been the case of St. Athanasius in whose Seat Gaudentius had been placed by the Eusebians nor that these (d) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 540. c. 1. F. Fathers acknowledged that it would be the best and most agreeable thing that Priests from all Countries should have recourse to the Head that is to the Seat of Peter the Apostle nor that it was looked upon in this Age as an (e) Socrat. l. 2. Hist c. 5. p. 244. D. c. 11. p. 246. c. 13. Epist. Julii ad Orient Episc Apud St. Athan. Apol. 2. Sozâ—m lib. 3. c. 7. p. 446. F. c. 9. Established Law that nothing was to be determined without the concurrence of the Apostolic See all which considered he will find no just reason to reject this Epistle upon the Plea that it Establishes the Popes Authority I have already mentioned that the Second General Council that of Constantinople was called by the (f) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 667. A. Popes Authority And this (a) Can. 3. Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 661. B. Council ordained that the Patriarch of Consiantinople should have Prime Honor after the Bishop of Rome The Third General Council that of Ephesus (b) Bin. Tom. 2. Conc. p. 282. B. Deposed Nestorius as they say Compelled by the Sacred Canons and the Epistle of Pope Celestine and referred the more difficult case of John (c) Ibid. pag. 353. D. Patriarch of Antioch to the Pope The Fourth besides what I have already mentioned that they admitted â—he accusation brought against (d) Bin. Tom 3. Conc. p. 50. B. Dioscorus for having taken upon him to assemble a Council without the Popes Authority frequently calls Pope Leo the (e) Act. 1.2 3. passim Vniversal Bishop of the Church and affirms that our Blessed Lord had (f) Epist ad Leonem Ibid. p. 474. B. committed to him the care of his Vineyard that is his Church I will not mention any later Councils these may suffice to Protestants of the Church of England as by Law Established Seeing their Authority has been approved by (g) 1 Eliz. c. 1. Act of Parliament Neither will I go to the antient Canons of the Church but shall conclude That seeing it is manifest that ever since the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome did exercise this Universal Pastoral care over the whole Church Excommunicating offending Bishops in other Kingdoms and Countries restoring those that had been Excommunicated unjustly to their Sees and Confirming others calling General Councils and Presiding in them and that Appeals were usually made to him in greater Causes from all Countries no beginning of which can be shewn nor no opposition made to it in those Primitive Ages but only by the Arians or other Condemned Heretics Seeing I say this is clearly matter of fact we must necessarily conclude that this Authority was looked upon at that time as given him by Divine Right and as coming down in a constant practice from the Apostles For seeing all persons in all Ages and Countries are ready to defend their Privileges and oppose usurpations had this been such or had they been exempt from such Jurisdiction they would have Unanimously opposed it in some of the succeeding General Councils after they had seen such Epistles from the Popes challenging that Authority But we find them so far from this that his plea is admitted in those very Councils and not the least Opposition made From what I have already said it will appear how easy a thing it might be to shew him in the Primitive Fathers and Councils what is given by all Catholics at present to his Holyness or challenged by him as of Necessary Faith. As to the Popes being stiled Vniversal Bishop he knows that St. Gregory the Great declined that Title in one Sense tho' he challenged it in another that is he looked not upon himself as Universal Bishop in this sense as if there were no other Bishop but he Sicut docuit Beatus Gloriesorum Apostolorum Princeps cujus Cathedram Beatitudini tuae credidit Christus optimus Pastor Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 681. c. 2. D. Non enim ignorâ—s ejus ingenium qui quotidie a Sacro doctore tuo Petro doceris oves Christi per totum habitabilem mundum creditas tibi pascere non vi sed sponte coactus Ibid. P. but yet in this other as he was the Supreme visible head of Christs Church upon Earth And for the Proof of this Title besides what I have already mentioned I will send our Defender to the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Pope Symmachus in which they do not only acknowledge him to have been placed in the Chair of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles by Christ the chief Pastor but that all the Sheep of Christ in the whole habitable world were committed to him to Feed And in this sense I suppose it is that he was called Vniversal Bishop and Patriarch in the Council of * Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 246. 250. Chalcedon That the Pope was usually stiled the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ upon Earth is so noted in Antiquity that I wonder the Defender would desire me to direct him to the places I have already shewn him some of them which I hope may suffice if his business be not to Cavil The last Authority which he says the Pope lays claim to is that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him The terms of which Proposition are very ambiguous and therefore when our Defender has explicated his meaning more clearly and shewn that all Catholics allow it in the sense he intends I will undertake to shew him that the same Authority was acknowledged to be due to him even in the Primitive times For the Church has not innovated in this any more than in her other Doctrins The Close to the Defender Sir HAving so fully answered all the objections you have made against me or our Doctrin §. 