his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation
Christiantiy But that if these or any of them should meet in a National Church the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church How Extravagant such a Doctrin as this is I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider And return to the Defenders Argument He tells us §. 111. that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic unless we can prove either first there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her or secondly that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united tho' professing known and condemned Heresies as wel as an Orthodox Church maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ or were called Christians or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ nor any Error in their Worship but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Savlation which is manifestly false or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic Church But this we cannot do unless we will open a Gate for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her And tell the world plainly that the Arians or any other Heresy may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians tho' Orthodox in their belief And if this be his meaning it follows that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church so long as they turn not Apostats and deny their Christianity All which is absurd in an eminent degree But if he mean only this that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic we must shew there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did we will joyn Issue with him and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any unbyassed judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome And that all other Churches in the world that were Orthodox professed just the same Faith as to all the Essential Points of it and practised the very same Essential Worship which shew now does That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced will appear to any man who considers that when we speak of the Catholic Church we speak of that Church which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ joyned with that Vniversality viz. Vnity without Schisms and Divisions Sanctity without Errors Heresies or damnable Doctrins and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrins in matters of Faith or Manners or those who like Corah and his companions set up an Altar against an Altar and chalenge to themselves a Function like that of Aarons without being lawfully called thereto To prove therefore this Truth §. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the the true Catholic Church proved that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is this true Catholic Church I must desire my Reader to consider 1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel he told them that they who did not believe should be condemned but they who did believe and were baptised should be saved 2. That these Believers were called Christians that is Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world to continue till the end of the same to preserve the Doctrins delivered to her to be one and therefore free from Schisms Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrins All which we express in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions which as they are destructive of Vnity and Sanctity the marks of his true Church so are they also impediments to Salvation and therefore must be avoided and seeing this Church must be free from them she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics from the Orthodox Christians and cut them off from being Members of her Communion 3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors or refused to pay a due Obedience and therefore if during their Separation other Heresies or Schisms should bud out the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third a fourth or a fifth But as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third and in a word all other succeeding Assemblies who either thus opposed the Truths delivered to her or refused to pay her a due obedience 4. These things thus considered it necessarily follows that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned her self condemned proud Schismatics and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and
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
Hell should not prevail Others shewed it from the nature of Truth and Error and the impossibility that an Universal Tradition could fail especially when God had promised Isa 59.20 21. that the words he would put into their Mouths should not depart out of their Mouths nor out of the Mouth of their Seed nor out of the Mouth of their Seeds Seed from henceforth and for ever Others again as the Protestant Apology And shew the truth of our Doctrins from Protestants own Concessions proved the innocence and Antiquity of our Doctrin from the Testimony of Learned Protestants themselves of whom one held one Article and another another from whence they hoped at least to make our Doctrins be looked upon as less offensive But Protestants finding it a very difficult task to elude such strong Reasons as have and might be brought for the necessary and unerrable Authority of the Church §. 