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
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
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
necessary to Salvation but dare not positively exclude the others from being a kind of particular Sacraments And seeing the Scripture mentions not the number either of three or seven why should not the voice and constant practice of the Church be heard before particular clamours As to the matter of the Eucharist if People would but once take a right notion of what we mean by a Real Presence and rightly understand what we mean by the Terms Corporal and Spiritual we should not have such large Volumns Written by those who pretend to believe all that Christ has said And in our disputes about the Church The Church and it's Authority what perpetual mistakes are their committed for want of considering what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church and by her Infallibility In a word §. 17. The Rule of Faith. would People take notice that we affirm the Total and only Rule of Catholic Faith to which all are obliged under pain of Heresie and Excommunication to be Divine Revelation delivered to the Prophets and Apostles and proposed by the Catholic Church in her General received Councils or by her universal Practice as an Article of Catholic Faith and that if either this Divine Revelation to the Prophets and Apostles or this proposal by the universal Church be wanting to a Tenet it ceases to be an Article or Doctrin of Faith Protestants will not distinguish betwixt faith and private opinions tho' it may be a truth which it would be temerarious to deny would they I say take notice of this and then examin what are those Doctrins which we hold to have been thus taught and proposed we should not only find our Controversie brought into a narrow Room but all the odious Characters of Popery and the Calumnies that are thrown upon us with the ill consequences of fears and jealousies c. would be removed and we might hope for Peace and Unity Whereas by the methods by which we see Disputes now carried on But prolong disputes upon unnecessaries one would think our Adversaries had no other end in all their Controversial Books or Sermons but to cry down Popery at any rate least they should suffer prejudice by it's increase which they are conscious it would do if what is of Faith were separated in all their Discourses from Inferior Truths or probable opinions And because I am not willing to prolong disputes §. 18. Which the Vindicator resolves to decline I do here declare that if the Defender do hereafter medle with such points as those which are not of necessary Faith I shall not think my self obliged to answer him tho' after that he may perhaps boast how he had the last word But if he please to answer any thing positively to those Doctrins acknowledged by all Catholics to be of Faith or to the Arguments I have brought in the XXIII and and XXIV Articles to prove the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the true Orthodox Catholic Church and that the voice of the Church in every Age is the best way to know what is Apostolical Tradition upon finishing which two last disputes all our Controversie would be ended he shall have a fair hearing But I may be bold to foretel without pretending to be a Prophet that nothing of all this will be done and that if he vouchsafe an Answer he will as to the first either still fly to the private Tenets and Practices of Particulars or Misrepresent our Doctrin and as to the others either fob my Arguments off with such an Answer as he thinks is sufficient against Monsieur Arnauld's Perpetuity Desence Pref. pag. 11. that is calling it a Logical subtilty which wants only Diogenes 's Demonstration to expose it's Sophistry A pretty quirk indeed were the case parallel or that it could be made out as clearly that the Church has erred as it could be shewn that Diogenes moved but what is the Point in Question must be always supposed as certain in our Defenders Logic or else he will send us to his beloved friends Monsieur Daille or Monsieur Claude as he has upon the like occasions or lastly endeavor to expose us by some contemptible Raillery as he has done the Bishop of Meaux to the Defenders own confusion amongst thinking Men. For It is not enough to Men of Sense to speak contemptibly of solid Arguments excellent Discourses or persons of known integrity Monsieur Arnauld 's Perpetuity of the Faith and the just Prejudices against the Calvinists will not loose their esteem amongst the Learned and Judicious because our Defender tels us they have been out-done by Huguenots neither will the Bishop of Meaux's credit be any ways impaired or his Exposition less esteemed because the Defender and such as he have endeavored to traduce him and make the World believe him to be Insincere or ignorant But such things as these are now a-days put upon the World without a blush and they who are this day ingenious Learned and honest Men shall be to morrow time-servers block-heads and knaves if they chance but to cast a favorable look towards Popery and hated abhorred and oppressed with injurles if they forsake their Errors to embrace the Truth even by those who pretend that Conscience ought not to be forced I must conclude this Preface with begging pardon of my Readers for the length of this work which will I fear deter some from the perusal of it but I hope they who are desirous to search for the True Faith which is but one amongst so many and without which it is impossible to please God will not think it much to spend a little time for their satisfaction which if they do I hope it will open their Eyes and they will see how much they have been hitherto kept in ignorance by those who