the Bishops to stay at Ariminum till his return from an Expedition against the Barbarians Socrat. Ibid. p. 262. F. Sozom. lib. 4. c 18. p 487. at which time he hoped they would concur with him To which they answered that they could not depart from the Sentence they had already pronounced and therefore begged leave again to return before Winter to their Churches to which the Emperor giving no answer Russin Hist lib. 1. c. 21. pag 203. several of them returned by stealth the others kept like prisoners which want of Freedom shewed this later part of the Council not to have been Legitimate at last deluded by the Emperors Agents and the specious pretences of a firm Peace and Union which would follow amongst the Western and Eastern Churches yielded to Subscribe a Form in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not rejected but omitted as being not well understood by the Latins But however this general Form was suspected by the Catholic Bishops and they would not Subscribe to it without some additions to secure the Churches Faith from Arianism and other misconstructions in which Additions they condemned Arius and all his perfidiousness and declared the Son to be Equal to the Father Severus Hist lib. â— Hier. dial adver Lucifer Apud Guide of Controvdise 2 §. 26. n. 5. pag. 117. Sozom. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. C. and without beginning or time and that he was not a Creature and pronounced and Anathema against all those who should offer to say that the son was not Eternal with his Father all which either shew the Son to be Consubstantial to his Father or that they are two Gods which the Arians denyed the Arians having consented to these Additions and the Catholic Faith being now thought secure the Council was dismissed But Valens and his Followers having now got a specious pretext proclaimed abroad that the Council of Ariminum had consented to the Arian Doctrin and condemned the Nicen Faith explicating the Formula to their own sense and pretending that when they said the Son was not a Creature they meant he was not a Creature as other Creatures were c. But the Western Bishops seeing themselves thus cheated by the subtilty of the Arians were highly vexed and protested against it and at this time it was that St. Jerome says the world admired to see it self become Arian all of a suddain not as if it were really so but because the equivocal words were easily turned by the Arians to their own sense and the People deceived by their pretences of a General Council Constantius also the Emperor resolved to make this Formula be Signed by all persons that were not at that Council or that had gone from it without his leave and hence a great Persecution arose and many Bishops amongst which (a) Sozom. lib. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. B. Pope Liberius was one were Banished others cruelly (b) Martyr Rom. Marcel de Schism Vrcis Dumas Apud Mainburg Hist de l' Arianism 1. Partie lib. 4. p. 39 Edit Paris in 4â—0 murdered as Gaudentius Bishop of Ariminum Rufinus and others So that it is plain from what has been here deduced from the best Historians of those times that neither the Pope nor Council nor Western Church condemned the Divinity of Christ Moreover it is to be remarked that St. Athanasius with all thee other Eastern Bishops of his party most of them either Deposed Banished or Persecuted by the Emperor and all these Western Prelates stood up for the defence of the Faith defined in the Council of Nice against the Arians who Innovated and would impose a sense upon Scripture which they had not been taught by their Forefathers but had taken up upon their own Private Judgments So that our Defenders Instance if rightly taken will be very much to his disadvantage and is a convincing proof against his assertion for it is manifest that to Imitate St. Athanasius a person ought to stand to the Definitions of a lawful General Council against all the Private Interpretations and pretended evident convictions of those who oppose it And ought to be so far from preferring his Private Sentiments of the sense of Scripture before the Judgment of the Church that he ought to suffer all manner of Persecutions and even Death it self rather than recede from her approved Faith. ART XXV Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy OUr Defender having layd down such a Principle in the foregoing Article of his Exposition §. 125. as rendred all Chruch-Authority ineffectual Yet as if he had forgot himself in the very next he tells us that he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith as bound thereto by a Subscription to the 39 Articles in the 20th of which that Authority is expressed And to shew us what he means by this just Authority he tells us that they allow such deference to her decisions Expos Church of Engl. p. 80. as to make them their directions what Doctrin they may or may not publickly maintain and teach in her Communion That is I suppose as much as to say they allow an exterior assent as far as Non-contradiction But even thus much is certainly inconsistent with that obligation which our Defender affirms Desence pig 80. particular persons lye under to support and adhere to their own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church if they be but evidently convinced that the Church has erred in her decisions I perceive he was Conscious of this Incongruity and therefore left a hole to creep out at Expos Church of Engl. pag. 81. telling us that they allow whatsoever submission they â—an to the Authority of the Church without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures So that thence it may as well be concluded as from his former Principle that every Private person Tinker Gobler or Weaver having received the Decrees of a General Council in to examin them himself by Scripture before he give his interior Assent and if having summoned together his own Extravagant Notions of the Word of God and its sense he be but evidently convinced as he imagines that the sentence of the Church thwarts the Scriptures he not only may but in our Defenders Principles is obliged to support and adhere to his own seeing as he thinks he cannot allow such a submission to her Authority without violating that of God c. And if so I would gladly ask him what is that just Authority which he tells
