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
Exercises Taught and Practised by St. Augustin §. 8. This same Faith was delivered by continual Succession till in these later days it was weakned by H. the 8ths Schism were propagated down even till King Henry the 8ths time whose Lust and Rapines as they were insatiable so were the Actions which he did in order to the fulfilling of them unparallelled Every one who has Read any thing of our Histories knows that his first breach with Rome was because his Holiness would not allow him to separate from his Lawful Wife Queen Catharine that he might Marry Ann Daughter of Sir Tho. Bullen and that having once caused this Schism Millia dena unus Templorum destruit annâ—s he propagated it by Sacrilege pulling down Religious Houses turning the Inhabitants to the wide World giving their Lands and Revenues to Parliament-men and Courtiers by which rewards he gained their consent to what he designed It is sufficiently known also that he approved not of the new Doctrin that was brought in by Luther during his Reign neither would he permit such a pretended Reformation so that the whole contest during that time was only about the Supremacy of St. Peters See. But as Schism is most commonly followed with Heresie so in King Edward the 6ths time Edward the 6th the Protector who was tainted with Zwinglianism a Reform from Luther endeavored to set it up here in England and from that time the Catholic Doctrin which had been taught by our first Apostles and propagated till then begun to be rejected and accused as Erroneous Superstitious and Idolatrous and they who Professed it Persecuted But this Kings Reign being but short Queen Mary Catholic Religion begun again to bud forth under Queen Mary but that Bud being early nipped by her Death Queen Elizabeth by the advice of the new Council which she chose Queen Elizabeth and to secure her self in the Throne resolved to destroy the Catholic Interest and set up a Prelatic Protestancy which might have the face of a Church but other pretended Reformers opposed her Prelates and called their Orders Anti-christian and would needs have the Rags and Remnants of Popery as they called 'em taken away telling them that if the Word of God was to be the sole Rule of Reformation such things as were not to be found in that Rule were certainly to be rejected From that time this Nation has been variously agitated with Disputes The first pretended Reformers accused the Catholic Church with all bitterness imaginable and tho' they could not agree amongst themselves yet they set up unanimously their Crys against the Catholic Church as if she had been the Common Enemy and they were looked upon to be the best Subjects that could bring the most plausible Arguments against her Doctrins or move the Common People most to reject her Practices During this time the Pope was accused as Anti-christ the Church of Rome as the Whore of Babylon neither was there any thing committed by the Heathens worthy reprehension that was not laid to the charge of the Catholic Church so furious was their rage against the Truth But things growing calmer in King James They were more calm in K. K. Ch. the firsts time and King Charles the firsts time such Calumnies and Accusations were looked upon by the more Learned party as the effects of Passion and Moderation taught them to acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Mother Church that Salvation was to be had in her that many of those accusations which were brought against her were but the Dreams of distracted Brains and the more moderate persons begun to look upon her with a more favorable Eye but still the aversion which the Vulgar and less knowing People had imbibed from so long continued Slanders could not be taken away and the arising Factions in the State blew up the Coals afresh and pretended this Moderation was nothing but an inclination to Popery which so frighted the Mobile that they were ready to joyn with any party that pretended to suppress such a Monster as they thought it to be from hence came Rebellions and the horrid Murder of King Charles the first After which the Prelatic Party here in England were as much run down as the Catholic and underwent a common Banishment during which they entertained a fair Correspondence the Protestant finding by Experience that Catholics were Loyal Subjects conscientious Dealers and constant Friends This fair Correspondence abroad was the cause of a no less pleasing Union after the happy Restauration of King Charles the second King Charles the second during the beginning of whose Reign Catholics were not otherwise much molested by the Governing party but only kept out of Employments till Shaftsbury and his Adherents invented a malitious Calumny laying a pretended Plot to their charge by which they put the Nation into such a Flame that Papists were become the most odious People in the World and Popery the greatest Crime But the Truth of this Sham-Plot being detected by a subsequent real one the Innocent sufferings of Catholics raised Compassion in the more moderate Church of England Men and they seemed to be willing they who had suffered so unjustly should enjoy something a greater liberty but still the Laws enacted against them being in force there were persons enough ready to put them in Execution In this posture were Affairs King James the second when it pleased God to take to himself his late Majesty No sooner was his present Majesty Ascended upon the Throne but he declared himself a Catholic to the unspeakable joy of the Catholic Church and grief of others who did not stick to affirm that they saw nothing wanting in his Majesty fitting for a King but only as they thought a better Religion At his coming to the Crown his Majesty was pleased to declare that he looked upon the Church of England as proceeding upon Loyal Principles and that he would protect her this as it might well gained the hearts of that party who little expected such a gratious Declaration from one whom they had always looked upon as a Member of the Catholic Church whose Principles they had been taught were too cruel to make use of such Lenitives and this being again Repeated at the opening of the first Parliament had so much Power upon the minds of the Loyal party that notwithstanding the conclusion of a Sermon Preached before them Dr. Sherlocs Sermon May 29. 1685. in which it was declared that an English-man might be Loyal but not a Papist that Parliament testified it's Loyalty to such a Degree as will never be forgotten and would I am confident have proceeded in the same manner had not some factious Spirits animated the Pulpits Zeal and thrown fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were bigotted in their Religion Indeed this Sermon to the House of Commons was the occasion of our following Controversies §. 9. The rise of
them is very beneficial to all Christian people Nay the same Veron shews that several Approved Authors as St. Thomas St. Disp 10. Sect. 3. Bonaventure Cajetan c. cited by Suarez held that By Indulgences which are now granted there is no remission of Pain due to sin in the judgment of God but only of the obligation of performing the Sacramental Penance that is remission of some part of those severe Canonical Penances Exposit pag. 28. which our Author acknowledges were imposed upon Offenders in the Primitive Church and sometimes remitted or Indulged upon an Excellent Repentance danger of Death or when some Martyr Pleaded in his behalf But then §. 39. No buying or selling of Indulgences says he Do you not put up Bills over your Church-Doors and Altars almost every Sunday to Vend them on this account No we do not vend them upon this account there is no buying or selling of Indulgences in our Churches or at our Altars on the contrary if any thing be given for them they lose their force and are no more Indulgences But this however must be said ad faciendum populum and his Learned Auditory will admire his Learning and applaud his Eloquence But good Sir reflect upon our Doctrin Protestant Indulgences sold in their Spiritual Court. as freed from Scholastic opinions and see whether you do not Practise as much as we Have not you your Spiritual Courts are there not Canonical Penances there inflicted nay remitted and those Remissions Vended too which is more than we do Is there not one Penalty for Cursing another for Swearing another for Fornication c. and who are there amongst you that cannot buy off his Public Penance for a sum of mony Are not these Indulgences and are there not greater abuses crept into this your Reformed Court by the negligence or covetousness of Officers than any you can find in the Church of Rome But you do not make his Holyness the Churches Treasurer §. 40. They give greater power to a Minister than Catholics as Catholics give to the Pope No but you give every one of your Ministers more power than his Holyness Challenges For you at least as many of you as endeavour to make People confess their Sins to you in giving Absolution do not only pretend to forgive the guilt of Sin but by that forgiveness all the Pain that is due to it even in the Court of God Whereas all that is Universally received as of Faith in the Church concerning Indulgences is What is Universally received as of Faith. that the Supreme Pastor has power to Dispense with Canonical Penances and that only upon some just and sufficient motive As for the other part the remission of the Temporal Punishment due for the sin as an offence to God tho' we have reason humbly to hope it may be mitigated by our Confession Contrition Almes-deeds and other Penitential Works enjoyned by those Indulgences yet is it not of Faith to believe they are taken away And seeing this is piously believed tho' not commanded as of Faith and that we know the practising those penitential Exercises if they be not Beneficial as to that Point yet are they still acceptable to God Almighty therefore we deny not but the endeavoring to gain Indulgences by those Religious actions pre-required in order to the remission of the Pain due in the Court of God may also be grateful to him These things being considered and it being manifest that what is of Faith in this Dispute has been the practice of the Primitive Church I must again put the Defender in mind of his Promise The Des Promise that he make himself ready to receive such an Indulgence as Made Meaux has described and as those first Ages of the Church allowed of and if he be a Son of Peace let him own as much in the Pulpit otherwise Words are but Wind. Now to shew himself a Traveller he tells us News §. 41. that his Holyness has lately sent an universal Indulgence throughout the whole Church upon such and such strange Conditions which he repeats And when these things are considered says he I doubt it will little avail the Vindicator to put me in mind of my Promise Pray Sir consider what it is you so find fault with Would it not really be a happy Day to see all the loose People in England joyn with the devouter Party What a Jubile is cast themselves at their Ministers feet and there confess before God and him their Sins and Enormities with a true hatred and detestation of them and all for the love of God with a resolution of never committing the like again yea forsaking the occasions that induce to sin making a satisfaction to all those whom they have injured and forgiving those who have injured them after which having also by a three days Fast with humble Prayer and Alms-deeds begg'd of God Almighty to avert his Indignation would it not be to you a ravishing Sight to see them all in this Equipage go and receive the Blessed Sacrament and joyntly pray with Fervor and Devotion for the common Concerns of Christendom and the propagation of the Holy Catholic Faith would not this I say be a happy Sight Certainly you cannot but wish that such days were again in England and such practices restored And should you live to see the Church of England practising such Devotion would you not be offended at any one who should refuse to absolve in the Court of Conscience the most enormous if penitent Sinners or to remit the Canonical Penances upon such a general account in order to their better life Nay further I may say would you condemn any of yours if to excite such persons to these pious practices he should assure them that if they perform them with true Sorrow for their sins and a sincere Repentance God will restore them to the same state they were first put into by Baptism that is free them not only from the Guilt of sin but the Punishment also due to it If it be your Principles that God never remits the Sin but he remits the Punishment why do you put it in the Margent as an Objection that the Arch-Bishop of Paris should promise such Remission to a Repentance accompanied with such pious Exercises If then it would be looked upon by you as a blessed Day to see such Devotion in this one Nation if you be in earnest what Joy must it be to every pious Soul to see the whole Christian World prostrate themselves before the Throne of Grace and by such practices endeavor to asswage his Anger Such a time as this we calla Jubilo and such a blessed time it was when the Pope Granted that plenary Indulgence you mention Anno 1683. SECT 3. Purgatory HAd our Defeder reflected upon the strength of that Argument §. 42. Proved by two General Councils which I hinted at from two general Councils he would not have
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
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
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
A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRIN OF THE Church of England Being a Further VINDICATION OF THE Bishop of CONDOM'S Exposition of the Doctrin of the CATHOLIC CHURCH With a second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1687. THE PREFACE THEY who consider seriously the mischief which Heresie and Schism bring along with them §. 1. The mischief of Heresie and Schism not only to the individual persons that are guilty of them but also to the Nations in which they are propagated will certainly commend the endeavors of those Sons of Peace who labor to Establish Truth and Unity and condemn theirs who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other They also who cast an Eye upon the Controversies about Religion which have been agitated in this and the last Age and the miserable Broyls and other worse consequences that have attended them cannot but deplore the unhappy fate of Europe which has for so long time been the Seat of this Religious War. And they who will but impartially consider matters will find Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace that Catholics have upon all occasions sought the most advantagious means to procure this Christian Peace tho' to their grief they have still been hindred from effecting this good work by the ignorance of some and the malice or self-interest of others The Defender tells us in the beginning of his Preface that several Methods have been made use of in our Neighboring Nation to reduce the pretended Reformed to the Catholic Communion but that this of the Bishop of Meaux was looked upon as exceeding all others in order to that end This shews indeed the great Zeal those persons bad for the Salvation of their Brethren And tho' the Defender is pleased to call those excellent Discourses of the Perpetuity of the Faith and the Just Prejudices against Calvinists and M. Maimbourg's peaceable Method c. Sophistical and to represent M. de Meaux's Exposition as either palliating or perverting the Doctrin of his Church Yet seeing he only asserts the former without going about to prove it and has been so unsuccesful in the later charge as I shall fully shew in the following Treatise I hope the judicious Reader will suspend his Judgment till he has examined things himself and not take all for Gospel that is said with confidence He tells us also that the Great design of these several Methods Pag 4. has been to prevent the Entring upon particular Disputes And pretends it was because Experience had taught us that such particular Disputes had been the least favorable to us of any of them But the Truth is §. 2. We neither decline particulars nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons We Appeal to Scripture we have never declined fighting with them at any Weapon nor refused upon occasion to enter upon each particular neither need we go to France for Instances we have enough at home Some even amongst the first pretended Reformers appealed to Scripture only neither would they admit of Primitive Fathers nor Councils and tho' these very persons who were for nothing but what was found in Scripture were convinced by the following Sects that their Reformation was defective if Scripture alone was to be the Rule of Reformation every Year almost since the first Revolt producing some new Reform of all those that had gone before And tho' Catholics might justly decline to argue from Scripture only till Protestants had proved it to be the Word of God by some of their own Principles yet were they not afraid to joyn Issue with them all even in the Point of Scriptures clearness for our Doctrins abstracting from the Primitive Fathers and Councils And thereupon besides several Catechisms the Catholic Scripturist and other excellent Books two Treatises were published here in England and never that I heard of Answered The first An Anchor of Christian Doctrin wherein the principal Points of Catholic Religion are proved by the only Written Word of God. in 4 Volums in 4o. Anno 1622. The other A Conference of the Catholic and Protestant Doctrin with the express words of Scripture being a second part of the Catholic Ballance Anno 1631. 4o. in which was shewn that in more than 260 Points of Controversie Catholics agree with the Holy Scripture both in words and Sense and Protestants disagree in both Other Protestants perceiving they could not maintain several Tenets and Practices of their own by the bare words of Scripture § 3. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages and despairing of Fathers and Councils of later Ages pretended at least to admit the first four General Councils and the Fathers of the first three or four hundred Years But how meer a pretence this was appeared by the many Books Written abroad upon that Subject as Coccius his Thesaurus Gualterus his Chronology and others and at home Dr. Pierce found it too hard a task to make a reply to Dean Crecy 's Answer to his Court Sermon and the present nibling at the Nubes Testium shew how hard a task they find it to elude their plain expressions A third sort of Protestants ventured to name Tradition as an useful means to arrive at the True Faith §. 4. To an uninterrupted Tradition but many excellent Treatises have shewn that no other Doctrins will bide that Test but such as are taught by the Catholic Church For Novelty which is a distinctive mark of Error appearing in the very Name of Reformation an uninterrupted Tradition can never be laid claim to by them who pretend to be Reformers And indeed the exceptions which they usually make and the General Cry against Fathers Councils and Tradition shew how little they dare rely upon them Nay there has not been any thing like an Argument produced against our Faith or to justifie their Schism but what has been abundantly Answered and refuted and yet the same Sophisms are returned upon us as Current Coyn notwithstanding they have been often brought to the Test and could not stand it Moreover Catholics have so far complyed with the infirmities of their Adversaries that they have left no Stone unturned to reduce them to Unity of Faith and that by meekness as well as powerful reasonings They have not only condescended to satisfie the curiosity of them who have most leisure by Writing large Volums upon every particular Controversie proving what they hold by Scripture Councils Fathers Reason and all other pressing Arguments but because most persons cannot get time to peruse such vast Treatises they have gon a shorter way to work and some have manifested the Truth of our Doctrin from the unerrable Authority of the Church of Christ against which he had promised that the Gates of
