this being that we are to enquire into let us see whether the Authorities I have brought have not the force I pretend against their Tenets And 1. LOMBARD writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time For having first asserted the real Presence in this Sacrament and the change which he supposed was made upon that account He goes on to that which the †Vind. p. 92. Vindicator is pleased to call a Scholastick Nicety and it was indeed at that time no other tho since become a matter of Faith Lombard l. 4. d. 11. lit A. p. 736. De modis Conversionis Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa Conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis desinire non sustineo Quibusdam esse videtur substantia is c. viz. What kind of Conversion is there made Whether formal or substantial or what else And for this he tells us freely He is not able to define it That some have thought it to be a SVBSTANTIAL CHANGE but for his part he will not undertake to determine it But 2dly SCOTVS is yet more free ‖ Dicendum says Scotus quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei Si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus Articuli cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem vericrem secundum apparentiam Dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae See 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 63. He declares our Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be the more easie and to all appearance the more true Insomuch that the Churches Authority is the * And before in Sect. Quantum ergo He profess'd Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet Romana Ecclesia In a Word Bellarmine himself cites Scotus for this Opinion Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767. L. D. Principal thing that moved him to receive their Doctrine †And again p. 768 L. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus quod minime probandum est Ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem He tells us that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very Ancient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran all which the Vindicator himself does in effect confess The same is Vind. p. 88. 3ly affirmed by * Suarez in 3 part D. Th. vol. 3 disp 50. § 1. p. 593. Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem Panis Vini in Corpus Sanguinem Christi Haec assertio est de fide Nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in Scriptura ea tamen docet Ecclesia ab Apostolis edocta docens simul ita esse intelligenda Verba formae in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri And then p. 594. col 2. adds 1mo Ex hac Fidei Doctrina colligitur corrigendos esse Scholasticos qui hanc Doctrinam de Conversione hac seu de Transubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos sunt Scotus Gabriel Biel lect 41. in Can. c. And then 2do infero Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi absentiam Panis neget tamen veram Conversionem unius in aliud in HAERESIN labi quia Ecclesia Catholica non solum duo priera sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet SVAREZ of GABRIEL and confess'd by the Vindicator who also contrary to his pretences calls this manner of Conversion an Assertion that is of Faith tho he confesses it is not expresly to be found in Scripture but deduced thence by the Interpretation of the Church Nay so opposite is he to the Opinion and Pretences of this Man that he declares in this very place which our good Author examined but amidst all his sincerity overlook'd this passage as not much for his purpose That if any one should confess the real Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Bread and yet deny the true CONVERSION of the one into the other he would fall into HEREST forasmuch as the Church has defined not only the two former but also the third likewise But 4thly The Prevarication of our Author in the next Citation is yet more unpardonable I affirmed That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper Sense of the Words the other might with as good reason have been received This he says is false Vind. p. 86. for that Cajetan says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article And then with wonderful assurance begins a rabble of Citations nothing to the purpose in the very next Words to those in which mine end For the better clearing of this Doctrine Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. p. 130. Col. 1. In comment circa praesentis sequentium Articulorum Doctrinam pro claritate ampliori intellectu difficultatum sciendum est ex Autoritate S. Scripturae de Existentia Corporis Christi in Sacramento Eucharistiae nihil aliud haberi expresse nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis Hoc est Corpus meum Oportet enim Verba haec vera esse Et quoniam verba sacrae Scripturae exponuntur dupliciter vel Proprie vel Metapherice Primus Error circa hoc fuit Interpretantium haec Domini Verba Metaphorice quem magister Sent. l. 4. d. 10. Tractat. Qui hoc Articulo reprobatur Et consistit VIS Reprobationis in HOC Quod verba Domini intellecta sunt ab ECCLESIA Proprie PROPTEREA oportet illa verificari proprie Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio c. Cited by the Vindicator says Cajetan we must know That as to the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist there is nothing to be had expresly from the Authority of the holy Scripture but the words of our Saviour saying This is my Body For it must needs be that these words are true and because the Words of Scripture may be expounded two ways either Properly or Metaphorically the first Error was of those who interpret these words Metaphorically which is rejected in this Article And the force of the Rejection consists in this That the words of our Saviour have been understood in their proper Sence by the Church and therefore must be properly true This the Vindicator was pleased to pass by tho' the very next words to those he cites Nay to say That Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appeal to any that should read it for the truth of it Should a Protestant have done this he would I believe have found out a great many hard Names for him to testifie his Zeal against Falshood and
