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
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
examined either ashamed of this Doctrin and recal it or else declare they admit to Authority in the Church and this I shall do as I examin his Exceptions in their order First Exception That the Church of Rome is only a particular Church Answered The Roman Catholic Church includes all particular Churches unâ—ted in Communion with her His first Exception is that the Church of rome is only a particular Church and therefore cannot be properly called the Catholic Church To this I answered that we did not intend by the Roman Catholic Church the particular Diocese of Rome but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome And that this alone was the Catholic Church I proved fully by the marks assigned by the Nicene Creed viz. of Vnity and by consequence of freedom from Schismes and Divisions of Sanctity and by consequence of being free from Heresies Idolatries Superstitions and other Essential Errors of Vniversality also with that Vnity and Sanctity and of being Apostolic that is grounded upon the Doctrins and Faith of the Apostles and deriving a continual Succession from them I proved I say the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Alone to be the Catholic Church which we believe in our Creed because no other Assembly of Christians can pretend to these marks but she But our Defender found this reason too solid to be eluded by his querks and therefore said nothing to it but justifies his exception by an Argument which I wonder any man of reason would offer to produce Now if this that we take all Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Desence pag. 78. for the Roman Catholic Church in truth says he be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholic Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholic as that of Rome it self What sense I pray is there in this Proposition thus worded If he mean as he must to make an Argument that every particular National Church in Communion with the Church of Rome has as good a title to the Name of the Catholic Church as all those particular National Churches joyned together have he will have much a do to perswade any Rational man to believe him who can but understand that a part is not the whole But if he mean that every particular National Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome has as good a title to the name of Catholic as the particular Diocese or National Church of Rome it self that is as he explicates himself presently after has the same Purity and Orthodoxness of Faith. Suppose we grant him it always allowing that difference betwixt the See of St. Peter and other Bishopricks as there is betwixt the head and the other members of the same Body what consequence will he draw from thence against us who allow all other Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be truly members of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor Oh says he This renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholic with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocese and so makes it only a particular not The Vniversal Church And what then I pray Who ever said that the particular Diocese of Rome is the Universal Church We say indeed that the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pastor of the whole Church of Christ which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church but this does not make the Suburbican Diocese to be this Catholic Church For as the Empire when it was in former times diffusd through most parts of Europe part of Asia and part of Africa was called the Roman Empire from the Imperial City Rome so is the Catholic Church spread over the face of the whole world called the Roman Catholic Church because every particular Member is joyned in Communion with the one Supreme Pastor whose See is at Rome And this Universal Church we say can neither fall into Error nor prevaricate the Faith in any necessary Points of it whatsoever a particular Church may do Hence it appears that his second and third Exceptions are nothing to the purpose §. 110. 2d and 3d Exceptions null as being grounded upon his notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken for the particular Diocess of Rome But now says he should we allow the Church of Rome as great an Extent as the Vindicator speaks of c. Ibid. yet all this would not make her the Whole or Catholic Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the world besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the same Faith The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her and continued just in the Same Worship as she hath done And this he conceives cannot easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which he says have plainly for several ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship This is the great Argument of Protestants who would willingly as I took notice in my Vindication have the Catholic Church to be composed of All those who profess the Faith of Christ spread over the face of the Whole World Pag. 104. All those who profess the Faith of Christ are not members of the Catholic Church whether they be Arians Nestorians Donatists Socinians Lutherans Calvinists Church of England Men Roman Catholics or others All which they acknowledge to be Members of the Catholic Christian Church tho' some of them may be Rotten putrid Members they may be true tho' corrupt Churches as a man may be truly a man and yet be very dangerously ill Plain mans reply pag. 14. Thus they provide for Universality in the Church but leave its Sanctity and Unity to shift for themselves unless what a late Author has produced will pass for a Vindication of their Unity Vindic. of the Ch. of England from Schism and Herisy Part. 1. Sect. x. who acknowledges that there may be a Schism from a particular Church but that A Separation from the Catholic Church taken in the most comprehensive sense is not Schism but Apostacy So that if what he says have any sense he must mean that All the different Sects of Christians in the world make up but one Church all which Sects ought to be at such an Union with one another as long as each one keeps within their respective Countries where their Religion is established by Law that no one ought to treat another as a Schismatic seeing there cannot be properly speaking any Schism from the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but only Apostacy which is a Total Defection from
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
proved § 14. By Confession of Protestants By the Testimony of the Fourth Age. Of the Fourth General Council Of Origen and St. Methodius The Defenders affected misapplication of the word Prayer § 15. No Scripture against the Invocation of Saints § 16. Catholics imitate the Scripture Phrase § 17. The word Merit Equivocal and often misapplied by the Defender § 18. The use of it in our Prayers conformable to the Language of Holy Writ Ib. ARTICLE IV. Images and Relics pag. 25. I. THE benefit of Images § 19. 1. To inform the Ignorant 2. To encrease Devotion 3. To persuade to a good Life 4. A Holy Imitation 5. To encrease our Reverence and Respect II. No danger of Idolatry now from the use of Images § 20. From the Nature of Christianity and The Nature of Idolatry § 21. III. Objections Answered § 22. 1. From St. Thomas of Aquin. § 23. 2. The Pontifical § 24. The Use of Incense and Holy-water very Antient. 3. Good-Fryday Office. § 25. 4. The Churches Hymns § 26. Of Relics §. 27. We Pray not to them nor to Monuments Ib. The Defender renders the Councils expression falsely We Honor them and Images as Sacred Utensils § 28. ARTICLE V. pag. 45. Of Justification §. 29. THE Catholic Church falsely accused Ib. Justification and Sanctification § 30. Our Justification is Gratis § 31. ARTICLE VI. Of Merits pag. 49. SCholastic Niceties to be avoided § 32. The Churches Doctrin ART VII Sect. 1. pag. 52. Of Satisfactions §. 34. NO Satisfaction without the Grace of God and Merits of Christ Ib. Protestants grant more Efficacy to a Lord have mercy upon us than Catholics to a Plenary Indulgence § 35. We believe or we suppose ought not to be an Argument against our Possession § 36. SECTION II. Of Indulgences pag. 55. COuncils have redressed the Abuses in them § 37. We defend not Practices which are neither Necessarily nor universally received Ibid. Our necessary Tenets § 38. No buying or selling of Indulgences § 39. Protestant Indulgences sold in the Spiritual Court. Ib. They give greater Power to a Simple Minister than Catholics as Catholics give to the Pope § 40. What a Jubilee is § 41. SECTION III. Purgatory pag. 59. PRov'd by two General Councils which proof comprehends Scripture Fathers Tradition and Universal Practice § 42. No Fathers nor Scripture against it Ib. PART II. ARTICLE VIII pag. 60. Of the Sacraments in General §. 43. ARTICLE IX Of Baptism Ibid. LVtherans and those of the Church of England hold Baptism absolutely necessary § 44. Whether Children dying without it have any part in Christ Ib. The Calvinists oppose this necessity § 45. The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument Ib. ARTICLE X. Of Confirmation pag. 63. PRoved by Fathers and Scripture § 46. 47. The Ceremonies Explicated § 48. ARTICLE XI pag. 67. Of Pennance §. 49. THe Church of England wishes it were re-established § 50. ARTICLE XII Of Extream Unction pag. 70. THe Defender mistakes the Question § 51. This Sacrament has a respect to Bodily cures § 52. Sanctifying Grace assistance against Temptations and Remission of sins are the Primary effects proved from the Antient Rituals § 53. The words of St. James Evince it § 54. ARTICLE XIII Of Marriage pag. 75. THe Bishop of Meaux and the Defender agreed We demand no more and yet new Cavils must be raised § 55. Lombard do's not deny Grace to be given in it § 56. If Durandus did he is often singular Ib. The Fathers in the time of the first four General Councils acknowledge it to be a Sacrament § 57. Marriage is grown contemptible in England since it was denied to be a Sacrament § 58. It is proved to be a Sacrament from St. Paul and by the Universal Tradition both of the Greek and Latin Church § 59. Not necessary for every one § 60. ARTICLE XIV Of Holy Orders pag. 80. THe Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament § 61. His new Evasions Answered § 62. ARTICLE XV. XVI XVII XVIII Of the Eucharist pag. 83. TWo hundred several Senses put upon these four words hoc est Corpus meum Catholics follow the beaten Road Protestants by-paths § 63. SECTION I. pag. 84. Ours and our Adversaries Tenets §. 64. CHrist must be either really or only figuratively present in the Sacrament Ib. He may be really present after different manners § 65. All agree that he is Morally present in the Sacrament Ib. Catholics and Lutherans agree that he is Really Present but not after a Natural manner § 66. The Zuinglians c. say he is only Figuratively present Ib. Calvinists and the Church of England would gladly hold a middle way § 67. 68. The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the firsts time § 69. The Roman Catholic Doctrin § 70. Three manners of Real Presence § 71. SECTION II. Some Reasons for our Doctrin pag. 89. ALL the proofs for an Article of Faith concur for this § 72. SECTION III. pag. 92. Objections Answered §. 73. Objections from Scripture The first The words of the Institute § 74. 75. The second The custom of the Jews § 76. The third From it's being called Bread after Consecration § 77. Fathers and School-men § 84. 1. From St. Chrystoms Epistle to Cesarius § 78. c. 2. Lombard § 86. 3. Scotus § 87. 4. Suarez § 88. 5. Cajetan § 89. Adoration of the Host § 90. This Adoration shewn to be very Antient and taught long before the time prefixed by the Defender § 96. c. 1. The Scripture commands it not Answered § 93. 2. The Elevation of the Host now Answered § 94. 3. Several Practices of the Antients inconsistent with the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament Answered § 95. ARTICLE XIX XX XXI pag. 123. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass §. 99. WHat a Sacrifice is The Essence of a Sacrifice consists not in slaying the Victim § 100. Four things required to a Sacrifice all which concur in the Eucharist Ibid. ARTICLE XXII Communion under both Species pag. 127. THe Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither false unreasonable nor frivolous § 102. PART III. ARTICLE XXIII pag. 129. Of the Written and unwritten word §. 103. HOw to know Apostolic Traditions § 103. 104. The Nature of such Traditions § 104. The Present Church in every Age is the best Judge Proved Ib. The nature of Error with the rise and progress of it § 105. The Defenders Arguments against this Judge of Tradition answered § 106. 1. Objection Ib. 2. Objection § 107. ARTICLE XXIV XXV pag. 136. Of the Authority of the Church §. 108. THe Defenders Concessions Ib. His Exceptions Examined § 109. First Exception that the Church of Rome is only a particular Church Answered Ib. His second and third Exceptions Null § 110. The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her § 110. 111. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the True Church proved § 112. 113. His fourth Exception maintains all Dissenters from a Church § 114. 115. His first Postulatum answered § 116. His second answered § 117. What are necessary Articles of Faith. § 118. Scripture Interpreted by Private Reason cannot be our Rule of Faith. § 119. Nor by the Private Spirit § 120. But by the Catholic Church § 121. His Instance from St. Athanasius answered § 122. The True History of Pope Liberius and the Council of Ariminum § 123. 124. ARTICLE XXV pag. 158. Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy §. 125. THe Council of Trent Vindicated § 126 c. His first Exception that it was not General answered Ib. The first four General Councils called by the Pope § 127. His second Exception that it was not free answered and the Story of John Husse shewn to be misrepresented § 128. His third Exception against the number of Italian Bishops answered § 129. The Authority of the Holy See. §. 130. From Antient Fathers Ib. From Councils § 131. Nothing Antiently was to be determined without the concurence of the Apostolic See. Ib. The Close to the Defender §. 132. THe Defenders obligation to make Satisfaction to the Church § 132. The Obligation he has laid upon himself by accusing the Roman Catholic Church of Idolatry § 144. The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion § 133. The advantages he is deprived of by being out of the Church § 136. To be added pag. 30. line 14. BVt this is the Language of our Defender The Opinions of the most Learned Doctors tho' esteemed such by his own Party are called Reveries Des pag. 16. The Pious and significant Ceremonies of the Church tho' imitated in their own Assemblies Ib. pag. 18.19 are termed Magical Incantations The Rhetorical Expressions of the Greatest Saints if they thwart his Notions must pass for Horrid Blasphemies St. Thomas heretofore Styled the Angelic Doctor is by a dash of our Defenders Metamorphosing Pen Appendix â—â—â— 110. turn'd Raver St. Germain St. Anselme the Devour St. Bernard the Abbot of Celles St. Antonine and St. Bernarâ—â—â—no Horrid Blasphemers And Christs Holy Catholic Church Idolatrous and guilty of Magical Incantations And yet we must remember that he who Writes this is a Scholar and a Christian nay one who Writes nothing but peaceable Expositions with all the Kindness 〈…〉 85. Charity and Moderation imaginable FINIS