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
I must tell him the Mareschal has more then once expressed the just esteem he had for that Book as for that which first opened his Eyes and gave him satisfaction and did frequently recommend it to others assuring them that if they considered it with diligence it would work the same effect in them If the Defender doubt of the truth of this the Right Honorable the Lord John Bellassise His Majesties Commissioner for the Treasury will assure him that he had it from his own mouth In the Body of the Book he runs through all the Points mentioned by the Bishop §. 10. The Controversie betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender still laying such Doctrins to our charge and backing them with such weak Reasons and falsified Authorities that I thought it my Duty as having Published the Bishops Exposition in our English Tongue to detect the fallacies and lay open the falsifications this I did in my Vindication shewing him upon all occasions that what he opposed as our Doctrin either was not at all our Doctrin and the Authorities he brought to back his Assertion falsified or misunderstood or else if it was the Doctrin of some particulars yet was it neither universally nor necessarily embraced by the Church and therefore not esteemed by us as of Catholic Faith. To this he has made a Reply in his Defence of the Doctrin of the Church of England In which they who Examin nothing but the bold Assertions of an Author will think that he had much the better of it and that the Vindicators Arguments were but silly and that the falsifications c. lay at his own Door But they who will either take the pains to examin matters throughly or Read this following Reply without prejudice will I hope see the matter cleared and that notwithstanding all our Defenders pretences he has not so much as vindicated one of his falsifications nor brought any one Argument but which is merely a fallacy against our Doctrin I shall not go about to prevent the Reader by running through the whole §. 11. The state of the Controversie in particulars but it will not be amiss to shew him wherein the chiefest difficulties of our Controversies ly that he may pass over when he Reads any of our Adversaries Books of which there is so great a glut what do's not make against us tho' it be never so plausible or pleasing for I dare be bold to say that if our Adversaries would but take care of this and write against nothing but what is truly our Doctrins our Controversie would be quickly at an end and all the large Volums that are now Written would dwindle into single sheets How do some People labor to prove §. 12. Honor due to Saints that we Adore Men and Women Stocks and Stones in the utmost propriety of the phrase and shew a great deal of Reading and an excess of Zeal in speaking against Idolatry and Superstition whereas it is no where to be found but in their false accusations For we assure them that we Adore none but God in the utmost propriety of the phrase We honor but adore them not but if you take Adore for Honor in an Inferior Degree we acknowledge that the Saints and Angels may be honored with such an Inferior honor nay all animated Creatures whatever according to their Dignity If you deny it to be lawful to give this Inferior honor to the Saints prove it and you write against us otherwise all your labor is but spent in vain As to Images we say that what we call Veneration for them is no other than an honor pay'd §. 13. Images where we truly owe it to those for whose sake we use such things otherwise then common things We have a Veneration for Images as for Sacred Utensils Dedicated to God and the Churches Service and that too in a less Degree than for our Chalices c. every one being permitted to handle an Image or a Crucifix but not those Vessels which have been rendred venerable by touching the Sacrament of the most pretious Body and Blood of our Redeemer We look upon them as proper Ornaments for a Sacred place as beneficial for the instruction of the ignorant and helps to keep our Minds from wandring or our Affections from being cooled In presence of them we pay our respect to the persons whom they Represent Honor to whom Honor Adoration to whom Adoration but not to the Images themselves which can Challenge nothing of that nature from us because as St. Thomas says inanimate Creatures are not capable of any honor If you dislike this produce your Arguments and you shall be heard But run not to any hard expressions of the Schools as of Absolute and Relative Latria c. if you be Sons of Peace all which tho' they may be perhaps defended in the Sense meant by them yet ought not to be the Subject of our present Controversie which should be only upon those Points which are universally and necessarily received Our positive Answer therefore to the (a) Pref. pag. 20. Defenders Question abstracting from the School Language which he calls Gibberish and containing our selves in the necessary Doctrin and Language of the Church in her Councils is that the (b) See this proved at large by Estius from the seventh General Council lib. 3. dist 9. ◠3.4 Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross is upon no account whatsoever to be Worshipped with Divine Worship That Worship being only due to God. I say however these expressions of the Schools may be easily defended when they explicate their own Sense if we consider also what they acknowledge to be necessary Articles of our Faith. Thus in this particular our necessary Doctrin is that God alone is to be Adored with Divine Worship This all persons consent to When therefore Scholastics speak of Adoration given to Images their expressions are to be interpreted so that they shock not this their first Principle They tell you indeed of a Relative Adoration but when they explicate what they mean by it it is no more than what our Defender himself must Practise for certainly when he makes an Act of Adoration to God or Jesus Christ he Forms an Idea or Image in his Mind for he will not I suppose say he has at those times the Beatifical Vision but that Image tho' it be only a faint Representative yet is in it's Representative nature one with the Object which it Represents and the Adoration which he pays to God he pays to him as Represented by that Image without making at all times a reflection of the difference betwixt that Image and the Object that it Represents and that Homage which he there pays is Divine Adoration not Absolute to the Idea or Image but Relative in Presence of the Idea to the Object which it Represents And thus say they we may Adore Jesus Christ in Presence of a Material Image neither is there any other
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
with such Idolatry We find indeed that their Twenty second Article tells us that the Invocation of Saints is one of those Practices which are fond things vainly invented c. but it proceeds not so far as to call it Idolatrous And if the Book of Homilies to which he flies upon other occasions when he is prest to shew the Doctrin of his Church be more severe he is little versed in his own Doctrins if he be ignorant that several Eminent Divines of his own Church do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick Dogmatical Doctrin of the Church of England Bishop Montague Dr. Heylin Mr. Thorndike tho' they be all obliged to subscribe to it as containing a wholesome Doctrin I wish then there be not something more in the bottom of this than what appears at first sight Dr. Heylin tells us §. 2. The charge of Idolatry begun in Queen Eliz. time that when Queen Elizabeth beheld the Pope as her greatest Enemy in reference to her Mothers Marriage her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England Books were filled with bitter Revilings against the Church of Rome and all the Divine Offices Ceremonies and performances of it Cyprian Angl. pag. 342. 2d Edit but that in the next Ages the dangerous consequences of the Charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome began to be more calmly and maturely considered Rejected in King Charles the first 's time in so much that Arch-bishop Laud thought it necessary to endeavor with diligence to hinder the reprinting of those Books And what must the same Apprehensions be now again raised in the Peoples minds Must the Pope pass now for our greatest Enemy And must the common People be taught to hate Papists worse than Jews and Mahumetans Renewed at present to make us odious that the Pulpits ring again with such horrid accusations and every Book tho' pretending moderation brings now the charge of Idolatry along with it If this Author had not this design for I dare not accuse him of being a leading Man he might at least have foreseen the ill consequences which would follow in the Nation and for which I fear He and Those that set him on will one day answer before the Tribunal of the God of Peace and Unity But he thinks himself clear at least of Calumny Defence pa. 2. if he can shew that our Authors allow all that he has charged us with Calumny Not too fast I must in this also beg his pardon The consequence do's not follow that because some particular Members of the Church of Rome may have taught such Doctrins therefore the Church is guilty of them He has been often told and that according to all reason that we have nothing to do here with the Doctrin of the Schools that he must take our Doctrins from the Councils which contain the Public Authentic and Vniversally received Definitions and Decisions of the Church otherwise he touches not the necessary terms of Communion Des Pref. p. 19. But tho' he acknowledges this to be my Catholic Distinction yet he takes little or no notice of it throughout his whole Book but flies still to particular Authors to maintain his charge But what if our Authors allow not those things which he charges them with will he then acknowledge himself guilty of Calumny If he cannot bring any of our Authors that say Divine Worship is to be given to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed unless their expressions be miserably distorted or any persons that do practice it if our Missals and Pontificals do not command us to adore the Cross taking the word Adoration in that strict Sense and if I shew him in the following Articles that he mistakes the Doctrin of the Council of Trent about the Sacrisice of the Mass and the Churches Tenet about Merit I hope he will be so ingenuous as to confess that we deserve not so ill a Character and if he be so sensible of the account which must be given for idle words Close pag. 86. I hope he will likewise consult the Salvation of his Soul and repent and make satisfaction for those which are injurious to the reputation of a Church to which if he be what he professes he must acknowledg he owes some obligations as to a Mother But I charged him also with Vnsincerity in stating the Question betwixt Catholics and Protestants Unsincerity and this also touches his reputation I must confess I would willingly be tender of it but where so great a concern as the reputation of an Innocent Church is joyned with his single Honor I think I may be excused if I let the dirt fall where it ought when by wiping it off from one it must necessarily stick upon the other That which I condemned in his stating of the Question was §. 3. Catholics affirm that Protestants hold not all Fundamentals that he represented us as allowing them to hold the Antient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith. I told him that we do not allow that Proposition especially if he mean all Fundamentals Pag. 24. and that tho' the Bishop of Meaux has a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Protestants grant that Catholics hold all Fundamentals yet it do's not from thence follow that Catholics reciprocally grant them also to hold the same And what I pray is his answer to this That whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daille's Concessions Defence pa. 4. as to this Point will find it clear enough that he did if the Foundation consist of Fundamental Articles But really I have again and again considered what Monsieur de Meaux says in that Section and can find no such thing in it but that his is only Argumentum ad hominem M. de Meaux sense perverted by the Defender an Argument drawn from the Concessions of Monsieur Daillé and from what is manifest to every one viz. That we believe all those Articles which Protestants call Fundamental But he neither says nor insinuates Expos Sect. 2. pag. 3. nor so much as shews it to be his Opinion that the Protestants hold all those Articles which Catholics call Fundamental But he who can find That in the Bishops Argument The Vindicators sense perverted by the Defender Def. pag. 5. can find also that I my self confess that the Articles which we hold and they contradict do by evident and undoubted consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental I know not with what Spectacles he Reads but I think any judicious Reader will grant that I never said any such thing 'T is true I tell him Vindic. pa. 23. that were the Doctrins and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrins and
Practices of the Church of Rome he would have reason to say they contradict our Principles But I tell him also that we renounce those Doctrins and Practices that we detest the very Thoughts of them and that we see no more Connexion betwixt the Consequences of Idolatry and Superstition which he draws from our Doctrin if he take it in it's right sense than there is betwixt the same Consequence which Dissenters draw from their bowing to the Altar and at the Name of Jesus Catholics no more Idolaters than Protestants c. But he takes no notice of this Parallel when given him in such modest Terms and storms at the Method of giving it in the Dissenters Language which shews he has little to say to the Justice of the thing it self But he tells me Pag. 5. that I have mistaken the Question betwixt him and me For his business was only to give a true Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England Indeed had he followed that Design according to the Title of his Book and kept himself entirely to it without those wild Excursions against the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of Rome or only abstained from misrepresenting them I should not have undertaken to Vindicate the Bishops Exposition But perhaps he will say that he did it with Charity and Moderation and that if he had known any thing in his Book Expos Doct. C. of E. Pref. pa. 18. that without dissembling the Truth might have been omitted he sincerely professes he would most willingly have done it As if it were Charity and Moderation to begin with an accusation of our adoring Men and Women Protestant Charity and Moderation Crosses Images and Reliques c. Or as if this and the like did so belong to the Doctrin of the Church of England that he was necessitated in expounding her Doctrin to fix them upon us and could not omit them without dissembling the Truth If he had consulted the Learned of his own party they would have taught him more Charity and Moderation ART II. That Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone OUr Author of the Defence tells us §. 4. he is but little concern'd in this Article Def. pag. 6. neither is it he says his business to examin whether I have truly distinguished betwixt that Honor which we pay to God and that which we give to Saints But really I think considering the stress he has put upon the word ADORATION in his following Discourse A necessary distinction not taken notice of by the Defender he ought to have taken notice of the distinctions which I here gave But he knew that had he done this all his Quotations out of our Liturgies c. would have signified just nothing neither could he have made so plausible an excuse for his Calumnies and Falsifications and therefore he thought it better to leave the true Explication of the Terms and the necessary distinctions betwixt Honor and Honor Worship and Worship Adoration and Adoration c. to others and make use of them still in his own confused Sense as if nothing had been said to rectifie his mistake I see then I must be forced to open the matter a little more plainly Which having once done I hope the Judicious Reader will take notice of what I say tho' he who opposes me may not think it for his purpose And first I must again tell him with Monsieur de Meaux that seeing in one Sense Adoration Invocation and the Name of Mediator I might add Justification Prayer c. are only proper to God and Jesus Christ it is no hard matter to misapply those Terms whereby to render our Doctrin odious And I must here conjure him not to obstruct the hopes of a more Christian Unity which he thinks is now in a fair way to come on by a future misapplication of those Terms To prevent which I must desire him to consider Secondly Respect Honor Worship Service Adoration Veneration c. are equivocal terms and are misapplied by the Defender That tho' we would willingly appropriate peculiar Names or Expressions to signifie the intention with which we do our actions calling that Honor which we pay immediately to God Divine Adoration or Latria That which we pay to Men upon account of natural or naturally acquired Excellencies only Civil and that which we pay to Saints Angels and Holy things Doulia or a Religious Honor not in the strictest Sense of the word but because it has a reference to God who is the Center of all Religious Honor to whom it ought finally to tend and in whom it is ultimately terminated yet the Terms Respect Honor Worship Service Adoration Veneration c. have been so variously used by our Fore-fathers both in our Native and in the Sacred Languages that it is impossible to make them speak uniformly Thus at this very day tho' we affirm that God is only to be Worshiped meaning with Divine Worship yet in the Protestant Common-Prayer Book in the Ceremonies of Marriage the Man says to the Woman with my Body I thee Worship And our Language teaches us to give the Titles of Worshipful or Right-Worshipful to Men of Quality Thus in the Sacred Scriptures Abraham is said to Adore the Children of Heth Josue an Angel c. What I have said of words is likewise to be understood of the exterior actions of the Body Bowing Kneeling Prostrating §. 5. Bowing Kneeling Prostrating c. are variously used Kissing c. all which are not so appropriated to God but that they are and have been in all Ages made use of to testifie our respect to our Kings Parents or Magistrates Lastly I must desire him to consider with us §. 6. The Honor pay'd by those words or actions is distinguished by the Object that this Bowing Kneeling Prostrating c. these Terms of Veneration Adoration Worship Honor c. tho' so promiscuously used are yet distinguished according to the Excellency of the Object on which they are Terminated for if the Excellency be Natural or Naturally or Extrinsical as Nobility Riches or the like the Honor which is due is only Civil or Human But where the Excellency is Supernatural we term the Honor Religious that is such an Honor as Faith and Religion teacheth Now Faith and Religion teacheth us also to make a distinction in Religious Honor according as the Supernatural Objects themselves are distinguished For the Supreme Independent Being is to be Worshiped with a Sovereign unlimited Religious Honor and this Honor which when we speak strictly we call Latria Divine honor called Latria only due to God. is only due to him But as God bestows his Supernatural Gifts upon his Creatures some in one degree some in another so is there an Honor due to them according to their several Degrees and tho' this Honor may be properly called Religious because of its Religious Motive Inferior honor called Doulia
