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
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
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
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
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
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