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
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
Exercises Taught and Practised by St. Augustin §. 8. This same Faith was delivered by continual Succession till in these later days it was weakned by H. the 8ths Schism were propagated down even till King Henry the 8ths time whose Lust and Rapines as they were insatiable so were the Actions which he did in order to the fulfilling of them unparallelled Every one who has Read any thing of our Histories knows that his first breach with Rome was because his Holiness would not allow him to separate from his Lawful Wife Queen Catharine that he might Marry Ann Daughter of Sir Tho. Bullen and that having once caused this Schism Millia dena unus Templorum destruit annâ—s he propagated it by Sacrilege pulling down Religious Houses turning the Inhabitants to the wide World giving their Lands and Revenues to Parliament-men and Courtiers by which rewards he gained their consent to what he designed It is sufficiently known also that he approved not of the new Doctrin that was brought in by Luther during his Reign neither would he permit such a pretended Reformation so that the whole contest during that time was only about the Supremacy of St. Peters See. But as Schism is most commonly followed with Heresie so in King Edward the 6ths time Edward the 6th the Protector who was tainted with Zwinglianism a Reform from Luther endeavored to set it up here in England and from that time the Catholic Doctrin which had been taught by our first Apostles and propagated till then begun to be rejected and accused as Erroneous Superstitious and Idolatrous and they who Professed it Persecuted But this Kings Reign being but short Queen Mary Catholic Religion begun again to bud forth under Queen Mary but that Bud being early nipped by her Death Queen Elizabeth by the advice of the new Council which she chose Queen Elizabeth and to secure her self in the Throne resolved to destroy the Catholic Interest and set up a Prelatic Protestancy which might have the face of a Church but other pretended Reformers opposed her Prelates and called their Orders Anti-christian and would needs have the Rags and Remnants of Popery as they called 'em taken away telling them that if the Word of God was to be the sole Rule of Reformation such things as were not to be found in that Rule were certainly to be rejected From that time this Nation has been variously agitated with Disputes The first pretended Reformers accused the Catholic Church with all bitterness imaginable and tho' they could not agree amongst themselves yet they set up unanimously their Crys against the Catholic Church as if she had been the Common Enemy and they were looked upon to be the best Subjects that could bring the most plausible Arguments against her Doctrins or move the Common People most to reject her Practices During this time the Pope was accused as Anti-christ the Church of Rome as the Whore of Babylon neither was there any thing committed by the Heathens worthy reprehension that was not laid to the charge of the Catholic Church so furious was their rage against the Truth But things growing calmer in King James They were more calm in K. K. Ch. the firsts time and King Charles the firsts time such Calumnies and Accusations were looked upon by the more Learned party as the effects of Passion and Moderation taught them to acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Mother Church that Salvation was to be had in her that many of those accusations which were brought against her were but the Dreams of distracted Brains and the more moderate persons begun to look upon her with a more favorable Eye but still the aversion which the Vulgar and less knowing People had imbibed from so long continued Slanders could not be taken away and the arising Factions in the State blew up the Coals afresh and pretended this Moderation was nothing but an inclination to Popery which so frighted the Mobile that they were ready to joyn with any party that pretended to suppress such a Monster as they thought it to be from hence came Rebellions and the horrid Murder of King Charles the first After which the Prelatic Party here in England were as much run down as the Catholic and underwent a common Banishment during which they entertained a fair Correspondence the Protestant finding by Experience that Catholics were Loyal Subjects conscientious Dealers and constant Friends This fair Correspondence abroad was the cause of a no less pleasing Union after the happy Restauration of King Charles the second King Charles the second during the beginning of whose Reign Catholics were not otherwise much molested by the Governing party but only kept out of Employments till Shaftsbury and his Adherents invented a malitious Calumny laying a pretended Plot to their charge by which they put the Nation into such a Flame that Papists were become the most odious People in the World and Popery the greatest Crime But the Truth of this Sham-Plot being detected by a subsequent real one the Innocent sufferings of Catholics raised Compassion in the more moderate Church of England Men and they seemed to be willing they who had suffered so unjustly should enjoy something a greater liberty but still the Laws enacted against them being in force there were persons enough ready to put them in Execution In this posture were Affairs King James the second when it pleased God to take to himself his late Majesty No sooner was his present Majesty Ascended upon the Throne but he declared himself a Catholic to the unspeakable joy of the Catholic Church and grief of others who did not stick to affirm that they saw nothing wanting in his Majesty fitting for a King but only as they thought a better Religion At his coming to the Crown his Majesty was pleased to declare that he looked upon the Church of England as proceeding upon Loyal Principles and that he would protect her this as it might well gained the hearts of that party who little expected such a gratious Declaration from one whom they had always looked upon as a Member of the Catholic Church whose Principles they had been taught were too cruel to make use of such Lenitives and this being again Repeated at the opening of the first Parliament had so much Power upon the minds of the Loyal party that notwithstanding the conclusion of a Sermon Preached before them Dr. Sherlocs Sermon May 29. 1685. in which it was declared that an English-man might be Loyal but not a Papist that Parliament testified it's Loyalty to such a Degree as will never be forgotten and would I am confident have proceeded in the same manner had not some factious Spirits animated the Pulpits Zeal and thrown fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were bigotted in their Religion Indeed this Sermon to the House of Commons was the occasion of our following Controversies §. 9. The rise of
that whether you will or not every Petition to a Prince or a Court of Justice is necessarily a Prayer and he that makes it Invocates or calls upon that Prince or Court for Favor or for Justice 2. Iid. Saints may be Honored I must also with the same Mr. Thorndike say that to dispute whether we are bound to Honor those whom we call properly Saints or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not For if God hath said I will Honor those who Honor me it becomes as certainly to Honor them too And that whether this Honor be Religious or Civil becomes disputable only for want of words vulgar use not having provided proper terms to signify all conceptions which come not from common sense 3. I suppose Mr. Saints pray for us Thorndike as in them spoke also the sense of his Church when he tels us and proves it from undeniable (a) Apoc. v. 8. viii 3. Gen. xxvi 5.24 Exod. xxxii 13. Deut. ix 27. 1 Kings xi 1.32 33 34. xv 4 2 Kings viii 19. xix 34. xx 6. Esd xxxvii 35. 1 Kings xviii 36. 1 Chron. xxix 28. Texts of Scripture and (b) St. Cyprian St. Jerome St. Augustin St. Leo St. Gregory and many more which he could bring passages of the Fathers Ibid. pag. 354. Ibid. pag. 355. Whether they be our Mediators Intercessors or Advocates is only a contention about words That it is not to be doubted that the Saints in Happiness pray for the Church Militant and that therefore whatsoever may be disputed whether Saints or Angels in this regard may be counted Mediators Intercessors or Advocates between God and us will be mere contentions about words which I intend to avoid if I can in all controversial Discourses So that the difference betwixt Catholics and moderate Protestants is not Whether Saints or Angels are to be Honored with an inferior Honor or whether they pray for us but Whether it be lawful for us to Pray to them not in that Sense as if we intended by that Prayer to do that to them which they do to God for us for that as the same Mr. Ibid. pag. 356. Thorndike well observes still really and actually as the same Author notes apprehending them to be creatures which prevents Idolatry could not be said without Idolatry but Whether it be lawfull for us to beseech or intreat them to pray for us And the question betwixt the Defender and us is We may desire them to pray for us Whether such kind of Addresses as these are of such a Nature as to make Gods as he calls them of Men and Women a very disrespectful Term for the Saints who reign with God whom we acknowledge to be our fellow-creatures however exalted to such a glorified State. Perhaps he will here tell me with the same Mr. Thorndike §. 