may be dispensed with and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it prove neither damnable nor dangerous PART III. ARTICLE XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word AS to this Article Vindic. p. 100. there is indeed an Agreement between Monsieur de Meaux and Me so far as We handle the Question and keep to those general terms Of the Traditions being universally received by all Churches and in all Ages for in this Case We of the Church of England are perfectly of the same Opinion with them and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the Apostles with a like Veneration to that we pay to the written Word it self But after all this there is as the Vindicator observes a very material difference betwixt us viz. Who shall be judge when this Tradition is Vniversal He tells us Vind ibid. they rely upon the judgment of the present Church of every Age declaring her sense whether by the most General Council of that Age or by the constant practice and uniform voice of her Pastors and People And this is that to which he conceives every private person and Church ought to submit without presuming to examine how ancient that Tradition does appear to be or how agreeable it is to the Written Word of God Now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of Traditions for these two reasons 1. Because whether there were any such particular Doctrine or Practice received by the Primitive Church is a matter of fact and as such is in many cases distinctly set down by such Writers as lived in or near that first Age of the Church Now where the case is thus the Accounts that are given by these Writers are certainly to those who are able to search into them a better Rule whereby to judge what was an Ancient Doctrine and Tradition than either the Decree of a Council of a latter Age or the Voice and Practice of its Pastors and People For let these agree as much as they will in voting any Doctrine or Practice to have been Primitive yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing Men if the authentick Histories and Records of those times shew it to have been otherwise And this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the Councils and practised by the Pastors and People in the Roman Church we cannot look upon her late Decrees and Practices to be a good or a safe Rule for judging of the Antiquity or Vniversality of Church-Traditions But 2. There is yet a more cogent Reason against this Method which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and to give this Vnwritten Word the upper hand of the Written For according to this Method if the Church in any Age does but decree in Council or does generally Teach and Practice any thing as an ancient Tradition then this must obtain and be of force with all its Members tho' many of them should be perswaded that they cannot find it in nay that it is contrary to the Written Word of God Now this we cannot but look upon as an high affront to the Holy Scriptures And let them attribute as much as they please to the Decrees and Practices of their Church We cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon these grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the written Word of God In this Case we think it reasonable that the Church's Sentence should be made void and the Voice of her pretended Traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God ARTICLE XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church IN the two next Articles Vind. p. 101. concering the Authority of the Church I was willing to allow as much and come up as near to Mons de Meaux as Truth and Reason would permit This it seems made the Vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my Concessions But these his hopes are soon dasht when he finds me putting in some Exceptions and not willing to swallow the whole Doctrine as it is laid down in the Exposition Now the Exceptions that seem most to offend him are these 1. That the Church of Rome should be taken for a particular and not the Catholick Church 2. That She should be supposed as such either by Error to have lost or by other means to have prevaricated the Faith even in the necessary points of it 3. That any other Church should be allow'd to examine and judg of the Decisions of that Church 4. That it should be left to private or individual Persons to examine and oppose the Decisions of the whole Church if they are evidently convinced that their private belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Holy Word These are the Exceptions at which he is the most offended Vind. p. 103. The 1. of these he calls an Argument to elude the Authority of the Church of Rome and to shew the Fallacy of it he thinks it sufficient to say That they do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholick Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Now if this in truth be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholick Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholick as that of Rome it self For seeing it is the Purity or Orthodoxness of the Faith which is the bond of this Communion this renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholick with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocess and so makes it only a particular not the Vniversal Church But now should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of and that it were proper to understand by that name all those other Churches which are in Communion with her yet all this would not make her the whole or Catholick 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 profess'd just the same Faith and continued just in the same Worship as She hath done And this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which have plainly for several Ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship So that in respect of these and the like Christian Churches which were not of her Communion She could not be looked upon as a Vniversal but only as a Particular Church Now if this be
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
Athanasius and the other Fathers of these Times to prove our Saviour to be God that he was prayed to Prayer were such as are utterly repugnant to such an Invocation These were the Arguments I then offer'd to which the Vindicator would have done more justly to have try'd if he could have made some Reply than after all this to cry out as if nothing had been said What Authority does he bring for his Assertion Vindicat. p. 29. By what Authority does he condemn these Prayers these innocent Wishes and holy Raptures as he calls them as fond things vainly invented c. And now that I have satisfied his demand may I in my turn ask him Where it is that I condemn those innocent Wishes and holy Raptures of these Fathers as fond things vainly invented That I do with our Church censure their Invocation of Saints as such is confess'd but that I pretend to pass any judgment at all upon these holy Men is false nor was it any way necessary that I should do it As for the Authority he requires for our refusal of this Invocation it were very easy to shew it Vindicat. p. 30. had I nothing to do but to repeat things that have been so often said already that the World grows weary of them and is abundantly satisfied that they have nothing to reply to them Every Text of Scripture that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone is a demonstration against them and that one Passage of St. Paul Rom. 10.14 How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed were not Men willing to be contentious might end the Controversy And for the Antiquity which he speaks of What can be more ridiculous than to pretend prescription for that which has not the least foundation neither in Holy Writ nor Primitive Christianity of which not one Instance appears for the first three hundred Years after Christ but much to the contrary He that desires a fuller satisfaction in these Points may please to recur to that excellent Treatise I before mention'd and which may well excuse me that I say no more about it Only