with such Idolatry We find indeed that their Twenty second Article tells us that the Invocation of Saints is one of those Practices which are fond things vainly invented c. but it proceeds not so far as to call it Idolatrous And if the Book of Homilies to which he flies upon other occasions when he is prest to shew the Doctrin of his Church be more severe he is little versed in his own Doctrins if he be ignorant that several Eminent Divines of his own Church do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick Dogmatical Doctrin of the Church of England Bishop Montague Dr. Heylin Mr. Thorndike tho' they be all obliged to subscribe to it as containing a wholesome Doctrin I wish then there be not something more in the bottom of this than what appears at first sight Dr. Heylin tells us §. 2. The charge of Idolatry begun in Queen Eliz. time that when Queen Elizabeth beheld the Pope as her greatest Enemy in reference to her Mothers Marriage her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England Books were filled with bitter Revilings against the Church of Rome and all the Divine Offices Ceremonies and performances of it Cyprian Angl. pag. 342. 2d Edit but that in the next Ages the dangerous consequences of the Charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome began to be more calmly and maturely considered Rejected in King Charles the first 's time in so much that Arch-bishop Laud thought it necessary to endeavor with diligence to hinder the reprinting of those Books And what must the same Apprehensions be now again raised in the Peoples minds Must the Pope pass now for our greatest Enemy And must the common People be taught to hate Papists worse than Jews and Mahumetans Renewed at present to make us odious that the Pulpits ring again with such horrid accusations and every Book tho' pretending moderation brings now the charge of Idolatry along with it If this Author had not this design for I dare not accuse him of being a leading Man he might at least have foreseen the ill consequences which would follow in the Nation and for which I fear He and Those that set him on will one day answer before the Tribunal of the God of Peace and Unity But he thinks himself clear at least of Calumny Defence pa. 2. if he can shew that our Authors allow all that he has charged us with Calumny Not too fast I must in this also beg his pardon The consequence do's not follow that because some particular Members of the Church of Rome may have taught such Doctrins therefore the Church is guilty of them He has been often told and that according to all reason that we have nothing to do here with the Doctrin of the Schools that he must take our Doctrins from the Councils which contain the Public Authentic and Vniversally received Definitions and Decisions of the Church otherwise he touches not the necessary terms of Communion Des Pref. p. 19. But tho' he acknowledges this to be my Catholic Distinction yet he takes little or no notice of it throughout his whole Book but flies still to particular Authors to maintain his charge But what if our Authors allow not those things which he charges them with will he then acknowledge himself guilty of Calumny If he cannot bring any of our Authors that say Divine Worship is to be given to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed unless their expressions be miserably distorted or any persons that do practice it if our Missals and Pontificals do not command us to adore the Cross taking the word Adoration in that strict Sense and if I shew him in the following Articles that he mistakes the Doctrin of the Council of Trent about the Sacrisice of the Mass and the Churches Tenet about Merit I hope he will be so ingenuous as to confess that we deserve not so ill a Character and if he be so sensible of the account which must be given for idle words Close pag. 86. I hope he will likewise consult the Salvation of his Soul and repent and make satisfaction for those which are injurious to the reputation of a Church to which if he be what he professes he must acknowledg he owes some obligations as to a Mother But I charged him also with Vnsincerity in stating the Question betwixt Catholics and Protestants Unsincerity and this also touches his reputation I must confess I would willingly be tender of it but where so great a concern as the reputation of an Innocent Church is joyned with his single Honor I think I may be excused if I let the dirt fall where it ought when by wiping it off from one it must necessarily stick upon the other That which I condemned in his stating of the Question was §. 3. Catholics affirm that Protestants hold not all Fundamentals that he represented us as allowing them to hold the Antient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith. I told him that we do not allow that Proposition especially if he mean all Fundamentals Pag. 24. and that tho' the Bishop of Meaux has a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Protestants grant that Catholics hold all Fundamentals yet it do's not from thence follow that Catholics reciprocally grant them also to hold the same And what I pray is his answer to this That whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daille's Concessions Defence pa. 4. as to this Point will find it clear enough that he did if the Foundation consist of Fundamental Articles But really I have again and again considered what Monsieur de Meaux says in that Section and can find no such thing in it but that his is only Argumentum ad hominem M. de Meaux sense perverted by the Defender an Argument drawn from the Concessions of Monsieur Daillé and from what is manifest to every one viz. That we believe all those Articles which Protestants call Fundamental But he neither says nor insinuates Expos Sect. 2. pag. 3. nor so much as shews it to be his Opinion that the Protestants hold all those Articles which Catholics call Fundamental But he who can find That in the Bishops Argument The Vindicators sense perverted by the Defender Def. pag. 5. can find also that I my self confess that the Articles which we hold and they contradict do by evident and undoubted consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental I know not with what Spectacles he Reads but I think any judicious Reader will grant that I never said any such thing 'T is true I tell him Vindic. pa. 23. that were the Doctrins and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrins and
the Fathers of the first 400 years some of which I have before shewn had as affective expressions to the Saints even in their Sermons and Catechistical Discourses as any now used by the Church even in her Hymns and if he can Interpret them to be in the Antient Fathers only Innocent wishes and Rhetorical flights why can he not Interpret the Hymns after the same manner where there has been always more Poetical License taken Neither are these expressions so contrary to the Scripture phraise §. 17. The Church imitates the Scripture phrase in her Prayers to Saints For tho' our Blessed Jesus be our only Savior and Redeemer the only Rock and Foundation of his Church the sole and only Judge of the Quick and the Dead our Hope our Joy our Crown of Glory c. Yet we find a Judg 3.9 Othoniel graced in Holy Writ with the Title of Savior b Act 7.35 Moyses called a Redeemer and a c Gal 3.19 Mediator St. Paul tells St. d 1 Tim 4.16 Timothy that by doing those things which he prescribes he shall save himself and those that hear him e Math 16 28 St. Peter is Termed the Rock and Foundation upon which God would Build his Church The f Marth 19.28 Apostles and others shall sit as Judges with Christ Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel And St. Paul calls the g 1 Thes 2.19 Thessalonians his Hope his Joy his Crown of Glory Grace and Peace are the Proper Gifts of God and yet St. John says h Age 1.4 This equals a Nos cum prcle pia ben dicat Virgo Maria. to the Seven Churches in Asia Grace be unto you and Peace from him which is and which was and which is to come and from the SEVEN SPIRITS which are before the Throne Nay the very Name of God which is peculiar to the Almighty is in Holy Writ given to the Priests and Rulers of his People Ego dixi Dii estis Those then who Reading these expressions in Scripture can by a moderate Interpretation reconcile them with that Duty which we owe to God alone would do well also if in a Spirit of Charity they would not put all our expressions upon the Rack to force them to a Sense which neither the Church nor her faithful have intended As for those extravagant kind of Expressions which he confesses Bellarmin and some others are ashamed of It may suffice to tell him that if they crept into some corner of the Church they are now expunged and therefore I hope he will not have the whole to be answerable for them at this day His next Cavil is at the word Merit §. 18. Merit which we use in our public Prayers desiring God by the Merits of his Saints to grant us our Requests or accept our Sacrifices and this he thinks to be of such a nature that it makes the Merits of our Saints run parallel with the Merits of Christ Defence pag. 10. Is the word Merit never to be used but it must signify that we do by our own natural force alone deserve the reward of Grace and Glory The word Merit equivocal and often misapplied by the Defender or must Catholics be always represented as taking it in that strict sense If indeed the Word cannot be taken in any other sense he has reason to accuse us But if the Word may be taken otherwise so that we intend no more than that the Works of Christians may be said to Merit because they apply the Merits of Jesus Christ to us and are the means by which we attain eternal life in vertue of the promises of God and Merits of our Blessed Redeemer which even Mr. Thern like Epilogue lib. 2. of the Covenant of Grace cap. ult pag. 307. Thorndike acknowledges to be the sense of the Latin Fathers what Injustice is it to impose another sense upon us whereby to render us odious to the undistinguishing Multitude The moderation of the aforesaid Writer would me thinks have suited him much better who tels us That as concerning the term of Merit perpetually frequented in these Prayers Idem lib. 3. of the Laws of the Church cap. 30. pag. 357. The Mass more antient than the greatest part of the Latin Fathers An unjust cavil it has been always maintained by those of the Reformation that it is not used by the Latin Fathers in any other sense than that which they allow Therefore the Canon of the Mass saith he truly and judiciously and probably other Prayers which are still in use being more antient than the greatest part of the Latin Fathers there is no reason to make any difficulty of admitting it in that Sense But that we may further see the Injustice of this Cavil let us consider those Prayers which are all of them reduced to this Form that God would be pleased not to regard our unworthiness but the Merits of our Redeemer presupposed respect the Merits of his Saints also and for their sakes hear our Prayers or accept our Sacrifices solemnly concluding with what I told you was presupposed PER DOMINVM NOSTRVM JESVMCHRISTVM FILIVM TVVM QVI c. in which style they always end So that this is no more than to beg of God Almighty that he would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious actions and sufferings of his Saints performed in and by his Grace and upon those accounts accept our Sacrifices The word Merit in our Prayers conformable to the language of Holy Writ consonant to his regvealed Will in that matter or hear our Prayers For that this kind of Prayer is conformable to Holy Writ is manisest to any that is pleased to observe how God tels Isaac * Gen. 16.4 5. that he will bless him that he will give all those Countries to his Seed nay that all Nations of the Earth shall be blessed in it and what is the reason but Because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge my Commandments my Statutes and my Laws He again tells him Pers 24. that he will multiply his Seed for his Servant Abrahams sake Then did not (a) Exod. 32.23 Deut. 9.17 Moyses pray to God for the People desiring him to remember Abraham Isaac and Israel and not to look upon the stubborness of the People nor to their wickedness nor to their Sin Did not God shew mercy to (b) 3 Reg. 11.12 32 33 34. Salomon for his Father Davids sake and because again he kept his Commandments and his Statutes So also to the City of Juda * 4 Reg. 8 19-19.34-20.6 Isa 37 35. In another place Were not the same Abraham Isaac and Jacob mentioned by (c) 3 Reg. 18.36 Tornudike lib. 3. of the Laws of the Church cap. 30. pag. 383. Elijah in his Prayer at the Evening Sacrisice Certainly fromt these Passages the same Thorndike concludes thus As our Saviour argueth well that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are alive and shall rise
ex eisdem aut percipimus aut in futurum expectamus Sparows Canons pag. 282. that the Holy Ghost did by the Mouths of the Apostles so far Honor the Name of the Cross so odious to the Jews that under it they did not only comprehend Christ himself Crucified but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion with all the comforts fruits and promises which we receive or expect thereby But if by we and us he only mean himself and desire me to oblige him so much as to inform him what Figure that is which makes the Cross signify Christ I must send him to the aforesaid Canon which I suppose he understood when he entred into the Ministry of the Church of England tho' he has now forgot it Neither let him say that he calls for a Figure which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross for he will not find our Hymns any more guilty of that than the expressions of St. Paul before mentioned in which he will find the foregoing nay in some of them the accompanying words distinguishing Christ from the Cross and yet according to his own thirtieth Canon the Holy Ghost under the word Cross did comprehend not only Christ crucisied but the force effects and merits of his Death and Passion c. But to examin more particularly this Hymn which he instances He formerly bogled only at the Stroph O crux ave spes unica Exposit pag. 14. Hail O Cross our only hope c. In which as I then told him it is manifest the Church makes her addresses to the Cross with Christ that is to Christ Crucified upon the Cross Christ our only Hope as the words spes unica sufficiently demonstrate for he will not have us certainly to have two only Hopes neither will others surely whatsoever he does think us so silly as to make a formal Prayer to an insensible thing But in vindication of himself he brings St. Thomas acknowledging the worship of Latria due to the Cross and proving it as he says from this Hymn to which I have already answered and shall not here repeat it again and picks out at pleasure three other Strophs of that Hymn in which as he says the Cross is distinguished from Christ What if it be in those three Stanza's does it necessarily follow that it is so in this too For my part I see no such consequence And must certainly conclude that if the Apostles did by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost comprehend Christ and all the benefit of his Passion under the word Cross the Church which is also taught by the same Holy Spirit ought not to be censured for the same Of Reliques AS for Reliques §. 27. we are called here to a Verbal Disputation And because Veneration Worship and Adoration are frequently confounded in our Authors he endeavors from several of them to justifie his Translating of the Word Venerari in the Conncil of Trent by Worship in his Exposition I do not love to prolong Disputes and therefore shall readily give him leave to use the word Worship upon condition that he take it in the sense of those Authors who understand no more than an Honor or Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Remains of those Saints who were once the Temples of the living God and not a Worship or Adoration taken in its strict sense Only I must tell him that we do not seek to those Sacred Monuments for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance No Prayers to Reliques or Monuments as he very falsly insinuated from the Council and now to justify himself makes use of as great a piece of Scholarship as can well be paralleld I told him That the Words of the Council were That they who affirm that no â—â—â—eration or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or that those Reliques and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably Honored by the Faithful or that they the Faithful do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints to the end they may obtain their aid the aid of the Saints EORVM are wholly to be condemned as the Church does now and has formerly condemned them But alas it seems I did not understand the Latin or else I had a mind to Cavil for he tels his Reader my Citation of the words of the Council was only a Trick to deceive those who understood it only in my Translation that I transposed the Latin on purpose to raise a Dust to deceive the Reader the true Order being plainly as he before rendred it so that they who shall affirm That no Worship or Honor is due to the Reliques of Saints or That these and the like Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honored and that for the obtaining of their Help the Help of those Sacred Monuments A false Tranâ—ation EORVM the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented are to be condemned Certainly this was a great Crime and my throwing the false Translation upon him one of the reasons I suppose why he gave me that pious Admonition Presace pag. xvi Intreating me by the common name of Christian and those hopes of Eternity after which he believes we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend to consider how deagerous this way I have taken is what mischiesi it will bring in the Opinion of all good Men of what soever perswasion they be to the very cause that is maintained by such Means In a word what a sad parchase it will prove in the end if to lessen the reputation of an unknown obscure Adversary I should do that which shall lose me my own Soul. But really I must desire this Gentleman to cast once more his Eye upon the Latin and see whether of us two have rendred it right in English For my own part in his own words I thank God my Religion needs not such Defences Ibid. nor would I ever have used those means to assert it if it did I was always taught that no evil was to be done tho' for a good end nor was I ever brought up in any Schools that esteemed the Interest of the Church so Sacred as to be able to sanctify the worst of Means that can be made use of to promote it I have indeed heard some Roman Catholics accused as if they taught such Doctrins but I always found the Galumny stand at the Accusers Doors whose Art was only to cry Whore first And as for the Defender I hope if he be convinced he has done me and the Council of Trent I may say also the Catholic Church an Injury in this he will perform his Promise and think himself indispensably obliged to make a public Acknowledgment of it and thank the Vindicator that has called him to so necessary a Duty I appeal then to any Jury of Scholars in the World Whether when I Translated these words Ita ut affirmantes EORVM opis impetranda causâ memorias