pretend to be their guides but shew themselves by their Writing either to be blind or which is worse malitious For if they know our Doctrins and yet Misrepresent them to their People they must be convinced of Malice and if they know them not we are ready to inform them if they think we palliate or pervert our Doctrins to gain Proselites it shews how little they understand our Tenets For when they see us ready to lose our Estates our Liberties and our Lives rather than renounce one title of our Faith how can a reasonable Man be persuaded we would renounce it all to gain a Proselite who the very first time he should see us Practise contrary to our Doctrins would be sure to return and expose our Villany BEcause the Defender has been pleased to ask this Question in the close of his Discourse page 84. Where are the Vnsincere dealings the Falsifications the Authors Miscited or Misapplied I thought it might not be amiss to refer the Reader to some of them as they are detected in this following Treatise And tho' the Defender had not the sincerity to acknowledge them yet I dare
with such Idolatry We find indeed that their Twenty second Article tells us that the Invocation of Saints is one of those Practices which are fond things vainly invented c. but it proceeds not so far as to call it Idolatrous And if the Book of Homilies to which he flies upon other occasions when he is prest to shew the Doctrin of his Church be more severe he is little versed in his own Doctrins if he be ignorant that several Eminent Divines of his own Church do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick Dogmatical Doctrin of the Church of England Bishop Montague Dr. Heylin Mr. Thorndike tho' they be all obliged to subscribe to it as containing a wholesome Doctrin I wish then there be not something more in the bottom of this than what appears at first sight Dr. Heylin tells us §. 2. The charge of Idolatry begun in Queen Eliz. time that when Queen Elizabeth beheld the Pope as her greatest Enemy in reference to her Mothers Marriage her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England Books were filled with bitter Revilings against the Church of Rome and all the Divine Offices Ceremonies and performances of it Cyprian Angl. pag. 342. 2d Edit but that in the next Ages the dangerous consequences of the Charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome began to be more calmly and maturely considered Rejected in King Charles the first 's time in so much that Arch-bishop Laud thought it necessary to endeavor with diligence to hinder the reprinting of those Books And what must the same Apprehensions be now again raised in the Peoples minds Must the Pope pass now for our greatest Enemy And must the common People be taught to hate Papists worse than Jews and Mahumetans Renewed at present to make us odious that the Pulpits ring again with such horrid accusations and every Book tho' pretending moderation brings now the charge of Idolatry along with it If this Author had not this design for I dare not accuse him of being a leading Man he might at least have foreseen the ill consequences which would follow in the Nation and for which I fear He and Those that set him on will one day answer before the Tribunal of the God of Peace and Unity But he thinks himself clear at least of Calumny Defence pa. 2. if he can shew that our Authors allow all that he has charged us with Calumny Not too fast I must in this also beg his pardon The consequence do's not follow that because some particular Members of the Church of Rome may have taught such Doctrins therefore the Church is guilty of them He has been often told and that according to all reason that we have nothing to do here with the Doctrin of the Schools that he must take our Doctrins from the Councils which contain the Public Authentic and Vniversally received Definitions and Decisions of the Church otherwise he touches not the necessary terms of Communion Des Pref. p. 19. But tho' he acknowledges this to be my Catholic Distinction yet he takes little or no notice of it throughout his whole Book but flies still to particular Authors to maintain his charge But what if our Authors allow not those things which he charges them with will he then acknowledge himself guilty of Calumny If he cannot bring any of our Authors that say Divine Worship is to be given to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed unless their expressions be miserably distorted or any persons that do practice it if our Missals and Pontificals do not command us to adore the Cross taking the word Adoration in that strict Sense and if I shew him in the following Articles that he mistakes the Doctrin of the Council of Trent about the Sacrisice of the Mass and the Churches Tenet about Merit I hope he will be so ingenuous as to confess that we deserve not so ill a Character and if he be so sensible of the account which must be given for idle words Close pag. 86. I hope he will likewise consult the Salvation of his Soul and repent and make satisfaction for those which are injurious to the reputation of a Church to which if he be what he professes he must acknowledg he owes some obligations as to a Mother But I charged him also with Vnsincerity in stating the Question betwixt Catholics and Protestants Unsincerity and this also touches his reputation I must confess I would willingly be tender of it but where so great a concern as the reputation of an Innocent Church is joyned with his single Honor I think I may be excused if I let the dirt fall where it ought when by wiping it off from one it must necessarily stick upon the other That which I condemned in his stating of the Question was §. 