132. and in the soregoing Articles not only vindicated what was delivered by the Bishop of Meaux as the Doctrin of the Catholic Church and Council of Trent but also shewn the consent of Antiquity for the truth of it I hope you will excuse me if I tire not my Reader by a repetition of the same in Answer to your recapitulation under the reflecting Titles of Old and new Popery I shall therefore only refer you and them to what has been said in the body of the Book and most commonly in the close of every Article for an answer to what was not particularly mentioned in your Defence where I hope I have convincingly made it appear that your Parallel is wholly grounded upon your mistake not to give it any worse title of our Doctrin You know very well Sir that I might in exchange have given you a Parallel of New and Old Protestancy if that can be called old which is not of above 150 Years standing with a
examined either ashamed of this Doctrin and recal it or else declare they admit to Authority in the Church and this I shall do as I examin his Exceptions in their order First Exception That the Church of Rome is only a particular Church Answered The Roman Catholic Church includes all particular Churches unâ—ted in Communion with her His first Exception is that the Church of rome is only a particular Church and therefore cannot be properly called the Catholic Church To this I answered that we did not intend by the Roman Catholic Church the particular Diocese of Rome but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome And that this alone was the Catholic Church I proved fully by the marks assigned by the Nicene Creed viz. of Vnity and by consequence of freedom from Schismes and Divisions of Sanctity and by consequence of being free from Heresies Idolatries Superstitions and other Essential Errors of Vniversality also with that Vnity and Sanctity and of being Apostolic that is grounded upon the Doctrins and Faith of the Apostles and deriving a continual Succession from them I proved I say the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Alone to be the Catholic Church which we believe in our Creed because no other Assembly of Christians can pretend to these marks but she But our Defender found this reason too solid to be eluded by his querks and therefore said nothing to it but justifies his exception by an Argument which I wonder any man of reason would offer to produce Now if this that we take all Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Desence pag. 78. for the Roman Catholic Church in truth says he be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholic Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholic as that of Rome it self What sense I pray is there in this Proposition thus worded If he mean as he must to make an Argument that every particular National Church in Communion with the Church of Rome has as good a title to the Name of the Catholic Church as all those particular National Churches joyned together have he will have much a do to perswade any Rational man to believe him who can but understand that a part is not the whole But if he mean that every particular National Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome has as good a title to the name of Catholic as the particular Diocese or National Church of Rome it self that is as he explicates himself presently after has the same Purity and Orthodoxness of Faith. Suppose we grant him it always allowing that difference betwixt the See of St. Peter and other Bishopricks as there is betwixt the head and the other members of the same Body what consequence will he draw from thence against us who allow all other Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be truly members of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor Oh says he This renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholic with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocese and so makes it only a particular not The Vniversal Church And what then I pray Who ever said that the particular Diocese of Rome is the Universal Church We say indeed that the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pastor of the whole Church of Christ which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church but this does not make the Suburbican Diocese to be this Catholic Church For as the Empire when it was in former times diffusd through most parts of Europe part of Asia and part of Africa was called the Roman Empire from the Imperial City Rome so is the Catholic Church spread over the face of the whole world called the Roman Catholic Church because every particular Member is joyned in Communion with the one Supreme Pastor whose See is at Rome And this Universal Church we say can neither fall into Error nor prevaricate the Faith in any necessary Points of it whatsoever a particular Church may do Hence it appears that his second and third Exceptions are nothing to the purpose §. 110. 