the Present Controversies as being the first thing that appeared in Print against Roman Catholics tho' the Author of the Present State of the Controversies would not take notice of it And they who seriously considered the timing of it the persons to whom it was spoken the severity of the accusation and the manner of Publishing it made their conjectures then that it was like a throwing out the Gantlet and bidding defiance to all the Catholics in England Some short remarks were made upon this Sermon in a Paper called a Remonstrance by way of Address from the Church of England to both Houses of Parliament This occasioned the Doctors reply in which he not only endeavored to vindicate himself but threw all the dirt he could upon the Catholic Church laying all the faults of particulars at the Churches Door after such a manner as shewed him neither to understand our Doctrin nor the Principles we go upon It appeared from hence that nothing was to be expected but clamor insincerity and misrepresentation and therefore tho' an Answer was prepared and approved of yet was it thought fit by those who were to be obeyed to let the Controversie dye rather than stir up a Religious Litigation upon a Point which not only the protestations of Catholics but their Practices had justified them in However seeing the Doctors Vindication as well as all the other Books Written since the Pretended Reformation had been chiefly filled up with mistakes or misrepresentations of our Doctrins all which were taken upon trust as Real Truths not only by the Vulgar but by many who tho' pretending to Learning had as appeared never Read any but their own party or at least but superficially Charity prompted a good Man to shew our Doctrins truly as they are in themselves without the Mixtures of the particular Opinions of Schoolmen or the Practices which are neither universally nor necessarily received And in order to this he Published a Book under the Title of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented Papist Misrepresented and Represented in which the Judicious and Learned Author shewed in one Column what was commonly received amongst the Vulgar as the Doctrin of Papists and in the opposite the true Doctrin of the Catholic Church was represented with all the sincerity and candor imaginable All moderate persons who would give themselves the liberty to Read and think acknowledged that Catholics and their Religion had been strangely misrepresented and were apt to lay great faults upon their Leaders who had even from their Pulpits seconded the common Cry. But that party being loath to be thought to have any faults could not endure to be looked upon as Misrepresenters and therefore notwithstanding they could not deny but all that was there exposed under the Title of a Misrepresenter was at least according to the common Notion People had of Popery yet was it not to be called Misrepresenting and tho' they could not deny but all Catholics believe according to that Doctrin which the Representer expresses yet must this pass for new Popery and we must be accused as if we receded from the Faith of our immediate Predecessors whilst we affirm that any change from the Faith delivered by a continual Succession from Christ and his Apostles must needs be damnable This occasioned several Tart Answers and Reply's till at last the Controversie dwindled into nothing but a Verbal Dispute whether telling the World that Popery is Idolatrous Disloyal bloody-minded c. be properly speaking a Misrepresentation or some other word During this dispute two Books were Published with the same Charitable and as was hoped inoffensive intention The first the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685. concerning Religion Acts of the General Assembly together with the complaint of the said General Assembly against the Calumnies Injuries and Falsities which the pretended Reformed have and do every day publish in their Books and Sermons against the Doctrin of the Church The Design of which Book was the same with that of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented with this only difference that in Representing the Tenets of Catholics it made use only of the words of the Council of Trent and the Profession of Faith extracted out of it and in Representing the Calumnies formed against our Doctrins observed Religiously the expressions of Protestant Authors whose very words were cited in the Margent This was so clear a proof of what the Representer had said that 't is supposed his Adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such plain and ample Testimonies The other was the Bishop of Meaux 's Exposition of the Doctrin of the Catholic Church in matters of Controversie The Exposition A Book received by all persons in the Catholic Church of all Ranks and Degrees as containing nothing in it but the Orthodox Doctrin of the Church But all the Repeated Testimonies of his Holiness and the Cardinals Prelates and Doctors of the Church were not enough to make our Adversaries believe it to contain our Doctrins truly so strangely had they been Misrepresented to them And therefore out comes presently another Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England c. In the Preface of which Book the Author pretended to shew that the Bishop of Meaux's design was only to palliate or pervert the Doctrins of his Church because forsooth his Manuscript Copy or if you will the Real first tho' not Authenticated impression differed in some points from what was Printed and allowed of as the first Impression But let us suppose for a moment if he will that what he says were true that the Bishop of Meaux's Manuscript was defective in some points and differently expressed from what it is now in others suppose the Bishop had permitted an impression to be made or as Cardinal Peron is said to have done and which it may be was all the Bishop did had caused a dozen or fourteen Copies to be Printed off to shew them to his friends before he would put the last hand to his Book nay if you will let us suppose that some of the Doctors of Sorbonne were of the number of those friends to whom he Communicated those Copies and that they had made some Corrections Observations or Additions what is all that as the Bishop says to the Book as it is at present We send them not to the Manuscript nor to the first Impression if a few such Copies could be properly called an Impression but to the Book as it is now Printed and and approved of as containing the Doctrin of the Catholic Church As for the Refutation of all the Defenders Arguments upon this head I shall refer my Reader to the Bishops own Letter Published in the Appendix Only whereas the Defender in his Preface to the Exposition page 2. insinuates that the late Mareschal de Turenne did not owe his Conversion to that Book but to some other personal Conferences or Papers to them unknown
difference betwixt the Idea and this Material Image than that the one is in our Mind by something which was formerly in our Senses and the other is in our Mind by something which at that time strikes our Senses but the Adoration which is there performed is neither in the one nor in the other to the Image but to God whom it Represents And this is all that Scholastic Divines and that Cardinal Capisucchi means in that passage which our Defender cites from him which I give you entirely in the Margent * Ex his constat in Concili Niceno secundo in Tridentino alijsque Latriam duntaxat idosala ricam sacris Imaginibus denegari qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seipsis propter ipsas exhibeitur quaque Imagines sen Numina aut Divinitaâ—em continentia more Gen ilium colamur de hujusmodi enim Latriae Controversia crat cum Judaeis Haereticis qui hae ratione nos Imagines colere asserchant Caeterum de Latria illa quae Imaginibus S. Triritatis Christi Domini aut Sâ—â—ratissimae Crucis exhibetur ratione rei per eas repraesentatae quatenus cum re repraesentatú unum sunt in esse repraesentativo nullamque Divinitatem Imaginibus tribuit aut supponit nulla unquam suit aut esse poruit Controversis Nara liâ—jusmodi Latria Imaginibus Exhibetur non propter seipsas nec in iysit sistendo sed propter Exemplar in quod Adoratio illa transit unde sicut Purpura Regis etsi non sit Rex honoratur tamen codem honore quo Rex quatenus est conjuncta Regi cum Rege facit aliquomodo unum humanitas Christi etsi sit Creatura adoratur aderatione Latriae quia est unita personae Verbi unum Christum cum persona Verbiconstituit ita Imago Christiquia in esse representativo est unum idem cum Christe adoratur eadem Adoratione qua adoratur Christus whose Sense is in other more intelligible words what the Bishop of Meaux says that we do not so much honor the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in Presence of the Image If the Bishop of Meaux chose rather to speak in such intelligible terms and according to the Language of the Church in her Councils and Professions of Faith leaving the harder expressions of the Schools it do's not follow that he and Cardinal Capisucchi differ in the true meaning neither is it a mark that Papists as he says think it lawful to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrins they dislike I have shewn him in what Sense that may be true tho' it seems he did not understand it that is when the Principles in those Books touch only probable opinions or Philosophical conclusions they may approve what they dislike But I told him that in matters of Faith they do not think it lawful to set their hands to or approve the Principles they dislike neither can our Desender shew one Instance without wresting it to a Sense not intended by them What I have said of Images may be said of Relics Relics As for Justification §. 14. Justification if persons would but rightly understand things there can be no Controversie betwixt them and us the Council of Trent having declared so plainly Conc. Trid. Sess 6. cap. 8. that we are Justified Gratis and that none of those Acts which precede our Justification whether they be Faith or good Works can Merit this Grace but if after such a Declaration they will not believe us we can only pity them and Pray to God to make them less obstinate Again Merit Sess 6. can 26. for Merit of good works done after this Justification we say with the Council of Trent that the just may expect an Eternal reward from God through his Mercies and the Merits of Jesus Christ The just may expect a reward for their good works done in Grace if they persevere to the end in doing good and keeping the Commandments But the Council tels us nothing at all of the School questions as whether this Merit be of Justice or Fidelity or Condignity or Congruity and therefore they ought to be excluded from our disputes as being no necessary matters of our Faith. As to Satisfactions for Temporal punishments due to sin Satisfaction We satisfie by Christs satisfaction it is not of Faith as appears by the Conncils silence in those Points that our satisfactions are of Condignity or of congruity by justice or by mercy But it is of Faith that through the Merits of Christ we satisfie for such pains Sess 14. can 13.14 and that by Jesus Christ we satisfie for our sins by the help of his satisfactions which Merits of Christ proceed meerly from his mercy towards us Oppose this last then only and our Controversie will be shorter What a deal of stuff have we seen of late concerning Purgatory even by those who acknowledge §. 15. Purgatory that all the Council of Trent determins is that there is a Purgatory or middle state and that the Souls that are detained there are helped the suffrages of the Faithful but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar It is not what Bellarmin looks upon as Truths that we ought to maintain but only what is of necessary Faith and that is defined by the Council It is therefore no Article of necessary Faith without the belief of which we cut our selves off from the Communion of the Faithful that there is a Fire in Purgatory A short summary of the Principal Controversies c. pag. 42. neither has the Council of Florence defined it tho' a late Pamphlet says it did It is not defined what the pains are nor how grievous nor how long they shall last Had those Authors therefore let these Points alone and only Written against such a middle state the Printer would have got less by them but the People more Separate also what is not of Faith from Indulgences and the Controversie will be brought to this whether the Power of Indulgences hath been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ Indulgences and whether the use of them be beneficial to Christian People or no so that we should have nothing to do in our disputes about the Treasure of the Church nor about Indulgences whereby the punishment due in the Court of God sin remitted may be taken away or the pains in Purgatory but only about a Power to remit to Penitents some part of their public Canonical Penances if their life and laudable Conversation seemed to deserve it We affirm only §. 16. Sacraments that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments in the New Law Instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind tho' not all to every one And our Advesaries say there are two only generally
refer my self to any unbyassed Readers Judgment in the case betwixt us Calumnies pag. 3.32 36 47. Falsifications pag. 31.37 50 54 62 70 126 155. False Translations pag. 42.48 Unsincerities Uncharitable Accusations Wilful mistakes of our Doctrin Affected Misapplications of Equivocal words False Impositions Authors Misapplied Plain Contradictions pag. 46.86 In almost every Article A CATALOGUE OF AUTHORS Cited in the following BOOK With their Editions A ACts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy Engl. 1685. S. Ambros Basileae 1567. Aquinatis Summa Theol. fol. Parisiis 1632. S. Athana Ex Officina Commeliniana An. 1601. S. Augustini Opera Basileae 1569. S. Augustini Opera Imperf Cont. Julian B S. Basilei Opera Paris 1618. Bellarm. de Scrip. Eccl. Colon. 1622. Bellarm. Opera Lugduni 1587. Col. Agrip. 1619. Biblia Sacra vulgat English Protestant Bible Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniae 1618 Brereley Protestant Apology 1608. Liturgy of the Mass Col. 1620. Breviarium Monasticum Paris 1675. C Card. Cajetan in D. Thomam Venetiis 1612. Card. Capisucchi Capit. Theol. Selec Cassandri Opera Paris 1616. Ejusd Consultatio vid. Grotii via ad Pacem Catechismus Romanus Antverpiae ex Officina Plant. 1606. Chemnitii Examen Concil Trid. Francof 1574. Sti. Chrysostomi Epistola ad Caesarium Sti. Chrysost Edit Commelian 1596. item 1603. Frontoduc 1616. The Book of Common-Prayer London 1686. Summa Conciliorum Bail fol. Par. 1675. Concilia Binii Paris 1636. Concilia Gen. Provinc Colon. 1578. Concilium Tridentinum Paris 1674. Cressy against Dr. Pierce 's Court Sermon 1663. Sti. Cypriani Opera Paris 1648. Cyprian Angl. 2d Edit D Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England 1686. Dionys Areopag Eccles Hierarch Paris 1644. Durandus in Sententias Lud. 1569. E Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England 1686. S. Ephrem Edit Ger. Vossii Colon. 1616. Error Non-plust 1673. Estius in 4 Libros Sententiarum Parisiis 1672. Eusebii Historia Ecclesisastica Basileae G The Guide in Controversie 1673. Sti. Gregor Mag. Paris 1533. Sti. Gregorii Opera Sti. Gregor Nazianzeni Opera Paris 1609. Sti. Greg. Nyssen Paris 1615. Antwerpiae 1572. Grotii via ad pacem cum Consult Cassandri 80. 1642. Gualteri Chronologia Lugduni 1616. H Hist Anglic. Harpsfeldei Duaci 1622. Book of Homilies fol. 1673. Hen. Huntingdoniensis Hist Francofurti 1601. I Sti. Irenaei Adversus Haeres Colon. 1596. Sti. Justini Mart. Parisiis 1615. item Edit Commel 1593. L Lombardi Sentent apud Scotum M Maimburg Hist de l' Arianism Edit Paris 4o. 1673. Maldonat in Evang. fol. Mogunt 1611. In Prophet as Minores 40. Mongutiae 1611. Monsieur de Meaux Exposition Eng. 4o. by Hen. Hills 1686. French 5 Edit 12o. A Paris An. 1681. Traité de la Communion sous les deus especes 12o. A Paris 1682. Missale Romano Monasticum Paris 1666. N Nubes Testium 1686. O Origines old Character 1512. P Du Perron Replique a la Reponse du Roy de la Grande Bretaigne fol. Paris 1620. De l'Eucharistie fol. Paris 1629. Plain Man's Reply 1687. Polyd. Virgilius Hist Anglic. Basileae 1534. Pontificale Romanum fol. Romae 1645. Protestant Apology 1608. R Roman Catholic Doctrin no Novelties See Cressy against Dr. Pierce Court Sermon Rufini Historia Basileae S Scotus in Magistrum Sententiarum Antverp 1620. Sherlocks Sermon before the House of Commons 1685. A short Summary of the Principal Controversies 1687. Sixti Senensis Bibl. Sancta Coloniae 1576. Socratis Sozomen c. Histo Basileae Sparrows Collections of Cannons London 1675. 4o. Suarez Venetiis 1597. T Tertulliani Opera Regaltii Paris 1664. Theodoreti Historia Basileae Thorndike just Weights and Measures 4o. London 1662. Epilogue fol. London 1659. V Vasques Antwerp 1620. Vindication of the Church of England from Schism and Heresie 1687. Vindication of the Bishop of Condoms Exposition 1686. A REPLY TO THe DEFENCE OF THE Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England ART I. INTRODVCTION THat he who accuses another of Great and Heinous Crimes §. 