3. Catholics affirm that Protestants hold not all Fundamentals that he represented us as allowing them to hold the Antient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith. I told him that we do not allow that Proposition especially if he mean all Fundamentals Pag. 24. and that tho' the Bishop of Meaux has a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Protestants grant that Catholics hold all Fundamentals yet it do's not from thence follow that Catholics reciprocally grant them also to hold the same And what I pray is his answer to this That whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daille's Concessions Defence pa. 4. as to this Point will find it clear enough that he did if the Foundation consist of Fundamental Articles But really I have again and again considered what Monsieur de Meaux says in that Section and can find no such thing in it but that his is only Argumentum ad hominem M. de Meaux sense perverted by the Defender an Argument drawn from the Concessions of Monsieur Daillé and from what is manifest to every one viz. That we believe all those Articles which Protestants call Fundamental But he neither says nor insinuates Expos Sect. 2. pag. 3. nor so much as shews it to be his Opinion that the Protestants hold all those Articles which Catholics call Fundamental But he who can find That in the Bishops Argument The Vindicators sense perverted by the Defender Def. pag. 5. can find also that I my self confess that the Articles which we hold and they contradict do by evident and undoubted consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental I know not with what Spectacles he Reads but I think any judicious Reader will grant that I never said any such thing 'T is true I tell him Vindic. pa. 23. that were the Doctrins and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrins and
the manner for the Defender thinks it is a plain Contradiction Defence pag 61. that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal but as to the nature of the thing it self but yet it is real too A Jargon What kind of Jargon is this and what Absurdities must needs follow from such palpable Contradictions Christ is really present §. 69. Pag. 60. line 32. says the Defender in the Sacrament in as much as they who worthily receive it have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ and all the Benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs and therefore it is more than a meer Figure One would think this enough Oh but his Body is not there How is Christ there and not his Body Yes his Body is not there after the manner that the Papists imagine there is no corporeal Presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood Rulric at the end of the Communion Office. for his Body is only in Heaven and it is against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one How is it then that he is there will you acknowledge Casâ—â—b Epist ad â—â—rd Pâ—â—en with King James the First that you believe a Presence no less true and real than Catholics do only you are ignorant of the manner If so tell us and recal what you have said that it is a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal I suppose you mean with all the qualities of a natural Body seeing it may be there after a manner which you are ignorant of No this would be to give up the Cause to Catholics And further the late Church Rubric whose Fate has been so various and the * I A B. Do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever and that the Sacrifice of the Mass as it is now used in the Church of Rome is Superstitious and Idolatrous 30 Car. 2. Test The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the first time contradict the Religion professed in that Kings days for now at least you know by a new Revelator that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not there by Transubstantiation otherwise you would not impose the belief of it upon all persons in any public Employments and make them swear and subscribe to it under such forfeitures and penalties This is the Doctrin we are invited to believe which how inconsistent it is with it self appears to every one who rightly apprehends the Terms of Real and Spiritual and Figurative Let us now see what is the Doctrin of Roman Catholics The Council of (a) Sess 13. c. 4. Trent tels us §. 70. The Roman Catholic Doctrin that because Christ our Redeemer did truly say that that was his Body which he offered under the species of Bread therefore it was always believed in the Church of God and this Holy Synod does now again declare it that by the Consecration of Bread and Wine there is made a conversion or change of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into the substance of his Blood which change is conveniently and properly called by the Catholic Church Transubstantiation And the same (b) Ib. can 1. Council pronounces an Anathema against all those who shall deny the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be truly really and substantially contained in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist or that shall affirm it to be there only as in a Sign or in Figure or Vertue Thus we believe a true real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament that is of his Body and Blood Soul and Divinity The Lutherans agree with us in it but will have Bread to remain too which we deny And the Calvinists seem at least in words to confess the same but will have the presence to be Spiritual by which as I told them if they intend only that Christs presence is not there after a natural circumscribed corporeal extensive manner we admit of it but if they mean by this spiritual manner that Christ who is both God and Man is not truly really essentially substantially present we deny it They who affirm §. 