because this was one of the Points in which I promised to shew that they do adore Men and Women by such an Invocation as cannot possibly belong to any but God only and that they make the Merits of their Saints to run parallel with the Merits of Christ insomuch as for their Merits to desire that their very Sacrifices may be accepted and their Sacraments be available to them I will subjoin a short Specimen of every one of these out of their Publick Rituals to shew that there was neither Falshood nor Calumny in my Accusation of them Appendix to ARTIC III. A Specimen of the Church of Rome 's Service to Saints taken out of their Publick Liturgies AS to the Prayers they make to them we find them thus addressing to the Blessed Virgin 1 Sub tum praesidium confugimus S. Dei Genetrix nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus sed à periculis cunctis libera nos semper Virgo gloriosa benedicta We fly to thy Protection O Holy Mother of God despise not our Prayers which we make to thee in our Necessities but deliver us from all Dangers O Ever-glorious and Blessed Virgin Offic. B. V. p. 84. And in one of their Antiphona's 2 Dignare me laudare Te Virgo Sacrata Da mihi Virtutem contra hostes tuos Vouchsafe me that I may be worthy to praise thee O Sacred Virgin Grant me strength and Power against thine Enemies Ibid. p. 103. 3 Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria. They desire her conjunctly with our Saviour to bless them Ibid. p. 105. And in their 4 Alma Redemptoris Mater quae pervia Coeli Porta manes stella maris succurre cadenti Surgere qui curat populo tu quae genuisti Naturâ mirante ruum Sanctum Genitorem Virgo prius ac posterius Gabrielis ab Ore Sumens illud Ave Peccatorum miserere Offic. B. V p. 122. Hymns they address to her in the most formal manner that she would help them that fall that she would have pity upon Sinners 5 Maria Mater gratiae Mater miserecordiae Tu nos ab hoste protege horâ mortis suscipe Ib. p. 123. that she would protect them against the Enemy and receive them at the Hour of Death I shall add only one Prayer more part of which I before mention'd and will now repeat it because ‖ Bellarm. I. 1. de Sanct. beat c. 16. p. 2036. l. A. reflects upon Calvin in these words Quinto ibidem dicit nos rogare Virginem ut filium Jubeat facere quod petimus At quis nostrum hoc dicit Cur non probat ullo exemplo I before observed that Cassander owns the Prayer Consult Art 21. And Monsieur Daillé assures us that in the Missal printed at Paris but in the Year 1634. in libr. Extrem p. 81. It is still extant in these words Cardinal Bellarmine and some others are so ashamed of it as totally to deny they have any such Prayer 6 O foelix Puerpera nostra pians scelera Jure Matris IMPERA REDEMPTORI Da fidei foedera Da salutis Opera Da in vitae vesperâ Benè mori And indeed however scrupulous Bellarmine is of this Matter yet others among them make no doubt to say that she does not only intreat her Son as a Suppliant but COMMAND him as a Mother So Peter Damien Serm. 1. de Nat. Mariae speaking to the Virgin tells her Accedis ante aureum illud humanae reconciliationis Altare non solùm rogans sed IMPERANS For so Father Crasset who both cites and approves it translates the Passage Thou comest before the Golden Altar of our Reconciliation not only as a Servant that Prays but as a Mother that COMMANDS And Albertus Magnus Serm. 2. de laud. Virg. Pro salute famulantium sibi non solùm petest filio supplicare sed etiam potest Authoritate Maternâ cidem IMPERARE That for the Salvation of those that serve Her the Virgin cannot only Intreat Her Son but by the Authority of a Mother can COMMAND Him This Father Crasset proves from more of the like stuff in his 1. Part. Trait 1. Qu. 8. p. 60 61. concluding the whole with this admirable Sentence Eadem potestas est Matris Filii quae ab omni potente Filio omnipotens facta est The Power of the Mother and the Son is the same who by her OMNIPOTENT Son is made her self OMNIPOTENT This is the last French Divinity approved by the Society of the Jesuits published with the King's Permission and espoused at a venture by Monsieur de Meaux in his Epistle O Happy Mother expiating our Sins By the right of a Mother COMMAND our Redeemer Grant us the of Faith Grant us the good Works of Salvation Grant us in the End of Lives that
Unsincerity and shew what a kind of Religion that must be Vind. p. 222. that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But I shall remit him wholly to the Reader 's Censure and his own Conscience for Correction As for my last Assertion Vindic. p. 88. That Transubstantiation was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after Christ They are the very words of Scotus cited by Bellarmine See p. 64. and all his Sophistry will not be able to prove that they make but little for my purpose Thus notwithstanding all the little Endeavours of the Vindicator to evade the truth of those Concessions made by the greatest of his own Communion in favour of our Doctrine my Argument still stands good against them and Transubstantiation appears to have been the monstrous Birth of these last Ages unknown in the Church for almost 1200 years Vind. p. 92 93. For what remains concerning the Adoration of the Host since he has thought fit to leave my Arguments in their full force I shall not need say any thing in defence of that which he has not so much as attempted to destroy ARTICLE XIX Of the Sacrifice of the Mass IF I affirmed Vindic. p. 94. The Sacrifice of the Mass to be one of those Errors that most offends us I said no more than what the Church of England has always thought of it And had the Vindicator pleased to have examined my Arguments instead of admiring them he would perhaps have found I had reason to do so * Canon 1. Siquis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo verum proprium Sacrificium aut quod offerri non fit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari Anathema fit * Canon 3. Siquis dixerit Missae Sacrificium tantum esse laudis gratiarum actionis aut nudam commemorationem Sacrificii in Cruce peracti non autem Propitiatorium vel soliprodesse sumenti neque pro Vivis Defunctis pro peccatis paenis satisfactionibus aliis necessitatibus offerri debere Anathema sit The Council of Trent affirms Concil Trid. Sess 22. p. 196. de Missa That the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice offered to God a Sacrifice not only of Praise and Thanksgiving nor yet a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross but truly Propitiatory for the Dead and the Living and for the Sins Punishments Satisfactions and other Necessities of both of them †Ibid. Cap. 2. p. 191. Una eademque est Hostia idem nunc offerens Sacerdotum Ministerio qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit sola offerendi ratione diversa A Sacrifice wherein the same Christ is now offered without Blood that once offer'd himself in that bloody Sacrifice of the Cross the same Sacrifice the same Offerer Christ by his Priests now who then did it by himself offering himself only differing in the manner of Oblation This is in short what their Council has defined as to this Mass-Sacrifice