5. But Protestants fly to particular disputes and in them to the particular Tenets of Schoolmen still as if they were uneasie by all means endeavored to shuffle off such Arguments as would make short work of the business and flew out at every loop-hole to particular Disputes and the private Opinions of the Schools where they knew they could enlarge and talk so long that Years might pass before they could be silenced during which time they hoped the Readers as well as Writers would be tired and by that means they might get their ends And whereas Catholics all along desired them to inform themselves first what the Church held to be of necessary Faith before they entred into Dispute or Writ against us and thereupon to take their Doctrins from the Councils and Universally received Practices And at the last to down-right railing and not from Private Doctors or actions of particulars it was impossible to obtain of them to do it with calmeness but when ever any Argument pinched they fell to railing and began to blacken our Faith to misrepresent our Doctrins Caluminate our Practices and Ridicule our Ceremonies And as the World go's now he that could Rail the most being looked upon as having the better end of the Staff and Calumnies sinking deeper into the Memories of the Vulgar than solid Reasons Catholics grew by degrees to be looked upon as bad as Devils and their Doctrins as the Dictates of Hell it self Hence it was §. 6. Therefore a plain Exposition of our Doctrin was thought necessary that others again thought it necessary to deliver our Doctrin according to the Genuin and approved Sense of our Councils and abstracting from the private Disputes of School-men insist only upon those Doctrins which were universally and necessarily received Neither was the Bishop of Condom the first or only Man that did it Verron had preceded him in France and in the beginning of Queen Marys Days an Exposition was Published here in England much what of the same Nature tho' in a different Method To these I might add the Catechism of the Council of Trent and many others Published in every Country So 2 Tim. 4. that we may justly say we are now fallen into such like times as those which were foretold by St. Paul in which People will not endure sound Doctrin but having itching Ears after Novelties choose to themselves Teachers according to their own Desires Only this is our comfort that we have not been wanting in our Duty we have Preached the Word of God we have been instant in Season and out of Season we have reproved we have rebuked we have exhorted with all long-suffering and Doctrin but they have turned away their Ears from the Truth and believed Fables We have used all the means we can to calm the minds of People that being United in one Faith we might prove our selves to be the followers of Christ but hitherto all has been ineffectual through the ignorance of some whose credulity made them believe every Cry against Popery and the malice of others whose interest prompted them to defame us The Truth of which will appear more clearly §. 7. A Brief account of the Religion of our Ancestors from the first Conversion of this Nation till H. the 8ths Schism whilst I give a brief account of our Controversies in general and of that betwixt the Defender and me in particular In order to which I hope it will not be looked upon as too tedious if we cast an Eye backwards upon the Religion of our Ancestors It is not denyed by our Adversaries Catholic Religion early Established in our Nation but that the Christian Religion took very early Root in this Nation and some Remains of it were found when St. Augustin the Benedictin Monk was sent hither by St. Gregory the Great to reduce the Pagan Idolaters to the Faith of Christ St. Bede who Writes the History of his coming tells us there was carried before him a Banner with the Effigies of Christ upon the Cross and that he came in with a Procession Singing the Litanies c. He tells us also that notwithstanding the long want of intercourse with Rome and the Members of that Communion occasioned by great Oppressions and Persecutions during the Reign of Pagan Kings yet had there not many Errors crept into this Christian part of the Nation for St. Augustin only found two Customs amongst them which he could not Tollerate St. Augustin and the Brittans agree in all things but keeping Easter and some Ceremonies about Baptism the one their keeping Easter at a wrong time with the Quarto-decimani and the other some Errors in the Ceremonies of Administring Baptism these two he earnestly sollicited them to amend but they were obstinate and would not suffer any Reformation in those two Points till God was pleased to Testifie his Mission and the Authority he came with by the Authentic Seal of Miracles Our Adversaries also do most of them acknowledge that when St. Augustin came into England he taught most if not all the same Doctrins the Roman Catholic Church now Teaches and introduced those Practices which they now are pleased to call Superstitions But these Doctrins and Practices were either then Taught and exercised by the British Christians also or they were not If they were not taught by them certainly we should not have found them so easily submit to such Practices and Tenets as our Adversaries call plain and down-right Superstitions and Idolatries and if they were then taught also by the Brittish Christians they were certainly of a much longer standing than St. Augustins time and our Adversaries who pretend the reason why they separate from the Church of Rome is because she has introduced Novelties in matters of Faith may be from thence convinced of the Antiquity of those Doctrins they now call Novelties and must either grant they were introduced by the first Preachers of the Gospel here or shew evidently some other time before St. Augustin when this Church embraced them This Faith and these