agreeing word for word with the True one but a little Justice must needs make them acknowledge the difference there to regard only the Beauty or Conciseness of the Style and not at all the Substance of the Faith. This is visible even in the instances which you say they produce from that pretended first Edition Had I said for Example that the honor which is given to the Blessed Virgin ought to be blamed if it were not Religious that is to say if it did not refer to God who is the Object of Religion there is nothing but truth in that expression if we examin it to the bottom And if afterwards I have given it another Turn it is only that I might speak with more Brevity and avoid the Pitiful Equivocations which are every day made upon the Word Religious I would fain ask the Protestants of England if the Feasts they there Celebrate in honor of the Saints do not make a part of the Religious Worship they pay to God in Testimony of their thanks for his having Sanctified them and Crown'd them with Glory In a word that I may not lose time in discussing such trivial things and slight changes that I can scarce remember 'em my self let such as are minded to maintain them to be more considerable than I say they are only put their pretended Edition into the hands of some person of Credit where I may have it seen by some of my Friends and I do then engage my self either to shew the manifest Falsity of it or if it has been truly Printed after my Manuscript to make appear as clear as the day that the differences they so much magnifie deserve not even to be thought upon You see Reverend Father that I persue as far as I can the design of your Charity towards the weak for as to my self once more what have I to do to defend such slight corrections seeing I should be very ready to acknowledge great faults had I been so meanly instructed to commit them with much hearty Thankfullness towards God who had open'd my Eyes to see them There is nothing in the Third Objection that particularly concerns me and I must tell you freely I am so far from being moved by the Epistle of St. Chrysostom which your Ministers tax the Sorbon to have supprest that on the contrary I am perswaded it is very advantagious to the Church Insomuch that I am so far from suppressing of it That I shall always advise it should be Published as all the other works of the Fathers in which there is only some difficulties in appearance but never any solid Objections against the Doctrin of the Church But this is the Subject of another entertainment and I must speak at present of the Objections they bring you against my Exposition In the Fourth Objection they will have it that a Catholic has Writ against my Book because they have as they say heard M. Conrart say that he had seen the Writings With their Permission who make such vain Objections what do they pretend to conclude from thence And suppose upon the Credit of Monsieur Conrart a Huguenot hot headed if any one ever was with his Religion they should suffer themselves to be persuaded that a Catholic did Write against me Are there not Good and had Catholics Jealous Indiscreet and Ignorant ones And what can any one think of such a Catholic who has none but Huguenots for his Confidents in a work he undertakes against a Bishop of his own Communion Certainly it shews a great weakness to magnifie such poor Objections And they who suffer themselves to be imposed on by them must needs have a mighty inclination to be deceived Fifth Objection I still continue to say that I have never Read Father Cressets Book which they bring against me I know well indeed that Monsieur Jurieux Objected it to me but seeing Protestants themselves acknowledge this Author to mingle True False and doubtful things together I do not think I am at all obliged to inform my self of the greatest part of the Objections that he brings against me any more than I do to answer him I will only add here that Father Cresset himself troubled and offended that any one should report his Doctrin to be different from mine has made his complaints to me and in a Preface to the Second Edition of his Book has declared that he varied in nothing from me unless perhaps in the manner of expression which whether it be so or no I leave to them to Examin who will please to give themselves the trouble Moreover every body knows that when we would understand what is Doctrinal we must consider what is Written Theologically and precisely in a Dogmatical work and not some exaggerations which may have escaped in some Books of Devotion In this Fifth Objection they also take notice of what I said in my Pastoral Letter touching that which passed in the Diocess of Meaux and several others as I was informed by the Bishops my Brethren and other my Friends And I do again assert in the Presence of God who is to Judge the Living and the Dead that I spoke nothing but the Truth and that the Author de la Republique des Lettres received very bad intelligence when he said that I intended to strike that Clause out of the following Editions whereas for my part I never so much as Dreamt of doing it As for what they Object in the Sixth place about Cardinal Capisucchi you see as well as I Reverend Father that it is a weak Objection which runs upon the Equivocation of the word Latria you understand the School Distinctions between Absolute and Relative Worship And in short all this falls so visibly into a Dispute about words that I cannot imagin how Men of Sense can amuse themselves about it As for me who never engaged my self to defend the expressions of the School tho' never so easie to be explicated but only the Language of the Church in her decisions of Faith I was not obliged to enter into those subtilties And Cardinal Capisucchi who has Writ an express Treatise of them has said nothing in the whole that contradicts me The Seventh Objection is a Letter Written to me some Years since by one Imbert who hoped he should obtain some Protection from me by telling me he suffered Persecution upon account of the same Doctrin taught by me in the Book of my Exposition I did not believe him because I was too well acquainted with my Lord the Arch-bishop of Bourdeaux his Diocesan of whom he made his complaint But as I had always lived in a strict correspondence and Friendship with that Archbishop I wrote to him upon this Subject and understood that this Mr. Imbert was a hot-headed Man who had done even in the Church very remarkable extravagancies which he was more cautious than to boast of to me His conduct had been tainted with many other irregularities which indeed hindered me from
A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRIN OF THE Church of England Being a Further VINDICATION OF THE Bishop of CONDOM'S Exposition of the Doctrin of the CATHOLIC CHURCH With a second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1687. THE PREFACE THEY who consider seriously the mischief which Heresie and Schism bring along with them §. 1. The mischief of Heresie and Schism not only to the individual persons that are guilty of them but also to the Nations in which they are propagated will certainly commend the endeavors of those Sons of Peace who labor to Establish Truth and Unity and condemn theirs who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other They also who cast an Eye upon the Controversies about Religion which have been agitated in this and the last Age and the miserable Broyls and other worse consequences that have attended them cannot but deplore the unhappy fate of Europe which has for so long time been the Seat of this Religious War. And they who will but impartially consider matters will find Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace that Catholics have upon all occasions sought the most advantagious means to procure this Christian Peace tho' to their grief they have still been hindred from effecting this good work by the ignorance of some and the malice or self-interest of others The Defender tells us in the beginning of his Preface that several Methods have been made use of in our Neighboring Nation to reduce the pretended Reformed to the Catholic Communion but that this of the Bishop of Meaux was looked upon as exceeding all others in order to that end This shews indeed the great Zeal those persons bad for the Salvation of their Brethren And tho' the Defender is pleased to call those excellent Discourses of the Perpetuity of the Faith and the Just Prejudices against Calvinists and M. Maimbourg's peaceable Method c. Sophistical and to represent M. de Meaux's Exposition as either palliating or perverting the Doctrin of his Church Yet seeing he only asserts the former without going about to prove it and has been so unsuccesful in the later charge as I shall fully shew in the following Treatise I hope the judicious Reader will suspend his Judgment till he has examined things himself and not take all for Gospel that is said with confidence He tells us also that the Great design of these several Methods Pag 4. has been to prevent the Entring upon particular Disputes And pretends it was because Experience had taught us that such particular Disputes had been the least favorable to us of any of them But the Truth is §. 2. We neither decline particulars nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons We Appeal to Scripture we have never declined fighting with them at any Weapon nor refused upon occasion to enter upon each particular neither need we go to France for Instances we have enough at home Some even amongst the first pretended Reformers appealed to Scripture only neither would they admit of Primitive Fathers nor Councils and tho' these very persons who were for nothing but what was found in Scripture were convinced by the following Sects that their Reformation was defective if Scripture alone was to be the Rule of Reformation every Year almost since the first Revolt producing some new Reform of all those that had gone before And tho' Catholics might justly decline to argue from Scripture only till Protestants had proved it to be the Word of God by some of their own Principles yet were they not afraid to joyn Issue with them all even in the Point of Scriptures clearness for our Doctrins abstracting from the Primitive Fathers and Councils And thereupon besides several Catechisms the Catholic Scripturist and other excellent Books two Treatises were published here in England and never that I heard of Answered The first An Anchor of Christian Doctrin wherein the principal Points of Catholic Religion are proved by the only Written Word of God. in 4 Volums in 4o. Anno 1622. The other A Conference of the Catholic and Protestant Doctrin with the express words of Scripture being a second part of the Catholic Ballance Anno 1631. 4o. in which was shewn that in more than 260 Points of Controversie Catholics agree with the Holy Scripture both in words and Sense and Protestants disagree in both Other Protestants perceiving they could not maintain several Tenets and Practices of their own by the bare words of Scripture § 3. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages and despairing of Fathers and Councils of later Ages pretended at least to admit the first four General Councils and the Fathers of the first three or four hundred Years But how meer a pretence this was appeared by the many Books Written abroad upon that Subject as Coccius his Thesaurus Gualterus his Chronology and others and at home Dr. Pierce found it too hard a task to make a reply to Dean Crecy 's Answer to his Court Sermon and the present nibling at the Nubes Testium shew how hard a task they find it to elude their plain expressions A third sort of Protestants ventured to name Tradition as an useful means to arrive at the True Faith §. 4. To an uninterrupted Tradition but many excellent Treatises have shewn that no other Doctrins will bide that Test but such as are taught by the Catholic Church For Novelty which is a distinctive mark of Error appearing in the very Name of Reformation an uninterrupted Tradition can never be laid claim to by them who pretend to be Reformers And indeed the exceptions which they usually make and the General Cry against Fathers Councils and Tradition shew how little they dare rely upon them Nay there has not been any thing like an Argument produced against our Faith or to justifie their Schism but what has been abundantly Answered and refuted and yet the same Sophisms are returned upon us as Current Coyn notwithstanding they have been often brought to the Test and could not stand it Moreover Catholics have so far complyed with the infirmities of their Adversaries that they have left no Stone unturned to reduce them to Unity of Faith and that by meekness as well as powerful reasonings They have not only condescended to satisfie the curiosity of them who have most leisure by Writing large Volums upon every particular Controversie proving what they hold by Scripture Councils Fathers Reason and all other pressing Arguments but because most persons cannot get time to peruse such vast Treatises they have gon a shorter way to work and some have manifested the Truth of our Doctrin from the unerrable Authority of the Church of Christ against which he had promised that the Gates of
may be given to Creatures and because it has God for it's Ultimate Object for whose sake and upon account of whose Gifts we Honor them yet is it in a Degree Infinitely Inferior to that which we pay to God because the Object which it Regards is Infinitely Inferior to him This Inferior Honor we when we speak in proper terms call Doulia The distination of Latria and Doulia is acknowledged by sober Protestants to have its use Vostus c. nothing hinders them to be taken as no ds of art use to be taken to signifie peculiar conceptions in Christianity Thorndike Epilogue lib. 3. c. 30. pag. 364. for Hyperdoulia signifies nothing but a higher Degree of this Inferior Honor the highest Degree bearing still no proportion to that which we call Latria the one being pay'd to an Infinite increated Object the other to a finite Created Being This Inferior Religious Honor is sometimes also pay'd to Inanimate things §. 7. As in the Old Law to the Ark to Arons Rod c. and now in the New to the Sign of our Redemption to the Bible to the Altar c. If this distinction betwixt Supreme Religious Honor or Worship called Latria and inferior Religious Honor or Worship called Doulia and that which we call Civil do not please him but that he will admit only of the two Extreams and reject that Middle inferior Honor I must ask him what he will call that Honor which was payd to the Ark in the Old Law before which King a 2 Reg. 6. David Danced for the touching of which Oza was slain and the b â— Reg. 6.19 Bethsamites to the Number of 70 Men and 50000 of the Populace for having only looked into it and which was c Psal 98.5 compared with the 1 Paral. 28.2 Commanded by the Royal Prophet to be Adored Nothing of Religion here Nothing of Reverence what will he call that Reverence which God himself Commanded to be done to his Sanctuary Levit. 19.30 Must it not be called Religious Certainly the Church of England as I take it implies at least as much when amongst her Canons she enters this as one That Churches be not profaned Seeing nothing can be profaned but what hath a Religious Respect What will he call that Honor which * Sum Prineâ—pt exercitus Dominl Cecidit Josue pronus in terram Es Adorans alt Josue 5.14 Protestants pay an inferior Religious Honor to mere Creatures Josue paid to the Angel after he had told him that he was only Prince of the Army of the Lord when his own Translation says he fell on his Face to the ground and WORSHIPED I will not urge their Adoration before the Altar nor their Kneeling at the Communion because he will perhaps say they Reverence not the Altar but God and Honor not the Elements of Bread and Wine but Jesus Christ represented by them However tho' they are loath to confess it for fear of giving advantage yet they must needs allow a Religious respect to both seeing I hope he will grant that both the Altar and the Elements may be profaned Is this Respect a Religious Honor or is it only Civil If he cannot for shame say it is only Civil nor dare not say it is Divine he must admit of a Middle sort of Honor which how he will Term I know not if he call it not Religious in an inferior Degree These Notions being Cleared I hope where ever he meets with the Words Worship or Adore he will not immediately judge God or an Idol to be the object of that Cult or that a Sovereign and Divine Honor is meant by those Words but that he will give a right distinction according to the different objects Qui bene distimguit bene decet to which those Words and Actions are Appropriated which if he do I hope I shall easily make him understand our Doctrin in the following Articles What I have here said pag. 90. Clears Maldonat's Expression Cited in the close And as to what he tells us from the Index Expurgatorius that it has ordered these Words that God only is to be Adored and that no Creature is to be Adored to be Blotted out of St. Athanasius and other Authors in which they do occur I wish he had Weighed and Examined well what he Writ For tho' I have not seen the Index Expurgatorius which he mentions In libris autem Catholicorum veterum nihil mutere fas sit nisi ubi aut fraude Haereticorum aut Typographi incurpa manifestius error irrepserit yet I have Consulted the Rules Appointed at the end of the Council of Trent for the Correction of Books and the 4th § de Correctione orders that nothing be Corrected in old Catholic Authors but where a manifest Error has crops in either by the deceit of Heretics or the negligence of the Printers And the Books of Origen and Tertullian c. Si quid autem majoris momenti animadversione dignum accurrerit liceat in novis editiquibus vel ad margines vel in Scholiis adnotare ca inprimis adhibiea diligentis an ex Dodrina locisque collatis ejusdem auctoris sentenlia difficilior illustrari ac mens ejus planius explicari possit which are Printed by Catholics without any Castigations are a plain proof of our Integrity and therefore I doubt not but that our Defender is either out in his Citation or that the word Adore is taken by them in a less strict Sense and only inserted in the Margent or Indexes of St. Athanasius contrary to his Sense and Meaning ART III. Invocation of Saints THis being one of those Points in which as he says he has promised to shew §. 8. that we adore Men and Women by such as Invocation as cannot possibly belong to any but God only and that we make the Merits of our Saints to run Parallel with the Merits of Christ it will be necessary that I shew him wherein his Mistake lyes and the injustice of that Imputation In order to which Prayer Invocation c. are equivocal terms abused by the Defender Epilogue Of the Laws of the Church c. 30. pag. 353. as in the last Article I shewed That the terms of Honor Respect Worship Adoration c. were equivocal so must I here also First premise that the words Prayer Invocation calling upon Address c. are as Mr. Thorndike himself says whose Testimony I all along alledge not so much as the Bishop of Condom says of Mr. Daille to convince them by the Authority of their most Learned Ministers who were never that I heard of censured by their Church as because what he says is in it self evident or may be in spite of our Hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unless we use that Diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Man neither are they so proper to God but
that whether you will or not every Petition to a Prince or a Court of Justice is necessarily a Prayer and he that makes it Invocates or calls upon that Prince or Court for Favor or for Justice 2. Iid. Saints may be Honored I must also with the same Mr. Thorndike say that to dispute whether we are bound to Honor those whom we call properly Saints or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not For if God hath said I will Honor those who Honor me it becomes as certainly to Honor them too And that whether this Honor be Religious or Civil becomes disputable only for want of words vulgar use not having provided proper terms to signify all conceptions which come not from common sense 3. I suppose Mr. Saints pray for us Thorndike as in them spoke also the sense of his Church when he tels us and proves it from undeniable (a) Apoc. v. 8. viii 3. Gen. xxvi 5.24 Exod. xxxii 13. Deut. ix 27. 1 Kings xi 1.32 33 34. xv 4 2 Kings viii 19. xix 34. xx 6. Esd xxxvii 35. 1 Kings xviii 36. 1 Chron. xxix 28. Texts of Scripture and (b) St. Cyprian St. Jerome St. Augustin St. Leo St. Gregory and many more which he could bring passages of the Fathers Ibid. pag. 354. Ibid. pag. 355. Whether they be our Mediators Intercessors or Advocates is only a contention about words That it is not to be doubted that the Saints in Happiness pray for the Church Militant and that therefore whatsoever may be disputed whether Saints or Angels in this regard may be counted Mediators Intercessors or Advocates between God and us will be mere contentions about words which I intend to avoid if I can in all controversial Discourses So that the difference betwixt Catholics and moderate Protestants is not Whether Saints or Angels are to be Honored with an inferior Honor or whether they pray for us but Whether it be lawful for us to Pray to them not in that Sense as if we intended by that Prayer to do that to them which they do to God for us for that as the same Mr. Ibid. pag. 356. Thorndike well observes still really and actually as the same Author notes apprehending them to be creatures which prevents Idolatry could not be said without Idolatry but Whether it be lawfull for us to beseech or intreat them to pray for us And the question betwixt the Defender and us is We may desire them to pray for us Whether such kind of Addresses as these are of such a Nature as to make Gods as he calls them of Men and Women a very disrespectful Term for the Saints who reign with God whom we acknowledge to be our fellow-creatures however exalted to such a glorified State. Perhaps he will here tell me with the same Mr. Thorndike §. 9. That there may be three sorts of Prayers to Saints Three for is of Prayer to Saints accordidg to Mr. Therndike Ibid. The first of those that are made to God but to desire his blessings by and thro' the Merits and Interecession of the Saints The second of those Prayers which are reduced to an Or apronobis And the third when one desires immediately of the Saints the same Blessings Spiritual and Temperal Ibid. pa. 357. which all Christians require of God That as to the first he acknowledges it to be utterly agretable with Christianity Tho' he cannot go so far with Mr. Therâ—â—â—â— as to allow of the word Meris in those Prayers which he thinks makes the Merits of our Saints râ—â— Parallel with the Merits of Christ That the second had the Begâ—â—â—ing in the â— flourishing vines of the Church after Constantine * This is Mr. Thorndikes assertion who affirmas that the lights of the Greek and Letin Churches Bassi Nazlanzen Nyssene Ambrose Jerom Augustin Chrysostom both the Cyrlls Theodoret Fulgeutlus Gregory the Great Leo more or rather all after that time have all of them spoken to the Saints departed and desired their assistance Ibid. pag. 358. but that they were rather 〈…〉 and Rhetorical Flights then direct Prayers and that in them they begun to depart from the practice and Tradition of the three Ages before them But as to the third that he has sufficiently shewn in his Appendix to this third Article that the Church of Rome's Devotions to the Saints are such and that therefore she adores Men and Women To all which I will as briefly as I can give him positive Answers and examin his grounds because he taxes me with negligence in that Point And First §. 10. As to what he says that Monsieur Daillè himself had the same Notion he has of the Expressions of the Primitive Fathers of the Fourth Age viz. that they were rather Innocent wishes and Rhetorical flights than Prayers I do not doubt of it but I think the Rhetoric lies at his door who flies to such a poor shift It seems these were some of the Duriores loci more difficult passages which some only nibled as others could not disgest and he only shifts off under the notion of Rhetorical flights or novelties And therefore Monsieur de Meaux was not out as this Gentleman seems to Insinuate when he said Exposit Sect. 3. page 4. that Protestants in General obliged by the sirength of Truth begin to acknowledge the Custom of Praying to Saints and Honoring their Reliques was Established even in the Fourth Age of the Church Pretestants grant Praying to Saints to have been established in the fourth Age. or that M. Daillè grants as much For certainly his accusing the Fathers of that Age of altering in that Point the Doctrin of the three foregoing Ages and his mincing the Boldness of his Assertion by his Neque 〈◊〉 à vere longe aberr aturum puto and his ferè sunt bujus generis shews that he could not deny but that many of them could not pass for such Defence pa. 7. Howeves the Defender is of Monsieur Daillè's Religion in this §. 11. point and tells us that these Addresses were really of this lind â—nd proves it first from two Examples of St. Gregory Natianzen â—nd from the opinion of those Ages that the Saints departed were â—t admitted to the sight of God immediatly upon their Decease But his first Argument is altogether insufficient The Prayers of the Primitive Fathens to Saints were not Rhetorical slights only For a I say suppose for with leave of the Greek Scollast the patticle If dos not always denote â— doubt but rather takes it for granted So in this place if St. Gregory iustead of hear O Great Soul of Constintint if live last hear me had sald as this Author would have him hear O Grees Soul but I know not â—â—better thou dest or no the Rhetotlcal slight had been spoyled How much rather then may we supâ—e that the Sense of this Pather