2d and 3d Exceptions null as being grounded upon his notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken for the particular Diocess of Rome But now says he should we allow the Church of Rome as great an Extent as the Vindicator speaks of c. Ibid. yet all this would not make her the Whole or Catholic Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the world besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the same Faith The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her and continued just in the Same Worship as she hath done And this he conceives cannot easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which he says have plainly for several ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship This is the great Argument of Protestants who would willingly as I took notice in my Vindication have the Catholic Church to be composed of All those who profess the Faith of Christ spread over the face of the Whole World Pag. 104. All those who profess the Faith of Christ are not members of the Catholic Church whether they be Arians Nestorians Donatists Socinians Lutherans Calvinists Church of England Men Roman Catholics or others All which they acknowledge to be Members of the Catholic Christian Church tho' some of them may be Rotten putrid Members they may be true tho' corrupt Churches as a man may be truly a man and yet be very dangerously ill Plain mans reply pag. 14. Thus they provide for Universality in the Church but leave its Sanctity and Unity to shift for themselves unless what a late Author has produced will pass for a Vindication of their Unity Vindic. of the Ch. of England from Schism and Herisy Part. 1. Sect. x. who acknowledges that there may be a Schism from a particular Church but that A Separation from the Catholic Church taken in the most comprehensive sense is not Schism but Apostacy So that if what he says have any sense he must mean that All the different Sects of Christians in the world make up but one Church all which Sects ought to be at such an Union with one another as long as each one keeps within their respective Countries where their Religion is established by Law that no one ought to treat another as a Schismatic seeing there cannot be properly speaking any Schism from the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but only Apostacy which is a Total Defection from
necessary to Salvation but dare not positively exclude the others from being a kind of particular Sacraments And seeing the Scripture mentions not the number either of three or seven why should not the voice and constant practice of the Church be heard before particular clamours As to the matter of the Eucharist if People would but once take a right notion of what we mean by a Real Presence and rightly understand what we mean by the Terms Corporal and Spiritual we should not have such large Volumns Written by those who pretend to believe all that Christ has said And in our disputes about the Church The Church and it's Authority what perpetual mistakes are their committed for want of considering what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church and by her Infallibility In a word §. 17. The Rule of Faith. would People take notice that we affirm the Total and only Rule of Catholic Faith to which all are obliged under pain of Heresie and Excommunication to be Divine Revelation delivered to the Prophets and Apostles and proposed by the Catholic Church in her General received Councils or by her universal Practice as an Article of Catholic Faith and that if either this Divine Revelation to the Prophets and Apostles or this proposal by the universal Church be wanting to a Tenet it ceases to be an Article or Doctrin of Faith Protestants will not distinguish betwixt faith and private opinions tho' it may be a truth which it would be temerarious to deny would they I say take notice of this and then examin what are those Doctrins which we hold to have been thus taught and proposed we should not only find our Controversie brought into a narrow Room but all the odious Characters of Popery and the Calumnies that are thrown upon us with the ill consequences of fears and jealousies c. would be removed and we might hope for Peace and Unity Whereas by the methods by which we see Disputes now carried on But prolong disputes upon unnecessaries one would think our Adversaries had no other end in all their Controversial Books or Sermons but to cry down Popery at any rate least they should suffer prejudice by it's increase which they are conscious it would do if what is of Faith were separated in all their Discourses from Inferior Truths or probable opinions And because I am not willing to prolong disputes §. 18. Which the Vindicator resolves to decline I do here declare that if the Defender do hereafter medle with such points as those which are not of necessary Faith I shall not think my self obliged to answer him tho' after that he may perhaps boast how he had the last word But if he please to answer any thing positively to those Doctrins acknowledged by all Catholics to be of Faith or to the Arguments I have brought in the XXIII and and XXIV Articles to prove the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the true Orthodox Catholic Church and that the voice of the Church in every Age is the best way to know what is Apostolical Tradition upon finishing which two last disputes all our Controversie would be ended he shall have a fair hearing But I may be bold to foretel without pretending to be a Prophet that nothing of all this will be done and that if he vouchsafe an Answer he will as to the first either still fly to the private Tenets and Practices of Particulars or Misrepresent our Doctrin and as to the others either fob my Arguments off with such an Answer as he thinks is sufficient against Monsieur Arnauld's Perpetuity Desence Pref. pag. 11. that is calling it a Logical subtilty which wants only Diogenes 's Demonstration to expose it's Sophistry A pretty quirk indeed were the case parallel or that it could be made out as clearly that the Church has erred as it could be shewn that Diogenes moved but what is the Point in Question must be always supposed as certain in our Defenders Logic or else he will send us to his beloved friends Monsieur Daille or Monsieur Claude as he has upon the like occasions or lastly endeavor to expose us by some contemptible Raillery as he has done the Bishop of Meaux to the Defenders own confusion amongst thinking Men. For It is not enough to Men of Sense to speak contemptibly of solid Arguments excellent