9. That there may be three sorts of Prayers to Saints Three for is of Prayer to Saints accordidg to Mr. Therndike Ibid. The first of those that are made to God but to desire his blessings by and thro' the Merits and Interecession of the Saints The second of those Prayers which are reduced to an Or apronobis And the third when one desires immediately of the Saints the same Blessings Spiritual and Temperal Ibid. pa. 357. which all Christians require of God That as to the first he acknowledges it to be utterly agretable with Christianity Tho' he cannot go so far with Mr. Therâ—â—â—â— as to allow of the word Meris in those Prayers which he thinks makes the Merits of our Saints râ—â— Parallel with the Merits of Christ That the second had the Begâ—â—â—ing in the â— flourishing vines of the Church after Constantine * This is Mr. Thorndikes assertion who affirmas that the lights of the Greek and Letin Churches Bassi Nazlanzen Nyssene Ambrose Jerom Augustin Chrysostom both the Cyrlls Theodoret Fulgeutlus Gregory the Great Leo more or rather all after that time have all of them spoken to the Saints departed and desired their assistance Ibid. pag. 358. but that they were rather 〈…〉 and Rhetorical Flights then direct Prayers and that in them they begun to depart from the practice and Tradition of the three Ages before them But as to the third that he has sufficiently shewn in his Appendix to this third Article that the Church of Rome's Devotions to the Saints are such and that therefore she adores Men and Women To all which I will as briefly as I can give him positive Answers and examin his grounds because he taxes me with negligence in that Point And First §. 10. As to what he says that Monsieur Daillè himself had the same Notion he has of the Expressions of the Primitive Fathers of the Fourth Age viz. that they were rather Innocent wishes and Rhetorical flights than Prayers I do not doubt of it but I think the Rhetoric lies at his door who flies to such a poor shift It seems these were some of the Duriores loci more difficult passages which some only nibled as others could not disgest and he only shifts off under the notion of Rhetorical flights or novelties And therefore Monsieur de Meaux was not out as this Gentleman seems to Insinuate when he said Exposit Sect. 3. page 4. that Protestants in General obliged by the sirength of Truth begin to acknowledge the Custom of Praying to Saints and Honoring their Reliques was Established even in the Fourth Age of the Church Pretestants grant Praying to Saints to have been established in the fourth Age. or that M. Daillè grants as much For certainly his accusing the Fathers of that Age of altering in that Point the Doctrin of the three foregoing Ages and his mincing the Boldness of his Assertion by his Neque 〈◊〉 à vere longe aberr aturum puto and his ferè sunt bujus generis shews that he could not deny but that many of them could not pass for such Defence pa. 7. Howeves the Defender is of Monsieur Daillè's Religion in this §. 11. point and tells us that these Addresses were really of this lind â—nd proves it first from two Examples of St. Gregory Natianzen â—nd from the opinion of those Ages that the Saints departed were â—t admitted to the sight of God immediatly upon their Decease But his first Argument is altogether insufficient The Prayers of the Primitive Fathens to Saints were not Rhetorical slights only For a I say suppose for with leave of the Greek Scollast the patticle If dos not always denote â— doubt but rather takes it for granted So in this place if St. Gregory iustead of hear O Great Soul of Constintint if live last hear me had sald as this Author would have him hear O Grees Soul but I know not â—â—better thou dest or no the Rhetotlcal slight had been spoyled How much rather then may we supâ—e that the Sense of this Pather
purpose Defence pag. 44. seeing by his own Confession they who had the greatest measure of those Gifts could not exercise them when they would but only when the Spirit of God instructed them And lastly Seeing he assures us that they never attempted those miraculous Cures but when the same Spirit taught them that the sick person had Faith to be healed and that it would be to the Glory of God to do it I desire he would at his leisure let us know how it came to pass that the Primitive Christians exercised this Extream Unction if it tended only to miraculous Cures after Miracles were ceased For it is manifest that if they never did or if it were unlawful for them to use this anointing with Oyl for miraculous Cures but when the Spirit of God dictated to them that they should be healed this Extream Unction mentioned by St. James and generally practised for the first 800 Years most of which Time there was few such Miracles wrought cannot be that miraculous Unction of which he speaks When therefore St. James adds let them Pray over him anointing him in the Name of the Lord he speaks of an ordinary dispensation and gives us hopes of the effect I told him Miraculous Cures were wrought in the Lame and the Blind but the Apostle includes not them Here to shew his Learning he tels us that the Greek word may include them also But does the Apostle speak of such as are well and Heart-whole as we say the Lame and the Blind may be such as do not keep their Beds or does he not rather speak of Decumbents in Sickness in your own sense for they only can be raised up I added that the Power of Miracles was not tied to Unction only From whence it followed that if the Apostle had only spoken of miraculous Cures he would not have limited them to that Ceremony But the Defender thinks this was the ordinary Sign the most common and frequent amongst them and grounds his thoughts upon St. Mark 6.13 But the Evangelist only tels us there that the Apostles did anoint many sick people and cure them But seeing the same Holy Evangelist Ch. 16. v. 18. tells us that Christ promised that those who believed in him should lay their Hands upon sick people and heal them why may not this Imposition of Hands be looked upon as no less common and frequent nay more frequently used in those miraculous Cures than Unction because more ready and easy to be performed upon any occasion And if so had the Apostle intended only to invite persons not to neglect those miraculous Cures by our Authors Argument he should have mentioned that Imposition of Hands I told him further that all those that were anointed were not cured But this he says is false and dishonorable to the Spirit by which they acted How were all those that were anointed for the first 800 Years cured If not let him tell us when those miraculous Cures ceased and why the Spirit of God which he says taught them when they should anoint and when they should not did not also teach them to discontinue the Practice of it when the Church needed not Miracles to confirm her Doctrins and how it is that Protestants are become so learned at present as to reject it after above 1600 Years perpetual practice Moreover I said that all those who were cured by them that had the Gift of Healing had not an assurance by that cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins This again he says is false From which and the foregoing Assertion it would follow in our Defenders sense That no persons either died or were damned that had this Extream Unction given them till the Spirit of God left the Church and she fell into an Error using it with a primary respect to the Soul when God had instituted it only for miraculous Cures And therefore I had reason to tell him that if St. James's expression the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up had been meant of bodily Health those only would have died in the Apostles Time I might have added as long as the Church understood that passage in his sense which he thinks was for 800 Years who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony An argument which because he could not answer he was willing to throw Dust in his Readers Eyes by retorting of it and telling us that if it were to be understood of the Souls Health it would follow that none were damned either then or now but they who neglect this Advice or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Sacrament Of the Truth of which he desires my Opinion I answer him That it is a Truth never doubted of in the Church that all those who receive this Sacrament with due preparation and in that state which is required as necessary by the Curch and fall not into new mortal sins before their Deaths are saved And if he do but consider that the Church requires the person who rightly receives this Sacrament should be in the state of Grace it being one of those which only augments Grace but does not restore it when lost he will rest of this Opinion ART XIII Of Marriage THe Bishop of Meaux having told us §. 