A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRIN OF THE Church of England Being a Further VINDICATION OF THE Bishop of CONDOM'S Exposition of the Doctrin of the CATHOLIC CHURCH With a second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1687. THE PREFACE THEY who consider seriously the mischief which Heresie and Schism bring along with them §. 1. The mischief of Heresie and Schism not only to the individual persons that are guilty of them but also to the Nations in which they are propagated will certainly commend the endeavors of those Sons of Peace who labor to Establish Truth and Unity and condemn theirs who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other They also who cast an Eye upon the Controversies about Religion which have been agitated in this and the last Age and the miserable Broyls and other worse consequences that have attended them cannot but deplore the unhappy fate of Europe which has for so long time been the Seat of this Religious War. And they who will but impartially consider matters will find Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace that Catholics have upon all occasions sought the most advantagious means to procure this Christian Peace tho' to their grief they have still been hindred from effecting this good work by the ignorance of some and the malice or self-interest of others The Defender tells us in the beginning of his Preface that several Methods have been made use of in our Neighboring Nation to reduce the pretended Reformed to the Catholic Communion but that this of the Bishop of Meaux was looked upon as exceeding all others in order to that end This shews indeed the great Zeal those persons bad for the Salvation of their Brethren And tho' the Defender is pleased to call those excellent Discourses of the Perpetuity of the Faith and the Just Prejudices against Calvinists and M. Maimbourg's peaceable Method c. Sophistical and to represent M. de Meaux's Exposition as either palliating or perverting the Doctrin of his Church Yet seeing he only asserts the former without going about to prove it and has been so unsuccesful in the later charge as I shall fully shew in the following Treatise I hope the judicious Reader will suspend his Judgment till he has examined things himself and not take all for Gospel that is said with confidence He tells us also that the Great design of these several Methods Pag 4. has been to prevent the Entring upon particular Disputes And pretends it was because Experience had taught us that such particular Disputes had been the least favorable to us of any of them But the Truth is §. 2. We neither decline particulars nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons We Appeal to Scripture we have never declined fighting with them at any Weapon nor refused upon occasion to enter upon each particular neither need we go to France for Instances we have enough at home Some even amongst the first pretended Reformers appealed to Scripture only neither would they admit of Primitive Fathers nor Councils and tho' these very persons who were for nothing but what was found in Scripture were convinced by the following Sects that their Reformation was defective if Scripture alone was to be the Rule of Reformation every Year almost since the first Revolt producing some new Reform of all those that had gone before And tho' Catholics might justly decline to argue from Scripture only till Protestants had proved it to be the Word of God by some of their own Principles yet were they not afraid to joyn Issue with them all even in the Point of Scriptures clearness for our Doctrins abstracting from the Primitive Fathers and Councils And thereupon besides several Catechisms the Catholic Scripturist and other excellent Books two Treatises were published here in England and never that I heard of Answered The first An Anchor of Christian Doctrin wherein the principal Points of Catholic Religion are proved by the only Written Word of God. in 4 Volums in 4o. Anno 1622. The other A Conference of the Catholic and Protestant Doctrin with the express words of Scripture being a second part of the Catholic Ballance Anno 1631. 4o. in which was shewn that in more than 260 Points of Controversie Catholics agree with the Holy Scripture both in words and Sense and Protestants disagree in both Other Protestants perceiving they could not maintain several Tenets and Practices of their own by the bare words of Scripture § 3. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages and despairing of Fathers and Councils of later Ages pretended at least to admit the first four General Councils and the Fathers of the first three or four hundred Years But how meer a pretence this was appeared by the many Books Written abroad upon that Subject as Coccius his Thesaurus Gualterus his Chronology and others and at home Dr. Pierce found it too hard a task to make a reply to Dean Crecy 's Answer to his Court Sermon and the present nibling at the Nubes Testium shew how hard a task they find it to elude their plain expressions A third sort of Protestants ventured to name Tradition as an useful means to arrive at the True Faith §. 4. To an uninterrupted Tradition but many excellent Treatises have shewn that no other Doctrins will bide that Test but such as are taught by the Catholic Church For Novelty which is a distinctive mark of Error appearing in the very Name of Reformation an uninterrupted Tradition can never be laid claim to by them who pretend to be Reformers And indeed the exceptions which they usually make and the General Cry against Fathers Councils and Tradition shew how little they dare rely upon them Nay there has not been any thing like an Argument produced against our Faith or to justifie their Schism but what has been abundantly Answered and refuted and yet the same Sophisms are returned upon us as Current Coyn notwithstanding they have been often brought to the Test and could not stand it Moreover Catholics have so far complyed with the infirmities of their Adversaries that they have left no Stone unturned to reduce them to Unity of Faith and that by meekness as well as powerful reasonings They have not only condescended to satisfie the curiosity of them who have most leisure by Writing large Volums upon every particular Controversie proving what they hold by Scripture Councils Fathers Reason and all other pressing Arguments but because most persons cannot get time to peruse such vast Treatises they have gon a shorter way to work and some have manifested the Truth of our Doctrin from the unerrable Authority of the Church of Christ against which he had promised that the Gates of
