several Changes and Alterations that are placed at the end of my Preface That this Book with these differences is at this time in the hands of the Reverend Editor of my former Treatise and that whosoever of either Communion is pleased to Examine them may when ever he will have free liberty so to do This I the rather declare because Monsieur de Meaux is so positive in it as to charge me with no less than the pure Invention of those passages I have cited from it Vindicat. Pag. 12 13. As for those passages says he which they pretend I have corrected in a second Edition for fear of offending the Sorbonne it is as you see a Chimerical Invention and I do here once more repeat it That I neither publish'd nor connived at nor caused to be made any Edition of my Book but that which is well known in which I never altered any thing For answer to which I must beg leave once more to repeat it too That these passages are for the most part Chimerical Inventions indeed but yet such as He once hoped to have put off as the Doctrine of his Church and as such sent them into the World in that first Edition we are speaking of out of which I have transcribed them in as just and proper terms as I was able to put them in and I appeal to any one that shall please to examine them for the truth and sincerity that I have used in it But here Monsieur de Meaux has got an Evasion which if not prevented may in some Mens Opinion take off this seeming contradiction betwixt us and leave us both at last for the main in the right 'T is true says he this little Treatise being at first given in Writing to some particular Persons for their Instruction many Copies of it were dispersed and IT WAS PRINTED without my Order or Knowledge No body found fault with the Doctrine contain'd in it and I my self without changing any thing in it of Importance and that only as to the Order and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile caused it to be printed as you now see So that now then it is at last confess'd that an Edition there was such as I charged them with different very much from what we now have But that it was an Edition printed without Monsieur de Meaux ' s Knowledge and the changes which he made afterwards were only as to the Order and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile As to this last particular the Reader will best judge of what kind the differences were by that short Specimen I have given of them If to say in One Collect. n. â— That the Honour which the Church gives to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints is Religious nay that it ought to be blamed if it were not Religious In the Other to doubt whether it may even in some sence be called Religious If to tell us in the One Ibid. n. 12. That the Mass may very reasonably be called a Sacrifice In the Other that there is nothing wanting to it to make it a true Sacrifice If to strike out totally in several places Positions that were absolutely of Doctrine or otherwise very material to the Points that were so as in several instances it appears he has done If this were indeed only for the advantage of the Order and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile I am contented I accuse not Monsieur de Meaux of any other alterations than such as these And thus far we can go certainly in Reply to his Allegations beyond a possibility of denial For what remains though I do not pretend to the like Evidence of Fact yet I will offer some Reasons why I cannot assent to his pretences even there neither That the Impression was made with Monsieur de Meaux ' s Knowledge if not by his express Order whoever shall consider the circumstances of Monsieur Cramoisy who printed it either as a Person of his Reputation and Estate or as Directour of the King 's Imprimerie or finally as Monsieur de Meaux ' s own Bookseller will hardly believe that he would so far affront a Bishop of his Church and one especially of Monsieur de Meaux ' s interest and authority at that time at Court as to make a surreptitious Edition of a Book which he might have had the Author's leave to publish only for the asking But further This pretended surreptitious Edition had the Kings Permission to it which could hardly have been obtain'd without Monsieur de Meaux ' s knowledge It was approved by the Bishops of France in the very same terms that the other Editions have been since which seems more natural to have been procured by Monsieur de Meaux himself than by a Printer underhand and without his knowledge and connivance In a word so far was Monsieur de Meaux from resenting this injury of setting out his Book so uncorrectly and without his leave that the very same Cramoisy the same Year Printed the Exposition with his leave and has continued to Print all his other Books ever since and was never that I could hear of censured for such fraudulent dealing till this time by the Bishop or any other All which put together I must beg leave still to believe as I did before that there was not only a first impression which is at length allow'd but that this first impression was not made without Monsieur de Meaux ' s Order or Knowledge As for the other Point and I think the only remaining in this matter concerning the occasion I mentioned for the suppressing that first Edition the Reader may please to know That a Person by many relations very intimate with one of the Mareshal de Turenne ' s Family upon the publishing of the pretended first Edition of Monsieur de Meaux ' s Exposition first discover'd to him the mystery of the former and shew'd him out of the Mareshal ' s Library the very Book which as he then assured him had been mark'd by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne and lent it him for some time as a great Curiosity The knowledge of this raised the desire of endeavouring if it were possible to retrieve a Copy of it But the Edition was so carefully dispatch'd that the most that could be done was to get so many scatter'd Sheets of it as to make at last a perfect Book except in some few places in which it was transcribed from the Original of the Mareshal word for word page for page and examined by the Person himself who was so kind as to bestow it on me This is the Book to which I refer the Reader and for this I have the Attestation of the same Person under his hand at the beginning of the Book that it is in every part a perfect Copy of Monsieur de Turenne ' s mark'd by the Sorbonne Doctors and I have been besides so just to