and what we think we have good reason to be offended at That there should be any true and proper Sacrifice truly and properly Propitiatory after that of the Cross that Christ who once offer'd up himself upon the Tree for us should again be brought down every day from Heaven to be Sacrificed a new in ten thousand places at a time on their Altars And by all these things so great a dishonour done to our Blessed Lord as most evidently there is and our Writers have unanswerably proved in the whole design Practice and Pretences of it How little the Doctrine of the real Presence Vindicat. ib. as understood by the Church of England will serve to support this Innovation is at first sight evident from the Exposition I before gave of it That those who are ordained Priests ought to have power given them to Consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ and make them present in that holy Eucharist after such a manner as our Saviour appointed and as at the first Institution of this Sacred Mystery they certainly were this we have always confessed and our †In the ordering of Priests when the Bishop imposes his hands he bids him be a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments And again when he delivers him the Bible Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments c. Sparrow Collect. p. 158. Rituals shew that our Priests accordingly have such a Power by Imposition of Hands conferred on them But that it is necessary to the Evangelical Priesthood that they should have power to offer up Christ truly and properly as the Council of Trent defines this we deny and shall have reason to do so till it can be proved to us that their Mass is indeed such a Sacrifice as they pretend and that our Saviour left it as an Essential part of their Priesthood to offer it For the rest Vindic. p. 95. If with the Council of Trent he indeed believes the Mass to be a true and proper Sacrifice he ought not to blame us for taking it in that Sence in which they themselves understand it For certainly it is impossible for words to represent a Sacrifice more strictly and properly than the Council of Trent has defined this ARTICLE XX. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews TO elude the authority of this Epistle Vindicat. p. 96 97. the Vindicator after Monsieur de Meaux thinks it sufficient to tell us That they understand the word Offer when they apply it to the Mass Mr. de M's Expos p 31. in a larger signification than what the Apostle there gives it as when we are said to offer up to God whatever we present before him And that 't is thus they pretend to offer up the Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Mass Vind. p. 96. in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him That this is to prevaricate the true meaning of that phrase the Doctrine of the foregoing Article plainly shews If Christ be in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice as was there said it will necessarily follow that then he must be truly and properly sacrificed ‖ Sacrificium verum reale veram realem Occisionem exigit quando in Occisione ponitur Essentia Sacrificii Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. cap. 27. p. 1663. A. And one essential Propriety and which they tell us distinguishes a Sacrifice from any other Offering being the true and real destruction of what is offered insomuch that where there is not a true and proper destruction neither can there be as they themselves acknowledg a true and proper Sacrifice It must be evidently false in these men to pretend that by Offering in this matter is meant only a presenting of Christ before God and not a real change and destruction of his Body offered by them If in this Exposition of their Doctrine
not in this last on which Eternity depends Holy Michaël Archangel who camest to help the People of God Prince of the Heavenly Host Deliver me from the Snare of unclean Spirits and bring my Soul into a Place of comfort and refreshment And thou Holy Angel to whose Safeguard and Protection I unworthy Sinner have been committed Assist me in this moment Drive far from me all the Power of Satan Save me from the Mouth of the Lion Draw me out of the Snare which they have laid for me and Preserve my soul from their evil designs Assist me you also O my Patrons and turelary Saints Thou first of all O St. JOHN forerunner of Christ Make my Paths straight and Direct my way in the sight of the Lord. Blessed PETER Key-Bearer of the Heavenly Kingdom Prince of the Apostles by the Power that is committed to thee Loose thou the Bonds of my Sins and Open unto me the Gate of Paradise And thou O Glorious Father of the Monks of St. Benedict impute not thou unto me to my Damnation the innumerable transgressions that I have made of thy Rule O ye Captains and Heads of the Holy Order of the Cistercians St. ROBERT St. ALBERIC St. STEPHEN and St. BERNARD who have so long patiently endured me an unfruitful Tree in this your Vineyard O Forsake me not in this Hour But Remember that I am your Son tho' unworthy the Name The Cardinal goes still further on with the rest of his Patrons for he had taken care to provide enough of them but I fear I have tired the Reader with these I have already transcribed Monsieur de Meaux I know will tell us that all this is no more than if he had desired as many of the good Company that were about him at this time to have done the same and for his Expressions though they are some of them a little Extraordinary yet the Cardinal's intention no doubt like that of the Church was to have them all reduced to this one and the same Catholick meaning PRAY FOR ME. And for those who are resolved to believe this fond Pretence there is no hopes of conviction But for unprejudiced Persons who see the Vanity indeed the unreasonableness and absurdity of this Evasion I doubt not but they will find a plain Opposition between Monsieur de Meaux's Principles and the Cardinal 's and that this good Man needed a very great Apology to his Patrons for having approved a Doctrine so derogatory to their Power and Honour as that of the Exposition in his Opinion undoubtedly was But I shall say no more to shew the unsincerity of Cardinal BONA in this matter I might have added a yet greater instance than either of these Cardinals of the same pious Fraud in the Approbation of the POPE himself See the Procez verbal de l'Assembleé eatraordinaire des Messeigneurs l'Archeveques Eveques en Mars May 1681. Mr. de Meaux himself was one of this Assembly and signed with the rest the Report of the A. B. of Reims in which there is abundantly sufficient to shew how repugnant his Holiness's Proceedings were to the Doctrine of the Exposition approved by him at the very same time that he was engaged in these attempts so contrary to it I know not whether it be worth the observing that the very same day the Pope sent his complementing Brief to Monsieur de Meaux in approbation of his Exposition he sent another to the Bishop of Pamiéz to approve his defending the Rights of his Church against the King which was judg'd in the Assembly of which Mr. de Meaux was one to be an interposing in an Affair which neither the Holy Councils