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
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
ground that it was no ground at all and so of all other particulars we must conclude that all of them put together could give no just cause for such a Rent or Rebellion in the Church I told him that he ought to have given us some better Reason for his Assertion that whenever God remits the Crime he remits the Punishment than we think so or we are perswaded especially seeing this Doctrin is of such concern that it gives more to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon us Protestants grant more efficacy to a Lord have Mercy upon us than Catholics to a Plenary Indulgence than all the Plenary Indulgences of the Catholic Church But this I perceive puts him on the Fret and therefore he calls it a shameful Calumny and tells me he is confident I did not believe it my self Pray Good Sir Is it not your Position That when ever God forgives the Guilt be forgives the Punishment Is it not your Tenet also that God is ready to forgive the Guilt whenever a Sinner truly repents Tell me then suppose a Great Sinner is so suddenly taken out of the World that tho' he was truly forry for his Sine yet had only time to express his Sorrow by a bare Lord have mercy upon me Will you say such a Man cannot reap the Benefits of God Almighties Favor or have the guilt of his Sin forgiven him If you dare not say this tell me your opinion Whether does he go If you say To Heaven straight I say you give more to a bare Lord have mercy upon me than we do to a Plenary Indulgence for a Plenary Indulgence remits the Penalty due to Sin only upon Account of some other Satisfactions in the Churches style But you will it may be tell me this is not a bare Lord have mercy upon me but is as I now suppose accompanied with a sorrow for his Sin. I grant it and so must the Person who gains the Indulgence be not only sorry for his sins but confess them resolve to amend them quit the Occasions and make some other Satisfactions not only to the Persons whom he has injured but to God by Prayers Almes-deeds or Fasting In the last place §. 36. he finds fault with my Remark upon his Reflection upon the Bishop of Meaux for bringing only we suppose to establish this Doctrin when yet very often he did no more himself A Falsification But he takes no notice that I told him he had falsified M. de Meaux in that very expression for his words were we believe nous croyons which words were conformable to his design of an Exposition not of a proof However he tels me he belleves I can hardly find any one Instance where that is the only Argument he brings for their Doctrin In answer to which I dare confidently affirm that strip him of the Calumnies Misrepresentations of our Doctrin and Falsifications he has scarce an Argument in his Book of greater force than his we suppose And to shew he thinks it to be strong he lays a stress upon it in this place and tell us that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient not to receive our Innovations till we can bring them some better Arguments to prove they ought to quit their Supposition Nay he puts us upon the proof and pretends that they cannot find any Footsteps of our Doctrins in Scripture or Antiquity and has good reason by the weakness of our attempts to believe there are not any Certainly the Defender is not so ignorant in Controversy nor so little read in Polemic Divines as he here shews himself to be What! do our Authors never shew him any footsteps of our Doctrins in Scriptures or in Antiquity Are our attempts to prove our Doctrin so feeble that People have reason to think a mere Supposition will ruine our Foundations No no! the Defender certainly did not believe himself when he writ this tho' he was willing others should believe him Have we not besides our bringing the Authority of the Universal Church besides the lasting possession which we enjoy besides the Express Definitions of Councils acknowledged to be General not only by all the Bishops in England before the Reformation but by all Christendom besides the express Sentences of the Fathers in all Ages We are in a well grounded possession and therefore are not to quit it for bare Suppositions have we not I say besides all these Proofs offered also the plain Texts of Scripture and Challenged Protestants to shew so much as one positive Text for their Negative belief so much as one Father unless wrested contrary to his intention on their side or so much as one Council for any of those Points in which they differ from us And would it not be a folly for any one to quit a possession grounded upon such Proofs for a bare we suppose the Contrary They who doubt of what I say would do well to read our Books and compare the Arguments of our Authors and see whether Scripture or Antiquity will shew the footsteps of our Doctrin or of theirs And as for Antiquity if they will not believe us let them believe their own Protestant Authors who are so little confident of the Fathers being on their side that they accuse them of Errors not only in the Point of Satisfactions but in almost all the Points in Controversy as has been sully shewn by Brereley in his Protestant Apology First Part and by several others And as for Scripture amongst many others let them read the Anchor of Christian Doctrin and the Catholic Scripturist ART VIII SECT 2. Of Indulgences WHat I said before I say again That if any abuses §. 37. Councils have redressed the abuses in them either by negligence of Pastors or Covetousness of inferior Officers have been Practised in Promulging Indulgences our Councils not only desiring that they may be redressed but having made such severe and wholsom Laws in order to it I wonder persons should from thence take occasion to quarrel with us I say also Trident. Sess 2â— Decreto de Indulg that I will not undertake to defend Practices which are neither necessarily nor Universally received as of Faith. We defend not practices which are neither necessarily nor universally received But then the Defender asks me Whether it be not necessarily nor universally received to believe that Indulgences satisfie for the Temporal pain of Sin If he speak of pains due in the Court of God I must with Veron in his Rule of Faith Chap. xvi tell him That it is no Article of our Faith no Council has ever Defined it and several approved Divines deny it and have not been censured for it All that we are obliged to believe §. 38. Our necessary Tenets Profâ—ff of Faith. is that the power of Indulgences has been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ and that the use of