Discourses or persons of known integrity Monsieur Arnauld 's Perpetuity of the Faith and the just Prejudices against the Calvinists will not loose their esteem amongst the Learned and Judicious because our Defender tels us they have been out-done by Huguenots neither will the Bishop of Meaux's credit be any ways impaired or his Exposition less esteemed because the Defender and such as he have endeavored to traduce him and make the World believe him to be Insincere or ignorant But such things as these are now a-days put upon the World without a blush and they who are this day ingenious Learned and honest Men shall be to morrow time-servers block-heads and knaves if they chance but to cast a favorable look towards Popery and hated abhorred and oppressed with injurles if they forsake their Errors to embrace the Truth even by those who pretend that Conscience ought not to be forced I must conclude this Preface with begging pardon of my Readers for the length of this work which will I fear deter some from the perusal of it but I hope they who are desirous to search for the True Faith which is but one amongst so many and without which it is impossible to please God will not think it much to spend a little time for their satisfaction which if they do I hope it will open their Eyes and they will see how much they have been hitherto kept in ignorance by those who pretend to be their guides but shew themselves by their Writing either to be blind or which is worse malitious For if they know our Doctrins and yet Misrepresent them to their People they must be convinced of Malice and if they know them not we are ready to inform them if they think we palliate or pervert our Doctrins to gain Proselites it shews how little they understand our Tenets For when they see us ready to lose our Estates our Liberties and our Lives rather than renounce one title of our Faith how can a reasonable Man be persuaded we would renounce it all to gain a Proselite who the very first time he should see us Practise contrary to our Doctrins would be sure to return and expose our Villany BEcause the Defender has been pleased to ask this Question in the close of his Discourse page 84. Where are the Vnsincere dealings the Falsifications the Authors Miscited or Misapplied I thought it might not be amiss to refer the Reader to some of them as they are detected in this following Treatise And tho' the Defender had not the sincerity to acknowledge them yet I dare
with such Idolatry We find indeed that their Twenty second Article tells us that the Invocation of Saints is one of those Practices which are fond things vainly invented c. but it proceeds not so far as to call it Idolatrous And if the Book of Homilies to which he flies upon other occasions when he is prest to shew the Doctrin of his Church be more severe he is little versed in his own Doctrins if he be ignorant that several Eminent Divines of his own Church do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick Dogmatical Doctrin of the Church of England Bishop Montague Dr. Heylin Mr. Thorndike tho' they be all obliged to subscribe to it as containing a wholesome Doctrin I wish then there be not something more in the bottom of this than what appears at first sight Dr. Heylin tells us §. 2. The charge of Idolatry begun in Queen Eliz. time that when Queen Elizabeth beheld the Pope as her greatest Enemy in reference to her Mothers Marriage her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England Books were filled with bitter Revilings against the Church of Rome and all the Divine Offices Ceremonies and performances of it Cyprian Angl. pag. 342. 2d Edit but that in the next Ages the dangerous consequences of the Charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome began to be more calmly and maturely considered Rejected in King Charles the first 's time in so much that Arch-bishop Laud thought it necessary to endeavor with diligence to hinder the reprinting of those Books And what must the same Apprehensions be now again raised in the Peoples minds Must the Pope pass now for our greatest Enemy And must the common People be taught to hate Papists worse than Jews and Mahumetans Renewed at present to make us odious that the Pulpits ring again with such horrid accusations and every Book tho' pretending moderation brings now the charge of Idolatry along with it If this Author had not this design for I dare not accuse him of being a leading Man he might at least have foreseen the ill consequences which would follow in the Nation and for which I fear He and Those that set him on will one day answer before the Tribunal of the God of Peace and Unity But he thinks himself clear at least of Calumny Defence pa. 2. if he can shew that our Authors allow all that he has charged us with Calumny Not too fast I must in this also beg his pardon The consequence do's not follow that because some particular Members of the Church of Rome may have taught such Doctrins therefore the Church is guilty of them He has been often told and that according to all reason that we have nothing to do here with the Doctrin of the Schools that he must take our Doctrins from the Councils which contain the Public Authentic and Vniversally received Definitions and Decisions of the Church otherwise he touches not the necessary terms of Communion Des Pref. p. 19. But tho' he acknowledges this to be my Catholic Distinction yet he takes little or no notice of it throughout his whole Book but flies still to particular Authors to maintain his charge But what if our Authors allow not those things which he charges them with will he then acknowledge himself guilty of Calumny If he cannot bring any of our Authors that say Divine Worship is to be given to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed unless their expressions be miserably distorted or any persons that do practice it if our Missals and Pontificals do not command us to adore the Cross taking the word Adoration in that strict Sense and if I shew him in the following Articles that he mistakes the Doctrin of the Council of Trent about the Sacrisice of the Mass and the Churches Tenet about Merit I hope he will be so ingenuous as to confess that we deserve not so ill a Character and if he be so sensible of the account which must be given for idle words Close pag. 86. I hope he will likewise consult the Salvation of his Soul and repent and make satisfaction for those which are injurious to the reputation of a Church to which if he be what he professes he must acknowledg he owes some obligations as to a Mother But I charged him also with Vnsincerity in stating the Question betwixt Catholics and Protestants Unsincerity and this also touches his reputation I must confess I would willingly be tender of it but where so great a concern as the reputation of an Innocent Church is joyned with his single Honor I think I may be excused if I let the dirt fall where it ought when by wiping it off from one it must necessarily stick upon the other That which I condemned in his stating of the Question was §. 3. Catholics affirm that Protestants hold not all Fundamentals that he represented us as allowing them to hold the Antient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith. I told him that we do not allow that Proposition especially if he mean all Fundamentals Pag. 24. and that tho' the Bishop of Meaux has a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Protestants grant that Catholics hold all Fundamentals yet it do's not from thence follow that Catholics reciprocally grant them also to hold the same And what I pray is his answer to this That whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daille's Concessions Defence pa. 4. as to this Point will find it clear enough that he did if the Foundation consist of Fundamental Articles But really I have again and again considered what Monsieur de Meaux says in that Section and can find no such thing in it but that his is only Argumentum ad hominem M. de Meaux sense perverted by the Defender an Argument drawn from the Concessions of Monsieur Daillé and from what is manifest to every one viz. That we believe all those Articles which Protestants call Fundamental But he neither says nor insinuates Expos Sect. 2. pag. 3. nor so much as shews it to be his Opinion that the Protestants hold all those Articles which Catholics call Fundamental But he who can find That in the Bishops Argument The Vindicators sense perverted by the Defender Def. pag. 5. can find also that I my self confess that the Articles which we hold and they contradict do by evident and undoubted consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental I know not with what Spectacles he Reads but I think any judicious Reader will grant that I never said any such thing 'T is true I tell him Vindic. pa. 23. that were the Doctrins and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrins and
persons to love one another as Christ loved his Church and because they are two in one Flesh tels them this is a great Sacrament but I speak in Christ and in the Church which words shew plainly what I have already mentioned that Marriage is truly a Sacrament in the Church and in Christ tho' it be only a civil Contract out of it It is a Sacrament instituted by Christ to represent the indissoluble Union betwixt him and his Church and therefore has his Grace annexed to it that it might truly represent that Union for an uncomfortable Marriage does not well represent it nor one that may be dissolved But here the modern Innovators after Erasmus cry out the word Sacrament is a false Translation the Greek word being Mystery But this is only a Trick of Protestants who as they were wont in their first Bibles to leave out the word Church whereever they met with it in Scripture and put in Congregation because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would bear that sense so here because the Greek has no other word but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express a Sacrament and a Mystery therefore it must be rendred Mysiery lest their People should with their Forefathers understand Marriage to be properly a Sacrament But certainly they who are not willing to be imposed upon will rather follow the Interpretation of all the antient Fathers and Commentators upon this place who unanimously agree that St. Pauls sense was that Matrimony is properly a Sacrament and that a great one because it signifies the Vnion betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church than these novel Criticks Indeed where persons have a mind to cavil there is no Text of Scripture so plain but may be wrested to a different sense and therefore we are forced upon those occasions to fly to the Tradition of the Church By Universal Tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches and the unanimons consent of those Interpreters who lived before that Dispute arose And thus it is no wonder that Estius should say we have not any Text of Scripture that plainly and evidently proves this Doctrin without having recourse to the Tradition of the Church But when this Tradition is such that not only the antient Fathers as St. Hierom St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophilact St. Augustin St. Anselme and generally all Commentators till Erasmus agreed in it but also the whole Church both of the East and West consented to it as appears not only by the general consent of all their Divines for the last 600 Years but by the Definitions of Councils held since that time and particularly that of Florence where the Greek and Latin Fathers were agreed upon this point as also by the Testimony of Hierimias Patriarch of Constantinople for the Greeks who in his own name as Cardinal Bellarmin observes Bellarmin de Mâ—rim Sacrant lib. 1. c. 4. pag. 1304 B. and in the name of all the Grecian Bishops declared against the Augustan Confession of the Lutherans in this point of Marriage being a Divine Sacrament as he did also against all their other Innovations I say when this Tradition is so antient clear and universal what a madness must it be to reject it because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Mystery as well as it does a Sacrament One thing more remains §. 