made appear that their own Authors do allow of all this If they do give a divine Worship to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed If their very Missab and Pontifical do command them to adore the Cross If it appear that their Council of Trent damns all those who deny the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the Dead and Living and yet cannot say it is the very same with that of the Cross If finally their greatest Writers do allow a Merit of Condignity and that not as a Scholastick Tenet but as the Doctrine of their Church and agreeable to the intention of their Council they so much talk of Then I hope the premises may be as clear of the Calumny they are charged with as my inference is allow'd to be just for the consequence I would establish In the mean time Expos p. 5. pass we on to the state of the Question which I propose in these terms That we who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as Innovators in Religion are at last by their own confession allow'd to hold the antient and undoubted foundation of the Christian Faith And that the Question therefore between us is not Whether what we hold be true But whether those things which the Roman Church has added as superstructures to it and which as such we reject be not so far from being necessary Articles of Religion as they pretend that they do indeed overthrow that truth which is on both sides allowed to be divine and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them This the Vindicator says Vindicat. pag. 24. is to state the Question after a new Mode and represent them as consenting to it Let us see therefore what the Old way of stating it is and wherein the insincerity he charges me with consists The true state of the Question betwixt us Ibid. p. 25. he says is Whether the Protestants or Papists do innovate The Protestants in refusing to believe those Doctrines which the Church of Rome professes to have received with the grounds of Christianity or the Papists in maintaining their possession And the dispute is Whether Roman Catholicks ought to maintain their possession for which he says many Protestants themselves grant they have a prescription of above 1000 Years Or whether the Authorities brought by Protestants against the Roman Catholick Doctrine be so weighty Ibid. p. 26. that every Roman Catholick is obliged to renounce the communion of that Church in which he was bred up and quit his prescription and possession In all which the only difference that I can find is this That He presumes for his Church in the state of the Question I for mine I suppose the points in Controversie to be Superstructures which they have added to the Faith He that they are Doctrines received with the grounds of Christianity In short the point we both put upon the issue is precisely the same viz. Whether the Roman Catholicks ought to maintain their possessions of these Doctrines or to quit them as Erroneous Whether Protestants to embrace the belief and practice of them as true and lawful or to continue as they are separate from the Roman Communion upon the account of them But where then is my unsincerity In this I suppose that I seem to insinuate as if the Roman Church granted that we held the ancient and undoubted foundation of the Christian Faith What others of that Communion will grant I cannot tell but whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daillè's concessions as to this Point See his Expos §. 2. p. 2. will find it clear enough that he did if the Foundation consists of Fundamental Articles and that we are on both sides agreed in these as his discourse manifestly implies But the Vindicator jealous for the Authority of his Church and to have whatever she proposes pass for Fundamental confesses that we do indeed hold a part but not all those Articles that are Fundamental This therefore we must put upon the issue in which we shall not doubt to shew them that those Articles their Church has added are so far from being Fundamental Truths that indeed they are no Truths at all but do by evident and undoubted consequence as I before said and as the Vindicator himself confesses Vindicat. Pag. 23. destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental But if I have not mistaken the Question between the Papists and Protestants Vindicat. pag. 26. I am sure the Vindicator has that between Him and Me. He tells us our present Question which we are to examine in the following Articles is Whether Monsieur de Meaux has faithfully proposed the sense of the Church declared in the Council of Trent And thereupon asks me What it do's avail me to tell them That I will in the following Articles endeavour to give a clear and free Account of what we can approve and what we dislike in their Doctrine To which I reply That it avails very much to the end I propounded in my Book viz. To give a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Points proposed by Monsieur de Meaux So that in reality the Question between us is this Not whether Monsieur de Meaux has given a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which it has been the business of others to examine but whether I have given a just account of the Doctrine of the Church of England This was what I undertook to do and what this Author ought if he could to have shewn I had not done ARTICLE II. That Religious Worship is terminated only in God IN this Article I am but little concern'd The Vindicator states the Case what 't is they mean by Religious honour being terminated only in God He distinguishes between what they pay Him and what they give to the Saints how truly or to what purpose it is not my business to examine Those who desire to be satisfied in it may find a sufficient Account in several late Treatises written purposely against this part of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition and I shall not repeat what is so fully and clearly established there ARTICLE III. Invocation of Saints I Might well have pass'd over this Point altogether which has been so learnedly and fully managed but very lately in a particular †Discourse concerning the Worship of the B. Virgin and the Saints in Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the fourth Age. Discourse on this Subject Yet since the Vindicator desires to know what Authority I have for my Assertion That the Addresses which Monsieur Daillé allows to have been used by the Fathers of the fourth Century were rather innocent wishes and rhetorical flights than direct Prayers but especially for that Accusation which he says I bring against them viz. That they did herein begin to depart from the Practice and
feria VI. in Parasceve p. 247. Completis Orationibus Sacerdos depositâ Casulâ accedit ad cornu Epistolae ibi in posteriori parte Anguli altaris accipit à Diacono Crucem jam in altari praeparatam quam versâ facie ad populum à summitate parùm disco-operit incipiens solus Antiphonam Ecce lignum Crucis ac deinceps in reliquis juvatur in Cantu à Ministris usque ad Venite Adoremus Choro autem cantante Venite Adoremus omnes se prosternunt excepto celebrante Deinde procedit ad anteriorem partem anguli ejusdem cornu Epistolae disco-operiens brachium dextrum Crucis elevansque eam paulisper altiùs quà m primò incipit Ecce lignum Crucis aliis cantantibus adorantibus ut supra The Morning Prayers being finished the Preist receives from the Deacon a Cross standing ready on the Altar for that purpose which he uncovers a little at the top turning his face to the people and begins this Antiphona Behold the Wood of the Cross the People following the rest to Come let us Adore at which all but the Priest that officiates fall upon the ground Then the Priest uncovers the right Arm of the Crucifix and