things considered I think I had just reason to say that the present Church in every Age was to be judge of the universality or not universality of Tradition and that if she declared her self either by the most general Council that Age all things considered could afford or by the Constant Practice and Uniform voice of her Pastors and People every private Church or person ought to submit to her decisions But this Doctrin will not down with our Defender §. 106. Desence pag. 77.80 The Defenders Arguments against this judge of Tradition answered who has so great a deference for a Church that he is not afraid to say that any private or individual person may examin and oppose the decisions of the whole Church if he be but evidently convinced that his priate belief is founded upon the Authority of Gods Holy Word And he has two reasons he says why he cannot assent to this method of judging which is universal Tradition 1. Because it is a matter of fact whether such Doctrins were delivered or no 1. Objection and this matter of fact recorded by those who lived in or near that first Age of the Church if then the Records of those first Ages contradict the sentence of the Church any man who is able to search into them may more securely rely upon them than upon the Decrees of a Council of a later Age or the voice and practice of its Pastors and People And this he says is the case in many things betwixt them and us Answer But Good Sir weigh a little the force of your Argument and see whether it be not built upon a mere supposition that the Church has erred or may err in the delivery of her Doctrins even against the plain words of Scripture or positive Testimony of the Fathers But such an absurdity being supposed what wonder if many others follow after Again tell me are those Records you speak of plain to any one that is able to search into them If so I hope the Church is as clear sighted and able to search into them as any individual Church or person Or are they obscure And then I suppose you will allow the universal Church's constant practice in that Age or her declarations in her Councils to be at least a better Interpreter than such Private persons or Assemblies And if the Catholic Church examining those passages in the antient Fathers tells me they are so far from contradicting her Practices or Doctrins that if rightly understood they speak the same thing with her I think there lyes a greater obligation on me to submit my Judgment to that of the Universal Church than obstianately to follow my own sense or that of a particular Church dissenting from the whole And that this is the case betwixt Catholics and Protestants the Defender knows and the Reader may gather from this Treatise But the Defender has yet a more cogent reason against this method §. 107.2 Objection which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and give this Unwritten word the upper hand of the Written Answer Had he said that this method would be apt to set up the Decrees of Councils and the judgment of the Church before the Private spirit or judgment of Particulars I should readily have granted what he said Tradition and Scripture are not Competitors But I see no competition in our case betwixt Scripture and Tradition but that they both strengthen each others Testimony unless he will have the Text and the most authentic Comment to be competitors Now the Defender looks upon it as a high affront to Scripture that the Church's decrees or practices should obtain and be in force with all its members when many of them may be perswaded that they cannot find what she decrees in nay that it is contrary to the word of God. And declares for himself and all his Party That they cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon those grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrin which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the Written word of God. For in this case he thinks it reasonable that the Church's sentence should be made void and the voice of her pretended Traditions silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God. But had he expressed himself clearly and according to the point in question he should have said that the sentence of the Church was in such cases to be made void and every mans private interpretation of Scripture if he be evidently convinced that it is according to the word of God preferred before the Decrees of General Councils or the uniterrupted Practice and Preaching of her Pastors But of this Argument more in the next Article ART XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church THe Authority of the Church is a point of so great Importance §. 108. that being once established all other Doctrins will Necessarily follow The Concessions which our Defender had made in his Exposition were indeed such as might very well have given us hopes he would have submitted to the natural consequence of them but we might well be surprised to see them so suddainly dashed by such wild Exceptions as do not only destroy all Church Authority but open a way to as many different Opinions in Religion as there are persons inclined to make various interpretations of Scripture and headstrong enough to prefer their Own sense before that of Others What I pray avails his Concessions The Desenders Concessions that the Catholic Church is ostablished by God the Guardian of Holy Scriptures and Tradition That she has Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline Expos pag. 76. pag. 78. but even of Faith too That it is upon her Authority they receive and reverence several Books as Canonical Pag. 76. and reject others as Apocryphal even before by their own reading of them they perceive the Spirit of God in them And Pag. 77. that if as universal and uncontroverted a Tradition had descended for the Interpretation of Scriptures as for the receiving of them they should have been as ready to accept of that too surely he does not mean such a Tradition as no one ever called in question for there is scarce a Book of Scripture but some Heretic or other has questioned whether it were Canonical or no What I say do such Concessions as these avail us when he allows every Cobler or Tinker nay every silly Woman for he excepts no body the liberty not only to examin the Church's Decisions but to prefer their Own sense of Scripture before that of the Whole Church This position is so Extravagant that I think I need only give it in his own words §. 109. to make him and all that party who he tells us have approved his Book HIs Exceptions
them confirmed it from many Testimonies of Holy Scripture as one of them from Ephes 4.30 affirming these words And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby ye are Sealed to be meant of the Sacrament of Coâ—firmation And the other concluding that the Pretious Ointment of which the Psalmist speaks Ps 132.2 which being poured forth upon Aarons Hend ran down upon his Beard and the Skirts of his Garment as also that of St. Paul Rom. 5.5 where he tels us that the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given unto us to be referred to Confirmation And certainly the best way of proving things from Scripture is to bring the Interpretations of Fathers who lived before out Disputes arose T is true the Catechism after this general Proof of its Antiquity and its being a Sacrament descending to particulars chooses rather to use the plain Testimony of * Laodic c. 48. Cartb 2. ca. 3. Councils and Antient Fathers as of (a) Fab. Pap. in inst Epist 2. quae est ad Episc Oriental Tom. 2. Concil citatur de Consc dist 3. cap. lit vestris St. Fabianus Pope and Martyr (b) S. Dionys de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. ct 4. St. Denys c. to which might be added (c) Aug. in Ps 44. v. 9. et lib. 13. de Trin. c. 26. St. Augustin (d) Ambr. in Ps 118. St. Ambrose (e) Cypr. Epist 70. and St. Cyprian c. than the words of Scripture alone which it knew would be contested by them who make it their business to oppose the Church and make the Scriptures speak as they would have them But as I said the best way of proving things from Scripture is to shew that Antiquity understood it so As to the Argument I brought from his own Concessions §. 47. tho' it was not so fully concluding as it might have been yet let him answer me Why they now continue the imposition of Hands if it was not left by the Apostles to be continued in the Church and if it was left by them for what end did they leave it if not for the same for which it was instituted the giving of the Holy Ghost and Grace to confirm and strongthen us in our Faith And if the Eucharist it self do not certainly and infallibly give Grace to all those that receive it but only to them that receive it worthily I suppose he will not expect any more from Confirmation Let him therefore tell me Whether if a person duly prepared come to receive this Imposition of Hands the Grace of the holy Ghost does not certainly descend at that Holy Rite for those great ends the Prayers design If these things be as I think he can scarce deny them he cannot deny also but that this looks somewhat like a Sacramènt But if as he says this be only a meer indifferent Ceremony continued only in imitation of the Apostles and to which no Blessing is ascribed that may not equally be allow'd to any other the like Prayer Why might not this Prayer be reiterated as well as others Why must this Ceremony be only allowed to be performed by Bishops and why are persons so much exhorted not to neglect it But if he think not this a sufficient Argument Bellarm. de Saer Conjirm lib. 2. I would desire him to consider that I might by only making use of Bellarmin have shewn him from plain Texts of Scripture at least looked upon by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as such that Imposition of Hands which we call Confirmation is a Sacred sign of an Interior Grace given with the Holy Ghost to the Faithful I might have shewn him Ten Popes the last of which was no less than St. Gregory the Great all of them affirming the Holy Ghost or his Gifts to be given by this Sacrament some of them calling it a great Sacrament and others mentioning both Chrism and Imposition of Hands I might have shewn him no less than three General Councils and eight others on our side some of them very antient I might have shewn him also nine Greek Fathers and as many of the Latin of which St. John Damascen and St. Augustin are the last all whose Testimonies are so full that our Defender will be ill at ease to give a civil Answer All this he knew I might do besides many others which joyned with the perpetual practice of the Church and the unanimous consent of Christians before the Pretended Reformation are certainly good Arguments in our behalf But he tells us Des pag. 40. it is wonderful to see with what Confidence those of the Church of Rome urge the Aposiles Imposition of Hands for proof of Confirmation when this Imposition of Hands is resolved to be but an Accidental Ceremony and accordingly in our practice wholy laid aside It is a sign our Defender did not look into our Pontifical when he Writ this nor considered what he cited from Estius in the Margent For we have not left off Imposition of Hands neither does Estius affirm it but only that the necessity of it is ceased as if the words he quotes be true But our Bishops says he Lay on Hands after the Apostles Example §. 48. but yours Anoint make Crosses in the Forehead tye a Fillet about their Heads give them a Box on the Ear c. for which there is neither Promise Precept nor Example of the Apostles Such an Argument as this might a Dissenter from the Church of England bring against the several Ceremonies used in their Ordination and what our Defender would answer to him I desire he would apply to himself The Ceremonies Explicated Several Ceremonies he knows are used to shew the effects of the Sacraments and if he do not know the meaning of these let him look again into the Catechism of the Council of Trent and he will there find that Oyl expresses the plenitude of Grace which by the Holy Ghost flows down from our Head Christ Jesus upon all his Members Ps 132. Ps 44. Josn 1. from whose fulness we have all received he being anointed with the oyl of Gladness above his Fellows he will find also there that Balsom puts us in mind that we ought to be the Good Odor of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 2.15 and keep our selves from all Putrefaction and the Contagion of Sin. If he also search into the antient Expositors of Scripture * Ambr. iib. de lis qui initiantur Mysteriis c. 6 7. Tom. 4. pag. 424. 425. Ed. Basil 1567. St. Ambrose St. Anselm (a) In Commentario 2 Cor. 2.21 Theodoret and others he will find that both this Anointing and this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead are plainly expressed or alluded to in Scripture where the Apostle St. Paul tells the Corinthians that it was God who confirmed them with him in Chirst that it was god who anointed them signed