deprecamur paestantissimam omnium matrisque honore libere gloriantem memoriam indesinen em nostre retine sanctissima Dei genitrix nostri inquam qui in te ornamur bymuisque divinis memoriam tui nullo lempore desituram sed perpetvo victuram celebramus Tu etiam senex honorate Symeox piae nossrae religiouis primè suscepior resurrectionisque fidelium exarrator intercede pro nobis apud Deum servatorem quem ulnis tuis excipere dignus fuisti apud Mag. Biblooth PP Method Epise Hom. in Festo Purif B. M. pag. 362. F. St. Methodius's Addresses to our Belssed Lady and Holy Simeon to be asformal as any in the Breviary nor say he lived not in the time he limits I am certain if he had found such or the like Addresses in our Prayers he would have put them upon the stretch and perhaps have made them pass with his Learned Auditory for little less than Blasphemies But it may be he will have some respect for Antiquity and give a more favorable construction to these Fathers Expressions which when he has once learned to do I hope he will in Charity extend it also to the Church which accustoms her self to speak the Language of Scripture and Primitive Fathers and is not willing to change her Expressions which may be taken in a good sense because some few find fault with them His next Argument is §. 15. Defence p. 9. That the Maxims of those Antient Fathers concerning Prayer were such as are utterly repugnant to such an Invocation seeing they defined Prayer as due to God only and made it their great Argument to prove our Saviour to be God because he was prayed to This Argument arises I am afraid from an affected misapplication of the word Prayer So that tho' the Defender know it well enough yet I must tell the less circumspect Readers that Prayer is a word which may be taken in a double Sense In one it is only due to God and in this Sense it is An affected misapplication of the word Prayer that St. Thomas defines it Elevatio mentis in Deum an Elevation of the Mind to God such a Prayer as this being always payd as a debt due to our Blessed Saviour it was a convincing proof against the Arians that he is God and is so to this day against the Socinians But taking Prayer Invocation c. in another Sense it is only due to Creatures and of this nature is that which we address to Saints desiring them to Pray for us help or assist us by their Prayers c. Akind of Prayer says the Bishop of Meaux Advertisement pag. 10. which by it's own nature is so far from being reserved by God to himself who is an Independent Being that it can never be Addressed to him For we cannot without injury to God and Christ Address our selves to them with an Ora pro nobis I cannot think but that this Author knew this well enough but it served his turn to make a Cry and because I did not then Answer such frivolous Objections as these he was willing some of his Learned Admirers should think them unanswerable Another piece of the like Artifice is his bold pretensions of what they have to say for themselves indeed as he says they have repeated things so often that the World grows weary of them seeing they are nothing but what has been Answered and Objected Objected and Answered every year almost since the pretended Reformation But since he pretends they have such clear proofs from Scripture and Fathers §. 16. Protestants destitute of Scripture proofs against the Doctrin of Invocation of Saints he would have done well to have brought some convincing ones from either of them such I mean as say it is unlawful to desire the Saints who Reign with God to joyn their Prayers with ours and not to affirm that every Text of Scripture that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone is a Demonstration against us as if we gave Divine Worship to the Saints which if he would speak his Conscience he knows we do not tho' he sometimes as I hear tells his Auditory we do Nor bring us passages of Scripture which make nothing against us unless he will always take Prayer Invocation Calling upon and Believing in that strict Sense in which they are Duties only to be pay'd to God. To say we must Pray to God and God only is a true Proposition if we take Prayer in that strict notion and so it is to say we must Worship God and God only Serve God and him only Honor God and God only Love God and God only Fear God and God only but seeing our Defender cannot deny but that we may Worship Serve Honor Love Fear and Obey our fellow Creatures with an Inferior Degree of Worship Service Honor c. why may we not also make Inferior kinds of Addresses to them such as are far from robbing God of one Iota of his Prerogatives What I have here said will be enough I hope to silence all those cavils that are raised against our Doctrin but if nothing will do but Holy Writ let him shew us those plain Texts he pretends till then we are in Possession A Possession by his own and our Adversaries acknowledgment of above 1300 years and by consequence a Possession which no Man in his wits would relinquish his right to because this Author does not know how to distinguish betwixt those Prayers and Addresses which are made to God and those Petitions which are made to his Servants What follows in the Appendix Pag. 11. is grounded upon the same voluntary fixing the words which are Equivocal to an Univocal Sense If the Gentleman who pretends so much to be a Christian and a Scholar had only like either of them taken notice of what Monsieur de Meaux has said in this Article and repeated in his Advertisement Art. 4. pag. 5. that in what Terms soever those Prayers which we Address to Saints are couched the intention of the Church and of her Faithful reduces them always to this Form PRAY FOR VS All our Prayers to Saints are reduced to an Ora pro nobis he would have saved himself the labor of amassing such a Specimen and the Reader the trouble of perusing it to as little purpose For what if the Church in her Hymns Antiphons or Versicles make her Addresses to the Saints for Protection Power against our Enemies help assistance c. do's it not appear manifestly to any one who is not wilful in his mistakes that these are reduced to a bare Ora pro nobis and that as the Bishop well observed it is a kind of Aid Advert pag. 11. Succor and Protection to recommend the Miserable to him who alone can comfort them This Author however needed not to have quarrelled with these or the like expressions he knows well enough if he would be but so ingenuous as to acknowledge it that several of
Mode he tells us the KING and his IMAGE are not TWO but ONE KING one would think it should not be so difficult a thing for him to understand also how Jesus Christ and his Image are but one Christ and how the Adoration that is Paid to them is but one Adoration to one Christ Hear his own words In a word in the Hypostatical Vnion tho' there be two distinct Natures God and Man yet there is but one Person one Son made up of both So In the Holy Eucharist tho' there be Two different things united the Bread and Christs Body yet we do not say there be two Bodies but one mystical Body of Christ made up of both as the KING and his IMAGE to use the Similitude of the Antient Fathers are not TWO but ONE King c. Which expression is the very ground why St. Thomas Cardinal Capisucchi c. maintain that Doctrin as appears by the words of the Cardinal cited by the Defender with the reason annexed to it which he thought not fit to transcribe but which I have mentioned in the Preface This Doctrin taken in this sense as paying nothing to the Image it self See before in the Margent at * but only as it is one in respect of it's representation with the person whose Image it is or if we speak properly with St. Thomas taken not as if we adored the Cross but only Christ Crucified upon it and making use of the Cross only to help us to call him to mind and form in our Imaginations the Image of him whom we ought to adore this Doctrin I say thus taken is innocent and they who hold it are no more guilty of Idolatry for making use of that material Image than they who form one in their Imagination either according to the Picture they saw last or the Discourse they heard or read before which Idea they adore Christ represented by it not distinguishing him from that Idea it self which is in some sense one in it's representative nature with him whom it represents What necessity then is there that St. Thomas who as it is manifest intended that sense or the Pontifical which speaks in the same manner should be accused of Idolatry But this Scholastic nicety is not easily understood by every Doctor of the Populace and therefore they must be made to believe That Catholics hold the Cross it self absolutely and in the grossest manner is to be adored as Jesus Christ otherwise they could not so easily make them pass for Idolaters This then may suffice concerning the Doctrin of St. Thomas §. 24. The Pontifical as also in Answer to that Expression taken out of the Rubric of the Pontifical where it is mentioned that the Legats Cross must take place of the Emperors Sword because Relativè Latria is due thereto yea also to that of the Messieurs du Port Royal Def. pa. 24. who speak of adoring the Holy Thorn In all which we may say with St. Thomas as above that there is some kind of Impropriety in the Speech but such as clears it self by the application of the premises His next Argument is taken from the Pontifical in the Ceremony of the Benediction of a new Cross I told him he had mutilated a Sentence and left out two little words Propter Deum for Gods sake which would have sufficiently answered his Objection A Falsification He cannot deny the Fact but says he left out others also as much to the purpose as these I am sorry that he did What amends does he make in this Defence He troubles himself to give us an Abridgment of the Ceremony and here and there picks up expressions which may seem scandalous to those who like mortal Enemies are resolved to wrest every word and action of their Adversaries to an odious sense and at last magisterially pronounces those pious Ejaculations to be rather magical Incantations than Prayers and the Ceremony of this Dedication he should have said Benediction to be Superstition not to say worse But pray Pag. 13.19 Good Sir call to mind the two words you made a shift to leave out Propter Deum Is not all that is here done done for Gods sake Are not the Prayers addressed to him Are not the Ceremoneis as well as the Cross it self which is blessed ordained to put us in mind of the Benefits of our Redemption of the price was payd for our sins of the Obligations we have received upon that account and to excite us to perform them What is it then you find in these Prayers An Unchristian and Unscholar-like Calumny or in this Ceremony designed for the Honor and Glory of God deserving that Vnchristian and Vnscholar-like expression of Superstition or magical Incantations The words you câ—e are that God would bloss this Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind a means for the establishing our Faith for the encrease of good Works for the Redemption of Souls and a comfort and Protection against the crueâ— darts of our Enemies What is there I pray amiss in these words unless you wrest them to a Sense the Church never intended Does not every pious Preacher beg the same for the Discourse he is about to make to the People May not every Author of a devout Book beg of God that he would give a Blessing to his Labors that what he writes may be a saving Remedy to Mankind that it may establish the Faith of his Readers excite them to the performance of Good works aid them to work out their Redemption be their Comfort and Consolation and arm them with Arguments of defence against the Suggestions of their Enemies What Magic is there in all this And why I pray may not we then beg the same for these Books of the unlearned these Emblems or if I may so call them Dumb Sermons which as they are naturally apt to put us in mind of the price of our Redemption will no doubt of it by the assistance of Gods Grace which we implore animate us to perform those Duties which are required of us in order to the application of our Ransom But the Bishop blesses the Incense sprinkles the Cross with Holy Water incenses it and then Consecrates it in these words Let this Wood be sanctified c. And after a long Preamble if the Cross be not of Wood beseeches God that he would SANC ✚ TIFY to himself this CROSS c. What is it he here again quarrels at Where is the foul the notorious Idolatry Pag. 18. The use of Incense and Holy-water very antitient Is it the Incense or the sprinkling with Holy Water Certainly he will not condemn the use of those Creatures sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer a Practice so ancient and universal in the Church that according to (a) Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institurum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime
they now adventure to say that were things clearly stated and distinguished one from another the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very grew a and that they can safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be will and rightly explained And he has advanced nothing but what is the Doctrin of the Council of Tront The Expositor and I were agreed in most things §. 30 Sanctification and Justification only I told him I thought he would be hard put to it to prove the Distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification to be the Doctrin of the Church of England and that he imposed upon us when he affirmed us so to make our Inward Righteousness a part of Justification that by Consequence we said our Justification it self is wrought by out good Works To the first It appears indeed he is hard put to it when he is forced to a Deduction how clear let others judge from their 11th and 12th Articles and from the Homily of Salvation which as he cites it calls the forgiveness of sins Justification but does not say that Justification is only the Remission of our sins which was his undertaking But had I told him of the little less than contradictions he fell under in that place he would have seen the difficulty of getting clear For having told us before that they confess with M. de Meaux Expos pag. 19. that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed but actually Communicated to the Faithful He here tels us Pag. 20. They believe their sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us Nay tho' he tell us their Church by Justification understands only the Remission of sins Contradictions and by Sanctification the Production of the habit of Righteousness in us yet within two lines he tells us that this Remission of sin is only given to those that Repent and that they who Repent are those in whom the Hoty Ghost produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and holiness of Life which is just as much as to say we distinguish Justification and Sanctification But no man can be Justifiel unless he be also Sanctified That our sins are Pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us but that his Merits are not only imputed but actudlly Communieated to us He will oblige us if he please to tell us how these agree as also how the Doctrin of their 11th Article We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour J. Christ by Faith and not for our own works and deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a wholesomt Doctâ—in and very full of comfost Art. 11. Sparrows Canons pag. 95. that we are Justified by Faith only is consistent with what he tells us pag. 19 of his Exposition that none of those things which precede our Justification whether our Faith or our Good works could Merit this Grace And what he summs up pag. 21. That Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commandments from time to time and if we persevere in this Cavenant Crowns us finally with Eternal Life Thus far he But Is awaking and answering to his Call is persevering in his Covenant no good works And if these be necessary to have God freely Justifie us and Grown us with Eternal Life how are we I pray Justified by Faith only As for the other part in which I told him §. 31. he imposed upon â—s as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of our Justification and so by consequence said that our Justification it self is wrought also by our Good works A false Imposition Doth he think that I told him he imposed upon us when he affirmed that we comprehend under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the Production of that inherent Righteousness which they call Sanctification No the Imposition did notilie in that part of the Proposition Our justification is gratis Gratis autem justificari ideo dicamur Quia nihileorum quae justificationem praeccdunt sive fides sive opera ipsam Justi ficationis gratiam promeretur Si enim Graâ—ia est jam non ex operibus Alioquin ut idem Apostolus inqun Gratia jam non est Gratia. Conc. Trid. Sess 6. de Justif cap. 8. but in the consequence which he drew viz. That we say our Justification is wrought also by our Good works This was the Imposition and if he had remembred what he had Copied out of the Bishops Exposition and the Bishop from the Council he would not have gone about to justifie his Accusation For the words are these We believe with him the Bishop of Meaux That our Sins are â—eely for given by Gods Mercy through Christ and that none of those things which precede Iustification whether our Faith or our good works could merit this Grace to which very words the Council of Trent adds this reason for if it Justification be a Grace it prâ—ceeds not from Good Works for other wise as the same Apostle says Grace would be nom no more Grace Well how do's he justifie his Imposition By a Canon of the Council forsooth which has not one word in it to his purpose but it seems he either did not understand it or else had a mind so to blunder it in his Translation that they who understood not the Latin might take it for granted to speak his Sense And by I know not what negligence of the Corrector fuerit was Printed instead of fiunt so that even those who did understand the Language could not find out the Error without consulting the Council it self The Council speaks of persons already Justified Si quiâ— dixerit konsinis justificati boma opers ita esse dexa Dei ut non sint etiam bona ipsim Justisicati merita aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei Gratiam Jesu Christi meritum cujus vivum membrum est fiunt non verè mereri augmentum Gratiae vitam aeternam iâ—siut vitae aeternae si tamen in gratia decesserit consecutioâ—em atque etiam Glorie augmentum Anathema sis and tells you that their good works performed through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Members they are do truly Merit Increase of Grace and Eternal Life and that they are not so the gifts of God but that they are also the