nor Fathers had given him any Authority to meddle with whose Briefs with reference to the Affairs of France and which this Bishop who has had so great a part in them could not be ignorant of however publish'd at the same time that he sent his Complement to Mr. de Meaux do but ill agree with his Exposition Indeed they run in such a strain as plainly shews that were but his Power equal to his Will he would soon convince the World that not this Mans Pretences but the Dictates of Pope GREGORY VII the UNAM SANCTAM Bull and the Canon of LATERAN were the true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church And of this I am ready to make an ample proof from the several pieces set out by publick Authority in France when ever Mr. de Meaux or his Vindicator shall think fit to question the truth of what I now say NUM IV. Copie d'une Lettre ecrite à Monsieur l'Evêque de Meaux cy devant Evêque de Condom Au Port de St. Marie ce 13. Juin 1683. Monseigneur VOtre Grandeur rapellera sans doute mieux l'Ideé de mon nom lors que je luy dirai que je suis celuy pour qui elle a eu la bonté de parler il y a environ 16 ans à Madame de Chaune pour avoir son consentement d'une Chapelle comme tutrice de Monsieur de j ' eûs l'Honneur de la voir plusieurs fois à St. Thomas du Louvre avec Messeigneurs de Perigueux de Xainte Depuis ce tems la j'ai souffert la Persecution particulierement depuis l'Exposition de la Foi que vôtre grandeur a publiée Ses Enemis qui n'osent pas se declarer contre Elle se declarent contre ceux qui disent la même chose Et aujourdui Monseigneur l' Archevêque de Bourdeaux me fait faire le Proces pour avoir expliqué à l' Epargne le jour de Vendredi Saint Que nous adorions Jesus Christ crucifié en presence de la Croix que nous n'adorions rien de ce que nous voyons Et parce que le Curé dit sur le champ assez haut Le Bois Le Bois j ' ajoutai Non non C'est Jesus Christ non pas le Bois Et comme il ajouta Ecce Lignum Venite Adoremus je le relevai en luy disant Auquel le Salut du Monde a eté ataché Venez adorons ce Salut de Monde J ' ajoutai que le sentiment de l'Eglise etoit que si par impossible nous pouvions separer la Divinité da Fils de Dieu d'avec son humanité nous n' adorerions pas l'humanité puis qu'il est certain qu'il n' y a rien d'adorable que Dieu qu' ainsi nous devions nous persuader que nous allions au Calvaire adorer Jesus Christ sans nous arreter au Crucifix Que l'Eglise comme une bonne Mere nous l'avoit donné par une sainte Invention pour aider à nôtre Foi pour fraper plus vivement nôtre imagination non pour etre l'Objet de nôtre Culte 〈◊〉 se termine à Jesus Christ Voila Monseigneur tout mon crime ce que l'on me
their Separation was at first unlawful their Return will now by consequence be necessary to them How far this method might heretofore have concluded with those whom it principally concerns the vulgar and ignorant I cannot tell but God be thanked there are few now so ill instructed in their Religion but what will have enough to free them from the sin of Schism if the knowledge of a sufficient reason of their Separation may be allow'd to do it Thus much only I will beg leave to observe on occasion of these several methods that have been proposed for our Conviction That the great design of them all has been to prevent the entring on particular Disputes which had hithexto been the way but such as experience had taught them to be the least favourable of any to them And the same is the design of the late peaceable method set forth by Monsieur Maimbourg in which from the Authority of the Church in matters of Faith confess'd as he says by us he proves That the Church in which both parties once were must then have had this Authority over us all and to whose decision in the Council of Trent we all by consequence ought to submit It is not necessary that I should here say any thing to shew the Weakness and Sophistry of these several Methods That has been the business of those particular Examinations that have with success enough been made of them This I suppose may at first sight appear upon the bare proposal of them That they have more of Ingenuity than of Solidity in them and were no doubt designed by their Inventors to catch the unwary with a plausi le shew of that Reason which the Wise and Judicious know them to be defective in How far we may conclude from hence as to the Nature and Design of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition I shall leave it to others to consider This is undenyable That as it came out at a time when these kind of Methods were all in repute and with a design to help forward the same great business of Conversion then in agitation so has it been cry'd up by those of that Communion as exceeding all others in order to that End and if we may believe their reports been above all others the most happy and successful in it It is not easie to conceive that a Person of Monsieur de Meaux 's Learning should seriously believe That a bare Exposition of their Doctrine should be sufficient to convince us of the truth of it He could not but know that our first Reformers were Persons abundantly qualified to understand the real profession of a Church in which they had been born and bred and in which many of them were admitted to holy Orders Priests and professors of Divinity Nor is the Council of Trent so rare or so obscure that a meer Exposition of its Doctrine should work such effects as neither the Council nor its Catechism were able to do In a word Monsieur de Meaux himself confesses His design was to represent his Church as favourably as he could to take off that hideous and terrible form in which the Ministers Advertisment Pag. 2 4. he says were wont to represent Popery in their Pulpits and expose it in its natural dress free from those frightful Idea's in which it had so long been disguised by them One would imagine by this discourse that the whole business of the Ministers of the Reformed Religion was to do nothing but invent new Monsters every day and lay them to the Church of Rome And that after all our pretences to Peace and Union we were really such Enemies to it that we did all we could even by Lies and Calumnies to keep both our selves and the people from it But indeed these hideous Idea's Monsieur de Meaux speaks of if they are such false representations as he pretends they are not the Ministers that invent them but their own greatest Zealots their Schoolmen their Bishops their Cardinals nay their very Popes themselves that have been the Authors of them How far Monsieur de Meaux ' s Exposition differs from what they have delivered us as the Doctrine of their pretended Catholick Church has been in some measure shewn already and shall in the following Discourse be more fully evidenced And whosoever shall please to consider the Elogies and Approbations which these Men have received no less than Monsieur de Meaux will be forced to confess it to be at least a disputable point Whether the Ministers from these Authors have represented their Church in a hideous and terrible form or whether Monsieur de Meaux rather has not instead of removing the Visor to shew her in her natural dress a little varnish'd