55. Maâ—th 19.5 that Jesus Christ has given a new Form to Marriage reducing this Holy Society to two persons immutably and indissolubly united Eph. 5.32 The Bishop of Meaux and the Defender agreed â—xpos Doct. Church of England pag. 45. that this inseparable Vnion is the Sign of his eternal Vnion with his Church and that therefore we have not any difficulty to comprehend how the Marriage of the Faithful is accompanied by the Holy Ghost and by Grace And the Defender having told us in his Exposition that for the Point of Marriage Monsieur de Meaux has said nothing but what they willingly allow of I was in hopes the Dispute would have been at an end because as I told him we require no more And to clear the Point further We demand no more I told him that tho' Catholics esteem Marriage to be a Sacrament truly and properly so called yet not in so strict a sense as he would bind the word Sacrament to that is it is not a Sacrament after the same manner as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are nor generally necessary to Salvation The Reasons he then brought why it was not strictly a Sacrament were first because as he said it wanted an outward Sign to which by Christs Promise a Blessing is annexed And secondly because the Church of Rome denying it to the Clergy did not esteem it generally necessary to Salvation As for his last Reason I say I acknowledged it was not a Sacrament in that strict manner but as for the first I told him it might easily be evinced by the whole Torrent of Fathers and plain Texts of Scripture as interpreted by
his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation
this Worship did as he says many things utterly inconsistent with it as Burning in some Churches what remained of the Holy Sacrament permitting the People to carry it home that had communicated sending it abroad by Sea and Land without any regard that we can find had to its Worship burying it with their Dead making Plaisters of the Bread mixing the Wine with their Ink which certainly says he are no instances of Adoration Before I begin to Answer this Objection §. 92. I must beg leave to shew our Belief in this matter and the Grounds we go upon First we believe It is lawful to Adore God and Christ wherever they are whoever acknowledges Jesus Christ to be God and Man may lawfully Adore him wherever he has a Rational ground to believe him to be present yet is he not at all times obliged to pay this actual Adoration because otherwise the Apostles must have done nothing else but Adore when ever they were in the presence of their Lord. Secondly the Grounds of our Belief that our Blessed Saviour is really Present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are undoubtedly Rational as I think I have sufficiently shewn and therefore all those who believe him Present may lawfully Adore him there We cannot always pay this actual adoration tho' they are not always Obliged actually to pay that Adoration otherwise they must do nothing in presence of the Sacrament but Adore Him. Thirdly It is worthy our Remark that the words Sacrament Host or Eucharist are sometimes taken for Christ alone sometimes for the Species alone VVe adore Christ in the Sacrament not what is sensible and sometimes for both Christ and the Species but when we speak properly of Adoring the Sacrament we speak only of Adoring Christ in the Sacrament For we do not adore what is Visible Tangible or any ways Sensible in the Sacrament but only Christ Jesus whom we believe to be under those Visible Tangible and Sensible Elements Lastly The Church being confirmed in this Belief has Authority as occasion serves to command the payment of this Adoration which is Due at all times and to set apart some solemn Festivals or Ceremonial Rites to invite her Children to perform this Duty These Considerations being premised I deny his Antecedent §. 93. and to his Proofs I answer To the first I say the Scriptures silence is no more an Argument against us in this I. The Scriptures silence no Argument against a perpetual practice than it is against the Adoration of our Lord when present in the flesh for tho' we find there a Command of going to Christ and following him yet will he scarce find an express place in the Gospels where Christ commands his Disciples to Adore him This Adoration depending wholly on his being God it was sufficient that he convinced them of his Divinity and we being thus convinced by his own words that he is present in the Sacrament we are obliged to adore him there And if St. Paul did not Argue as our Defender would have had him yet does he do it with no less force and Energy It was sufficient to tell them it was the Body and Blood of Christ that to receive it was an Annunciation of his Death that they who received it unworthily were guilty of the Body and Blood of their Lord that they cat and drunk their own Condemnation not Discerning the Lords Body That therefore there were many sick and weak amongst them and many died These as they were sufficient Arguments to perswade them not to profane the Sacrament so were they sufficient Arguments to convince them and us of the Obligation to Adore him Present in it tho' St. Paul did not put them in mind of that Necessary consequence To the Second §. c 4. II. The Church condemns arising Herefies by Her practice It has always been the custom of the Church to condemn Heresies by her Practice as well as her Anathema's commanding the Glory be to the Father c. to be said or sung after every Psalm in opposition to the Arian Error and the Feast of the Blessed Trinity to condemn the Antitrinitarians c. no wonder therefore if when this pernicious Heresy of the Sacramentarians begun Atque sic quidem operâ—uit victrâ—cem reâ— itatem de mendacio heresi triumphum agere ut ejus adversarts in conspectu tanti splendoris in tanta untversae Ecclesiae laetitia positi vel debilitati fracti tabescant vel pudore affecti confusi allquendo resipiscant Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. she testified her Adorations by new practices and solemnities Tho' therefore the Feast of Corpus Christi the Exposition the Elevation c. May not be very Antient yet was it no new thing to Adore Christ in the Sacrament And it was but necessary that when Heretics begun to offer Indignities to that Sacred Mystery the Church should injoyn new Prayses Honours and Adorations to her celestial Spouse to the end as the Council says that Truth might by this means triumph over Lyes and Heresy and that its Adversaries at the sight of so much splendor and amidst such an universal joy of the Church being weakned and disenabled might decay or through shame and confusion at last repent To the last I answer §. 95. III. Particular practices hurt not the Universal Doctrin That if some things were done to avoid inconveniencies or others out of a heat of Zeal which are not agreeable to our practices at present they were not generally received nay censured by the Church when once they grew more public or layd aside when the inconveniencies were removed But these practices did not shew a disbelief of the Real Presence tho' our Defender may perhaps shew that they tended to a disrespect upon which account it was that the Church abolished them If it was a custom for some time Hesych in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. in the Church of Jerusalem to burn what remained after Communion Was it not a shew of Reverence and Respect lest perhaps the Sacred Symbols might fall into the hands of those Burgr hist l. 4. c. 35. who would Profane them And the same may be said of the custom in the Church of Constantinople of giving the remaining particles of the immaculate Body of Jesus Christ our God as the Historian expresses it to young Children But this I hope was consistent with a belief of the real Prerence If also the Primitive Christians permitted the Faithful to carry it home with them or sent it by Sea or Land to the Sick or to them with whom they would testify their unity it was not I hope any sign of their disrespect but rather a testimony of their Veneration and a practice which did not derogate from their belief of its being the Body of their Lord. If a St. Benedict caused the Blessed Sacrament to be laid upon the breast of a dead Corps which the Grave