persons to love one another as Christ loved his Church and because they are two in one Flesh tels them this is a great Sacrament but I speak in Christ and in the Church which words shew plainly what I have already mentioned that Marriage is truly a Sacrament in the Church and in Christ tho' it be only a civil Contract out of it It is a Sacrament instituted by Christ to represent the indissoluble Union betwixt him and his Church and therefore has his Grace annexed to it that it might truly represent that Union for an uncomfortable Marriage does not well represent it nor one that may be dissolved But here the modern Innovators after Erasmus cry out the word Sacrament is a false Translation the Greek word being Mystery But this is only a Trick of Protestants who as they were wont in their first Bibles to leave out the word Church whereever they met with it in Scripture and put in Congregation because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would bear that sense so here because the Greek has no other word but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express a Sacrament and a Mystery therefore it must be rendred Mysiery lest their People should with their Forefathers understand Marriage to be properly a Sacrament But certainly they who are not willing to be imposed upon will rather follow the Interpretation of all the antient Fathers and Commentators upon this place who unanimously agree that St. Pauls sense was that Matrimony is properly a Sacrament and that a great one because it signifies the Vnion betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church than these novel Criticks Indeed where persons have a mind to cavil there is no Text of Scripture so plain but may be wrested to a different sense and therefore we are forced upon those occasions to fly to the Tradition of the Church By Universal Tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches and the unanimons consent of those Interpreters who lived before that Dispute arose And thus it is no wonder that Estius should say we have not any Text of Scripture that plainly and evidently proves this Doctrin without having recourse to the Tradition of the Church But when this Tradition is such that not only the antient Fathers as St. Hierom St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophilact St. Augustin St. Anselme and generally all Commentators till Erasmus agreed in it but also the whole Church both of the East and West consented to it as appears not only by the general consent of all their Divines for the last 600 Years but by the Definitions of Councils held since that time and particularly that of Florence where the Greek and Latin Fathers were agreed upon this point as also by the Testimony of Hierimias Patriarch of Constantinople for the Greeks who in his own name as Cardinal Bellarmin observes Bellarmin de Mâ—rim Sacrant lib. 1. c. 4. pag. 1304 B. and in the name of all the Grecian Bishops declared against the Augustan Confession of the Lutherans in this point of Marriage being a Divine Sacrament as he did also against all their other Innovations I say when this Tradition is so antient clear and universal what a madness must it be to reject it because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Mystery as well as it does a Sacrament One thing more remains §. 60. Marriage not necessary for every one which has been thought a witty Objection against the Church that she makes Matrimony a Sacrament and yet denies it to her Clergy for a Sacrament say they must be Generally necessary to Salvation But this is plainly a forced Principle taken up upon begging the Question about the number of the Sacraments and besides is not so heartily believed in the Two which Protestants pretend to maintain For the Sons of the Church of England for any thing yet appears are not much perswaded of any such great necessity I speak not of what they call Superstitious Vnction but even of the Eucharist it self for dying persons For unless they can get company to Communicate besides the Decumbent he must lye in his Agony and venture into the other World without his Viaticum As for the Churches scrupling Marriage to her Clergy it is a difficulty to those who consider not the Sanctity of Priesthood If there be any state more perfect than another I hope it belongs to the Priest but the state of Marriage is more imperfect than the state of a resolved Virginity as you dare not deny shall not the Church than give leave to her Hierarchy who are or ought to be the most perfect to degrade themselves amongst the conjugate when she always maintained an order of Virgins even in the weaker female Sex or rather may she not direct them to follow the Evangelic counsel of being Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God But I will not dilate upon this The Church appoints her Sacraments where they are proper She does not appoint Marriage for all nor Extream Unction to the Lusty nor Holy Orders to every one You make a profession to scruple the use of Marriage at some solemn times if you dissemble not and the Church upon the same reasons scruples Marriage it self to some certain Orders of Men. ART XIV Of Holy Orders IN this Article §. 61. as well as in the last the Defender hath shewn us how much he is a Man of Peace and what hopes we may have of composing Differences He gave us indeed a fair Overture for an Agreement in his Exposition and I told him I was glad of it But what will his party say if he seem to close with Rome and therefore all his fair appearances and concessions must be now cast off and of a closing Friend as he then appeared he is now become an open Enemy If the Vindicator says he be agreed with me in this Article what then he does not say I am glad of it we draw neer to Unity no that would be to incur the Censure of those who live by breaking the Churches Peace but he says If we be agreed he musi renounce the number of his Seven Sacraments How For my part I thought he had spoken his mind sincerely before and the sense of his Church Expos pag. 46. when he told us That Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders The Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost might perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament and therefore I told him that we said no more and that we denyed it to be a Sacrament common to the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are and so far I found no difference betwixt us One would have thought upon this account that he had rather renounced his number Two than I my Seven Sacraments seeings in effect he allowed Holy Orders to be a third Oh but he only said §. 62. His new Evasions answered perhaps it
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
they will have the Essence of a Sacrifice to consist in a slaying of the Victim but by that act only there is a true Immolation of Jesus Christ viz. a separation of his Body from his Blood by â—he words of Consecration tho' the natural concomitance hinder the Blood or Soul from being truly separated from the Body Against this reason after other Arguments he brings this Denique vel in Missa fit vera vealis Christi mactatie occisio vel non sit Si non fit non est verum reale Sacrificium Missa Sacrisâ—eium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrisicii Si autem sit ergo verum erit dicere à Sacerdotibus Christianis verè realiter Christium occidi at hâ—o Sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur de Missa lib. 1. cap. 27. pag. 873. A. In the Sacrifice of the Mass either there is says he a true and real mactation and slaying of Jesus Christ or there is not If there be not then according to you the Mass is no real Sacrifice for when the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in being slain as it is your opinion a true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real slaying But if there be then we might truly say that Christ is truly and really slain by Christian Priests but this is rather a Sacrilege than a Sacrifice From this manner of Arguing any one may see that it is neither the Cardinals §. 100. The essence of a Sacrifice consills not in slaying the Victim nor the Churches opinion that the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in Slaying of the Victim But yet we acknowledg a True and Real Sacrifice in the Mass And had he gone a little farther in this Author he would have seen how all the Essential parts of a Sacrifice are contained in it Our Defender in his Exposition tells us there are Four things required to make a Sacrifice Pag. 66. Four things reqired to a Sacrifice 1. That what is offered be something that is Visible 2. That of profane which it was before it be now made Sacred 3. That it be offered to God. And 4 ly by that offering suffer an Essential destruction And supposes the greatest part of these conditions nay all of them to be evidently wanting Now Bellarmin in this same place tells him that three of these Conditions are fund in the Consecration of the Eucharist and the other is evidently included in them First says he a Profane or common thing Bread is by Consecration made the Body of Christ the Visible Species of Bread remaining neither does it follow from thence that Bread is only Sacrificed but that which remains the change being made 2. That Sacred thing which remains under the Visible species is offered to God by being placed upon the Altar Lastly From hence it appears how falsely our defender in his Exposition pag. 65. accused the Cardinal of saying that Either Christ Sacrificed in Eating or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it Read his 7. Proposition in the same 27. Ch. of his 1. Book Sacramenti consumptio ut fit a Sacerdote Sacrificante pâ—rs est essentialn sed non tots Essentia And the 8th Consecratio Eucharislia ad Essentiam Sacrificii pertinet The words of Bellarmin which he cited are these Christus isse out Consecrando consumendo Sacrificavit aus nullo modo Sacrificavit But it was not to his purpose to put in consecrando By Consecration that which is offered is ordained to a True Real and external change and destruction which was necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice for by Consecration the Body of Christ receives the form of food but food is ordained to be Eaten and by that to a change and destructon neither is that any objecton that the Body of Christ suffers not nor loses its natural being when we receive the Eucharist for it loses its Sacramental being and thereby ceases to be really upon the Altar ceases to be a sensible food The Cardinal being thus Vindicated I say Our Defender cannot deny Malac. 1 11. 3. 3. Esay 66.21 but that the Prophets in the Old Law foretold and that in the time of Antichrist the dayly Sacrifice should be taken away He cannot also deny but that the New Testament speaks of Altars and Priesis Dan 11 3â— 12.11 hebr 13. 10. compared with the 1 Cor. 10. And that the Fathers of the Primitive Church usually called the Eucharist a Sacrifice an Oblation an unbloody Sacrifice a Sacrifice which * Pervenit ad Sanctum magnumque Concâ—tium quod in quibusdam locir civitatibus Presbyteris gratiam Sacrae communionis Diaconi porrigant quod nec regula nec consuetudo tradidit ut ab his qui potessatem non habent offerendt illi qui offerunt Christi corpus accipiant Conc. Nic. Primum can 18. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 344. Deacons had not power to offer but only Priests and the like Expressions Upon what ground then can he pretend that all these Expressions were Metaphorical and endeavour to elude all these by sticking firm to his Notion of a Sacrifice that there can be no true offering without suffering And because Christ does not suffer in the Mass therefore he is not truly Offered The Bishop of Meaux one would have thought has fully removed that difficulty telling him that if we take the word Offer in the sense it is made use of in the Epistle to the Hebrews as implying the Actual death of the Victim we will publickly consess that Jesus Christ is now no more Offered up neither in the Eucharist nor any where else But because this word has a larger signification in other places of Scripture where it is often said we offer up to God what we present before him the Church which forms her Language and her Doctrin not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scriptures is not afraid to say that Jesus Christ Offers up himself to God wherever he appears before his Face upon our behalf and that by consequence he Offers up himself in the Eucharist according to the Holy Fathers expressions We affirm then that in the Mass is Offered up to God a True proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice A Sacrifice in remembrance of that on the Cross and applying to us the benefits there purchased for us A Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ is both the Priest and the Victim But yet no bloody Sacrifice Here is no Death of the Victim but in Mystery and representation But however it is a True and proper Sacrifice as Christ is truly and properly a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec I might here have taken notice how this Expositor brings in the Bishop of Meaux §. 101. Expos Ch. of Eng. pag. 67. observing that the Author of the Epistle to the