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
of his Books from their Disciplin nothing gives them more trouble than the vehement desire they see in Parents to make their Children be Baptized when they are Sick or in danger of Death This Piety says he of the Parents is called by their Synods an infirmity It is a weakness to be concerned lest the Children of the Faithful should dye without Baptism One of their Synods had condescended that Children in evident danger of Death should be Baptised contrary to the Ordinary custom But the following Synod reproved this weakness And these fortified persons blotted that Clause out which shewed a concern for such danger because it opened a way to the opinion of the necessity of Baptism So that the Dispute betwixt the Bishop of Condom and the Hugonots The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument Exâ—â—â— pag. 17 was concerning the Necessity of Baptism and not the Consequence of that Necessity as our Defender would gladly have it And his Assertion is that both Catholics and Lutherans are astonished that such a Truth as the absolute Necessity of Baptism should be denyed which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the Faithful Had our Defender rightly taken this Dispute he would have spared himself the pains he has been at to search Hooker Bramhall Cassander Grotius and the Authors cited by them Some of which it may be thought not the Consequence drawn from the Belief of the absolute necessity of Baptism so clear as to be an Article of Faith whilst others especially Gerson were willing to perswade themselves that God Almighty notwithstanding his unlimited Decree might extend his Mercy to such Children But that his Decree being for all in General we ought to Pronounce according to that Decree because without a particular Revelation we ought not to make any Exception from that Rule But neither they nor any else before Calvin denyed the absolute necessity of Baptism as the Bishop Asserts And our Defender if he had any thing to say against him should have opposed that part A Falsification and not have corrupted his words and told us that he affirms that this denyal of Salvaton to Infants dying Vnbaptized was a Truth which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question No no the Bishop knew well enough that Gerson's Piety had made him cast an Eye upon the Mercies of God which he was willing to think might in some cases make him dispense with his Rule and thwart the necessity of the Deduction He knew that Biel and Cajetan were willing to follow singular opinions and therefore might be of the same mind He knew also no doubt of it that Grotius had cited St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustin for this opinion tho' they who look into those Fathers will find he was mistaken neither did St. Augustin in his cooler thoughts differ from himself when provoked by Pelagius tho' our Defender after Grotius dare argue that he did But neither they nor any other openly denyed the necessity of Baptism as the Calvinists do Nor do the Authors he mentions affirm any such thing and therefore it was needless for him to call them in to his help or to tell me I had wholy past by what seem'd the most to deserve an answer Upon this account one may see it was not so ridiculous as he would make it to tell him If he had been a Hugonot or a Puritan it might have seemed reasonable to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome for a Doctrin which they condemn But that I was astonished to see this Argument and to hear the Church condemned of Vncharitableness by one of the Church of England which as he says has it seems * The Church of England in the order for the buriâ—l of the dead rands however unbaprizeed Children with those that dye Excommunicated or have laid violent hands upon themselves Determined nothing of it But if he do not as he owns justify a Breach with us upon this account why I pray does he start the Dispute to keep it open or make it wider by such sinnter Defences ART X. Of Confirmation IF our Defender had §. 46. as he professes several of our own Party on his side persons who denyed the Divine Institution of this Sacrament he would not I believe have conceal'd their Names but would have been as ready to have stuffed his Margent with them as he was in the precedent Article with Cassander and Grotius whom he would make his Readers believe were of our most approved Authors tho' the first was censured for his rash attempt in the Interim and the other lived in opposition to the Church tho' it be thought he dyed in Communion with it Surely our Defender was sadly put to it when he was forced to fly to the silence of the Council of Trent and of its Catechism and to argue that because neither of them offered any thing to prove this Sacrament therefore forsooth it cannot be proved Was it not sufficient for those Books to explicate our Doctrin T is not surely the Business of a Council to prove Proved by Fathers and Scripture but to Assert our Belief And whether the Catechism has been wholy silent in this let the Readers Judge as also how bold and rash some persons will be in their Assertions The Chatechism tels us Catech. Rom. part 2. de Cinf c. 3. p. 158. that the Church has always taught and acknowledged that all things that