us the Church has in matters of Faith and when and whom it binds Object But perhaps it may be here asked What if the Church should Define there is no God no Jesus Christ no Heaven no Hell and I be fully convinced in my own judgment by reading Scripture that there is a God a Jesus Christ a heaven and a Hell would you have me quit the sense of Scripture in these plain Points in which I have evident conviction and follow that of the Church Before I answer I must needs say that I think this Question tho' it be the ground-work of our Defenders foregoing Position and without the supposal of which he can never pretend it to be reasonable yet will perhaps be derided by him when proposed in such plain terms For no man certainly can ever think that the whole Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell are never to prevail can fall into such a Total Defection as to Apostatize and oppose such places of Scripture as are plain to every understanding Moreover The Defender knows very well that the differences betwixt us and them lyes rather on the contrary side and that if the Scripture be plain for either side it is for * See several Books published upon this account as the Anchor of Christian Dodrin the 2d part of the Prudential Ballance Catholic Scripturist c. ours He knows how they have been often invited to shew one positive Text of Scripture against any one of our Tenets without their false glosses to it which make it no Scripture He knows or at least may be easily informed that we have shewn them positive Texts according to the Primitive Fathers interpretations both for our Articles and against their Innovations and the late Request to Protestants to produce plain Texts of Scripture in about 16 of their Tenets and the shufling answer to it are a sufficient Argument that it is unreasonable for them to pretend to it Answer My answer is therefore that the Defender and they who with him suppose the Church can ordain things directly opposite in necessaries either to Faith or Manners even in things clear to every understanding do not consider the notion of a Church nor the Promises that God has given to secure it from such Damnable Errors as must destroy its Essonce So that establishing a False notion without proving it for their ground no wonder if many Absurdities arise from it From which it will appear that a Libertines argument for his Debauches drawn from a supposition that there is no God no Heaven no Hell nor other Life is as conclusive as theirs who suppose the whole Church can or ever shall propose a truth to be believed or an action to be practised which is contrary to the express words of Scripture in places plain to every understanding or contradict Divinely delivered Truths However the Defender tells us that they allow a deference and that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council Expos Ch Engl. p. 81. the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General And that whensoever such an one which he says they much desire shall be freely and lawfully assembled to determin the Differences of the Catholic Church none shall be more ready both to assist in it and submit to it §. 126. The Council of Trent vindicated Upon this account I desired him to consider whether the Council of Trent had not the qualifications of a General and free Council and whether the Four first General Councils were not liable to the same exceptions as were made against the Council of Trent This he calls a new question hookt in and gives an old thread-bare answer to it as if we never had before confuted it 1. His first Exception that it was not General answered He says it was not so General because it was not called by so Great and Just an Authority as those were that is those were called by the Authority of the Emperors and this by the Authority of the Pope But what is there no Authority given to the Church to call her Pastors together in cases of necessity but that it must be the Temporal Power must do it If so then our Defender must condemn the first Council of the Apostles Act. 15. and all the other Councils held till Constantin the first Christian Emperors time But if he dare not do this but answer that the Church had the Priviledge at that time whilst the secular Power was Heathen I ask him how she came to lose it afterwards Did Princes by submitting themselves unto the Church rob their Mother of her just Authority T is true they assisted by interposing their Commands also and so strengthned the obligation of Assembling themselves But will any one say that such an accumalative power in assisting the Church was a depriving her of that Authority Moreover if he cannot deny but the Church had that Authority when the Secular Powers were heathens and enemies to Christianity I hope he will not deny her the same when some part of those Powers are Enemies to the Orthodox Faith for the Church is liable to the same dammages from an Heretical Prince as from an Unbelieving Again the whole practice of the Church is against what our Defender says It is well known Doctor Field of the Church pag. 697. apud Censid on the Council of Trent c. 3. §. 49. and consented to by Protestant Authors that the calling of a Diocesan Synod belongs to the Bishop that of a Provincial to the Metropolitan of a National to the Primate and of a Patriarchal to the Patriarch and why not that of a General to the Prime Patriarch unless he will say that God has taken care to provide for the unity of so many different Patriarchats and established a means to compose the differences that may arise in them but has not taken care of the whole Church Furthermore §. 127. The first 4 General Councils were called by the Pope our Defender is out in pretending that the four first General Councils were called by the Emperors For as to the First if we may believe the 6th Synod Act. 18. and Pope Damasue in Pontific it was called by the consent of Pope Sylvester 't is true Constantine having received Pope Sylvester's order promulgated the convocatory Letters and was at the expences of conducting the Bishops to the Council As to the Second General Council that of Constantinople Concurrer imus Coâ—st intinopolim ad vestre Reverentiâ— lâ—eras missa Ibeodosio suâ—â—ma pietate Inperatori Theodor. Hist lib. 5. c. 9. pag 403. B. Syâ—odum Epâ—esinam â—actam esse Cyrtssi industria Celestini authoritate Prolper in Chronico the Bishops there assembled in their Letters to Pope Damasus and to the Council then met with him at Rome tell him that they had met and assembled themselves at Constantinople according to the Letters he had sent to Theodosius the Emperor
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