1. Def. p. 1. ought to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself of those Faults which he condemns in others is certain But whether this Author of the Defence or I have governed our selves by this Maxim is to be cleared and I suppose the Judicious Readers will neither take his nor my bare assertion for a proof and therefore to avoid more words I commit the whole to their Examen in the following Articles I shall pass by also what he says concerning the Authority of an Imprimatur Carolus Alston c. which he equalizes to a Permissu Superiorum tho' I hope he will not contend with those Testimonies which are given to the Exposition and proceed to the Point in question If Calumny and Vnsincerity be now the Catholic Cry §. I. it is because Idolatry Idolatry and Superstition Prot. Cry and Calumnies at present Superstition and I know not what more harsh names are now the Protestants There was a time as this Author knows in which the genuin Sons of the Church of England excused the Roman Catholic Church of that odious Imputation of Idolatry and acknowledged the Doctrin of the Church as to that particular to be innocent Dr. Jackson Dr. Field Arch-Bishop I and Dr. Heylin Mr. Thern 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammand c. He knows too that some persons never Excommunicated nor censured by the Church of England for it have maintain'd that the Sons of the Church of England cannot defend the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome without denying that Church to be a true Church Other Protestants thought the charge unjust and by consequence without contradicting themselves without going against the intention of the Reformation which was not to make a new Church but to restore a Sick Church to it's Soundness a Corrupted Church to it's Purity Thorn like Just weights and measures Chap. 1.2 Chap. 1.3 Chap. 2. p. 9. without casting the Sin of Schism at their own Dores and being answerable for all the Ill consequences of it Nay more that he who takes the Pope for Antichrist and the Papists for Idolaters can never weigh by his own Weights and mete by his own Measures till he hate Papists worse than Jews or Mahumetans of which the Presbyterian and the Puritan have been guilty but the Clergy and Gentry of the Church of England have been hitherto more Christian I would gladly therefore know how it comes to pass Defence p. 88. that at this time when he acknowledges there was never more cause to hope for an Vnion and wishes that all such things as heighten our Animosities might on all sides be buried in eternal Oblivion An Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England should be ushered in with that odious Imputation of Adoring Men and Women Crosses and Images c. Where do's he find the Church of England in her Thirty Nine Articles or publick Testimonies of her Dogmatical Doctrin charging the Church of Rome
was Hear us since we are certain thou dest Hear O happy Saint if thou hast any regead â—â—ur afairs as we are sure thou hast if such he the hener done by God to the Spirits of Holy persons te have a Sense 〈◊〉 concerits as we are sure it is accept of our Funeral Oration instead of many Funeral â—ites donâ— thee And thus the â—ticle If is taken both in prophane and Sacred Writ as might be shewn by many Examples suppose â—at Father had at two several times made use of an Apostrophe â—ust all the other Addresses which he and the rost of that Age â—ake needs pass for such What Rhetoric was Justina the Virâ—in guilty of when in danger of being seduced by St. Cypriaâ— â—en a Heathen as the same Cregory Nazianten b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Oras in S. Cypr. Tom. 1. Orat. 18. p. 379. D. 280. A. relates she begâ—d of the Virgin Mary to help her a Virgin in the midst of danger â—as the Address with which he finished that Oration only a piece 〈◊〉 Rhetoric c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. infiâ—s pa. 286. B. Look down on us from Heaven with a propitius Eye â—ide our Works and Life feed this Holy Flock govern it with us â—â—recting others as far as it possible to what is best Cast out importune â—â—d trouble some Wolves that cavil and catch at Wors and Syllables vouchâ—â—fing us the perfect and clear splendor of the Blessed Trinity with â—hom thou art already present Was that Address which he makes 〈◊〉 the end of his Oration upon St. Athanasius of the same kind but thou says he d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Orat. 〈…〉 pag 397.8 Lutâ—â— Pariâ—â—orum Anno 1609. fol. look upon us sweetly from on High and direct â—is Holy People Adorer of the Blessed Trinity who is seen and Worshiped in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and in case of peaceable â—…nes Rule and Govern this Flock with me but in case of trouble â—duce or assume us and place us with thy self and those who are like unâ—ther who what I crave be great That also to St. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Idem Orat. 20. in laudem S. Basil in fine Tom. 1. pag. 373. A. Basil O Divine and Sacred Head behold 〈◊〉 from above and the instigation of our Flesh given us as an Instruction from God either asswage with thy PRAYERS or move us to bear couragiously and direct all our life to that which is most beneficial And receive us also after our departure out of this life there in thy Tabernacles Were the Addresses of St. Ephrem who lived Anno 365. and whose Writings Hìer lib. de Script Ecclès Apud Bellarm. de Script Eccl. p. 88. as St. Jerom Testifies were of such repute that they were publickly Read in Churches after the Holy Scripture were they I say only innocent wishes or Rhetorical flights or rather do they not equal any Roman Hymns or Antiphons e Sed te jam nos O pura I nonaeul its eademque benedilla Virgo magni filii iui universorumque Dei mater imulpata integra sacrosanctissima desperantium a que reorum spes collaudamus Tibi ut gruia plenissiuâ—â— bcu dicimus quae Christum genuisti Deum hominem Omnes tibi procidimus Omues te invocamus auxilium tuum imploranâ— Eripe nos O Virgo Sancta atque intemerata a quacunque necessitate ingruente a cuâ—ilis tentationibus diabâ—â— Nostra conciliatrix advocata in hora mortis atque Judicii este Nosque a futuro inextinguibili igne tenebris 〈◊〉 rioribus libera Et silti tui nos gloris diguare O Virgo mater dulcissima ac clementissima Tu siquidem unica 〈◊〉 Deum Christianorum spes nostra es securissima Sanctissima Cul Deo Gloria honor decus atque imperâ—â—… in Sempiterna saecula sâ—culorum Amen S. P. Ephraem Syri Threnl i. e. Lament Glor. Virg. M. Marlae super passione Dontini in sine pa. 698. Edit Ger. Vessie Coloniae 1616. We all says he fall down before thee we all implore thee Free us O undefiled Virgin from all our necessities from all the Temptations of the Devil Be thou our Reconciler and Advocate in the hour of Judgment Deliver us from future Fire and Darkness And vouchsafe to obtain for us O Virgin the Glory of thy Son. See his whole Sermon in praise of the Mother of God in which he not only prays to her but gives her almost all those Titles which are now mentioned in her Litanies What were those Epressions of St. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil in his Homily upon the forty Martyrs who calls them not only the Patrons and Protectors of their Country but exhorts those who are in Tribulation to fly to them them who are in joy to have recourse to then those that they may be freed from their troubles and these that they may be presere'd in prosperity Here continues he the Pious Mother is found Praying for her Children the Wise here asks a safe return for her absent Husband and health for him that is sick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Tom. 1. Hom. in 40. Martyr Rom. 20. pag. 534. A. Let your Prayers be made together with the Martyrs What were those of his Brother St. Gregory Nyssen upon the same forty Martyrs as also those in his Oration upon g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen Tom. 2. d. St. Theod. Mart. pa. 1017. c. St. Theodorus Martyr But I think what I have here mentioned is sufficient He knows very well that I might bring him a multitude of Examples of this nature and such that if a Cardinal Bona or a â—ther Crasset had expressed themselves in the same manner he would have made them pass for Adorers of Men and Women but I suppose the respect he bears to these great Saints and Lights of â—ntiquity will make him pass a more favorable Sentence of them and he is loath I remember to censure them he is the wiser As for his Argument drawn from the Opinion of the Fathers §. 12. The Antient Fathers held Saints departed were admitted to the sight of God tho' not to perfect Bliss till the day of Judgment That the Saints departed were not admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their decease I did not think it of such force as to require being taken notice of For first I am neither engaged as a Catholic nor as a Controvertist to defend every Argument that Bellarmin or Suarez brings tho' he make it pass for the Churches reason especially when many of our Polemic Writers think them unconclusive For supposing not granting it were true as he from Blondel and Daille affirms that St. Basit St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin were of this opinion Expos of the Doct. of the Church of Eng. pag. 8. That the Souls of the Saints departed do not
to Idolatry sind not the least Temptation to it And for any one to think that the most flourishing Christian Church should be guilty of it in her constant Practice is such a contradiction that none but they who are willing to let themselves be perswaded of any thing so it render thé Papists odious can be guilty of it Yet the perpetual Clamor is §. 21. that Roman Catholics Kneel and Pray before the Crucifix and Images of their Saints and bow c. to them and that must needs be Idolatrous I wish they who accuse us in that manner knew what rash judgment is or reflected upon the punishment which God has reserved for those who are guilty of it Rash judgment I say which from an exterior innocent action judges the inward intention to be wicked I wish also they would reflect upon the nature of Idolatry The Nature of Idolatry and consider that three things are required to make that Honor which we pay to any thing become Idolatrous First the Understanding must acknowledge an Excellency in the Object truly Divine and worthy of Adoration in the strictest sense where really there is nosuch Excellency Secondly the Will must have a propension and inclination to it as such and pay that Honor to it And lastly the Body must pay the exterior Obeisance of bowing kneeling prostrating kissing c. in pursuance of that interior Love and Knowledge Now no Man can judge of this interior Affection to or apprehension of the Objects Excellency by the exterior action because those exterior actions being common to many Objects do not only signifie a different Respect according to the dignity of the Object It is a rash judgment to accuse Catholics as Idolaters but may also be used as well in signs of mockery as in testimony of our Honor Which we see they were when the Jews Adored our Saviour saying All Hale King of the Jews From whence it follows that they who accuse Catholics of Idolatry as Adorers of Images must either pretend to know the Secrets of their hearts when their manifest Declarations profess the contrary or be convinced to pass an uncertain nay a rash Judgment against their Fellow Christians 3. Now the Arguments the Defender brings against our Doctrin §. 22. Ill. Objections Answered are taken from St. Thomas of Aquin the Pontifical the Good-Fryday's Service and Hymns of the Church to all which I gave him such Answers as have been satisfactory to all but those who have a mind to cavil but not withstanding these clear Answers he again proceeds to enforce the same Objections by only amplifying the Difficulties without taking notice of any Distinctions which I gave so that I must be forced to repeat them here again and shew him that they are full and if he will but take notice of them unanswerable And first as to St. Thomas I premised we were not to defend every Scholastic Opinion §. 23. St. Thomas we were only to answer for the Doctrin of the Church and not of the Schools so that had St. Thomas erred never so much in his Opinion Catholics as Catholics were not to answer for it But withal I intimated to him that if he would calmly interpret that great Doctor and take his Argument entirely he would find the meaning of his Conclusion not to be so Heterodox as he represents it What new Argument do's he now bring against what I said but only to repeat this Doctors Conclusion in words at length and tell us it is plain and positive and neither to be reconciled with the Vindicators Fancy nor eluded by his Sophistry He would have done well to have consider'd also that other * Estins lib. 3. dist 9. Schoolmen and those Disciples of St. Thomas have as plain and positive Conclusions to the contrary viz. That the Cross of Christ is not to be adored with Latria or Divine Adoration He would have done also justly to have considered how it is that his Followers explicate their Master shewing by other express * The same St. Thâ—mâ—n upon the 11th Ch. of the Hebrews lect 5. as these words Adersuit fastigium virgae ejus after some other explications says thus Vel si adoravit sastigium idem est sensâ—â— quia adoravit Christum signisicatum per virgam illam sicut nos adoramus Crucifixum Crucem ratione Christi passi in ipsa Vade proprie non adoramus Crucem sed Christum Crucifixum in ipsa And in Cap. 3. ad Colloss lect 1. upon these words Quod est Holorum servitus he shews that there may be Idolatry in Worthiping an Image Idâ—lâ—latria est quande qun exhibet alicui Imagini honorem dibitum Deo. It is not then to be thought that by his Conclusion in his Sumn he either contradiâ—ted himself or professed what he here declares to be Idolatry but that he intended only to express that the adoration which we pay before the Cross is truly Divine because it is not properly to the Cross but to Christ who suffered upon the Cross Item 2.2 9â— 81 art 3. ad 3. Motus qui est in imaginem prout eâ— Imago non consistit in ipsa sed â—endit in id cnjus est Iâ—ago places that his meaning could not be that the Cross it self was to be adored but that the Worship which is pay'd before the Cross is Divine because it is pay'd to that Divine Object which is represented by the Cross the Cross being no other but as a Perspective to bring the Object more clearly to our Apprehension and through which the Adoration passes to the Object which it represents Câ—eature irraticnali in se onsideratae non delâ—â—tur ab houriâ—â— aliqua jubjectâ—â— vel honâ—â— Qâ—â—â— autem Crux Christi honoretur hoc sit â—â—â—em homoâ—e quo Chriâ—us honoratur sicut purpura Regis honoratur codem honore quo Rex us Damalcen dicitâ—â—n â—ertie libro Il. 2.2 qu. 103. art 4. ad 3. Def. pa. 16. Appendix pag. 141. §. xii So that the Cross as St. Thomas himself here says being an insensible Creature deserves no Honor but only as it represents Christ or is in some manner one with him in which manner the Honor which is pay'd to it is pay'd to Christ who is one with it and by consequence that Honor as being due to Christ must be Divine How much more Christian and Scholar like had it been for him to have search'd into and according to Reason and Religion explicated the words of this Holy and learned Doctor whose Writings have been admired and reverenced by all the Christian World than so ungentilely to accuse him of Reveries as he calls them If our Defender had not understood how the Image is esteemed to be one with the Object represented or thought it to be a new and Sophistical Invention he might indeed have been excused if he had confessed as much but when we find that explicating another Mystery after his