may be given to Creatures and because it has God for it's Ultimate Object for whose sake and upon account of whose Gifts we Honor them yet is it in a Degree Infinitely Inferior to that which we pay to God because the Object which it Regards is Infinitely Inferior to him This Inferior Honor we when we speak in proper terms call Doulia The distination of Latria and Doulia is acknowledged by sober Protestants to have its use Vostus c. nothing hinders them to be taken as no ds of art use to be taken to signifie peculiar conceptions in Christianity Thorndike Epilogue lib. 3. c. 30. pag. 364. for Hyperdoulia signifies nothing but a higher Degree of this Inferior Honor the highest Degree bearing still no proportion to that which we call Latria the one being pay'd to an Infinite increated Object the other to a finite Created Being This Inferior Religious Honor is sometimes also pay'd to Inanimate things §. 7. As in the Old Law to the Ark to Arons Rod c. and now in the New to the Sign of our Redemption to the Bible to the Altar c. If this distinction betwixt Supreme Religious Honor or Worship called Latria and inferior Religious Honor or Worship called Doulia and that which we call Civil do not please him but that he will admit only of the two Extreams and reject that Middle inferior Honor I must ask him what he will call that Honor which was payd to the Ark in the Old Law before which King a 2 Reg. 6. David Danced for the touching of which Oza was slain and the b â— Reg. 6.19 Bethsamites to the Number of 70 Men and 50000 of the Populace for having only looked into it and which was c Psal 98.5 compared with the 1 Paral. 28.2 Commanded by the Royal Prophet to be Adored Nothing of Religion here Nothing of Reverence what will he call that Reverence which God himself Commanded to be done to his Sanctuary Levit. 19.30 Must it not be called Religious Certainly the Church of England as I take it implies at least as much when amongst her Canons she enters this as one That Churches be not profaned Seeing nothing can be profaned but what hath a Religious Respect What will he call that Honor which * Sum Prineâ—pt exercitus Dominl Cecidit Josue pronus in terram Es Adorans alt Josue 5.14 Protestants pay an inferior Religious Honor to mere Creatures Josue paid to the Angel after he had told him that he was only Prince of the Army of the Lord when his own Translation says he fell on his Face to the ground and WORSHIPED I will not urge their Adoration before the Altar nor their Kneeling at the Communion because he will perhaps say they Reverence not the Altar but God and Honor not the Elements of Bread and Wine but Jesus Christ represented by them However tho' they are loath to confess it for fear of giving advantage yet they must needs allow a Religious respect to both seeing I hope he will grant that both the Altar and the Elements may be profaned Is this Respect a Religious Honor or is it only Civil If he cannot for shame say it is only Civil nor dare not say it is Divine he must admit of a Middle sort of Honor which how he will Term I know not if he call it not Religious in an inferior Degree These Notions being Cleared I hope where ever he meets with the Words Worship or Adore he will not immediately judge God or an Idol to be the object of that Cult or that a Sovereign and Divine Honor is meant by those Words but that he will give a right distinction according to the different objects Qui bene distimguit bene decet to which those Words and Actions are Appropriated which if he do I hope I shall easily make him understand our Doctrin in the following Articles What I have here said pag. 90. Clears Maldonat's Expression Cited in the close And as to what he tells us from the Index Expurgatorius that it has ordered these Words that God only is to be Adored and that no Creature is to be Adored to be Blotted out of St. Athanasius and other Authors in which they do occur I wish he had Weighed and Examined well what he Writ For tho' I have not seen the Index Expurgatorius which he mentions In libris autem Catholicorum veterum nihil mutere fas sit nisi ubi aut fraude Haereticorum aut Typographi incurpa manifestius error irrepserit yet I have Consulted the Rules Appointed at the end of the Council of Trent for the Correction of Books and the 4th § de Correctione orders that nothing be Corrected in old Catholic Authors but where a manifest Error has crops in either by the deceit of Heretics or the negligence of the Printers And the Books of Origen and Tertullian c. Si quid autem majoris momenti animadversione dignum accurrerit liceat in novis editiquibus vel ad margines vel in Scholiis adnotare ca inprimis adhibiea diligentis an ex Dodrina locisque collatis ejusdem auctoris sentenlia difficilior illustrari ac mens ejus planius explicari possit which are Printed by Catholics without any Castigations are a plain proof of our Integrity and therefore I doubt not but that our Defender is either out in his Citation or that the word Adore is taken by them in a less strict Sense and only inserted in the Margent or Indexes of St. Athanasius contrary to his Sense and Meaning ART III. Invocation of Saints THis being one of those Points in which as he says he has promised to shew §. 8. that we adore Men and Women by such as Invocation as cannot possibly belong to any but God only and that we make the Merits of our Saints to run Parallel with the Merits of Christ it will be necessary that I shew him wherein his Mistake lyes and the injustice of that Imputation In order to which Prayer Invocation c. are equivocal terms abused by the Defender Epilogue Of the Laws of the Church c. 30. pag. 353. as in the last Article I shewed That the terms of Honor Respect Worship Adoration c. were equivocal so must I here also First premise that the words Prayer Invocation calling upon Address c. are as Mr. Thorndike himself says whose Testimony I all along alledge not so much as the Bishop of Condom says of Mr. Daille to convince them by the Authority of their most Learned Ministers who were never that I heard of censured by their Church as because what he says is in it self evident or may be in spite of our Hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unless we use that Diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Man neither are they so proper to God but
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
creditur Aug. lib. 4. de Baptis cenntra Donatistas c. 24. Tom. 7. pag. 433. A. St. Augustin's Rule we must necessarily conclude it to have come from the Apostles They who would establish a beginning of the use of Holy Water tell us that (b) Aquam enim sale conspersam populis benâ—dicimus ut ea cuncti aspersi sanctisicentur ac purificentur quod omnibus Sacerdotibus faciendum esse mandamus Ep. 1. decret Extat To. 1. Concil pag. 68. n. 5. C. Binn Alexander the First Bishop of Rome who lived you must know Anno 121. so near the Apostles commanded it to be practised But they who read his first Epistle will find that he did not command it as a new thing but as the antient Practice unless they will have him to have instituted the Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ and healing of the Sick which he there also seriously advises the Priests to celebrate often and devoutly Now if this be Incantation with him he may please to learn that the Aqua benedicta as Baronius tells us dissolves all Incantations and Magic frauds rather than introduces them being famed for sundry Miracles which God hath pleased to work thereby in several Ages witness Epiphanius S. Hierom in the Life of S. Hilarion Theodoret and others And as for Incense which is a Testimony of the (c) Omnes de Saeba venient Aurum Thus deferentes Esa 60.6 Muth 2.11 Adoration which is due to God of the fervor with which our (d) Dirigatur Oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo Ps 14.2 Prayers ought to ascend to him and of the good (e) Christi bonus odor sumus Deo. 2 Cor. 2.15 Life we ought to lead I suppose he will not defie * S. Dion Areop Eccles Hier. c. 4. pag. 281. A. S. Ambros in cap. 1. Lâ—e St. Dionysius the Areopagite nor St. Ambrose nor other Antient Fathers who upon occasion make mention of it nor condemn them and us of foul Idolatry or Wichcraft e. Incantation for the use of it Neither can he I hope condemn the solemn use of these Creatures in this particular For what doth the Church intend thereby but by the Water to shew the Purity and Holiness of that Sacred Utensil as it relates to our Blessed Redeemer the Lamb of God offered upon the Altar of the Cross And what by the Incense but the precious sweetness of that Mystery as I may call it the Church being willing to express her Devotion to her ever-blessed Redeemer by such Testimonies And he who likes them not 't is feared would not have liked the Penitent Magdalen's Spikenard poured out on the Feet of her Lord. Neither can any man of the Church of England reasonably question the uses of these things which were in practice even in the Jewish Synagogue seeing the wisdom of the Church has beyond all exception thought fit to retain several of their solemn usages Sacrifices and Sabbaths being excepted Well but it may be that in the very Prayers this foul and notorious Idolatry is couched Certainly he dare not affirm that seeing they are immediately addressed to God himself to beg of him a Blessing upon that Creature and that he would impart the same Benediction to this Cross that he did to that upon which he suffered and grant that they who pray and bow down before this Cross PROPTER DEVM in honor of him who suffered upon it may so call to mind his Passion that they may find health both of Soul and Body through the same JESVS CHRIST c. Oh but after this Benediction the Bishop and as many as will of those that are present kneel down and devoutly ADORE it and kiss it Here I suppose is the foul and notorious Idolatry But let him consider their Intention Is not all this as well as the other PROPTER DEVM FOR GODS SAKE 1. Is it foul and notorious Idolatry to kneel down before a Cross or kiss it in honor of that God and Man who suffered on it for our Salvation 2. Or is it Idolatry to adore the Saviour of the world in presence of the Cross if we speak in a more proper sense and according to the Ecclesiastical style 3. Or lastly can he call it Idolatry to adore that is venerate unless he will always fix an univocal sense to an equivocal word that which represents unto us the Blessed Author and mysterious manner of our Redemption This would certainly render us Enemies of the Cross of Christ and condemn them who kiss the Bible or kneel to their Parents or God's vicegerents upon Earth much more those of the Church of England who Adore God before the Altar in their Public Devotions and Communions But he has one Question yet to ask of M. de Meaux and that is If the Church of Rome looks upon the Cross only as a memorative Sign to what end is all this Consecration so many Prayers shall I say or rather magical Incantations and how comes it to pass that a Cross without all this ado is not as fit to call to mind Jesus Christ who suffered upon the Cross as after all this Superstition not to say any worse in the dedication of it Pray Good Sir call to mind what you so much pretend to be a Scholar and a Christian As a Scholar change a little your Medium and see whether your Argument will not fall as heavy upon your selves as upon us And as a Christian remember that you must answer for every Idle word much more for every abusive term or scurrilous misrepresentation of another Do not you your selves use to set apart some Persons Things or Places to the Service of Almighty God which were of themselves after a sort proper for that purpose without such a busy Ceremony and would not you if a Dissenter observing your Ceremonies in Consecrating a Church or a Bishop should tell you that what you do is Superstition or magical Incantation would not you I say esteem such expressions little less than Blasphemy and look upon such accusers as Ignorant and Malicious not knowing what they say or of what they affirm If a Quaker I say should ask you what need of so many Prayers and Formalities to bless a place for the Burial of the Dead as if any Piece of Ground were not proper enough for that without such Superstition â—hould he call your Cross in Baptism your Ring in Marriage and your other Formalities magical Incantations I doubt not but you would bless your self from his Ignorance And yet all this which you condemn in others who oppose you you applaud in your selves when you would render us odious Turn then the Argument upon your self and retract this unchristian Censure and grant that tho'a cross Barr in a Window or a Turn-stile may put us in mind of the Instrument of our Redemption yet the Figure of the Cross may be justly set apart in order to bring those pious Thoughts to
in sight But the case is this As the Church of England in general for Gravity and Reverend behavior exceeds the Conventicles or other Reformed Churches so the Cathedrals of the Church we confess are more Solemn than the Country Churches the Catholics as 't is fit far beyond the English Cathedrals And what is the issue The Churches of England are censured as Superstitious by the Kirkmen and Conventiclers the Cathedrals are censured as such by the Parish Churches and the Catholic is censured also by the Reformed Cathedral Still the more Solemn and Devout Church is censured for Idolatrous by the less I shall shut up this with the following Story whilst I ask my Antagonist this Question Suppose he had been present in the City of c St. Athan. de Imagine Domint nostri J. Christs qualiter Crucifixa est in Syria in urbe quae Berthus dicitur Tem. 2. p. 17. c. 1. B. Berthus in Syria in St. Athanasius his time and had seen the Jews as the same Saint relates using all the Indignities to a Crucifix which a Christian had accidentally left behind him whilst he removed from his Lodgings that their Predecessors had done to our Blessed Saviour himself would he not have looked upon those actions as intended against our Blessed Saviour and not terminated in that Wood Would he not have condemned those Jews as guilty of the same Crimes they were who Scourged him Buffeted him and Nailed him to the Cross Would he have excused them because they did those actions to an inanimate Being Or would he not rather have interpreted their intention as passing from the Cross to our Blessed Saviour whom it represented If he cannot deny but that he should have been concerned at these Indignities or the like which as it is reported are done by the Renagado Christians when submitting to the Alcaron they shoot at the Picture of our Saviour I see no reason why he should not in like manner interpret these exterior Testimonies of our respect not to terminate in the Crucifix but to tend to him who suffered upon the Cross Indeed in our Days we have seen such contempt shewn to the Images When Sir Will Wader burnt the Crucifix even of our Blessed Saviour himself in the publick Eye of the World that the Enemies of Christianity blushed for Christians crying shame upon those who acknowledged him to be their God and yet treated his Resemblance with such disrespect Now comes his last Argument taken from the Hymns of the Church and because I said he had been often told §. 