X. And Lastly I say Tho' it were possible according to Nature that all Mankind should at once be so forgetful of their Happiness as to combine to damn themselves and their Posterity by teaching what they had not been taught yet has Gods Promise of being always with his Church secured her from falling into such a damnable State and therefore we may securely rely upon her Testimony and particular persons or Churches are obliged to submit to her Sentence and not to contradict those Doctrins upon a suppolal as our Expositor does That they are so far from being the Doctrin of the Apostles Expos Dect Ch. of Engl. pag. 76. or of all Churches and in all Ages that they are periwaded they are many of them directly contrary to the written Word Having thus explicated the progress of Truth §. 105. and shewn what natural means God has established to secure us in the knowledge of it and how impossible it is for the whole Church in any Age to deviate from it The nature of Error with the rise and progress of it it will not be amiss in few words to shew also the rise and progress of Error and by what Arts it is usually propagated which-will be the ready way to detect it And in order to this we may reflect 1. I. All Error against Faith is of a later date then Faith. That an Error in Faith is Twofold either affirmative or negative A negative is a denyal of a Truth which had been revealed and propagated over the whole World An affirmative is an Affirmation of a falsehood for a revealed Truth when it had not been so revealed nor propagated from whence it necessarily follows That all Error against Faith is of a later date than Faith it self and being such can never tho' it pretend to it shew an uninterrupted Tradition from those to whom revealed Truths had been first committed 2. II. Truth is so amiable in it self that if Error did not endeavor to cloath it self in its Dress no persons would embrace it but it is impossible for Error so to counterfeit Truth but that there must be some Essential difference Error cannot imitate Truth in all things some characteristical note by which the one may be fully distinguished from the other 3. These Errors being as I said either the forsaking of a known Truth delivered to that Age by the foregoing or an introducing of a Novelty which had not been Delivered It manifestly follows that amongst all the pretences which Error can make for it self it can never at its first rise challenge to have been delivered by the immediate foregoing Age Error at its first rise can never pretend an uninterrupted Tradition but must take a leap to some forgotten time and pretend the immediate foregoing age to have been deceived and either through negligence to have forgotten what had been taught to their Predecessors or for want of Vigilance to have suffered Errors to creep into her by degrees till they spread over the face of the whole World. The letter of Scripture suffering various Interpretations IV. An uniterrupted Tradition is the distinguishing note betwixt Truth and Error it is plain that Error may pretend to Scripture the antient Fathers being likewise dead and not able to vindicate themselves their writings may be wrested and Error may make use of them to back it self Reason too being byassed by Interest Education Passion Society c. may be led away and form specious Arguments for what is false Fancy also may be led astray and as experience tells us may pretend new lights which like the ignis fatuus leads men into error Tradition only rests secure and Error can never plead for that without pretending some interruption Thus tho' the Arians Pretended Scripture the writings of the Fathers of the first Age Reason and it may be a fancied Light within them yet could they not pretend to an uninterrupted Tradition because that Age in which they first begun to teach withstood them and they themselves accused that and the foregoing Age of Error It is then the distinguishing note of Error V. Error always accuses the Church in the preceding age to cry out against Tradition or the Unwritten word and her plea is always as I said either the Foregetfulness of the preceding Ages or their want of Vigilance and thereupon she dares never stand to the Judgment of that present Age in which she Begins to appear but appeals forsooth to the purer times next the Apostles to the fountain head to the written Word to some dark expressions of the Fathers of the first Ages or the like VI. But the Constitution of the Church the Nature of the Doctrins of Christ and her Ceremonies condemn this Plea. as thinking her self secure because she can give some plausible reasons for her Tenets But if we examin her plea we shall find it groundless For if we consider the constitution of the Church of Christ and the nature of the Doctrine which she teaches we must necessarily Conclude that it is impossible for her either to be so Negligent as to forget the Essential Truths delivered to her or so Careless as to suffer destructive Errors to spread themselves insensibly The Constitution of the Church is such VII that there are Vigilant Pastors and Teachers set over the whole flock by Almighty God who are obliged to watch over their people let they should be led away into Error and have had the promise of the same Omnipotent God that he will be with them to the end of the World teaching them All Truth and by consequence securing them from Destructive Errors So. that tho' it were possible by the course of Natural causes that all the Pastors and Teachers in the World should in some one Age or other forget to teach a delivered Truth or be so negligent as to suffer an Error to creep in by degrees and spread it self from Country to Country or from Age to Age till some more vigilant persons should arise to reestablish Truth or detect falsehood Yet if we consider the promises of Almighty God and the Vigilance he has over his Church we may securely rely upon him that he will never suffer his Church to be thus prevailed against nor such an Universal Negligence or Lethargy to predominate in her Moreover even her Speculative Doctrins are so mixed with Practical Ceremonies which represent them to the Vulgar and instruct even the meanest capacities in the obstrusest Doctrins that it seems even impossible for any to make an alteration in her Doctrin without abrogating her Ceremonies or changing her constant practices And it must needs appear to any considering man even abstracting from the aforesaid promises of Almighty God that it is impossible that any Age should forget to practise what the preceding Age had taught them or cast off universally her received Ceremonies and neither Pastors nor people speak against such Innovations These
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
Heretical and Schismatical Assemblies and was not her self condemned or cut off by any sentence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church And tho' perhaps the number of those particular Heretical or Schismatical Assemblies one condemned in one Age and another in another some few of all which might perhaps survive even till our time might be considerable if taken altogether tho' inconsiderable in themselves yet being every one of them lawfully cut off by that Orthodox Church they can never stand in competition with her nor challenge a place in her Councils neither is she obliged to call in their help to Condemn any other New Heresy arising after them And if that New Heresy should pretend she was obliged such pretentions would be unreasonable This is the case with the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches now extant in the world §. 113. The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome having condemned the Arians in the first General Council of Nice the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was never condemned by any General Council needed not to call them in to help her to condemn Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the three following Councils The same Catholic Church that thus condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the four first General Councils condemned the followers of Origen in the 5th the Monothelites in the 6th the Iconoclasts in the 7th And the Schismatic Photius and his adherents in the 8th And as this Catholic Church needed not the assistance of those Heretics who were condemned in the first four General Councils to help her to condemn those that were extant when she called the 5th so did she not need the aid of them or of those that were condemned by the 5th or 6th to help her to condemn the Iconoclasts or Photius in the 7th or 8th And thus we can shew in following ages as Errors did arise still new Councils Called as the first second third See Binins Tom. 7. part 2. pag. 806. F. and fourth of Lateran in which last the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was defined against Berengarius and his followers the Albigenses by 400. Bishops and 800. Fathers After these the first and second of Lyons the later of which condemned the Errors which the Eastern Churches had fallen into by the delusion of Photius the condemned Schismatic Ibi compartunt Paleologus Impa Constaniinopoliâ—â—nas cuns magno comits u qui tertia decima vice in sententiam Romane Ecclesiae Graecos suos toties deficientes Conetilio necessario pertraxit Bin. Tom 7 â—onc pag. 891. c. and in which as Binius notes from Trithemius the Grecians returned the thirteenth time to the Roman Catholic Faith. Then followed that of Vienna in France against the Beguardes and the Beguines After which the Council of Florence Anno 1438. In which the Greeks and the Latins