made so slight of it nor called upon me for some reasonable proof for the Falseness and Impertinence of his Assertion that the Primitive Fathers in praying for the Dead had several other intentions but not that of assisting them or freeing them from Purgatory Tho' the eldest of the Councils I mention was 1400 Years after Christ yet if he consider that it was before Protestancy that both the Eastern and Western Bishops in it consented to that Decree that the Acts of this Council were received by the much Major and Superior part of the whole Christian World as conformable to a Practice delivered to them by their Fore-fathers as of Faith And withal that this Council was seconded by another as Genreal as the circumstances of Time could afford I say This proof comprehends Scripture Fathers Tradiction and universal practice if he reflect upon these Heads he will see that I was not hard put to it for Arguments but that I comprised them all in one and sending him to the Councils I sent him at the same time to Scripture Fathers Tradition and the Universal Practice of Gods Church upon all which their Desintions were manifestly founded They who have been hitherto deceived by the Defender and those of his Coat and made to believe we have nothing to say in defence of our Tenets would do well to peruse our Authors and read the * The Author of Nubes restium has collected some of the many Testimonies where they who read them will see whether they prayed only for the Intentions mentioned by our Author and not rather for their help and assistance they will see also that the Fathers deliver it as an Apostolic Doctrin and therefore lest it not to us to believe or not believe at pleasure Fathers If so they will find that we establish our Doctrin upon the Primitive Practice not only of the Church of Christ but of the Jewish Synagogue and that we have both Scripture and a sufficient number of Fathers on our side Nay they will see also that it was neither false nor foolish which I said That since the Practice of all Nations and the Testimonies of every Age confirm the Custom of Praying for the Dead that they may receive help what can we say to them who make a Breach in the Church and condemn Antiquity Vendic p. 59. upon no other grounds than abare Supposition that it is injurious to the Merits of Jesus Christ a Supposition which yet has no other Proof but their vain Presumption How often have we called upon them to shew us one sole passage of the Antients or one sole Text of Scripture positively assirming there is no Purgatory No Fathers nor Scripture against it or that the Prayers which are offered up for the Faithful departed avail them nothing But if they cannot shew this it is neither foolish nor false to tell them they go upon bare Suppositions and their own Presumption whilst Scripture Fathers and Universal Practice are for us PART II. ART VIII Of the Sacraments in General IF our Defender have a mind to see how we prove all the Seven Sacraments to have Outward Signs of an Inward Grace § 43. and that they were instituted by Christ he may be pleas'd to cast his Eyes a little upon our Divines where he will find it amply proved But to say That not one of our Church has yet been able to do it is so manifest a Falsity as will appear also in the Sequel that it does not need any Endeavors to disprove it But however these things must be said lest People should open their Eyes and see the Truth and they who pretend to be Lovers of Peace and Unity resolve to multiply Accusations to hinder such good effects Where lies the Sincerity ART IX Of Baptism THe Dispute in this Article is a meer Cavil §. 44. proceeding from the want of a right understanding of the Bishop of Meaux and a willingness to shew at least some kind of Opposition to overy thing that is said Roman Catholics Protestants of the Church of England The Church of England and Lutherans hold Baptism absolutely necessary Expos Doâ—t Ch. of Eng. pag. 6. and Lutherans are agreed as to the Absolute Necessity of Baptism and that seeing we are all conceived and born in Sin none can enter into the Kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and the Holy Spirit This the Defender in his Exposition tells us is the Law of Christ which the Eternal Truth has established and whosoever shall presume to oppose it let him be Anathema From this received Principle the Bishop of Meaux deduced That Children dying without Baptism do not partake of the Grace of Redemption but that dying in Adam Therefore Children dying without it have no part in Christ they have not any part in Jesus Christ and the reason he gave for this his Assertion was because Children cannot supply the want of Baptism by Acts of Faith Hope and Charity nor by the Vow or Desire to receive this Sacrment Now because my Opponent argued against this Consequence deduced from the absolute Necessity of Baptism telling us that we our selves acknowledge the Desires c. of Persons come to Years of Understanding to besufficient to supply the wants of their Actual Reception of Baptism and that the Desire of the Church for Children that dye without it may in like manner suffice I answered There is a vast difference betwixt the ardent Desire of those who are by Age capalbe of receiving Baptism and the Desire of the Church or Parents the one proceeding from Faith working by Divine Charity already infused into the Soul of the Vnbaptized Person will no doubt of it produce a good Effect if he extinguish it not by the neglect of a Precept but the other being wholly extrinsecal to the Child cannot affect the Soul of the Child unless by the application of that Sacrament which Jesus Christ has instituted as necessary to wash away our Original Guilt Against this Argument he had nothing to say but that he is not concerned whether it be better than his or no tho he thinks I am very much that is just nothing But however the Bishop of Meaux must be run down §. 45. and exposed as a man talking with great rashness c. But to clear the Bishop I must desire it may be considered that tho' we and the Lutherans are agreed as to the absolute Necessity of Baptism yet the Calvinists accord not with us For they do not only say that they cannot determin whether Children dying without Baptism may not be Saved by the Faith of their Parents but positively affirm they are saved by that Faith The Calvinists oppose this necessity Trâ—â—â—se of Communim under both Species 2d Part. §. 6. Disc c.xi. ri vi Objerv and that Baptism is not necessary insomuch that as the Bishop of Meaux expresses it in another
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
them as with a Seal and gave the Pledge of the Holy Ghost in their Hearts I need not I suppose tell him that this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead signifies that we ought not to be ashamed to Consess the Faith of Christ Crucified as the Church of England expresses it in the Office for Baptism that the white Cloath or Fillet as he calls it is to put us in mind of the Purity we ought to maintain and keep the Garment of Innocence which we received in Baptism unspotted and that the Blow on the Ear is to teach us that we ought from thence forwards to suffer patiently all Injuries and Persecutions for the Faith. These and such like significant Ceremonies we use and tho' he and his party be pleased to joke at them yet having such Testimonies as we have of their Antiquity and Apostolical Institution we choose rather to glory in them than under the pretences of a Reformation to Renounce them and the Practice yea the Communion of the Universal Church ART XI Of Penance CErtainly the Defender never read what I offered §. 49. Defence pag. 41. otherwise he would never have said that I had not advanced any one thing to answer his Objections He says he proved at large that Penance was not truly and properly a Sacrament nor ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church How did he prove it By many bold Assertions without any Warrant And if I affirmed the contrary without Proof I had his Precedent for it The Bishop of Condom had proved the Sacrament of Penance by the Terms of the Commission granted by our Blessed Saviour to the Apostles and their Successors Matth. 18.12 John 20.23 of remitting and retaining sins Expos p. 18. the terms says he of which Commission are so general that they cannot without Temerity be restrained to public Sins Our Expositor's Answer to this was that the Primitive Christians had interpreted those passages of St. Matth. and St. John concerning Public Disciplin to which he supposes with them that principally at least if not only they refer I desired him to shew who those Primitive Christians were Vindic. pag. 64. and where they taught those passages to be only referred to a public Disciplin But to this he would not vouchsafe to give an Answer He objected that if Penance had been any thing more than a part of Christian Disciplin the Antient Church would not have presumed to make such changes in it nor Nectarius have begun to weaken it in his Church of Constantinople nor his Successor St. John Chrysostom have seconded him in it In answer to which I told him that Public Confession such as that which Nectarius and St. Chrysostom took away was a part of Disciplin and therefore alterable at pleasure Vindic. pag. 65. but that either Public or Private Confession was always necessary because it was always necessary a Judge should know the Case and a Physitian the Distemper before the one can pronounce a right Sentence or the other prescribe a wholsom Remedy But he thinks it a sufficient Reply to say he cannot take this upon my Word He had laid Scandals upon our Doctrin and Practice or at least insinuated them and therefore I looked upon my self as obliged to give my Readers a short Account of both and after I had done it I told him those were our Doctrins and Practices conformable to that of the Antient and Orthodox Churches and that I was astonished why they should be rejected and no better ground brought than we suppose Expos Doct. Church of England pag. 43. or we beg leave with Assurance to say that such Doctrins are directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture One would have thought in answer to this he should have shewn some better Proofs and have brought Testimonies of that Tradition or at least have produced some one of those plain and undoubted Texts of Scripture But alas he could not do that and therefore he passes it off by calling it Stuff and with a fulsome Joke upon my Ashonishment telling me that if ever I get so well out of it as to come to my Reason again and will undertake to prove Penance to be truly and Properly a Sacrament c. I shall have an ingenuous Reply to my Arguments In the mean time say I §. 50. The Church of England wishes it were re-established let him and his Church be so ingenuous as to restore the practice of Confession and Penance which they seem so much to wish for in the Ash-wednesday Office at least that in publick not to say any thing of the judgment of all the sober persons even amongst themselves who wish well to all Salutary Methods which Christ has left in his Church and particularly to this and then we might find a happy opportunity of proposing Arguments In Confirmation you make a shift to deny the Sacrament but have not renounced the Practice it may be for Episcopacy sake but in Penance the Practice has followed your renouncing the Sacrament And call you this a Reformation which seems to be more careful of the Dignity of the Pastor than of the Salvation of the Flock I think the Defender would do well to consider this and perhaps he will be astonished at their own proccedings I told him this Doctrin was established in England together with Christianity by St. Augustin and the Benedictin Monks and that if he would have us to relinquish it he must bring us either some manifest Revelations or demonstrative Reasons for nothing else could induce us to quit a possession of so long standing But he knew this would be impossible for him to do and therefore he resolved to keep at distance and put us upon the proof A proceeding which would not hold in Law where an uninterrupted Possession is a sufficient Evidence See Mr. Ricauâ—'s History Anno 1678. Ch. 12. What I have said of England I may say of all other both Eastern and Western Churches who unanimously held at the beginning of the Reformation that Penance was a Sacrament and looked upon the Doctrin as coming from the Apostles they having an uninterrupted Possession of it ART XII Of Extream Vnction IF the Defender had rightly considered the Question betwixt us §. 51. The Defender mistakes the Question he would have spared a great part of the pains he has taken in this Article and have let alone the pretended Proofs he brings from our Antient Liturgies as wholy impertinent Tho's he could not deny but that in Extream Unction there is both an outward Visible Sign and an inward and Spiritual Grace annexed to it yet because he was to oppose the Catholic Church he would have this to be only a Ceremony made use of in the Miraculous Cures of the Apostles And to prove this he affirmed that the Antient Rituals of the Roman Church for 800 Years
purpose Defence pag. 44. seeing by his own Confession they who had the greatest measure of those Gifts could not exercise them when they would but only when the Spirit of God instructed them And lastly Seeing he assures us that they never attempted those miraculous Cures but when the same Spirit taught them that the sick person had Faith to be healed and that it would be to the Glory of God to do it I desire he would at his leisure let us know how it came to pass that the Primitive Christians exercised this Extream Unction if it tended only to miraculous Cures after Miracles were ceased For it is manifest that if they never did or if it were unlawful for them to use this anointing with Oyl for miraculous Cures but when the Spirit of God dictated to them that they should be healed this Extream Unction mentioned by St. James and generally practised for the first 800 Years most of which Time there was few such Miracles wrought cannot be that miraculous Unction of which he speaks When therefore St. James adds let them Pray over him anointing him in the Name of the Lord he speaks of an ordinary dispensation and gives us hopes of the effect I told him Miraculous Cures were wrought in the Lame and the Blind but the Apostle includes not them Here to shew his Learning he tels us that the Greek word may include them also But does the Apostle speak of such as are well and Heart-whole as we say the Lame and the Blind may be such as do not keep their Beds or does he not rather speak of Decumbents in Sickness in your own sense for they only can be raised up I added that the Power of Miracles was not tied to Unction only From whence it followed that if the Apostle had only spoken of miraculous Cures he would not have limited them to that Ceremony But the Defender thinks this was the ordinary Sign the most common and frequent amongst them and grounds his thoughts upon St. Mark 6.13 But the Evangelist only tels us there that the Apostles did anoint many sick people and cure them But seeing the same Holy Evangelist Ch. 16. v. 18. tells us that Christ promised that those who believed in him should lay their Hands upon sick people and heal them why may not this Imposition of Hands be looked upon as no less common and frequent nay more frequently used in those miraculous Cures than Unction because more ready and easy to be performed upon any occasion And if so had the Apostle intended only to invite persons not to neglect those miraculous Cures by our Authors Argument he should have mentioned that Imposition of Hands I told him further that all those that were anointed were not cured But this he says is false and dishonorable to the Spirit by which they acted How were all those that were anointed for the first 800 Years cured If not let him tell us when those miraculous Cures ceased and why the Spirit of God which he says taught them when they should anoint and when they should not did not also teach them to discontinue the Practice of it when the Church needed not Miracles to confirm her Doctrins and how it is that Protestants are become so learned at present as to reject it after above 1600 Years perpetual practice Moreover I said that all those who were cured by them that had the Gift of Healing had not an assurance by that cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins This again he says is false From which and the foregoing Assertion it would follow in our Defenders sense That no persons either died or were damned that had this Extream Unction given them till the Spirit of God left the Church and she fell into an Error using it with a primary respect to the Soul when God had instituted it only for miraculous Cures And therefore I had reason to tell him that if St. James's expression the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up had been meant of bodily Health those only would have died in the Apostles Time I might have added as long as the Church understood that passage in his sense which he thinks was for 800 Years who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony An argument which because he could not answer he was willing to throw Dust in his Readers Eyes by retorting of it and telling us that if it were to be understood of the Souls Health it would follow that none were damned either then or now but they who neglect this Advice or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Sacrament Of the Truth of which he desires my Opinion I answer him That it is a Truth never doubted of in the Church that all those who receive this Sacrament with due preparation and in that state which is required as necessary by the Curch and fall not into new mortal sins before their Deaths are saved And if he do but consider that the Church requires the person who rightly receives this Sacrament should be in the state of Grace it being one of those which only augments Grace but does not restore it when lost he will rest of this Opinion ART XIII Of Marriage THe Bishop of Meaux having told us §. 55. Maâ—th 19.5 that Jesus Christ has given a new Form to Marriage reducing this Holy Society to two persons immutably and indissolubly united Eph. 5.32 The Bishop of Meaux and the Defender agreed â—xpos Doct. Church of England pag. 45. that this inseparable Vnion is the Sign of his eternal Vnion with his Church and that therefore we have not any difficulty to comprehend how the Marriage of the Faithful is accompanied by the Holy Ghost and by Grace And the Defender having told us in his Exposition that for the Point of Marriage Monsieur de Meaux has said nothing but what they willingly allow of I was in hopes the Dispute would have been at an end because as I told him we require no more And to clear the Point further We demand no more I told him that tho' Catholics esteem Marriage to be a Sacrament truly and properly so called yet not in so strict a sense as he would bind the word Sacrament to that is it is not a Sacrament after the same manner as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are nor generally necessary to Salvation The Reasons he then brought why it was not strictly a Sacrament were first because as he said it wanted an outward Sign to which by Christs Promise a Blessing is annexed And secondly because the Church of Rome denying it to the Clergy did not esteem it generally necessary to Salvation As for his last Reason I say I acknowledged it was not a Sacrament in that strict manner but as for the first I told him it might easily be evinced by the whole Torrent of Fathers and plain Texts of Scripture as interpreted by