26. The Churches Hymns that there were Poetical Expressions in those Hymns and that the word Cross by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets signifies Iesus Christ Crucified to whom we pray in our Hymns he is brisk and confident and has a mind to expose our Literature as well as our Idolatry and tells me he will not ask me by what Authority I send them to the Poets for interpreting the Churches Hymns But if I please to inform them what that Figure is which in the same place makes the Cross to signifie Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross and who those Poets are to whom this Figure is sufficiently known I shall oblige them Nay he tells me that they are amazed at the very report of such a Figure and believe it next a Kin to Cransubstantiation In answer to this I hope it is not a Crime in me to send him for the interpretation of the Church Hymns to the Poets that made them Poets I say unless he will be so far an Hypocritic as to deny Prudentius and Fortunatus to be of that number But if he look into his Corpus Poetarum he will find them to have a place amongst the other Poets and if he look into their Works he will find this very Hymn he boggles at and it may be if he cast an Eye upon the Title of it he will call to mind what Figure it is he there uses for I do not pretend that there is only one Figure in all the Hymns sometimes we find Metonymias sometimes Prosopopeias and sometimes others his Title is not de Cruce of the Cross but de Passione Domini of the Passion of our Lord And if under the term Cross he understand Christ and his sufferings upon it our Defender need not be amazed at it nor endeavor to make the Figure by which it is done so ridiculous He will find it very familiar to St. Paul I have told him already how that Apostle when he gloried in Christ and his sufferings said Gal. 6.14 The Cross taken for Christ c. God forbid I should glory saving in the Cross of Christ by which the World is Crucified to me and I to the World. And I may now bid him look into the first Chapter of his Epistle to the Collossians v. 20. and he will see that he calls the Blood of our Redemption the Blood of the Cross Into the third Chapter to the Philippians v. 18. where he calls the Enemies of Christ the Enemies of Christs Cross Into the first Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians v. 17. and 18. where he calls the frustrating of Christs Passion the making void of his Cross the Preaching of his Gospel the Preaching of his Cross And into the sixth of the Galathians ver 12. where he calls the Persecution that was suffered for professing the Faith of Christ Crucified the Persecution of the Cross As also into the twelfth of the Hebrews v. 2. Where speaking of our Blessed Saviour's sufferings he says he endured the Cross Yet these are things concealed from him he is amazed at the report of such a Figure and believes it next a Kin to Transubstantiation I hope if they be so near a Kin when he becomes a Convert to St. Paul in one of them he will also be in the other But what dos he mean by Vs and We all along as when he tells us that this noted Figure has been so long concealed from Vs Do's he vouch for his whole party or only for himself Not surely for his whole party for if he do they will beg his pardon at least some them and in particular Mr. a Reyn. c. 8. divis 2. pa. 412.413 Reynolds if my Author cite him truly who tells us that St. Paul after a Figurative manner of speech by the Cross meant Christ Crucified Nay I may say all those of the Church of England as by Law Established will certainly deny themselves to be of his confederacy otherwise what I pray means their 30th Canon in which their Church acknowledges b Imo Spiritus Sanctus per Apostolorum ora ipsum Crucis nomen Judaeis utique invisum usque adeo honoravit ut non modo Christum ipsum Crucifixum sub eodem comprehenderet sed mortis ac passionis Christi vires effectus ac merita una cum selattis fructibus ac promissis universis quae nos
ex eisdem aut percipimus aut in futurum expectamus Sparows Canons pag. 282. that the Holy Ghost did by the Mouths of the Apostles so far Honor the Name of the Cross so odious to the Jews that under it they did not only comprehend Christ himself Crucified but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion with all the comforts fruits and promises which we receive or expect thereby But if by we and us he only mean himself and desire me to oblige him so much as to inform him what Figure that is which makes the Cross signify Christ I must send him to the aforesaid Canon which I suppose he understood when he entred into the Ministry of the Church of England tho' he has now forgot it Neither let him say that he calls for a Figure which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross for he will not find our Hymns any more guilty of that than the expressions of St. Paul before mentioned in which he will find the foregoing nay in some of them the accompanying words distinguishing Christ from the Cross and yet according to his own thirtieth Canon the Holy Ghost under the word Cross did comprehend not only Christ crucisied but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion c. But to examin more particularly this Hymn which he instances He formerly bogled only at the Stroph O crux ave spes unica Exposit pag. 14. Hail O Cross our only hope c. In which as I then told him it is manifest the Church makes her addresses to the Cross with Christ that is to Christ Crucified upon the Cross Christ our only Hope as the words spes unica sufficiently demonstrate for he will not have us certainly to have two only Hopes neither will others surely whatsoever he does think us so silly as to make a formal Prayer to an insensible thing But in vindication of himself he brings St. Thomas acknowledging the worship of Latria due to the Cross and proving it as he says from this Hymn to which I have already answered and shall not here repeat it again and picks out at pleasure three other Strophs of that Hymn in which as he says the Cross is distinguished from Christ What if it be in those three Stanza's does it necessarily follow that it is so in this too For my part I see no such consequence And must certainly conclude that if the Apostles did by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost comprehend Christ and all the benefit of his Passion under the word Cross the Church which is also taught by the same Holy Spirit ought not to be censured for the same Of Reliques AS for Reliques §. 27. we are called here to a Verbal Disputation And because Veneration Worship and Adoration are frequently confounded in our Authors he endeavors from several of them to justifie his Translating of the Word Venerari in the Conncil of Trent by Worship in his Exposition I do not love to prolong Disputes and therefore shall readily give him leave to use the word Worship upon condition that he take it in the sense of those Authors who understand no more than an Honor or Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Remains of those Saints who were once the Temples of the living God and not a Worship or Adoration taken in its strict sense Only I must tell him that we do not seek to those Sacred Monuments for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance No Prayers to Reliques or Monuments as he very falsly insinuated from the Council and now to justify himself makes use of as great a piece of Scholarship as can well be paralleld I told him That the Words of the Council were That they who affirm that no â—â—â—eration or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or that those Reliques and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably Honored by the Faithful or that they the Faithful do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints to the end they may obtain their aid the aid of the Saints EORVM are wholly to be condemned as the Church does now and has formerly condemned them But alas it seems I did not understand the Latin or else I had a mind to Cavil for he tels his Reader my Citation of the words of the Council was only a Trick to deceive those who understood it only in my Translation that I transposed the Latin on purpose to raise a Dust to deceive the Reader the true Order being plainly as he before rendred it so that they who shall affirm That no Worship or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or That these and the like Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honored and that for the obtaining of their Help the Help of those Sacred Monuments A false Tranâ—ation EORVM the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented are to be condemned Certainly this was a great Crime and my throwing the false Translation upon him one of the reasons I suppose why he gave me that pious Admonition Presace pag. xvi Intreating me by the common name of Christian and those hopes of Eternity after which he believes we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend to consider how deagerous this way I have taken is what mischiesi it will bring in the Opinion of all good Men of what soever perswasion they be to the very cause that is maintained by such Means In a word what a sad parchase it will prove in the end if to lessen the reputation of an unknown obscure Adversary I should do that which shall lose me my own Soul. But really I must desire this Gentleman to cast once more his Eye upon the Latin and see whether of us two have rendred it right in English For my own part in his own words I thank God my Religion needs not such Defences Ibid. nor would I ever have used those means to assert it if it did I was always taught that no evil was to be done tho' for a good end nor was I ever brought up in any Schools that esteemed the Interest of the Church so Sacred as to be able to sanctify the worst of Means that can be made use of to promote it I have indeed heard some Roman Catholics accused as if they taught such Doctrins but I always found the Galumny stand at the Accusers Doors whose Art was only to cry Whore first And as for the Defender I hope if he be convinced he has done me and the Council of Trent I may say also the Catholic Church an Injury in this he will perform his Promise and think himself indispensably obliged to make a public Acknowledgment of it and thank the Vindicator that has called him to so necessary a Duty I appeal then to any Jury of Scholars in the World Whether when I Translated these words Ita ut affirmantes EORVM opis impetranda causâ memorias
SANCTORVM frustra frequent ari omnino damnandos esse after this manner so that they who affirm the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented for the obtaining their Aid that is the Aid of the Saints are to be condemned fixing Eorum to its Substantive Sanctorum which follows in the same Sentence rather than to Monumenta in the foregoing from whence it is separated in most of the Editions I have seen by a Hyppooolon I say I appeal to any Jury of Scholars Whether I did not give the true sense of the Sentence and whether the Defender be not short in his Translation But if he have a mind still to pursue the Cavil all I can do is to wish him a clearer sight or to send him to the Words as they are Printed in Bail 's Summa Conciliorum Sess 25. de Invocat Venerat c. pag. 701. E. Where he will find the Word Eorum quite left out which will I hope satisfy him that we neither make our Prayers I'a ut affirâ—â—â—tes Sanctâ—rum Reliquits veneratienem at que benerem non debevi veleas aliaque sacra Monum â—ta a filelibâ—â— inuâ—iliter bonâ—rari atque opis impetrande causi Saâ—â—orum Memorias frustra frequentars ommine damnindes esse c. Memoriae Sancterum alia sacra Monumenta are the same and therefore if corum hâ—d been referred to the Monuments or Memorials it ought to have been of the seminine gender in that sentence thus earum memoriarum opis in petrandae causa Non qued credatur inesse aliqua in its Diviâ—itas vel virtus propâ—er quam sint colâ—â—dae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid peiendum vel quod fidutia in Lâ—â—agin but sit figâ—â—da c. to the Monuments nor to the Reliques nor Memorials of the Saints The Council then as appears plainly by the words of it condemns three forts of persons The first those who affirm that Veneration and Honor is not due to the Reliques of Saints The second those who affirm That Reliques and other Holy Monuments are unprofitably honored and the third those who say that the Memorials of the Saints are in vain frequented in order to obtain the aid and assistance of those Saints and they who give another sense wrest the Words and impose a Doctrin which never any Divine of the Church of Rome held nor any that I have met with but the Defender accused them of and yet this must be again repeated in his Close as a piece of old Popery but he should rather have called it new Calumny and a fearful Blunder of his own They who doubt whether I speak truth or no may be pleased to Read the Council it self and some Lines further they will find that it professes it does not believe that any Divinity or Vertue is in Images for which they ought to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or any trust to be put in Images and I think the same case holds in Monuments There remains one Objection from Bellarmin §. 28. concerning the Veneration of Images mentioned by the Defender in his Close which is Bellarm. de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 21. p. 1697. Ch. 22. Non esse dicendum Iataginibus deberi culium Latriae Ch. 23. Imagines Christi improprie velper accidens posse honorari culiu Latriae Ch. 24. Imagines â—er se propries non esse colendâ—â—â—o cultu quo 〈◊〉 ipsum colitur Ch. 25 Quina conelusio Culous qui per se proprie debetur Imaginibus est Cusius quidam impersedus qui a 〈◊〉 reductive peranet ad speciens ajue Culius qui debeiur examplari That he affirms the Images of Christ and his Saints are to be Venerated not only by accident and improperly but also by themselves and Properly so that the Veneration is terminated in them as they are considered in themselves and not only as they are the Representatives of the Originals But had he looked into his Explication he would have found that the Veneration he there speaks of is only such as is given the Book of Gospels or the Sacred Utensils of the Church And the Titles of his three following Chapters and the Conclusion he draws from them in the fifth shew that the Vindicator and he did not differ in their Faith. ART V. Of Justification THe Defender is very free in his Accusations §. 29. Desence pag. 25. but very unfortunate in his Proofs He tels us of sirange abuses with which the true Doctrin of Justification was over-run at the beginning of the Reformation and wonders at my confident denial of it without any Proof when at the same time he brings no other himself but a bare affirmation that he must be very ignorant in the Histories of those times The Catholic Church falsely accused c. I must confess we shall find in those Ages strange Accusations of the Catholic Doctrin but who ever peruses the Acts of our Councils will find they were only mere Calumnies and Misrepresentations I need not send oun Defender further than to the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685 Where he will find those Calumnies Injuries and Falsities proved out of their own Authors But what our Defender means now by the true Doctrin of Justification is not very easie to Guess unless he State it in Calvins way or the 11th Article of his Church which yet he knows tho' he have a mind to keep counsel is disavowed by the best and honestest Divines of the English Church I speak not here of Mr. Thorndike but of many others as Dr. Taylor Dr. Hammond Mr. Bull and who must be set by himself Mr. Baxter Nay Report too says that the Pulpits also as many as do not persevere in Calvinism do directly declare against it and that with all the reason in the World that Men may no longer perish by wresting St. Pauls difficulter expressions to their own Damnation which 't is believed (a) 2 Pet. 3.16 St. Peter points at we are sure (b) Jac. 2.20 26. St. James doth Yes yes time was they tell us that the Church of Rome was loudly accused of Erring in Fundamentals because she taught Justification by Faith and Works without which Faith is but Dead but now the Fundamental Error is found to lye elsewhere God be thanked and yet Justification must still remain for so goes the Game a Bone of Contention Want of Charity will always keep us asunder and tho' we be agreed yet the spite of it is we will not agree The Defender knows upon what Politic motives things are so managed and who are to be gratified at this Juncture lest there should appear a possibility of union * See the Advertisment to the Bp. of Condoms Exposition pag. 8. Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England pag. 21. with that Church from which they separated themselves principally upon account of our Doctrin of Justification tho'
they now adventure to say that were things clearly stated and distinguished one from another the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very grew a and that they can safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be will and rightly explained And he has advanced nothing but what is the Doctrin of the Council of Tront The Expositor and I were agreed in most things §. 30 Sanctification and Justification only I told him I thought he would be hard put to it to prove the Distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification to be the Doctrin of the Church of England and that he imposed upon us when he affirmed us so to make our Inward Righteousness a part of Justification that by Consequence we said our Justification it self is wrought by out good Works To the first It appears indeed he is hard put to it when he is forced to a Deduction how clear let others judge from their 11th and 12th Articles and from the Homily of Salvation which as he cites it calls the forgiveness of sins Justification but does not say that Justification is only the Remission of our sins which was his undertaking But had I told him of the little less than contradictions he fell under in that place he would have seen the difficulty of getting clear For having told us before that they confess with M. de Meaux Expos pag. 19. that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed but actually Communicated to the Faithful He here tels us Pag. 20. They believe their sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us Nay tho' he tell us their Church by Justification understands only the Remission of sins Contradictions and by Sanctification the Production of the habit of Righteousness in us yet within two lines he tells us that this Remission of sin is only given to those that Repent and that they who Repent are those in whom the Hoty Ghost produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and holiness of Life which is just as much as to say we distinguish Justification and Sanctification But no man can be Justifiel unless he be also Sanctified That our sins are Pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us but that his Merits are not only imputed but actudlly Communieated to us He will oblige us if he please to tell us how these agree as also how the Doctrin of their 11th Article We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour J. Christ by Faith and not for our own works and deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a wholesomt Doctâ—in and very full of comfost Art. 11. Sparrows Canons pag. 95. that we are Justified by Faith only is consistent with what he tells us pag. 19 of his Exposition that none of those things which precede our Justification whether our Faith or our Good works could Merit this Grace And what he summs up pag. 21. That Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commandments from time to time and if we persevere in this Cavenant Crowns us finally with Eternal Life Thus far he But Is awaking and answering to his Call is persevering in his Covenant no good works And if these be necessary to have God freely Justifie us and Grown us with Eternal Life how are we I pray Justified by Faith only As for the other part in which I told him §. 