consented to these Points The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the belief of a Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome tho' through the negligence of the Emperor John Palaeologus occasioned by his too much sollicitude for wordly concerns and the calumnies of Mark the Metropolitan of Ephesus this Council had not its wished effect After this the 5th Council of Lateran Anno 1512. for the reestablishing the Unity of the Church and the condemnation of the Schism begun by the unlawful assembly at Pisa And lastly the Council of Trent Anno 1545. Against Luther Calvin and all the Modern Heresies Ths to be silent concerning the vast number of Provincial Councils we can shew eighteeen Oecumenical Councils All the General Councils that condemned Errors Communicated with the Church of Rome Generally received as such by all but those whose Errors were either condemned in them or some foregoing Councils The Members of all which Councils were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and none dissented from that Communion but such as had been thus condemned neither can Protestants ever shew that even the particular Church of Rome or any other in Communion with her were ever thus cut off by any General Council or the Doctrins that she holds condemned It is only she therefore and those Churches in Communion with her all which we call the Roman Catholic Church that can challenge the title of Orthodox that is of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic This Truth being thus established and it having been plainly shewed what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church I pass over his second and third Exception because as I have already said they are built upon a False notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken only for the Diocese of Rome or a particular Church and come to his 4th §. 114. the Defenders fourth Exception Exception which is as I said more intolerable than the rest and which since he goes about to justify it as a Doctrin of his Church for he has promised to give us no other he would have done well to have shewed us some Canon Article or Constitution for it without which others of his Brethren will I fear come off with this Excuse that he is a young man and does not well know the Tenets of his Church He tells us that it is left to every Individual person not only to examin the Decisions of the whole Church but to Glory in Opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his Own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word This I told him was a Doctrin that if admitted Maintains all Dissenters would maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are persons in the world Desence pag. 80. which consequences he confessEs to be ill but such as he thinks do not directly follow from this Doctrin as laid down in his Exposition But what if they follow indirectly or by an evident tho' secondary deduction would not that suffice to discountenance such a Doctrin as opens a gap to such licentiousness in Belief when Faith is but One and without which it is impossible to please God But let us see how he maintains it does not directly follow from what he has laid down in his Exposition First he tells us that he allows of this Dissent or Opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith where he supposes it to be every mans concern and Duty both to judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a judgment as he is able And secondly He tells us that as he takes the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to the made so be supposes these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial enquirer should he found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion From these two wild Suppositions without any proof of them
us the Church has in matters of Faith and when and whom it binds Object But perhaps it may be here asked What if the Church should Define there is no God no Jesus Christ no Heaven no Hell and I be fully convinced in my own judgment by reading Scripture that there is a God a Jesus Christ a heaven and a Hell would you have me quit the sense of Scripture in these plain Points in which I have evident conviction and follow that of the Church Before I answer I must needs say that I think this Question tho' it be the ground-work of our Defenders foregoing Position and without the supposal of which he can never pretend it to be reasonable yet will perhaps be derided by him when proposed in such plain terms For no man certainly can ever think that the whole Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell are never to prevail can fall into such a Total Defection as to Apostatize and oppose such places of Scripture as are plain to every understanding Moreover The Defender knows very well that the differences betwixt us and them lyes rather on the contrary side and that if the Scripture be plain for either side it is for * See several Books published upon this account as the Anchor of Christian Dodrin the 2d part of the Prudential Ballance Catholic Scripturist c. ours He knows how they have been often invited to shew one positive Text of Scripture against any one of our Tenets without their false glosses to it which make it no Scripture He knows or at least may be easily informed that we have shewn them positive Texts according to the Primitive Fathers interpretations both for our Articles and against their Innovations and the late Request to Protestants to produce plain Texts of Scripture in about 16 of their Tenets and the shufling answer to it are a sufficient Argument that it is unreasonable for them to pretend to it Answer My answer is therefore that the Defender and they who with him suppose the Church can ordain things directly opposite in necessaries either to Faith or Manners even in things clear to every understanding do not consider the notion of a Church nor the Promises that God has given to secure it from such Damnable Errors as must destroy its Essonce So that establishing a False notion without proving it for their ground no wonder if many Absurdities arise from it From which it will appear that a Libertines argument for his Debauches drawn from a supposition that there is no God no Heaven no Hell nor other Life is as conclusive as theirs who suppose the whole Church can or ever shall propose a truth to be believed or an action to be practised which is contrary to the express words of Scripture in places plain to every understanding or contradict Divinely delivered Truths However the Defender tells us that they allow a deference and that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council Expos Ch Engl. p. 81. the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General And that whensoever such an one which he says they much desire shall be freely and lawfully assembled to determin the Differences of the Catholic Church none shall be more ready both to assist in it and submit to it §. 126. The Council of Trent vindicated Upon this account I desired him to consider whether the Council of Trent had not the qualifications of a General and free Council and whether the Four first General Councils were not liable to the same exceptions as were made against the Council of Trent This he calls a new question hookt in and gives an old thread-bare answer to it as if we never had before confuted it 1. His first Exception that it was not General answered He says it was not so General because it was not called by so Great and Just an Authority as those were that is those were called by the Authority of the Emperors and this by the Authority of the Pope But what is there no Authority given to the Church to call her Pastors together in cases of necessity but that it must be the Temporal Power must do it If so then our Defender must condemn the first Council of the Apostles Act. 15. and all the other Councils held till Constantin the first Christian Emperors time But if he dare not do this but answer that the Church had the Priviledge at that time whilst the secular Power was Heathen I ask him how she came to lose it afterwards Did Princes by submitting themselves unto the Church rob their Mother of her just Authority T is true they assisted by interposing their Commands also and so strengthned the obligation of Assembling themselves But will any one say that such an accumalative power in assisting the Church was a depriving her of that Authority Moreover if he cannot deny but the Church had that Authority when the Secular Powers were heathens and enemies to Christianity I hope he will not deny her the same when some part of those Powers are Enemies to the Orthodox Faith for the Church is liable to the same dammages from an Heretical Prince as from an Unbelieving Again the whole practice of the Church is against what our Defender says It is well known Doctor Field of the Church pag. 697. apud Censid on the Council of Trent c. 3. §. 49. and consented to by Protestant Authors that the calling of a Diocesan Synod belongs to the Bishop that of a Provincial to the Metropolitan of a National to the Primate and of a Patriarchal to the Patriarch and why not that of a General to the Prime Patriarch unless he will say that God has taken care to provide for the unity of so many different Patriarchats and established a means to compose the differences that may arise in them but has not taken care of the whole Church Furthermore §. 127. The first 4 General Councils were called by the Pope our Defender is out in pretending that the four first General Councils were called by the Emperors For as to the First if we may believe the 6th Synod Act. 18. and Pope Damasue in Pontific it was called by the consent of Pope Sylvester 't is true Constantine having received Pope Sylvester's order promulgated the convocatory Letters and was at the expences of conducting the Bishops to the Council As to the Second General Council that of Constantinople Concurrer imus Coâ—st intinopolim ad vestre Reverentiâ— lâ—eras missa Ibeodosio suâ—â—ma pietate Inperatori Theodor. Hist lib. 5. c. 9. pag 403. B. Syâ—odum Epâ—esinam â—actam esse Cyrtssi industria Celestini authoritate Prolper in Chronico the Bishops there assembled in their Letters to Pope Damasus and to the Council then met with him at Rome tell him that they had met and assembled themselves at Constantinople according to the Letters he had sent to Theodosius the Emperor