71. Three manners of a Real presence as we do that Christs Body is really present in the Sacrament Propose several ways by which they think it may be done all which may be reduced to Three First that his Body may be present together with the Bread as Fire is together with Iron when red hot Water with Ashes c. Secondly present so as that the Bread remaininig Bread is also the true Body of Christ Or Thirdly that the Substance of the Body of Christ should be there the Substance of Bread ceasing to be As to the first the words of the Institute are against it For if Christ had rendred his Body present after that manner he would not have said Hoc est corpus meum but Hîc est corpus meum Here is my Body The second manner is acknowledged by English Protestants to be wholy impossible as implying a manisest Contradiction that it should be Bread and not Bread the Body of Christ and not the Body of Christ The third is the true Catholic Doctrin and is called by the Church Transubstantiation that is a Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the true Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood as I have mentioned from the Council And thus Christ is really present in the Sacrament Now this existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is not after a natural corporeal extensive manner because it is neither visible nor palpable But yet for all this the same substantial Body may be really present after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament We have Examples of this from Holy Writ For if we doubt not but that he could free his Body from being visible palpable and heavy and could make it so spiritual as to pass from his Virgin mothers Womb without breach of her Virginity and through the Doors when shut can we doubt his Power in rendring it present without local extension or the other qualifications of a common natural Body And tho' this presence cannot be called spiritual in a strict sense yet may it be so called in that sense which St. Paul uses when he tels us that the Body is sown a corruptible Body and is raised a spiritual Body As to those seeming Contradictions of a Bodies
this Note another which I desire the Defender to take notice of that that Act of Parliament tho' it ordained Communion under both kinds unless in cases of necessity yet was so moderate as not to condemn thereby the usage of any Church out of the Kings Majesties Dominions Which moderation had he been endowed with he would not have expressed such detestation of the Doctrin nor passed so severe a Sentence against the Catholic Church for the Practice PART III. ART XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word THe Defender having so ingenuously confessed §. 103. Expos Doct. Ch. of England pag. 75.76 that the Vnwritten Word or Tradition as to that Gospel which our Blessed Saviour preached was the first Rule of Christians that this and the written Word are not two different Rules but as to all necessary matters of Faith one and the same and the unwritten Word was so far from losing its Authority by the addition of the written that it was indeed the more firmly established by it And having acknowledged for himself and his Church that they are ready to embrace any Tradition though not contained in the written Word provided that they can be assured it comes from the Apostles or that it can be made appear to have been received by All Churches in All Ages How to know Apostolic Tradition I thought it necessary to propose a certain means by which we might come to know what had been thus delivered and that grounded upon the very nature of Tradition But this the Defender now opposes and I shall endeavour to make clear In order to which we are to consider First §. 104. I. The nature of Tradition in this case Divine Truths surpass the reach of Human reason as to the thing it self that we speak here of Divine Truths which surpass the reach of human Reason revealed to the Apostles which Truths the Apostles were obliged to teach to the Faithful then living without addition or diminution and the Faithful then living were also tyed under the same Obligation to deliver the same Divine Truths in like manner without addition diminution or alteration to their Successors and they to theirs in every Age. 2ly II. They were taught by the Apostles to all Countries These Truths were to be taught in all Countries and Kingdoms by the Apostles and their Successors and not only taught but practised So that what one Country or Nation learned from one Apostle the same was another to learn from another and a third from a third a fourth from a fourth c. 3ly III. And they wre obliged to deliver them to their Posterity without any Eslential alterations The obligation of delivering these Truths without addition diminution or alteration was and is the strictest that can possibly be imagined viz. the forefeiture of eternal Happiness and the incurring of eternal Torments So that whoever should undertake to teach his own Invention for a revealed Truth or to deny a known revealed Truth because it ws not agreeable to his Fancy or Interest and taught others to do the same could not but know that he did not perform his Obligation and therefore justly incurred that penalty 4ly IV. There must be Heresies But if such Men did arise as there must be Heresies who would not rely upon what had been taught them but proud and conceited of their own abilities would form to themselves new Notions of things and rely upon their own Wit or Judgment even to contradict those delivered Truths A connivance at them is damnable or interpose others not delivered A silent Connivance in Pastors and Teachers in that case suffering their Flock to be seduced would be a Crime not much inferïor to that of the Seducers and would