belong to the Nature and Essence of a Sacrament are found in Confirmation and proves it from many Antient and Holy Popes and Fathers of the Church (a) Epist ad Episc Hisp c. 2. Et de Consec Dist 5. cap. Spiritus Sanctus St. Melchiades who lived Anno 315. (b) Ep. 4. ad Jultan Jul. St. Clement Anno 102. Also from (c) De Consec dist 5. Pope Vrban Anno 232. Fabianus Anno 253. And Eusebius Anno 311. Nay it shews us moreover that (d) De. Eccl. Hier. c. 2. St. Denys the Arepagite does not only speak of Confirmation but expresses the very Ceremonies and the manner of making the Chrism and that (e) Lib. 6. Hist Eccles c. 33. Eusebius of Cesarea thought that Novatus foll into his Heresy for neglecting in his Sickness to be Confirmed And tho' our Defender in his former Treatise was not so bold but only affirmed that the Council and Chatechism did not go about to prove either Christs Institution or the outward visible Sign or the inward Spiritual â—â—race by Scripture yet this Catechism shews that (f) Ambr. in fin c. 7. de lit qui myst init lib. 3. de Sacramentis c. 2. Tom. 4.436 pag. St. Ambrose and (g) Aug. lib. 2. cenâ—ra lit Petil. c. 104. St. Augustin were both of them so perswaded that no one could doubt of the truth of this Sacrament that they both of
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
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
things considered I think I had just reason to say that the present Church in every Age was to be judge of the universality or not universality of Tradition and that if she declared her self either by the most general Council that Age all things considered could afford or by the Constant Practice and Uniform voice of her Pastors and People every private Church or person ought to submit to her decisions But this Doctrin will not down with our Defender §. 106. Desence pag. 77.80 The Defenders Arguments against this judge of Tradition answered who has so great a deference for a Church that he is not afraid to say that any private or individual person may examin and oppose the decisions of the whole Church if he be but evidently convinced that his priate belief is founded upon the Authority of Gods Holy Word And he has two reasons he says why he cannot assent to this method of judging which is universal Tradition 1. Because it is a matter of fact whether such Doctrins were delivered or no 1. Objection and this matter of fact recorded by those who lived in or near that first Age of the Church if then the Records of those first Ages contradict the sentence of the Church any man who is able to search into them may more securely rely upon them than upon the Decrees of a Council of a later Age or the voice and practice of its Pastors and People And this he says is the case in many things betwixt them and us Answer But Good Sir weigh a little the force of your Argument and see whether it be not built upon a mere supposition that the Church has erred or may err in the delivery of her Doctrins even against the plain words of Scripture or positive Testimony of the Fathers But such an absurdity being supposed what wonder if many others follow after Again tell me are those Records you speak of plain to any one that is able to search into them If so I hope the Church is as clear sighted and able to search into them as any individual Church or person Or are they obscure And then I suppose you will allow the universal Church's constant practice in that Age or her declarations in her Councils to be at least a better Interpreter than such Private persons or Assemblies And if the Catholic Church examining those passages in the antient Fathers tells me they are so far from contradicting her Practices or Doctrins that if rightly understood they speak the same thing with her I think there lyes a greater obligation on me to submit my Judgment to that of the Universal Church than obstianately to follow my own sense or that of a particular Church dissenting from the whole And that this is the case betwixt Catholics and Protestants the Defender knows and the Reader may gather from this Treatise But the Defender has yet a more cogent reason against this method §. 107.2 Objection which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and give this Unwritten word the upper hand of the Written Answer Had he said that this method would be apt to set up the Decrees of Councils and the judgment of the Church before the Private spirit or judgment of Particulars I should readily have granted what he said Tradition and Scripture are not Competitors But I see no competition in our case betwixt Scripture and Tradition but that they both strengthen each others Testimony unless he will have the Text and the most authentic Comment to be competitors Now the Defender looks upon it as a high affront to Scripture that the Church's decrees or practices should obtain and be in force with all its members when many of them may be perswaded that they cannot find what she decrees in nay that it is contrary to the word of God. And declares for himself and all his Party That they cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon those grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrin which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the Written word of God. For in this case he thinks it reasonable that the Church's sentence should be made void and the voice of her pretended Traditions silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God. But had he expressed himself clearly and according to the point in question he should have said that the sentence of the Church was in such cases to be made void and every mans private interpretation of Scripture if he be evidently convinced that it is according to the word of God preferred before the Decrees of General Councils or the uniterrupted Practice and Preaching of her Pastors But of this Argument more in the next Article ART XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church THe Authority of the Church is a point of so great Importance §. 