holding it up begins louder than before Behold the Wood of the Cross the rest singing and adoring as before Then finally the Priest goes to the middle of the Altar Deinde Sacerdos procedit ad medium altaris disco-operiens Crucem totaliter ac elevans eam tertiò altiùs incipit Ecce lignum Crucis in quo salus mundi pependit Venite Adoremus aliis cantantibus adorantibus ut supra Postea Sacerdos solus portat Crucem ad locum ante Altare praeparatum genu flexus ibidem eam locat Mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad ADORANDAM CRVCEM ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculetur Hoc facto revertitur accipit calceamenta casulam Postmodum ministri Altaris deinde alii Clerici Laici bini bini ter genibus flexis ut dictum est CRUCEM ADORANT Interim dum fit ADOEATIO CRUCIS cantantur c. Deinde cantatur com muniter Annā CRUCEM tuam ADORAMUS Domine P. 209. and wholly uncovering the Cross and lifting it up begins yet higher Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung come let us adore the rest singing and adoring as before This done the Priest alone carries the Cross to a place prepared for it before the Altar and kneeling down leaves it there Then he puts off his Shoes and draws near to ADORE the CROSS bowing his Knees three times before he kisses it which done he retires and puts on his Shoes After him the Ministers of the Altar then the other Clergy and Laity two and two after the same manner ADORE the CROSS In the mean time while the Cross is Adoring the Quire sings several Hymns one of which begins with these words We adore thy Cross O Lord. This is the Service of that Day And now whether I had reason or no to apply as I did the Adoration to the Cross let any reasonable Man consider and whether I had not some cause to say then what I cannot but here repeat again That the whole Solemnity of that days Service plainly shews that the Roman Church does adore the Cross in the utmost propriety of the phrase As for my last Argument from the Hymns of the Church he acknowledges the Fact but tells us Vindicat. p. 40. That these are Poetical Expressions and that the word CROSS by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets fignifies JESVS CHRIST to whom they pray in those Hymns I shall not ask the Vindicator by what Authority he sends us to the Poets for interpreting the Churches Hymns But if he pleases to inform us what that Figure is which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross and who those Poets are to whom this Figure is sufficiently known he will oblige us For that this is the case in very many of those Hymns is apparent I shall instance only in One and that so noted that St. * 3. p. q. 25. art 4. p. 53. thus argues Illi exhibemus Latriae cultum in quo ponimus spem salutis sed in Cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis Cantat enim Ecclesia O Crux ave c. Thomas unacquainted it seems as well as we with this Figure concluded the Adoration of the Cross to be the sense of their Church from it ‖ Vexilla Regis prodeunt Fulget Crucis mysterium Quo carne carnis Conditor Suspensus est patibulo Arbor decora fulgida Ornata Regis purpurâ Electa digno stipite Tam Sancta membra tangere Beata cujus brachiis Soecli pependit pretium Statera facta Corporis Praedamque tulit Tartari O Crux Ave spes unica Hoc passionis tempore Auge piis Justitiam Reisque dona Veniam Vid. Breviar Rom. Dom. Passionis p. 295 296. The Banner of our King appears The Mystery of the Cross shines Vpon which the Maker of our Flesh was hanged in the Flesh Beautiful and bright Tree Adorn'd with the Purple of a King Chosen of a Stock worthy to touch such Holy Members Blessed upon whose Arms The Price of the World hung Hail O Cross our only Hope In this time of the Passion Encrease the Righteousness of the Just and give Pardon to the Guilty Now by what Figure to make the Banner and the King the same the Cross upon which the maker of our Flesh hung not different from that Flesh that hung upon it the Tree chosen of a Stock worthy to touch Christ's Sacred Members the same with his Sacred Members What noted Figure this is which is so well known to the Poets and yet has been so long concealed from us that we are amazed at the very report of such a Figure The English Translation in the Office of the Holy Week is this O lovely and refulgent Tree Adorned with purpled Majestie Cull'd from a worthy Stock to bear Those Limbs which sanctified were Blest Tree whose happy Branches bore The Wealth that did the World restore Hail Cross of Hopes the most sublime Now in this mourning Passion Time Improve Religious Souls in Grace The Sins of Criminals efface Pag. 355 356. and believe it next a kin to Transubstantiation the Vindicator may please hereafter to inform us In the Point of Reliques OF RELIQVES the Council of Trent proceeded so equivocally that the Vindicator ought not to think it at all strange if I endeavour'd more plainly to distinguish what the ambiguity of their Expressions had so much confounded ‖ Con. Tr. Sess 25. Affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi damnandos esse They says the Council are to be condemned who affirm that no Veneration or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints To this I replied that
so then the Vindicator himself allows Vind. p. 102. 2dly That a Particular Church may either by Error lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in the necessary points of it Indeed that promise of our Saviour Matt. 16.18 That the gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church seems on all hands acknowledged to refer to his whole Church not to any one particular Branch or Portion And therefore tho' the particular Church of Rome should have fallen into gross Errors both in matters of Faith and Practice yet the Catholick Church of Christ may still as to other of its members retain so much Truth and Purity as to keep it from falling away or being guilty of an intire Infidelity And then for the 3d. Exception The allowing any other Particular Church to examine and judg of the Decisions of this Church of Rome If She her self be but a particular Church and has no more Command or Jurisdiction over the Faith of other Churches than they have over hers then every other National Church is as much impow'red to judg for her self as She is and has an equal right to examine her Decisions as those of other Churches and may either receive or reject what by Gods Grace directing her She Judges to agree or disagree with his Holy Word Nor do's one Branch of Christ's Church in this respect invade the Prerogative of another since they do herein only follow the Apostles Rule in trying all things and holding fast that which is good But the 4th Exception he says Vind. p. 102. is yet more intollerable than all the rest That it should be left to every individual Person not only to examine the Decisions of the whole Church but also to glory in opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word Ibid. p. 103. This he says is a Doctrine which if admitted will maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World These