our Mind which of it self perhaps remotely it is apt to do His 3d. Argument was from the Good Fryday's Service §. 25. Pag. 19. Good Frydays Office. I had here also shewn his unsincere tricks in adding and diminishing words to make our Church speak as he would have it Do's he deny the Fact No but yet calls my Challenging him a Cavil and after giving a larger account of that Ceremony he tells his Reader that he refers it to any reasonable Man to consider whether he had reason or not to apply as he did the Adoration to the Cross and whether he had not some cause to say then what he cannot but repeat here again That the whole solemnity of that Days Service plainly shews that the Roman Church do's Adore the Cross in the utmost propriety of the Phrase The Accusation runs high and had need to have good prooss to back it if the Jury be not packt A Calumny But he knows he shall have an Ignoramus if the Vulgar be called in to give their Verdicts and he has learnt a Machivelian trick Fortiter calumniare aliquid semper adhaer biâ— to keep them from seeing what is as clear as the Sun by casting so thick a mist of Calumnies as can scarce be so suddainly dissipated but that he may in the mean time gain his ends What is there I pray in all this Ceremony unless wrested by such Calumnies which is not only good and holy in it self but wonderfully efficacious to stir up in all those who are present a true Sense of our Blessed Saviours sufferings upon that Good day for Us What Christian can call to mind the ignominious Death his Redeemer that day suffered for the love of him and not be ready to profess his gratitude by all the exterior Signs imaginable Who is there I wonder that has any Sense of his own former misery or grateful Affection for his Redemption that can look especially on this day upon the Resemblance of his Crucified Saviour and not feel his heart melt with compassion love and a grateful acknowledgment for these Mercies And at that time what offence can it be for his sake to Kiss to Embrace to Reverence that Sacred Instrument which calls those Blessings to our remembrance He that Kisses the Picture of his Wife in her absence testifies the Conjugal Affection which he bears her but is no Fool nor Idolater and must he that Kisses the Crucifix in Testimony of the Love he bears to his Lord and Master needs pass for either He who Kisses the Bible in Veneration of the Truths that are there contained will be rationally interpreted a Pious Christian and must he be counted an Idolater that Kisses the Resemblance of him who is the great Mediator of the New Testament The words that are Sung by the Priest in the first part of the Action are Behold the Wood of the Cross upon which the Saviour of the World did hang. And the whole Quire Kneeling down Sing Let us Adore not the Cross in the ut most propriety of the phrase as our Calumniator would have it but the Saviour of the World who hung upon it Behold and see our Idolatry Then the Priest having layd the Cross upon a place prepared before the Altar goes and puts off his Shoos and Kneeling thrice Kisses it And the rest of the Clergy and Laics two and two do the same These are uncouth and unusual Ceremonies to Men who have been estranged from Devotion But what is it here the putting off their Shoos or the Kneeling or the Kissing that he brands with Idolatry Yes he knew all these exterior actions might easily be represented to the undevout Vulgar as containing in them Horrid Superstition and Idolatry and therefore his Argument must be managed with a respect to them But pray good Sir consider what our Intentions are by those exterior Actions Are they not to pay our Adorations to the Saviour of the World who this day hung upon the Cross A Falsification words which you left out in your Exposition and would now have to be useless to explicate our intention tho' with as little Justice It is evident that by puting off our Shoos a Ceremony which God Commanded once and never repeal'd as yet a Ceremony which speaks an ardent Devotion but no Superstition It is evident by Kneeling and by Kissing of the Cross we intend no more to Adore that material Cross than Moyses intended to Adore the Holy Ground on which he stood Exod. 3.5 or the Jews intended to Adore the Ark when they bowed before it or than Protestants themselves intend to Adore the Bible when they Kiss it or the Name of Jesus when they bow at the hearing of it or the Altar when they bow toward it But our intentions pass further as that of Moyses did to God whose presence hallowed that Ground as that of the Jews did to God who tho' he dwell not in Tabernacles made with hands yet would have them there make their Addresses to him after a more peculiar manner He will never have done For our Rubric calls this an ADORING of the CROSS and one of the Hymns which is Sung by the Quire begins with these words WE ADORE THY CROSS O LORD and therefore this shews that we Adore the Cross it self in the utmost propriety of the phrase As to the Rubric if he be not satisfied by what I have said already I desire him to peruse Bellarmin de Imaginibus Sanctorum Cap. 22.23 24 25. who will tell him that if he take Adoration in a strict Sense it is not properly