answer to which I would only ask them Whether God has established a Faith or no which must be one and without which it is impossible to please him If they cannot deny this as being the plain words of Scripture I ask again what is opposite to Faith but Error in its essentials where therefore has God promised in Scripture that a man who errs in the essentials of his Faith shall not have that Error imputed to him when on the contrary he tells us that without Faith it is impossible to please him If he say these people are in an invincible ignorance and God will not punish that I must answer him that God has not left the generality of mankind without an easy general and Infallible means to overcome that ignorance if they will but make use of it And this secure §. 181. easy universal and infallible means is that which we Catholics make use of viz. an attention and (a) Luc. 10.16 Maâ—th 18.17 submission to the voice of the Catholic Church which is (b) Eph. 4.4 5 6 13. Cant. 6.9 John 16.16 John 17.20 Uniform in it self established by Christ as an (c) Isa 35.8 Easy means for the instruction of all both Learned and Unlearned as an Universal means she being (d) Ps 19.4 Isa 2.2 Ps 86 9. Dan. 7.14 spread for that end throughout All Nations as a (e) Masth 5.14 15 c. Ps 19.4 Isa 59 21.60.1 3.11.62 6. Ezech. 37.26 Dan. 7.14 Visible means being continued through All Ages by an uninterrupted Succession of Pastors and People As an Infallible means being (f) John 16.13 1 Tim. 3.15 guided in Truth and secured from Error especially in Necessary matters of Faith and Salvation by the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost So that all persons whatsoever whether Learned or Unlearned may (g) Deut. 17.8 c. Math. 23.3 Isa 2.2 3. Marth 18.17 securely rely upon what this Church teaches especially in Necessaries If our Defender after better reflections acknowledge the Catholic Church to be infallible in Necessaries or Fundamentals and enquire which is this Catholic Church I must desire him to peruse with a serious application what I have already proved and not to pass over my Arguments so slightly as shews he never weighs their force But our Defender has made use of an Instance to prove his admirable Doctrin by §. 122. The Instances from St. Athanasius answered an Instance which if any Catholic had brought the like he would have called false and Impertinent An Instance which hath been often brought and Refuted and yet nothing is said to the refutation but the Objection is still repeated by those who are conscious they cannot defend their Cause and yet have not sincerity enough to repent Lastly an Instance which may pass current amongst them who will believe no body but their own party but can have no force with men of Reason I told him in my Vindication that the story which he tells of St. Expos Doct. Ch. of England pag. 80. Athanasius his standing up alone against the whole world in Defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils nay the whole Church fell away was very falsly represented And he now grants the Expression of St. Athanasiu's being against the whole world and the whole world against him Desence pag. 81. did refer chiefly to the Eastern Bishops and was not so literally true as to those of the West from whence an ordinary Reader would inser See Liberius his Letter to the Oriental Bishops apud Socrat. lib. 4. c. 11 12. Tom. 1. Conâ— pag. 584 St. Basil Epist 75. pag. 877.293 pig 1058. Edit Paris 1518. cited by the Guide in Controversy Dise 2. §. 27. n. 2. p. 119. The History of Pope Liberius and the Council of Ariminum §. 123. that it was literally true as to those of the East But they who examine things more maturely will find that even at that time the Body of the Eastern Prelates tho' suffering much from the other savoured party remained Catholics However he thinks that if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and. Sirmium and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith sent to him from Ariminum c. yet subscribed to another at Sirmium in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted c. he was not much out when he said that St. Athanasius stood up in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Council and almost for he is now more moderate the whole Church fell away But what will he say if neither Liberius nor the Latin Prelates in the Councils of Sirmium or Ariminum ever denied the Divinity of Christ or subscribed to the Arian Heresy Had he looked into our Authors he would have found it proved beyond exception and that from the best Historians that tho' Liberius who was sent into Banishment to Beroea by Constantius because he would not condemn St. Athanasius in the Council at (a) Sozom l. 4. â— 10. p. 481. Ibeod lib. 2. c. 16. pag. 371. B. Milan without a hearing at last out of fear and impatience in his exile subscribed to a Collection presented by Basil and other Eastern Bishops containing in it the Decrees against Paulus Samosatenus and the Sirmian Formula against Photinus Socrat. lib. 2. c. 5. p. 244. as also that drawn up at the Consecration of the Church of Antioch all which contained nothing but Catholic Doctrin except the leaving out the word Consubstantial which they pretended was abused by some not understood by others and was not found in Scripture yet did he then Excommunicate all those who affirmed the Son not to be like his Father in Substance and all other things Sez lib. 4. c. 14. pag. 483. The Sirmian Formula was explicated by St. Hilarius in a Catholic Sense and it is worthy remark that in these Formula's they professed the Son to be of the Fathers Substance that he was in all things like his Father even as to Essence and Substance and that he was before all Times and Ages So that tho' Liberius cannot be excused for his complyance with the Emperor and the scandal which he gave to those who refused the least Communication with the Arians yet does it no ways follow that he fell from the Faith Act. Liber Soz. lio 4. c. 18. p. 487. B. And he regained his credit afterwards by his firmness to the first Orthodox Decrees of the Council of Ariminum resolving rather to live and die in the Catecombes than Sign what had been consented to by the Bishops at the later end of that Council when it was not free and the design of the Arians was made public c. As to the Council of Ariminum §. 124. if we consider all things maturely we shall find that of the 400 Bishops that appeared there only 80 or as St. Athanasius says
50 of them were of the Arian party that at their first Assembly they refused the Formula of Faith brought by * Socrat lib. 2. c. 29. p. 2â—0 F. Vrsacius and Valens from Sirmium they condemned Arianism and established the Nicene Faith and sent their Decrees to the Emperor desiring a dismission of the Assembly But the Emperor dissatisfied with this constancy would not give any answer to their Legates but ordered the Bishops to stay at Ariminum till his return from an Expedition against the Barbarians Socrat. Ibid. p. 262. F. Sozom. lib. 4. c 18. p 487. at which time he hoped they would concur with him To which they answered that they could not depart from the Sentence they had already pronounced and therefore begged leave again to return before Winter to their Churches to which the Emperor giving no answer Russin Hist lib. 1. c. 21. pag 203. several of them returned by stealth the others kept like prisoners which want of Freedom shewed this later part of the Council not to have been Legitimate at last deluded by the Emperors Agents and the specious pretences of a firm Peace and Union which would follow amongst the Western and Eastern Churches yielded to Subscribe a Form in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not rejected but omitted as being not well understood by the Latins But however this general Form was suspected by the Catholic Bishops and they would not Subscribe to it without some additions to secure the Churches Faith from Arianism and other misconstructions in which Additions they condemned Arius and all his perfidiousness and declared the Son to be Equal to the Father Severus Hist lib. â— Hier. dial adver Lucifer Apud Guide of Controvdise 2 §. 26. n. 5. pag. 117. Sozom. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. C. and without beginning or time and that he was not a Creature and pronounced and Anathema against all those who should offer to say that the son was not Eternal with his Father all which either shew the Son to be Consubstantial to his Father or that they are two Gods which the Arians denyed the Arians having consented to these Additions and the Catholic Faith being now thought secure the Council was dismissed But Valens and his Followers having now got a specious pretext proclaimed abroad that the Council of Ariminum had consented to the Arian Doctrin and condemned the Nicen Faith explicating the Formula to their own sense and pretending that when they said the Son was not a Creature they meant he was not a Creature as other Creatures were c. But the Western Bishops seeing themselves thus cheated by the subtilty of the Arians were highly vexed and protested against it and at this time it was that St. Jerome says the world admired to see it self become Arian all of a suddain not as if it were really so but because the equivocal words were easily turned by the Arians to their own sense and the People deceived by their pretences of a General Council Constantius also the Emperor resolved to make this Formula be Signed by all persons that were not at that Council or that had gone from it without his leave and hence a great Persecution arose and many Bishops amongst which (a) Sozom. lib. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. B. Pope Liberius was one were Banished others cruelly (b) Martyr Rom. Marcel de Schism Vrcis Dumas Apud Mainburg Hist de l' Arianism 1. Partie lib. 4. p. 39 Edit Paris in 4â—0 murdered as Gaudentius Bishop of Ariminum Rufinus and others So that it is plain from what has been here deduced from the best Historians of those times that neither the Pope nor Council nor Western Church condemned the Divinity of Christ Moreover it is to be remarked that St. Athanasius with all thee other Eastern Bishops of his party most of them either Deposed Banished or Persecuted by the Emperor and all these Western Prelates stood up for the defence of the Faith defined in the Council of Nice against the Arians who Innovated and would impose a sense upon Scripture which they had not been taught by their Forefathers but had taken up upon their own Private Judgments So that our Defenders Instance if rightly taken will be very much to his disadvantage and is a convincing proof against his assertion for it is manifest that to Imitate St. Athanasius a person ought to stand to the Definitions of a lawful General Council against all the Private Interpretations and pretended evident convictions of those who oppose it And ought to be so far from preferring his Private Sentiments of the sense of Scripture before the Judgment of the Church that he ought to suffer all manner of Persecutions and even Death it self rather than recede from her approved Faith. ART XXV Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy OUr Defender having layd down such a Principle in the foregoing Article of his Exposition §. 125. as rendred all Chruch-Authority ineffectual Yet as if he had forgot himself in the very next he tells us that he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith as bound thereto by a Subscription to the 39 Articles in the 20th of which that Authority is expressed And to shew us what he means by this just Authority he tells us that they allow such deference to her decisions Expos Church of Engl. p. 80. as to make them their directions what Doctrin they may or may not publickly maintain and teach in her Communion That is I suppose as much as to say they allow an exterior assent as far as Non-contradiction But even thus much is certainly inconsistent with that obligation which our Defender affirms Desence pig 80. particular persons lye under to support and adhere to their own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church if they be but evidently convinced that the Church has erred in her decisions I perceive he was Conscious of this Incongruity and therefore left a hole to creep out at Expos Church of Engl. pag. 81. telling us that they allow whatsoever submission they â—an to the Authority of the Church without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures So that thence it may as well be concluded as from his former Principle that every Private person Tinker Gobler or Weaver having received the Decrees of a General Council in to examin them himself by Scripture before he give his interior Assent and if having summoned together his own Extravagant Notions of the Word of God and its sense he be but evidently convinced as he imagines that the sentence of the Church thwarts the Scriptures he not only may but in our Defenders Principles is obliged to support and adhere to his own seeing as he thinks he cannot allow such a submission to her Authority without violating that of God c. And if so I would gladly ask him what is that just Authority which he tells
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