31. he imposed upon â—s as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of our Justification and so by consequence said that our Justification it self is wrought also by our Good works A false Imposition Doth he think that I told him he imposed upon us when he affirmed that we comprehend under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the Production of that inherent Righteousness which they call Sanctification No the Imposition did notilie in that part of the Proposition Our justification is gratis Gratis autem justificari ideo dicamur Quia nihileorum quae justificationem praeccdunt sive fides sive opera ipsam Justi ficationis gratiam promeretur Si enim Graâ—ia est jam non ex operibus Alioquin ut idem Apostolus inqun Gratia jam non est Gratia. Conc. Trid. Sess 6. de Justif cap. 8. but in the consequence which he drew viz. That we say our Justification is wrought also by our Good works This was the Imposition and if he had remembred what he had Copied out of the Bishops Exposition and the Bishop from the Council he would not have gone about to justifie his Accusation For the words are these We believe with him the Bishop of Meaux That our Sins are â—eely for given by Gods Mercy through Christ and that none of those things which precede Iustification whether our Faith or our good works could merit this Grace to which very words the Council of Trent adds this reason for if it Justification be a Grace it prâ—ceeds not from Good Works for other wise as the same Apostle says Grace would be nom no more Grace Well how do's he justifie his Imposition By a Canon of the Council forsooth which has not one word in it to his purpose but it seems he either did not understand it or else had a mind so to blunder it in his Translation that they who understood not the Latin might take it for granted to speak his Sense And by I know not what negligence of the Corrector fuerit was Printed instead of fiunt so that even those who did understand the Language could not find out the Error without consulting the Council it self The Council speaks of persons already Justified Si quiâ— dixerit konsinis justificati boma opers ita esse dexa Dei ut non sint etiam bona ipsim Justisicati merita aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei Gratiam Jesu Christi meritum cujus vivum membrum est fiunt non verè mereri augmentum Gratiae vitam aeternam iâ—siut vitae aeternae si tamen in gratia decesserit consecutioâ—em atque etiam Glorie augmentum Anathema sis and tells you that their good works performed through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Members they are do truly Merit Increase of Grace and Eternal Life and that they are not so the gifts of God but that they are also the
ground that it was no ground at all and so of all other particulars we must conclude that all of them put together could give no just cause for such a Rent or Rebellion in the Church I told him that he ought to have given us some better Reason for his Assertion that whenever God remits the Crime he remits the Punishment than we think so or we are perswaded especially seeing this Doctrin is of such concern that it gives more to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon us Protestants grant more efficacy to a Lord have Mercy upon us than Catholics to a Plenary Indulgence than all the Plenary Indulgences of the Catholic Church But this I perceive puts him on the Fret and therefore he calls it a shameful Calumny and tells me he is confident I did not believe it my self Pray Good Sir Is it not your Position That when ever God forgives the Guilt be forgives the Punishment Is it not your Tenet also that God is ready to forgive the Guilt whenever a Sinner truly repents Tell me then suppose a Great Sinner is so suddenly taken out of the World that tho' he was truly forry for his Sine yet had only time to express his Sorrow by a bare Lord have mercy upon me Will you say such a Man cannot reap the Benefits of God Almighties Favor or have the guilt of his Sin forgiven him If you dare not say this tell me your opinion Whether does he go If you say To Heaven straight I say you give more to a bare Lord have mercy upon me than we do to a Plenary Indulgence for a Plenary Indulgence remits the Penalty due to Sin only upon Account of some other Satisfactions in the Churches style But you will it may be tell me this is not a bare Lord have mercy upon me but is as I now suppose accompanied with a sorrow for his Sin. I grant it and so must the Person who gains the Indulgence be not only sorry for his sins but confess them resolve to amend them quit the Occasions and make some other Satisfactions not only to the Persons whom he has injured but to God by Prayers Almes-deeds or Fasting In the last place §. 36. he finds fault with my Remark upon his Reflection upon the Bishop of Meaux for bringing only we suppose to establish this Doctrin when yet very often he did no more himself A Falsification But he takes no notice that I told him he had falsified M. de Meaux in that very expression for his words were we believe nous croyons which words were conformable to his design of an Exposition not of a proof However he tels me he belleves I can hardly find any one Instance where that is the only Argument he brings for their Doctrin In answer to which I dare confidently affirm that strip him of the Calumnies Misrepresentations of our Doctrin and Falsifications he has scarce an Argument in his Book of greater force than his we suppose And to shew he thinks it to be strong he lays a stress upon it in this place and tell us that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient not to receive our Innovations till we can bring them some better Arguments to prove they ought to quit their Supposition Nay he puts us upon the proof and pretends that they cannot find any Footsteps of our Doctrins in Scripture or Antiquity and has good reason by the weakness of our attempts to believe there are not any Certainly the Defender is not so ignorant in Controversy nor so little read in Polemic Divines as he here shews himself to be What! do our Authors never shew him any footsteps of our Doctrins in Scriptures or in Antiquity Are our attempts to prove our Doctrin so feeble that People have reason to think a mere Supposition will ruine our Foundations No no! the Defender certainly did not believe himself when he writ this tho' he was willing others should believe him Have we not besides our bringing the Authority of the Universal Church besides the lasting possession which we enjoy besides the Express Definitions of Councils acknowledged to be General not only by all the Bishops in England before the Reformation but by all Christendom besides the express Sentences of the Fathers in all Ages We are in a well grounded possession and therefore are not to quit it for bare Suppositions have we not I say besides all these Proofs offered also the plain Texts of Scripture and Challenged Protestants to shew so much as one positive Text for their Negative belief so much as one Father unless wrested contrary to his intention on their side or so much as one Council for any of those Points in which they differ from us And would it not be a folly for any one to quit a possession grounded upon such Proofs for a bare we suppose the Contrary They who doubt of what I say would do well to read our Books and compare the Arguments of our Authors and see whether Scripture or Antiquity will shew the footsteps of our Doctrin or of theirs And as for Antiquity if they will not believe us let them believe their own Protestant Authors who are so little confident of the Fathers being on their side that they accuse them of Errors not only in the Point of Satisfactions but in almost all the Points in Controversy as has been sully shewn by Brereley in his Protestant Apology First Part and by several others And as for Scripture amongst many others let them read the Anchor of Christian Doctrin and the Catholic Scripturist ART VIII SECT 2. Of Indulgences WHat I said before I say again That if any abuses §. 37. Councils have redressed the abuses in them either by negligence of Pastors or Covetousness of inferior Officers have been Practised in Promulging Indulgences our Councils not only desiring that they may be redressed but having made such severe and wholsom Laws in order to it I wonder persons should from thence take occasion to quarrel with us I say also Trident. Sess 2â— Decreto de Indulg that I will not undertake to defend Practices which are neither necessarily nor Universally received as of Faith. We defend not practices which are neither necessarily nor universally received But then the Defender asks me Whether it be not necessarily nor universally received to believe that Indulgences satisfie for the Temporal pain of Sin If he speak of pains due in the Court of God I must with Veron in his Rule of Faith Chap. xvi tell him That it is no Article of our Faith no Council has ever Defined it and several approved Divines deny it and have not been censured for it All that we are obliged to believe §. 38. Our necessary Tenets Profâ—ff of Faith. is that the power of Indulgences has been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ and that the use of
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
of his Books from their Disciplin nothing gives them more trouble than the vehement desire they see in Parents to make their Children be Baptized when they are Sick or in danger of Death This Piety says he of the Parents is called by their Synods an infirmity It is a weakness to be concerned lest the Children of the Faithful should dye without Baptism One of their Synods had condescended that Children in evident danger of Death should be Baptised contrary to the Ordinary custom But the following Synod reproved this weakness And these fortified persons blotted that Clause out which shewed a concern for such danger because it opened a way to the opinion of the necessity of Baptism So that the Dispute betwixt the Bishop of Condom and the Hugonots The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument Exâ—â—â— pag. 17 was concerning the Necessity of Baptism and not the Consequence of that Necessity as our Defender would gladly have it And his Assertion is that both Catholics and Lutherans are astonished that such a Truth as the absolute Necessity of Baptism should be denyed which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the Faithful Had our Defender rightly taken this Dispute he would have spared himself the pains he has been at to search Hooker Bramhall Cassander Grotius and the Authors cited by them Some of which it may be thought not the Consequence drawn from the Belief of the absolute necessity of Baptism so clear as to be an Article of Faith whilst others especially Gerson were willing to perswade themselves that God Almighty notwithstanding his unlimited Decree might extend his Mercy to such Children But that his Decree being for all in General we ought to Pronounce according to that Decree because without a particular Revelation we ought not to make any Exception from that Rule But neither they nor any else before Calvin denyed the absolute necessity of Baptism as the Bishop Asserts And our Defender if he had any thing to say against him should have opposed that part A Falsification and not have corrupted his words and told us that he affirms that this denyal of Salvaton to Infants dying Vnbaptized was a Truth which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question No no the Bishop knew well enough that Gerson's Piety had made him cast an Eye upon the Mercies of God which he was willing to think might in some cases make him dispense with his Rule and thwart the necessity of the Deduction He knew that Biel and Cajetan were willing to follow singular opinions and therefore might be of the same mind He knew also no doubt of it that Grotius had cited St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustin for this opinion tho' they who look into those Fathers will find he was mistaken neither did St. Augustin in his cooler thoughts differ from himself when provoked by Pelagius tho' our Defender after Grotius dare argue that he did But neither they nor any other openly denyed the necessity of Baptism as the Calvinists do Nor do the Authors he mentions affirm any such thing and therefore it was needless for him to call them in to his help or to tell me I had wholy past by what seem'd the most to deserve an answer Upon this account one may see it was not so ridiculous as he would make it to tell him If he had been a Hugonot or a Puritan it might have seemed reasonable to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome for a Doctrin which they condemn But that I was astonished to see this Argument and to hear the Church condemned of Vncharitableness by one of the Church of England which as he says has it seems * The Church of England in the order for the buriâ—l of the dead rands however unbaprizeed Children with those that dye Excommunicated or have laid violent hands upon themselves Determined nothing of it But if he do not as he owns justify a Breach with us upon this account why I pray does he start the Dispute to keep it open or make it wider by such sinnter Defences ART X. Of Confirmation IF our Defender had §. 46. as he professes several of our own Party on his side persons who denyed the Divine Institution of this Sacrament he would not I believe have conceal'd their Names but would have been as ready to have stuffed his Margent with them as he was in the precedent Article with Cassander and Grotius whom he would make his Readers believe were of our most approved Authors tho' the first was censured for his rash attempt in the Interim and the other lived in opposition to the Church tho' it be thought he dyed in Communion with it Surely our Defender was sadly put to it when he was forced to fly to the silence of the Council of Trent and of its Catechism and to argue that because neither of them offered any thing to prove this Sacrament therefore forsooth it cannot be proved Was it not sufficient for those Books to explicate our Doctrin T is not surely the Business of a Council to prove Proved by Fathers and Scripture but to Assert our Belief And whether the Catechism has been wholy silent in this let the Readers Judge as also how bold and rash some persons will be in their Assertions The Chatechism tels us Catech. Rom. part 2. de Cinf c. 3. p. 158. that the Church has always taught and acknowledged that all things that belong to the Nature and Essence of a Sacrament are found in Confirmation and proves it from many Antient and Holy Popes and Fathers of the Church (a) Epist ad Episc Hisp c. 2. Et de Consec Dist 5. cap. Spiritus Sanctus St. Melchiades who lived Anno 315. (b) Ep. 4. ad Jultan Jul. St. Clement Anno 102. Also from (c) De Consec dist 5. Pope Vrban Anno 232. Fabianus Anno 253. And Eusebius Anno 311. Nay it shews us moreover that (d) De. Eccl. Hier. c. 2. St. Denys the Arepagite does not only speak of Confirmation but expresses the very Ceremonies and the manner of making the Chrism and that (e) Lib. 6. Hist Eccles c. 33. Eusebius of Cesarea thought that Novatus foll into his Heresy for neglecting in his Sickness to be Confirmed And tho' our Defender in his former Treatise was not so bold but only affirmed that the Council and Chatechism did not go about to prove either Christs Institution or the outward visible Sign or the inward Spiritual â—â—race by Scripture yet this Catechism shews that (f) Ambr. in fin c. 7. de lit qui myst init lib. 3. de Sacramentis c. 2. Tom. 4.436 pag. St. Ambrose and (g) Aug. lib. 2. cenâ—ra lit Petil. c. 104. St. Augustin were both of them so perswaded that no one could doubt of the truth of this Sacrament that they both of