good Merits of the same Justified person But how do's all this prove that the good works of a person who is not Justified Merit his first Justification There 's the Point We say indeed that it is necessary the free Will should co-operate with the Grace of God and that a person should be disposed by convenient preparations to receive that Grace but still we say it is a Grace which is given us Gratis and as I said before from the Council which neither Faith nor good works which precede Justification could Merit for us His Translation is amiss in this A false Translation that he renders these words Aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus c. Thus Or that he being Justified by good works do's not truly Merit increase of Grace c. As if he were Justified by his good Works Whereas the Sense is manifestly this Or whoever shall say that he who is Justified do's not by his good works which are performed by him through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Member he is truly Merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life let him be Anathema That this was the Sense of that Canon he seems to have understood when in the next Page he expresses it thus that our Doctrin of Merits in that Canon is That Man being Justified by the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ do's then truly Meru both encrease of Grace and Eternal Life So that it appears manifestly tho' he would disguise it that we do not say our Works done out of the state of Grace are meritorious of Grace or Salvation But we say that those good works which are done in the state of Grace do Merit an increase of Grace and if they be persever'd in to the last the reward of Glory If he deny this let him speak plain but let him take care how he thwarts the many express Texts of Scripture which prove our Doctrin ART VI. Of Merits I Told him upon this Article that the Niceties of the Schools §. 32. Vindic. pag. 48. Scholastic Niceties to be avoided as they make no Division in the Church so ought they not to make any amongst Christians But yet for all this our Defender must have recourse to them for want of better hold The Opinions of Bellarmin Vasquez Scotus c. must be brought again and their words quoted in the Margent as if the whole stress of the cause lay there But would he have considered what he was forced to acknowledge that Bellarmin is against Scotus Vasquez against Bellarmin c. and have reflected that all of them were Catholics united in the Principles of one Faith tho' dissenting in these School Questions I say would he but have considered these things he would have saved himself a great deal of pains and his Readers much trouble But he says he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our Greatest Men whose names were neither less nor less deservedly celebrated in their Generations than M. de Meaux 's or the Vindicators forsooth can be now No doubt those persons Names were and are deservedly Celebrated in Generationibus suis and whatever proportion the Bishop of Meaux may Challenge in the esteem of the World amongst these Celebrated Writers the Vindicator defires only to rest in his obscurity But to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our greatest Men is what may pass in Discourse or from the Pulpit where no body contradicts him but should not have been exposed to view in Print because it will not abide the Tryal I never heard that these persons writ direct Expositions upon the Council it self tho' they make use of it for the establishment of their private opinions And to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools when he had recourse to Merit de Condigno and the various opinions of Catholic Divines upon that Question is such a piece of Boldness Bellarmin having summed up the three opinions the Defender mentioned and rejected the first and third tho' he affirmed them to be far from Heresie says he looks upon the middle Sentence to be the more probable Nobis media sententia probabiltor esse videtur de Justif lib v. c. 17. A. pa. 1122. The very Titles also of the Chapters cited by the Desender shew that what Vasquez there disputes of is only a Scholastic Question In operibus justerum non esse meritum simpliciter aut condignum vitae aeternae nonnulli Scholastici docuerunt Vasquez Quaest 114. disp 213. cap. 3. Tit. See also the Titles of the 1 2 3 and 4. Chapters of his next Disputation that cannot pass the honest Readers censure What I have already observed of the various opinions of Catholic Divines summed up by those Authors he mentions in the respective Chapters is a sufficient proof of what I say and I shall not trouble my Readers with any other But the Council of Trent has he says spoken so uncertainly in this point § 33. as plainly shews either they did not know themselves what they would establish or were unwilling that others should How great pity it is so learned and sincere a Censor as this Defender is lived not in that Age or assisted not at that very Council What is it they did not know Was it the Doctrin of the Church concerning Merits Or was it the Doctrin of the Schools Neither the one nor the other But this he may say and that truly that they were not willing to enter into the particular disputes of the Schools nor to mix uncertainties tho' of the highest probability with what they had been always taught to be of Faith No wonder therefore if they speak not so positively in those differences he proposes seeing they are not Doctrins of the Church but the opinions of our Schools I say therefore to him that if he like not Vasquez nor the Cardinals opinion pray let him follow that of Scotus and he will be still a Catholic as to that point But Maldonate comes in The Defender says my Exception against his false Quotation is Impertinent Why so good Sir To tell you A mutilation that you mutilate Sentences at pleasure and give us what you please for the Sense of our Authors His words were We do as properly and truly when we do well together with the Grace of God Merit areward as we do Merit punishment when we do ill without it And is it Impertinent to tell you you read the Author in hast or copied the words from some other which made you leave out those words together with the Grace of God Yes says he It is impertinent as to them who dispute not the Principle but the Merit of Good Works Pray who ever maintained that Good Works had any Merit or were acceptable unless joyned with the Principle the Grace of God And if you will not take the Principle
together with the Action which is therefore Meritorious because joyned with that Principle you dispute not against us no more than they would do who to deny the power of Water in Baptism to wash away Original Sin should speak nothing of the Power of God annexed to the Sacrament or tell us it is impertinent to mention it c. St. Paul said Omnia possum in co qui me confortat that he could do all in him that strengthened him he tells us that he labored more than all the rest but yet not he but the Grace of God with him Jam non ego sed Gratia Dei mecum Nay The Churches Doctrin our Blessed Saviour tells us that we can do nothing without him sine me nihil potestis facere Will any one say Cum enim ille ipse Christus Jesus tanquam caput in membra tanquam vitis in palmites in ipsos Justificatos jugiter virtutem influat quae virtus bona corum opera somper antecedit comitatur subsequitur sine qua nuto paâ—â—o grata meriteria esse possent Nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est quo minus plene illis quidem operibus quae in Deo sunt facta Divinae legi pro hujus vitae statu satisfecisse vitam aeternam suo etiam tempora si lamen in gratia decesserint consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur Cum Christus Salvator noster aicat si 〈◊〉 biberit ex aqua quam ego dabo ti non sities in aternum sed fiet in eâ— sons aquae salientis invitem 〈◊〉 Conâ— Trid. sess 6. de Justif cap. 16. that St. Paul did nothing all this time because if he had not had that Divine Assistance he could not have done it Or would it have been impertinent to keep such Disputants to the words of the Text They who would see our Doctrin upon this Point need but look into the Council of Trent where notwithstanding all the Obscurity he pretends they will find it clearly expressed that we only therefore think the Good Works of Justified persons to be Meritorious and Acceptable to God because being performed in the Grace of Jesus Christ who at all times showers down a Powerful Influence upon Justified persons as the Head upon the Members and as the Vine into it's Branches which Powerful Influence preceeds accompanies and follows all their actions they want nothing to make them truly Meritorious seeing our Lord himself has told us that if any one drink of the Water that he will give him he shall not thirst for ever but it shall be in him a Fountain of Water springing into Eternal Life ART VII SECT 1. Of Satisfactions AFter having given so full an Account of the Doctrin of the Council of Trent §. 34. Defence p. 32. from the Council it self in my Vindication I little thought any one would have charged me and Monsieur de Meaux with going contrary to the Council without any further proof of the Accusation but a bare citation in the Margent of the very Chapter I had almost entirely rendred into English and the Canon expressing that same Doctrin He would have done well to have shewn in what place the Council ascribes to our Endeavors quatenus ours atrue and proper Satisfaction This would have been indeed proper to his Business But to fly again to Bellarmin and Vasquez and bring them in as affirming us to make a proper Satisfaction for our sins and that in such Disputes as they themselves only call probable avails little Had he shewn us that any Council of the Church nay I may boldly say any approved Divine had said No Satisfaction without the Grace of God and Merits of Christ That Man of his own self without the Grace of God accompanying his actions and without being justified first by Gods free Mercy and Goodness can properly satisfie for his Sins he would have had reason to condemn such Doctrin But when I have shewn him how the Council says expresly Thu Satisfaction which we make for our Sins is not so ours that it is not Jesus Christs for we who of our selves can do nothing can do all things with him who serengthens us c. And he himself having taken notice in the Margent how those Authors whom he cites mention those Works only to be Satisfactory which are done after the guilt of sin is remitted and the Sinner justified and received into Favor and that the Works which are Satisfactory must be done also together with the Grace of God methinks hè might have spared his pains in this point But perhaps he will tell me he disputes not the Principle but the Value c. as he told me in his last Article If so I must again tell him if he separate the Principle from the Action he Disputes not against us but his own Chimera's As for his first Quotation from Bellarmin I wonder how he would have had me to seek for it He cites Bellarmin as affirming That it is we who properly satisfy for our sins and that Christ's Satisfaâ—tioâ— serves only to make ours Valid Whereas the words he cites from Bellarmin are very different for answening an Objection that if Christs Satis faction be applyed to us by our Works either there are two Satisfactions joyned or but one c. He says first with some Divines there is but one Sitisfaction and that Christs and that we do not properly satisfy 2. With others that there are two Satisfactions but one depending on the other But the third says he videtur PKOB ASILIOR seems more PROBABLE that there is only one actual Satisfactian and that ours neither is Christ or his Satasfaction excluded by this for by his Saisfactian we have the Grace by which we sathfy And after this manner it is that Christs satisfaction is said to be applied to us not that his Sactification does immediately take away the temporal pain which is due to us but mediately that is in as much as from is we receive Grace without which our Satisfaction would have no value How does this third Answer agree with our Defenders Proposition when he grants there was an Error in the Press And I doubt not but all those who read his English and compare it with the Latin he now cites in the Margent will excuse me that I did not find it for really he must be a more skilful Man in Languages than I that can find that Position as he words it in the place he cites It would have been more ingenuous to have given us the words of the Author at length than by such a turn as he has done to make the Proposition as it lies neither Bellarmin's Sense nor tenable I know the Doctrin of Satisfactions §. 35. was not the sole pretence of their Separation tho' it was represented as one of the most necessary But if it be proved that this alone was so far from being a sufficient
purpose Defence pag. 44. seeing by his own Confession they who had the greatest measure of those Gifts could not exercise them when they would but only when the Spirit of God instructed them And lastly Seeing he assures us that they never attempted those miraculous Cures but when the same Spirit taught them that the sick person had Faith to be healed and that it would be to the Glory of God to do it I desire he would at his leisure let us know how it came to pass that the Primitive Christians exercised this Extream Unction if it tended only to miraculous Cures after Miracles were ceased For it is manifest that if they never did or if it were unlawful for them to use this anointing with Oyl for miraculous Cures but when the Spirit of God dictated to them that they should be healed this Extream Unction mentioned by St. James and generally practised for the first 800 Years most of which Time there was few such Miracles wrought cannot be that miraculous Unction of which he speaks When therefore St. James adds let them Pray over him anointing him in the Name of the Lord he speaks of an ordinary dispensation and gives us hopes of the effect I told him Miraculous Cures were wrought in the Lame and the Blind but the Apostle includes not them Here to shew his Learning he tels us that the Greek word may include them also But does the Apostle speak of such as are well and Heart-whole as we say the Lame and the Blind may be such as do not keep their Beds or does he not rather speak of Decumbents in Sickness in your own sense for they only can be raised up I added that the Power of Miracles was not tied to Unction only From whence it followed that if the Apostle had only spoken of miraculous Cures he would not have limited them to that Ceremony But the Defender thinks this was the ordinary Sign the most common and frequent amongst them and grounds his thoughts upon St. Mark 6.13 But the Evangelist only tels us there that the Apostles did anoint many sick people and cure them But seeing the same Holy Evangelist Ch. 16. v. 18. tells us that Christ promised that those who believed in him should lay their Hands upon sick people and heal them why may not this Imposition of Hands be looked upon as no less common and frequent nay more frequently used in those miraculous Cures than Unction because more ready and easy to be performed upon any occasion And if so had the Apostle intended only to invite persons not to neglect those miraculous Cures by our Authors Argument he should have mentioned that Imposition of Hands I told him further that all those that were anointed were not cured But this he says is false and dishonorable to the Spirit by which they acted How were all those that were anointed for the first 800 Years cured If not let him tell us when those miraculous Cures ceased and why the Spirit of God which he says taught them when they should anoint and when they should not did not also teach them to discontinue the Practice of it when the Church needed not Miracles to confirm her Doctrins and how it is that Protestants are become so learned at present as to reject it after above 1600 Years perpetual practice Moreover I said that all those who were cured by them that had the Gift of Healing had not an assurance by that cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins This again he says is false From which and the foregoing Assertion it would follow in our Defenders sense That no persons either died or were damned that had this Extream Unction given them till the Spirit of God left the Church and she fell into an Error using it with a primary respect to the Soul when God had instituted it only for miraculous Cures And therefore I had reason to tell him that if St. James's expression the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up had been meant of bodily Health those only would have died in the Apostles Time I might have added as long as the Church understood that passage in his sense which he thinks was for 800 Years who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony An argument which because he could not answer he was willing to throw Dust in his Readers Eyes by retorting of it and telling us that if it were to be understood of the Souls Health it would follow that none were damned either then or now but they who neglect this Advice or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Sacrament Of the Truth of which he desires my Opinion I answer him That it is a Truth never doubted of in the Church that all those who receive this Sacrament with due preparation and in that state which is required as necessary by the Curch and fall not into new mortal sins before their Deaths are saved And if he do but consider that the Church requires the person who rightly receives this Sacrament should be in the state of Grace it being one of those which only augments Grace but does not restore it when lost he will rest of this Opinion ART XIII Of Marriage THe Bishop of Meaux having told us §. 55. Maâ—th 19.5 that Jesus Christ has given a new Form to Marriage reducing this Holy Society to two persons immutably and indissolubly united Eph. 5.32 The Bishop of Meaux and the Defender agreed â—xpos Doct. Church of England pag. 45. that this inseparable Vnion is the Sign of his eternal Vnion with his Church and that therefore we have not any difficulty to comprehend how the Marriage of the Faithful is accompanied by the Holy Ghost and by Grace And the Defender having told us in his Exposition that for the Point of Marriage Monsieur de Meaux has said nothing but what they willingly allow of I was in hopes the Dispute would have been at an end because as I told him we require no more And to clear the Point further We demand no more I told him that tho' Catholics esteem Marriage to be a Sacrament truly and properly so called yet not in so strict a sense as he would bind the word Sacrament to that is it is not a Sacrament after the same manner as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are nor generally necessary to Salvation The Reasons he then brought why it was not strictly a Sacrament were first because as he said it wanted an outward Sign to which by Christs Promise a Blessing is annexed And secondly because the Church of Rome denying it to the Clergy did not esteem it generally necessary to Salvation As for his last Reason I say I acknowledged it was not a Sacrament in that strict manner but as for the first I told him it might easily be evinced by the whole Torrent of Fathers and plain Texts of Scripture as interpreted by