was Hear us since we are certain thou dest Hear O happy Saint if thou hast any regead â—â—ur afairs as we are sure thou hast if such he the hener done by God to the Spirits of Holy persons te have a Sense 〈◊〉 concerits as we are sure it is accept of our Funeral Oration instead of many Funeral â—ites donâ— thee And thus the â—ticle If is taken both in prophane and Sacred Writ as might be shewn by many Examples suppose â—at Father had at two several times made use of an Apostrophe â—ust all the other Addresses which he and the rost of that Age â—ake needs pass for such What Rhetoric was Justina the Virâ—in guilty of when in danger of being seduced by St. Cypriaâ— â—en a Heathen as the same Cregory Nazianten b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Oras in S. Cypr. Tom. 1. Orat. 18. p. 379. D. 280. A. relates she begâ—d of the Virgin Mary to help her a Virgin in the midst of danger â—as the Address with which he finished that Oration only a piece 〈◊〉 Rhetoric c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. infiâ—s pa. 286. B. Look down on us from Heaven with a propitius Eye â—ide our Works and Life feed this Holy Flock govern it with us â—â—recting others as far as it possible to what is best Cast out importune â—â—d trouble some Wolves that cavil and catch at Wors and Syllables vouchâ—â—fing us the perfect and clear splendor of the Blessed Trinity with â—hom thou art already present Was that Address which he makes 〈◊〉 the end of his Oration upon St. Athanasius of the same kind but thou says he d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Orat. 〈…〉 pag 397.8 Lutâ—â— Pariâ—â—orum Anno 1609. fol. look upon us sweetly from on High and direct â—is Holy People Adorer of the Blessed Trinity who is seen and Worshiped in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and in case of peaceable â—…nes Rule and Govern this Flock with me but in case of trouble â—duce or assume us and place us with thy self and those who are like unâ—ther who what I crave be great That also to St. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Idem Orat. 20. in laudem S. Basil in fine Tom. 1. pag. 373. A. Basil O Divine and Sacred Head behold 〈◊〉 from above and the instigation of our Flesh given us as an Instruction from God either asswage with thy PRAYERS or move us to bear couragiously and direct all our life to that which is most beneficial And receive us also after our departure out of this life there in thy Tabernacles Were the Addresses of St. Ephrem who lived Anno 365. and whose Writings Hìer lib. de Script Ecclès Apud Bellarm. de Script Eccl. p. 88. as St. Jerom Testifies were of such repute that they were publickly Read in Churches after the Holy Scripture were they I say only innocent wishes or Rhetorical flights or rather do they not equal any Roman Hymns or Antiphons e Sed te jam nos O pura I nonaeul its eademque benedilla Virgo magni filii iui universorumque Dei mater imulpata integra sacrosanctissima desperantium a que reorum spes collaudamus Tibi ut gruia plenissiuâ—â— bcu dicimus quae Christum genuisti Deum hominem Omnes tibi procidimus Omues te invocamus auxilium tuum imploranâ— Eripe nos O Virgo Sancta atque intemerata a quacunque necessitate ingruente a cuâ—ilis tentationibus diabâ—â— Nostra conciliatrix advocata in hora mortis atque Judicii este Nosque a futuro inextinguibili igne tenebris 〈◊〉 rioribus libera Et silti tui nos gloris diguare O Virgo mater dulcissima ac clementissima Tu siquidem unica 〈◊〉 Deum Christianorum spes nostra es securissima Sanctissima Cul Deo Gloria honor decus atque imperâ—â—… in Sempiterna saecula sâ—culorum Amen S. P. Ephraem Syri Threnl i. e. Lament Glor. Virg. M. Marlae super passione Dontini in sine pa. 698. Edit Ger. Vessie Coloniae 1616. We all says he fall down before thee we all implore thee Free us O undefiled Virgin from all our necessities from all the Temptations of the Devil Be thou our Reconciler and Advocate in the hour of Judgment Deliver us from future Fire and Darkness And vouchsafe to obtain for us O Virgin the Glory of thy Son. See his whole Sermon in praise of the Mother of God in which he not only prays to her but gives her almost all those Titles which are now mentioned in her Litanies What were those Epressions of St. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil in his Homily upon the forty Martyrs who calls them not only the Patrons and Protectors of their Country but exhorts those who are in Tribulation to fly to them them who are in joy to have recourse to then those that they may be freed from their troubles and these that they may be presere'd in prosperity Here continues he the Pious Mother is found Praying for her Children the Wise here asks a safe return for her absent Husband and health for him that is sick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Tom. 1. Hom. in 40. Martyr Rom. 20. pag. 534. A. Let your Prayers be made together with the Martyrs What were those of his Brother St. Gregory Nyssen upon the same forty Martyrs as also those in his Oration upon g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen Tom. 2. d. St. Theod. Mart. pa. 1017. c. St. Theodorus Martyr But I think what I have here mentioned is sufficient He knows very well that I might bring him a multitude of Examples of this nature and such that if a Cardinal Bona or a â—ther Crasset had expressed themselves in the same manner he would have made them pass for Adorers of Men and Women but I suppose the respect he bears to these great Saints and Lights of â—ntiquity will make him pass a more favorable Sentence of them and he is loath I remember to censure them he is the wiser As for his Argument drawn from the Opinion of the Fathers §. 12. The Antient Fathers held Saints departed were admitted to the sight of God tho' not to perfect Bliss till the day of Judgment That the Saints departed were not admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their decease I did not think it of such force as to require being taken notice of For first I am neither engaged as a Catholic nor as a Controvertist to defend every Argument that Bellarmin or Suarez brings tho' he make it pass for the Churches reason especially when many of our Polemic Writers think them unconclusive For supposing not granting it were true as he from Blondel and Daille affirms that St. Basit St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin were of this opinion Expos of the Doct. of the Church of Eng. pag. 8. That the Souls of the Saints departed do not
enjoy the Beatifical Vision till the day of Judgment yet seeing it is true and confessed by the most * Chemuitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part 3. de Invoc SS Vossius disp 2 Thes 1. Bishop Forbes commends Bishop Montagues candor in acknowledging S. Augustin to allow Invocation of Martyrs and censures Bp. Andrews for denying it Lib. de Invocat Sanctorum c. 4. n. 3. Dr. Fulk in his Rejoynder to Bristow pag. 5. Spalatensis Repub. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12. n. 25. affirms the same of St. Augustin and several others These are cited by S. C. in his answer to Dr. Pierce's Court Semon pag. 192. 198. 199. See also Thorndike cited before pag. 14. ingenuous Protestants that they also held it lawful to invocate the Saints that they not only prayed to them themselves but exhorted others to do the sam◠and this without ever giving them the least caution that their Expressions were only Rhetorical Flights it necessarily follows that Bellarmins Argument would have been of no force with them as indeed it was not with St. Augustin who tho' he durst not decide whether it was the Saints themselves who appeared sometimes at the Memorials and who heard the Prayers or the Angels for them yet made no difficulty to pray to them himself and to record the many benefits which others obtained by Praying to them as may be seen throughout his whole 22d Chapter of his 8th Book De. Civitate Dei. But it seems our Adversaries are forced to great Straits when they are constrained to catch hold of every little Argument which they think ill Managed and rather than not maintain their Novelities cast Dirt in the Face of all the Antient Fathers and accuse that Primitive Church it self whose Purity they profess to imitate and acdording to whose Doctrin they say they have Reformed not only of such gross Errors as are contrary to express Texts of Scripture but of such Ignorance that they held Opinions not only incoherent but even (a) This is one of the Protestants usual amusements to make St. Augustin quarrel with St. Augustin St. Chrysostom with St. Chrysostom c. contradictory to several other expressions in their own Writings How much more Christian like had it been for him to have imitated (b) Proinde cum apud priscos Ecclesiae Doctores legis Justorum animas vivere aut in sinu Abrabae aut in Paradisi nemore aut sub Altare Dei aut in abditis recepriculit lbique expectare suiurae gloriae praemia non statim suspiceris animas Sancterum carere divini intuitus Gleria Sed intellige eas nondum potiri perfecta consummats illa felleitate quam post corporis resurrectionem expectant Bibl. Sancta Lib. 6. Annot. 345. pag. 621.1 Sixtus Senensis whom he cites who after having related the several obscure passages of the Father affirming The Souls of the Just to remain till the day of Judgment in the shades of Paradice under the Altar of God or in hidden receptacles expecting the Future Reward of Glory tels us We must not presently imagic they intend as if the Souls enjoyed not the Beatifical Vision but only that they did not yet possess that entire Felicity which they expect after the Resurrection of the Body What if some of the Fathers believed that Saints departed were not admitted to the highest Heaven immediately upon their deceases Do's not our Lord himself tell us there are many Mansions in his Fathers House and Saint Paul that as the Stars do differ in Glory so do the Saints in Heaven We need not enquire how one may be subordinate to another as the degrees of Angels are Let us let that alone till we come thether However let Monsieur Daillè and this Gentleman take heed lest while they deny any Invocation of the Saints they stumble not upon Purgatory Certainly what ever sense may be put upon the Primitive Fathers Writings the constant practice and Tradition of the Church shews that she always believed some persons to enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after their departure out of this life tho there remains a further complement of their Glory at the general Resurrection when Soul and Body shall be united Another piece of the like Veneration for the Antient Fathers follows §. 13. Primitive Fathers calumniated by the Defender where he accuses those of the 4th Age of departing from the practice and Tradition of the Ages before them and endeavours to prove it from the profound Silence of the Fathers of the Three first Ages from whom he challenges me to bring him any one Instance of such Intercession Had he consulted his Brethren the Centurists of Magdeburg §. 14. Prayers to Saints within the 1st 300. years he would not have made so bold a Challenge for they acknowledge that Origen who lived Anno 226. (*) The Centurists of Magdeburg Cent. 3. col 83. lin 49. alledge Origen saying O Beate Job or a pronobis miseris Prayed to Holy Job and admitted the d Invocation of Angels they affirm also that there are manifest steps of the Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that Antient Age. Had he also consulted Cardinal Perron whom he cites he would have seen that the Fathers of the 4th Age were so far from departing from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them that they make mention of that foregoing practice Thus St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon upon the Aniversary of St. Cyprian (a) Again Cent. 3. col 75. line 29. they say Angelos etiam Origines invocenlos putavit Hom. 1. in Ezech. I em cent 3. c. 4. col 83. line 47. Videat in Dectorum hujus saeculi scriptis non obscura vestigia invecationis Sancterum Apud Protestnat Apology Tr. 2. sect 3. subd 7. pag. 95 in margine n. 26 27 28. who flourished in the year 250 not only prays to him but relates a History how St. Justina being in danger of making Shipwrac of her Chastity by the Magical Art of St. Cyprian before he was converted to the Catholic Faith had recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary begging of her to assist her whose Virginity was in danger By which relation whether he was mistaken in the Cyprian he mentions or no it matters not he at least plainly shews that the practice did not arise in his time but was the common Custom of the precedent Age. What then if the few Writings of the Antients of the First 300 years which remain be silent in this particular does it follow that they approved not the practice or is there nothing now to be believed in the Church but what must be found in their Writings This indeed might be a Socinians plea but I did not think those of the Church of England as by law Established would have stood upon it when an Act of Parliament obliges them to Venerate the 4 first General Councils Stat. 1 Eliz. c. 1. so far as not to judge any matter or