speaking given to the Image but to Jesus Christ represented by that Image And as for that Hymn as he calls it the very a Crucem tuam adâ—ramus Domine Et Saâ—ctam rejurre lionâ—m tuam â—â—udamus glorisicamus Ecce emm proster lignum vening gaudium in universo muad. next Sentence shews By the Cross is meant Christs Pason that by the word Cross there is meant the Passion of our Saviour as St. b Galâ—t 6.14 Paul did when he said far be it from me that I should glory in any thing but in the CROSS of our Lord JESVS CHRIST The words are We Adore thy Cross O Lord And praise and glorifie thy holy Resurrection for behold by the Wood that is because of thy suffering upon the Wood joy is come to the universal World. And now let any reasonable Man consider whether he had cause to repeat his first accusation that the whole solemnity of this days Service plainly shews that the Roman Church do's Adore the CROSS in the VTMOST PROPRIETY OF THE PHRASE No no here is no Idolatry if the Primitive Christians if the Apostles were to be Judges for St. Paul looks on it as no Superstition to fall on our face in the Assembly and Worship God 1 Cor. 14.25 Which if any should practise now it would be counted Popery tho' no Image were
agreeing word for word with the True one but a little Justice must needs make them acknowledge the difference there to regard only the Beauty or Conciseness of the Style and not at all the Substance of the Faith. This is visible even in the instances which you say they produce from that pretended first Edition Had I said for Example that the honor which is given to the Blessed Virgin ought to be blamed if it were not Religious that is to say if it did not refer to God who is the Object of Religion there is nothing but truth in that expression if we examin it to the bottom And if afterwards I have given it another Turn it is only that I might speak with more Brevity and avoid the Pitiful Equivocations which are every day made upon the Word Religious I would fain ask the Protestants of England if the Feasts they there Celebrate in honor of the Saints do not make a part of the Religious Worship they pay to God in Testimony of their thanks for his having Sanctified them and Crown'd them with Glory In a word that I may not lose time in discussing such trivial things and slight changes that I can scarce remember 'em my self let such as are minded to maintain them to be more considerable than I say they are only put their pretended Edition into the hands of some person of Credit where I may have it seen by some of my Friends and I do then engage my self either to shew the manifest Falsity of it or if it has been truly Printed after my Manuscript to make appear as clear as the day that the differences they so much magnifie deserve not even to be thought upon You see Reverend Father that I persue as far as I can the design of your Charity towards the weak for as to my self once more what have I to do to defend such slight corrections seeing I should be very ready to acknowledge great faults had I been so meanly instructed to commit them with much hearty Thankfullness towards God who had open'd my Eyes to see them There is nothing in the Third Objection that particularly concerns me and I must tell you freely I am so far from being moved by the Epistle of St. Chrysostom which your Ministers tax the Sorbon to have supprest that on the contrary I am perswaded it is very advantagious to the Church Insomuch that I am so far from suppressing of it That I shall always advise it should be Published as all the other works of the Fathers in which there is only some difficulties in appearance but never any solid Objections against the Doctrin of the Church But this is the Subject of another entertainment and I must speak at present of the Objections they bring you against my Exposition In the Fourth Objection they will have it that a Catholic has Writ against my Book because they have as they say heard M. Conrart say that he had seen the Writings With their Permission who make such vain Objections what do they pretend to conclude from thence And suppose upon the Credit of Monsieur Conrart a Huguenot hot headed if any one ever was with his Religion they should suffer themselves to be persuaded that a Catholic did Write against me Are there not Good and had Catholics Jealous Indiscreet and Ignorant ones And what can any one think of such a Catholic who has none but Huguenots for his Confidents in a work he undertakes against a Bishop of his own Communion Certainly it shews a great weakness to magnifie such poor Objections And they who suffer themselves to be imposed on by them must needs have a mighty inclination to be deceived Fifth Objection I still continue to say that I have never Read Father Cressets Book which they bring against me I know well indeed that Monsieur Jurieux Objected it to me but seeing Protestants themselves acknowledge this Author to mingle True False and doubtful things together I do not think I am at all obliged to inform my self of the greatest part of the Objections that he brings against me any more than I do to answer him I will only add here that Father Cresset himself troubled and offended that any one should report his Doctrin to be different from mine has made his complaints to me and in a Preface to the Second Edition of his Book has declared that he varied in nothing from me unless perhaps in the manner of expression which whether it be so or no I leave to them to Examin