persons to love one another as Christ loved his Church and because they are two in one Flesh tels them this is a great Sacrament but I speak in Christ and in the Church which words shew plainly what I have already mentioned that Marriage is truly a Sacrament in the Church and in Christ tho' it be only a civil Contract out of it It is a Sacrament instituted by Christ to represent the indissoluble Union betwixt him and his Church and therefore has his Grace annexed to it that it might truly represent that Union for an uncomfortable Marriage does not well represent it nor one that may be dissolved But here the modern Innovators after Erasmus cry out the word Sacrament is a false Translation the Greek word being Mystery But this is only a Trick of Protestants who as they were wont in their first Bibles to leave out the word Church whereever they met with it in Scripture and put in Congregation because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would bear that sense so here because the Greek has no other word but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express a Sacrament and a Mystery therefore it must be rendred Mysiery lest their People should with their Forefathers understand Marriage to be properly a Sacrament But certainly they who are not willing to be imposed upon will rather follow the Interpretation of all the antient Fathers and Commentators upon this place who unanimously agree that St. Pauls sense was that Matrimony is properly a Sacrament and that a great one because it signifies the Vnion betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church than these novel Criticks Indeed where persons have a mind to cavil there is no Text of Scripture so plain but may be wrested to a different sense and therefore we are forced upon those occasions to fly to the Tradition of the Church By Universal Tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches and the unanimons consent of those Interpreters who lived before that Dispute arose And thus it is no wonder that Estius should say we have not any Text of Scripture that plainly and evidently proves this Doctrin without having recourse to the Tradition of the Church But when this Tradition is such that not only the antient Fathers as St. Hierom St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophilact St. Augustin St. Anselme and generally all Commentators till Erasmus agreed in it but also the whole Church both of the East and West consented to it as appears not only by the general consent of all their Divines for the last 600 Years but by the Definitions of Councils held since that time and particularly that of Florence where the Greek and Latin Fathers were agreed upon this point as also by the Testimony of Hierimias Patriarch of Constantinople for the Greeks who in his own name as Cardinal Bellarmin observes Bellarmin de Mâ—rim Sacrant lib. 1. c. 4. pag. 1304 B. and in the name of all the Grecian Bishops declared against the Augustan Confession of the Lutherans in this point of Marriage being a Divine Sacrament as he did also against all their other Innovations I say when this Tradition is so antient clear and universal what a madness must it be to reject it because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Mystery as well as it does a Sacrament One thing more remains §. 60. Marriage not necessary for every one which has been thought a witty Objection against the Church that she makes Matrimony a Sacrament and yet denies it to her Clergy for a Sacrament say they must be Generally necessary to Salvation But this is plainly a forced Principle taken up upon begging the Question about the number of the Sacraments and besides is not so heartily believed in the Two which Protestants pretend to maintain For the Sons of the Church of England for any thing yet appears are not much perswaded of any such great necessity I speak not of what they call Superstitious Vnction but even of the Eucharist it self for dying persons For unless they can get company to Communicate besides the Decumbent he must lye in his Agony and venture into the other World without his Viaticum As for the Churches scrupling Marriage to her Clergy it is a difficulty to those who consider not the Sanctity of Priesthood If there be any state more perfect than another I hope it belongs to the Priest but the state of Marriage is more imperfect than the state of a resolved Virginity as you dare not deny shall not the Church than give leave to her Hierarchy who are or ought to be the most perfect to degrade themselves amongst the conjugate when she always maintained an order of Virgins even in the weaker female Sex or rather may she not direct them to follow the Evangelic counsel of being Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God But I will not dilate upon this The Church appoints her Sacraments where they are proper She does not appoint Marriage for all nor Extream Unction to the Lusty nor Holy Orders to every one You make a profession to scruple the use of Marriage at some solemn times if you dissemble not and the Church upon the same reasons scruples Marriage it self to some certain Orders of Men. ART XIV Of Holy Orders IN this Article §. 61. as well as in the last the Defender hath shewn us how much he is a Man of Peace and what hopes we may have of composing Differences He gave us indeed a fair Overture for an Agreement in his Exposition and I told him I was glad of it But what will his party say if he seem to close with Rome and therefore all his fair appearances and concessions must be now cast off and of a closing Friend as he then appeared he is now become an open Enemy If the Vindicator says he be agreed with me in this Article what then he does not say I am glad of it we draw neer to Unity no that would be to incur the Censure of those who live by breaking the Churches Peace but he says If we be agreed he musi renounce the number of his Seven Sacraments How For my part I thought he had spoken his mind sincerely before and the sense of his Church Expos pag. 46. when he told us That Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders The Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost might perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament and therefore I told him that we said no more and that we denyed it to be a Sacrament common to the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are and so far I found no difference betwixt us One would have thought upon this account that he had rather renounced his number Two than I my Seven Sacraments seeings in effect he allowed Holy Orders to be a third Oh but he only said §. 62. His new Evasions answered perhaps it
may be called a particular Sacrament and being now far from agreeing to any thing which has once been esteemed by them a difficulty he therefore says he denyed there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed This indeed he tels us in his Defence but in his Exposition he was far more moderate The outward Sign of it says he there we confess to have been Imposition of Hands and as such we our selves observe it From whence a lover of Peace in the Church would have rationally enough concluded that the Church of England was agreed with the Catholic in this Point when he says they use Imposition of Hands as an outward sign of it of what of the Particular Sacrament Yea. But it seems I was out in my conjecture for he intends not to contribute any thing to the healing of the Church in any Punctilio and therefore tho' we be half Friends as to all appearance yet some new Scruple must be thrown in the way to quash all hopes of Accommodation (a) Expos pag 46. We do not read says he that Christ instituted that sign much less tyed the promise of any certain Grace to it (b) Def. pag. 53. All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture is only the Example of three or four places where it was practised indeed but no where commanded See how some Men can digest any thing Are not three or four places of Holy Scripture shewing the Practice of it a sufficient Testimony that it was commanded Were the Apostles for will-worship uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies did they things on their own Head without their Lords Order or his least Innuendo My Adversary thinks it seems that nothing is commanded but what he can read commanded No unwritten Tradition now with him At other times perhaps hee 'l grant there may be some But now we read not Therefore c. Whereas we read not any Command by Christ for the observation of the Lords Day only three or four Examples of the practice of it that is all the Authority c. If Scripture be his rule of Faith let him shew us a greater authority then the example of three or four places contradicting our Tenets and he will have reason to Dispute with us As for those of our own who as he says maintain that Imposition of Hands is not essential to Holy Orders if they be not worth his naming they are not worthy my concern We are not to answer for the particular Sentiments of Scholastics as I have often told him But the Grace conferred is no Justifying Grace nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament Thus our Defender Whereas in his Exposition he acknowledged that Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders is accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost A Blessing do you say and why not a Grace seeing St. Paul expresly calls it so 2 Tim. 1.6 admonishing St. Timothy to stir up the Grace of God which was given him by the Imposition of his Hands 1 Tim 4.14 and in another place exhorting him not to neglect the Grace in him which was given him by Prophecy that is according to the particular revelation made to St. Paul concerning him with the Imposition of the Hands of Priesthood He goes on If it may be called a Grace Expos ibid. yet not a Grace common to all Christians but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ And therefore we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are Pray Sir who ever said that the Grace which is given in Holy Orders is a Grace common to all Christians or that it is a common Sacrament of the whole Church Is it not sufficient for a Sacrament that it be the visible sign of an invisible Grace bestowed upon some particular persons segregated to a special employ for the benefit of the whole Church must all persons be Deacons all persons Priests all Bishops or else Holy Orders no Sacrament Oh but it is not a Justifying Grace What do you mean by a Justifying Grace Is not this Grace given in Holy Orders a Grace that renders the persons who receive it acceptable to God Almighty and enables them to perform the functions to which they are called Does not this Sacrament confer at least an increase of Sanctifying Grace tho' it be not instituted to confer the first Grace of Remission of Sin If you will have nothing else to be a justifying Grace but what is instituted primarily for the Remission of Sin I am afraid you will hereafter conclude the Eucharist to be no Sacrament because it does not primarily confer such a Grace Thus you see the whole business of our Defender is nothing but Shifts If it may be called a particular Sacrament yet is it not common to the whole Church If a Grace be given in it yet not a sanctifying Grace a Grace common to all Christians If we find three or four places in Scripture mentioning Imposition of Hands in order to the conferring of some Grace whatever ever it be yet we do not find it commanded What is all this but puttings off and a begging the Question by supposing that nothing can be truly a Sacrament which is not General to all Christians But I am afraid I have been too long upon these particulars seeing the Next great Article challenges an exact Examen ART XV XVI XVII XVIII Of the Eucharist IT is not a little Astonishment to see what an Agreement there is in all Antiquity concerning the Sense of these four Words §. 63. Defence pag. 54. Two hundred several senses put upon these four words this is my body This is my body and what various Interpretations have been made of them in this last 150 Years when our Reformers left every Man his Liberty to interpret Scripture for himself without any controlment (a) Repetâ—â— 1. de Euchar. c. 10. Apud Gualter Cron. Sect 16. pag 808. Claudius Sanctesius has collected no less than 84 (b) Gerd contr 1. cap. 28 pag. 202. de Ecclesia others 200 various Senses put upon these four plain Words which before this new pretended Reformation begun were generally understood in a literal Sense Every one contends his Sense to be the best and seeing as the Bishop of Meaux well observed they all of them fly from the literal and adhere to a figurative it behoves them to shew the necessity of taking the Words in that Sense whereas we who find nothing in those Words obliging us to quit the literal Sense need no other reason for our so doing but that we follow the plain and beaten Road. We follow the beaten Road. But our Defender thinks he has found sufficient reasons to oblige us to acquiesce and quit our High-Road for his By-path But first before we consent to him let us view both ways and
being present in more places than one c. First we affirm them to be no Contradictions A contradiction being an Affirmation and Negation of the same thing in the same time place manner and and all other circumstances but such an Affirmation and Negation are not made of Christs presence in several Hosts See the Guld in Controverly dâ—sc 1. ch 6. § 65 66. seqq And secondly all those who affirm a real Presence as the English Protestants seem to do have the same difficulties to overcome and none but the Sacramentarians who affirm the presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be meerly figurative as the King is said to be present in his Picture Coin or Charter are free from them Having thus explicated our Tenets with respect to those of our Adversaries we come now to shew upon what Grounds we believe them SECT 2. Some Reasons for our Doctrin THe Doctrin of the true real §. 72. All the proofs for an Article of Fatith concur for this and substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread is so certainly a revealed Truth that there is scarce any one Article of Christian Faith that Christ seems to have taken so much care to establish as this All the usual Arguments that are brought at any time to confirm us that a Truth has been revealed occur here and by an united Force confirm one another and strengthen our Belief beyond exception If we cast our Eyes into the Old Testament we there find the (a) The Bread and Wine offered by Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 The Bread of Proposition Exod â—0 23 1 Sam 31.40 seâ—q The Bread which the Prophet Elias having eaten by the command of an Angel walked in the strength of it sorty days to the Mountain of God Horeb. 3 Reg. 19.6 The Paschal Lamb Exod. 12. The Blood of the Testament Exod. 24.6 Heb. 9.20 Manna Exod. 16. compared with John 6.49 1 Cor. 10.2 If any one doubt whether these were sigures of the Eucharist or noâ— let them read St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Jerome and the other Autient Fathers cited by Cardinal Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 3. Figures of this Unbloody Sacrifice which must necessarily express something more excellent than themselves If we look into the (b) Isaâ—as 25.6 Zach. 10.17 Malac 1.11 Prophets we find their Prophecies cannot be fulfilled in a Figurative presence If we come to the New Law we find not only an express (c) John 6.51 The Bread which I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world Promise from Christ himself but (d) Matth. 26.26 Marc. 14.22 This is my Body This is my Bloâ—d of the New Testament which shall be shed for many or as the Protestants â—ender it which is shed for many for the remission of sin Luke 22.19 This is my Body which is given i. offered for you from whence the antient Fathers conclude not only the real presence but its presence as a Sacrifice Altho Sense tell the it is Bread yet it is the Body according to his words Let Faith confirm thee judge not by Sense After the words of our Lord let no doubt rise in thy mind Cyril Mystag 4. Of the verity of Fiesh and Blood there is left no place to doubt by the profession of our Lord himself and by our Faith it is Flesh and Blood indeed Is not this true To them be it untrue who deny Jesus Christ to be true God. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit vers 10 This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Blood which Chalice shall be or i. shed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It appeared to Beza so clear that if it was the Cup or Chalice that was shed for us it must contain in it truly the Blood of Christ and be properly a Sacrifice that he could find no evasion but to call it a Soloecism or Incongruity of Speech or else that the words which yet he confesses to be in all Copie Greek and Latin were thrust into the Text out of the Margent See his Annotations upon the New Testament 1556. Three Evangelists and (e) 1 Cor. 10.6.11.24 St. Paul relating the Institute in such words that many of our Adversaries themselves confess that if they must be taken literally we have gained our Cause If we look into Antiquity and the Writings of the (f) See Nubes Testâ—um from pag. 99. to 150. Conseusus veterum And the many other Books formerly writtes upon this Subject as Gualters Cronology Coâ—cii Thesaurus c. In which you may see a Collection of the plain Testimony of Fathers and eminent Writers in every Age from the Apostles time to our Ages not only concerning this Article of Transubstantiation but most others now in Controversy Primitive Fathers of the first 600 Years we find the manifest (g) All the antient Liturgies are a sufficient Testimony of this in which as Blondel himself tho a Hugonot confesses the Prayer in the Consecration of the Elements was to this purpose That God trould by his Holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. The Adoration also which was payd to our Blessed Saviour there present shews their Belief See St. Ambr. de spir lib. 3. c. 12. and St. Aug. in ps 98.5 who upon these words Adorate scabellum pedum ejus tels us that Christ has given his Flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation Now no man eats this except he first Adore it And moreover says he we do not only not sin by adoring it but we should sin if we did not adore it See Considerations upon the Council of Trens chap. 16. §. 32. Digress §. 20. c. Also Protestant Apolegy Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subd 2. Practice of this belief If into the later Ages we find for above (h) This has been sufficiently shewn by the aforesaid Authors and Monsieur Arnold in his Perpetuite de la foy and the Plain concession of Protestants as may be seen in the Protestant Apology 1000 Years such an Uniformity amongst all Christians that scarce one person who deserved the name of Pastor that is scarce one Bishop either in the (i) As to the consent of the Greek and Latins see the Guide in Controversy disc 3. ch â— Greek or Latin Church but embraced it There is scarce any Nation in the World in which a Synod has been held since this last 600 Years that is since Berengarius begun to broach the contrary Error but has declared their constant belief of Transubstantiation And the most (k) Guide in Controversy dise 1. ch 6. §. 57. general Councils that those Ages could afford have confirmed it by their Definitions and condemned the contrary Opinions with their Anathema's So that if Councils both national and General have any Authority if the consent
of all Churches for a 1000 Years have any weight If the clear Writings of antient Fathers long before our Contest have any force if Scripture it self both old and new when thus interpreted be of any moment we must necessarily conclude that Jesus Christ gave his Disciples truly really and substantially his Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Had we not such clear proofs from Antiquity yet certainly the Consent of the much major and superior part of Christians for this last 600 Years would be sufficient to any reasonable mind who would but consider that if it had not been taught by Jesus Christ those persons who introduced it and those who followed them would have been guilty of Idolatry as the Test and some Protestants now accuse us to be and by consequence the whole Church which taught and practised it during that time would have erred in Fundamentals and taught a damnable Doctrin destructive of Salvation contrary to the Promise of Jesus Christ that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her But when we find that the Council of Lateran and those others in Berengarius's time were so far from pretending that they introduced a new Doctrin excogitated by themselves or invented by some of their learned Predecessors that they freely and fully declared that it had been delivered to them as a Doctrin taught by Christ and his Apostles that their predecessors in their several respective Countries had taught them the same and practised it that all their Historians and antient Writers had confirmed it when we consider also how impossible it is that if the figurative presence had been once the established Doctrin of the Church the Doctrin of the real presence could have gained such credit that all Christians in all Countries should consent to it and commit manifest Idolatry wilfully against their former belief no one of the Many Learned Pious and Couragious Bishops who were vigilant in opposing the smallest growing Errors ever speaking of this as an erroneous Doctrin or as a novelty I say when we consider all these things which have been so fully and so often proved that nothing but Impudence can deny them how can we have the least Difficulty in believing this Doctrin to be that of Jesus Christ or his words not to be literally true Thus much for our Grounds I come now to shew the weakness of my Opponents Arguments against them and our Doctrin SECT 3. Objections answered BEfore I begin to answer my Adversaries Objections §. 73. I must desire my Reader to consider that Catholics are in Possession of this Belief of the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and that Protestants who would throw us out of Possession are the aggressors Now as a Possessor of an estate time out of mind is not condemned if he proceed upon a supposition that the Deed of gift by which his Ancestors first possessed that estate was good In like manner must it be with us We believe that Jesus Christ pronouncing those words This is my Body Catholics being in Possession are the Defenders Protestants the Aggressors changed the Bread into his Body we received this belief from our predecessors and they from theirs we therefore who are in Possession and are to defend our right cannot be condemned if we suppose our Belief to be true But as on the other hand an Aggressor is not to be heard if he only suppose the Deed of gift to be void and argue from thence that the Possession is unlawful So ought it also to be with them who oppose us If they only suppose our Blessed Savior did not change the Bread into his Body by those words this is my Body and argue merely upon that supposition they ought not to be heard They are to prove he did not make that change Protestants must therefore bring clear and undeniable proofs against our Possession and not only to suppose it They are to prove his words cannot possibly be taken in a literal Sense and not only that they may be taken figuratively They are to prove that we are obliged to take the words in a figurative sense and not only to shew they they may lead us to it Our Possession is a manifest proof against their supposition and we need no more This being considered let us now weigh my Adversaries Arguments Arguments from Scripture answered And first those from Scripture His first Argument is reduced by himself to this Syllogism If the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body §. 74. First objection From the words of the Institute then it must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That Proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or t is plainly absurd and Impossible The Major or first Proposition he tels us is our common Concession In answer to which I say Answered If he understand the Major in Luthers sense as Bellarmin and Gratian do whom he cites for it that is that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body should so signify Bread that the meaning of it is This truly wheaten Bread remaining such is also truly the Body of Christ I grant it for as I told him before from the Cardinal it implies a contradiction for it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another because it would be that thing and not that thing But if he mean by his Major that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body has such a reference to Bread that the meaning is This Bread is my Body that is this substance of Bread which I take in my hands I do by these words change into the substance of my Body I deny it neither is it our common Concession for in that sense it is neither an absurdity nor impossibility to understand the Proposition literally So that you see Luther will have no change and will yet have the words to be understood literally and we call that an absurdity Catholics admit of a change and so understand them literally which is far from being either impossible or absurd We argue that the Proposition in Luthers sense admitting of no change is false absurd and impossible unless it be taken figuratively But in our own fense admitting a change is true and genuine and need not be taken figuratively His Minor or second Proposition he tels us is Bellarmins own grant nay what he contends for Is this Learned Cardinal then so great a Blockhead as to maintain that the words ought to be taken literally and yet at the same time to