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 Worship did as he says many things utterly inconsistent with it as Burning in some Churches what remained of the Holy Sacrament permitting the People to carry it home that had communicated sending it abroad by Sea and Land without any regard that we can find had to its Worship burying it with their Dead making Plaisters of the Bread mixing the Wine with their Ink which certainly says he are no instances of Adoration Before I begin to Answer this Objection §. 92. I must beg leave to shew our Belief in this matter and the Grounds we go upon First we believe It is lawful to Adore God and Christ wherever they are whoever acknowledges Jesus Christ to be God and Man may lawfully Adore him wherever he has a Rational ground to believe him to be present yet is he not at all times obliged to pay this actual Adoration because otherwise the Apostles must have done nothing else but Adore when ever they were in the presence of their Lord. Secondly the Grounds of our Belief that our Blessed Saviour is really Present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are undoubtedly Rational as I think I have sufficiently shewn and therefore all those who believe him Present may lawfully Adore him there We cannot always pay this actual adoration tho' they are not always Obliged actually to pay that Adoration otherwise they must do nothing in presence of the Sacrament but Adore Him. Thirdly It is worthy our Remark that the words Sacrament Host or Eucharist are sometimes taken for Christ alone sometimes for the Species alone VVe adore Christ in the Sacrament not what is sensible and sometimes for both Christ and the Species but when we speak properly of Adoring the Sacrament we speak only of Adoring Christ in the Sacrament For we do not adore what is Visible Tangible or any ways Sensible in the Sacrament but only Christ Jesus whom we believe to be under those Visible Tangible and Sensible Elements Lastly The Church being confirmed in this Belief has Authority as occasion serves to command the payment of this Adoration which is Due at all times and to set apart some solemn Festivals or Ceremonial Rites to invite her Children to perform this Duty These Considerations being premised I deny his Antecedent §. 93. and to his Proofs I answer To the first I say the Scriptures silence is no more an Argument against us in this I. The Scriptures silence no Argument against a perpetual practice than it is against the Adoration of our Lord when present in the flesh for tho' we find there a Command of going to Christ and following him yet will he scarce find an express place in the Gospels where Christ commands his Disciples to Adore him This Adoration depending wholly on his being God it was sufficient that he convinced them of his Divinity and we being thus convinced by his own words that he is present in the Sacrament we are obliged to adore him there And if St. Paul did not Argue as our Defender would have had him yet does he do it with no less force and Energy It was sufficient to tell them it was the Body and Blood of Christ that to receive it was an Annunciation of his Death that they who received it unworthily were guilty of the Body and Blood of their Lord that they cat and drunk their own Condemnation not Discerning the Lords Body That therefore there were many sick and weak amongst them and many died These as they were sufficient Arguments to perswade them not to profane the Sacrament so were they sufficient Arguments to convince them and us of the Obligation to Adore him Present in it tho' St. Paul did not put them in mind of that Necessary consequence To the Second §. c 4. II. The Church condemns arising Herefies by Her practice It has always been the custom of the Church to condemn Heresies by her Practice as well as her Anathema's commanding the Glory be to the Father c. to be said or sung after every Psalm in opposition to the Arian Error and the Feast of the Blessed Trinity to condemn the Antitrinitarians c. no wonder therefore if when this pernicious Heresy of the Sacramentarians begun Atque sic quidem operâ—uit victrâ—cem reâ— itatem de mendacio heresi triumphum agere ut ejus adversarts in conspectu tanti splendoris in tanta untversae Ecclesiae laetitia positi vel debilitati fracti tabescant vel pudore affecti confusi allquendo resipiscant Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. she testified her Adorations by new practices and solemnities Tho' therefore the Feast of Corpus Christi the Exposition the Elevation c. May not be very Antient yet was it no new thing to Adore Christ in the Sacrament And it was but necessary that when Heretics begun to offer Indignities to that Sacred Mystery the Church should injoyn new Prayses Honours and Adorations to her celestial Spouse to the end as the Council says that Truth might by this means triumph over Lyes and Heresy and that its Adversaries at the sight of so much splendor and amidst such an universal joy of the Church being weakned and disenabled might decay or through shame and confusion at last repent To the last I answer §. 95. III. Particular practices hurt not the Universal Doctrin That if some things were done to avoid inconveniencies or others out of a heat of Zeal which are not agreeable to our practices at present they were not generally received nay censured by the Church when once they grew more public or layd aside when the inconveniencies were removed But these practices did not shew a disbelief of the Real Presence tho' our Defender may perhaps shew that they tended to a disrespect upon which account it was that the Church abolished them If it was a custom for some time Hesych in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. in the Church of Jerusalem to burn what remained after Communion Was it not a shew of Reverence and Respect lest perhaps the Sacred Symbols might fall into the hands of those Burgr hist l. 4. c. 35. who would Profane them And the same may be said of the custom in the Church of Constantinople of giving the remaining particles of the immaculate Body of Jesus Christ our God as the Historian expresses it to young Children But this I hope was consistent with a belief of the real Prerence If also the Primitive Christians permitted the Faithful to carry it home with them or sent it by Sea or Land to the Sick or to them with whom they would testify their unity it was not I hope any sign of their disrespect but rather a testimony of their Veneration and a practice which did not derogate from their belief of its being the Body of their Lord. If a St. Benedict caused the Blessed Sacrament to be laid upon the breast of a dead Corps which the Grave
they will have the Essence of a Sacrifice to consist in a slaying of the Victim but by that act only there is a true Immolation of Jesus Christ viz. a separation of his Body from his Blood by â—he words of Consecration tho' the natural concomitance hinder the Blood or Soul from being truly separated from the Body Against this reason after other Arguments he brings this Denique vel in Missa fit vera vealis Christi mactatie occisio vel non sit Si non fit non est verum reale Sacrificium Missa Sacrisâ—eium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrisicii Si autem sit ergo verum erit dicere à Sacerdotibus Christianis verè realiter Christium occidi at hâ—o Sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur de Missa lib. 1. cap. 27. pag. 873. A. In the Sacrifice of the Mass either there is says he a true and real mactation and slaying of Jesus Christ or there is not If there be not then according to you the Mass is no real Sacrifice for when the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in being slain as it is your opinion a true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real slaying But if there be then we might truly say that Christ is truly and really slain by Christian Priests but this is rather a Sacrilege than a Sacrifice From this manner of Arguing any one may see that it is neither the Cardinals §. 100. The essence of a Sacrifice consills not in slaying the Victim nor the Churches opinion that the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in Slaying of the Victim But yet we acknowledg a True and Real Sacrifice in the Mass And had he gone a little farther in this Author he would have seen how all the Essential parts of a Sacrifice are contained in it Our Defender in his Exposition tells us there are Four things required to make a Sacrifice Pag. 66. Four things reqired to a Sacrifice 1. That what is offered be something that is Visible 2. That of profane which it was before it be now made Sacred 3. That it be offered to God. And 4 ly by that offering suffer an Essential destruction And supposes the greatest part of these conditions nay all of them to be evidently wanting Now Bellarmin in this same place tells him that three of these Conditions are fund in the Consecration of the Eucharist and the other is evidently included in them First says he a Profane or common thing Bread is by Consecration made the Body of Christ the Visible Species of Bread remaining neither does it follow from thence that Bread is only Sacrificed but that which remains the change being made 2. That Sacred thing which remains under the Visible species is offered to God by being placed upon the Altar Lastly From hence it appears how falsely our defender in his Exposition pag. 65. accused the Cardinal of saying that Either Christ Sacrificed in Eating or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it Read his 7. Proposition in the same 27. Ch. of his 1. Book Sacramenti consumptio ut fit a Sacerdote Sacrificante pâ—rs est essentialn sed non tots Essentia And the 8th Consecratio Eucharislia ad Essentiam Sacrificii pertinet The words of Bellarmin which he cited are these Christus isse out Consecrando consumendo Sacrificavit aus nullo modo Sacrificavit But it was not to his purpose to put in consecrando By Consecration that which is offered is ordained to a True Real and external change and destruction which was necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice for by Consecration the Body of Christ receives the form of food but food is ordained to be Eaten and by that to a change and destructon neither is that any objecton that the Body of Christ suffers not nor loses its natural being when we receive the Eucharist for it loses its Sacramental being and thereby ceases to be really upon the Altar ceases to be a sensible food The Cardinal being thus Vindicated I say Our Defender cannot deny Malac. 1 11. 3. 3. Esay 66.21 but that the Prophets in the Old Law foretold and that in the time of Antichrist the dayly Sacrifice should be taken away He cannot also deny but that the New Testament speaks of Altars and Priesis Dan 11 3â— 12.11 hebr 13. 10. compared with the 1 Cor. 10. And that the Fathers of the Primitive Church usually called the Eucharist a Sacrifice an Oblation an unbloody Sacrifice a Sacrifice which * Pervenit ad Sanctum magnumque Concâ—tium quod in quibusdam locir civitatibus Presbyteris gratiam Sacrae communionis Diaconi porrigant quod nec regula nec consuetudo tradidit ut ab his qui potessatem non habent offerendt illi qui offerunt Christi corpus accipiant Conc. Nic. Primum can 18. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 344. Deacons had not power to offer but only Priests and the like Expressions Upon what ground then can he pretend that all these Expressions were Metaphorical and endeavour to elude all these by sticking firm to his Notion of a Sacrifice that there can be no true offering without suffering And because Christ does not suffer in the Mass therefore he is not truly Offered The Bishop of Meaux one would have thought has fully removed that difficulty telling him that if we take the word Offer in the sense it is made use of in the Epistle to the Hebrews as implying the Actual death of the Victim we will publickly consess that Jesus Christ is now no more Offered up neither in the Eucharist nor any where else But because this word has a larger signification in other places of Scripture where it is often said we offer up to God what we present before him the Church which forms her Language and her Doctrin not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scriptures is not afraid to say that Jesus Christ Offers up himself to God wherever he appears before his Face upon our behalf and that by consequence he Offers up himself in the Eucharist according to the Holy Fathers expressions We affirm then that in the Mass is Offered up to God a True proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice A Sacrifice in remembrance of that on the Cross and applying to us the benefits there purchased for us A Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ is both the Priest and the Victim But yet no bloody Sacrifice Here is no Death of the Victim but in Mystery and representation But however it is a True and proper Sacrifice as Christ is truly and properly a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec I might here have taken notice how this Expositor brings in the Bishop of Meaux §. 101. Expos Ch. of Eng. pag. 67. observing that the Author of the Epistle to the