indeed are very ill Consequences but such as do not directly follow from this Doctrine as laid down in my Exposition For 1st I allow of this Dissent or Opposition only in necessary Articles of Faith where it is every Mans concern and duty both to judg for himself and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able And 2dly As I take the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to be made so do I suppose 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 be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion Now these two things being supposed that in matters of Faith a man is to judg for himself and that the Scriptures are a clear and sufficient rule for him to judg by it will plainly follow That if a man be evidently convinced upon the best Enquiry he can make that his particular Belief 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 And the Reason of this must be very evident to all those who own not the Church but the Scriptures to be the ultimate rule and guide of their Faith For if this be so then individual Persons as well as Churches must judg of their Faith according to what they find in Scripture And tho it be highly useful to them to be assisted in the making of this Judgment by that Church of which they are Members yet if after this Instruction they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith between the Voice of the Church and that of the Scripture they must stick to the latter rather than the former they must follow the superior not inferior Guide And however this method may through the Ignorance or Malice of some men be liable to some Abuse yet certainly in the main it is most Just and Reasonable and most agreeable to the Constitutions of the Church of England which do's not take upon her to be Absolute Mistress of the Faith of her Members See Article 20. but allows a higher Place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions As to the Authority by which I back'd this Assertion viz. that of St. Athanasius tho' it is not doubted but that that Expression of his being against the whole World and the whole World against him did refer chiefly to the Eastern Bishops and was not so literally true as to those of the West yet if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and Sirmium and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith sent to him from Ariminum and was for that reason deposed from his Bishoprick and banished out of Italy yet afterwards when the Emperor Constantius sent for him to Sirmium and required his assent to a form of Faith in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted Sozomen Eccl. Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. he yielded thus far and was thereupon restored to his Bishoprick I say if we consider these and the like Particulars related by the Church Historians we shall have little reason to believe that the Western Bishops or even the Pope himself did throughly adhere to the Faith of St. Athanasius and therefore that neither was He or I much in the wrong in affirming That he stood up in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils and almost the whole Church fell away ARTICLE XXVI Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy IN this Article the Vindicator is pleased to declare that he has nothing to say against the Opinion of the Church of England Vindic. p. 106. only he thinks fit to advise me to enquire What that Authority is which the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give the Pope Indeed a very little inquiry will serve the turn to let a man see that their Pope do's at this day lay claim to a great deal more than those Councils or Fathers did ever allow him And we should be glad he would direct us to those places either in the first Councils or the Primitive Fathers where the Pope is stiled the Vniversal Bishop or the Supreme Head on Earth of the whole Christian Church where it is said That he is Christs immediate Vicar and that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him These are things which he do's now pretend to but we can find no Footsteps of them in the first Councils or Fathers of the Church On the contrary we find innumerable passages which
Monsieur de Meaux as to cite scarce any thing out of those places that were in the Manuscript part but have chosen such rather where the printed Copy gave me full Assurance and Authority to do it But to argue the improbability of all this Monsieur de Meaux observes That the Sorbonne is never used to License Books in Body And I desire Monsieur de Meaux to tell us Vindicat. Pag. 8. who ever said or thought they did That that venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops who are naturally and by their Character Doctors of the Church than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors I doubt not but the Sorbonne very well knows the respect that is due to Bishops but that it should be any argument of disrespect to approve a Bishop's Book when it was sent to them for that purpose I cannot conceive In short we understand the Reputation and Authority of that venerable Company too well to believe it at all improbable that Monsieur de Meaux should desire their Approbation nor are we so little acquainted with their Books as not to know That it is no unheard of thing to see Doctors of the Sorbonne setting their approbation to a Book approved and authorized by Bishops before The next Exception Monsieur de Meaux makes is Vindicat. Pag. 9. That I should confirm what had before been urged against him of a Papist's answering his Book in the truth of which I am as little concern'd as himself can be Only the assurance I have had of it from a Person of undoubted sincerity makes me still believe that it was so and Monsieur de Meaux may remember that Monsisieur Conrart often profess'd that he had seen it in Manuscript who was not only his old Friend but as himself characteriseth him M. de M's Advert p. 3. One endowed with all that the Catholics themselves could desire in a Man excepting a better Religion For what relates to Father Crasset it is not for me to contradict Monsieur de Meaux ' s Declaration Vindicat. pag. 10. that he never read his Book But that he never heard it mentioned that there was any thing in it contrary to his Exposition this I must confess is admirable whether we consider the notoriety of the thing as it related to the Salutary Advertisements and the Bishop of Tournay ' s Pastoral Letter which made so great a noise in France or that it was particularly proved in the Answer to his own Advertisement dedicated to Monsieur de Ruvigny above five Years since Seconde Reponse p. 79 c. to be directly opposite to his Exposition And for the rest For all this see the Appendix num 2. I must beg leave to believe whatever Monsieur de Meaux flatters himself with that that Father would be so far from being troubled that any Body should think his Principles contrary to Monsieur de Meaux ' s that I dare say he would rather think his pains but ill spent in Writing of so large a Book did he not believe he had convinced the World that he