difference betwixt the Idea and this Material Image than that the one is in our Mind by something which was formerly in our Senses and the other is in our Mind by something which at that time strikes our Senses but the Adoration which is there performed is neither in the one nor in the other to the Image but to God whom it Represents And this is all that Scholastic Divines and that Cardinal Capisucchi means in that passage which our Defender cites from him which I give you entirely in the Margent * Ex his constat in Concili Niceno secundo in Tridentino alijsque Latriam duntaxat idosala ricam sacris Imaginibus denegari qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seipsis propter ipsas exhibeitur quaque Imagines sen Numina aut Divinitaâ—em continentia more Gen ilium colamur de hujusmodi enim Latriae Controversia crat cum Judaeis Haereticis qui hae ratione nos Imagines colere asserchant Caeterum de Latria illa quae Imaginibus S. Triritatis Christi Domini aut Sâ—â—ratissimae Crucis exhibetur ratione rei per eas repraesentatae quatenus cum re repraesentatú unum sunt in esse repraesentativo nullamque Divinitatem Imaginibus tribuit aut supponit nulla unquam suit aut esse poruit Controversis Nara liâ—jusmodi Latria Imaginibus Exhibetur non propter seipsas nec in iysit sistendo sed propter Exemplar in quod Adoratio illa transit unde sicut Purpura Regis etsi non sit Rex honoratur tamen codem honore quo Rex quatenus est conjuncta Regi cum Rege facit aliquomodo unum humanitas Christi etsi sit Creatura adoratur aderatione Latriae quia est unita personae Verbi unum Christum cum persona Verbiconstituit ita Imago Christiquia in esse representativo est unum idem cum Christe adoratur eadem Adoratione qua adoratur Christus whose Sense is in other more intelligible words what the Bishop of Meaux says that we do not so much honor the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in Presence of the Image If the Bishop of Meaux chose rather to speak in such intelligible terms and according to the Language of the Church in her Councils and Professions of Faith leaving the harder expressions of the Schools it do's not follow that he and Cardinal Capisucchi differ in the true meaning neither is it a mark that Papists as he says think it lawful to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrins they dislike I have shewn him in what Sense that may be true tho' it seems he did not understand it that is when the Principles in those Books touch only probable opinions or Philosophical conclusions they may approve what they dislike But I told him that in matters of Faith they do not think it lawful to set their hands to or approve the Principles they dislike neither can our Desender shew one Instance without wresting it to a Sense not intended by them What I have said of Images may be said of Relics Relics As for Justification §. 14. Justification if persons would but rightly understand things there can be no Controversie betwixt them and us the Council of Trent having declared so plainly Conc. Trid. Sess 6. cap. 8. that we are Justified Gratis and that none of those Acts which precede our Justification whether they be Faith or good Works can Merit this Grace but if after such a Declaration they will not believe us we can only pity them and Pray to God to make them less obstinate Again Merit Sess 6. can 26. for Merit of good works done after this Justification we say with the Council of Trent that the just may expect an Eternal reward from God through his Mercies and the Merits of Jesus Christ The just may expect a reward for their good works done in Grace if they persevere to the end in doing good and keeping the Commandments But the Council tels us nothing at all of the School questions as whether this Merit be of Justice or Fidelity or Condignity or Congruity and therefore they ought to be excluded from our disputes as being no necessary matters of our Faith. As to Satisfactions for Temporal punishments due to sin Satisfaction We satisfie by Christs satisfaction it is not of Faith as appears by the Conncils silence in those Points that our satisfactions are of Condignity or of congruity by justice or by mercy But it is of Faith that through the Merits of Christ we satisfie for such pains Sess 14. can 13.14 and that by Jesus Christ we satisfie for our sins by the help of his satisfactions which Merits of Christ proceed meerly from his mercy towards us Oppose this last then only and our Controversie will be shorter What a deal of stuff have we seen of late concerning Purgatory even by those who acknowledge §. 15. Purgatory that all the Council of Trent determins is that there is a Purgatory or middle state and that the Souls that are detained there are helped the suffrages of the Faithful but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar It is not what Bellarmin looks upon as Truths that we ought to maintain but only what is of necessary Faith and that is defined by the Council It is therefore no Article of necessary Faith without the belief of which we cut our selves off from the Communion of the Faithful that there is a Fire in Purgatory A short summary of the Principal Controversies c. pag. 42. neither has the Council of Florence defined it tho' a late Pamphlet says it did It is not defined what the pains are nor how grievous nor how long they shall last Had those Authors therefore let these Points alone and only Written against such a middle state the Printer would have got less by them but the People more Separate also what is not of Faith from Indulgences and the Controversie will be brought to this whether the Power of Indulgences hath been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ Indulgences and whether the use of them be beneficial to Christian People or no so that we should have nothing to do in our disputes about the Treasure of the Church nor about Indulgences whereby the punishment due in the Court of God sin remitted may be taken away or the pains in Purgatory but only about a Power to remit to Penitents some part of their public Canonical Penances if their life and laudable Conversation seemed to deserve it We affirm only §. 16. Sacraments that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments in the New Law Instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind tho' not all to every one And our Advesaries say there are two only generally