who will please to give themselves the trouble Moreover every body knows that when we would understand what is Doctrinal we must consider what is Written Theologically and precisely in a Dogmatical work and not some exaggerations which may have escaped in some Books of Devotion In this Fifth Objection they also take notice of what I said in my Pastoral Letter touching that which passed in the Diocess of Meaux and several others as I was informed by the Bishops my Brethren and other my Friends And I do again assert in the Presence of God who is to Judge the Living and the Dead that I spoke nothing but the Truth and that the Author de la Republique des Lettres received very bad intelligence when he said that I intended to strike that Clause out of the following Editions whereas for my part I never so much as Dreamt of doing it As for what they Object in the Sixth place about Cardinal Capisucchi you see as well as I Reverend Father that it is a weak Objection which runs upon the Equivocation of the word Latria you understand the School Distinctions between Absolute and Relative Worship And in short all this falls so visibly into a Dispute about words that I cannot imagin how Men of Sense can amuse themselves about it As for me who never engaged my self to defend the expressions of the School tho' never so easie to be explicated but only the Language of the Church in her decisions of Faith I was not obliged to enter into those subtilties And Cardinal Capisucchi who has Writ an express Treatise of them has said nothing in the whole that contradicts me The Seventh Objection is a Letter Written to me some Years since by one Imbert who hoped he should obtain some Protection from me by telling me he suffered Persecution upon account of the same Doctrin taught by me in the Book of my Exposition I did not believe him because I was too well acquainted with my Lord the Arch-bishop of Bourdeaux his Diocesan of whom he made his complaint But as I had always lived in a strict correspondence and Friendship with that Archbishop I wrote to him upon this Subject and understood that this Mr. Imbert was a hot-headed Man who had done even in the Church very remarkable extravagancies which he was more cautious than to boast of to me His conduct had been tainted with many other irregularities which indeed hindered me from
of his Books from their Disciplin nothing gives them more trouble than the vehement desire they see in Parents to make their Children be Baptized when they are Sick or in danger of Death This Piety says he of the Parents is called by their Synods an infirmity It is a weakness to be concerned lest the Children of the Faithful should dye without Baptism One of their Synods had condescended that Children in evident danger of Death should be Baptised contrary to the Ordinary custom But the following Synod reproved this weakness And these fortified persons blotted that Clause out which shewed a concern for such danger because it opened a way to the opinion of the necessity of Baptism So that the Dispute betwixt the Bishop of Condom and the Hugonots The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument Exâ—â—â— pag. 17 was concerning the Necessity of Baptism and not the Consequence of that Necessity as our Defender would gladly have it And his Assertion is that both Catholics and Lutherans are astonished that such a Truth as the absolute Necessity of Baptism should be denyed which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the Faithful Had our Defender rightly taken this Dispute he would have spared himself the pains he has been at to search Hooker Bramhall Cassander Grotius and the Authors cited by them Some of which it may be thought not the Consequence drawn from the Belief of the absolute necessity of Baptism so clear as to be an Article of Faith whilst others especially Gerson were willing to perswade themselves that God Almighty notwithstanding his unlimited Decree might extend his Mercy to such Children But that his Decree being for all in General we ought to Pronounce according to that Decree because without a particular Revelation we ought not to make any Exception from that Rule But neither they nor any else before Calvin denyed the absolute necessity of Baptism as the Bishop Asserts And our Defender if he had any thing to say against him should have opposed that part A Falsification and not have corrupted his words and told us that he affirms that this denyal of Salvaton to Infants dying Vnbaptized was a Truth which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question No no the Bishop knew well enough that Gerson's Piety had made him cast an Eye upon the Mercies of God which he was willing to think might in some cases make him dispense with his Rule and thwart the necessity of the Deduction He knew that Biel and Cajetan were willing to follow singular opinions and therefore might be of the same mind He knew also no doubt of it that Grotius had cited St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustin for this opinion tho' they who look into those Fathers will find he was mistaken neither did St. Augustin in his cooler thoughts differ from himself when provoked by Pelagius tho' our Defender after Grotius dare argue that he did But neither they nor any other openly denyed the necessity of Baptism as the Calvinists do Nor do the Authors he mentions affirm any such thing and therefore it was needless for him to call them in to his help or to tell