deserve no less a punishment 5ly V. This Age must necessarily know what was taught in the last It is absolutely impossible that any thing can be taught in this Age contrary to what had been delivered in the immediate foregoing Age but that this Age must necessarily know it to be an Innovation And therefore it is absolutely impossible to make a whole Age believe they had not been taught a Doctrin as a delivered Truth when their Fathers of the immediately preceding Age had actually taught them that it was delivered 6ly It being thus manifest VI. Error cannot spread it self insensibly that it would be absolutely impossible for an Error against a delivered Truth to spread it self over the Face of the World without being perceived by them to whom that Truth had been delivered so is it absolutely inconsistent with the nature of Man to think that such an universal Deluge of wickedness and delusion should happen that all Pastors and People of whole Christendom should in any one Age combine together to deceive the next Age and either deliver to them an Error as a delivered Truth or make a delivered Truth pass for an Error when they could not but know that the doing of it must necessarily be a Sin which unrepented of would bring Damnation and that no Repentance could be without making a just satisfaction 7ly VII From hence I conclude that if in any one Age we find all Christians agreeing that such a particular Doctrin or practice was delivered to them as coming from the Apostls it must necessarily follow that the Age next preceding that All persons would never combine to damn their own Souls by renouncing what they had been taught did also believe it to be a Truth so delivered because no reason can be given nor cause assigned why the Pastors and People of so many different Countries and Interests otherwise sollicitous for their Salvation should all combine together to damn their own and their Posterities Souls and deliver that as a Tradition to their Successors which they had not received from their Predecessors 8ly From hence I also conclude VIII The pres ent Church in every age is the best judge of what is universal Tradition that the present Church in every Age is the best Judge of what is universal Tradition and what not and that the way to know her Judgment is to regard the uniform voice of her Pastors and People either declared to us by the most universal Councils that Age can afford or by her universal practice 9ly Moreover IX This Church is secured from error by Gods Promise besides this moral Impossibility that the whole Church in any one Age should conspire to teach a Doctrin as traditionary which they had not been taught by Tradition we have further the Promise of Almighty God that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church that he will send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who shall remain with her Pastors and Teachers to the end of the World and teach them all Truth that these Pastors and Teachers shall be our Guides lest we should be led away with every Wind of Doctrin and several other the like Promises So that 10th
shall certainly find them there The Socinians will smile at his Boldness But certainly according to his Principles it must be so for if those abstruser Doctrins of the Blessed Trinity Incarnation and Divinity of our Blessed Saviour contained in that Creed be necessary Articles of our Faith and all Necessaries be clear in Scripture to every sober Enquirer which they must be if every Man must judge for himself and Scripture be the only Rule to judge by then it would necessarily follow that every Tinker Cobler Weaver or Tankerd-bearer if they do but seriously enquire into Scripture would certainly find them there But if neither they nor our Defender nor his whole Church can find such evidence for them there as to silence the Socinians who profess to follow the same Rule to be sincere and to use all due diligence it will cortainly follow that those Points are not clearly contained in Scripture unless we take the Authority of the Church along with us for the interpretation and by consequence not necessary Points of Faith with our Defender If any one therefore enquire into the occasion of this difference even in necessaries amongst those who follow the same Rule and use their best endevors they will find their Error to proceed from this that they err in making choice of that for their Rule which is not so And to shew that Protestants err in this making Scripture as interpreted by their own private Judgments the only Rule of Faith I make use of this Argument besides the several reasons before alledged §. 119. Hebr. 11.6 Eph. 4.4 Scripture interpreted by Private Reason or the Private Spirit cannot he our Rule of Faith. and the inconveniencies that follow from it All Christians agree with the Apostle that without Faith it is impossible to please 〈◊〉 and that this Faith is but one They all agree also that this Faith contains in it many Mysteries beyond the reach of mere human Reason so that man by the use of that alone could not come to the knowledge of the chief Mysteries of our Faith The Trinity Incarnation Original Sin Resurrection of the Flesh c. They all affirm therefore that God who sent his Son to redeem man who could not do any thing of himself to satisfy his infinite Justice would not command him to believe this one Faith under the pain of Eternal damnation and at the same time leave him without a means to bring him to the knowledge of what he was to Believe This means is called the Rule of Faith by Controvertists Now seeing God would have all men to be saved of what learning or capacity of what age country or condition soever this Rule or this means must be general and applicable to all and