60. Marriage not necessary for every one which has been thought a witty Objection against the Church that she makes Matrimony a Sacrament and yet denies it to her Clergy for a Sacrament say they must be Generally necessary to Salvation But this is plainly a forced Principle taken up upon begging the Question about the number of the Sacraments and besides is not so heartily believed in the Two which Protestants pretend to maintain For the Sons of the Church of England for any thing yet appears are not much perswaded of any such great necessity I speak not of what they call Superstitious Vnction but even of the Eucharist it self for dying persons For unless they can get company to Communicate besides the Decumbent he must lye in his Agony and venture into the other World without his Viaticum As for the Churches scrupling Marriage to her Clergy it is a difficulty to those who consider not the Sanctity of Priesthood If there be any state more perfect than another I hope it belongs to the Priest but the state of Marriage is more imperfect than the state of a resolved Virginity as you dare not deny shall not the Church than give leave to her Hierarchy who are or ought to be the most perfect to degrade themselves amongst the conjugate when she always maintained an order of Virgins even in the weaker female Sex or rather may she not direct them to follow the Evangelic counsel of being Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God But I will not dilate upon this The Church appoints her Sacraments where they are proper She does not appoint Marriage for all nor Extream Unction to the Lusty nor Holy Orders to every one You make a profession to scruple the use of Marriage at some solemn times if you dissemble not and the Church upon the same reasons scruples Marriage it self to some certain Orders of Men. ART XIV Of Holy Orders IN this Article §. 61. as well as in the last the Defender hath shewn us how much he is a Man of Peace and what hopes we may have of composing Differences He gave us indeed a fair Overture for an Agreement in his Exposition and I told him I was glad of it But what will his party say if he seem to close with Rome and therefore all his fair appearances and concessions must be now cast off and of a closing Friend as he then appeared he is now become an open Enemy If the Vindicator says he be agreed with me in this Article what then he does not say I am glad of it we draw neer to Unity no that would be to incur the Censure of those who live by breaking the Churches Peace but he says If we be agreed he musi renounce the number of his Seven Sacraments How For my part I thought he had spoken his mind sincerely before and the sense of his Church Expos pag. 46. when he told us That Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders The Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost might perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament and therefore I told him that we said no more and that we denyed it to be a Sacrament common to the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are and so far I found no difference betwixt us One would have thought upon this account that he had rather renounced his number Two than I my Seven Sacraments seeings in effect he allowed Holy Orders to be a third Oh but he only said §. 62. His new Evasions answered perhaps it
may be called a particular Sacrament and being now far from agreeing to any thing which has once been esteemed by them a difficulty he therefore says he denyed there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed This indeed he tels us in his Defence but in his Exposition he was far more moderate The outward Sign of it says he there we confess to have been Imposition of Hands and as such we our selves observe it From whence a lover of Peace in the Church would have rationally enough concluded that the Church of England was agreed with the Catholic in this Point when he says they use Imposition of Hands as an outward sign of it of what of the Particular Sacrament Yea. But it seems I was out in my conjecture for he intends not to contribute any thing to the healing of the Church in any Punctilio and therefore tho' we be half Friends as to all appearance yet some new Scruple must be thrown in the way to quash all hopes of Accommodation (a) Expos pag 46. We do not read says he that Christ instituted that sign much less tyed the promise of any certain Grace to it (b) Def. pag. 53. All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture is only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded See how some Men can digest any thing Are not three or four places of Holy Scripture shewing the Practice of it a sufficient Testimony that it was commanded Were the Apostles for will-worship uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies did they things on their own Head without their Lords Order or his least Innuendo My Adversary thinks it seems that nothing is commanded but what he can read commanded No unwritten Tradition now with him At other times perhaps hee 'l grant there may be