me I had wholy past by what seem'd the most to deserve an answer Upon this account one may see it was not so ridiculous as he would make it to tell him If he had been a Hugonot or a Puritan it might have seemed reasonable to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome for a Doctrin which they condemn But that I was astonished to see this Argument and to hear the Church condemned of Vncharitableness by one of the Church of England which as he says has it seems * The Church of England in the order for the buriâ—l of the dead rands however unbaprizeed Children with those that dye Excommunicated or have laid violent hands upon themselves Determined nothing of it But if he do not as he owns justify a Breach with us upon this account why I pray does he start the Dispute to keep it open or make it wider by such sinnter Defences ART X. Of Confirmation IF our Defender had §. 46. as he professes several of our own Party on his side persons who denyed the Divine Institution of this Sacrament he would not I believe have conceal'd their Names but would have been as ready to have stuffed his Margent with them as he was in the precedent Article with Cassander and Grotius whom he would make his Readers believe were of our most approved Authors tho' the first was censured for his rash attempt in the Interim and the other lived in opposition to the Church tho' it be thought he dyed in Communion with it Surely our Defender was sadly put to it when he was forced to fly to the silence of the Council of Trent and of its Catechism and to argue that because neither of them offered any thing to prove this Sacrament therefore forsooth it cannot be proved Was it not sufficient for those Books to explicate our Doctrin T is not surely the Business of a Council to prove Proved by Fathers and Scripture but to Assert our Belief And whether the Catechism has been wholy silent in this let the Readers Judge as also how bold and rash some persons will be in their Assertions The Chatechism tels us Catech. Rom. part 2. de Cinf c. 3. p. 158. that the Church has always taught and acknowledged that all things that belong to the Nature and Essence of a Sacrament are found in Confirmation and proves it from many Antient and Holy Popes and Fathers of the Church (a) Epist ad Episc Hisp c. 2. Et de Consec Dist 5. cap. Spiritus Sanctus St. Melchiades who lived Anno 315. (b) Ep. 4. ad Jultan Jul. St. Clement Anno 102. Also from (c) De Consec dist 5. Pope Vrban Anno 232. Fabianus Anno 253. And Eusebius Anno 311. Nay it shews us moreover that (d) De. Eccl. Hier. c. 2. St. Denys the Arepagite does not only speak of Confirmation but expresses the very Ceremonies and the manner of making the Chrism and that (e) Lib. 6. Hist Eccles c. 33. Eusebius of Cesarea thought that Novatus foll into his Heresy for neglecting in his Sickness to be Confirmed And tho' our Defender in his former Treatise was not so bold but only affirmed that the Council and Chatechism did not go about to prove either Christs Institution or the outward visible Sign or the inward Spiritual â—â—race by Scripture yet this Catechism shews that (f) Ambr. in fin c. 7. de lit qui myst init lib. 3. de Sacramentis c. 2. Tom. 4.436 pag. St. Ambrose and (g) Aug. lib. 2. cenâ—ra lit Petil. c. 104. St. Augustin were both of them so perswaded that no one could doubt of the truth of this Sacrament that they both of
them confirmed it from many Testimonies of Holy Scripture as one of them from Ephes 4.30 affirming these words And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby ye are Sealed to be meant of the Sacrament of Coâ—firmation And the other concluding that the Pretious Ointment of which the Psalmist speaks Ps 132.2 which being poured forth upon Aarons Hend ran down upon his Beard and the Skirts of his Garment as also that of St. Paul Rom. 5.5 where he tels us that the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given unto us to be referred to Confirmation And certainly the best way of proving things from Scripture is to bring the Interpretations of Fathers who lived before out Disputes arose T is true the Catechism after this general Proof of its Antiquity and its being a Sacrament descending to particulars chooses rather to use the plain Testimony of * Laodic c. 48. Cartb 2. ca. 3. Councils and Antient Fathers as of (a) Fab. Pap. in inst Epist 2. quae est ad Episc Oriental Tom. 2. Concil citatur de Consc dist 3. cap. lit vestris St. Fabianus Pope and Martyr (b) S. Dionys de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. ct 4. St. Denys c. to which might be added (c) Aug. in Ps 44. v. 9. et lib. 13. de Trin. c. 26. St. Augustin (d) Ambr. in Ps 118. St. Ambrose (e) Cypr. Epist 70. and St. Cyprian c. than the words of Scripture alone which it knew would be contested by them who make it their business to oppose the Church and make the Scriptures speak as they would have them But as I said the best way of proving things from Scripture is to shew that Antiquity understood it so As to the Argument I brought from his own Concessions §. 