looks upon them nay and has proved them too to be little less than Heretical As for Cardinal Capisucchi Vindicat. pag. 10. Monsieur de Meaux tells us he is so far from being contrary to the Doctrine of the Exposition that his express Approbation has been prefix'd to it This indeed were a good presumption that he should not have any Principles contrary to Monsieur de Meaux See Appendix num 3. where I have shew'd Cardinal Bona another of his approvers to be nevertheless in his own Writings contrary to Monsieur de M's Exposition but if what I have alledged out of his Controversies be really repugnant to what he approved in the Exposition it may indeed speak the Cardinal not so consistent with himself as he should be but the contradiction will be never the less a contradiction for his so doing The next thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is The relation of Monsieur Imbert and Monsieur de Witte The Stories are matters of Fact and the Papers from whence they were collected published by themselves Vindicat. p. 10 11. If they alledged Monsieur de Meaux ' s Authority for Principles that he maintained not For what concerns Mr. Inbert see his own Letter to Monsieur de Meaux Appendix num 4. For Monsieur de Witte 's case it has been already printed and I have nothing new to add to it this concerns not us nor whatever the little Comment on the Bishop ' s Letter pretends was it at all needful to be shewn by me that they did not in the recital of the propositions held by them 'T is sufficient that they both declared themselves to stand to Monsieur de Meaux ' s Exposition and were both condemned without any regard had to Monsieur de Meaux ' s Authority or being at all convinced or so much as told that they were mistaken in their pretences to it The last thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is Vindicat. p. 14. That I reflect upon him for being fertile enough in producing new Labours but steril in answering what is brought against his Works I do not at all envy Monsieur de Meaux ' s fertility his productions have not been many and those so short and with such an ingenuous Character of temper and moderation as ought to be acknowledged even in an Enemy But I must confess I do admire as many others do that no Reply has been made by him to those Answers that have been sent abroad not only against his Exposition but even against the Advertisement it self which he says can bear no Reply See de la B's Answer to the Advertisement p. 5. This we so much the rather wonder at for that an Answer was openly promised by Monsieur de Turenne and not without some kind of boasting too And that several of his own Communion were so well satisfied with the pieces that had been publish'd against Him as to expect no less than We some such Vindication And here I shall take my leave of Monsieur de Meaux for whom I must yet again profess that I still retain all that respect that is due to a Person whose Character I honour and whom I hope I have treated with all the caution and civility that the necessary defence of my self and of the truth would permit me to do For what remains my business now must be wholly with his Vindicator who has been pleased to fix such an odious Character upon me as I hope to make it appear I have as little deserved as I shall desire to return it upon him Had he charged me with Ignorance had he loaded me with mistakes arising from thence or had he imputed to me the faults only of Carelesness and Incogitancy All this might have pass'd without my Censure and I should have been so far from vindicating
Peccatum institutum non utique propter Remedium sed ad Sacramentum Et d. 26. l. A. Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum propter peccatum exordium sumpserint Matrimonii Sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum à Domino Sacrament to have been instituted not only before Christ but even before the Fall and therefore was not cited either for Ostentation or for the silly Reason mention'd by the Vindicator * 4 Sent. d. 26. q. 3. Durandus in express terms declares that forasmuch as it neither confers Grace where it is not nor encreases it where it is it cannot be a Sacrament truly and properly so called It is therefore evidently false to say that Lombard is against me in this Matter and for the torrent of Fathers and †For his torrent of Fathers Bellarmine has been able to collect but six or seven of which not one to the purpose nor any very ancient And for the Scriptures Estius one of the wisest of their own Party is forced to confess Cum igitur hujus Doctrinae non poffit ex Scripturis haberi probatio saltem aperta evidens consequens est articulum hunc Matrimonii Sacramento gratiam conferri unum esse extraditionibus Ecclesiae non Scriptis ad Virbum Dei non scriptum sed traditum pertinere 4 Sent. d. 26. §. 7. p. 61. Scriptures which he talks of it would have been more to this purpose to have produced their Authorities than thus vainly to boast of that which we certainly know he is not able to perform ARTICLE XIV Of Holy Orders IF the Vindicator be truly agreed with Me in this Article Vindicat. p. 71. He must then renounce the number of his seven Sacraments I deny'd that there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture being only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded I affirm'd that several of his own Church had declared it not to be Essential to Holy Orders nor by consequence the outward Sign of a Sacrament in them In a word I said that the Grace conferr'd was no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament To all which he has thought fit not to offer one word in Answer ARTICLE 15 16 17 18. Of the Eucharist AS to the Business of the Eucharist Vindicat. p. 72. I had not entred on any Argument about it had not Monsieur de Meaux here thought fit to lay aside the Character of an Expositor to assume that of a Disputant For the words of Institution which are the principal part of this Controversy I proposed two Arguments to confirm the Interpretation which our Church gives of them One from the the natural import of the words themselves the Other from the intention of our Saviour in the institution of this Holy Sacrament To the former of these the Vindicator thought he could answer somewhat but for the latter it has been urged chiefly since Bellarmine's time and so our Author had nothing to say to it For the former then he tells us Ibid. first Of the insincerity of my Attacque Pag. 73 74. That the Bishop declared there was nothing in the words of Institution OBLIGING them to take them in a figurative sense to which I oppose only That there are such Grounds in them for a figurative Interpretation as NATVRALLY lead to it 'T is true I have not here used the very word OBLIGED but yet in my proof I proceed upon such Grounds as I said would NECESSARILY REQVIRE a figurative Expos Ch. of Eng. p. 47. Interpretation which is much the same thing And though I cannot tell what will Oblige Him to take those words in their true i. e. figurative sense yet if I have proved That there are such Grounds in those words as