deprecamur paestantissimam omnium matrisque honore libere gloriantem memoriam indesinen em nostre retine sanctissima Dei genitrix nostri inquam qui in te ornamur bymuisque divinis memoriam tui nullo lempore desituram sed perpetvo victuram celebramus Tu etiam senex honorate Symeox piae nossrae religiouis primè suscepior resurrectionisque fidelium exarrator intercede pro nobis apud Deum servatorem quem ulnis tuis excipere dignus fuisti apud Mag. Biblooth PP Method Epise Hom. in Festo Purif B. M. pag. 362. F. St. Methodius's Addresses to our Belssed Lady and Holy Simeon to be asformal as any in the Breviary nor say he lived not in the time he limits I am certain if he had found such or the like Addresses in our Prayers he would have put them upon the stretch and perhaps have made them pass with his Learned Auditory for little less than Blasphemies But it may be he will have some respect for Antiquity and give a more favorable construction to these Fathers Expressions which when he has once learned to do I hope he will in Charity extend it also to the Church which accustoms her self to speak the Language of Scripture and Primitive Fathers and is not willing to change her Expressions which may be taken in a good sense because some few find fault with them His next Argument is §. 15. Defence p. 9. That the Maxims of those Antient Fathers concerning Prayer were such as are utterly repugnant to such an Invocation seeing they defined Prayer as due to God only and made it their great Argument to prove our Saviour to be God because he was prayed to This Argument arises I am afraid from an affected misapplication of the word Prayer So that tho' the Defender know it well enough yet I must tell the less circumspect Readers that Prayer is a word which may be taken in a double Sense In one it is only due to God and in this Sense it is An affected misapplication of the word Prayer that St. Thomas defines it Elevatio mentis in Deum an Elevation of the Mind to God such a Prayer as this being always payd as a debt due to our Blessed Saviour it was a convincing proof against the Arians that he is God and is so to this day against the Socinians But taking Prayer Invocation c. in another Sense it is only due to Creatures and of this nature is that which we address to Saints desiring them to Pray for us help or assist us by their Prayers c. Akind of Prayer says the Bishop of Meaux Advertisement pag. 10. which by it's own nature is so far from being reserved by God to himself who is an Independent Being that it can never be Addressed to him For we cannot without injury to God and Christ Address our selves to them with an Ora pro nobis I cannot think but that this Author knew this well enough but it served his turn to make a Cry and because I did not then Answer such frivolous Objections as these he was willing some of his Learned Admirers should think them unanswerable Another piece of the like Artifice is his bold pretensions of what they have to say for themselves indeed as he says they have repeated things so often that the World grows weary of them seeing they are nothing but what has been Answered and Objected Objected and Answered every year almost since the pretended Reformation But since he pretends they have such clear proofs from Scripture and Fathers §. 16. Protestants destitute of Scripture proofs against the Doctrin of Invocation of Saints he would have done well to have brought some convincing ones from either of them such I mean as say it is unlawful to desire the Saints who Reign with God to joyn their Prayers with ours and not to affirm that every Text of Scripture that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone is a Demonstration against us as if we gave Divine Worship to the Saints which if he would speak his Conscience he knows we do not tho' he sometimes as I hear tells his Auditory we do Nor bring us passages of Scripture which make nothing against us unless he will always take Prayer Invocation Calling upon and Believing in that strict Sense in which they are Duties only to be pay'd to God. To say we must Pray to God and God only is a true Proposition if we take Prayer in that strict notion and so it is to say we must Worship God and God only Serve God and him only Honor God and God only Love God and God only Fear God and God only but seeing our Defender cannot deny but that we may Worship Serve Honor Love Fear and Obey our fellow Creatures with an Inferior Degree of Worship Service Honor c. why may we not also make Inferior kinds of Addresses to them such as are far from robbing God of one Iota of his Prerogatives What I have here said will be enough I hope to silence all those cavils that are raised against our Doctrin but if nothing will do but Holy Writ let him shew us those plain Texts he pretends till then we are in Possession A Possession by his own and our Adversaries acknowledgment of above 1300 years and by consequence a Possession which no Man in his wits would relinquish his right to because this Author does not know how to distinguish betwixt those Prayers and Addresses which are made to God and those Petitions which are made to his Servants What follows in the Appendix Pag. 11. is grounded upon the same voluntary fixing the words which are Equivocal to an Univocal Sense If the Gentleman who pretends so much to be a Christian and a Scholar had only like either of them taken notice of what Monsieur de Meaux has said in this Article and repeated in his Advertisement Art. 4. pag. 5. that in what Terms soever those Prayers which we Address to Saints are couched the intention of the Church and of her Faithful reduces them always to this Form PRAY FOR VS All our Prayers to Saints are reduced to an Ora pro nobis he would have saved himself the labor of amassing such a Specimen and the Reader the trouble of perusing it to as little purpose For what if the Church in her Hymns Antiphons or Versicles make her Addresses to the Saints for Protection Power against our Enemies help assistance c. do's it not appear manifestly to any one who is not wilful in his mistakes that these are reduced to a bare Ora pro nobis and that as the Bishop well observed it is a kind of Aid Advert pag. 11. Succor and Protection to recommend the Miserable to him who alone can comfort them This Author however needed not to have quarrelled with these or the like expressions he knows well enough if he would be but so ingenuous as to acknowledge it that several of
the Fathers of the first 400 years some of which I have before shewn had as affective expressions to the Saints even in their Sermons and Catechistical Discourses as any now used by the Church even in her Hymns and if he can Interpret them to be in the Antient Fathers only Innocent wishes and Rhetorical flights why can he not Interpret the Hymns after the same manner where there has been always more Poetical License taken Neither are these expressions so contrary to the Scripture phraise §. 17. The Church imitates the Scripture phrase in her Prayers to Saints For tho' our Blessed Jesus be our only Savior and Redeemer the only Rock and Foundation of his Church the sole and only Judge of the Quick and the Dead our Hope our Joy our Crown of Glory c. Yet we find a Judg 3.9 Othoniel graced in Holy Writ with the Title of Savior b Act 7.35 Moyses called a Redeemer and a c Gal 3.19 Mediator St. Paul tells St. d 1 Tim 4.16 Timothy that by doing those things which he prescribes he shall save himself and those that hear him e Math 16 28 St. Peter is Termed the Rock and Foundation upon which God would Build his Church The f Marth 19.28 Apostles and others shall sit as Judges with Christ Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel And St. Paul calls the g 1 Thes 2.19 Thessalonians his Hope his Joy his Crown of Glory Grace and Peace are the Proper Gifts of God and yet St. John says h Age 1.4 This equals a Nos cum prcle pia ben dicat Virgo Maria. to the Seven Churches in Asia Grace be unto you and Peace from him which is and which was and which is to come and from the SEVEN SPIRITS which are before the Throne Nay the very Name of God which is peculiar to the Almighty is in Holy Writ given to the Priests and Rulers of his People Ego dixi Dii estis Those then who Reading these expressions in Scripture can by a moderate Interpretation reconcile them with that Duty which we owe to God alone would do well also if in a Spirit of Charity they would not put all our expressions upon the Rack to force them to a Sense which neither the Church nor her faithful have intended As for those extravagant kind of Expressions which he confesses Bellarmin and some others are ashamed of It may suffice to tell him that if they crept into some corner of the Church they are now expunged and therefore I hope he will not have the whole to be answerable for them at this day His next Cavil is at the word Merit §. 18. Merit which we use in our public Prayers desiring God by the Merits of his Saints to grant us our Requests or accept our Sacrifices and this he thinks to be of such a nature that it makes the Merits of our Saints run parallel with the Merits of Christ Defence pag. 10. Is the word Merit never to be used but it must signify that we do by our own natural force alone deserve the reward of Grace and Glory The word Merit equivocal and often misapplied by the Defender or must Catholics be always represented as taking it in that strict sense If indeed the Word cannot be taken in any other sense he has reason to accuse us But if the Word may be taken otherwise so that we intend no more than that the Works of Christians may be said to Merit because they apply the Merits of Jesus Christ to us and are the means by which we attain eternal life in vertue of the promises of God and Merits of our Blessed Redeemer which even Mr. Thern like Epilogue lib. 2. of the Covenant of Grace cap. ult pag. 307. Thorndike acknowledges to be the sense of the Latin Fathers what Injustice is it to impose another sense upon us whereby to render us odious to the undistinguishing Multitude The moderation of the aforesaid Writer would me thinks have suited him much better who tels us That as concerning the term of Merit perpetually frequented in these Prayers Idem lib. 3. of the Laws of the Church cap. 30. pag. 357. The Mass more antient than the greatest part of the Latin Fathers An unjust cavil it has been always maintained by those of the Reformation that it is not used by the Latin Fathers in any other sense than that which they allow Therefore the Canon of the Mass saith he truly and judiciously and probably other Prayers which are still in use being more antient than the greatest part of the Latin Fathers there is no reason to make any difficulty of admitting it in that Sense But that we may further see the Injustice of this Cavil let us consider those Prayers which are all of them reduced to this Form that God would be pleased not to regard our unworthiness but the Merits of our Redeemer presupposed respect the Merits of his Saints also and for their sakes hear our Prayers or accept our Sacrifices solemnly concluding with what I told you was presupposed PER DOMINVM NOSTRVM JESVMCHRISTVM FILIVM TVVM QVI c. in which style they always end So that this is no more than to beg of God Almighty that he would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious actions and sufferings of his Saints performed in and by his Grace and upon those accounts accept our Sacrifices The word Merit in our Prayers conformable to the language of Holy Writ consonant to his regvealed Will in that matter or hear our Prayers For that this kind of Prayer is conformable to Holy Writ is manisest to any that is pleased to observe how God tels Isaac * Gen. 16.4 5. that he will bless him that he will give all those Countries to his Seed nay that all Nations of the Earth shall be blessed in it and what is the reason but Because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge my Commandments my Statutes and my Laws He again tells him Pers 24. that he will multiply his Seed for his Servant Abrahams sake Then did not (a) Exod. 32.23 Deut. 9.17 Moyses pray to God for the People desiring him to remember Abraham Isaac and Israel and not to look upon the stubborness of the People nor to their wickedness nor to their Sin Did not God shew mercy to (b) 3 Reg. 11.12 32 33 34. Salomon for his Father Davids sake and because again he kept his Commandments and his Statutes So also to the City of Juda * 4 Reg. 8 19-19.34-20.6 Isa 37 35. In another place Were not the same Abraham Isaac and Jacob mentioned by (c) 3 Reg. 18.36 Tornudike lib. 3. of the Laws of the Church cap. 30. pag. 383. Elijah in his Prayer at the Evening Sacrisice Certainly fromt these Passages the same Thorndike concludes thus As our Saviour argueth well that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are alive and shall rise
made so slight of it nor called upon me for some reasonable proof for the Falseness and Impertinence of his Assertion that the Primitive Fathers in praying for the Dead had several other intentions but not that of assisting them or freeing them from Purgatory Tho' the eldest of the Councils I mention was 1400 Years after Christ yet if he consider that it was before Protestancy that both the Eastern and Western Bishops in it consented to that Decree that the Acts of this Council were received by the much Major and Superior part of the whole Christian World as conformable to a Practice delivered to them by their Fore-fathers as of Faith And withal that this Council was seconded by another as Genreal as the circumstances of Time could afford I say This proof comprehends Scripture Fathers Tradiction and universal practice if he reflect upon these Heads he will see that I was not hard put to it for Arguments but that I comprised them all in one and sending him to the Councils I sent him at the same time to Scripture Fathers Tradition and the Universal Practice of Gods Church upon all which their Desintions were manifestly founded They who have been hitherto deceived by the Defender and those of his Coat and made to believe we have nothing to say in defence of our Tenets would do well to peruse our Authors and read the * The Author of Nubes restium has collected some of the many Testimonies where they who read them will see whether they prayed only for the Intentions mentioned by our Author and not rather for their help and assistance they will see also that the Fathers deliver it as an Apostolic Doctrin and therefore lest it not to us to believe or not believe at pleasure Fathers If so they will find that we establish our Doctrin upon the Primitive Practice not only of the Church of Christ but of the Jewish Synagogue and that we have both Scripture and a sufficient number of Fathers on our side Nay they will see also that it was neither false nor foolish which I said That since the Practice of all Nations and the Testimonies of every Age confirm the Custom of Praying for the Dead that they may receive help what can we say to them who make a Breach in the Church and condemn Antiquity Vendic p. 59. upon no other grounds than abare Supposition that it is injurious to the Merits of Jesus Christ a Supposition which yet has no other Proof but their vain Presumption How often have we called upon them to shew us one sole passage of the Antients or one sole Text of Scripture positively assirming there is no Purgatory No Fathers nor Scripture against it or that the Prayers which are offered up for the Faithful departed avail them nothing But if they cannot shew this it is neither foolish nor false to tell them they go upon bare Suppositions and their own Presumption whilst Scripture Fathers and Universal Practice are for us PART II. ART VIII Of the Sacraments in General IF our Defender have a mind to see how we prove all the Seven Sacraments to have Outward Signs of an Inward Grace § 43. and that they were instituted by Christ he may be pleas'd to cast his Eyes a little upon our Divines where he will find it amply proved But to say That not one of our Church has yet been able to do it is so manifest a Falsity as will appear also in the Sequel that it does not need any Endeavors to disprove it But however these things must be said lest People should open their Eyes and see the Truth and they who pretend to be Lovers of Peace and Unity resolve to multiply Accusations to hinder such good effects Where lies the Sincerity ART IX Of Baptism THe Dispute in this Article is a meer Cavil §. 