over her Face to hide her defects and make her appear more charming and attractive than her own natural deformity would otherwise permit her to do Now of this a more convincing proof cannot I think be desired than what I before advanced and see no reason yet to retract viz. Exposit Pag. 3. That out of an extraordinary desire of palliating he had proceeded so far as in several points wholly to pervert the Doctrine of his Church Insomuch that when his Book was sent to some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation they corrected so many places in it that Monsieur de Meaux was forced to suppress the whole Edition and change those places that had been mark'd by them and put out a new and more correct Impression as the first that had ever been made of it This Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to deny as an utter falsity Vindicat. Pag. 8 9. For that he never sent his Book to the Sorbonne that their custom is not to License Books in Body and that that Venerable company knows better what is due to Bishops who are naturally and by their Character the true Doctors of the Church than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors In a word that it is a manifest falsity to say that a first Edition of his Book was suppress'd because the Doctors of the Sorbonne had something to say against it That he never did publish not cause to be printed any other Edition than that which is in the hands of every one to which he never added nor diminish'd one syllable nor ever fear'd that any Catholick Doctor could find any thing in it worthy of reprehension This is indeed a severe charge against me and such as if true it cannot be doubted but that I have been as great a Calumniator as his Vindicator has thought Fit to represent me or as for ought I know Monsieur de Meaux himself will be in danger of being reputed if it should be false And therefore to satisfie the World in this main fundamental point between us I do hereby solemnly declare That there was an Impression of the Exposition such as I spake of That out of it I transcribed with my own hand the
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
in his Book for the greater exactness of the Method or neatness of Stile he must have been a very peevish Adversary indeed that would have pretended to censure him for that But to change not only the words but Doctrine too to give us one Exposition of it in one Edition and a quite contrary in another this I think may if not be represented as a heinous crime Vindicat. pag. 21.22 yet at least deserve a remark and let the Vindicator do what he can will I doubt make the Author pass with all indifferent persons for such as yet I had never represented him had not he himself first made the dilemma viz. M. de M's Advert p. 2. One that either did not sufficiently understand the Doctrine of his Church or that had not sincerity enough to expound it aright I should now pass to the consideration of those Exceptions that have been made against what I have advanced in my Book it self but before I do this it will be requisite that I take notice of those directions the Vindicator has thought fit to give me in his Postscript in order thereunto And here not to deceive either his Vindicat. pag. 12â— 12â— or the Reader 's expectation I must beg leave to excuse my self from entring any farther into dispute with the Bishop of Condom than I have already done I never designed a direct answer to his Book and the reflections I have made upon it in my former Treatise were more to clear the Doctrine of the Church of England than to argue against what he offered in behalf of the Romish Faith This has been the undertaking of another Pen from whom the Vindicator I suppose may expect what is reasonably enough refused by me But for the other part of his desire that I would take the pains to peruse my self the Authors cited by me Vindicat. pag. 121. and not transcribe Quotations nor take up things by halves I have been so scrupulous in observing it that I doubt I shall receive but little thanks from himself for it It cannot be deny'd but that there have been faults enough committed on both sides for want of this care and I do not desire to add to the number I have done my best to take nothing of them without a serious Examination of their sense Ibid. and a sincere application of it to the point in Question How far I have attain'd this I must leave it to others to judge but for the rest the truth of my Citations I have been so cautious in them that allowing only for the Errata's of the Press I desire no favour if I am found faulty in that I should indeed stand in need of a large Apology to those into whose hands these Papers may chance to fall that I have in many places run them out into so great a length But the Accusation that has been brought against me for want of doing this before how unjust soever it be has obliged me to this Caution now and they are so ordered as to be no hindrance to those that are minded to pass them by This benefit at least I shall attain by them with those who please to compare them with what the Vindicator alledges that they will find he might have spared himself the troublesome Vindicat. pag. 122. and ungentile Office indeed of undertaking what he could not effect to demonstrate to the World the unsincerity which I have shewn in my Quotations and the falsifications of them His endeavours wherein have been so very unsuccessful that I know not whether himself or his Religion will suffer more by the weakness of his attempt A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES Contained in the following TREATISE PART I. I. INtroduction Page 1 II. That Religious Worship is terminated only in God Page 6 III. Invocation of Saints ibid. IV. Images and Reliques Page 14 V. Justification Page 25 VI. Merits Page 28 VII 1. Satisfactions Page 32 2. Indulgences Page 35 3. Purgatory Page 36 PART II. VIII Sacraments in General Page 37 IX Baptism ibid. X. Confirmation Page 39 XI Penance Page 41 XII Extreme Vnction Page 42 XIII Marriage Page 52 XIV Holy Orders Page 53 XV. c. Eucharist Page 54 XIX Sacrifice of the Mass Page 67 XX. Epistle to the Hebrews Page 69 XXI Reflections on the foregoing Doctrine Page 70 XXII Communion under both kinds Page 71 PART III. XXIII Of the written and unwritten Word 75 XXIV c. Authority of the Church 77 XXVI Authority of the Holy See 82 XXVII The Close 83 THE EXPOSITION OF THE Doctrine of the Church of England Vindicated c. ARTICLE I. Introduction HE that accuses another of great and heinous crimes ought to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself of those faults which he condemns in others Had the Author of the Vindication thought fit to govern himself by this rule he would have spared a great part of that odious Character he has been pleased to draw of me in the beginning of this Article But it is not my business to recriminate nor need I fly to such arts for my justification Only as to the advantage he proposes to himself from these endeavours Vindicat. pag. 22. viz. to shew that all those Books to which an Imprimatur is prefix'd will not hereafter be concluded free from Errour He needed not