47. tho' it was not so fully concluding as it might have been yet let him answer me Why they now continue the imposition of Hands if it was not left by the Apostles to be continued in the Church and if it was left by them for what end did they leave it if not for the same for which it was instituted the giving of the Holy Ghost and Grace to confirm and strongthen us in our Faith And if the Eucharist it self do not certainly and infallibly give Grace to all those that receive it but only to them that receive it worthily I suppose he will not expect any more from Confirmation Let him therefore tell me Whether if a person duly prepared come to receive this Imposition of Hands the Grace of the holy Ghost does not certainly descend at that Holy Rite for those great ends the Prayers design If these things be as I think he can scarce deny them he cannot deny also but that this looks somewhat like a Sacramènt But if as he says this be only a meer indifferent Ceremony continued only in imitation of the Apostles and to which no Blessing is ascribed that may not equally be allow'd to any other the like Prayer Why might not this Prayer be reiterated as well as others Why must this Ceremony be only allowed to be performed by Bishops and why are persons so much exhorted not to neglect it But if he think not this a sufficient Argument Bellarm. de Saer Conjirm lib. 2. I would desire him to consider that I might by only making use of Bellarmin have shewn him from plain Texts of Scripture at least looked upon by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as such that Imposition of Hands which we call Confirmation is a Sacred sign of an Interior Grace given with the Holy Ghost to the Faithful I might have shewn him Ten Popes the last of which was no less than St. Gregory the Great all of them affirming the Holy Ghost or his Gifts to be given by this Sacrament some of them calling it a great Sacrament and others mentioning both Chrism and Imposition of Hands I might have shewn him no less than three General Councils and eight others on our side some of them very antient I might have shewn him also nine Greek Fathers and as many of the Latin of which St. John Damascen and St. Augustin are the last all whose Testimonies are so full that our Defender will be ill at ease to give a civil Answer All this he knew I might do besides many others which joyned with the perpetual practice of the Church and the unanimous consent of Christians before the Pretended Reformation are certainly good Arguments in our behalf But he tells us Des pag. 40. it is wonderful to see with what Confidence those of the Church of Rome urge the Aposiles Imposition of Hands for proof of Confirmation when this Imposition of Hands is resolved to be but an Accidental Ceremony and accordingly in our practice wholy laid aside It is a sign our Defender did not look into our Pontifical when he Writ this nor considered what he cited from Estius in the Margent For we have not left off Imposition of Hands neither does Estius affirm it but only that the necessity of it is ceased as if the words he quotes be true But our Bishops says he Lay on Hands after the Apostles Example §. 48. but yours Anoint make Crosses in the Forehead tye a Fillet about their Heads give them a Box on the Ear c. for which there is neither Promise Precept nor Example of the Apostles Such an Argument as this might a Dissenter from the Church of England bring against the several Ceremonies used in their Ordination and what our Defender would answer to him I desire he would apply to himself The Ceremonies Explicated Several Ceremonies he knows are used to shew the effects of the Sacraments and if he do not know the meaning of these let him look again into the Catechism of the Council of Trent and he will there find that Oyl expresses the plenitude of Grace which by the Holy Ghost flows down from our Head Christ Jesus upon all his Members Ps 132. Ps 44. Josn 1. from whose fulness we have all received he being anointed with the oyl of Gladness above his Fellows he will find also there that Balsom puts us in mind that we ought to be the Good Odor of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 2.15 and keep our selves from all Putrefaction and the Contagion of Sin. If he also search into the antient Expositors of Scripture * Ambr. iib. de lis qui initiantur Mysteriis c. 6 7. Tom. 4. pag. 424. 425. Ed. Basil 1567. St. Ambrose St. Anselm (a) In Commentario 2 Cor. 2.21 Theodoret and others he will find that both this Anointing and this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead are plainly expressed or alluded to in Scripture where the Apostle St. Paul tells the Corinthians that it was God who confirmed them with him in Chirst that it was god who anointed them signed
is more according to the literal sense of the words and has less difficulties in it than Consubstantiation but it does not follow that Scotus thought his Adversaries assertion to be more easy much less more true But our Defender goes farther and tells us that Scotus held this Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran and cites Bellarmin for it tho' he render his words ill in English * For Bellarmin does not say that Scotue held the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient but only that it was not an Article of Faith dogma fidei before that Council which are two very different things §. 88. Suarez Non fnerit tam aperte explicata sicut modo est Suar. in 3. D. Tho. vol. 3. disp 50. §. 