therefore Plain and Easy by which the Ignorant and unlearned may arrive at the same one Faith as well as the learned Isa 35.8 for God has prepared a Way that the wayfaring men tho' fools shall not Err therein It must be Visible and Apparent to All persons in All places and in All Ages to All I say who will not shut their eyes It must be Sure Certain and Infallible that the ignorant who Rely upon it may come to the unity of Faith with Security and the Learned who follow it may be convinced of the truth of that one Faith rationally and oppugners find no substantial Arguments against it All which qualifications do not only arise from the Goodness and Wisdom of Almighty God but are conformable to the very notion of a Rule of Faith. If then the Scripture as interpreted by that private judgment of Particulars be this Rule of Faith it must have all these advantages towards the uniting us in this Faith without which it is impossible to please God. I will not descend to particulars and shew how the Scripture is void of the essential qualifications of a Rule that has been done by many hands and particularly by the question of Questions But I will Argue from what our Adversaries themselves grant us I suppose then it will not be denyed me but that the Scripture even in necessaries 2. Pet. 3.16 may be differently interpreted since St. Peter affirms that the Vnlearned and the Vnstable do not only Wrest the Epistles of St. Paul but other Scriptures also to their own damnation now the question is only when things are thus controverted which is the True sense of Scripture and since these Controversies may arise in necessary matters of Faith God would not leave us destitute of a means to come to know which is the True and genuine sense of this Scripture in those necessaries and this means must be as I said before easy plain general secure and infallible or else this Scripture supposing not granting it to be the Rule of our Faith would be useless to some part of mankind if it wanted any one of those qualifications and by consequence those persóns might justly complain that God had not taken a sufficient care for their Salvations If we examin our Defenders Rule for us to come to the True meaning of this Scripture he tells us it is a serious and impartial inquiry If so then it would necessarily follow that every serious and impartial Enquirer would infallibly hit upon the true Faith which Faith being but one all those impartial Enquirers would be at unity in their Belief But since experience tells us that many serious and impartial Enquirers if we can believe any men in what they affirm with the most solemn protestations imaginable in a matter of such high concern do differ in the sense which they draw from Scripture even in necessaries we must conclude That Scripture interpreted by this private reason of every individual person cannot possibly be this easy clear universal and Infallible rule or means to come to an unity in Faith. What I said against this Private Reason of particular persons or Churches §. 120. concludes also against the Private Spirit which some pretend to which Spirit if it were the Spirit of God would certainly teach all persons the same thing Others there are who tell you that the means to come to the knowledge of the true sense of Scripture is to compare one Text with another to examin the Commentators the Original Languages the Antient Writers and Interpreters c. but this way beside that it is coincident with Private Reason which we have already shewn cannot be our Infallible Rule to come to the true sense of Scripture is moreover impossible to be done by the generality of Mankind whose concerns to get a livelyhood are such that they have neither time opportunities nor abilities to do it Our Defender will perhaps Argue here from his good friends Doctor Stillingfleet and Mr. Chilling worth that they need not take such pains nay moreover that if they use only such a moderate industry as is consistent with their employments tho' they should err God will not impute it to them In
answer to which I would only ask them Whether God has established a Faith or no which must be one and without which it is impossible to please him If they cannot deny this as being the plain words of Scripture I ask again what is opposite to Faith but Error in its essentials where therefore has God promised in Scripture that a man who errs in the essentials of his Faith shall not have that Error imputed to him when on the contrary he tells us that without Faith it is impossible to please him If he say these people are in an invincible ignorance and God will not punish that I must answer him that God has not left the generality of mankind without an easy general and Infallible means to overcome that ignorance if they will but make use of it And this secure §. 181. easy universal and infallible means is that which we Catholics make use of viz. an attention and (a) Luc. 10.16 Maâ—th 18.17 submission to the voice of the Catholic Church which is (b) Eph. 4.4 5 6 13. Cant. 6.9 John 16.16 John 17.20 Uniform in it self established by Christ as an (c) Isa 35.8 Easy means for the instruction of all both Learned and Unlearned as an Universal means she being (d) Ps 19.4 Isa 2.2 Ps 86 9. Dan. 7.14 spread for that end throughout All Nations as a (e) Masth 5.14 15 c. Ps 19.4 Isa 59 21.60.1 3.11.62 6. Ezech. 