contend that the word This must refer to Bread andthat if it refâ—r to Bread the words must be taken figuratively or else â—â—t is plainly absurd and impossible No no the Cardinal understood better things than to make such blunderings and contradictions And if our Defender had read him a little farther he would have found that what he contended for was that the words of the Institution are not Speculative but Practical or as the Fathers call them operative performing what they signify and that the word This does neither demonstrate Bread nor the Body of Christ but that being that thing that substance which is contained under the species so that the sense is This substance under these species is my Body or as Guitmundus long since explicated it This till this present Bread is now my Body Not as if it remained Bread and the Body of Christ too but that by the force of those operating words that substance of Bread was changed into the substance of his Body So that you see by this his second Proposition must be also distinguished as having two senses in one of which it is true and in the other false The Relative This in this Proposition This is my Body refers to Bread I distinguish the Minor if you mean that it so refers to it that that which was Bread is now no more Bread but the Body of Christ the substance being changed I grant it and this Cardinal Bellarmin contends for But if you mean that the word This so belongs to Bread that this Proposition is true This truly wheaten Bread remaining Bread is also truly the Body of Christ I deny your Proposition for as the same Cardinal contends it is a contradiction that one thing should remain unchanged and yet should be another In proving the Minor you were to shew that Bellarmin contended for this last sense and that we all consented to it if you would have had a Logical conclusion But that you know is contrary to our Tenets However such a piece of Sophistry as this is enough to blind a great many well meaning tho' illiterate persons But the fallacy of it once detected I hope they will see clearer and this may be done by changing the Medium For your Argument is no more than this following and concludes no better If the Relative This in this Proposition this is my Body refer to common and unconsecrated Bread so that the sense of the Proposition should be this common and unconsecrated Bread is my Body we must needs say that Christ gave common and unconsecrated Bread to his Disciples or else the Proposition is plainly absurd and impossible But the word This in this Proposition This is my Body does belong to common Bread for Christ took common and unconsecrated Bread and of it said this is my Body Therefore he gave common and unconsecrated Bread to his Disciples or else the Proposition is plainly absurd and impossible Who does not perceive that this Argument is like another which the Defender has been often told to be unconcluding viz. What I bought in the Market that I eat But I bought raw Flesh in the Market Therefore I eat raw Flesh For the change that is made is suppressed in all these Syllogisms or supposed not to be which is the main point which we defend But to shew the unconclusiveness of such Sophisms as these give me leave to propose a parallel case which may in some measure clear the difficulties A. has an estate and having a great kindness for B. gives him this estate by these words This is your estate §. 75. A Parallel case answering most objections against the real presence B. enters into possession of this estate and his heirs after him for many Ages so that after 1600 Years X the successor of B is found possessing this estate with a tradition from L. M. N. and his other immediate predecessors for 1000 Years that it was given to B. his Ancestor by A. using these words at the gift This is your estate But h. and some others pretended successors to A. endeavour to disturb X. and throw him out of possession and thereupon one of them pretends 1. That the estate was not so given away to B but that it remained A's too and therefore was both B's and A's and he being the successor of A. ought therefore to be joynt possessor with X. 2. Another pleads that the words This is your estate meant only this signifies your estate or this resembles your estate or when you see this estate it will put you in mind of yours c. 3. Others again make many various interpretations of these four plain words But X. defends himself against them all by his and his Predecessors undisturbed Possession and seeing he can find one time in which All the Tenants to that estate assembled together declared it to have always belonged to his Predecessors he thinks that sufficient tho' it may be he has lost many testimonials which his adversaries require him to shew for his Ancestors Possession of it in the first 400 Years after the grant And in answer to their Arguments He tels the first that his claim is absurd because it is impossible the estate should remain the estate of A and yet become the estate of B and that therefore if the word This in that Proposition This is your estate did so refer to the estate of A that the sense should be This estate of A remaining such is the estate of B either the Proposition must be taken in a figurative sense so that it only signifies or represents the estate of B or else it is plainly absurd and impossible But h. being a Subtil Sophister produces this Argument in open Court. If the Relative This in this Proposition This is your estate do refer to the estate of A so that the sense of it is this estate of A is your estate then by your own consent it must be understood figuratively or t is plainly absurd and impossible But the Relative This in that Proposition This is your estate does belong to the estate of A forasmuch as A spoke of his own estate pointed to his own estate gave his own estate and therefore said of his own estate This is your estate Therefore that Proposition This is your estate must be understood figuratively or else it is plainly absurd and impossible Would our Defender if he had been judge in this case have given the estate to h. for his witty Sophism Or if he had been in X's case would he have quitted his Possession forced by the irresistibleness of a quibble Who does not see the unconclusiveness of this Argument in such temporal concerns as these and must the world needs be deceived with them where Eternity is at stake But h. will not acquiesce and notwithstanding that all Courts Inferior and Superior have condemned him yet will he still put in his claim and never cease calumniating both X and the Courts
But 3ly Supposing this Epistle genuin and that part of it uncorrupted §. 81. let us see whether it make for them or us and to do this we must consider the scope and drift of St. Chrysostom in bringing that Parallel and gather the Sense of the Epistle as well as we can from such a barbarous Translation and uncorrect Copy After St. Chrysostom had testified his regret that his friend Caesarius had fallen into the Apollinarian Heresie by Reading of a Book which taught Verum tamen nos revordantes tuae nobiscum conversationis sentientes autem ex his quae scrapsistis errorem subsistere erga tuam dilâ—ctionem ex illorum insipientiâ non solum ergâ— dispensationis Mysterium magis autem erga Nominum conjunctionen excogitavimus Deo cooper ante nostrae Infirmaitati de emnibus manifestam ostentati nem facere adredorguâ—ionem quidem malae opinionis corum qui haereticum libi protulerunt librum correctionem autem tuae venerationis Deum ergo quando dicis Dilectissime agnovisti id quod simplex est naturae quod incompositum qued inconvertible quod invisible quod immortale quod incircumscriptibile istis similia Hominem autem dicens significasti id quod naturae est infirmum esuritionem sitim super Lazarum lachrymas metum sudoris ejectionem his similia quibus id quod divinum est extrae est Christum autem quando dicis conjunxistâ— utrumque unde passibilis dicatur idgm ipse impassibilis passibilis quidem carne impassibilis autem Deitate Eadem ipsa de Filio Christo Jesu Domino praedicantur Communia enim ista suscepttbilia duarum Essentiarum nomina sunt quarum conjunctio in baereticis quidem errorem facit proprie pro communi utentes nomine Christi uno His autem communibus istis uti oportet Nominibus quando dispensationis consitendum est Mysterium Si enim Deum dixeris pertulisse qualicunque cogitatione quod impossibile est dixisti id quod Blasphemum est in manetis in aliorum haeresim declinasti Impietatem si iterum hominem dixer qui pertulit invenirâ—â— purum aedificans Templum Templum Crucis extra inhabitantem nunquam dicitur quia jam non est Templum that the Essential concourse and Sacred Vnion betwixt the Divinity and Flesh made up but one Nature he exhorts him to return again and possess himself and tells him that he Erred not only in the Mystery of the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour but more especially as to the Conjunction of Natures viz. of God and Man which Errors he endeavors to Reform in him And first begins with that of the Names telling him that when he mentions God he acknowledges a Being whose Nature is Simple Vncompounded Vnchangeable Invisible c. But when he mentions Man he signifies a Being whose Nature is infirm subject to Hunger Thirst Tears Fear Sweat c. But when he mentions Christ he joyns both these Natures together so that he the same Person is called Passible and Impassible Passible in his Flesh Impassible in his Divinity And the same may be said of the Names of Son of Christ of Jesus and of Lord these being common Names including the Names of both the Essential Natures of God and Man the joyning of which Natures causes the Error in Hereties who use the proper Name God where they should use the one common Name Christ For these common Names continues he we must use when we speak of the Mystery of the Incarnation Death and Passion of our Saviour For if thou shouldst say it was God that suffered which is impossible in any Sense thou speakest Blasphemy and art fallen into the Heresie of Manes and others If again thou say it was Man that suffered thou buildest a Pure Temple But it is never called a Temple of the Cross without an Inhabitan Divinity for then it is no Temple Then he brings an Objection But perhaps they will say with our Lord Et forsitan dicunt quomodo Dominus dixit ut quid me vultis occidere hominem qul verltatem vobis locutus sum quam audiâ—i à Deo Benè omnino sapienter hee dicendum est Neque cuim ex hoe ab Inhabi anti defraudabatur sed figuificare volens yatientem naturam he ainis memoriam fecit propter quod Dâ—us Homo Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem Home propter Passionem Vnus Filius Vnus Deminus idem ipse proculdubis unitarum Naturarum unam dominationem unam potâ—statem possidens etiamst non consubstantiales existunt unaquaeque incommixtam Propriatatis conservat agâ—iâ—ionem propter hoc quod incoufusa Sunt dico Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus Divinâ autem illum sendificante Gratiâ mediante saoerdote liberatus est quidem Appellatione Panis dignus autem babitus est Dominici Corporis Appellatione eliamst Natura Panis inapso permansit non duo Corpora sed unum Corpus filil praedicatur Siâ— hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. inundante Corporis naturâ unum filium unam personam uâ—raque haee ficerunt * Sint duo why will you slay me a Man who have spoken the Truth to you which I have heard from God And he answers it thus This is well and altogether wisely said neither do's this shew him to be deprived of the Inhabitant Divinity But being desirous to express the suffering Nature he mentioned that of Man because Christ is God and Man God as being Impassible Man as Capable to suffer And yet but one Son one Lord as without doubt Possessing one Dominion one Power of the Vnited Natures altho' they be not Consubstantial but each of them retain their own Properties being two unconfused Natures Then follows the Example For as before Bread be Sanctified we call it Bread but the Divine Grace by the Ministry of the Priest having Sanctified it it is freed indeed from the name of Bread but esteemed worthy of the Name of the Body of our Lord altho' the Nature of Bread hath remained in it and is called not two Bodies but one Body of the Son Even so here the Divine Nature overflowing the Human Body they both make but one Son one Person Any one §. 82. The true sense of St. Chrysostom who has not a mind to wrest St. Chrysostoms sense may see that the comparison is here betwixt the Person in Christ and the Body or Substance in the Sacrament And that as there is but one Body one Substance and That the Substance the Body of Christ in the Sacrament tho' the Nature that is all the Qualities of Bread Remain so also in Christ there is but one Person one Subsistence tho' there be two different Natures All the difficulty lies in the word Nature which our Defender thinks ought to be taken in the same sense as where it is applied to the Human and Divine Nature I
shall not question whether this be not one of the less faithful Translations in this Epistle because we know not what the word may be in Greek neither will I go about to shew that the Accidents themselves are often said to have their nature and That sometimes called the Nature of the Substance of which they are the Accidents But I must say that if the word Nature in that Place meant Substance or Body so that the sense should be this tho' the Substance or Body of Bread remain the Parallel would have been false and St. Chrysostom instead of disswading Caesarius from the Heresy of Apollinarius would have drawn him to that of Nestorius For Caesarius must necessarily have Argued thus Your Parallel is betwixt the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the Person or Subsistence of Christ in the Mystery of the Incarnation If then there be two Substances in the Eucharist there are also two Subsistences in Christ But this was far from St. Chrysostoms design His intention was therefore to shew Caesarius that as in the Blessed Sacrament after Consecration there is but one Substance one Body of Christ tho' the Accidents of Bread remain and that this Substance is truly called the Body of Christ so in the Mystery of the Incarnation there is but one Son one Person and that Divine tho' the Nature of the Manhood do remain Now what can be more clear for Transubstantiation than this that in the Eucharist there should be but one Body one Substance and that the Body of Christ But our Defender objects that St. Chrysostom only says it is worthy to be called the Body of Christ and it is called not two Bodyes but one Body of the Son and therefore the change is only in the Appellation and not in the thing it self But certainly if Caesarius had understood St. Chrysostom in that sense Caesarius might have answered him You would perswade me I see to be an Arian and believe there is only a change in Christ as to Appellation and that he is not truly God but only called so But this Great Saint and Learned Doctor was far from erring in these Points For Lastly §. 83. That he did believe the Real and Substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that a change was there made of the Substance of Bread into the Sustance of his Body appears by many plain expressions in his undoubted works Bigotius mentioned two passages in his suppressed Epistle which I will here give the Reader in English tho' the Defender did not think it convenient so to do and add two or three more a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 2. ad pop Antioch in fine pag. 43. B. edit Frontoduc 1616. Elias says he left his Mantle to his Disciple but the Son of God left us his Flesh Elias stripped himself indeed to leave it but Christ both left us his Flesh and retaining it himself ascended Let us not therefore lose courage nor lament nor fear the difficulty of Times For he who did not refuse to shed his Blood for all and has communicated to us his Flesh and also that very Blood what will he refuse for our Salvation The second passage cited by Bigotius is thus at length b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 83 in Matth. pag. 703. D. edit Commel 1003. Let us therefore every where believe God neither let us resist him although what he says may seem absurd to our sense or cogitation Let his word rule our Sense and Reason which we perform in all but especially in the Mysteries not only looking upon those things which lye before us but retaining also his words For we cannot be deceived by his words but our senses are easily to be deceived Those cannot be false but these are often and often deceived Seeing therefore he has said This is my Body let us not be doubtful but believe and view it with the eyes of our Vnderstanding And a little after he says c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 704. A. How many are there now who say I would gladly see his form his shape I would see his very Garments I would see his shoos Behold Thou seest answers he himself thou touchest him thou eatest him and thou art still desirous to see his Garments And a little further Who will declare the power of our Lord and who will publish all his praises What Shepherd ever yet fed his Flock with his own members And why do I mention Shepherds There are many Mothers who give their Children to other Nurses but he Christ not so he nourishes us with his own Blood and closely knits himself to us in all things d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 705. A. The things we propose are not done by Human power He who wrought these things at the last Supper is the Author of what is done here We hold but the place of Ministers but he who Sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself To these I may add that in his Liturgy the Priest prays e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 5. p. 614. B. edit Frontonduc that God would make that Bread the Pretious Body of his Son c. and that which is in the Chalice the pretions Blood of his Christ c. changing them by his holy Spirit And in his Homily de Proditione Judae he teaches that Judas received the very Body and Blood of Christ which he betrayed his words are these And Judas was present when Christ said these words f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 3. Serm. 30. pag. 463. A. This is the Body said he O Judas which thou hast sold for thirty pieces of Silver This is the Blood for which thou hast made a bargain with the Pharisees Oh the Mercy of Christ Oh the Madness of Judas He made a bargain to sell him for Thirty pence and Christ offered him the Blood which he sold that he might have remission of his Sins if he would have ceased to be wicked for Judas was there and was permitted to partake of the Sacrifice g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. C. For it is not man who makes the proposed Elements to be the Body and Blood of Christ but Christ himself who was crueified for us The Priest performs the ceremony and pronounces the words but it is the Vertue and Grace of God which operates the whole He said h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. C. Gen. 1.28 This is my Body This word Transmutes or changes the proposed things or Elements And as the voice which said encrease and multiply and fill the Earth was but once spoken but in all times by the operation of Nature felt the effect as to Generation So that voice was but once uttored but yet gives a firmness to the Sacrifice throughout all the Tables of the Church even to this very day and shall continue it even to his very coming These things being considered Appendix p. 129.