again because God is not the God of the Dead so is the consequence as good that what God doth for their Sakes he doth it for their Mediation or Intercession I may add for their Merits unless he mean to set that on their Score which they desire not I may say deserve not at his hands But of this more expresly in its proper Article ART IV. Images and Reliques HHaving already shewn in the 2d Article pag. 2. how Respect Honor Worship Service Adoration Veneration c. are equivocal sometimes used as only belonging to God and sometimes peculiar only to Creatures Having also shewn how the exterior Actions of the Body as Bowing Kneeling Prostrating Kissing c. are of the same nature And further it being certain that Catholics as Catholics are obliged only to acknowledge those things to be of Faith which are delivered down to them either by universal Tradition and Practice or the express Desinitions of their General Councils and not every thing which is expressed in a Rubric by a Scholastic Term I might pass over this Article without any farther consideration But the Defenders intention in this being to Demonstrate us to be Idolaters and he having taken such a Method in it as will be apt to circumvent the Vulgar whose Applause he courts I must be necessitated once more to clear the difficulties he proposes In order to which I will shew in short First §. 19. the benefit of having Images and Representations in Churches 2ly That there is now no danger of Idolatry in that Practice and then 3ly Examin our Authors Objections And first I suppose he will not deny but that Pictures and Images are very useful to inform the Ignorant I. The Benefit of Images they being by the antient Fathers termed as every body knows the Books of the unlearned where they learn by the Office of the Eye in one moment and without Discourse that which is more * Seguius iritant anttuios demissa per Aures Quam quae fert oculis subiâ—cta pidelibus slowly instill'd by the Ear or gathered out of Books by a longer and more studious Survey 2ly These silent Orators are no less apt to encrease in us the Love of God and his Saints and blow up the dying Coals of our Affections into a Flame of Devotion 7 Syn. act 4. Tom. 5. cone pag. 613. F. Greg. lib 7. Fp. 53. pag. 229. F. Thus the 7th Synod mentions that St. Gregory Nissen was wont to weep when he had looked upon Abraham Sacrificing his Son Isaac and thus St. Gregory the Great sent the Picture of our Blessed Saviour to the Abbot Secondinus telling him I know thou longest for our Saviours Image that looking on it thou mayst burn the more with the Love of thy Lord. 3ly These Representations of Holy persons and of their glorious actions do by their powerful Eloquence inflame us toward the imitation of their graces and vertues a Truth undeniable by all but the Obstinate for as immodest and uncivil Pictures are apt to raise unchast and wanton desires in the sensual Breasts of Libertines so do devout and pious representations move the Beholders to Piety and Devotion and to Copy them in their lives and conversation 4ly They renew in us afresh the memory of the persons whom they represent which must needs be no small benefit for certainly whilst we daily call to mind our Blessed Saviours sufferings on the Bloody Cross for our Sins we cannot but detest those Sins which were the occasions of his bitter Passion When we see him represented as an innocent Lamb led to the Slaughter without opening his Mouth how can we but admire his Meekness and resolve to imitate his Humility and his Patience And when we see the Effigies of our fellow-creatures who have traced out unto us the way to Happiness by a good and Holy life how can we but rouze our selves to a pious imitation of those whom God raised up for our Examples And lastly when we see these Pictures they must necestarily raise in us a Reverence and Respect for the persons the reprepresent which Reverence and Respect are not temrinated on the Picture but pass from thence to the Original to whom the Honor which is done to the Picture does redound For as St. Ambr. Serm. in Ps 118. Ambrose says He who crowneth the Picture of the King does Honor to the King whose Image it is Polidor l. 7. Hist Anglor pag. 132 l. 20. Harpesield Ecclis Hist Saeculo 11. c. 2. pag. 215. Henry Hunt. Hist Angler lib. 6. p. 364. And when our devout and Victorious King Canutus took the Diadem which he used to wear from his own Head and crowned therewith an Image of our Crucified Saviour which was in his days kept in the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul at Winchester never after permitting a Crown to come upon his Head it was not to the Cross it self but to his Crucified Lord he payd that humble Reverence But 2ly §. 20. II. No danger of Idolatry now from the use of Images all these Benefits which these helps to Piety afford he devouter Christians are now by the subility of the Devil who hates any thing that excites Devotion branded with the horrid note of Idolatry and Catholics are every where represented as if they payd the Act of Adoration to the Images themselves A Calumny so black that I wonder it can enter into the minds of Men of Common sense to conceive it possible The nature of Christianity that in the clear Light of Christianity where all persons are taught is but one God to whom Adoration is only due any persons who are capable to understand the abstruser Mysteries of our Faith as the Trinity Incarnation Real presence in the Sacrament c. should yet be so dull and blockish that notwithstanding they read the contrary obligations in their Catechisms and hear them frequently explicated from the Pulâ—its they should yet fall down and adore a Stock or a Stone and pay divine Honor to it I say then it is almost impossible any persons who are capable of being instructed in the common Articles of our Faith should so wilfully and grosly err after such instruction as to give divine Honor to an Image or to think any divine Vertue annexed to them for which they ought to be adored The difference betwixt Christians at this day and the antient Heathens or former Jews is so great in this matter that there is no Comparison for the Heathens were brought up in a Belief of a plurality of Gods and the practice of adoring them was such in those days that the Jews who were apt to look upon nothing but an exterior Happiness seeing those Nations prosper who adored those fained Deities were ready to imitate their practices hoping by that means to obtain the like temporal Blessings But now since plurality of Gods hath been banished from the World the Jews themselves formerly so addicted