some But now we read not Therefore c. Whereas we read not any Command by Christ for the observation of the Lords Day only three or four Examples of the practice of it that is all the Authority c. If Scripture be his rule of Faith let him shew us a greater authority then the example of three or four places contradicting our Tenets and he will have reason to Dispute with us As for those of our own who as he says maintain that Imposition of Hands is not essential to Holy Orders if they be not worth his naming they are not worthy my concern We are not to answer for the particular Sentiments of Scholastics as I have often told him But the Grace conferred is no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament Thus our Defender Whereas in his Exposition he acknowledged that Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders is accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost A Blessing do you say and why not a Grace seeing St. Paul expresly calls it so 2 Tim. 1.6 admonishing St. Timothy to stir up the Grace of God which was given him by the Imposition of his Hands 1 Tim 4.14 and in another place exhorting him not to neglect the Grace in him which was given him by Prophecy that is according to the particular revelation made to St. Paul concerning him with the Imposition of the Hands of Priesthood He goes on If it may be called a Grace Expos ibid. yet not a Grace common to all Christians but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ And therefore we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are Pray Sir who ever said that the Grace which is given in Holy Orders is a Grace common to all Christians or that it is a common Sacrament of the whole Church Is it not sufficient for a Sacrament that it be the visible sign of an invisible Grace bestowed upon some particular persons segregated to a special employ for the benefit of the whole Church must all persons be Deacons all persons Priests all Bishops or else Holy Orders no Sacrament Oh but it is not a Justifying Grace What do you mean by a Justifying Grace Is not this Grace given in Holy Orders a Grace that renders the persons who receive it acceptable to God Almighty and enables them to perform the functions to which they are called Does not this Sacrament confer at least an increase of Sanctifying Grace tho' it be not instituted to confer the first Grace of Remission of Sin If you will have nothing else to be a justifying Grace but what is instituted primarily for the Remission of Sin I am afraid you will hereafter conclude the Eucharist to be no Sacrament because it does not primarily confer such a Grace Thus you see the whole business of our Defender is nothing but Shifts If it may be called a particular Sacrament yet is it not common to the whole Church If a Grace be given in it yet not a sanctifying Grace a Grace common to all Christians If we find three or four places in Scripture mentioning Imposition of Hands in order to the conferring of some Grace whatever ever it be yet we do not find it commanded What is all this but puttings off and a begging the Question by supposing that nothing can be truly a Sacrament which is not General to all Christians But I am afraid I have been too long upon these particulars seeing the Next great Article challenges an exact Examen ART XV XVI XVII XVIII Of the Eucharist IT is not a little Astonishment to see what an Agreement there is in all Antiquity concerning the Sense of these four Words §. 63. Defence pag. 54. Two hundred several senses put upon these four words this is my body This is my body and what various Interpretations have been made of them in this last 150 Years when our Reformers left every Man his Liberty to interpret Scripture for himself without any controlment (a) Repetâ—â— 1. de Euchar. c. 10. Apud Gualter Cron. Sect 16. pag 808. Claudius Sanctesius has collected no less than 84 (b) Gerd contr 1. cap. 28 pag. 202. de Ecclesia others 200 various Senses put upon these four plain Words which before this new pretended Reformation begun were generally understood in a literal Sense Every one contends his Sense to be the best and seeing as the Bishop of Meaux well observed they all of them fly from the literal and adhere to a figurative it behoves them to shew the necessity of taking the Words in that Sense whereas we who find nothing in those Words obliging us to quit the literal Sense need no other reason for our so doing but that we follow the plain and beaten Road. We follow the beaten Road. But our Defender thinks he has found sufficient reasons to oblige us to acquiesce and quit our High-Road for his By-path But first before we consent to him let us view both ways and
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
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
50 of them were of the Arian party that at their first Assembly they refused the Formula of Faith brought by * Socrat lib. 2. c. 29. p. 2â—0 F. Vrsacius and Valens from Sirmium they condemned Arianism and established the Nicene Faith and sent their Decrees to the Emperor desiring a dismission of the Assembly But the Emperor dissatisfied with this constancy would not give any answer to their Legates but ordered the Bishops to stay at Ariminum till his return from an Expedition against the Barbarians Socrat. Ibid. p. 262. F. Sozom. lib. 4. c 18. p 487. at which time he hoped they would concur with him To which they answered that they could not depart from the Sentence they had already pronounced and therefore begged leave again to return before Winter to their Churches to which the Emperor giving no answer Russin Hist lib. 1. c. 21. pag 203. several of them returned by stealth the others kept like prisoners which want of Freedom shewed this later part of the Council not to have been Legitimate at last deluded by the Emperors Agents and the specious pretences of a firm Peace and Union which would follow amongst the Western and Eastern Churches yielded to Subscribe a Form in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not rejected but omitted as being not well understood by the Latins But however this general Form was suspected by the Catholic Bishops and they would not Subscribe to it without some additions to secure the Churches Faith from Arianism and other misconstructions in which Additions they condemned Arius and all his perfidiousness and declared the Son to be Equal to the Father Severus Hist lib. â— Hier. dial adver Lucifer Apud Guide of Controvdise 2 §. 