difference betwixt the Idea and this Material Image than that the one is in our Mind by something which was formerly in our Senses and the other is in our Mind by something which at that time strikes our Senses but the Adoration which is there performed is neither in the one nor in the other to the Image but to God whom it Represents And this is all that Scholastic Divines and that Cardinal Capisucchi means in that passage which our Defender cites from him which I give you entirely in the Margent * Ex his constat in Concili Niceno secundo in Tridentino alijsque Latriam duntaxat idosala ricam sacris Imaginibus denegari qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seipsis propter ipsas exhibeitur quaque Imagines sen Numina aut Divinitaâ—em continentia more Gen ilium colamur de hujusmodi enim Latriae Controversia crat cum Judaeis Haereticis qui hae ratione nos Imagines colere asserchant Caeterum de Latria illa quae Imaginibus S. Triritatis Christi Domini aut Sâ—â—ratissimae Crucis exhibetur ratione rei per eas repraesentatae quatenus cum re repraesentatú unum sunt in esse repraesentativo nullamque Divinitatem Imaginibus tribuit aut supponit nulla unquam suit aut esse poruit Controversis Nara liâ—jusmodi Latria Imaginibus Exhibetur non propter seipsas nec in iysit sistendo sed propter Exemplar in quod Adoratio illa transit unde sicut Purpura Regis etsi non sit Rex honoratur tamen codem honore quo Rex quatenus est conjuncta Regi cum Rege facit aliquomodo unum humanitas Christi etsi sit Creatura adoratur aderatione Latriae quia est unita personae Verbi unum Christum cum persona Verbiconstituit ita Imago Christiquia in esse representativo est unum idem cum Christe adoratur eadem Adoratione qua adoratur Christus whose Sense is in other more intelligible words what the Bishop of Meaux says that we do not so much honor the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in Presence of the Image If the Bishop of Meaux chose rather to speak in such intelligible terms and according to the Language of the Church in her Councils and Professions of Faith leaving the harder expressions of the Schools it do's not follow that he and Cardinal Capisucchi differ in the true meaning neither is it a mark that Papists as he says think it lawful to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrins they dislike I have shewn him in what Sense that may be true tho' it seems he did not understand it that is when the Principles in those Books touch only probable opinions or Philosophical conclusions they may approve what they dislike But I told him that in matters of Faith they do not think it lawful to set their hands to or approve the Principles they dislike neither can our Desender shew one Instance without wresting it to a Sense not intended by them What I have said of Images may be said of Relics Relics As for Justification §. 14. Justification if persons would but rightly understand things there can be no Controversie betwixt them and us the Council of Trent having declared so plainly Conc. Trid. Sess 6. cap. 8. that we are Justified Gratis and that none of those Acts which precede our Justification whether they be Faith or good Works can Merit this Grace but if after such a Declaration they will not believe us we can only pity them and Pray to God to make them less obstinate Again Merit Sess 6. can 26. for Merit of good works done after this Justification we say with the Council of Trent that the just may expect an Eternal reward from God through his Mercies and the Merits of Jesus Christ The just may expect a reward for their good works done in Grace if they persevere to the end in doing good and keeping the Commandments But the Council tels us nothing at all of the School questions as whether this Merit be of Justice or Fidelity or Condignity or Congruity and therefore they ought to be excluded from our disputes as being no necessary matters of our Faith. As to Satisfactions for Temporal punishments due to sin Satisfaction We satisfie by Christs satisfaction it is not of Faith as appears by the Conncils silence in those Points that our satisfactions are of Condignity or of congruity by justice or by mercy But it is of Faith that through the Merits of Christ we satisfie for such pains Sess 14. can 13.14 and that by Jesus Christ we satisfie for our sins by the help of his satisfactions which Merits of Christ proceed meerly from his mercy towards us Oppose this last then only and our Controversie will be shorter What a deal of stuff have we seen of late concerning Purgatory even by those who acknowledge §. 15. Purgatory that all the Council of Trent determins is that there is a Purgatory or middle state and that the Souls that are detained there are helped the suffrages of the Faithful but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar It is not what Bellarmin looks upon as Truths that we ought to maintain but only what is of necessary Faith and that is defined by the Council It is therefore no Article of necessary Faith without the belief of which we cut our selves off from the Communion of the Faithful that there is a Fire in Purgatory A short summary of the Principal Controversies c. pag. 42. neither has the Council of Florence defined it tho' a late Pamphlet says it did It is not defined what the pains are nor how grievous nor how long they shall last Had those Authors therefore let these Points alone and only Written against such a middle state the Printer would have got less by them but the People more Separate also what is not of Faith from Indulgences and the Controversie will be brought to this whether the Power of Indulgences hath been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ Indulgences and whether the use of them be beneficial to Christian People or no so that we should have nothing to do in our disputes about the Treasure of the Church nor about Indulgences whereby the punishment due in the Court of God sin remitted may be taken away or the pains in Purgatory but only about a Power to remit to Penitents some part of their public Canonical Penances if their life and laudable Conversation seemed to deserve it We affirm only §. 16. Sacraments that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments in the New Law Instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind tho' not all to every one And our Advesaries say there are two only generally