things considered I think I had just reason to say that the present Church in every Age was to be judge of the universality or not universality of Tradition and that if she declared her self either by the most general Council that Age all things considered could afford or by the Constant Practice and Uniform voice of her Pastors and People every private Church or person ought to submit to her decisions But this Doctrin will not down with our Defender §. 106. Desence pag. 77.80 The Defenders Arguments against this judge of Tradition answered who has so great a deference for a Church that he is not afraid to say that any private or individual person may examin and oppose the decisions of the whole Church if he be but evidently convinced that his priate belief is founded upon the Authority of Gods Holy Word And he has two reasons he says why he cannot assent to this method of judging which is universal Tradition 1. Because it is a matter of fact whether such Doctrins were delivered or no 1. Objection and this matter of fact recorded by those who lived in or near that first Age of the Church if then the Records of those first Ages contradict the sentence of the Church any man who is able to search into them may more securely rely upon them than upon the Decrees of a Council of a later Age or the voice and practice of its Pastors and People And this he says is the case in many things betwixt them and us Answer But Good Sir weigh a little the force of your Argument and see whether it be not built upon a mere supposition that the Church has erred or may err in the delivery of her Doctrins even against the plain words of Scripture or positive Testimony of the Fathers But such an absurdity being supposed what wonder if many others follow after Again tell me are those Records you speak of plain to any one that is able to search into them If so I hope the Church is as clear sighted and able to search into them as any individual Church or person Or are they obscure And then I suppose you will allow the universal Church's constant practice in that Age or her declarations in her Councils to be at least a better Interpreter than such Private persons or Assemblies And if the Catholic Church examining those passages in the antient Fathers tells me they are so far from contradicting her Practices or Doctrins that if rightly understood they speak the same thing with her I think there lyes a greater obligation on me to submit my Judgment to that of the Universal Church than obstianately to follow my own sense or that of a particular Church dissenting from the whole And that this is the case betwixt Catholics and Protestants the Defender knows and the Reader may gather from this Treatise But the Defender has yet a more cogent reason against this method §. 107.2 Objection which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and give this Unwritten word the upper hand of the Written Answer Had he said that this method would be apt to set up the Decrees of Councils and the judgment of the Church before the Private spirit or judgment of Particulars I should readily have granted what he said Tradition and Scripture are not Competitors But I see no competition in our case betwixt Scripture and Tradition but that they both strengthen each others Testimony unless he will have the Text and the most authentic Comment to be competitors Now the Defender looks upon it as a high affront to Scripture that the Church's decrees or practices should obtain and be in force with all its members when many of them may be perswaded that they cannot find what she decrees in nay that it is contrary to the word of God. And declares for himself and all his Party That they cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon those grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrin which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the Written word of God. For in this case he thinks it reasonable that the Church's sentence should be made void and the voice of her pretended Traditions silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God. But had he expressed himself clearly and according to the point in question he should have said that the sentence of the Church was in such cases to be made void and every mans private interpretation of Scripture if he be evidently convinced that it is according to the word of God preferred before the Decrees of General Councils or the uniterrupted Practice and Preaching of her Pastors But of this Argument more in the next Article ART XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church THe Authority of the Church is a point of so great Importance §. 108. that being once established all other Doctrins will Necessarily follow The Concessions which our Defender had made in his Exposition were indeed such as might very well have given us hopes he would have submitted to the natural consequence of them but we might well be surprised to see them so suddainly dashed by such wild Exceptions as do not only destroy all Church Authority but open a way to as many different Opinions in Religion as there are persons inclined to make various interpretations of Scripture and headstrong enough to prefer their Own sense before that of Others What I pray avails his Concessions The Desenders Concessions that the Catholic Church is ostablished by God the Guardian of Holy Scriptures and Tradition That she has Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline Expos pag. 76. pag. 78. but even of Faith too That it is upon her Authority they receive and reverence several Books as Canonical Pag. 76. and reject others as Apocryphal even before by their own reading of them they perceive the Spirit of God in them And Pag. 77. that if as universal and uncontroverted a Tradition had descended for the Interpretation of Scriptures as for the receiving of them they should have been as ready to accept of that too surely he does not mean such a Tradition as no one ever called in question for there is scarce a Book of Scripture but some Heretic or other has questioned whether it were Canonical or no What I say do such Concessions as these avail us when he allows every Cobler or Tinker nay every silly Woman for he excepts no body the liberty not only to examin the Church's Decisions but to prefer their Own sense of Scripture before that of the Whole Church This position is so Extravagant that I think I need only give it in his own words §. 109. to make him and all that party who he tells us have approved his Book HIs Exceptions
Christiantiy But that if these or any of them should meet in a National Church the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church How Extravagant such a Doctrin as this is I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider And return to the Defenders Argument He tells us §. 111. that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic unless we can prove either first there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her or secondly that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united tho' professing known and condemned Heresies as wel as an Orthodox Church maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ or were called Christians or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ nor any Error in their Worship but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Savlation which is manifestly false or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic Church But this we cannot do unless we will open a Gate for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her And tell the world plainly that the Arians or any other Heresy may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians tho' Orthodox in their belief And if this be his meaning it follows that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church so long as they turn not Apostats and deny their Christianity All which is absurd in an eminent degree But if he mean only this that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic we must shew there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did we will joyn Issue with him and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any unbyassed judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome And that all other Churches in the world that were Orthodox professed just the same Faith as to all the Essential Points of it and practised the very same Essential Worship which shew now does That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced will appear to any man who considers that when we speak of the Catholic Church we speak of that Church which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ joyned with that Vniversality viz. Vnity without Schisms and Divisions Sanctity without Errors Heresies or damnable Doctrins and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrins in matters of Faith or Manners or those who like Corah and his companions set up an Altar against an Altar and chalenge to themselves a Function like that of Aarons without being lawfully called thereto To prove therefore this Truth §. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the the true Catholic Church proved that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is this true Catholic Church I must desire my Reader to consider 1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel he told them that they who did not believe should be condemned but they who did believe and were baptised should be saved 2. That these Believers were called Christians that is Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world to continue till the end of the same to preserve the Doctrins delivered to her to be one and therefore free from Schisms Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrins All which we express in our Creed I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions which as they are destructive of Vnity and Sanctity the marks of his true Church so are they also impediments to Salvation and therefore must be avoided and seeing this Church must be free from them she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics from the Orthodox Christians and cut them off from being Members of her Communion 3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors or refused to pay a due Obedience and therefore if during their Separation other Heresies or Schisms should bud out the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third a fourth or a fifth But as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third and in a word all other succeeding Assemblies who either thus opposed the Truths delivered to her or refused to pay her a due obedience 4. These things thus considered it necessarily follows that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned her self condemned proud Schismatics and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and
as if they were first Principles which needed none he draws this Admirable Conclusion worth the consideration of every Member of the Church of England and for which the Dissenters will no doubt return him thanks If says he in Matters of Faith a man be to judge for himself and the Scriptures be a clear and sufficient rule for him to judge by it will plainly follow that if a man be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular Belief in necessary point of Faith is founded upon the Word of God and that of the universal Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church because he must follow the Superior not the Inferior guide Now from hence any Rational Man will certainly conclude that at least all Dissenters in necessary points of Faith of which I see not but that they themselves must be judges may make use of this Principle to maintain their Dissent And as long as they ground themselves upon the Scriptures interpreted by themselves and have but confidence enough to think they have examined them sufficiently what ever Church pretends to punish or compel them does an unjust action because they are obliged to follow the Superior not the inferior guide Neither is this method as the Defender acknowledges it is liable only to some Abuse Ibid. pag. 81. through the Ignorance or Malice of some men But the Universal Church and much more every particular is put into an incapacity of reducing either the Ignorant or the Malitious to their duty if they have but Pride enough to be positive in as well as conceited of their own Opinions But however this Method tho' thus liable to some abuses is certainly in the main most just and reasonable and agreeable to the constitutions of the Church of England which does not take upon her to be Mistress of the Faith of her Members See. â—rt 20. but alloows a higher place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions Thus He. I know not what thanks the genuine Sons of the Church of England will return him for thus destroying the Authority of their Mother §. 115. but I am sure the Dissenters will thank him for this liberty if he will but give them any assurance that it shall be maintained to them with all its consequences and such large concessions as these may Unite them all tho' the Anathemas of their Synods and all the Penal Laws and Tests have proved ineffectual It is not my business to go about to teach the Defender the Doctrin of his own Church Bishop Sparrows judgment of the Authority of a Church but had he read the Preface to the collection of Articles Canons c. by Bishop Sparrow he would have found a Doctrin diametrically opposite to this of his and that one of them misunjhderstood that 20th Article For the Bishop declares that without a Definitive and Authoritative sentence controversies will be endless and the Church's peace unavoidably disturbed and therefore the Voice of God and right Reason hath taught that in matters of Controversy the Definitive sentence of Superiors should decide the Doubt and whosoever should decline from that sentence and do presumptuously should be put to death that others might hear and fear and do no more presumptuously Deut. 17. which is to be understood mystically also of death spiritual by Excommunication by being cut off from the living body of Christ's Church Nay he there proves there is a double Authority in the Church the one of Jurisdiction to correct and reform those impure members by spiritual censures whom Counsel will not win and if they be incorrigible to cast them out of this Holy Society and the other a Legislative power to make Canons and Constitutions upon emergent occasions to decide and compose controversies c. and this he shews by Reason as he says and Gods own Rule by matter of fact by that very 20th Article of the Church of England which declares that the Church has power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith and the practice of the Primitive Church in her General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Calcedon whereas all these have no force with our Defender For he it may be is evidently convinced that those Texts of Scripture As my Father sent me so send I you John 20. All power is given to me go therefore and teach all Nations Matth. 28. Obey them that have oversight over you and watch for your Souls Heb. 13 c. were misapplyed by Bishop Sparrow or the Church of England in his days Nay moreover if he be but evidently convinced that the Holy Scriptures where or how I cannot conceive have taught the contrary and that the whole Church has erred in challenging this Authority both in the Primitive and later times he will think himself if he be constant to his Principle obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church because he must follow the Superior not the inferior guide That is in plain English if his Fancy tell him the Church has erred he must believe his Fancy rather than the Church he must follow the Superior not inferior Guide Let us now examin a little his two Postulata's upon which he grounds this Doctrin §. 116. His first is That he allows of this dissent or opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith. The Defenders first Postulatum answered Now I thought the Protestants of the Church of England had at least held the whole Church to be unerrable in Fundamentals or necessary Articles of Faith Our Defender knows very well that the most eminent of his Church have held so and if he have forgot it I will at another time refresh his memory If he answer it was only their private opinion but not the Doctrin of their Church I desire him to shew his assertion that the whole Church may err in necessary Articles of Faith and every private person is bound to dissent from her c. to be the Doctrin of their Church Their 19th Article says indeed that particular Churches have erred But affirms the Visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is Preached and the Sacraments be duly minisired according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the saine Now one would think that that Congregation of Faithful who Preach the pure Word of God an administer the Sacraments duly according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requiste to the same should be freed from error in those Necessaries But this is the new Protestancy our Defender endevors to expound and it is a hard case that we must beforced to teach those who pretend to expound the Doctrin