37.26 Dan. 7.14 Visible means being continued through All Ages by an uninterrupted Succession of Pastors and People As an Infallible means being (f) John 16.13 1 Tim. 3.15 guided in Truth and secured from Error especially in Necessary matters of Faith and Salvation by the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost So that all persons whatsoever whether Learned or Unlearned may (g) Deut. 17.8 c. Math. 23.3 Isa 2.2 3. Marth 18.17 securely rely upon what this Church teaches especially in Necessaries If our Defender after better reflections acknowledge the Catholic Church to be infallible in Necessaries or Fundamentals and enquire which is this Catholic Church I must desire him to peruse with a serious application what I have already proved and not to pass over my Arguments so slightly as shews he never weighs their force But our Defender has made use of an Instance to prove his admirable Doctrin by §. 122. The Instances from St. Athanasius answered an Instance which if any Catholic had brought the like he would have called false and Impertinent An Instance which hath been often brought and Refuted and yet nothing is said to the refutation but the Objection is still repeated by those who are conscious they cannot defend their Cause and yet have not sincerity enough to repent Lastly an Instance which may pass current amongst them who will believe no body but their own party but can have no force with men of Reason I told him in my Vindication that the story which he tells of St. Expos Doct. Ch. of England pag. 80. Athanasius his standing up alone against the whole world in Defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils nay the whole Church fell away was very falsly represented And he now grants the Expression of St. Athanasiu's being against the whole world and the whole world against him Desence pag. 81. did refer chiefly to the Eastern Bishops and was not so literally true as to those of the West from whence an ordinary Reader would inser See Liberius his Letter to the Oriental Bishops apud Socrat. lib. 4. c. 11 12. Tom. 1. Conâ— pag. 584 St. Basil Epist 75. pag. 877.293 pig 1058. Edit Paris 1518. cited by the Guide in Controversy Dise 2. §. 27. n. 2. p. 119. The History of Pope Liberius and the Council of Ariminum §. 123. that it was literally true as to those of the East But they who examine things more maturely will find that even at that time the Body of the Eastern Prelates tho' suffering much from the other savoured party remained Catholics However he thinks that if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and. Sirmium and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith sent to him from Ariminum c. yet subscribed to another at Sirmium in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted c. he was not much out when he said that St. Athanasius stood up in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Council and almost for he is now more moderate the whole Church fell away But what will he say if neither Liberius nor the Latin Prelates in the Councils of Sirmium or Ariminum ever denied the Divinity of Christ or subscribed to the Arian Heresy Had he looked into our Authors he would have found it proved beyond exception and that from the best Historians that tho' Liberius who was sent into Banishment to Beroea by Constantius because he would not condemn St. Athanasius in the Council at (a) Sozom l. 4. â— 10. p. 481. Ibeod lib. 2. c. 16. pag. 371. B. Milan without a hearing at last out of fear and impatience in his exile subscribed to a Collection presented by Basil and other Eastern Bishops containing in it the Decrees against Paulus Samosatenus and the Sirmian Formula against Photinus Socrat. lib. 2. c. 5. p. 244. as also that drawn up at the Consecration of the Church of Antioch all which contained nothing but Catholic Doctrin except the leaving out the word Consubstantial which they pretended was abused by some not understood by others and was not found in Scripture yet did he then Excommunicate all those who affirmed the Son not to be like his Father in Substance and all other things Sez lib. 4. c. 14. pag. 483. The Sirmian Formula was explicated by St. Hilarius in a Catholic Sense and it is worthy remark that in these Formula's they professed the Son to be of the Fathers Substance that he was in all things like his Father even as to Essence and Substance and that he was before all Times and Ages So that tho' Liberius cannot be excused for his complyance with the Emperor and the scandal which he gave to those who refused the least Communication with the Arians yet does it no ways follow that he fell from the Faith Act. Liber Soz. lio 4. c. 18. p. 487. B. And he regained his credit afterwards by his firmness to the first Orthodox Decrees of the Council of Ariminum resolving rather to live and die in the Catecombes than Sign what had been consented to by the Bishops at the later end of that Council when it was not free and the design of the Arians was made public c. As to the Council of Ariminum §. 124. if we consider all things maturely we shall find that of the 400 Bishops that appeared there only 80 or as St. Athanasius says
interesting my self for him any further in the business or to intercede for one in whom I had found nothing but weakness mixed with Ignorance Nevertheless Protestants Print this Mans Letter and the single Allegation of such a Witness must become God willing a proof against me I speak it in the Presence of God Reverend Father my Heart is grieved to see Objections of so poor a Nature seriously pressed in Books And I beg of Almighty God in the anguish of my Soul O Lord wilt thou still continue to suffer Christian Souls to let themselves be caught in such weak and miserable Snares The Extracts from Cardinal Bona which they bring in the last Objection regard the Common difficulty so often proposed by Protestants about Prayer to Saints The Difficulty consists in this that as they who Pray with efficacy and obtain the effect of their desires are sometimes considered as the doers of the things after their manner It happens also sometimes that instead of saying to