sure have taken such pains for that For I believe no one before him ever imagined that a permission to print a Book was a mark of its Infallibility Nor that every nameless Author Vindicat. pag. 22. who professes to be sincere should pass for an Oracle It is not to be doubted but that faults there might have been in my Book for all that priviledge though the Vindicator has had the ill fortune to miss the most of them And for ought he has proved to the contrary I believe it will in the end appear that an Imprimatur Car. Alston is at least as good a mark of Infallibility as a Permissu Superiorum and a Church of England Expositor as fit to pass for an Oracle as a Popish Vindicator But Calumny and Vnsincerity are now the Catholick cry And to make it good against me I am charged in this one Article to have been guilty of both Vindicat. pag. 23. My Introduction is Calumny in a high degree and my state of the Question drawn from thence as unsincere I tell them he says of adoring Men and Women Crosses Images and Reliques of setting up their own Merits and making other propitiatory sacrifices for sin than that of the Cross And that these are all contrary to their pretended principles that Religious worship is due to God only That we are to be saved only by Christ's Merits and that the death of Christ was a perfect sacrifice The Logick of which he is content to own that the Consequence is good but the Accusation he says is false and the charge Calumniatory But if in the following Articles it be
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
they acted Neither had all they that were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing any assurance by that Cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins This again is false The Sin here promised to be forgiven is that for which the Sickness was sent if it was sent for any Now St. James expresly promise that in this case whenever the Health of the Body was restored this Sin should be forgiven too and therefore it must be false to say it was not He adds lastly That St. James promises that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up Which if it had been meant of bodily Health those only would have died in the Apostle's Time who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony And if it must be understood of the Soul's Health then it will follow that none were damned either then or now but what neglect this Advice or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Ceremony concerning the Truth of which the Vindicator may please to give us his Opinion But the Vanity of this Objection proceeds from the want of a true Notion of the Nature of these Gifts They who had the greatest measure of them could not yet exercise them when they would The same Spirit that helped them to perform the Miracle instructed them also when they should do it So that they never attempted it but when they saw the sick Person had Faith to be healed and that it would be for the greater Glory of God to do it St. Paul had doubtless this Gift of Healing and yet he neither cured Timothy of the weakness of his Stomach 1 Tim. 5.22 and his other frequent Infirmities and left Trophimus at Miletum sick 2 Tim. 4.20 That this Gift of Healing was in the Church at this time is not to be doubted though this place should not belong to it Will the Vindicator argue against this that then none died till it went out of the Church but such as refused the benefit of it or died suddenly before they had time to do it It may appear by this Vindicat. p. 69 70. how little they have to object against the true Design and Interpretation of this passage Nec ex verbis nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus à Discipulis exercendam in aegrotis Cajet Annot. in Loc. For Cardinal Cajetan's Authority the Vindicator tells us That had I said only that he thought it could not be proved neither from the Words nor the Effect that St. James speaks of the Sacramental Vnction of Extreme Vnction but rather of that Vnction which our Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick I had been a faithful Quoter of his Sense But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other is to impose upon him and the Readers As if when two Things only are in controversy for the Cardinal absolutely to exclude the one and apply it to the other were not in effect for I design'd not to translate his words to confess that it could belong only to that But that which is most considerable is that the Antient Liturgies of the Church and the publick practice of it for above 800 Years shew that they esteemed this Vnction to belong primarily to bodily Cures and but secondarily only to the sickness of the Soul And because these Rituals are not in every bodies hands to argue at once the truth of my Assertion and shew how little conversant the Vindicator has been in them I will here insert some particular proofs of it Upon the Thursday in the Holy Week when this Oil was wont to be consecrated they did it with this Prayer Ex S. Gregorii Libr. Sacram. p. 66. Fer. 5. post Palm Emitte domine Spiritum S. tuum paraclitum de Coelis in hanc pinguedidem Olivae quem de Viridi ligno producere dignatus es ad refectionem Corporis ut tuâ sanctâ benedictione sit omni hoc unguentum tangenti tutamen Mentis Corporis ad Evacuandos omnes Dolores omnesque infirmitates omnem aegritudinem corporis That by this Blessing it might become the Defence both of the Mind and Body The same is in effect the Prayer of the Greek Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euch. p. 863. Nor is it much different in that publish'd by Thomasius as P. Gelasius's Ritual before P. Gregories upon the same day p. 69. only that he generally joins Mentis Corporis to cure all Pains and Infirmities and sickness of the Body nothing else mentioned In the Office of Visiting the Sick several Introductory Prayers all for the Bodies Recovery are first said such as this pag. 251 c. Ad visitand infirm p. 251. Deus qui famulo tuo Hezekiae ter quinos Annos ad vitam donâsti ita famulum tuum N. à lecto aegritudinis tua potentia erigat ad salutem Per. O God who didst add to the 〈…〉 thy Servant Hezekiah fifteen Years let thy Power in like manner raise up this thy Servant from his Bed of Sickness Through c. Some of these being said the Priest goes on thus Domine Deus qui per Apostolum locutus es Infirmatur quis in Vobis S. James 5.14 15. inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae orent super eum ungentes eum oleo Sancto in Nomine Domini c. Cura quaesumus Redemptor noster gratiâ Spiritûs Sancti languores istius Infirmi sua sana vulnera ejusque dimitte peccata atque dolores cunctos cordis corporis expelle plenamque interius exteriusque sanitatem miserecorditer redde ut ope miserecordiae tuae restitutus Sanatus ad pristina Pietatis tuae reparetur Officia Per c. O Lord God who by thy Apostle hast said If any Man be sick let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord c Cure we beseech thee O our Redeemer by the Grace of the Holy Spirit the sickness of this infirm Person Heal his Wounds and forgive his Sins and expel all the Pains both of his Heart and of his Body and restore him mercifully to full health both inward and outward that being by thy merciful Aid Recovered and Healed he may be strengthned to the former Duties of thy Service Through c. Then the sick Person kneels down upon the right Hand of the Priest and this Antiphona is sung Dominus locutus est Discipulis suis In Nomine meo Daemonia ejicite super Infirmos manus vestras imponite bene habebunt Psalm Deus Deorum Dominus locutus est Et repetit In Nomine meo c. The Lord said unto his Disciples In my Name