As to the Third that of Ephesus S. Prosper tells us it was assembled by the Authority of Pope Celestine and the Industry of Cyril whom he appointed to preside in his place and with his authority And concerning the Fourth that of Chalcedon not to mention the Emperor and his Sister Pulcheria's letter to Pope Leo in order to the calling of it His Legates in the very first Act accused (a) Judicii sui necesse est cum dare rationem quia cum nec personam judicandi haberet subvepsit Synodum ousns est steere sine auihoritate Sedis Apostolicae quod nunquam rite factum est nec fieri lionit Summa Conc. Tem. 1. pag. 246. b. A. Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria for calling a Synod without the Authority of the Apostolic See which they say never was rightly done nor was lawful to be done which accusation they would certainly never have brought nor would the Council have admitted of it had they themselves been guilty of the same or if it had not been at that time a constant and known practice that his consent and approbation was necessary according to the Antient Canon and Custom (b) Aug. Epist 91. Athan. Apol. 2. p. 575.1.1 Apud Cons Conc. Yâ—ent §. 45. Secrat l. 2. c. 13. p. 247 C. Soz. l. 3. c. 7. p. 466. F. Nothing is to be determined without the Bishop of Rome Lastly to remove the least scruple in this point it is manifest the Council of Trent was called by the Pope as the Learned Author of the (c) §. 80 c. Considerations of the Council observes after having first had the consent nay after much sollicitation and importunity as (d) Lib. 6. pag. 551. apud Consid Conc. Trid. §. 81. Soave says of the Emperor and all other Christian Princes excepting those that were Protestants and Henry the 8th who being the much less number were either to be concluded by the contrary vote of the rest or else there can never be any General Council hereafter it being evident that seeing Christianity is now divided into so many Sovereign and Independent States and no Heresy can ever need the remedy of a General Council but such as has got the Patronage of some Christian Prince if every such Prince be allowed a negative voice against the rest there will never want some or other whose Extravagances in Religion will make him averse from such Assemblies which he cannot but foresee will Condemn and out-vote his party Soave p. 8.12 Nay moreover it was called by him after the Protestant Princes had declared a great necessity of it and Luther and his Party had appealed to it The Second Exception which the Defender makes against this Council is §. 128. His Second Exception that it was not free answered that it was not free because those who had most to say in the Defence of the Truth durst not appear at Trent being sufficiently forewarned by what others had lately suffered in a like oase at Constance How often has our Author been shewn that this pretence is nul And the Council of Sonstance that of Trent and the whole Catholic Church vindicated from that odious imputation of believing that Faith and Plighted promises were not to be kept with Hereticks Had the Defender perused our Moral Divines as well as Controvertists he would have found it to be a Catholic Doctrin That Faith is as much to be kept to Heretics Insidels Heathens Enemies nay even Subjects in Rebellion Princes having at such times parted with their own Rights as to Catholics themselves in all respects and that no exceptions are made but such as judicious Protestants grant ought to be made even betwixt themselves as where the Faith given was not absolute but conditional and that condition was not performed or if the matter of the Faith Oath or Promise was a thing unlawful to be done either by some Divine or Human Law if in respect of that Human Law it were a Faith given by inferiors and subjects to such Laws How often has he also been shewn §. 128. The Story of John Husse that it is more than Probable that Husse's safe Conduct from the Emperor was either conditional which Conditions were not kept he flying from the Council without leave or at most no other than what was granted by that Council afterwards to Hierom of Prague and upon which he also thought fit to venture himself that is that he should have a safe conduct from violence Justitiâ semper salvâ but not from Justice Seeing neither he nor his adherents who at that time writ the relation of his Death ever claimed the privilege of such a safe Conduct or accused any of the Breach of it How often has it been made manifest haec Sâ—ncta Syne dus Johan Husse attente quod Ecclesia Dei non habecat ultra quid gerere valeat judicio saeculari relinquere ipsum Curiae saeculari relinquendum fore decernit Sess 15. that if any fault was here committed it was by the Secular Power and not the Ecclesiastical for the Church proceeds not to the Sentence of Death but after her having convicted them of Heresy or Schism turns them over as she did Husse to the Secular Power so that if the Secular Power had given him a safe Conduct not only from violence but from the Execution of Justice that Secular Power was to blame to break it but the Church was not concerned in it nor the Council whose safe Conduct he never did demand Neither let the Defender here produce the Councils Decree in the 19 sess to prove that that Council held it lawful to break Faith with Heretics and dispensed with the Emperor in his Duty for that Decree was made after the Execution of Husse and it only pretends that the Emperor by his safe Conduct cannot prejudice the authority of another So that the Ecclesiastical Judge having always an Authority to examin Heretics and proceed against them with the Spiritual Sword The Temporal Authority cannot by giving a safe Conduct deprive her of that Jurisdiction How often has it been shewn that the Delegates of Bohemia who were Hussites about 16 Years after repaired to the Council of Basil upon the fecurity of the Council and the Emperor Sigismond's safe Conduct which they would never have done had they not been convinced that the terms of John Husse and Hierom of Prague's safe Conducts were too narrow to shield them from the execution of Justice tho' it might Secure them from any injury Lastly is it not plain that the Council of Trent gave them a safe Conduct with a non-obstante to the Decree of the Council of Constance and yet notwithstanding all these plain Testimonies have been produced over and over again the Defender moves not one jot from the first Accusation but infinuates it as if it were a known and approved Truth His Third and last Exception is §. 129. His Third Exception against