SANCTORVM frustra frequent ari omnino damnandos esse after this manner so that they who affirm the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented for the obtaining their Aid that is the Aid of the Saints are to be condemned fixing Eorum to its Substantive Sanctorum which follows in the same Sentence rather than to Monumenta in the foregoing from whence it is separated in most of the Editions I have seen by a Hyppooolon I say I appeal to any Jury of Scholars Whether I did not give the true sense of the Sentence and whether the Defender be not short in his Translation But if he have a mind still to pursue the Cavil all I can do is to wish him a clearer sight or to send him to the Words as they are Printed in Bail 's Summa Conciliorum Sess 25. de Invocat Venerat c. pag. 701. E. Where he will find the Word Eorum quite left out which will I hope satisfy him that we neither make our Prayers I'a ut affirâ—â—â—tes Sanctâ—rum Reliquits veneratienem at que benerem non debevi veleas aliaque sacra Monum â—ta a filelibâ—â— inuâ—iliter bonâ—rari atque opis impetrande causi Saâ—â—orum Memorias frustra frequentars ommine damnindes esse c. Memoriae Sancterum alia sacra Monumenta are the same and therefore if corum hâ—d been referred to the Monuments or Memorials it ought to have been of the seminine gender in that sentence thus earum memoriarum opis in petrandae causa Non qued credatur inesse aliqua in its Diviâ—itas vel virtus propâ—er quam sint colâ—â—dae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid peiendum vel quod fidutia in Lâ—â—agin but sit figâ—â—da c. to the Monuments nor to the Reliques nor Memorials of the Saints The Council then as appears plainly by the words of it condemns three forts of persons The first those who affirm that Veneration and Honor is not due to the Reliques of Saints The second those who affirm That Reliques and other Holy Monuments are unprofitably honored and the third those who say that the Memorials of the Saints are in vain frequented in order to obtain the aid and assistance of those Saints and they who give another sense wrest the Words and impose a Doctrin which never any Divine of the Church of Rome held nor any that I have met with but the Defender accused them of and yet this must be again repeated in his Close as a piece of old Popery but he should rather have called it new Calumny and a fearful Blunder of his own They who doubt whether I speak truth or no may be pleased to Read the Council it self and some Lines further they will find that it professes it does not believe that any Divinity or Vertue is in Images for which they ought to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or any trust to be put in Images and I think the same case holds in Monuments There remains one Objection from Bellarmin §. 28. concerning the Veneration of Images mentioned by the Defender in his Close which is Bellarm. de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 21. p. 1697. Ch. 22. Non esse dicendum Iataginibus deberi culium Latriae Ch. 23. Imagines Christi improprie velper accidens posse honorari culiu Latriae Ch. 24. Imagines â—er se propries non esse colendâ—â—â—o cultu quo 〈◊〉 ipsum colitur Ch. 25 Quina conelusio Culous qui per se proprie debetur Imaginibus est Cusius quidam impersedus qui a 〈◊〉 reductive peranet ad speciens ajue Culius qui debeiur examplari That he affirms the Images of Christ and his Saints are to be Venerated not only by accident and improperly but also by themselves and Properly so that the Veneration is terminated in them as they are considered in themselves and not only as they are the Representatives of the Originals But had he looked into his Explication he would have found that the Veneration he there speaks of is only such as is given the Book of Gospels or the Sacred Utensils of the Church And the Titles of his three following Chapters and the Conclusion he draws from them in the fifth shew that the Vindicator and he did not differ in their Faith. ART V. Of Justification THe Defender is very free in his Accusations §. 29. Desence pag. 25. but very unfortunate in his Proofs He tels us of sirange abuses with which the true Doctrin of Justification was over-run at the beginning of the Reformation and wonders at my confident denial of it without any Proof when at the same time he brings no other himself but a bare affirmation that he must be very ignorant in the Histories of those times The Catholic Church falsely accused c. I must confess we shall find in those Ages strange Accusations of the Catholic Doctrin but who ever peruses the Acts of our Councils will find they were only mere Calumnies and Misrepresentations I need not send oun Defender further than to the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685 Where he will find those Calumnies Injuries and Falsities proved out of their own Authors But what our Defender means now by the true Doctrin of Justification is not very easie to Guess unless he State it in Calvins way or the 11th Article of his Church which yet he knows tho' he have a mind to keep counsel is disavowed by the best and honestest Divines of the English Church I speak not here of Mr. Thorndike but of many others as Dr. Taylor Dr. Hammond Mr. Bull and who must be set by himself Mr. Baxter Nay Report too says that the Pulpits also as many as do not persevere in Calvinism do directly declare against it and that with all the reason in the World that Men may no longer perish by wresting St. Pauls difficulter expressions to their own Damnation which 't is believed (a) 2 Pet. 3.16 St. Peter points at we are sure (b) Jac. 2.20 26. St. James doth Yes yes time was they tell us that the Church of Rome was loudly accused of Erring in Fundamentals because she taught Justification by Faith and Works without which Faith is but Dead but now the Fundamental Error is found to lye elsewhere God be thanked and yet Justification must still remain for so goes the Game a Bone of Contention Want of Charity will always keep us asunder and tho' we be agreed yet the spite of it is we will not agree The Defender knows upon what Politic motives things are so managed and who are to be gratified at this Juncture lest there should appear a possibility of union * See the Advertisment to the Bp. of Condoms Exposition pag. 8. Exposition of the Doctrin of the Church of England pag. 21. with that Church from which they separated themselves principally upon account of our Doctrin of Justification tho'