of their Churcy what it she holds Let him therefore I say shew this to be the Doctrin of his Church before he build other Doctrins upon it And when he has done that there will remain some other Obstacles to be removed before his Supposal will be admitted by us One of which is how he proves it obligatory for every individual person to dissent from the Church or oppose her Doctrins in those necessary Articles of Faith upon their being evidently convinced in their judgments that they have hit upon the right sense of Scripture and the Church has not and yet will not allow them the same Liberty upon the same Evidence in matters which are not so necessary One would think that if they be obliged to submit to the Church in non-necessaries they should be so much the more in necessaries Unless he will have the Church to be an unerring guide in non-necessaries and mans particularl judgment of the sense of Scripture Errable and on the contrary mans particular judgment of the sense of Scripture infallible in Necessaries and the Church's judgment fallible No But his reason is because it is every mans concern and duty hoth to Judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able when the Dispute is about necessaries whereas he is not so bliged about non-necessaries I deny not but that it is every mans concern and duty to make the best Judgment he can about necessaries to his Salvation when a less care is required in non-necessaries But is it not the Church's concern and interest to do the same and when she has done that will right reason teach every particular man to prefer his sense before hers in either of them No certainly but on the contrary will dictate to him that the best and securest means he can take not to be deceived in his Judgment is to rely upon the Churches sentence because God has given a Promise to secure his Church from Error whereas there is no Promise to Individuals that they shall not be Deceived in searching the sense of Scripture If the Defender can shew such a Promise he will instead of destroying the Popes Infalliblity set up as many infallible Popes as persons For to be Infallible in this case is no more than seriously and impartially to follow an Infallible rule which is so clear in it self that every serious and Impartial Enquirer shall certainly understand the right sense of it Every individual person therefore according to our Defenders supposition who is fully convinced that he has made use of the best endeavors he can his Employments Capacity Learning c. considered to come to the right sense of Scripture which Scripture is in it self Infallible may assure himself that he has Infallibly hit upon the true sense of Scripture from whence it would necessarily follow truth being but one that we should have no Errors in the world but amongst those who are neither serious nor impartial in their enquiry For the fault must either first be in that they do not use their best endevors or secondly that their Rule they go by is faulty or thirdly that they take that for a Rule which is not rruly so and guiding themselves by a Rule which was not given them to be their Guide to wonder if they go astray His second Postulatum is that the Holy Scripture is the Rule §. 117. His second Postulatuns answered Ibid. pag. 80. and that those Scriptures are so clearly written that as to what concerns those necessary Articles it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his opinion It seems the Defender would gladly be nibling at Doctor Stillingfleets principle Princip 15. That the Scripture contains the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation But seeing how unable the Doctor was to defend it See Error non-plust he gives some limits to it as afraid to speak out what he would willingly have believed And therefore does not positively say That the Scripture is so clear and sufficient a Rule in necessaries that every sober Enquirer cannot miss of the right sense of it but that it is so clear c. that it can hardly happen that any one Man any serious and impartial Enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his opinion Now what he says can hardly happen may at least happen sometimes and if it do what must that one Man do He is then obliged says the Defender to adhere to his own Belief in opposition to that of the Church How is Scripture the Rule of Faith Is this Rule clear and sufficient in Necessaries to every sober Enquirer and is it not clear to the whole Church Or does the whole Catholic Church of Christ cease to enquire seriously and impartially Yes if this Man be but evidently convinced that he is the sober Enquirer and she is not he must prefer his own sense before hers says the Defender But what is this Evident Conviction here required If all Mankind for Example tell me this is the Year 1687 since Christ and I should stand stifly against their Account and tell them it is but the Year 1686 certainly I should be esteemed mad by all Mankind and my pretending my being evidently convinced in my own imagination or my really being so would not hinder me from being justly condemned of the greatest Folly and Impudence imaginable as preferring my own sense and sentiments before the common sense and sentiments of the whole World But this it seems which would be esteemed Folly in such temporal concerns would be Prudence with our Defender in the necessary concerns of Faith and eternal Happiness for with him tho' it be highly useful to individual persons or Churches Ibid. pag. 81. to be assisted in making their judgment by that Church of which they are Members yet if after this instruction they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith between the voice of the Church and that of the Scripture they must stick to the latter rather than the former they must follow the Superior not Inferior Guide §. 118. What are necessary Articles of Faith I would gladly know of our Defender what he means by Necessary Articles all which are so clear in Scripture Are they all those which are contained in the three Creeds Or will he run to Hobs his necessaries only a belief in Christ If he take in all the Creeds as certainly he is bound by his Church or if at least he admit that of St. Athanasius in which he declares that except a Man believe all that is contained in it he cannot be saved let him tell me and prove it when he can that all the Articles contained in it are so clear in Scripture that every individual person every sober Enquirer
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
50 of them were of the Arian party that at their first Assembly they refused the Formula of Faith brought by * Socrat lib. 2. c. 29. p. 2â—0 F. Vrsacius and Valens from Sirmium they condemned Arianism and established the Nicene Faith and sent their Decrees to the Emperor desiring a dismission of the Assembly But the Emperor dissatisfied with this constancy would not give any answer to their Legates but ordered the Bishops to stay at Ariminum till his return from an Expedition against the Barbarians Socrat. Ibid. p. 262. F. Sozom. lib. 4. c 18. p 487. at which time he hoped they would concur with him To which they answered that they could not depart from the Sentence they had already pronounced and therefore begged leave again to return before Winter to their Churches to which the Emperor giving no answer Russin Hist lib. 1. c. 21. pag 203. several of them returned by stealth the others kept like prisoners which want of Freedom shewed this later part of the Council not to have been Legitimate at last deluded by the Emperors Agents and the specious pretences of a firm Peace and Union which would follow amongst the Western and Eastern Churches yielded to Subscribe a Form in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not rejected but omitted as being not well understood by the Latins But however this general Form was suspected by the Catholic Bishops and they would not Subscribe to it without some additions to secure the Churches Faith from Arianism and other misconstructions in which Additions they condemned Arius and all his perfidiousness and declared the Son to be Equal to the Father Severus Hist lib. â— Hier. dial adver Lucifer Apud Guide of Controvdise 2 §. 26. n. 5. pag. 117. Sozom. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. C. and without beginning or time and that he was not a Creature and pronounced and Anathema against all those who should offer to say that the son was not Eternal with his Father all which either shew the Son to be Consubstantial to his Father or that they are two Gods which the Arians denyed the Arians having consented to these Additions and the Catholic Faith being now thought secure the Council was dismissed But Valens and his Followers having now got a specious pretext proclaimed abroad that the Council of Ariminum had consented to the Arian Doctrin and condemned the Nicen Faith explicating the Formula to their own sense and pretending that when they said the Son was not a Creature they meant he was not a Creature as other Creatures were c. But the Western Bishops seeing themselves thus cheated by the subtilty of the Arians were highly vexed and protested against it and at this time it was that St. Jerome says the world admired to see it self become Arian all of a suddain not as if it were really so but because the equivocal words were easily turned by the Arians to their own sense and the People deceived by their pretences of a General Council Constantius also the Emperor resolved to make this Formula be Signed by all persons that were not at that Council or that had gone from it without his leave and hence a great Persecution arose and many Bishops amongst which (a) Sozom. lib. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. B. Pope Liberius was one were Banished others cruelly (b) Martyr Rom. Marcel de Schism Vrcis Dumas Apud Mainburg Hist de l' Arianism 1. Partie lib. 4. p. 39 Edit Paris in 4â—0 murdered as Gaudentius Bishop of Ariminum Rufinus and others So that it is plain from what has been here deduced from the best Historians of those times that neither the Pope nor Council nor Western Church condemned the Divinity of Christ Moreover it is to be remarked that St. Athanasius with all thee other Eastern Bishops of his party most of them either Deposed Banished or Persecuted by the Emperor and all these Western Prelates stood up for the defence of the Faith defined in the Council of Nice against the Arians who Innovated and would impose a sense upon Scripture which they had not been taught by their Forefathers but had taken up upon their own Private Judgments So that our Defenders Instance if rightly taken will be very much to his disadvantage and is a convincing proof against his assertion for it is manifest that to Imitate St. Athanasius a person ought to stand to the Definitions of a lawful General Council against all the Private Interpretations and pretended evident convictions of those who oppose it And ought to be so far from preferring his Private Sentiments of the sense of Scripture before the Judgment of the Church that he ought to suffer all manner of Persecutions and even Death it self rather than recede from her approved Faith. ART XXV Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy OUr Defender having layd down such a Principle in the foregoing Article of his Exposition §. 125. as rendred all Chruch-Authority ineffectual Yet as if he had forgot himself in the very next he tells us that he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith as bound thereto by a Subscription to the 39 Articles in the 20th of which that Authority is expressed And to shew us what he means by this just Authority he tells us that they allow such deference to her decisions Expos Church of Engl. p. 80. as to make them their directions what Doctrin they may or may not publickly maintain and teach in her Communion That is I suppose as much as to say they allow an exterior assent as far as Non-contradiction But even thus much is certainly inconsistent with that obligation which our Defender affirms Desence pig 80. particular persons lye under to support and adhere to their own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church if they be but evidently convinced that the Church has erred in her decisions I perceive he was Conscious of this Incongruity and therefore left a hole to creep out at Expos Church of Engl. pag. 81. telling us that they allow whatsoever submission they â—an to the Authority of the Church without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures So that thence it may as well be concluded as from his former Principle that every Private person Tinker Gobler or Weaver having received the Decrees of a General Council in to examin them himself by Scripture before he give his interior Assent and if having summoned together his own Extravagant Notions of the Word of God and its sense he be but evidently convinced as he imagines that the sentence of the Church thwarts the Scriptures he not only may but in our Defenders Principles is obliged to support and adhere to his own seeing as he thinks he cannot allow such a submission to her Authority without violating that of God c. And if so I would gladly ask him what is that just Authority which he tells
been the case of St. Athanasius in whose Seat Gaudentius had been placed by the Eusebians nor that these (d) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 540. c. 1. F. Fathers acknowledged that it would be the best and most agreeable thing that Priests from all Countries should have recourse to the Head that is to the Seat of Peter the Apostle nor that it was looked upon in this Age as an (e) Socrat. l. 2. Hist c. 5. p. 244. D. c. 11. p. 246. c. 13. Epist. Julii ad Orient Episc Apud St. Athan. Apol. 2. Sozâ—m lib. 3. c. 7. p. 446. F. c. 9. Established Law that nothing was to be determined without the concurrence of the Apostolic See all which considered he will find no just reason to reject this Epistle upon the Plea that it Establishes the Popes Authority I have already mentioned that the Second General Council that of Constantinople was called by the (f) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 667. A. Popes Authority And this (a) Can. 3. Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 661. B. Council ordained that the Patriarch of Consiantinople should have Prime Honor after the Bishop of Rome The Third General Council that of Ephesus (b) Bin. Tom. 2. Conc. p. 282. B. Deposed Nestorius as they say Compelled by the Sacred Canons and the Epistle of Pope Celestine and referred the more difficult case of John (c) Ibid. pag. 353. D. Patriarch of Antioch to the Pope The Fourth besides what I have already mentioned that they admitted â—he accusation brought against (d) Bin. Tom 3. Conc. p. 50. B. Dioscorus for having taken upon him to assemble a Council without the Popes Authority frequently calls Pope Leo the (e) Act. 1.2 3. passim Vniversal Bishop of the Church and affirms that our Blessed Lord had (f) Epist ad Leonem Ibid. p. 474. B. committed to him the care of his Vineyard that is his Church I will not mention any later Councils these may suffice to Protestants of the Church of England as by Law Established Seeing their Authority has been approved by (g) 1 Eliz. c. 1. Act of Parliament Neither will I go to the antient Canons of the Church but shall conclude That seeing it is manifest that ever since the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome did exercise this Universal Pastoral care over the whole Church Excommunicating offending Bishops in other Kingdoms and Countries restoring those that had been Excommunicated unjustly to their Sees and Confirming others calling General Councils and Presiding in them and that Appeals were usually made to him in greater Causes from all Countries no beginning of which can be shewn nor no opposition made to it in those Primitive Ages but only by the Arians or other Condemned Heretics Seeing I say this is clearly matter of fact we must necessarily conclude that this Authority was looked upon at that time as given him by Divine Right and as coming down in a constant practice from the Apostles For seeing all persons in all Ages and Countries are ready to defend their Privileges and oppose usurpations had this been such or had they been exempt from such Jurisdiction they would have Unanimously opposed it in some of the succeeding General Councils after they had seen such Epistles from the Popes challenging that Authority But we find them so far from this that his plea is admitted in those very Councils and not the least Opposition made From what I have already said it will appear how easy a thing it might be to shew him in the Primitive Fathers and Councils what is given by all Catholics at present to his Holyness or challenged by him as of Necessary Faith. As to the Popes being stiled Vniversal Bishop he knows that St. Gregory the Great declined that Title in one Sense tho' he challenged it in another that is he looked not upon himself as Universal Bishop in this sense as if there were no other Bishop but he Sicut docuit Beatus Gloriesorum Apostolorum Princeps cujus Cathedram Beatitudini tuae credidit Christus optimus Pastor Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 681. c. 2. D. Non enim ignorâ—s ejus ingenium qui quotidie a Sacro doctore tuo Petro doceris oves Christi per totum habitabilem mundum creditas tibi pascere non vi sed sponte coactus Ibid. P. but yet in this other as he was the Supreme visible head of Christs Church upon Earth And for the Proof of this Title besides what I have already mentioned I will send our Defender to the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Pope Symmachus in which they do not only acknowledge him to have been placed in the Chair of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles by Christ the chief Pastor but that all the Sheep of Christ in the whole habitable world were committed to him to Feed And in this sense I suppose it is that he was called Vniversal Bishop and Patriarch in the Council of * Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 246. 