them confirmed it from many Testimonies of Holy Scripture as one of them from Ephes 4.30 affirming these words And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby ye are Sealed to be meant of the Sacrament of Coâ—firmation And the other concluding that the Pretious Ointment of which the Psalmist speaks Ps 132.2 which being poured forth upon Aarons Hend ran down upon his Beard and the Skirts of his Garment as also that of St. Paul Rom. 5.5 where he tels us that the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given unto us to be referred to Confirmation And certainly the best way of proving things from Scripture is to bring the Interpretations of Fathers who lived before out Disputes arose T is true the Catechism after this general Proof of its Antiquity and its being a Sacrament descending to particulars chooses rather to use the plain Testimony of * Laodic c. 48. Cartb 2. ca. 3. Councils and Antient Fathers as of (a) Fab. Pap. in inst Epist 2. quae est ad Episc Oriental Tom. 2. Concil citatur de Consc dist 3. cap. lit vestris St. Fabianus Pope and Martyr (b) S. Dionys de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. ct 4. St. Denys c. to which might be added (c) Aug. in Ps 44. v. 9. et lib. 13. de Trin. c. 26. St. Augustin (d) Ambr. in Ps 118. St. Ambrose (e) Cypr. Epist 70. and St. Cyprian c. than the words of Scripture alone which it knew would be contested by them who make it their business to oppose the Church and make the Scriptures speak as they would have them But as I said the best way of proving things from Scripture is to shew that Antiquity understood it so As to the Argument I brought from his own Concessions §. 47. tho' it was not so fully concluding as it might have been yet let him answer me Why they now continue the imposition of Hands if it was not left by the Apostles to be continued in the Church and if it was left by them for what end did they leave it if not for the same for which it was instituted the giving of the Holy Ghost and Grace to confirm and strongthen us in our Faith And if the Eucharist it self do not certainly and infallibly give Grace to all those that receive it but only to them that receive it worthily I suppose he will not expect any more from Confirmation Let him therefore tell me Whether if a person duly prepared come to receive this Imposition of Hands the Grace of the holy Ghost does not certainly descend at that Holy Rite for those great ends the Prayers design If these things be as I think he can scarce deny them he cannot deny also but that this looks somewhat like a Sacramènt But if as he says this be only a meer indifferent Ceremony continued only in imitation of the Apostles and to which no Blessing is ascribed that may not equally be allow'd to any other the like Prayer Why might not this Prayer be reiterated as well as others Why must this Ceremony be only allowed to be performed by Bishops and why are persons so much exhorted not to neglect it But if he think not this a sufficient Argument Bellarm. de Saer Conjirm lib. 2. I would desire him to consider that I might by only making use of Bellarmin have shewn him from plain Texts of Scripture at least looked upon by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as such that Imposition of Hands which we call Confirmation is a Sacred sign of an Interior Grace given with the Holy Ghost to the Faithful I might have shewn him Ten Popes the last of which was no less than St. Gregory the Great all of them affirming the Holy Ghost or his Gifts to be given by this Sacrament some of them calling it a great Sacrament and others mentioning both Chrism and Imposition of Hands I might have shewn him no less than three General Councils and eight others on our side some of them very antient I might have shewn him also nine Greek Fathers and as many of the Latin of which St. John Damascen and St. Augustin are the last all whose Testimonies are so full that our Defender will be ill at ease to give a civil Answer All this he knew I might do besides many others which joyned with the perpetual practice of the Church and the unanimous consent of Christians before the Pretended Reformation are certainly good Arguments in our behalf But he tells us Des pag. 40. it is wonderful to see with what Confidence those of the Church of Rome urge the Aposiles Imposition of Hands for proof of Confirmation when this Imposition of Hands is resolved to be but an Accidental Ceremony and accordingly in our practice wholy laid aside It is a sign our Defender did not look into our Pontifical when he Writ this nor considered what he cited from Estius in the Margent For we have not left off Imposition of Hands neither does Estius affirm it but only that the necessity of it is ceased as if the words he quotes be true But our Bishops says he Lay on Hands after the Apostles Example §. 48. but yours Anoint make Crosses in the Forehead tye a Fillet about their Heads give them a Box on the Ear c. for which there is neither Promise Precept nor Example of the Apostles Such an Argument as this might a Dissenter from the Church of England bring against the several Ceremonies used in their Ordination and what our Defender would answer to him I desire he would apply to himself The Ceremonies Explicated Several Ceremonies he knows are used to shew the effects of the Sacraments and if he do not know the meaning of these let him look again into the Catechism of the Council of Trent and he will there find that Oyl expresses the plenitude of Grace which by the Holy Ghost flows down from our Head Christ Jesus upon all his Members Ps 132. Ps 44. Josn 1. from whose fulness we have all received he being anointed with the oyl of Gladness above his Fellows he will find also there that Balsom puts us in mind that we ought to be the Good Odor of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 2.15 and keep our selves from all Putrefaction and the Contagion of Sin. If he also search into the antient Expositors of Scripture * Ambr. iib. de lis qui initiantur Mysteriis c. 6 7. Tom. 4. pag. 424. 425. Ed. Basil 1567. St. Ambrose St. Anselm (a) In Commentario 2 Cor. 2.21 Theodoret and others he will find that both this Anointing and this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead are plainly expressed or alluded to in Scripture where the Apostle St. Paul tells the Corinthians that it was God who confirmed them with him in Chirst that it was god who anointed them signed
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
persons to love one another as Christ loved his Church and because they are two in one Flesh tels them this is a great Sacrament but I speak in Christ and in the Church which words shew plainly what I have already mentioned that Marriage is truly a Sacrament in the Church and in Christ tho' it be only a civil Contract out of it It is a Sacrament instituted by Christ to represent the indissoluble Union betwixt him and his Church and therefore has his Grace annexed to it that it might truly represent that Union for an uncomfortable Marriage does not well represent it nor one that may be dissolved But here the modern Innovators after Erasmus cry out the word Sacrament is a false Translation the Greek word being Mystery But this is only a Trick of Protestants who as they were wont in their first Bibles to leave out the word Church whereever they met with it in Scripture and put in Congregation because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would bear that sense so here because the Greek has no other word but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express a Sacrament and a Mystery therefore it must be rendred Mysiery lest their People should with their Forefathers understand Marriage to be properly a Sacrament But certainly they who are not willing to be imposed upon will rather follow the Interpretation of all the antient Fathers and Commentators upon this place who unanimously agree that St. Pauls sense was that Matrimony is properly a Sacrament and that a great one because it signifies the Vnion betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church than these novel Criticks Indeed where persons have a mind to cavil there is no Text of Scripture so plain but may be wrested to a different sense and therefore we are forced upon those occasions to fly to the Tradition of the Church By Universal Tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches and the unanimons consent of those Interpreters who lived before that Dispute arose And thus it is no wonder that Estius should say we have not any Text of Scripture that plainly and evidently proves this Doctrin without having recourse to the Tradition of the Church But when this Tradition is such that not only the antient Fathers as St. Hierom St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophilact St. Augustin St. Anselme and generally all Commentators till Erasmus agreed in it but also the whole Church both of the East and West consented to it as appears not only by the general consent of all their Divines for the last 600 Years but by the Definitions of Councils held since that time and particularly that of Florence where the Greek and Latin Fathers were agreed upon this point as also by the Testimony of Hierimias Patriarch of Constantinople for the Greeks who in his own name as Cardinal Bellarmin observes Bellarmin de Mâ—rim Sacrant lib. 1. c. 4. pag. 1304 B. and in the name of all the Grecian Bishops declared against the Augustan Confession of the Lutherans in this point of Marriage being a Divine Sacrament as he did also against all their other Innovations I say when this Tradition is so antient clear and universal what a madness must it be to reject it because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Mystery as well as it does a Sacrament One thing more remains §. 60. Marriage not necessary for every one which has been thought a witty Objection against the Church that she makes Matrimony a Sacrament and yet denies it to her Clergy for a Sacrament say they must be Generally necessary to Salvation But this is plainly a forced Principle taken up upon begging the Question about the number of the Sacraments and besides is not so heartily believed in the Two which Protestants pretend to maintain For the Sons of the Church of England for any thing yet appears are not much perswaded of any such great necessity I speak not of what they call Superstitious Vnction but even of the Eucharist it self for dying persons For unless they can get company to Communicate besides the Decumbent he must lye in his Agony and venture into the other World without his Viaticum As for the Churches scrupling Marriage to her Clergy it is a difficulty to those who consider not the Sanctity of Priesthood If there be any state more perfect than another I hope it belongs to the Priest but the state of Marriage is more imperfect than the state of a resolved Virginity as you dare not deny shall not the Church than give leave to her Hierarchy who are or ought to be the most perfect to degrade themselves amongst the conjugate when she always maintained an order of Virgins even in the weaker female Sex or rather may she not direct them to follow the Evangelic counsel of being Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God But I will not dilate upon this The Church appoints her Sacraments where they are proper She does not appoint Marriage for all nor Extream Unction to the Lusty nor Holy Orders to every one You make a profession to scruple the use of Marriage at some solemn times if you dissemble not and the Church upon the same reasons scruples Marriage it self to some certain Orders of Men. ART XIV Of Holy Orders IN this Article §. 61. as well as in the last the Defender hath shewn us how much he is a Man of Peace and what hopes we may have of composing Differences He gave us indeed a fair Overture for an Agreement in his Exposition and I told him I was glad of it But what will his party say if he seem to close with Rome and therefore all his fair appearances and concessions must be now cast off and of a closing Friend as he then appeared he is now become an open Enemy If the Vindicator says he be agreed with me in this Article what then he does not say I am glad of it we draw neer to Unity no that would be to incur the Censure of those who live by breaking the Churches Peace but he says If we be agreed he musi renounce the number of his Seven Sacraments How For my part I thought he had spoken his mind sincerely before and the sense of his Church Expos pag. 46. when he told us That Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders The Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost might perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament and therefore I told him that we said no more and that we denyed it to be a Sacrament common to the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are and so far I found no difference betwixt us One would have thought upon this account that he had rather renounced his number Two than I my Seven Sacraments seeings in effect he allowed Holy Orders to be a third Oh but he only said §. 62. His new Evasions answered perhaps it
may be called a particular Sacrament and being now far from agreeing to any thing which has once been esteemed by them a difficulty he therefore says he denyed there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed This indeed he tels us in his Defence but in his Exposition he was far more moderate The outward Sign of it says he there we confess to have been Imposition of Hands and as such we our selves observe it From whence a lover of Peace in the Church would have rationally enough concluded that the Church of England was agreed with the Catholic in this Point when he says they use Imposition of Hands as an outward sign of it of what of the Particular Sacrament Yea. But it seems I was out in my conjecture for he intends not to contribute any thing to the healing of the Church in any Punctilio and therefore tho' we be half Friends as to all appearance yet some new Scruple must be thrown in the way to quash all hopes of Accommodation (a) Expos pag 46. We do not read says he that Christ instituted that sign much less tyed the promise of any certain Grace to it (b) Def. pag. 53. All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture is only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded See how some Men can digest any thing Are not three or four places of Holy Scripture shewing the Practice of it a sufficient Testimony that it was commanded Were the Apostles for will-worship uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies did they things on their own Head without their Lords Order or his least Innuendo My Adversary thinks it seems that nothing is commanded but what he can read commanded No unwritten Tradition now with him At other times perhaps hee 'l grant there may be some But now we read not Therefore c. Whereas we read not any Command by Christ for the observation of the Lords Day only three or four Examples of the practice of it that is all the Authority c. If Scripture be his rule of Faith let him shew us a greater authority then the example of three or four places contradicting our Tenets and he will have reason to Dispute with us As for those of our own who as he says maintain that Imposition of Hands is not essential to Holy Orders if they be not worth his naming they are not worthy my concern We are not to answer for the particular Sentiments of Scholastics as I have often told him But the Grace conferred is no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament Thus our Defender Whereas in his Exposition he acknowledged that Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders is accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost A Blessing do you say and why not a Grace seeing St. Paul expresly calls it so 2 Tim. 1.6 admonishing St. Timothy to stir up the Grace of God which was given him by the Imposition of his Hands 1 Tim 4.14 and in another place exhorting him not to neglect the Grace in him which was given him by Prophecy that is according to the particular revelation made to St. Paul concerning him with the Imposition of the Hands of Priesthood He goes on If it may be called a Grace Expos ibid. yet not a Grace common to all Christians but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ And therefore we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are Pray Sir who ever said that the Grace which is given in Holy Orders is a Grace common to all Christians or that it is a common Sacrament of the whole Church Is it not sufficient for a Sacrament that it be the visible sign of an invisible Grace bestowed upon some particular persons segregated to a special employ for the benefit of the whole Church must all persons be Deacons all persons Priests all Bishops or else Holy Orders no Sacrament Oh but it is not a Justifying Grace What do you mean by a Justifying Grace Is not this Grace given in Holy Orders a Grace that renders the persons who receive it acceptable to God Almighty and enables them to perform the functions to which they are called Does not this Sacrament confer at least an increase of Sanctifying Grace tho' it be not instituted to confer the first Grace of Remission of Sin If you will have nothing else to be a justifying Grace but what is instituted primarily for the Remission of Sin I am afraid you will hereafter conclude the Eucharist to be no Sacrament because it does not primarily confer such a Grace Thus you see the whole business of our Defender is nothing but Shifts If it may be called a particular Sacrament yet is it not common to the whole Church If a Grace be given in it yet not a sanctifying Grace a Grace common to all Christians If we find three or four places in Scripture mentioning Imposition of Hands in order to the conferring of some Grace whatever ever it be yet we do not find it commanded What is all this but puttings off and a begging the Question by supposing that nothing can be truly a Sacrament which is not General to all Christians But I am afraid I have been too long upon these particulars seeing the Next great Article challenges an exact Examen ART XV XVI XVII XVIII Of the Eucharist IT is not a little Astonishment to see what an Agreement there is in all Antiquity concerning the Sense of these four Words §. 63. Defence pag. 54. Two hundred several senses put upon these four words this is my body This is my body and what various Interpretations have been made of them in this last 150 Years when our Reformers left every Man his Liberty to interpret Scripture for himself without any controlment (a) Repetâ—â— 1. de Euchar. c. 10. Apud Gualter Cron. Sect 16. pag 808. Claudius Sanctesius has collected no less than 84 (b) Gerd contr 1. cap. 28 pag. 202. de Ecclesia others 200 various Senses put upon these four plain Words which before this new pretended Reformation begun were generally understood in a literal Sense Every one contends his Sense to be the best and seeing as the Bishop of Meaux well observed they all of them fly from the literal and adhere to a figurative it behoves them to shew the necessity of taking the Words in that Sense whereas we who find nothing in those Words obliging us to quit the literal Sense need no other reason for our so doing but that we follow the plain and beaten Road. We follow the beaten Road. But our Defender thinks he has found sufficient reasons to oblige us to acquiesce and quit our High-Road for his By-path But first before we consent to him let us view both ways and