Naturally indeed necessarily lead to it any reasonable Man would think that joyn'd with the Other proof from the Reason of the thing it self might be sufficient to Oblige him to acquiesce in it But we will examine his Process which whether it argues more my unsincerity or the falseness of their Interpretation I shall leave it to the Reader to judg First He confesses as to my first Position Vindicat. p. 73. that the words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation No-Body says he ever deny'd but the words as they lie without considering the Circumstances and Practice of the Church delivering the Interpretation of them down to us might possibly lead to a figurative Interpretation Seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture As for Example I am a Door I am a Vine c. Which being always taken by the Church in a figurative sense we should esteem him a Mad-man that should think it possible after this to perswade all the World they ought to be taken in a literal And as it would be a madness to suppose all Mankind might in future Ages be so sottish as to renounce this figurative Interpretation of Jesus Christ's being a Dore and a Vine and fall so far into the literal sense as to believe him to be substantially present in them and pay the utmost adorations to him there set them up in Temples to be Adored and celebrate Feasts in honour of them ‖ This is the Pretence of Mr. Arnauld and at large refuted by Mr. Claude in his answer to him whose Works being in English I shall refer the Reader who desires to see the vanity of this Argument exposed to what he has there said So we cannot but think it to be irrational to imagine that if the Disciples and whole Church in all Nations had been once taught these words This is my Body were to be taken in a figurative sense it could ever have happen'd that the Visible Church in all Nations should agree to teach their Children the literal c. The meaning of which Discourse if I understand it aright is this Concession that the words of Institution do in themselves as naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation as those other Expressions I am a Vine I am a Door And the only thing which makes the difference is that the Church as he supposes has from the beginning interpreted the One according to the Letter the Other in a figurative Acceptation Secondly As to my Argument That if the Relative This in that Proposition this is my Body referr'd to the Bread which our Saviour held in his Hand the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and Christ's Body will NECESSARILY REQVIRE the figurative Interpretation This * De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. p. 462. l. D. speaking of Carolstrad's Opinion of the Eucharist Scripsit says he Verba Evangelistae Hoc est Corpus meum hunc facere sensum Hic Panis est Corpus meum quae sententia aut
of the Merits of Christ and partly of the superabundant Sufferings of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints who have suffer'd more than their Sins required The Pastors of the Church have obtain'd from God the power of granting Indulgences Ibid. c. 3. p. 19 27. and dispensing of the Merits of Christ and the Saints for this end out of the Sacraments The Punishments remitted by these Indulgences Ibid. c. 7. p. 47. are all those which are or might have been enjoyn'd for Sins and that whether the Persons be alive or dead WE believe there is a Power in the Church of granting Indulgences which concern not at all the Remission of Sins either Mortal or Venial but only of some temporal Punishments remaining due after the guilt is remitted So that they are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just Causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be enjoyn'd by the Pastors of the Church on Penitent Sinners according to their several degrees of demerit Papist Represent n. viii p. 10. M. de M. Expos § 8. p. 14. Of the Mass Old Popery New Popery THe * Concil Trid. Sess 22. Can. 1. 3. p. 196. ibid. c. 2. p. 191. Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice A Sacrifice not only Commemoratory of that of the Cross but also truly and properly propitiatory for the dead and the living Conc. Trent Art 16. †Verum reale Sacrificium veram realem mortem aut destructionem rei immolatae desiderat Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. p. 1062. C. Vel in Missa fit vera realis Christi mactatio occisio vel non fit Si non fit non est verum reale Sacrificum Missa Sacrificium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrificii 1063. A. And again Per consecrationem res quae offertur ad veram realem externam mutationem destructionem ordinatur quod erat necessarium ad rationem Sacrificii ib. l. D. Sect. Tertio Every true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real Death or Destruction of the thing sacrificed So that if in the Mass there be not a true and real Destruction on there is not a true and real Sacrifice Bellarmin To offer up Christ then in the Eucharist is not only to present him before God on the Altar but really and truly to Sacrifice i. e. destroy him Bellarmin THe Sacrifice of the Mass was instituted only to represent that which was accomplish'd on the Cross to perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the World and apply to us the saving Vertue of it for those Sins which we commit every day Vindicat. pag. 95. When we say That Christ is offered in the Mass we do not understand the word Offer in the strictest Sense but as we are said to Offer to God what we present before him And thus the Church does not doubt to say That She offers up our Blessed Jesus to his Father in the Eucharist in which he vouchsafes to render him himself present before him Vindicat. ibid. p. 96. Of the Popes Authority Old Popery New Popery WE acknowledg the Holy Catholick and Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and we Promise and Swear to the Bishop of Rome Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ a true Obedience Concil Trid. Jur. Pii 4ti p. xliv in fine The Pope has Power to depose Princes Si dominus temporatis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab Haeretica foeditate Excommunicationis Vinculo innodetur Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo Pontifici ut ex tunc Ipse Vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos terram exponat Catholicis occupandam Salvo jure Domini Principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum opponat Eadem nihil ominus lege servata circa EOS qui NON HABENT DOMINOS PRINCIPALES and absolve Subjects from their Allegiance So the Council of Lateran If the Temporal Lord shall neglect to purge his Land of Heresie let him be Excommunicated and if within a year he refuses to make satisfaction to the Church let it be signified to the Pope that from thenceforth He may declare his Vassals absolved from their Allegiance and expose his Land to be seised by Catholicks yet so as not to injure the right of the Principal Lord. Provided that he puts no stop or hindrance to this And the same Law is to be observed with reference