the Defender need not fear that St. Chrysostom should lose his credit amongst us or that we shall henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation since we cannot any longer suppress his Doctrin No no neither he nor Theodoret were against the Doctrin of the Real and Substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament tho' our Adversaries by all their Arts endeavor to draw one obscure passage out of either of them as favoring their opinion As for St. Chrysostom I must tell the Defender with Bigotius Integrum librum conficerem si ex Chrysostomo locos omnes excerperem in quibus de Sacratissima Eucharèstia similiter loquitur sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit eos in fonte legisse that should I extract all the places out of his works in which he uses the like plain expressions of the Real presence it would make a Book by it self They who desire farther satisfaction may go to the Fountain it self and if they will but spend some sew hours in a Library and there Read entirely and not by parcels his 83 Hom. in Mattb. his 21 Hom. in Act. and his 24 in 1 Cor. they will there find how contrary St. Chrysostoms opinion is to what the Defender would make us believe (a) Expost Doctr. Ch. of Eng. p. 56. His next Argument is from the Schoolmen §. 84. Argument from Schoolmen who as he says and cites these Authors in the (b) Lomb. 4. dist 10. Scotus 4. dist 2. qu. 11. Margent for it confess that there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation (c) Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 13. ss secundo dicit where he cites many others of the same opinion That there is not any that withot the Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it (d) Cajeta◠in 3. D. Th. qu. 75. Art. 1. That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words the other might with as good warrant have been received (e) See Scotus cited by Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss Vnum tamen See also Gabricl cited by Suarez T. 3. disp 50. Sect. 1. So Lembard l. 4. sent dist 11. lit A. And that this Doctrin was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 Years after Christ and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day In answer to this Argument I told him first Vindi◠pag. 80. that if the Schoolmen used those Expressions that There was no formal proof in Scripture for Transubstantiation which could evince it without the Declaration of the Church it is but what they also affirm as to the Trinity and consubstantiality of the Son nay even as to all the Principal Articles of our Faith and as to the Scriptures themselves their being the word of God all which stood in need of the Churches Declaration to make them clear and convincing either to obstinate Heretics who were always ready to drop Texts of Scripture or to Atheistical persons who would rely upon nothing but Sense and Reason Secondly Ibid. pag. 82 83. I desired him to state the Question right and to distinguish betwixt the Doctrin of the Church and the Doctrin of the Schools I told him the Doctrin of the Church was contained in the Canons of the Council of Trent which Anathematised all those who should say that the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Sess 13. can 2. together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ or should deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood the species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation But I told him that the Schoolmen tho' they all agreed as to the matter yet might have had several opinions concerning several possible manners of explicating Transubstantiation all which opinions as they were not of necessary belief so were they not to enter as a part of our Dispute with Protestants And upon this account I told him Lastly that he mistook the meaning of our Authors who when they spoke of the matter that is of the real and substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and absence of Bread which is made by that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of one into the other called by the Church Transubstantiation they were all at perfect agreement asserting it as a matter of Faith always believed in the Church tho' more explicitely declared in the Council of Lateran and other succeeding Councils upon account of the opposition made by Berengarius and his Followers But that as to the manner of explicating this Transubstantiation as whether it were by Production or Adduction or Annihilation Lombard says Cum haec verba proferuntur conversto fit Panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi Lomb. in 4. dist 8. li◠C. He also in his 10 dist shews it to have been an Herosy in his time not to have believed that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of ids Body and Blood. Tho' in the 11 dist he consesses he knows isot the manner how this conversion is made See the Vindic. pag. 91. the disputes that might arise amongst them regarded not our Faith which only tels us there is a true and real Conversion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which Conversion the Church calls Transubstantiation The Reply our Defender makes to this §. 85. A mistake of the Vindicators sense Defence pag. 62. seqq is ushered in with a Mistake grounded perhaps upon my not so cautiously wording a sentence which if taken alone might bear the sense he draws it to tho' if one regard what went before and followed after it cannot reasonably be wrested to it a Mistake I say affirming me to have advanced an Exposition quite contrary to the Doctrin of our Church and design of the Council of Trent which did not only define the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentarians but also the Manner or Mode as he calls it of his presence in the Sacrament against the Lutherans in two particulars 1. Of the absence of the substance of Bread and Wine 2. Of the Conversion of their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But I assure him it was never my intention to deny the Doctrin of a true Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ but only to affirm that the manner how that Conversion is made was controverted in the Schools and therefore what he brings against this mistake of
his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation
is more according to the literal sense of the words and has less difficulties in it than Consubstantiation but it does not follow that Scotus thought his Adversaries assertion to be more easy much less more true But our Defender goes farther and tells us that Scotus held this Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran and cites Bellarmin for it tho' he render his words ill in English * For Bellarmin does not say that Scotue held the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not very antient but only that it was not an Article of Faith dogma fidei before that Council which are two very different things §. 88. Suarez Non fnerit tam aperte explicata sicut modo est Suar. in 3. D. Tho. vol. 3. disp 50. §. 1. How much better would it have been for him to go to the Fountain it self and have shewn us this in Scotus But he will scarce find it there and suppose he could one Swallow makes no Summer and I think it will appear far more reasonable to any thinking man to believe that Scotus erred in saying so than the Council of Lateran in which there were 400 Bishops and 800 Fathers in declaring that to be the Faith of the Church which was not so Thirdly Suarez he says acknowledges the same of Scotus and Gabriel Biel Suppose they had held that Doctrin what would follow but as Suarez Argues that they deserve reproof seeing the thing it self was antient and perpetually believed in the Church tho' perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is As for my overlooking that passage of Suarez which affirms the conversion of one substance into another to be of Faith and the Defenders arguing upon that account that Suarez is opposite to my opinion and pretences I have already told him that he proceeds upon a mistake of my meaning which being rectified he will find that Suarez is nothing against me nor am I guilty of any prevarication Fourthly §. 89. Cajectan The Defender tells me that my Prevarication in the next citaton viz. of Cardinal Cajetan is more unpardonable And why Because he affirmed that the Cardinal acknowledged that had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words Defence pag. 65. the others might with as good reason have been received and I told him that Cajetan had no such thing in that Article and appealed to any that should read it for the truth of what I said This he says is such a Prevarication that should a Protestant have done it I would he believes have found out many hard names for him to testify my zeal against Falshood and Vnsincerity Id. pag. 66. and shewn what a kind of Religien that must be that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But that he will remit me wholly to the Readers Censure and my own Conscience for Correction I am glad he allows me the Readers to be of my Jury I hope he will give me leave to except against all those that are so far byassed in their affections to him and his party that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards Popery forsooth tho' against Justice Equity and Conscience Take but away I say such byassed and Ignoramus Juryes as these and I will appeal to any Learned Judicious and Conscientious men whether that Proposition he advanced be to be found in that Article of Cajetan or no. The Defender was so far from shewing this in Cajetan that he has pitched upon a place which has as little to the purpose as one would wish He tells us indeed that we have no other express Authority from Scripture for the belief of the Existence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament but only the words of our Saviour This is my Body for these words must of necessity be true And because the words of Scripture may be Expounded two ways Properly or Metaphorically The first error in this particular was of them who interpreted the words of our Lord Metaphorically which Error was treated of by the Master of Sentences and is reproved by St. Thomas in this Article And the force of the rejection consists in this that the words of our Lord have been understood by the Church properly and therefore they must be verified properly Which is as much as to say that St. Thomas and Cardinal Cajetan after him looked upon the Churches having always understood the words of our Saviour literally to be the strougest Argument against the Sacramentarians who Erred in understanding them Metaphorically But what is that to our Defenders Proposition And where does the Cardinal say there is as much reason for the one as the other abstracting from the Churches declaration which is the sense of his Proposition Wherefore now it comes to my turn to remit him as he does me to the Readers Censure and his own Conscience for correction His last Argument is drawn from the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist in these words §. 90. Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist Expos Dâ—ct Ch. of Engl. pag. 60. Since it is certain that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised nor the Church for above a 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament neither could they according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles who holds that the Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as Believe it without all scruple to the Adoraton of it have believed the Corporeal presence of our Blessed Saviour in it The Antecedent he goes about to prove first from the Scriptures silence in this matter ssect 91. I. which tho' it says Take Eat Do this in remembrance of me yet never says This is my Body fall down and worship it And from St. Paul who when he reproved the Corinthians for violating this Holy Sacrament did not tell them tho' it was obvious and much to his purpose that in profaning this Holy Sacrament they were not only guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ which it was Instituted to represent to us but even directly Affronted their Blessed Master Corporeally present there and whom instead of Profaning they ought as they had been taught to Adore in it Secondly II. From the new practices of Elevating the Host introduced says he in the 7th Century to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross but not to expose it to the People to Adore it from the Bell the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament the Pomp of carrying it through the streets Exposition of it upon the Altars Addresses to it in cases of Necessity and performing the chief Acts of Religion in its presence all which he pretends are but Inventions of yesterday or were never mentioned in Antiquity Lastly III. Because the Primitive Christians instead of
they will have the Essence of a Sacrifice to consist in a slaying of the Victim but by that act only there is a true Immolation of Jesus Christ viz. a separation of his Body from his Blood by â—he words of Consecration tho' the natural concomitance hinder the Blood or Soul from being truly separated from the Body Against this reason after other Arguments he brings this Denique vel in Missa fit vera vealis Christi mactatie occisio vel non sit Si non fit non est verum reale Sacrificium Missa Sacrisâ—eium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrisicii Si autem sit ergo verum erit dicere à Sacerdotibus Christianis verè realiter Christium occidi at hâ—o Sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur de Missa lib. 1. cap. 27. pag. 873. A. In the Sacrifice of the Mass either there is says he a true and real mactation and slaying of Jesus Christ or there is not If there be not then according to you the Mass is no real Sacrifice for when the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in being slain as it is your opinion a true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real slaying But if there be then we might truly say that Christ is truly and really slain by Christian Priests but this is rather a Sacrilege than a Sacrifice From this manner of Arguing any one may see that it is neither the Cardinals §. 100. The essence of a Sacrifice consills not in slaying the Victim nor the Churches opinion that the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in Slaying of the Victim But yet we acknowledg a True and Real Sacrifice in the Mass And had he gone a little farther in this Author he would have seen how all the Essential parts of a Sacrifice are contained in it Our Defender in his Exposition tells us there are Four things required to make a Sacrifice Pag. 66. Four things reqired to a Sacrifice 1. That what is offered be something that is Visible 2. That of profane which it was before it be now made Sacred 3. That it be offered to God. And 4 ly by that offering suffer an Essential destruction And supposes the greatest part of these conditions nay all of them to be evidently wanting Now Bellarmin in this same place tells him that three of these Conditions are fund in the Consecration of the Eucharist and the other is evidently included in them First says he a Profane or common thing Bread is by Consecration made the Body of Christ the Visible Species of Bread remaining neither does it follow from thence that Bread is only Sacrificed but that which remains the change being made 2. That Sacred thing which remains under the Visible species is offered to God by being placed upon the Altar Lastly From hence it appears how falsely our defender in his Exposition pag. 65. accused the Cardinal of saying that Either Christ Sacrificed in Eating or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it Read his 7. Proposition in the same 27. Ch. of his 1. Book Sacramenti consumptio ut fit a Sacerdote Sacrificante pâ—rs est essentialn sed non tots Essentia And the 8th Consecratio Eucharislia ad Essentiam Sacrificii pertinet The words of Bellarmin which he cited are these Christus isse out Consecrando consumendo Sacrificavit aus nullo modo Sacrificavit But it was not to his purpose to put in consecrando By Consecration that which is offered is ordained to a True Real and external change and destruction which was necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice for by Consecration the Body of Christ receives the form of food but food is ordained to be Eaten and by that to a change and destructon neither is that any objecton that the Body of Christ suffers not nor loses its natural being when we receive the Eucharist for it loses its Sacramental being and thereby ceases to be really upon the Altar ceases to be a sensible food The Cardinal being thus Vindicated I say Our Defender cannot deny Malac. 1 11. 3. 3. Esay 66.21 but that the Prophets in the Old Law foretold and that in the time of Antichrist the dayly Sacrifice should be taken away He cannot also deny but that the New Testament speaks of Altars and Priesis Dan 11 3â— 12.11 hebr 13. 10. compared with the 1 Cor. 10. And that the Fathers of the Primitive Church usually called the Eucharist a Sacrifice an Oblation an unbloody Sacrifice a Sacrifice which * Pervenit ad Sanctum magnumque Concâ—tium quod in quibusdam locir civitatibus Presbyteris gratiam Sacrae communionis Diaconi porrigant quod nec regula nec consuetudo tradidit ut ab his qui potessatem non habent offerendt illi qui offerunt Christi corpus accipiant Conc. Nic. Primum can 18. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 344. Deacons had not power to offer but only Priests and the like Expressions Upon what ground then can he pretend that all these Expressions were Metaphorical and endeavour to elude all these by sticking firm to his Notion of a Sacrifice that there can be no true offering without suffering And because Christ does not suffer in the Mass therefore he is not truly Offered The Bishop of Meaux one would have thought has fully removed that difficulty telling him that if we take the word Offer in the sense it is made use of in the Epistle to the Hebrews as implying the Actual death of the Victim we will publickly consess that Jesus Christ is now no more Offered up neither in the Eucharist nor any where else But because this word has a larger signification in other places of Scripture where it is often said we offer up to God what we present before him the Church which forms her Language and her Doctrin not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scriptures is not afraid to say that Jesus Christ Offers up himself to God wherever he appears before his Face upon our behalf and that by consequence he Offers up himself in the Eucharist according to the Holy Fathers expressions We affirm then that in the Mass is Offered up to God a True proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice A Sacrifice in remembrance of that on the Cross and applying to us the benefits there purchased for us A Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ is both the Priest and the Victim But yet no bloody Sacrifice Here is no Death of the Victim but in Mystery and representation But however it is a True and proper Sacrifice as Christ is truly and properly a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec I might here have taken notice how this Expositor brings in the Bishop of Meaux §. 101. Expos Ch. of Eng. pag. 67. observing that the Author of the Epistle to the
shall certainly find them there The Socinians will smile at his Boldness But certainly according to his Principles it must be so for if those abstruser Doctrins of the Blessed Trinity Incarnation and Divinity of our Blessed Saviour contained in that Creed be necessary Articles of our Faith and all Necessaries be clear in Scripture to every sober Enquirer which they must be if every Man must judge for himself and Scripture be the only Rule to judge by then it would necessarily follow that every Tinker Cobler Weaver or Tankerd-bearer if they do but seriously enquire into Scripture would certainly find them there But if neither they nor our Defender nor his whole Church can find such evidence for them there as to silence the Socinians who profess to follow the same Rule to be sincere and to use all due diligence it will cortainly follow that those Points are not clearly contained in Scripture unless we take the Authority of the Church along with us for the interpretation and by consequence not necessary Points of Faith with our Defender If any one therefore enquire into the occasion of this difference even in necessaries amongst those who follow the same Rule and use their best endevors they will find their Error to proceed from this that they err in making choice of that for their Rule which is not so And to shew that Protestants err in this making Scripture as interpreted by their own private Judgments the only Rule of Faith I make use of this Argument besides the several reasons before alledged §. 119. Hebr. 11.6 Eph. 4.4 Scripture interpreted by Private Reason or the Private Spirit cannot he our Rule of Faith. and the inconveniencies that follow from it All Christians agree with the Apostle that without Faith it is impossible to please 〈◊〉 and that this Faith is but one They all agree also that this Faith contains in it many Mysteries beyond the reach of mere human Reason so that man by the use of that alone could not come to the knowledge of the chief Mysteries of our Faith The Trinity Incarnation Original Sin Resurrection of the Flesh c. They all affirm therefore that God who sent his Son to redeem man who could not do any thing of himself to satisfy his infinite Justice would not command him to believe this one Faith under the pain of Eternal damnation and at the same time leave him without a means to bring him to the knowledge of what he was to Believe This means is called the Rule of Faith by Controvertists Now seeing God would have all men to be saved of what learning or capacity of what age country or condition soever this Rule or this means must be general and applicable to all and therefore Plain and Easy by which the Ignorant and unlearned may arrive at the same one Faith as well as the learned Isa 35.8 for God has prepared a Way that the wayfaring men tho' fools shall not Err therein It must be Visible and Apparent to All persons in All places and in All Ages to All I say who will not shut their eyes It must be Sure Certain and Infallible that the ignorant who Rely upon it may come to the unity of Faith with Security and the Learned who follow it may be convinced of the truth of that one Faith rationally and oppugners find no substantial Arguments against it All which qualifications do not only arise from the Goodness and Wisdom of Almighty God but are conformable to the very notion of a Rule of Faith. If then the Scripture as interpreted by that private judgment of Particulars be this Rule of Faith it must have all these advantages towards the uniting us in this Faith without which it is impossible to please God. I will not descend to particulars and shew how the Scripture is void of the essential qualifications of a Rule that has been done by many hands and particularly by the question of Questions But I will Argue from what our Adversaries themselves grant us I suppose then it will not be denyed me but that the Scripture even in necessaries 2. Pet. 3.16 may be differently interpreted since St. Peter affirms that the Vnlearned and the Vnstable do not only Wrest the Epistles of St. Paul but other Scriptures also to their own damnation now the question is only when things are thus controverted which is the True sense of Scripture and since these Controversies may arise in necessary matters of Faith God would not leave us destitute of a means to come to know which is the True and genuine sense of this Scripture in those necessaries and this means must be as I said before easy plain general secure and infallible or else this Scripture supposing not granting it to be the Rule of our Faith would be useless to some part of mankind if it wanted any one of those qualifications and by consequence those persóns might justly complain that God had not taken a sufficient care for their Salvations If we examin our Defenders Rule for us to come to the True meaning of this Scripture he tells us it is a serious and impartial inquiry If so then it would necessarily follow that every serious and impartial Enquirer would infallibly hit upon the true Faith which Faith being but one all those impartial Enquirers would be at unity in their Belief But since experience tells us that many serious and impartial Enquirers if we can believe any men in what they affirm with the most solemn protestations imaginable in a matter of such high concern do differ in the sense which they draw from Scripture even in necessaries we must conclude That Scripture interpreted by this private reason of every individual person cannot possibly be this easy clear universal and Infallible rule or means to come to an unity in Faith. What I said against this Private Reason of particular persons or Churches §. 120. concludes also against the Private Spirit which some pretend to which Spirit if it were the Spirit of God would certainly teach all persons the same thing Others there are who tell you that the means to come to the knowledge of the true sense of Scripture is to compare one Text with another to examin the Commentators the Original Languages the Antient Writers and Interpreters c. but this way beside that it is coincident with Private Reason which we have already shewn cannot be our Infallible Rule to come to the true sense of Scripture is moreover impossible to be done by the generality of Mankind whose concerns to get a livelyhood are such that they have neither time opportunities nor abilities to do it Our Defender will perhaps Argue here from his good friends Doctor Stillingfleet and Mr. Chilling worth that they need not take such pains nay moreover that if they use only such a moderate industry as is consistent with their employments tho' they should err God will not impute it to them In