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'
they now adventure to say that were things clearly stated and distinguished one from another the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very grew a and that they can safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be will and rightly explained And he has advanced nothing but what is the Doctrin of the Council of Tront The Expositor and I were agreed in most things §. 30 Sanctification and Justification only I told him I thought he would be hard put to it to prove the Distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification to be the Doctrin of the Church of England and that he imposed upon us when he affirmed us so to make our Inward Righteousness a part of Justification that by Consequence we said our Justification it self is wrought by out good Works To the first It appears indeed he is hard put to it when he is forced to a Deduction how clear let others judge from their 11th and 12th Articles and from the Homily of Salvation which as he cites it calls the forgiveness of sins Justification but does not say that Justification is only the Remission of our sins which was his undertaking But had I told him of the little less than contradictions he fell under in that place he would have seen the difficulty of getting clear For having told us before that they confess with M. de Meaux Expos pag. 19. that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed but actually Communicated to the Faithful He here tels us Pag. 20. They believe their sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us Nay tho' he tell us their Church by Justification understands only the Remission of sins Contradictions and by Sanctification the Production of the habit of Righteousness in us yet within two lines he tells us that this Remission of sin is only given to those that Repent and that they who Repent are those in whom the Hoty Ghost produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and holiness of Life which is just as much as to say we distinguish Justification and Sanctification But no man can be Justifiel unless he be also Sanctified That our sins are Pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us but that his Merits are not only imputed but actudlly Communieated to us He will oblige us if he please to tell us how these agree as also how the Doctrin of their 11th Article We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour J. Christ by Faith and not for our own works and deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a wholesomt Doctâ—in and very full of comfost Art. 11. Sparrows Canons pag. 95. that we are Justified by Faith only is consistent with what he tells us pag. 19 of his Exposition that none of those things which precede our Justification whether our Faith or our Good works could Merit this Grace And what he summs up pag. 21. That Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commandments from time to time and if we persevere in this Cavenant Crowns us finally with Eternal Life Thus far he But Is awaking and answering to his Call is persevering in his Covenant no good works And if these be necessary to have God freely Justifie us and Grown us with Eternal Life how are we I pray Justified by Faith only As for the other part in which I told him §. 31. he imposed upon â—s as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of our Justification and so by consequence said that our Justification it self is wrought also by our Good works A false Imposition Doth he think that I told him he imposed upon us when he affirmed that we comprehend under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the Production of that inherent Righteousness which they call Sanctification No the Imposition did notilie in that part of the Proposition Our justification is gratis Gratis autem justificari ideo dicamur Quia nihileorum quae justificationem praeccdunt sive fides sive opera ipsam Justi ficationis gratiam promeretur Si enim Graâ—ia est jam non ex operibus Alioquin ut idem Apostolus inqun Gratia jam non est Gratia. Conc. Trid. Sess 6. de Justif cap. 8. but in the consequence which he drew viz. That we say our Justification is wrought also by our Good works This was the Imposition and if he had remembred what he had Copied out of the Bishops Exposition and the Bishop from the Council he would not have gone about to justifie his Accusation For the words are these We believe with him the Bishop of Meaux That our Sins are â—eely for given by Gods Mercy through Christ and that none of those things which precede Iustification whether our Faith or our good works could merit this Grace to which very words the Council of Trent adds this reason for if it Justification be a Grace it prâ—ceeds not from Good Works for other wise as the same Apostle says Grace would be nom no more Grace Well how do's he justifie his Imposition By a Canon of the Council forsooth which has not one word in it to his purpose but it seems he either did not understand it or else had a mind so to blunder it in his Translation that they who understood not the Latin might take it for granted to speak his Sense And by I know not what negligence of the Corrector fuerit was Printed instead of fiunt so that even those who did understand the Language could not find out the Error without consulting the Council it self The Council speaks of persons already Justified Si quiâ— dixerit konsinis justificati boma opers ita esse dexa Dei ut non sint etiam bona ipsim Justisicati merita aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei Gratiam Jesu Christi meritum cujus vivum membrum est fiunt non verè mereri augmentum Gratiae vitam aeternam iâ—siut vitae aeternae si tamen in gratia decesserit consecutioâ—em atque etiam Glorie augmentum Anathema sis and tells you that their good works performed through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Members they are do truly Merit Increase of Grace and Eternal Life and that they are not so the gifts of God but that they are also the
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
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