to those who have no Principal Lords Concil Later 4. Can. 3. de Haeret. p. 147. This is no Scholastick Tenet but the Canon of a Council received by the Church of Rome as General WE acknowledg that Primacy which Christ gave to St. Peter in his Successors to whom for this cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the faithful As for those things which we know are disputed of in the Schools it is not necessary we speak of them here seeing they are not Articles of the Catholick Faith It is sufficient we acknowledg a Head Establish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his Paths which those who love Concord amongst Brethren and Ecclesiastical Unanimity will most willingly acknowledg Expos Monsieur de Meaux p. 40. Such is the difference of the present Controversies between us from what they were when it pleased God to discover to our Fathers the Errors they had so long been involved in Were I minded to shew the division yet greater there want not Authors among them and those approved ones too from whence to collect more desperate Conclusions in most of these Points than any I have now remark'd And the Practice and Opinion of the people in those Countries where these Errors still prevail is yet more Extravagant than any thing that either the One or Other have written What now remains but that I earnestly beseech all sober and unprejudiced Persons of that Communion seriously to weigh these things And consider what just reason we had to quit those Errors which even their own Teachers are ashamed to confess and yet cannot honestly disavow It has been the great business of these new Methodists for some years past to draw over ignorant men to the Church of Rome by pretending to them that their Doctrines are by no means such as they are commonly mis-apprehended to be This is popular and may I believe have prevailed with some weak persons to their seduction tho' we know well enough that all those abroad who pretend to be Monsieur de Meaux's Proselytes were not so upon the conviction of his Book but for the advantages of the Change and the Patronage of his Person and Authority But surely would men seriously weigh this Method there could be nothing more
accipi debet tropicè ut Panis sit Corpus Christi significativè aut est planè absurda Impossibilis nec enim fieri potest ut Panis sit Corpus Christi Et l. 3. c. 19. p. 747. Non potest fieri ut vera fit propositio in quâ Subjectum supponit pro Pane praedicatum autem pro Corpore Christi c. Bellarmine †Hoc est impossibile quod Panis fit Corpus Christi de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. p. 2393. in Gloss Gratian and others do confess and the Vindicator himself seems contented with it Only he believes That all my Logic will never be able to prove that the Pronoun THIS must necessarily relate to Panis * In the Aethiopian Church they give the Holy Eucharist with this Explication Hic Panis est Corpus meum Ludolphi Hist l. 3. c. 5. n. 56. Bread and not to Corpus Body How far my Logic has been able to do this I must leave it to others to determine but for the Vindicator's satisfaction I do assure him that Bellarmine looks upon it to be Good Logic. And because it is in the middle of the citation I referred to and which he has almost intirely transcribed excepting only the part I am now speaking of I will not charge him with unsincerity in the omission but I must needs say 't was indiscreet to put the issue of the Question upon what his Cardinal had so freely confessed †Bellarm de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. p. 746. Lit. D. Dominus accepit in manibus panom eumque benedixit dedit discipulis de eo ait Hoc est Corpus meum Itaque panem accepit panem benedixit panem dedit de Pane dixit Hoc est corpus meum The Lord says he took Bread in his hands and blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and said of it This is my Body Therefore he took BREAD and blessed BREAD and gave BREAD to his Disciples and said of BREAD This is my Body And in ⸪ Id. l. 1. c. 11. p. 517. Lit. B. Siquis digito aliquid ostendat dum Pronomen effert valdè absurdum videtur dicere Pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem Atqui Dominus accepit Panem Illum porrigens ait Hoc est Corpus meum videtur igitur demonstravisse Panem Neque obstat quòd propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis Nam etsi ita est de propositione quae est Oratio quaedam tamen demonstrativa pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces Et sanè in illis verbis Bibite ex hoc omnes valdè durum est non demonstrari I D. quod Erat sed I D. tantùm quod futurum erat another place arguing against this very Opinion of the Vindicator That THIS in that proposition belongs to BODY not the BREAD which he held in his hand says That if a Man points with his finger to a thing whilst he utters a pronoun demonstrative 't were absurd to say that any thing else should be referred to but that thing Our Lord took Bread and reaching it out to them said Take Eat THIS is my Body He seems to have pointed to the BREAD and therefore must have shewn some certain thing even before the other words were pronounced From which put together I think we may frame this Argument If the Relative THIS in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body then it must be understood Figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the relative This in that proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible How far the Vindicator will approve this Logick I cannot tell but the first proposition is their common concession and he himself seems contented with it The second is Bellarmine's own grant nay what he contends for and indeed what the connexion of the Words do evidently require And then for the conclusion I believe a very little Logick will be enough at any time to make good the sequel of it But the Vindicator has an Exception against all this Vind. p. 75. and tells us That it will all argue nothing against them unless I beg the Question and suppose that no real change was made by those words I presume it is as much a begging of the Question for him to suppose there was as for me that there was not We do not now enquire how to expound the Proposition supposing there were such a change made as they imagine but the Question is Whether these Words do necessarily imply any such change nay rather do not oblige us to take them in a figurative sense to shew that there is none However he is resolved he will suppose the Question first and then prove it tho' I must not We will suppose says he and that not incongruously That our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these words THIS IS WINE or LET THIS BE WINE I hope he does not look upon these two to be one and the same But in short If our Saviour had said Let this be Wine the meaning must have been Let this which is now Water become Wine If he had said This is Wine and the conversion not yet made it would have been false If after the conversion no more than this This that is contained in these Pots is Wine or This which before was Water now is Wine And