50 of them were of the Arian party that at their first Assembly they refused the Formula of Faith brought by * Socrat lib. 2. c. 29. p. 2â—0 F. Vrsacius and Valens from Sirmium they condemned Arianism and established the Nicene Faith and sent their Decrees to the Emperor desiring a dismission of the Assembly But the Emperor dissatisfied with this constancy would not give any answer to their Legates but ordered the Bishops to stay at Ariminum till his return from an Expedition against the Barbarians Socrat. Ibid. p. 262. F. Sozom. lib. 4. c 18. p 487. at which time he hoped they would concur with him To which they answered that they could not depart from the Sentence they had already pronounced and therefore begged leave again to return before Winter to their Churches to which the Emperor giving no answer Russin Hist lib. 1. c. 21. pag 203. several of them returned by stealth the others kept like prisoners which want of Freedom shewed this later part of the Council not to have been Legitimate at last deluded by the Emperors Agents and the specious pretences of a firm Peace and Union which would follow amongst the Western and Eastern Churches yielded to Subscribe a Form in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not rejected but omitted as being not well understood by the Latins But however this general Form was suspected by the Catholic Bishops and they would not Subscribe to it without some additions to secure the Churches Faith from Arianism and other misconstructions in which Additions they condemned Arius and all his perfidiousness and declared the Son to be Equal to the Father Severus Hist lib. â— Hier. dial adver Lucifer Apud Guide of Controvdise 2 §. 26. n. 5. pag. 117. Sozom. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. C. and without beginning or time and that he was not a Creature and pronounced and Anathema against all those who should offer to say that the son was not Eternal with his Father all which either shew the Son to be Consubstantial to his Father or that they are two Gods which the Arians denyed the Arians having consented to these Additions and the Catholic Faith being now thought secure the Council was dismissed But Valens and his Followers having now got a specious pretext proclaimed abroad that the Council of Ariminum had consented to the Arian Doctrin and condemned the Nicen Faith explicating the Formula to their own sense and pretending that when they said the Son was not a Creature they meant he was not a Creature as other Creatures were c. But the Western Bishops seeing themselves thus cheated by the subtilty of the Arians were highly vexed and protested against it and at this time it was that St. Jerome says the world admired to see it self become Arian all of a suddain not as if it were really so but because the equivocal words were easily turned by the Arians to their own sense and the People deceived by their pretences of a General Council Constantius also the Emperor resolved to make this Formula be Signed by all persons that were not at that Council or that had gone from it without his leave and hence a great Persecution arose and many Bishops amongst which (a) Sozom. lib. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. B. Pope Liberius was one were Banished others cruelly (b) Martyr Rom. Marcel de Schism Vrcis Dumas Apud Mainburg Hist de l' Arianism 1. Partie lib. 4. p. 39 Edit Paris in 4â—0 murdered as Gaudentius Bishop of Ariminum Rufinus and others So that it is plain from what has been here deduced from the best Historians of those times that neither the Pope nor Council nor Western Church condemned the Divinity of Christ Moreover it is to be remarked that St. Athanasius with all thee other Eastern Bishops of his party most of them either Deposed Banished or Persecuted by the Emperor and all these Western Prelates stood up for the defence of the Faith defined in the Council of Nice against the Arians who Innovated and would impose a sense upon Scripture which they had not been taught by their Forefathers but had taken up upon their own Private Judgments So that our Defenders Instance if rightly taken will be very much to his disadvantage and is a convincing proof against his assertion for it is manifest that to Imitate St. Athanasius a person ought to stand to the Definitions of a lawful General Council against all the Private Interpretations and pretended evident convictions of those who oppose it And ought to be so far from preferring his Private Sentiments of the sense of Scripture before the Judgment of the Church that he ought to suffer all manner of Persecutions and even Death it self rather than recede from her approved Faith. ART XXV Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy OUr Defender having layd down such a Principle in the foregoing Article of his Exposition §. 125. as rendred all Chruch-Authority ineffectual Yet as if he had forgot himself in the very next he tells us that he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith as bound thereto by a Subscription to the 39 Articles in the 20th of which that Authority is expressed And to shew us what he means by this just Authority he tells us that they allow such deference to her decisions Expos Church of Engl. p. 80. as to make them their directions what Doctrin they may or may not publickly maintain and teach in her Communion That is I suppose as much as to say they allow an exterior assent as far as Non-contradiction But even thus much is certainly inconsistent with that obligation which our Defender affirms Desence pig 80. particular persons lye under to support and adhere to their own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church if they be but evidently convinced that the Church has erred in her decisions I perceive he was Conscious of this Incongruity and therefore left a hole to creep out at Expos Church of Engl. pag. 81. telling us that they allow whatsoever submission they â—an to the Authority of the Church without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures So that thence it may as well be concluded as from his former Principle that every Private person Tinker Gobler or Weaver having received the Decrees of a General Council in to examin them himself by Scripture before he give his interior Assent and if having summoned together his own Extravagant Notions of the Word of God and its sense he be but evidently convinced as he imagines that the sentence of the Church thwarts the Scriptures he not only may but in our Defenders Principles is obliged to support and adhere to his own seeing as he thinks he cannot allow such a submission to her Authority without violating that of God c. And if so I would gladly ask him what is that just Authority which he tells
great deal more reason than you have done of Popery and have shewn you the many Alterations that have been made during this last Age even in your Rubrics Liturgies Doctrins Disciplin and form of Ordination without descending to that varlety of Contradictions which are found even among your Approved Authors But because this Answer has swelled above the bounds I intended I shall let that alone to another hand or till some other opportunity be offered And here I might take my leave of you but that a tender concern for the salvation of your Soul and for all those others who are misled by you calls upon me to admonish you of your Duty §. 133. The Defender's obligation to make Satisfaction to the Church Non tollitur peccatum nisi restituatur oblatam Sir You know when an injury is done to any particular person and either their Goods or Good-name are taken from them a restitution must be made and that under pain of eternal Damnation for St. Augustin's rule is without exception unless in cases of an impossibility that the sin is not remitted unless the injury be repaired by restitution But when the Calumny passes from particulars to whole Communities as the Crime becomes much greater so does the Obligation of making Satisfaction become more Cogent And seeing no Community is so Holy as that of Christs Immaculate Spouse his Church those Calumnies that are forged against her must be expiated by a more than ordinary Satisfaction And where her same has been struck at in Public nothing but a Public Recantation can make Attonement I must therefore here Sir call upon you once more and mind you of your Necessary Duty that is of making a Public acknowledgment of those Calumnies you have thrown upon the Church and the misrepresentations unsincerities and Falsifications you have made use of to back those Accusations This I tell you is a necessary Duty and without which you cannot expect your Sin can be Forgiven you and therefore I must in almost your own words intreat you by the hopes of Eternity to consider how dangerous this way you have taken is and what a sad purchace it will be if to gain some reputation or Temporal Interest in this world you do or omit that which will unavoidably lose your own Soul. You ask me whether you have Calumniated us or misrepresented our Doctrins and where are the Vnsincere dealings Falsifications Authors miscited or misapplied Sir I know these are harsh words and I wish for your reputation sake I could smother the Crimes but alas they are too obvious to be concealed and in Every Article almost you are guilty of them This I have sufficiently Demonstrated and if Sense and Reason can be Judge in any thing even in their proper objects I appeal to that which is common in every man for the truth of what I say I will not again return to Particulars lest I should seem to take too much Satisfaction in having my Adversary at an advantage No! I should have been contented to have let these or any other Injuries pass had they only affected me but where the Church which must be Holy is struck at and such Arts used to blacken her should I hold my Peace my silence would be a Guilt It is not of an Error or two of the Press nor yet of the omission of some words which were not pertinent nor material that I here complain I speak of words left out which prevaricate the plain sense I speak of misconstructions and misapplications contrary to the intent of the Authors and this not only to shew a pretended difference amongst our selves but to back most horrid calumnies which you have uttered against that Church which is without spot or blemish and this in the very entrance into your Exposition There is certainly Sir no Crime so black as that of Idolatry Expos Doct. Ch. of Engl. p. 3. 14. to accuse therefore a Church of committing it by adoring men and women Crosses and Images and that in the utmost propriety of the Phrase the proofs ought certainly to be clear and demonstrative but when we find nothing but wresting of places and words and mutilations of Sentences to make them speak what you please I think the most moderate term we can give such accusations is to say they are Calumnies The Truth of what I say has been abundantly shewn in the foregoing Articles and I admire after such accusations Defence p. 84 85. that you can talk so confidently of a peaceable Exposition kindly and charitably performed and which you were willing to hope might be received with civility Is this the way to heal our Breaches to bring that Peace and Vnity which you say you so much long for You tell us indeed that our Errors are many of them disavowed by us and is not that enough Ibid. p. 103. Why so much pains then to prove us guilty of them Why is there not an union at least in those points Why must we be still called Idolaters c We know our selves Innocent and we assert it we know the Church was always so and we prove it but yet the most solemn assertions and the clearest proofs must pass for nothing amongst those who pretend to Civility Peace and Charity I conjure you therefore Sir by all that is Sacred by the common name of Christian by that Unity that ought to be in the Church of Christ as well as by its Sanctity by the Eternal God and his Son Christ Jesus that as you tender the Salvation of your own Soul and those of so many others as have been induced by you to an imitation of those Calumnies that you retract the false witness you have born against your Neighbors and hinder not that union which might otherwise be hoped for in the Church of Christ by hindring those who have gone astray from returning to the Arms of their Innocent Mother I know the pride of our nature is apt to hinder persons from retracting what they have once advanced but certainly they who consider that Eternity is at stake and that an injustice which will render us miserable for that Eternity cannot be expiated without making satisfaction will not find it so difficult to acknowledge their mistake tho' wilful rather than run into inevitable damnation And pray God give you this serious thought and resolution And when you are serious Sir and resolved to do your duty pray consider also First the obligation you have brought upon your selves by such accusations Consider Secondly the danger you have thrown your selves and your adherents into by your separation and Lastly consider the many advantages you are deprived of by being separated from our Communion If you accuse us Catholics of Idolatry and of those other Errors and Crimes you mention I. §. 134. The obligation the Defender has laid upon himself by accusing the Catholic Church of Idolatry I see not how you can pretend us to be members of the
Church of Christ one of whose inseparable marks is that of Sanctity which is certainly inconsistent either with such Crimes or Errors for as a man cannot be accounted a sound man if he have a mortal distemper on him so neither can a Church be accounted Holy if it teach a damnable Doctrin And if we cannot be accounted members neither can they who preceded us in the same Practices and Doctrins and therefore you who lay this accusation oblige your selves to shew a visible Church distinct from that of ours which has in all ages been free from such Errors and damnable Idolatries but this as I have formerly taken notice your Book of Homilies to which you subscribe thinks impossible and without considering the consequences of denying Christ to have such an Innocent Church tells us plainly that for above 800 Years All men Third part of the Homilie against peril of Idolatry pag. 143. fol. Anno 1673. women and Children of whole Christendom fell into the damnable Sin of Idolatry Shew us such an Innocent and Holy Church as this and we will Communicate with her But if you cannot shew such an one you must give us leave to believe our Blessed Saviour who promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church and that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who should remain with her to the end of the world c. rather than with such Calumniators accuse him of the breach of his promise and affirm that he had no Holy Church on Earth for above 800 nay as others say for above 1000 Years And seeing we know our selves Innocent of those Crimes of which we are accused as well as they how can we communicate with our and their accusers I would not have you Sir to fly to your usual Parallel and tell us that God had always his Wheat among the Tares in the field of his Church The Parable is just if rightly understood that is there shall be always good and bad in her Community But if you compare the Wheat to the orthodox Doctrin of Christ and the Tares to Errors or Heretical Tenets they certainly who were guilty of those Errors must be accounted Tares and if as your Book of Homilies affirms the whole Christian world was guilty of them both in Head and Members for above 800 Years where was the Wheat all that time The belief of some true Doctrins mixed with many Errors would not secure them unless you will say that the same individual Root might bear both Wheat and Tares and be at the same time gathered into the Granary and burnt with unquenchable fire But if you say there were at that time orthodox Christians and a Church which Preached the word of God and administred the Sacraments rightly and was free from the Tares of false Doctrin let it or its Members be shewn and we will Communicate with them But it is easier to talk this out of a Pulpit than prove it to men of Sense Secondly II. §. 135. The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion the danger you are in by being thus Separated from the Church of Christ is such that any one I think who considers it seriously with its consequences cannot but desire to free himself You deny not but that the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was a true Church and that Salvation was and is to be had in it that she had and has true Pastors true Sacraments true Creeds the true Word of God c. Only you say Errors have crept into her since the First 400 Years and that you have reformed them by the Example of those first Ages and by the infallible Word of God. But besides that it is a question to which it will be difficult to give a satisfactory answer from whence they had it who assumed that Authority to reform and what testimony they can give of their mission I would only ask you Sir what assurance you can give me that your pretended Reformers in this last Age see more clearly the sense of this infallible writing or know more exactly what was the practice of the First 400 Years than all your Forefathers of those preceding ages If you cannot give a satisfactory answer to this and shew such an assurance that you have hit upon the right Faith and they did not such an assurance I say upon which we may trust the Salvation of our Souls which being a matter of the highest concern the security ought also to be the highest we shall have reason to doubt you have been out in your reformation and that whilst you pretended to reform you have on the contrary made a breach in the Unity of the Church and have rent the Seamless garment of our Lord and torn his mystical Body a Crime not much unlike theirs who Scourged Buffeted and Crucified him and will be as severely punished If you say they were evidently convinced that Scripture was against the universal practice and belief of the Church and therefore they were obliged to follow the Superior not Inferior Guide I desire to know how they came to be evidently convinced and if you cannot shew some secure and unerring principle to rely upon for that conviction I must exhort you to consider the hazard you have run your self into by following them the danger which all those who are misled by you incur and how strict an account you and they must one day give if that Principle of yours That every individual person may dissent from the Catholic Church so his judgment be convinced he follows the right sense of Scripture and she does not be found false and you and they deluded by it into disobedience For seeing our Blessed Saviour himself bids us look upon them that will not hear the Church as no other than Heathens or Publicans such disobedience must needs be followed with a punishment answerable to those crimes Lastly III. §. 136. The advantages he is deprived of by being out of the Church as for the advantages which you are deprived of by being separated from the Catholic Church I beg of you to consider them not only in general but in Particular And to this end pray read seriously the conclusion of the Third Discourse of the Guide in Controversy and compare the times which preceded your pretended reformation with those which have followed it and see what a deerease of Truth Piety Devotion Humility Love and Obedience has hapned since you separated from your unerring Mothers arms and betook your selves to the guidance of your own fallible interpretations Which if you do I hope you will with the Prodigal Son return to the embraces of your tender Parent who with expanded arms and a compassionate bleeding heart Sollicits her Almighty Spouse for your Conversion FINIS A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter to the Vindicator Meaux 13. May. 1687. Mon Reverend Pere. LES nouvelles objections que vous m'envoyez sur le