being present in more places than one c. First we affirm them to be no Contradictions A contradiction being an Affirmation and Negation of the same thing in the same time place manner and and all other circumstances but such an Affirmation and Negation are not made of Christs presence in several Hosts See the Guld in Controverly dâ—sc 1. ch 6. § 65 66. seqq And secondly all those who affirm a real Presence as the English Protestants seem to do have the same difficulties to overcome and none but the Sacramentarians who affirm the presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be meerly figurative as the King is said to be present in his Picture Coin or Charter are free from them Having thus explicated our Tenets with respect to those of our Adversaries we come now to shew upon what Grounds we believe them SECT 2. Some Reasons for our Doctrin THe Doctrin of the true real §. 72. All the proofs for an Article of Fatith concur for this and substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread is so certainly a revealed Truth that there is scarce any one Article of Christian Faith that Christ seems to have taken so much care to establish as this All the usual Arguments that are brought at any time to confirm us that a Truth has been revealed occur here and by an united Force confirm one another and strengthen our Belief beyond exception If we cast our Eyes into the Old Testament we there find the (a) The Bread and Wine offered by Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 The Bread of Proposition Exod â—0 23 1 Sam 31.40 seâ—q The Bread which the Prophet Elias having eaten by the command of an Angel walked in the strength of it sorty days to the Mountain of God Horeb. 3 Reg. 19.6 The Paschal Lamb Exod. 12. The Blood of the Testament Exod. 24.6 Heb. 9.20 Manna Exod. 16. compared with John 6.49 1 Cor. 10.2 If any one doubt whether these were sigures of the Eucharist or noâ— let them read St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Jerome and the other Autient Fathers cited by Cardinal Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 3. Figures of this Unbloody Sacrifice which must necessarily express something more excellent than themselves If we look into the (b) Isaâ—as 25.6 Zach. 10.17 Malac 1.11 Prophets we find their Prophecies cannot be fulfilled in a Figurative presence If we come to the New Law we find not only an express (c) John 6.51 The Bread which I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world Promise from Christ himself but (d) Matth. 26.26 Marc. 14.22 This is my Body This is my Bloâ—d of the New Testament which shall be shed for many or as the Protestants â—ender it which is shed for many for the remission of sin Luke 22.19 This is my Body which is given i. offered for you from whence the antient Fathers conclude not only the real presence but its presence as a Sacrifice Altho Sense tell the it is Bread yet it is the Body according to his words Let Faith confirm thee judge not by Sense After the words of our Lord let no doubt rise in thy mind Cyril Mystag 4. Of the verity of Fiesh and Blood there is left no place to doubt by the profession of our Lord himself and by our Faith it is Flesh and Blood indeed Is not this true To them be it untrue who deny Jesus Christ to be true God. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit vers 10 This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Blood which Chalice shall be or i. shed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It appeared to Beza so clear that if it was the Cup or Chalice that was shed for us it must contain in it truly the Blood of Christ and be properly a Sacrifice that he could find no evasion but to call it a Soloecism or Incongruity of Speech or else that the words which yet he confesses to be in all Copie Greek and Latin were thrust into the Text out of the Margent See his Annotations upon the New Testament 1556. Three Evangelists and (e) 1 Cor. 10.6.11.24 St. Paul relating the Institute in such words that many of our Adversaries themselves confess that if they must be taken literally we have gained our Cause If we look into Antiquity and the Writings of the (f) See Nubes Testâ—um from pag. 99. to 150. Conseusus veterum And the many other Books formerly writtes upon this Subject as Gualters Cronology Coâ—cii Thesaurus c. In which you may see a Collection of the plain Testimony of Fathers and eminent Writers in every Age from the Apostles time to our Ages not only concerning this Article of Transubstantiation but most others now in Controversy Primitive Fathers of the first 600 Years we find the manifest (g) All the antient Liturgies are a sufficient Testimony of this in which as Blondel himself tho a Hugonot confesses the Prayer in the Consecration of the Elements was to this purpose That God trould by his Holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. The Adoration also which was payd to our Blessed Saviour there present shews their Belief See St. Ambr. de spir lib. 3. c. 12. and St. Aug. in ps 98.5 who upon these words Adorate scabellum pedum ejus tels us that Christ has given his Flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation Now no man eats this except he first Adore it And moreover says he we do not only not sin by adoring it but we should sin if we did not adore it See Considerations upon the Council of Trens chap. 16. §. 32. Digress §. 20. c. Also Protestant Apolegy Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subd 2. Practice of this belief If into the later Ages we find for above (h) This has been sufficiently shewn by the aforesaid Authors and Monsieur Arnold in his Perpetuite de la foy and the Plain concession of Protestants as may be seen in the Protestant Apology 1000 Years such an Uniformity amongst all Christians that scarce one person who deserved the name of Pastor that is scarce one Bishop either in the (i) As to the consent of the Greek and Latins see the Guide in Controversy disc 3. ch â— Greek or Latin Church but embraced it There is scarce any Nation in the World in which a Synod has been held since this last 600 Years that is since Berengarius begun to broach the contrary Error but has declared their constant belief of Transubstantiation And the most (k) Guide in Controversy dise 1. ch 6. §. 57. general Councils that those Ages could afford have confirmed it by their Definitions and condemned the contrary Opinions with their Anathema's So that if Councils both national and General have any Authority if the consent