of Judicature that gave Sentence against him still inventing new Cavils and pretending that X. * This is the Defenders answer to the parallel case I brought him from our Blessed Saviour's turning Water into Wine by these or the like words This is Wine the weakness of which put off will appear from what I premised as a consideration at the beginning of this Section begs the Question supposing there was a change of Dominion made by those words This is your estate and that his Predecessors understood it so but that for his part he supposes the Contrary and he can find some persons even in the first ages that said the estate of A. did resemble the estate of B. And he does not see but that his supposition is of as much weight as that of X's and his interpretation as sound and seeing all Courts of Judicature are fallible and those words of A. are the rule he must go by seeing he cannot perswade himself the words ought to be taken any otherwise than figuratively he will not acquiesce to any Court Would not any one think that such an obstinate Sophister as this ought to be thrown out of Court and forbid ever to put in his claim to disturb it This is truly our case I leave the Defender to make the application and the Reader to judge whether obstinacy in Religion be not a greater crime than in Law and whether a Supreme Court of Ecclesiastical Judicature has not more reason to pronounce an Anathema against those who disturb the setled peace of the Church by opposing her received Doctrins than a High Court of Justice to condemn a litigious person as a common Barreter Thus much to his first Argument It seems I committed a fault before §. 76. Second Objection From the practice of the Jews Defence pag. 54. in not taking notice of our Authors second Argument drawn as he pretends from our Saviours intention An Argument which he tels us has been urged chiefly since Bellarmins time and therefore I had nothing to say to it a great sign of its force and Antiquity An Argument used by the Jews against Christians and therefore fit to be taken up by our new Reformers Expos Doctrin Church of England pag. 50. Let us now therefore see it As in the Jewish Passover says he the Master of the house took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt Ibid. pag. 49. so in the Holy Sacrament our Saviour after the same manner took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is broken for you do this in remembrance of me But as it is evident that that Bread which the Jews every year took and Brake and said This is the Bread of Affliction c. was not that very Bread which their Ancestors so many Generations before had eaten there but was design'd only to be the Type or Figure of it So neither could our Saviours Disciples to whom he spake and who as Jews had so long been acquainted with that Phrase ever believe that the Bread which he held in his hands which he Brake and gave them saying This is my Body which is broken for you c. was the very actual real Body of Christ Therefore they understood it to be a Type or Figure of that Body which was about to be broken for them In answer to this I say First If not only the Bread but the Paschal Lamb it self was a Type and Figure of this Sacrament and Sacrifice after the Order of Melchisedec this being Instituted as our Author confesses for the like end which the Passover had been and now for ever to succeed in its place Expes pag. 49. certainly the thing Figured ought to be more perfect than the Figure the Substance than the Shadow But if the Perfection of the Substance consisted only in signifying our Blessed Saviours sufferings certainly that Bread of affliction was as Perfect a Type as this and the Paschal Lamb a much more Perfect Figure of his Passion Secondly All the whole Argument you see runs upon a supposition that our Blessed Lord spoke figuratively because the Master of the Feast in the Passover did so which is as unconclusive an Argument as if in my last Example h. should argue thus the Predecessors of A. when they shewed the Map of their Estate were wont to say This is my Estate therefore when A. said to B this is your estate he gave him only the Map and not the Estate it self Thirdly Expes pag. 50. I cannot but admire that our Defender should think the Bishop of Meaux obliged to make less exceptions against this Argument because it was the Original remark of the very Jews themselves long before the Reformation You will not send us sure to the Jews to know whether our Blessed Saviour was the true Messias or no and will you send us to them to know whether he gave his Body and Blood to his Disciples in the Sacrament They Crucified the Lord of life as a Malefactor and must they be believed in the highest Mysteries of our Religion No wonder if they who esteemed him to be mere Man should esteem his Blessed Sacrament to be more Bread. Lastly You tell us the Master of the Feast took Bread and Brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which your Fathers eat in Egypt From whence have you this for I find it not in Scripture T is true we find Deut. 16.3 that God commanded the Jews to eat for seven days the Bread of Affliction without leaven to the end they might remember that it was with fear and trembling that they went out of Egypt But was it not true Bread they there eat and why shall we not then believe it is the true Body of Christ tho' we eat it in remembrance of his bitter Passion I need not take notice of his other insignificant Arguments drawn from Scripture §. 77. Third Objection From its being called Bread after Consecration as that the Apostle cals the Sacrament Bread even after Consecration that to break Bread was the usual Phrase in the Time of the Apostles for receiving the Holy Communion Every common Catholick can tell him that Eve was called Bone of Adams Bone Moyses his Rod Expos Doct. Ch. Eng pag. 50. 1 Cor. 10.16 c. 11.26 Act. 2.46 c. when changed into a Serpent was still called a Rod The Wine at the Marriage in Cana was called Water the Blind are said to see and the Lame to walk He has also been often told that the Scripture usually speaks according to the appearance of things and therefore as it called the Angels Men because they appeared like Men c. so does it call the Eucharist Bread because it has the outward Appearance of Bread. Moreover by Bread in the Jewish language was usually understood any
kind of meat and therefore no wonder if they called this most solid and super substantial Food Bread. I come now to examin his other Arguments and first §. 78. Objections from Fathers and Schoolmen First from St Chrysostoms Epistle to Casarius that drawn from an obscure passage in an Epistle of St. Chrysostom to Caesarius which he has managed with all the artifice he could because it stood in need of it The Words literally rendred are these For as before Bread be Sanctified we all it Bread but the Divine Grace by the Ministry of the Priest having Sanctified it it is freed indeed from the Appellation or name of Bread but esteemed worthy of the Appellation or name of our Lords Body altho' the nature of Bread hath remained in it and it is not called two Bodys but one Body of the Son So also here the Divine Nature having overflowed the Body both these have made up one Son one Person But however we must acknowledge an unconfused and inaivisible manner not in one Nature only but in two perfect Natures From this obscure passage the Defender argues first Defence Appendix pag. 138 139 140. that the Expressions are plainly against Transubstantiation because it says the Nature of Bread remains in the Eucharist after Consecration and that which was called Bread before by being Consecrated is become worthy to be called the Body of Christ 2. That the design of this Allusion shews it to be plainly against our Tenets For Caesarius being fallen into the Apollinarian Heresy which held but one Nature in Christ affirming the Human to be converted into the Divine by being united to it this Argument would have concluded nothing against him unless it had supposed the substance of Bread to remain with the Body of Christ in the Eucharist In answer to this §. 79. Answer First it is worthy to be taken notice of what poor shifts our Adversaries are driven to that when they may find multitudes of clear Expressions in St. Chrysostoms undoubted works shewing his belief of a Real and Substantial presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread in so much as that he was deservedly called the Doctor of the Eucharist as Bigotius has well observed and the Defender takes notice nay censured even by (a) See the Centuriators and Musculus quoted by the Protestant Apology Tr. 1. Sect. 2. Sub. 2. §. 2 at 2. in the Marg. pag. 82. Protestants themselves to have taught or confirmed Transubstantiation yet an obscure passage must be picked out of a controverted Epistle A passage to which the Original Greek is no where to be found taken out of a (b) Hee verum esse de codice hujus Epistolae sateri cegor qui licet annâ—rum sit 500. parum tamea emen latè Scriptus est opem a Graeco praetipuè codice aut ab alio saliem Latino postulat In eo quem vidi aliquando voces continuae sunt verbis aliquando ita coâ—uptis ut ad sa â—â—tatem reduci mâ—n me possint absque subsidio aliorum cedicum Quae scribarum incuria deterruit opiner Petrum Martyrem ab ea edendâ— Taceo inâ—erp etationem quae minus accurata imo plane barbara videtur Thus Bigetius cited by our Defender in his Appendix pag. 147. Latin Copy which is acknowledged to be so very full of faults that it stands in need especially of the Greek or at least of other Latin Copies to Correct it In which the words are so corrupted that it is impossible as Bigotius himself acknowledges to make them right without the assistance of other Books A Book where the Interpretation was so little Correct that it seemed to be wholy Barbarous yet an obscure passage I say must be picked out of this controverted uncorrected Barbarously interpreted Epistle and the world made to believe that it is not only sound and authentick but moreover that it bears a sense which they who examin the connexion will find to be very different from the Authors intention Secondly it is no less worth taking notice of §. 80. that they are not so sollicitous to defend their own Teners as to ruine ours in so much that they care not what Doctrin they establish from this passage nor how they make St. Chrysostom oppose St. Chrysostom and the other Fathers of his time nor what absurdities they make him fall into so they do but find some pretence to make the world believe they have something against our Doctrin If St. Chrysosiom brought this Parallel in opposition to the Heresy of Appollinarius and meant as our Defender would have it that as Cesarius believed the Substance of Bread remained after consecration together with the Substance of Christs Body unconfused in the Eucharist so ought he also to believe that both the Divine and Human nature did remain unconfused in one Christ It must necessarily follow that St. Chrysostom believed the Body of Christ was as really in the Eucharist as he believed the Divinity to be Really in Christ And if so it would as necessarily follow that as Christ is to be adored because he is God tho' he be man also so is the Eucharist to be adored because the Body of Christ is there tho' Bread ought not to be adored It would also necessarily follow that Christs Body would be in as many places at once as there were Hosts That his Body and Bread would be both in one place That his Body would be in Heaven and upon our Altars at the same time c. So that whilst he endeavours to make St. Chrysostom deny Transubstantiation he makes him espouse all the difficulties of it and Consubstantiation mixed together For if this Parallel be exact as our Defender would have it St. Chrysostom must have held this opinion concerning the Eucharist That as there are two different Natures in Christ the Human and Divine which being Hypostatically united together make up but one Person Christ So are there two Natures in the Eucharist Bread and the Body of Christ both which make up but one Substance the Body of Christ and that as in Christ the Divinity Hypostatically united to the Humanity makes but one Subsistence one Person in two different Natures and that truly called Divine So in the Eucharist the Nature of Christ united to the Nature of Bread makes up but one Body and that worthy to be called the Body of Christ And that as the Human Nature of Christ by being united to the Divine has many Epithets given it which properly belong to the Divinity so the Bread it self by the Union of the Body of Christ with it is worthy to receive the Epithets I may add also the Adoration due to the Body of Christ If this be the Doctrin of the Church of England let our Defender speak if not let him confess either that St. Chrysostom did not agree with them or that he has a wrong conception of his Parallel
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
Imitate the Magi who Adored him in the Manger whereas we see him not in the Manger but on the Altar not in the Arms of a Woman but the Priest standing by him and the Spirit with great power hovering over the proposed Mysteries In his Liturgy we find the Priest the Deacon and the People ordered to adore with Piety and Devotion He tells us also that their custom was then to (h) Hom. 41. in 1 Cor. Pray to the Lamb lying there for the souls of the Dead He affirms The Angels to be (i) De Sacerdâ—tio l. 6. c. 4. Hon. 1. de Verbis Isâ—iae Nuc. Orat. 11. que est de â—orgonia sorore present at this wonderful table and to compass it about with reverence and in confirmation of it reports that an aged holy man to whom God had revealed many mysteries was thought worthy by almighty God to see such an Angelic Vision St. Gregory Nazianzen reports how his Sister Gorgonia being sick proserated her self before the Altar and calling upon him who is worshipped on it c. O Miracle says he she went away presently in perfect health We Read also in St. Basil S. Basit de Spiritu Sundo c 27. where mentioning several unwritten Traditions he says Invocationis verba dum estenditur panis Eucharistiae poculum benedictionis quis scripto reliqunâ— that in his time there was a prescribed form of Prayer or words of Invocation when the Blessed Sacrament was shewed to the people In a word all Antiquity speaks of this Adoration all the Liturgies both of the Latin and Greek and Abyssine Churches shew the Practice of it long before our Defender speaks of so that a Treatise might be made a part of this to the eternal shame of those who are so bold as to say that the Church neither required nor taught it for above a thousand years From these and several other the like passages of antient Fathers I conclude quite contrary to the Defender that seeing the Primitive Christians did adore our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament and Pray to him they did believe him to be really present in it I pass by the wonderful respect that was shewn to the Sacred Vessels Corporals and other Utensils §. 97. consecrated to the Service of the Altar neither Lay persons nor yet they who had only taken the miâ—â— Orders being permitted to handle those which had touched that Adorable Sacrament I omit the Reverence with which it was received and the wonderful care lest any drop or particle should fall to the ground and the punishment inflicted upon them that should let it sall which caution was not used towards the water of Baptism though Holy also neither will I insist upon the receiving it fasting as St. Augustin says in honorem tanti Sacramenti in honor of so great a Sacrament nor of the admonition that was given to married persons to live continent certain days before their Communion nor of the manner of reserving the Sacrament in Silver Doves in Golden Towers and Tabernacles nor the care they had lest Insidels or the Catechumens should be present at those Sacred Mysteries These were not accidental or at hap-hazard but the-deliberate practices of those Primitive Ages and I think ought rather to be considered than those pretended instances brought in by my Antagonist They who desire to see more §. 98. let them read the two Discourses lately published concerning this point and Brierley's Lyturgy of the Mass I will conclude with this one Reflection which I desire all thinking persons to consider If the Doctrin of the real and substantial Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament carried with it so many Absurdities as our Modern Authors would make us believe and the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament was so manifest an Idolatry as they pretend all Christians certainly who were tender of their Salvation must needs have had an abhorrence of and so much the greater aversion from that practice by how much it was more contrary to their great Principle that God only was to be Adored Seeing then it is manifest by the concession of Protestants and public Records of every Nation that the Adoration of the Sacrament was publicly practised not in one corner of the World only but throughout all Christendom for this last 800 Years and that no persons that we know of ever contradicted that practice but such as were immediately condemned as Heretics Seeing also the plain expressions of the Primitive Fathers shew this to have been also practised in their days and that no beginning of this practice can be shewn we must necessarily conclude that our Modern Authors are deceived both as to the Absurdities with which they charge the Doctrin and the Idolatry of the Practice and that the Church in all those Ages did believe as we do that Christs Body and Blood was truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament and there to be adored ART XIX XX XXâ—â— Of the Sacrifice of the Mass HAving been of necessity so prolix in the foregoing Article § 99. What a Sacrifice is I hope my Readers will excuse me if I be short in these which follow and are but consequences of a Real and Substantial presence The word Sacrifice has various acceptations Some times it is taken Improperly or Metaphorically for any act of Devotion referred to the Honor and Worship of God as Prayer Alms-deeds Praise Contrition c. But when we speak properly we intimate an External act of Religion whereunto the office or function of a Priest is ordained Hebr. 5.1 And according to this acceptation we define a Sacrifice to be An External act of Religion whereby a Priest lawfully called offereth unto God alone some Sensible and Permanent thing with alteration or real change thereof in due acknowledgment of Gods sovereign Dominion over us and our all-dependance on his power and providence Our Defender in this and the following Articles as formerly in his Exposition seems to lay the stress of the cause upon the Council of Trents calling this truly and properly a Sacrifice whereas he thinks it is only Metaphorically so And will have nothing to be called truly and properly a Sacrifice in which there is not a true and real destruction or slaying of the thing Sacrificed and cites Bellarmin in the Margent for it In answer to which I need only give that very objection of the Cardinal at length in which any one will see that our difference here is more in the Name than in the Thing tho' however this must be represented as one of those Errors which most offend the Church of England and our bleeding divisions must be kept open to the ruin of both Church and State. Cardinal Bellarmin being about to shew the several opinions concerning the Essence of a Sacrifice Cardinal Bellarmin vindicated and in what part of the Mass it consists tells us that some place it in the Consecration for this reason because