44. proceeding from the want of a right understanding of the Bishop of Meaux and a willingness to shew at least some kind of Opposition to overy thing that is said Roman Catholics Protestants of the Church of England The Church of England and Lutherans hold Baptism absolutely necessary Expos Doâ—t Ch. of Eng. pag. 6. and Lutherans are agreed as to the Absolute Necessity of Baptism and that seeing we are all conceived and born in Sin none can enter into the Kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and the Holy Spirit This the Defender in his Exposition tells us is the Law of Christ which the Eternal Truth has established and whosoever shall presume to oppose it let him be Anathema From this received Principle the Bishop of Meaux deduced That Children dying without Baptism do not partake of the Grace of Redemption but that dying in Adam Therefore Children dying without it have no part in Christ they have not any part in Jesus Christ and the reason he gave for this his Assertion was because Children cannot supply the want of Baptism by Acts of Faith Hope and Charity nor by the Vow or Desire to receive this Sacrment Now because my Opponent argued against this Consequence deduced from the absolute Necessity of Baptism telling us that we our selves acknowledge the Desires c. of Persons come to Years of Understanding to besufficient to supply the wants of their Actual Reception of Baptism and that the Desire of the Church for Children that dye without it may in like manner suffice I answered There is a vast difference betwixt the ardent Desire of those who are by Age capalbe of receiving Baptism and the Desire of the Church or Parents the one proceeding from Faith working by Divine Charity already infused into the Soul of the Vnbaptized Person will no doubt of it produce a good Effect if he extinguish it not by the neglect of a Precept but the other being wholly extrinsecal to the Child cannot affect the Soul of the Child unless by the application of that Sacrament which Jesus Christ has instituted as necessary to wash away our Original Guilt Against this Argument he had nothing to say but that he is not concerned whether it be better than his or no tho he thinks I am very much that is just nothing But however the Bishop of Meaux must be run down §. 45. and exposed as a man talking with great rashness c. But to clear the Bishop I must desire it may be considered that tho' we and the Lutherans are agreed as to the absolute Necessity of Baptism yet the Calvinists accord not with us For they do not only say that they cannot determin whether Children dying without Baptism may not be Saved by the Faith of their Parents but positively affirm they are saved by that Faith The Calvinists oppose this necessity Trâ—â—â—se of Communim under both Species 2d Part. §. 6. Disc c.xi. ri vi Objerv and that Baptism is not necessary insomuch that as the Bishop of Meaux expresses it in another
them as with a Seal and gave the Pledge of the Holy Ghost in their Hearts I need not I suppose tell him that this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead signifies that we ought not to be ashamed to Consess the Faith of Christ Crucified as the Church of England expresses it in the Office for Baptism that the white Cloath or Fillet as he calls it is to put us in mind of the Purity we ought to maintain and keep the Garment of Innocence which we received in Baptism unspotted and that the Blow on the Ear is to teach us that we ought from thence forwards to suffer patiently all Injuries and Persecutions for the Faith. These and such like significant Ceremonies we use and tho' he and his party be pleased to joke at them yet having such Testimonies as we have of their Antiquity and Apostolical Institution we choose rather to glory in them than under the pretences of a Reformation to Renounce them and the Practice yea the Communion of the Universal Church ART XI Of Penance CErtainly the Defender never read what I offered §. 49. Defence pag. 41. otherwise he would never have said that I had not advanced any one thing to answer his Objections He says he proved at large that Penance was not truly and properly a Sacrament nor ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church How did he prove it By many bold Assertions without any Warrant And if I affirmed the contrary without Proof I had his Precedent for it The Bishop of Condom had proved the Sacrament of Penance by the Terms of the Commission granted by our Blessed Saviour to the Apostles and their Successors Matth. 18.12 John 20.23 of remitting and retaining sins Expos p. 18. the terms says he of which Commission are so general that they cannot without Temerity be restrained to public Sins Our Expositor's Answer to this was that the Primitive Christians had interpreted those passages of St. Matth. and St. John concerning Public Disciplin to which he supposes with them that principally at least if not only they refer I desired him to shew who those Primitive Christians were Vindic. pag. 64. and where they taught those passages to be only referred to a public Disciplin But to this he would not vouchsafe to give an Answer He objected that if Penance had been any thing more than a part of Christian Disciplin the Antient Church would not have presumed to make such changes in it nor Nectarius have begun to weaken it in his Church of Constantinople nor his Successor St. John Chrysostom have seconded him in it In answer to which I told him that Public Confession such as that which Nectarius and St. Chrysostom took away was a part of Disciplin and therefore alterable at pleasure Vindic. pag. 65. but that either Public or Private Confession was always necessary because it was always necessary a Judge should know the Case and a Physitian the Distemper before the one can pronounce a right Sentence or the other prescribe a wholsom Remedy But he thinks it a sufficient Reply to say he cannot take this upon my Word He had laid Scandals upon our Doctrin and Practice or at least insinuated them and therefore I looked upon my self as obliged to give my Readers a short Account of both and after I had done it I told him those were our Doctrins and Practices conformable to that of the Antient and Orthodox Churches and that I was astonished why they should be rejected and no better ground brought than we suppose Expos Doct. Church of England pag. 43. or we beg leave with Assurance to say that such Doctrins are directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture One would have thought in answer to this he should have shewn some better Proofs and have brought Testimonies of that Tradition or at least have produced some one of those plain and undoubted Texts of Scripture But alas he could not do that and therefore he passes it off by calling it Stuff and with a fulsome Joke upon my Ashonishment telling me that if ever I get so well out of it as to come to my Reason again and will undertake to prove Penance to be truly and Properly a Sacrament c. I shall have an ingenuous Reply to my Arguments In the mean time say I §. 50. The Church of England wishes it were re-established let him and his Church be so ingenuous as to restore the practice of Confession and Penance which they seem so much to wish for in the Ash-wednesday Office at least that in publick not to say any thing of the judgment of all the sober persons even amongst themselves who wish well to all Salutary Methods which Christ has left in his Church and particularly to this and then we might find a happy opportunity of proposing Arguments In Confirmation you make a shift to deny the Sacrament but have not renounced the Practice it may be for Episcopacy sake but in Penance the Practice has followed your renouncing the Sacrament And call you this a Reformation which seems to be more careful of the Dignity of the Pastor than of the Salvation of the Flock I think the Defender would do well to consider this and perhaps he will be astonished at their own proccedings I told him this Doctrin was established in England together with Christianity by St. Augustin and the Benedictin Monks and that if he would have us to relinquish it he must bring us either some manifest Revelations or demonstrative Reasons for nothing else could induce us to quit a possession of so long standing But he knew this would be impossible for him to do and therefore he resolved to keep at distance and put us upon the proof A proceeding which would not hold in Law where an uninterrupted Possession is a sufficient Evidence See Mr. Ricauâ—'s History Anno 1678. Ch. 12. What I have said of England I may say of all other both Eastern and Western Churches who unanimously held at the beginning of the Reformation that Penance was a Sacrament and looked upon the Doctrin as coming from the Apostles they having an uninterrupted Possession of it ART XII Of Extream Vnction IF the Defender had rightly considered the Question betwixt us §. 51. The Defender mistakes the Question he would have spared a great part of the pains he has taken in this Article and have let alone the pretended Proofs he brings from our Antient Liturgies as wholy impertinent Tho's he could not deny but that in Extream Unction there is both an outward Visible Sign and an inward and Spiritual Grace annexed to it yet because he was to oppose the Catholic Church he would have this to be only a Ceremony made use of in the Miraculous Cures of the Apostles And to prove this he affirmed that the Antient Rituals of the Roman Church for 800 Years
after Christ shew the practice to have had the primary respect to Bodily Cures and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confessed the words of St. James could belong to no other and from thence concluded they had reason to leave off this Extream Unction because Miracles are now ceased In answer to this A Falsification of Cajetan I told him First that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as he affirmed he did But what if he had Would it be sufficient to reject a practice coming down from the Apostles and from Age to Age visibly continued in all Christian Churches both of the East and West for 800 Years as he himself confesses notwithstanding that the Gifts of Miracles were ceased and this upon the Testimony of one Mans affirming that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture What if it may be proved by the Universal Practice and Tradition of the Church is not that Practice and Tradition the best Interpreter must that be laid aside because a Cajetan or some few persons in these latter Ages think St. James in that passage had an Eye to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles when it is most likely the Unction mentioned by the Holy Evangelist St. Mark had a respect at least as a Figure to this Sacrament 2. §. 52. It has a respect to bodyly Cures As to the Antient Rituals I told him that ours also agree with them that this Sacrament has a respect to bodily Cures as well as those of the Mind and therefore I told him that unless he could manifestly prove that the Unction mentioned by St. James and practised by the Primitive Church for the first 800 Years had no relation to the Sickness of the Soul as a Sacrament but only to the Body in order to miraculous Cures He would prove nothing against us who acknowledge that the Sick persons do many times by it obtain health of Body when it is expedient for the Salvation of their Souls But this he saw was impossible However something must be said tho' to no purpose and therefore to make the unwary Reader think he had much the better on it St. Gregory's Ritual and the other antient Forms used in the Greek and Latin Church for 800 Years must be quoted at large and all the passages in them that tend to the Cures of the Body varied in a different Character but where the Mind is concerned the ordinary Character must serve and thence as wild a Conclusion must be drawn that this Unction had more than a bare respect to bodily Cures nay that it was especially or as he said before primarily designed for them How did the Greek and Latin Churches for the first 800 Years practise this Unction and do Protestants §. 