so in the point before us Had our Blessed Saviour said LET THIS BE MY BODY and a conversion had been thereupon as truly made as of the Water into Wine we should have made no doubt but that it was a command for that which before was Bread to become his Body If we take the Words as they are THIS IS MY BODY and no conversion made before they were pronounced the Proposition in the literal sense must plainly be false If a real conversion had first been made as when the Water was turned into Wine then would it signifie no more than this This which before was Bread is now my Body So that all this will as little avail him as he says the other did us unless he also beg the Question and suppose a real change made by these words which he knows is the very thing which we deny as we shall have reason to do till they can prove that what we are sure was Bread is converted into the Body of Christ And thus much for his disputing Vindicat. p. 77 78 79 80. Before he enters on an Examination of those Authorities I produced to shew the novelty and uncertainty of Trany-substantiation he is willing
to state the Case and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say that Christ is not Corporeally present in this Sacrament Or how that which is not the thing it self is yet more than a meer figure of it In answer to which I shall need seek no farther than those Testimonies I before alledged out of the publick Acts of our Church to satisfie him See the Church Catechism Our Catechism affirms That the inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST which are VERILY AND INDEED taken and received by the faithful in the Lords-Supper And the meaning of it our 28th ‖ Article 28. Article expounds thus The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper ONLY AFTER A SPIRITVAL AND HEAVENLY MANNER and the means by which this is done is FAITH So that to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same The Bread which we break is as St. Paul declares it The Communion of the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which we bless The Communion of the Blood of Christ In a word We say that the faithful do really partake of Christs Body after such a manner as those who are void of Faith cannot tho' they may participate the Outward Elements alike Whom therefore our Church declares * Article 29. To receive only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but to be no way partakers of Christ but rather as St. Paul again says to Eat and Drink their own Damnation not discerning the Lords Body *†See the Appendix N. V. in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same account of it These are the Words of our Church and the meaning is clearly this Christ is really present in this Sacrament inasmuch as they who worthily receive it have thereby really convey'd to them our Saviour Christ and all the benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs This great effect plainly shews it to be more than a meer Figure yet is it not his Body after the manner that the Papists imagine †Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office Christ's Body being in Heaven and not on the holy Table and it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one The Sacramental Bread and Wine then remain still in their very natural Substance nor is there any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood at the holy Altar The Presence we allow is Spiritual and that not only as to the manner of the Existence ‖ Vindicat. p. 77 78. which the Vindicator seems to insinuate for we suppose it to be a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Body That this Exposition is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ch. of England the Authorities already cited shew See also the Homily concerning the Sacrament part 1. p. 283. c. and the same is the Explication which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it as is evident by the Collation of them made by Bishop Cofins in his History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large p. 6. c. i. e. Corporal but as to the nature of the thing it self and yet it is Real too The Bread which we receive being a most real and effectual Communion of Christ's Body in that Spiritual and Heavenly manner which St. Paul speaks of and in which the Faithful by their Faith are made partakers of it Thus does our Church admit of a real Presence and yet †Vindic. p. 80. neither take the Words of Institution in their literal Sense * Ibid. p. 79. and avoid all those Absurdities we so justly charge them with As to the Authorities of their own Writers which I alledged to shew that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had no Grounds neither in Scripture nor Antiquity He is content to allow that the Scriptures are not so plain in this matter but that it was necessary for the Church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it Vind. p. 80 81. And for Antiquity he desires us to observe 1st That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon Ibid. p. 82. defined the. true real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation Sess 13. Can. 2. or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it Can. 2. If any one shall say That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholick Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation let him be Anathema The design of the Council in which Canon is evidently this To define not only the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentaries which before was done ‖ Can. 1. but also the manner or mode of his Presence against the Lutherans in two Particulars 1st Of the Absence of the Substance of the Bread and Wine 2ly Of the Conversion of their Substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But this the Vindicator will not allow but advances an Exposition so contrary to the design of the Council and Doctrine of his Church that it is wonderful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an Illusion It is manifest Vindic. p. 83. says he that the Church does not here intend to fix the manner of that Conversion but only to declare the matter viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ becomes truly really and substantially Present the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly really and substantially Present tho the Appearances thereof remain Now this is so evidently false that Suarez doubts not to say 't is HEREST to affirm it Forasmuch says he See Suarez cited below as the Council not only determines the Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Substance of the Bread but also the true Conversion of the one into the other thus establishing not only the two former but this last also as an Article of Faith Our dispute therefore is not only as this Author pretends about the real Presence of Christ's Body Vindic. p. 83. and Absence of the Substance of the Bread which he calls the thing it self but also about the Manner how Jesus Christ is Present viz. Whether it be by that WONDERFUL and singular CONVERSION which their Church calls so aptly TRANSUBSTANTIATION Now