is more according to the literal sense of the words and has less difficulties in it than Consubstantiation but it does not follow that Scotus thought his Adversaries assertion to be more easy much less more true But our Defender goes farther and tells us that Scotus held this Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran and cites Bellarmin for it tho' he render his words ill in English * For Bellarmin does not say that Scotue held the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient but only that it was not an Article of Faith dogma fidei before that Council which are two very different things §. 88. Suarez Non fnerit tam aperte explicata sicut modo est Suar. in 3. D. Tho. vol. 3. disp 50. §. 1. How much better would it have been for him to go to the Fountain it self and have shewn us this in Scotus But he will scarce find it there and suppose he could one Swallow makes no Summer and I think it will appear far more reasonable to any thinking man to believe that Scotus erred in saying so than the Council of Lateran in which there were 400 Bishops and 800 Fathers in declaring that to be the Faith of the Church which was not so Thirdly Suarez he says acknowledges the same of Scotus and Gabriel Biel Suppose they had held that Doctrin what would follow but as Suarez Argues that they deserve reproof seeing the thing it self was antient and perpetually believed in the Church tho' perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is As for my overlooking that passage of Suarez which affirms the conversion of one substance into another to be of Faith and the Defenders arguing upon that account that Suarez is opposite to my opinion and pretences I have already told him that he proceeds upon a mistake of my meaning which being rectified he will find that Suarez is nothing against me nor am I guilty of any prevarication Fourthly §. 89. Cajectan The Defender tells me that my Prevarication in the next citaton viz. of Cardinal Cajetan is more unpardonable And why Because he affirmed that the Cardinal acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words Defence pag. 65. the others might with as good reason have been received and I told him that Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appealed to any that should read it for the truth of what I said This he says is such a Prevarication that should a Protestant have done it I would he believes have found out many hard names for him to testify my zeal against Falshood and Vnsincerity Id. pag. 66. and shewn what a kind of Religien that must be that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But that he will remit me wholly to the Readers Censure and my own Conscience for Correction I am glad he allows me the Readers to be of my Jury I hope he will give me leave to except against all those that are so far byassed in their affections to him and his party that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards Popery forsooth tho' against Justice Equity and Conscience Take but away I say such byassed and Ignoramus Juryes as these and I will appeal to any Learned Judicious and Conscientious men whether that Proposition he advanced be to be found in that Article of Cajetan or no. The Defender was so far from shewing this in Cajetan that he has pitched upon a place which has as little to the purpose as one would wish He tells us indeed that we have no other express Authority from Scripture for the belief of the Existence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament but only the words of our Saviour This is my Body for these words must of necessity be true And because the words of Scripture may be Expounded two ways Properly or Metaphorically The first error in this particular was of them who interpreted the words of our Lord Metaphorically which Error was treated of by the Master of Sentences and is reproved by St. Thomas in this Article And the force of the rejection consists in this that the words of our Lord have been understood by the Church properly and therefore they must be verified properly Which is as much as to say that St. Thomas and Cardinal Cajetan after him looked upon the Churches having always understood the words of our Saviour literally to be the strougest Argument against the Sacramentarians who Erred in understanding them Metaphorically But what is that to our Defenders Proposition And where does the Cardinal say there is as much reason for the one as the other abstracting from the Churches declaration which is the sense of his Proposition Wherefore now it comes to my turn to remit him as he does me to the Readers Censure and his own Conscience for correction His last Argument is drawn from the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist in these words §. 90. Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist Expos Dâ—ct Ch. of Engl. pag. 60. Since it is certain that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised nor the Church for above a 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament neither could they according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles who holds that the Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as Believe it without all scruple to the Adoraton of it have believed the Corporeal presence of our Blessed Saviour in it The Antecedent he goes about to prove first from the Scriptures silence in this matter ssect 91. I. which tho' it says Take Eat Do this in remembrance of me yet never says This is my Body fall down and worship it And from St. Paul who when he reproved the Corinthians for violating this Holy Sacrament did not tell them tho' it was obvious and much to his purpose that in profaning this Holy Sacrament they were not only guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ which it was Instituted to represent to us but even directly Affronted their Blessed Master Corporeally present there and whom instead of Profaning they ought as they had been taught to Adore in it Secondly II. From the new practices of Elevating the Host introduced says he in the 7th Century to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross but not to expose it to the People to Adore it from the Bell the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament the Pomp of carrying it through the streets Exposition of it upon the Altars Addresses to it in cases of Necessity and performing the chief Acts of Religion in its presence all which he pretends are but Inventions of yesterday or were never mentioned in Antiquity Lastly III. Because the Primitive Christians instead of