26. n. 5. pag. 117. Sozom. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. C. and without beginning or time and that he was not a Creature and pronounced and Anathema against all those who should offer to say that the son was not Eternal with his Father all which either shew the Son to be Consubstantial to his Father or that they are two Gods which the Arians denyed the Arians having consented to these Additions and the Catholic Faith being now thought secure the Council was dismissed But Valens and his Followers having now got a specious pretext proclaimed abroad that the Council of Ariminum had consented to the Arian Doctrin and condemned the Nicen Faith explicating the Formula to their own sense and pretending that when they said the Son was not a Creature they meant he was not a Creature as other Creatures were c. But the Western Bishops seeing themselves thus cheated by the subtilty of the Arians were highly vexed and protested against it and at this time it was that St. Jerome says the world admired to see it self become Arian all of a suddain not as if it were really so but because the equivocal words were easily turned by the Arians to their own sense and the People deceived by their pretences of a General Council Constantius also the Emperor resolved to make this Formula be Signed by all persons that were not at that Council or that had gone from it without his leave and hence a great Persecution arose and many Bishops amongst which (a) Sozom. lib. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. B. Pope Liberius was one were Banished others cruelly (b) Martyr Rom. Marcel de Schism Vrcis Dumas Apud Mainburg Hist de l' Arianism 1. Partie lib. 4. p. 39 Edit Paris in 4â—0 murdered as Gaudentius Bishop of Ariminum Rufinus and others So that it is plain from what has been here deduced from the best Historians of those times that neither the Pope nor Council nor Western Church condemned the Divinity of Christ Moreover it is to be remarked that St. Athanasius with all thee other Eastern Bishops of his party most of them either Deposed Banished or Persecuted by the Emperor and all these Western Prelates stood up for the defence of the Faith defined in the Council of Nice against the Arians who Innovated and would impose a sense upon Scripture which they had not been taught by their Forefathers but had taken up upon their own Private Judgments So that our Defenders Instance if rightly taken will be very much to his disadvantage and is a convincing proof against his assertion for it is manifest that to Imitate St. Athanasius a person ought to stand to the Definitions of a lawful General Council against all the Private Interpretations and pretended evident convictions of those who oppose it And ought to be so far from preferring his Private Sentiments of the sense of Scripture before the Judgment of the Church that he ought to suffer all manner of Persecutions and even Death it self rather than recede from her approved Faith. ART XXV Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy OUr Defender having layd down such a Principle in the foregoing Article of his Exposition §. 125. as rendred all Chruch-Authority ineffectual Yet as if he had forgot himself in the very next he tells us that he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith as bound thereto by a Subscription to the 39 Articles in the 20th of which that Authority is expressed And to shew us what he means by this just Authority he tells us that they allow such deference to her decisions Expos Church of Engl. p. 80. as to make them their directions what Doctrin they may or may not publickly maintain and teach in her Communion That is I suppose as much as to say they allow an exterior assent as far as Non-contradiction But even thus much is certainly inconsistent with that obligation which our Defender affirms Desence pig 80. particular persons lye under to support and adhere to their own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church if they be but evidently convinced that the Church has erred in her decisions I perceive he was Conscious of this Incongruity and therefore left a hole to creep out at Expos Church of Engl. pag. 81. telling us that they allow whatsoever submission they â—an to the Authority of the Church without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures So that thence it may as well be concluded as from his former Principle that every Private person Tinker Gobler or Weaver having received the Decrees of a General Council in to examin them himself by Scripture before he give his interior Assent and if having summoned together his own Extravagant Notions of the Word of God and its sense he be but evidently convinced as he imagines that the sentence of the Church thwarts the Scriptures he not only may but in our Defenders Principles is obliged to support and adhere to his own seeing as he thinks he cannot allow such a submission to her Authority without violating that of God c. And if so I would gladly ask him what is that just Authority which he tells