the number of Italian Bishops answered Chap. 10. §. 167. that those who being present did set themselves to oppose Error and Corruption were perpetually run down and out voted by shoals of new made Bishops sent out of Italy for that purpose This has been answered beyond reply by the Author of the Considerations on the Council of Trent who has not only shewn how naturally it must have followed that more Italian Bishops would be there than of any other Country by reason of the nearness of the place and their not being impeded by National colloquies c. as the Germans were That their presence there cannot be blamed they having all of them Lawful Votes tho' the absence of others might be excused that as the Pope was diligent to send in these so was he earnest to procure a fuller Representative from other Nations and the Council had proceeded to lay heavy Mulcts upon the absent had not the Ambassadors interceded Sâ—ave pig 504.558 559. But he has also shewn from Soave his History That the Italian Bishops were much more addicted to their own Princes in things wherein their Ambassadors craved their assistance than to the Pope and that the Venetian and Florentine Bishops were upon such occasions divided from those of the Papacy That nothing could be passed in the Council if a considerable part contradicted tho' a major part favored it and certainly the Representatives of all other Nations were always esteemed a considerable part so that if the Italians might hinder any thing from being carried by Vote yet could they never of themselves obtain it to be carried That the Pope needed not any such contrivance for the Protestant Controversies in condemning of which Soave confesses the Votes of the whole Council concurred and that * Pag. 282 183. See the unanimous consent of the council as to these following points in Sâ—ave Original sin pig 175.184 Justification p. 223. Confession p. 348. Transubstantiation and Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist p. 324.326 Mass and a Propitiatory Sacrifice p. 544.554.738 Lawfulness and Sufficiency of Communicating under one kind p. 324.325.519 Purgatory Invocation of Saints and Veneration of Images p. 799.803 as to those points like a City Beleagred the Factions among Them ceased and all joyned against the common Enemy And lastly that where the Popes single interest was more nearly concerned he had no such assistance of the greatest part of the Italian Bishops nor the major part of the Council at his command § 168. If then these points being cleared we consider the Exceptions which Arius and his followers with the Socinians at this day make against the Council of Nice and the other condemned parties against the other Three Councils I think I had just reason to ask him whether the Council of Trent was not as General and Free a Council as any of the Four And if such I desire him to remember his promise to allow a much greater deference to it than to a National Church or Council If our Defender think it convenient to go on with his calumnies against this Council I would desire him first to peruse the Considerations of the Council of Trent and not to argue as if nothing had been ever said in defence of it §. 130. The Authority of the Holy See from antient Fathers Exposit Doct. Ch. Engl. pag. 81. As to the Authority of the Holy See he told us he was content to yield him the Bishop of Rome whatsoever Authority the antient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the Holy Fathers have always taught the Faithful to give him If he be serious in this I hope he will not refule to say with St. Irenaeus that (a) Ad bancenim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam S. Iren. lib. 3. advers haer c. 3. it is necessary that every Church should have recourse to that of Rome by reason of its more powerful Principality And will with the same antient Father allow him a Power to (b) Euseb l. 5. Hist c. 23. p. 69. Excommunicate even the Eastern Bishops and much more those sure under the Western Patriarchate With * De Monogamia c. 8. p. 529. Edit Rigaâ—t â—Paris 1664. Tertullian (c) Epist 55. p. 91 Epist 71. ad Quintum Fra trem p. 140. Edit Paris 1648. St. Cyprian (d) Ad ps 131. St. Hilary and generally with all the antient Fathers before the Council of Nice that the Church was built upon St. Peter tho' some of those who lived after the rise of the Arian Heresy added also the Confession of St. Peter that Christ was the Son of the living God as a Fundamental Truth upon which the Church was built With (e) Et tamen Primatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus Amb. Tom. 5. in crp. 12. Epist 2. ad Corinth St. Ambrose that St. Peter had the Primacy given him tho' St. Andrew was first called And that the (f) Scribo tibiut scias quemodo Ecclesiam ordines quae est domus Dei ut cum totus mundus Dei sit Eclesia tamen demâ—â—s ejus dicatur cujus hodie Redor est Damasus Tom. 5. in cap. 3. Epist 1. ad Tim. Pope is the Governor of the House of God the Church the Pillar and ground of Truth With (g) At dich super Petrum Pundatur â—eâ—â—â—sia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos siat cunlli claves regni Coelorum accipiant ex aequo super cos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus elagitur ut capite constitute Schismatis tollatur occasio Tom. 2. lib. 1. contra Jovinian c. 14. St. Jerome that even amongst the Apostles a Head was chosen that an occasion of Schism might be taken away (h) Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatnudini tuae i. e. Cathedrae Peâ—ri communione consocior Super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Quicunque extra hane domum agnum comederit profanus est Si quis in Arca Noe non fuerit peribit regnante diluvio Quicunque â—ecum non colligit spar git Quam brem obtestor Beatitudinem â—uam per Crucifixum per mundi saluâ—em per Homousion Trinitatem at mihi Epistolis tuis five tacendarum sive dicendarum Hypostaseon detur Authoritos Hier. Epist 57. ad Damasum Papam That he following no other Leader but Christ is in Communion with his Holyness that is with the Chair of St. Peter Upon that Rock he knows the Church is built Whosoever Eats the Lamb out of this House is profane Whoever is not in the Ark of Noah shall perish in the Flood That whoever does not gather with him the Bishop of Rome scatters And therefore I hope as he did so will our Defender if he think good to stand to his promise conjure his Holyness by our Crucified Lord c. to give him Authority
great deal more reason than you have done of Popery and have shewn you the many Alterations that have been made during this last Age even in your Rubrics Liturgies Doctrins Disciplin and form of Ordination without descending to that varlety of Contradictions which are found even among your Approved Authors But because this Answer has swelled above the bounds I intended I shall let that alone to another hand or till some other opportunity be offered And here I might take my leave of you but that a tender concern for the salvation of your Soul and for all those others who are misled by you calls upon me to admonish you of your Duty §. 133. The Defender's obligation to make Satisfaction to the Church Non tollitur peccatum nisi restituatur oblatam Sir You know when an injury is done to any particular person and either their Goods or Good-name are taken from them a restitution must be made and that under pain of eternal Damnation for St. Augustin's rule is without exception unless in cases of an impossibility that the sin is not remitted unless the injury be repaired by restitution But when the Calumny passes from particulars to whole Communities as the Crime becomes much greater so does the Obligation of making Satisfaction become more Cogent And seeing no Community is so Holy as that of Christs Immaculate Spouse his Church those Calumnies that are forged against her must be expiated by a more than ordinary Satisfaction And where her same has been struck at in Public nothing but a Public Recantation can make Attonement I must therefore here Sir call upon you once more and mind you of your Necessary Duty that is of making a Public acknowledgment of those Calumnies you have thrown upon the Church and the misrepresentations unsincerities and Falsifications you have made use of to back those Accusations This I tell you is a necessary Duty and without which you cannot expect your Sin can be Forgiven you and therefore I must in almost your own words intreat you by the hopes of Eternity to consider how dangerous this way you have taken is and what a sad purchace it will be if to gain some reputation or Temporal Interest in this world you do or omit that which will unavoidably lose your own Soul. You ask me whether you have Calumniated us or misrepresented our Doctrins and where are the Vnsincere dealings Falsifications Authors miscited or misapplied Sir I know these are harsh words and I wish for your reputation sake I could smother the Crimes but alas they are too obvious to be concealed and in Every Article almost you are guilty of them This I have sufficiently Demonstrated and if Sense and Reason can be Judge in any thing even in their proper objects I appeal to that which is common in every man for the truth of what I say I will not again return to Particulars lest I should seem to take too much Satisfaction in having my Adversary at an advantage No! I should have been contented to have let these or any other Injuries pass had they only affected me but where the Church which must be Holy is struck at and such Arts used to blacken her should I hold my Peace my silence would be a Guilt It is not of an Error or two of the Press nor yet of the omission of some words which were not pertinent nor material that I here complain I speak of words left out which prevaricate the plain sense I speak of misconstructions and misapplications contrary to the intent of the Authors and this not only to shew a pretended difference amongst our selves but to back most horrid calumnies which you have uttered against that Church which is without spot or blemish and this in the very entrance into your Exposition There is certainly Sir no Crime so black as that of Idolatry Expos Doct. Ch. of Engl. p. 3. 