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
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
plainly shew that no such Title or Authority was anciently claimed by or allow'd to the Bishop of Rome And therefore we say That these new and groundless pretences must be laid aside before we can be content to yield him that Honour which has been sometimes given to his Predecessors As to that new Question he has hookt in at the end of this Article Vindic. p. 106. Whether the first four General Councils might not be term'd neither General nor Free with as much reason as the Council of Trent I suppose it may easily be answer'd in the Negative 1st It was not so General because it was not call'd by so great and just an Authority as those were That was an Authority to which Christians of all Places and all Ranks acknowledged themselves bound to submit and attend where they were summon'd by it whereas this was a meer Vsurpation and being so was not regarded by a great part of the Christian World who were sensible that they ow'd no Subjection to it 2dly It was not so Free because those who had most to say in defence of the Truth durst not appear at Trent being sufficiently forewarn'd by what others had lately suffered in a like case at Constance Add to this That those who being present did set themselves most to oppose Error and Corruption were perpetually run down and outvoted by Shoals of new made Bishops sent out of Italy for that purpose So that such a Council as this could not with any shew of Reason be termed either Free or General much less ought it to be compared with those first four Councils which were in all these Respects most opposite to it CLOSE XXVII AND now Vindic. p. 106. that I have gone through the several Articles of the Vindication and found the Pretensions of this Author against me as false as I think I have shewn his Arguments to have been frivolous what shall I say more Shall I complain of his Injuries or rather shall I yet again beseech him to consider the little grounds he had for them and see whether he has been able in any one Instance to make good that infamous Character which he has told the World I have deserved in almost every Article of my Expoposition Have I Calumniated them in any thing Have I Misrepresented their Doctrines I have already said I do not know that I have I think I may now add I have made it appear that I have not Where are the Vnsincere dealings the Falsifications the Authors Miscited or Misapplied Excepting only an Error or two that 's the most of the Press has he given any one Example of this Some words now and then I omitted because I thought them impertinent and was unwilling to burden a short Treatise with tedious Citations And I am still perswaded that they were not material and that he might as well have found fault with me for not Transcribing the whole Books from whence they were produced as for leaving out those Passages which he pretends ought to have been inserted And for this I appeal to the foregoing Articles to be my Vindication But our Author has well observed That nothing can be so clearly expressed Vind. p. 120. or so firmly established let me add or so kindly and charitably performed but that a person who intends to cavil may either form a seeming Objection against it or wrest it into a different sense I never had the vanity to fancy my Exposition to be Infiallible or that the sight of an Imprimatur should make me pass for an Oracle But yet I was willing to hope that amidst the late pretences to Moderation such a peaceable Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England might at least have been received with the same civility by them as that of the Church of Rome was by us and that our new Methodists had not so wholly studied the palliating part of their Master as not to have learnt something of his fairness and civility also This I had so much the greater reason to expect for that it has been esteemed not the least part of the artifice of Monsieur de Meaux not only to mollifie the Errors of his Church but to moderate that passion and heat that for the most part occurs in the defenders of it And by the temper and candidness of his Stile insinuate into his Reader a good Opinion of his Doctrine But this is an Artifice that our late Controvertists seem resolved we shall have no great cause to apprehend Who therefore have not only wholly laid aside the Modenation of this Prelate but have in some of their last Pieces fallen into such a vein of lightness and scurrility as if their Zeal for their Church had made them forget that Religion is the Subject and Christians and Scholars to say no more of them their Antagonists I am ashamed to say what mean Reflections and trivial Jestings make up almost the sum of their latest attempts The Papist Represented which seemed to promise something of seriousness and moderation expiring in a FANATICK Sermon done indeed so naturally as if the once Protestant Author had dropt not out of the Church of England but a Conventicle into Popery His late Majesties Papers Answered with Reason and whatever is pretended with respect too by Us instead of being Vindicated ridiculed in the Reply In which it is hard to say whether the Author has least shewn his charity to us or his respect to the Persons and Church that he defends These are the new Methods that are now taken up but sure such as neither Church I suppose will be very well satisfied with And which seem more accommodated to the Genius of those Sceptics who divert themselves at the expence of All Religion on both sides than designed to satisfie the sober and conscientious of either It is not improbable but that some such ingenious Piece may in a little time come forth against what I have now publish'd to call me a few ill names pass a droll or two upon the Cause tell the World how many Sheets there were in my Defence and put the curious to another Shilling expence Amicab'e Accommodation as a late Author has very gravely observed If this be the Case I hope I shall need no Apology to men of sense and sobriety if I here end both their trouble and my own together Let those who have been always used to it rally on still with Holy things if they think good for my part I esteem the Salvation of mens Souls and the Truth of Religion to be a more serious Subject than to be exposed to the levity of a Jest and made the subject of a Controversial Lampoon And if an account shall hereafter be given for every idle word that we now speak I profess I cannot but tremble to think what shall be the judgment of those men who in the midst of such unhappy differences as the Church now labours under whilst our common