250. Chalcedon That the Pope was usually stiled the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ upon Earth is so noted in Antiquity that I wonder the Defender would desire me to direct him to the places I have already shewn him some of them which I hope may suffice if his business be not to Cavil The last Authority which he says the Pope lays claim to is that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him The terms of which Proposition are very ambiguous and therefore when our Defender has explicated his meaning more clearly and shewn that all Catholics allow it in the sense he intends I will undertake to shew him that the same Authority was acknowledged to be due to him even in the Primitive times For the Church has not innovated in this any more than in her other Doctrins The Close to the Defender Sir HAving so fully answered all the objections you have made against me or our Doctrin §. 132. and in the soregoing Articles not only vindicated what was delivered by the Bishop of Meaux as the Doctrin of the Catholic Church and Council of Trent but also shewn the consent of Antiquity for the truth of it I hope you will excuse me if I tire not my Reader by a repetition of the same in Answer to your recapitulation under the reflecting Titles of Old and new Popery I shall therefore only refer you and them to what has been said in the body of the Book and most commonly in the close of every Article for an answer to what was not particularly mentioned in your Defence where I hope I have convincingly made it appear that your Parallel is wholly grounded upon your mistake not to give it any worse title of our Doctrin You know very well Sir that I might in exchange have given you a Parallel of New and Old Protestancy if that can be called old which is not of above 150 Years standing with a
Church of Christ one of whose inseparable marks is that of Sanctity which is certainly inconsistent either with such Crimes or Errors for as a man cannot be accounted a sound man if he have a mortal distemper on him so neither can a Church be accounted Holy if it teach a damnable Doctrin And if we cannot be accounted members neither can they who preceded us in the same Practices and Doctrins and therefore you who lay this accusation oblige your selves to shew a visible Church distinct from that of ours which has in all ages been free from such Errors and damnable Idolatries but this as I have formerly taken notice your Book of Homilies to which you subscribe thinks impossible and without considering the consequences of denying Christ to have such an Innocent Church tells us plainly that for above 800 Years All men Third part of the Homilie against peril of Idolatry pag. 143. fol. Anno 1673. women and Children of whole Christendom fell into the damnable Sin of Idolatry Shew us such an Innocent and Holy Church as this and we will Communicate with her But if you cannot shew such an one you must give us leave to believe our Blessed Saviour who promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church and that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who should remain with her to the end of the world c. rather than with such Calumniators accuse him of the breach of his promise and affirm that he had no Holy Church on Earth for above 800 nay as others say for above 1000 Years And seeing we know our selves Innocent of those Crimes of which we are accused as well as they how can we communicate with our and their accusers I would not have you Sir to fly to your usual Parallel and tell us that God had always his Wheat among the Tares in the field of his Church The Parable is just if rightly understood that is there shall be always good and bad in her Community But if you compare the Wheat to the orthodox Doctrin of Christ and the Tares to Errors or Heretical Tenets they certainly who were guilty of those Errors must be accounted Tares and if as your Book of Homilies affirms the whole Christian world was guilty of them both in Head and Members for above 800 Years where was the Wheat all that time The belief of some true Doctrins mixed with many Errors would not secure them unless you will say that the same individual Root might bear both Wheat and Tares and be at the same time gathered into the Granary and burnt with unquenchable fire But if you say there were at that time orthodox Christians and a Church which Preached the word of God and administred the Sacraments rightly and was free from the Tares of false Doctrin let it or its Members be shewn and we will Communicate with them But it is easier to talk this out of a Pulpit than prove it to men of Sense Secondly II. §. 135. The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion the danger you are in by being thus Separated from the Church of Christ is such that any one I think who considers it seriously with its consequences cannot but desire to free himself You deny not but that the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was a true Church and that Salvation was and is to be had in it that she had and has true Pastors true Sacraments true Creeds the true Word of God c. Only you say Errors have crept into her since the First 400 Years and that you have reformed them by the Example of those first Ages and by the infallible Word of God. But besides that it is a question to which it will be difficult to give a satisfactory answer from whence they had it who assumed that Authority to reform and what testimony they can give of their mission I would only ask you Sir what assurance you can give me that your pretended Reformers in this last Age see more clearly the sense of this infallible writing or know more exactly what was the practice of the First 400 Years than all your Forefathers of those preceding ages If you cannot give a satisfactory answer to this and shew such an assurance that you have hit upon the right Faith and they did not such an assurance I say upon which we may trust the Salvation of our Souls which being a matter of the highest concern the security ought also to be the highest we shall have reason to doubt you have been out in your reformation and that whilst you pretended to reform you have on the contrary made a breach in the Unity of the Church and have rent the Seamless garment of our Lord and torn his mystical Body a Crime not much unlike theirs who Scourged Buffeted and Crucified him and will be as severely punished If you say they were evidently convinced that Scripture was against the universal practice and belief of the Church and therefore they were obliged to follow the Superior not Inferior Guide I desire to know how they came to be evidently convinced and if you cannot shew some secure and unerring principle to rely upon for that conviction I must exhort you to consider the hazard you have run your self into by following them the danger which all those who are misled by you incur and how strict an account you and they must one day give if that Principle of yours That every individual person may dissent from the Catholic Church so his judgment be convinced he follows the right sense of Scripture and she does not be found false and you and they deluded by it into disobedience For seeing our Blessed Saviour himself bids us look upon them that will not hear the Church as no other than Heathens or Publicans such disobedience must needs be followed with a punishment answerable to those crimes Lastly III. §. 136. The advantages he is deprived of by being out of the Church as for the advantages which you are deprived of by being separated from the Catholic Church I beg of you to consider them not only in general but in Particular And to this end pray read seriously the conclusion of the Third Discourse of the Guide in Controversy and compare the times which preceded your pretended reformation with those which have followed it and see what a deerease of Truth Piety Devotion Humility Love and Obedience has hapned since you separated from your unerring Mothers arms and betook your selves to the guidance of your own fallible interpretations Which if you do I hope you will with the Prodigal Son return to the embraces of your tender Parent who with expanded arms and a compassionate bleeding heart Sollicits her Almighty Spouse for your Conversion FINIS A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter to the Vindicator Meaux 13. May. 1687. Mon Reverend Pere. LES nouvelles objections que vous m'envoyez sur le
enjoy the Beatifical Vision till the day of Judgment yet seeing it is true and confessed by the most * Chemuitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part 3. de Invoc SS Vossius disp 2 Thes 1. Bishop Forbes commends Bishop Montagues candor in acknowledging S. Augustin to allow Invocation of Martyrs and censures Bp. Andrews for denying it Lib. de Invocat Sanctorum c. 4. n. 3. Dr. Fulk in his Rejoynder to Bristow pag. 5. Spalatensis Repub. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12. n. 25. affirms the same of St. Augustin and several others These are cited by S. C. in his answer to Dr. Pierce's Court Semon pag. 192. 198. 199. See also Thorndike cited before pag. 14. ingenuous Protestants that they also held it lawful to invocate the Saints that they not only prayed to them themselves but exhorted others to do the sam◠and this without ever giving them the least caution that their Expressions were only Rhetorical Flights it necessarily follows that Bellarmins Argument would have been of no force with them as indeed it was not with St. Augustin who tho' he durst not decide whether it was the Saints themselves who appeared sometimes at the Memorials and who heard the Prayers or the Angels for them yet made no difficulty to pray to them himself and to record the many benefits which others obtained by Praying to them as may be seen throughout his whole 22d Chapter of his 8th Book De. Civitate Dei. But it seems our Adversaries are forced to great Straits when they are constrained to catch hold of every little Argument which they think ill Managed and rather than not maintain their Novelities cast Dirt in the Face of all the Antient Fathers and accuse that Primitive Church it self whose Purity they profess to imitate and acdording to whose Doctrin they say they have Reformed not only of such gross Errors as are contrary to express Texts of Scripture but of such Ignorance that they held Opinions not only incoherent but even (a) This is one of the Protestants usual amusements to make St. Augustin quarrel with St. Augustin St. Chrysostom with St. Chrysostom c. contradictory to several other expressions in their own Writings How much more Christian like had it been for him to have imitated (b) Proinde cum apud priscos Ecclesiae Doctores legis Justorum animas vivere aut in sinu Abrabae aut in Paradisi nemore aut sub Altare Dei aut in abditis recepriculit lbique expectare suiurae gloriae praemia non statim suspiceris animas Sancterum carere divini intuitus Gleria Sed intellige eas nondum potiri perfecta consummats illa felleitate quam post corporis resurrectionem expectant Bibl. Sancta Lib. 6. Annot. 345. pag. 621.1 Sixtus Senensis whom he cites who after having related the several obscure passages of the Father affirming The Souls of the Just to remain till the day of Judgment in the shades of Paradice under the Altar of God or in hidden receptacles expecting the Future Reward of Glory tels us We must not presently imagic they intend as if the Souls enjoyed not the Beatifical Vision but only that they did not yet possess that entire Felicity which they expect after the Resurrection of the Body What if some of the Fathers believed that Saints departed were not admitted to the highest Heaven immediately upon their deceases Do's not our Lord himself tell us there are many Mansions in his Fathers House and Saint Paul that as the Stars do differ in Glory so do the Saints in Heaven We need not enquire how one may be subordinate to another as the degrees of Angels are Let us let that alone till we come thether However let Monsieur Daillè and this Gentleman take heed lest while they deny any Invocation of the Saints they stumble not upon Purgatory Certainly what ever sense may be put upon the Primitive Fathers Writings the constant practice and Tradition of the Church shews that she always believed some persons to enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after their departure out of this life tho there remains a further complement of their Glory at the general Resurrection when Soul and Body shall be united Another piece of the like Veneration for the Antient Fathers follows §. 13. Primitive Fathers calumniated by the Defender where he accuses those of the 4th Age of departing from the practice and Tradition of the Ages before them and endeavours to prove it from the profound Silence of the Fathers of the Three first Ages from whom he challenges me to bring him any one Instance of such Intercession Had he consulted his Brethren the Centurists of Magdeburg §. 14. Prayers to Saints within the 1st 300. years he would not have made so bold a Challenge for they acknowledge that Origen who lived Anno 226. (*) The Centurists of Magdeburg Cent. 3. col 83. lin 49. alledge Origen saying O Beate Job or a pronobis miseris Prayed to Holy Job and admitted the d Invocation of Angels they affirm also that there are manifest steps of the Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that Antient Age. Had he also consulted Cardinal Perron whom he cites he would have seen that the Fathers of the 4th Age were so far from departing from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them that they make mention of that foregoing practice Thus St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon upon the Aniversary of St. Cyprian (a) Again Cent. 3. col 75. line 29. they say Angelos etiam Origines invocenlos putavit Hom. 1. in Ezech. I em cent 3. c. 4. col 83. line 47. Videat in Dectorum hujus saeculi scriptis non obscura vestigia invecationis Sancterum Apud Protestnat Apology Tr. 2. sect 3. subd 7. pag. 95 in margine n. 26 27 28. who flourished in the year 250 not only prays to him but relates a History how St. Justina being in danger of making Shipwrac of her Chastity by the Magical Art of St. Cyprian before he was converted to the Catholic Faith had recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary begging of her to assist her whose Virginity was in danger By which relation whether he was mistaken in the Cyprian he mentions or no it matters not he at least plainly shews that the practice did not arise in his time but was the common Custom of the precedent Age. What then if the few Writings of the Antients of the First 300 years which remain be silent in this particular does it follow that they approved not the practice or is there nothing now to be believed in the Church but what must be found in their Writings This indeed might be a Socinians plea but I did not think those of the Church of England as by law Established would have stood upon it when an Act of Parliament obliges them to Venerate the 4 first General Councils Stat. 1 Eliz. c. 1. so far as not to judge any matter or