the Saints Pray for us they say do this always understanding that it is by their Prayers they do it By such Objections the Holy Ghost might be blamed for saying so often in the Scriptures that the Saints have done that which God has done by them and at their Prayers If such manners of speaking be familiar in Scripture why will they not also have them used in the Prayers of the Church But is it possible to explain ones self more clearly than the Church does upon this Subject seeing for one time you find and that in the Hymns and other Poetical works that we Pray the Saints to do or to Grant some thing you will meet with it a Thousand times Explicated that they do it only by their Intercession and Prayers And had not the thing been already explicated by the Prayers of the Church could there yet remain any doubt after the Expositions I have brought out of the Councils Catechism and after the decision of the Council it self For I beseech you let us weigh a little with our selves what it Teaches in the Twenty fifth Session does it not put this as a Foundation of the Invocation which we make to them that they offer up Prayers for us And consequently it's design is to shew us their Power is in their Prayers and yet new Explications are still demanded as if the Council of Trent had not sufficiently declared her Doctrin in a matter otherwise very clear Truly Reverend Father it extreamly troubles a Christians Heart to see tho' the Sense of the Church be made so very Evident in her decisions People should continue still thus to Juggle and Cavil with us about words I will say nothing about Mr. De Witte Rector of St. Maries of Meckline I find nothing in that Objection which concerns me in particular nor in the Letters of the Clergy upon the Subject of some briefs from the Pope Nobody ever pretends to offend his Holiness or in the least title to diminish the Authority of his See by saying that things may proceed thence which may not always be according to Rule On the contrary Protestants my observe from such Examples that a Church may with respect maintain what she thinks to be her Right without either breaking Vnity or hurting Subordination Pardon me Reverend Father for making this return so late my Employments of another Nature which would not give me leisure sooner must with your leave be my excuse I conclude praising your Zeal which will not suffer you to mitigate the urgent desires you have for the Salvation of your Brethren I am with particular Esteem Reverend Father Your most humble and most Affectionate Servant ✚ J. Benigne de Meaux The INDEX to the PREFACE THE Mischief of Heresie and Schism § 1. Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace Ib. We neither decline particulars nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons § 2. We Appeal to Scripture Ib. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages § 3. To an uninterrupted Tradition § 4. And shew the Truth of our Doctrins from Protestants own Concessions Ib. But Protestants fly to particular disputes and in them to the particular Tenets of School-men § 5. And at last to down-right rayling Therefore a plain Exposition of our Doctrin was thought necessary § 6. A Brief account of the Religion of our Ancestors from the first Conversion of this Nation till Henry the 8ths Schism § 7. A like account from Henry the 8ths time till his present Majesty § 8. The Rise of the present Controversie § 9. Of the betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender § 10. The state of the Controversie Misrepresented by Protestants who flie to Private Opinions and stick not to what is of necessary Faith. § 11. Honor due to Saints § 12. Images and Relics § 13. Justification Merit and Satisfaction § 14. Purgatory Indulgences § 15. Sacraments Church § 16. Rule of Faith. § 17. Protestants will not distinguish betwixt Faith and Private Opinions Ib. But prolong Disputes about unnecessaries which the Vindicator resolves to decline § 18. THE INDEX to the BOOK ARTICLE I. Introduction pag. 1. IDolatry and Superstition is the Protestant Cry and Calumny at present § 1. Other Protestants thought the Charge unjust Ib. It was begun in Queen Elizabeths time Rejected in King Charles the 1sts And now renewed to make us odious § 2. Catholics are allowed by Protestants to hold all Fundamentals but not Protestants by Catholics § 3. Monsieur de Meaux and the Vindicators Sense perverted by the Defender Catholics no more guilty of Idolatry than Protestants An Instance of the Defenders Charity and Moderation Ib. ARTICLE II. Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone page 6. A Necessary distinction in Respect Honor Worship Adoration c. Which are Equivocal Terms and misapplied by the Defender § 4. As also in Bowing Kneeling c. § 5. The Honor pay'd by these words or actions is distinguished by the Object § 6. Divine Honor call'd Latria is due to God only Inferior Honor called Doulia may be given to Creatures proved by 1. Scripture § 7. 2. and the Practice of Protestants § 7. ARTICLE III. Invocation of Saints pag. 10. PRayer Invocation c. are Equivocal terms misapplied by the Defender § 8. Saints may be Honored They Pray for us We may desire them to Pray for us proved Three sorts of such Prayers § 9. By the Practice of the Primitive Fathers in the Fourth Age as Protestants grant § 10. These Prayers were not Rhetorical flights § 11. in St. Gregory Nazianzen St. Ephrem St. Basil St. Gregory Nissen The Primitive Fathers wrongfully accused by the Defender as if they held that the Saints were not admitted to the sight of God till the day of Judgment § 12. Wrongfully accused as if they had departed from the Practice and Tradition of the foregoing Ages § 13. They prayed to Saints within the first 300 Years