1. How much better would it have been for him to go to the Fountain it self and have shewn us this in Scotus But he will scarce find it there and suppose he could one Swallow makes no Summer and I think it will appear far more reasonable to any thinking man to believe that Scotus erred in saying so than the Council of Lateran in which there were 400 Bishops and 800 Fathers in declaring that to be the Faith of the Church which was not so Thirdly Suarez he says acknowledges the same of Scotus and Gabriel Biel Suppose they had held that Doctrin what would follow but as Suarez Argues that they deserve reproof seeing the thing it self was antient and perpetually believed in the Church tho' perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is As for my overlooking that passage of Suarez which affirms the conversion of one substance into another to be of Faith and the Defenders arguing upon that account that Suarez is opposite to my opinion and pretences I have already told him that he proceeds upon a mistake of my meaning which being rectified he will find that Suarez is nothing against me nor am I guilty of any prevarication Fourthly §. 89. Cajectan The Defender tells me that my Prevarication in the next citaton viz. of Cardinal Cajetan is more unpardonable And why Because he affirmed that the Cardinal acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words Defence pag. 65. the others might with as good reason have been received and I told him that Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appealed to any that should read it for the truth of what I said This he says is such a Prevarication that should a Protestant have done it I would he believes have found out many hard names for him to testify my zeal against Falshood and Vnsincerity Id. pag. 66. and shewn what a kind of Religien that must be that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But that he will remit me wholly to the Readers Censure and my own Conscience for Correction I am glad he allows me the Readers to be of my Jury I hope he will give me leave to except against all those that are so far byassed in their affections to him and his party that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards Popery forsooth tho' against Justice Equity and Conscience Take but away I say such byassed and Ignoramus Juryes as these and I will appeal to any Learned Judicious and Conscientious men whether that Proposition he advanced be to be found in that Article of Cajetan or no. The Defender was so far from shewing this in Cajetan that he has pitched upon a place which has as little to the purpose as one would wish He tells us indeed that we have no other express Authority from Scripture for the belief of the Existence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament but only the words of our Saviour This is my Body for these words must of necessity be true And because the words of Scripture may be Expounded two ways Properly or Metaphorically The first error in this particular was of them who interpreted the words of our Lord Metaphorically which Error was treated of by the Master of Sentences and is reproved by St. Thomas in this Article And the force of the rejection consists in this that the words of our Lord have been understood by the Church properly and therefore they must be verified properly Which is as much as to say that St. Thomas and Cardinal Cajetan after him looked upon the Churches having always understood the words of our Saviour literally to be the strougest Argument against the Sacramentarians who Erred in understanding them Metaphorically But what is that to our Defenders Proposition And where does the Cardinal say there is as much reason for the one as the other abstracting from the Churches declaration which is the sense of his Proposition Wherefore now it comes to my turn to remit him as he does me to the Readers Censure and his own Conscience for correction His last Argument is drawn from the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist in these words §. 90. Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist Expos Dâ—ct Ch. of Engl. pag. 60. Since it is certain that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised nor the Church for above a 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament neither could they according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles who holds that the Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as Believe it without all scruple to the Adoraton of it have believed the Corporeal presence of our Blessed Saviour in it The Antecedent he goes about to prove first from the Scriptures silence in this matter ssect 91. I. which tho' it says Take Eat Do this in remembrance of me yet never says This is my Body fall down and worship it And from St. Paul who when he reproved the Corinthians for violating this Holy Sacrament did not tell them tho' it was obvious and much to his purpose that in profaning this Holy Sacrament they were not only guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ which it was Instituted to represent to us but even directly Affronted their Blessed Master Corporeally present there and whom instead of Profaning they ought as they had been taught to Adore in it Secondly II. From the new practices of Elevating the Host introduced says he in the 7th Century to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross but not to expose it to the People to Adore it from the Bell the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament the Pomp of carrying it through the streets Exposition of it upon the Altars Addresses to it in cases of Necessity and performing the chief Acts of Religion in its presence all which he pretends are but Inventions of yesterday or were never mentioned in Antiquity Lastly III. Because the Primitive Christians instead of