shall certainly find them there The Socinians will smile at his Boldness But certainly according to his Principles it must be so for if those abstruser Doctrins of the Blessed Trinity Incarnation and Divinity of our Blessed Saviour contained in that Creed be necessary Articles of our Faith and all Necessaries be clear in Scripture to every sober Enquirer which they must be if every Man must judge for himself and Scripture be the only Rule to judge by then it would necessarily follow that every Tinker Cobler Weaver or Tankerd-bearer if they do but seriously enquire into Scripture would certainly find them there But if neither they nor our Defender nor his whole Church can find such evidence for them there as to silence the Socinians who profess to follow the same Rule to be sincere and to use all due diligence it will cortainly follow that those Points are not clearly contained in Scripture unless we take the Authority of the Church along with us for the interpretation and by consequence not necessary Points of Faith with our Defender If any one therefore enquire into the occasion of this difference even in necessaries amongst those who follow the same Rule and use their best endevors they will find their Error to proceed from this that they err in making choice of that for their Rule which is not so And to shew that Protestants err in this making Scripture as interpreted by their own private Judgments the only Rule of Faith I make use of this Argument besides the several reasons before alledged §. 119. Hebr. 11.6 Eph. 4.4 Scripture interpreted by Private Reason or the Private Spirit cannot he our Rule of Faith. and the inconveniencies that follow from it All Christians agree with the Apostle that without Faith it is impossible to please 〈◊〉 and that this Faith is but one They all agree also that this Faith contains in it many Mysteries beyond the reach of mere human Reason so that man by the use of that alone could not come to the knowledge of the chief Mysteries of our Faith The Trinity Incarnation Original Sin Resurrection of the Flesh c. They all affirm therefore that God who sent his Son to redeem man who could not do any thing of himself to satisfy his infinite Justice would not command him to believe this one Faith under the pain of Eternal damnation and at the same time leave him without a means to bring him to the knowledge of what he was to Believe This means is called the Rule of Faith by Controvertists Now seeing God would have all men to be saved of what learning or capacity of what age country or condition soever this Rule or this means must be general and applicable to all and therefore Plain and Easy by which the Ignorant and unlearned may arrive at the same one Faith as well as the learned Isa 35.8 for God has prepared a Way that the wayfaring men tho' fools shall not Err therein It must be Visible and Apparent to All persons in All places and in All Ages to All I say who will not shut their eyes It must be Sure Certain and Infallible that the ignorant who Rely upon it may come to the unity of Faith with Security and the Learned who follow it may be convinced of the truth of that one Faith rationally and oppugners find no substantial Arguments against it All which qualifications do not only arise from the Goodness and Wisdom of Almighty God but are conformable to the very notion of a Rule of Faith. If then the Scripture as interpreted by that private judgment of Particulars be this Rule of Faith it must have all these advantages towards the uniting us in this Faith without which it is impossible to please God. I will not descend to particulars and shew how the Scripture is void of the essential qualifications of a Rule that has been done by many hands and particularly by the question of Questions But I will Argue from what our Adversaries themselves grant us I suppose then it will not be denyed me but that the Scripture even in necessaries 2. Pet. 3.16 may be differently interpreted since St. Peter affirms that the Vnlearned and the Vnstable do not only Wrest the Epistles of St. Paul but other Scriptures also to their own damnation now the question is only when things are thus controverted which is the True sense of Scripture and since these Controversies may arise in necessary matters of Faith God would not leave us destitute of a means to come to know which is the True and genuine sense of this Scripture in those necessaries and this means must be as I said before easy plain general secure and infallible or else this Scripture supposing not granting it to be the Rule of our Faith would be useless to some part of mankind if it wanted any one of those qualifications and by consequence those persóns might justly complain that God had not taken a sufficient care for their Salvations If we examin our Defenders Rule for us to come to the True meaning of this Scripture he tells us it is a serious and impartial inquiry If so then it would necessarily follow that every serious and impartial Enquirer would infallibly hit upon the true Faith which Faith being but one all those impartial Enquirers would be at unity in their Belief But since experience tells us that many serious and impartial Enquirers if we can believe any men in what they affirm with the most solemn protestations imaginable in a matter of such high concern do differ in the sense which they draw from Scripture even in necessaries we must conclude That Scripture interpreted by this private reason of every individual person cannot possibly be this easy clear universal and Infallible rule or means to come to an unity in Faith. What I said against this Private Reason of particular persons or Churches §. 120. concludes also against the Private Spirit which some pretend to which Spirit if it were the Spirit of God would certainly teach all persons the same thing Others there are who tell you that the means to come to the knowledge of the true sense of Scripture is to compare one Text with another to examin the Commentators the Original Languages the Antient Writers and Interpreters c. but this way beside that it is coincident with Private Reason which we have already shewn cannot be our Infallible Rule to come to the true sense of Scripture is moreover impossible to be done by the generality of Mankind whose concerns to get a livelyhood are such that they have neither time opportunities nor abilities to do it Our Defender will perhaps Argue here from his good friends Doctor Stillingfleet and Mr. Chilling worth that they need not take such pains nay moreover that if they use only such a moderate industry as is consistent with their employments tho' they should err God will not impute it to them In