14. to accuse therefore a Church of committing it by adoring men and women Crosses and Images and that in the utmost propriety of the Phrase the proofs ought certainly to be clear and demonstrative but when we find nothing but wresting of places and words and mutilations of Sentences to make them speak what you please I think the most moderate term we can give such accusations is to say they are Calumnies The Truth of what I say has been abundantly shewn in the foregoing Articles and I admire after such accusations Defence p. 84 85. that you can talk so confidently of a peaceable Exposition kindly and charitably performed and which you were willing to hope might be received with civility Is this the way to heal our Breaches to bring that Peace and Vnity which you say you so much long for You tell us indeed that our Errors are many of them disavowed by us and is not that enough Ibid. p. 103. Why so much pains then to prove us guilty of them Why is there not an union at least in those points Why must we be still called Idolaters c We know our selves Innocent and we assert it we know the Church was always so and we prove it but yet the most solemn assertions and the clearest proofs must pass for nothing amongst those who pretend to Civility Peace and Charity I conjure you therefore Sir by all that is Sacred by the common name of Christian by that Unity that ought to be in the Church of Christ as well as by its Sanctity by the Eternal God and his Son Christ Jesus that as you tender the Salvation of your own Soul and those of so many others as have been induced by you to an imitation of those Calumnies that you retract the false witness you have born against your Neighbors and hinder not that union which might otherwise be hoped for in the Church of Christ by hindring those who have gone astray from returning to the Arms of their Innocent Mother I know the pride of our nature is apt to hinder persons from retracting what they have once advanced but certainly they who consider that Eternity is at stake and that an injustice which will render us miserable for that Eternity cannot be expiated without making satisfaction will not find it so difficult to acknowledge their mistake tho' wilful rather than run into inevitable damnation And pray God give you this serious thought and resolution And when you are serious Sir and resolved to do your duty pray consider also First the obligation you have brought upon your selves by such accusations Consider Secondly the danger you have thrown your selves and your adherents into by your separation and Lastly consider the many advantages you are deprived of by being separated from our Communion If you accuse us Catholics of Idolatry and of those other Errors and Crimes you mention I. §. 134. The obligation the Defender has laid upon himself by accusing the Catholic Church of Idolatry I see not how you can pretend us to be members of the
Esprit qu'il a tort quand il dit si souvent dans l'Escriture que les Saincts ont fait ce que Dieu à fait par eux a leurs prieres Si ces facons de parler se trouvent dans l'Escriture pourquoy ne voudroit-t-on pas qu'elles se trouvent aussi dans les prieres de l'Eglise Mais peut-t-on s'expliquer plus clairement que fait l'Eglise sur ce sujet Puisque pour une fois quil se trouvera encors dans les Hymnes les ouvrages de Poësies que les Saincts sont prié de faire d'accorder quelque chose il se trouvera Cent fois tres biens expliqué qu'ils le font par leurs intercessions par leurs prieres Et si la chose n'estoit pas encors expliquées par les pricres de l'Eglise pouvoit il rester aucun doute apres les explications que jay raportées du Catechisme du Concile apres les decisions du Concile mesme Car je vous prie pensons un peu entre nous ce qu'il enseigne dans la Session 25. Ne pose-t-il pas pour fondement de l'invocation qu'on leur addresse qu'ils offrent des prieres pour nous Par consequent le dessein est d'enseigner que leur puissance est dans leurs prieres Et on nous demande apres cela des nouvelles explications comme si le Concil de Trent ne s'estoit pas assez expliqué sur une matiere d'aillieurs tres claire En Verité Mon Reverend Pere cela aslige un Coeur Chrestien de voir que le sens de l'Eglise estant si bien esclaircy dans ses decisions on continüe encors a nous chicaner sur des Mots Je ne vous parleray point de l'affair de Monsieur de Witte Pasteur de St. Marie de Maline je ne vois rien la dedans qui me regarde en particulier non plus que dans les lettres du Clergé sur le sujet de quelques Brefs du Pape On ne pretend jamais offenser sa Saincteté ni diminuer le moins du monde l'Authorité de son Siege en disant qu'il en peut emaner des choses ou l'on pretend que la regle nest pas toujours observée au contraire de tels Exemples deuroient fair voir aux Protestans comment une Eglise peut respecteusement soustenir ce quelle croit estre de ses droits sans rompre l'unité sans blesser la subordination Excusez Mon Reverend Pere si je vous fais si tard cette reponse d'autres occupations qui ne m'en ont pas laissé le loisir me serviront d'excuse s'il vous plaist Je finis en loüant vôtre Zele qui ne vous permet de vous relascher dans le desir qui vous presse de Sauver vos freres Je suis avec un Estime particuliere Mon Reverend Pere Vôstre tres humble tres Affectionè Serviteur ✚ J. Benigne de Meaux A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter to the Vindicator ✚ From Meaux May the 13th 1687. New Style Reverend Father THE new Objections you send me upon the Subject of my Exposition are so slight and inconsiderable that if I were not assured by a Person of your Merit they are thought of some weight by the English Protestants I should think my time lost to reply to them For after all this bustle what matters it whether this Book were reduced to what it is by the Censure of the Sorbon as they would have it thought or by my own proper reflections Which soever it was it is sufficient that the Sorbon has nothing now to say against it neither do's any Catholic contradict it on the contrary the whole Clergy of France and a multitude of Doctors of all other Nations as also of Cardinals famous for their Learning and Piety nay even the Pope himself approves it What needs any one who searcheth after Truth concern himself to inquire by what means I came to Write approved Doctrin seeing 't is certain they cannot deny mine to be so throughout the whole Church nor that I am in the Profession of this Doctrin Vniversally acknowledged to be an Orthodox Bishop in Communion with the Holy See and all other Catholic Bishops They who notwithstanding all this say he cannot be a Catholic who retains the Faith which I so loudly and so publickly profess take pains to blind themselves and will not see the light at Noon-day If after this I persist to say as I do that my Book was never submitted to the Censure of the Sorbon and that being supported by a greater Authority than That I never Dream't of asking it's Approbation It will plainly appear that it is not the Advantage of my Book but the Testimony of Truth that makes me say so I continue still to say there was never any Edition of my Book own'd and avowed by me but that which is now every where spread abroad and Translated into so many Languages But if some Body has been pleased to tack the Kings Approbation and Privilege with the Name of Cramoisy to some other Edition it is but a weak Argument to give the lie to what I say But what if I had made some Additions to a Printed Impression before it was made public what if I had corrected in it what I thought fit or if they please altogether changed it What consequence can they draw from thence against me upon account of those Alterations Let us put the case also if they please that some Body should have been so vainly curious as to take the trouble to find out this Impression before I had thus corrected it who has ever undertaken to quarrel with an Author for such trifles Is it not plain that such Men as take so much pains to publish such foolish things seek not the Truth but to juggle and perplex the World with Tricks After all Reverend Father if they still continue to talk of these Observations which do not deserve so much as to be reflected on and that you Judge it profitable for the Conviction of Opiniators to have an Attestation of the Sorbon to make it appear that their Approbation was not so much as demanded to my Book or that it was not at all submitted to their censure you may answer with assurance that they will send it in the most Authentic Form that contentious Spirits can desire This to the first Objection As to the Second I do readily acknowledge that the Edition of my Book which I published differs in some things from my Manuscript of which as I told you in my last many Copies had been scattered about for you must always remember that it was at first made for the instruction of some particulars and not to be Printed And for the same Reason I do not doubt but they may find in the Edition which I did not approve some things not