Hebrews concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to the Offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered and makes his Advantage of it Whereas if he had added the next words they would have solved the Difficulty A Falsification For the Bishops words are that the Aposile concludes we ought not only to Offer up no more Victims after Jesus Christ but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once Offered up to Death for us But these last words were overseen by our Expositor or he was loath to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for Peace I might also take notice how cautiously the Defender avoids my question concerning what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly and properly speaking or no tho' possibly not in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the words To all which he returns a profound silence As for the Reflections upon what has been said I leave the Reader to make them himself and hope if he have a True Zeal for the Salvation of his Soul he will seriously consider the premises and heartily beseech Almighty God to enlighten his mind to the knowledge of his True Faith without which it is impossible to please him ART XXII Communion under both Species THe Vindicator tells me § 102. The Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither faise unreasonable nor frivolous that I advance Three Arguments in this Article from the public Acts of their own Church The first false The second both false and unreasonable And the third nothing to the purpose By which I see he is not unskilled in Multiplication and very willing to cast the Lyer upon me if he could But the false the unreasonable and the impertinent will be found perhaps to lye at the Accusers Door My Argument was but one and I think neither unreasonable nor impertinent He had told me from their 30th Article Art. 30. That the Church of England declared that the Cup ought not to be denyed to the Lay-people for as much as both parts of the Lords Supper by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be adminisired to all Christian men alike From hence I Argued that if the Church of England allowed the Communion to be given under one Species in cases of Necessity she was not consonant to her self nor agreed with her 30th Article which looked upon it as the express Command of Jesus Christ to give it under both Species and his express Commands are certainly indispensible Also that if she did allow it lawful to give it under one kind in cases of necessity the Arguments which the Bishop of Meaux had brought against the Calvinists of France were equally in force against the Church of England viz. that they must not deny but that both Species were not by the Institution of Christ Essential to the Communion seeing no necessity could require us to go contrary to an Essential Ordinance of Christ But that the Church of England did allow her people to Communicate under one Species in case of Necessity I proved from Edward the Sixths Proclamation before the Order of Communion In which I said he had ordained That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and Administred unto all persons within this our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This he says as thus alledged is False because Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing but only says that forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was Ordained Therefore He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it Let it be so if you please that Edward the 6th did not by vertue of this Proclamation ordain it yet the inserting of that Act of Parliament into that Proclamation served as a Rubrick to inform all those who were to Administer that Sacrament that if necessity required it they might give it in one kind And my Argument has gathered strength by being opposed seeing it has now not only a Proclamation but an Act of Parliament to back it But he says it is also unreasonable to Argue as to the present State of the Church of England from what was allowed only and that in case of necessity too in the very beginning of the Reformation If the Church of England had Repealed this Act of Parliament or by some Authentic Act or Canon declared it to be void it might have seemed unreasonable in me to produce it But if this Act be still in force I see no reason why we may not justly conclude that the Church of England holds it lawful in cases of necessity to Communicate only under one Species which if she do all her Arguments against Catholics as if they deprived the people of an Essential part of the Sacrament violated Christs Ordinance gave but a half Communion and the like have as much force against her self as us And if she leave it to her Ministers to judge when necessity requires it to be given only under one kind why will she deprive the Catholic Church representative of that Power And if a natural Reason such as is a loathing of Wine may induce private Pastors not to give the Cup to some particular persons why may not a Supernatural Reason such as is the detection and by that means the refutation of an Heresy not to mention the avoiding of many indignities c. induce such a Church representative to command that which was already practised by most Christians especially knowing that she deprived them of nothing which was Essential to a Sacrament As for the Note I made use of it only as a thing fit to be remarked and not as an Argument against communicating under both kinds However I might justly conclude that if under one Particle the whole Body of Jesus Christ be contained and this Body be now a living Body which it cannot be unless the Flesh and Blood the Soul and Divinity be united They who receive one Particle receive whole Christ and with him his Gifts and Graces that is a full Sacrament So that the first Falsity he accuses me of is as you see a plain mistake I do not say he had no Reason for it because the Printer had indeed placed the Citation in the Margent over against a wrong place but had he considered the sense he might have saved that ungenteele Answer The second Argument as he calls it is neither false in the bottom nor unreasonable And if the last be not so convincing an Argument yet does it not want some force And I will add to
this Note another which I desire the Defender to take notice of that that Act of Parliament tho' it ordained Communion under both kinds unless in cases of necessity yet was so moderate as not to condemn thereby the usage of any Church out of the Kings Majesties Dominions Which moderation had he been endowed with he would not have expressed such detestation of the Doctrin nor passed so severe a Sentence against the Catholic Church for the Practice PART III. ART XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word THe Defender having so ingenuously confessed §. 103. Expos Doct. Ch. of England pag. 75.76 that the Vnwritten Word or Tradition as to that Gospel which our Blessed Saviour preached was the first Rule of Christians that this and the written Word are not two different Rules but as to all necessary matters of Faith one and the same and the unwritten Word was so far from losing its Authority by the addition of the written that it was indeed the more firmly established by it And having acknowledged for himself and his Church that they are ready to embrace any Tradition though not contained in the written Word provided that they can be assured it comes from the Apostles or that it can be made appear to have been received by All Churches in All Ages How to know Apostolic Tradition I thought it necessary to propose a certain means by which we might come to know what had been thus delivered and that grounded upon the very nature of Tradition But this the Defender now opposes and I shall endeavour to make clear In order to which we are to consider First §. 104. I. The nature of Tradition in this case Divine Truths surpass the reach of Human reason as to the thing it self that we speak here of Divine Truths which surpass the reach of human Reason revealed to the Apostles which Truths the Apostles were obliged to teach to the Faithful then living without addition or diminution and the Faithful then living were also tyed under the same Obligation to deliver the same Divine Truths in like manner without addition diminution or alteration to their Successors and they to theirs in every Age. 2ly II. They were taught by the Apostles to all Countries These Truths were to be taught in all Countries and Kingdoms by the Apostles and their Successors and not only taught but practised So that what one Country or Nation learned from one Apostle the same was another to learn from another and a third from a third a fourth from a fourth c. 3ly III. And they wre obliged to deliver them to their Posterity without any Eslential alterations The obligation of delivering these Truths without addition diminution or alteration was and is the strictest that can possibly be imagined viz. the forefeiture of eternal Happiness and the incurring of eternal Torments So that whoever should undertake to teach his own Invention for a revealed Truth or to deny a known revealed Truth because it ws not agreeable to his Fancy or Interest and taught others to do the same could not but know that he did not perform his Obligation and therefore justly incurred that penalty 4ly IV. There must be Heresies But if such Men did arise as there must be Heresies who would not rely upon what had been taught them but proud and conceited of their own abilities would form to themselves new Notions of things and rely upon their own Wit or Judgment even to contradict those delivered Truths A connivance at them is damnable or interpose others not delivered A silent Connivance in Pastors and Teachers in that case suffering their Flock to be seduced would be a Crime not much inferïor to that of the Seducers and would deserve no less a punishment 5ly V. This Age must necessarily know what was taught in the last It is absolutely impossible that any thing can be taught in this Age contrary to what had been delivered in the immediate foregoing Age but that this Age must necessarily know it to be an Innovation And therefore it is absolutely impossible to make a whole Age believe they had not been taught a Doctrin as a delivered Truth when their Fathers of the immediately preceding Age had actually taught them that it was delivered 6ly It being thus manifest VI. Error cannot spread it self insensibly that it would be absolutely impossible for an Error against a delivered Truth to spread it self over the Face of the World without being perceived by them to whom that Truth had been delivered so is it absolutely inconsistent with the nature of Man to think that such an universal Deluge of wickedness and delusion should happen that all Pastors and People of whole Christendom should in any one Age combine together to deceive the next Age and either deliver to them an Error as a delivered Truth or make a delivered Truth pass for an Error when they could not but know that the doing of it must necessarily be a Sin which unrepented of would bring Damnation and that no Repentance could be without making a just satisfaction 7ly VII From hence I conclude that if in any one Age we find all Christians agreeing that such a particular Doctrin or practice was delivered to them as coming from the Apostls it must necessarily follow that the Age next preceding that All persons would never combine to damn their own Souls by renouncing what they had been taught did also believe it to be a Truth so delivered because no reason can be given nor cause assigned why the Pastors and People of so many different Countries and Interests otherwise sollicitous for their Salvation should all combine together to damn their own and their Posterities Souls and deliver that as a Tradition to their Successors which they had not received from their Predecessors 8ly From hence I also conclude VIII The pres ent Church in every age is the best judge of what is universal Tradition that the present Church in every Age is the best Judge of what is universal Tradition and what not and that the way to know her Judgment is to regard the uniform voice of her Pastors and People either declared to us by the most universal Councils that Age can afford or by her universal practice 9ly Moreover IX This Church is secured from error by Gods Promise besides this moral Impossibility that the whole Church in any one Age should conspire to teach a Doctrin as traditionary which they had not been taught by Tradition we have further the Promise of Almighty God that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church that he will send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who shall remain with her Pastors and Teachers to the end of the World and teach them all Truth that these Pastors and Teachers shall be our Guides lest we should be led away with every Wind of Doctrin and several other the like Promises So that 10th
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
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
Heretical and Schismatical Assemblies and was not her self condemned or cut off by any sentence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church And tho' perhaps the number of those particular Heretical or Schismatical Assemblies one condemned in one Age and another in another some few of all which might perhaps survive even till our time might be considerable if taken altogether tho' inconsiderable in themselves yet being every one of them lawfully cut off by that Orthodox Church they can never stand in competition with her nor challenge a place in her Councils neither is she obliged to call in their help to Condemn any other New Heresy arising after them And if that New Heresy should pretend she was obliged such pretentions would be unreasonable This is the case with the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches now extant in the world §. 113. The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome having condemned the Arians in the first General Council of Nice the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was never condemned by any General Council needed not to call them in to help her to condemn Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the three following Councils The same Catholic Church that thus condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches in the four first General Councils condemned the followers of Origen in the 5th the Monothelites in the 6th the Iconoclasts in the 7th And the Schismatic Photius and his adherents in the 8th And as this Catholic Church needed not the assistance of those Heretics who were condemned in the first four General Councils to help her to condemn those that were extant when she called the 5th so did she not need the aid of them or of those that were condemned by the 5th or 6th to help her to condemn the Iconoclasts or Photius in the 7th or 8th And thus we can shew in following ages as Errors did arise still new Councils Called as the first second third See Binins Tom. 7. part 2. pag. 806. F. and fourth of Lateran in which last the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was defined against Berengarius and his followers the Albigenses by 400. Bishops and 800. Fathers After these the first and second of Lyons the later of which condemned the Errors which the Eastern Churches had fallen into by the delusion of Photius the condemned Schismatic Ibi compartunt Paleologus Impa Constaniinopoliâ—â—nas cuns magno comits u qui tertia decima vice in sententiam Romane Ecclesiae Graecos suos toties deficientes Conetilio necessario pertraxit Bin. Tom 7 â—onc pag. 891. c. and in which as Binius notes from Trithemius the Grecians returned the thirteenth time to the Roman Catholic Faith. Then followed that of Vienna in France against the Beguardes and the Beguines After which the Council of Florence Anno 1438. In which the Greeks and the Latins consented to these Points The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the belief of a Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome tho' through the negligence of the Emperor John Palaeologus occasioned by his too much sollicitude for wordly concerns and the calumnies of Mark the Metropolitan of Ephesus this Council had not its wished effect After this the 5th Council of Lateran Anno 1512. for the reestablishing the Unity of the Church and the condemnation of the Schism begun by the unlawful assembly at Pisa And lastly the Council of Trent Anno 1545. Against Luther Calvin and all the Modern Heresies Ths to be silent concerning the vast number of Provincial Councils we can shew eighteeen Oecumenical Councils All the General Councils that condemned Errors Communicated with the Church of Rome Generally received as such by all but those whose Errors were either condemned in them or some foregoing Councils The Members of all which Councils were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and none dissented from that Communion but such as had been thus condemned neither can Protestants ever shew that even the particular Church of Rome or any other in Communion with her were ever thus cut off by any General Council or the Doctrins that she holds condemned It is only she therefore and those Churches in Communion with her all which we call the Roman Catholic Church that can challenge the title of Orthodox that is of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic This Truth being thus established and it having been plainly shewed what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church I pass over his second and third Exception because as I have already said they are built upon a False notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken only for the Diocese of Rome or a particular Church and come to his 4th §. 114. the Defenders fourth Exception Exception which is as I said more intolerable than the rest and which since he goes about to justify it as a Doctrin of his Church for he has promised to give us no other he would have done well to have shewed us some Canon Article or Constitution for it without which others of his Brethren will I fear come off with this Excuse that he is a young man and does not well know the Tenets of his Church He tells us that it is left to every Individual person not only to examin the Decisions of the whole Church but to Glory in Opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his Own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word This I told him was a Doctrin that if admitted Maintains all Dissenters would maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are persons in the world Desence pag. 80. which consequences he confessEs to be ill but such as he thinks do not directly follow from this Doctrin as laid down in his Exposition But what if they follow indirectly or by an evident tho' secondary deduction would not that suffice to discountenance such a Doctrin as opens a gap to such licentiousness in Belief when Faith is but One and without which it is impossible to please God But let us see how he maintains it does not directly follow from what he has laid down in his Exposition First he tells us that he allows of this Dissent or Opposition from the whole Church only in Necessary Articles of Faith where he supposes it to be every mans concern and Duty both to judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a judgment as he is able And secondly He tells us that as he takes the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to the made so be supposes these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial enquirer should he found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion From these two wild Suppositions without any proof of them