108. that being once established all other Doctrins will Necessarily follow The Concessions which our Defender had made in his Exposition were indeed such as might very well have given us hopes he would have submitted to the natural consequence of them but we might well be surprised to see them so suddainly dashed by such wild Exceptions as do not only destroy all Church Authority but open a way to as many different Opinions in Religion as there are persons inclined to make various interpretations of Scripture and headstrong enough to prefer their Own sense before that of Others What I pray avails his Concessions The Desenders Concessions that the Catholic Church is ostablished by God the Guardian of Holy Scriptures and Tradition That she has Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline Expos pag. 76. pag. 78. but even of Faith too That it is upon her Authority they receive and reverence several Books as Canonical Pag. 76. and reject others as Apocryphal even before by their own reading of them they perceive the Spirit of God in them And Pag. 77. that if as universal and uncontroverted a Tradition had descended for the Interpretation of Scriptures as for the receiving of them they should have been as ready to accept of that too surely he does not mean such a Tradition as no one ever called in question for there is scarce a Book of Scripture but some Heretic or other has questioned whether it were Canonical or no What I say do such Concessions as these avail us when he allows every Cobler or Tinker nay every silly Woman for he excepts no body the liberty not only to examin the Church's Decisions but to prefer their Own sense of Scripture before that of the Whole Church This position is so Extravagant that I think I need only give it in his own words §. 109. to make him and all that party who he tells us have approved his Book HIs Exceptions
Christiantiy But that if these or any of them should meet in a National Church the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church How Extravagant such a Doctrin as this is I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider And return to the Defenders Argument He tells us §. 111. that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic unless we can prove either first there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her or secondly that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united tho' professing known and condemned Heresies as wel as an Orthodox Church maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ or were called Christians or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ nor any Error in their Worship but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Savlation which is manifestly false or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic Church But this we cannot do unless we will open a Gate for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her And tell the world plainly that the Arians or any other Heresy may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians tho' Orthodox in their belief And if this be his meaning it follows that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church so long as they turn not Apostats and deny their Christianity All which is absurd in an eminent degree But if he mean only this that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic we must shew there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did we will joyn Issue with him and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any unbyassed judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome And that all other Churches in the world that were Orthodox professed just the same Faith as to all the Essential Points of it and practised the very same Essential Worship which shew now does That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced will appear to any man who considers that when we speak of the Catholic Church we speak of that Church which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ joyned with that Vniversality viz. Vnity without Schisms and Divisions Sanctity without Errors Heresies or damnable Doctrins and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrins in matters of Faith or Manners or those who like Corah and his companions set up an Altar against an Altar and chalenge to themselves a Function like that of Aarons without being lawfully called thereto To prove therefore this Truth §. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the the true Catholic Church proved that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is this true Catholic Church I must desire my Reader to consider 1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel he told them that they who did not believe should be condemned but they who did believe and were baptised should be saved 2. That these Believers were called Christians that is Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world to continue till the end of the same to preserve the Doctrins delivered to her to be one and therefore free from Schisms Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrins All which we express in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions which as they are destructive of Vnity and Sanctity the marks of his true Church so are they also impediments to Salvation and therefore must be avoided and seeing this Church must be free from them she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics from the Orthodox Christians and cut them off from being Members of her Communion 3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors or refused to pay a due Obedience and therefore if during their Separation other Heresies or Schisms should bud out the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third a fourth or a fifth But as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third and in a word all other succeeding Assemblies who either thus opposed the Truths delivered to her or refused to pay her a due obedience 4. These things thus considered it necessarily follows that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned her self condemned proud Schismatics and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and
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
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
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