53. who pretend to reform according to the Primitive purity reject it Yes but They practised it with a primary respect to Bodily Cures and we to those of the Soul. Sanctisying Grace Assistance against Temptations and Remission of Sin are the Primary Effects No wonder if we call Sanctifying Grace Assistance against Temptations in the last Agony and Remission of Sin the primary effects in Dignity whilst the corporal Cure may be the primary in Order and only with respect to the other But how does he prove that the Unction used by the Primitive Christians for the first 800 Years respected miraculous Cures only All the Prayers and Ceremonies says he shew it And do they not also shew a respect to those of the Soul Is there not mentioned a Tutamen mentis as well as Corporis Defence p. 46. in the Benediction of the Oyl Ejusque dimite peccata Ibid. Eripe animam ejus pag. 48. In te habitet Virtus Christi Altissimi Spiritus Sancti p. 49 Viseerumque ac cordium interna medica Medullarum quoque cogitationum sana discrimina Does not the Priest pray for the Remission of his Sins a delivery of his Soul that the Power or Vertue of Christ the most High and of the Holy Ghost way dwell in him He prays also tho' the Defender did not think it convenient to tell his Readers so in English That the interior of his Heart and Cogitations may find a remedy that God would heal the Distempers of the inward parts and thoughts that the corruptions of his Vlcers and Vanities may be evacuated that God would skin over the antient Scars of his Conscience and Wounds that he would take away his mighty Passions Vlcerum vanitatumque putredines evacua Conscientiarumque atque plagarum abducito cicatrices veteres immensasquo remove Passiones Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma DELICTORVMQVE cunctorum veniam tribue fiat illi haec Olei Sacri perunctio morbi languoris praesentis expulsio atque PECCATORVM omnium OPTATA REMISSIOt Per Dom. pag. 50.51 and Pardon all his Sins and which is worthy our remark does not this Prayer end with begging that this anointing him with Holy Oyl may be an expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity and the desired Remission of all his Sins Through our Lord Jesus Christ c. Again How had these a respect to miraculous Cures only when the Fathers of those Times tell us that such Miracles ceased presently after the Apostles Times Does not their practising of this after the cessation of those Miracles shew that they expected an interior Assistance of the Soul rather than a miraculous Cure of the Body Well might I therefore tell him that his sense of the words of St. James and of the intention of this Extream Unction was contrary to what we were taught by all Antiquity I told him also §. 54. that the very words of St. James evinced it And I have heard of some Protestant Anabaptists that think so and therefore use it Luther However he knows who they were that threw off the Epistle partly upon that account Infirmatur quis in vobis The words of St. James Evince it says the Apostle If any one or whoever is Sick amongst you The words belong to all Christians But if he had spoken of miraculous Cures only he needed not have invited them their own Wants would have perswaded them sufficiently to send for those who had the Gift of Miracles as the Centurion sent to our Blessed Saviour Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Let him bring in the Priests the Clergy the Ordinary standing Rulers of the Church of which as I told him All had not the Gift of Healing and some who were not of the Clergy had it 'T is manifest then the Apostle would have said send for those who have the Gift of Healing be they Clergy or Lay persons had he spoken of miraculous Cures only But says the Defender if all had it not 'T is very like St. James meant They should be sent for that had it whereas first this is clear against the Text which speaks at Large send for the Priests Secondly It would have been to no
may be called a particular Sacrament and being now far from agreeing to any thing which has once been esteemed by them a difficulty he therefore says he denyed there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed This indeed he tels us in his Defence but in his Exposition he was far more moderate The outward Sign of it says he there we confess to have been Imposition of Hands and as such we our selves observe it From whence a lover of Peace in the Church would have rationally enough concluded that the Church of England was agreed with the Catholic in this Point when he says they use Imposition of Hands as an outward sign of it of what of the Particular Sacrament Yea. But it seems I was out in my conjecture for he intends not to contribute any thing to the healing of the Church in any Punctilio and therefore tho' we be half Friends as to all appearance yet some new Scruple must be thrown in the way to quash all hopes of Accommodation (a) Expos pag 46. We do not read says he that Christ instituted that sign much less tyed the promise of any certain Grace to it (b) Def. pag. 53. All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture is only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded See how some Men can digest any thing Are not three or four places of Holy Scripture shewing the Practice of it a sufficient Testimony that it was commanded Were the Apostles for will-worship uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies did they things on their own Head without their Lords Order or his least Innuendo My Adversary thinks it seems that nothing is commanded but what he can read commanded No unwritten Tradition now with him At other times perhaps hee 'l grant there may be some But now we read not Therefore c. Whereas we read not any Command by Christ for the observation of the Lords Day only three or four Examples of the practice of it that is all the Authority c. If Scripture be his rule of Faith let him shew us a greater authority then the example of three or four places contradicting our Tenets and he will have reason to Dispute with us As for those of our own who as he says maintain that Imposition of Hands is not essential to Holy Orders if they be not worth his naming they are not worthy my concern We are not to answer for the particular Sentiments of Scholastics as I have often told him But the Grace conferred is no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament Thus our Defender Whereas in his Exposition he acknowledged that Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders is accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost A Blessing do you say and why not a Grace seeing St. Paul expresly calls it so 2 Tim. 1.6 admonishing St. Timothy to stir up the Grace of God which was given him by the Imposition of his Hands 1 Tim 4.14 and in another place exhorting him not to neglect the Grace in him which was given him by Prophecy that is according to the particular revelation made to St. Paul concerning him with the Imposition of the Hands of Priesthood He goes on If it may be called a Grace Expos ibid. yet not a Grace common to all Christians but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ And therefore we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are Pray Sir who ever said that the Grace which is given in Holy Orders is a Grace common to all Christians or that it is a common Sacrament of the whole Church Is it not sufficient for a Sacrament that it be the visible sign of an invisible Grace bestowed upon some particular persons segregated to a special employ for the benefit of the whole Church must all persons be Deacons all persons Priests all Bishops or else Holy Orders no Sacrament Oh but it is not a Justifying Grace What do you mean by a Justifying Grace Is not this Grace given in Holy Orders a Grace that renders the persons who receive it acceptable to God Almighty and enables them to perform the functions to which they are called Does not this Sacrament confer at least an increase of Sanctifying Grace tho' it be not instituted to confer the first Grace of Remission of Sin If you will have nothing else to be a justifying Grace but what is instituted primarily for the Remission of Sin I am afraid you will hereafter conclude the Eucharist to be no Sacrament because it does not primarily confer such a Grace Thus you see the whole business of our Defender is nothing but Shifts If it may be called a particular Sacrament yet is it not common to the whole Church If a Grace be given in it yet not a sanctifying Grace a Grace common to all Christians If we find three or four places in Scripture mentioning Imposition of Hands in order to the conferring of some Grace whatever ever it be yet we do not find it commanded What is all this but puttings off and a begging the Question by supposing that nothing can be truly a Sacrament which is not General to all Christians But I am afraid I have been too long upon these particulars seeing the Next great Article challenges an exact Examen ART XV XVI XVII XVIII Of the Eucharist IT is not a little Astonishment to see what an Agreement there is in all Antiquity concerning the Sense of these four Words §. 63. Defence pag. 54. Two hundred several senses put upon these four words this is my body This is my body and what various Interpretations have been made of them in this last 150 Years when our Reformers left every Man his Liberty to interpret Scripture for himself without any controlment (a) Repetâ—â— 1. de Euchar. c. 10. Apud Gualter Cron. Sect 16. pag 808. Claudius Sanctesius has collected no less than 84 (b) Gerd contr 1. cap. 28 pag. 202. de Ecclesia others 200 various Senses put upon these four plain Words which before this new pretended Reformation begun were generally understood in a literal Sense Every one contends his Sense to be the best and seeing as the Bishop of Meaux well observed they all of them fly from the literal and adhere to a figurative it behoves them to shew the necessity of taking the Words in that Sense whereas we who find nothing in those Words obliging us to quit the literal Sense need no other reason for our so doing but that we follow the plain and beaten Road. We follow the beaten Road. But our Defender thinks he has found sufficient reasons to oblige us to acquiesce and quit our High-Road for his By-path But first before we consent to him let us view both ways and
of all Churches for a 1000 Years have any weight If the clear Writings of antient Fathers long before our Contest have any force if Scripture it self both old and new when thus interpreted be of any moment we must necessarily conclude that Jesus Christ gave his Disciples truly really and substantially his Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Had we not such clear proofs from Antiquity yet certainly the Consent of the much major and superior part of Christians for this last 600 Years would be sufficient to any reasonable mind who would but consider that if it had not been taught by Jesus Christ those persons who introduced it and those who followed them would have been guilty of Idolatry as the Test and some Protestants now accuse us to be and by consequence the whole Church which taught and practised it during that time would have erred in Fundamentals and taught a damnable Doctrin destructive of Salvation contrary to the Promise of Jesus Christ that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her But when we find that the Council of Lateran and those others in Berengarius's time were so far from pretending that they introduced a new Doctrin excogitated by themselves or invented by some of their learned Predecessors that they freely and fully declared that it had been delivered to them as a Doctrin taught by Christ and his Apostles that their predecessors in their several respective Countries had taught them the same and practised it that all their Historians and antient Writers had confirmed it when we consider also how impossible it is that if the figurative presence had been once the established Doctrin of the Church the Doctrin of the real presence could have gained such credit that all Christians in all Countries should consent to it and commit manifest Idolatry wilfully against their former belief no one of the Many Learned Pious and Couragious Bishops who were vigilant in opposing the smallest growing Errors ever speaking of this as an erroneous Doctrin or as a novelty I say when we consider all these things which have been so fully and so often proved that nothing but Impudence can deny them how can we have the least Difficulty in believing this Doctrin to be that of Jesus Christ or his words not to be literally true Thus much for our Grounds I come now to shew the weakness of my Opponents Arguments against them and our Doctrin SECT 3. Objections answered BEfore I begin to answer my Adversaries Objections §. 73. I must desire my Reader to consider that Catholics are in Possession of this Belief of the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and that Protestants who would throw us out of Possession are the aggressors Now as a Possessor of an estate time out of mind is not condemned if he proceed upon a supposition that the Deed of gift by which his Ancestors first possessed that estate was good In like manner must it be with us We believe that Jesus Christ pronouncing those words This is my Body Catholics being in Possession are the Defenders Protestants the Aggressors changed the Bread into his Body we received this belief from our predecessors and they from theirs we therefore who are in Possession and are to defend our right cannot be condemned if we suppose our Belief to be true But as on the other hand an Aggressor is not to be heard if he only suppose the Deed of gift to be void and argue from thence that the Possession is unlawful So ought it also to be with them who oppose us If they only suppose our Blessed Savior did not change the Bread into his Body by those words this is my Body and argue merely upon that supposition they ought not to be heard They are to prove he did not make that change Protestants must therefore bring clear and undeniable proofs against our Possession and not only to suppose it They are to prove his words cannot possibly be taken in a literal Sense and not only that they may be taken figuratively They are to prove that we are obliged to take the words in a figurative sense and not only to shew they they may lead us to it Our Possession is a manifest proof against their supposition and we need no more This being considered let us now weigh my Adversaries Arguments Arguments from Scripture answered And first those from Scripture His first Argument is reduced by himself to this Syllogism If the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body §. 74. First objection From the words of the Institute then it must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That Proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or t is plainly absurd and Impossible The Major or first Proposition he tels us is our common Concession In answer to which I say Answered If he understand the Major in Luthers sense as Bellarmin and Gratian do whom he cites for it that is that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body should so signify Bread that the meaning of it is This truly wheaten Bread remaining such is also truly the Body of Christ I grant it for as I told him before from the Cardinal it implies a contradiction for it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another because it would be that thing and not that thing But if he mean by his Major that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body has such a reference to Bread that the meaning is This Bread is my Body that is this substance of Bread which I take in my hands I do by these words change into the substance of my Body I deny it neither is it our common Concession for in that sense it is neither an absurdity nor impossibility to understand the Proposition literally So that you see Luther will have no change and will yet have the words to be understood literally and we call that an absurdity Catholics admit of a change and so understand them literally which is far from being either impossible or absurd We argue that the Proposition in Luthers sense admitting of no change is false absurd and impossible unless it be taken figuratively But in our own fense admitting a change is true and genuine and need not be taken figuratively His Minor or second Proposition he tels us is Bellarmins own grant nay what he contends for Is this Learned Cardinal then so great a Blockhead as to maintain that the words ought to be taken literally and yet at the same time to
his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation
Christiantiy But that if these or any of them should meet in a National Church the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church How Extravagant such a Doctrin as this is I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider And return to the Defenders Argument He tells us §. 111. that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic unless we can prove either first there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her or secondly that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united tho' professing known and condemned Heresies as wel as an Orthodox Church maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ or were called Christians or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ nor any Error in their Worship but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Savlation which is manifestly false or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic Church But this we cannot do unless we will open a Gate for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her And tell the world plainly that the Arians or any other Heresy may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians tho' Orthodox in their belief And if this be his meaning it follows that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church so long as they turn not Apostats and deny their Christianity All which is absurd in an eminent degree But if he mean only this that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic we must shew there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did we will joyn Issue with him and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any unbyassed judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome And that all other Churches in the world that were Orthodox professed just the same Faith as to all the Essential Points of it and practised the very same Essential Worship which shew now does That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced will appear to any man who considers that when we speak of the Catholic Church we speak of that Church which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ joyned with that Vniversality viz. Vnity without Schisms and Divisions Sanctity without Errors Heresies or damnable Doctrins and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrins in matters of Faith or Manners or those who like Corah and his companions set up an Altar against an Altar and chalenge to themselves a Function like that of Aarons without being lawfully called thereto To prove therefore this Truth §. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the the true Catholic Church proved that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is this true Catholic Church I must desire my Reader to consider 1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel he told them that they who did not believe should be condemned but they who did believe and were baptised should be saved 2. That these Believers were called Christians that is Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world to continue till the end of the same to preserve the Doctrins delivered to her to be one and therefore free from Schisms Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrins All which we express in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions which as they are destructive of Vnity and Sanctity the marks of his true Church so are they also impediments to Salvation and therefore must be avoided and seeing this Church must be free from them she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics from the Orthodox Christians and cut them off from being Members of her Communion 3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors or refused to pay a due Obedience and therefore if during their Separation other Heresies or Schisms should bud out the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third a fourth or a fifth But as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third and in a word all other succeeding Assemblies who either thus opposed the Truths delivered to her or refused to pay her a due obedience 4. These things thus considered it necessarily follows that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned her self condemned proud Schismatics and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and
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
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
Church of Christ one of whose inseparable marks is that of Sanctity which is certainly inconsistent either with such Crimes or Errors for as a man cannot be accounted a sound man if he have a mortal distemper on him so neither can a Church be accounted Holy if it teach a damnable Doctrin And if we cannot be accounted members neither can they who preceded us in the same Practices and Doctrins and therefore you who lay this accusation oblige your selves to shew a visible Church distinct from that of ours which has in all ages been free from such Errors and damnable Idolatries but this as I have formerly taken notice your Book of Homilies to which you subscribe thinks impossible and without considering the consequences of denying Christ to have such an Innocent Church tells us plainly that for above 800 Years All men Third part of the Homilie against peril of Idolatry pag. 143. fol. Anno 1673. women and Children of whole Christendom fell into the damnable Sin of Idolatry Shew us such an Innocent and Holy Church as this and we will Communicate with her But if you cannot shew such an one you must give us leave to believe our Blessed Saviour who promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church and that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who should remain with her to the end of the world c. rather than with such Calumniators accuse him of the breach of his promise and affirm that he had no Holy Church on Earth for above 800 nay as others say for above 1000 Years And seeing we know our selves Innocent of those Crimes of which we are accused as well as they how can we communicate with our and their accusers I would not have you Sir to fly to your usual Parallel and tell us that God had always his Wheat among the Tares in the field of his Church The Parable is just if rightly understood that is there shall be always good and bad in her Community But if you compare the Wheat to the orthodox Doctrin of Christ and the Tares to Errors or Heretical Tenets they certainly who were guilty of those Errors must be accounted Tares and if as your Book of Homilies affirms the whole Christian world was guilty of them both in Head and Members for above 800 Years where was the Wheat all that time The belief of some true Doctrins mixed with many Errors would not secure them unless you will say that the same individual Root might bear both Wheat and Tares and be at the same time gathered into the Granary and burnt with unquenchable fire But if you say there were at that time orthodox Christians and a Church which Preached the word of God and administred the Sacraments rightly and was free from the Tares of false Doctrin let it or its Members be shewn and we will Communicate with them But it is easier to talk this out of a Pulpit than prove it to men of Sense Secondly II. §. 135. The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion the danger you are in by being thus Separated from the Church of Christ is such that any one I think who considers it seriously with its consequences cannot but desire to free himself You deny not but that the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was a true Church and that Salvation was and is to be had in it that she had and has true Pastors true Sacraments true Creeds the true Word of God c. Only you say Errors have crept into her since the First 400 Years and that you have reformed them by the Example of those first Ages and by the infallible Word of God. But besides that it is a question to which it will be difficult to give a satisfactory answer from whence they had it who assumed that Authority to reform and what testimony they can give of their mission I would only ask you Sir what assurance you can give me that your pretended Reformers in this last Age see more clearly the sense of this infallible writing or know more exactly what was the practice of the First 400 Years than all your Forefathers of those preceding ages If you cannot give a satisfactory answer to this and shew such an assurance that you have hit upon the right Faith and they did not such an assurance I say upon which we may trust the Salvation of our Souls which being a matter of the highest concern the security ought also to be the highest we shall have reason to doubt you have been out in your reformation and that whilst you pretended to reform you have on the contrary made a breach in the Unity of the Church and have rent the Seamless garment of our Lord and torn his mystical Body a Crime not much unlike theirs who Scourged Buffeted and Crucified him and will be as severely punished If you say they were evidently convinced that Scripture was against the universal practice and belief of the Church and therefore they were obliged to follow the Superior not Inferior Guide I desire to know how they came to be evidently convinced and if you cannot shew some secure and unerring principle to rely upon for that conviction I must exhort you to consider the hazard you have run your self into by following them the danger which all those who are misled by you incur and how strict an account you and they must one day give if that Principle of yours That every individual person may dissent from the Catholic Church so his judgment be convinced he follows the right sense of Scripture and she does not be found false and you and they deluded by it into disobedience For seeing our Blessed Saviour himself bids us look upon them that will not hear the Church as no other than Heathens or Publicans such disobedience must needs be followed with a punishment answerable to those crimes Lastly III. §. 136. The advantages he is deprived of by being out of the Church as for the advantages which you are deprived of by being separated from the Catholic Church I beg of you to consider them not only in general but in Particular And to this end pray read seriously the conclusion of the Third Discourse of the Guide in Controversy and compare the times which preceded your pretended reformation with those which have followed it and see what a deerease of Truth Piety Devotion Humility Love and Obedience has hapned since you separated from your unerring Mothers arms and betook your selves to the guidance of your own fallible interpretations Which if you do I hope you will with the Prodigal Son return to the embraces of your tender Parent who with expanded arms and a compassionate bleeding heart Sollicits her Almighty Spouse for your Conversion FINIS A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter to the Vindicator Meaux 13. May. 1687. Mon Reverend Pere. LES nouvelles objections que vous m'envoyez sur le
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