Hebrews concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to the Offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered and makes his Advantage of it Whereas if he had added the next words they would have solved the Difficulty A Falsification For the Bishops words are that the Aposile concludes we ought not only to Offer up no more Victims after Jesus Christ but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once Offered up to Death for us But these last words were overseen by our Expositor or he was loath to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for Peace I might also take notice how cautiously the Defender avoids my question concerning what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly and properly speaking or no tho' possibly not in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the words To all which he returns a profound silence As for the Reflections upon what has been said I leave the Reader to make them himself and hope if he have a True Zeal for the Salvation of his Soul he will seriously consider the premises and heartily beseech Almighty God to enlighten his mind to the knowledge of his True Faith without which it is impossible to please him ART XXII Communion under both Species THe Vindicator tells me § 102. The Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither faise unreasonable nor frivolous that I advance Three Arguments in this Article from the public Acts of their own Church The first false The second both false and unreasonable And the third nothing to the purpose By which I see he is not unskilled in Multiplication and very willing to cast the Lyer upon me if he could But the false the unreasonable and the impertinent will be found perhaps to lye at the Accusers Door My Argument was but one and I think neither unreasonable nor impertinent He had told me from their 30th Article Art. 30. That the Church of England declared that the Cup ought not to be denyed to the Lay-people for as much as both parts of the Lords Supper by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be adminisired to all Christian men alike From hence I Argued that if the Church of England allowed the Communion to be given under one Species in cases of Necessity she was not consonant to her self nor agreed with her 30th Article which looked upon it as the express Command of Jesus Christ to give it under both Species and his express Commands are certainly indispensible Also that if she did allow it lawful to give it under one kind in cases of necessity the Arguments which the Bishop of Meaux had brought against the Calvinists of France were equally in force against the Church of England viz. that they must not deny but that both Species were not by the Institution of Christ Essential to the Communion seeing no necessity could require us to go contrary to an Essential Ordinance of Christ But that the Church of England did allow her people to Communicate under one Species in case of Necessity I proved from Edward the Sixths Proclamation before the Order of Communion In which I said he had ordained That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and Administred unto all persons within this our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This he says as thus alledged is False because Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing but only says that forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was Ordained Therefore He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it Let it be so if you please that Edward the 6th did not by vertue of this Proclamation ordain it yet the inserting of that Act of Parliament into that Proclamation served as a Rubrick to inform all those who were to Administer that Sacrament that if necessity required it they might give it in one kind And my Argument has gathered strength by being opposed seeing it has now not only a Proclamation but an Act of Parliament to back it But he says it is also unreasonable to Argue as to the present State of the Church of England from what was allowed only and that in case of necessity too in the very beginning of the Reformation If the Church of England had Repealed this Act of Parliament or by some Authentic Act or Canon declared it to be void it might have seemed unreasonable in me to produce it But if this Act be still in force I see no reason why we may not justly conclude that the Church of England holds it lawful in cases of necessity to Communicate only under one Species which if she do all her Arguments against Catholics as if they deprived the people of an Essential part of the Sacrament violated Christs Ordinance gave but a half Communion and the like have as much force against her self as us And if she leave it to her Ministers to judge when necessity requires it to be given only under one kind why will she deprive the Catholic Church representative of that Power And if a natural Reason such as is a loathing of Wine may induce private Pastors not to give the Cup to some particular persons why may not a Supernatural Reason such as is the detection and by that means the refutation of an Heresy not to mention the avoiding of many indignities c. induce such a Church representative to command that which was already practised by most Christians especially knowing that she deprived them of nothing which was Essential to a Sacrament As for the Note I made use of it only as a thing fit to be remarked and not as an Argument against communicating under both kinds However I might justly conclude that if under one Particle the whole Body of Jesus Christ be contained and this Body be now a living Body which it cannot be unless the Flesh and Blood the Soul and Divinity be united They who receive one Particle receive whole Christ and with him his Gifts and Graces that is a full Sacrament So that the first Falsity he accuses me of is as you see a plain mistake I do not say he had no Reason for it because the Printer had indeed placed the Citation in the Margent over against a wrong place but had he considered the sense he might have saved that ungenteele Answer The second Argument as he calls it is neither false in the bottom nor unreasonable And if the last be not so convincing an Argument yet does it not want some force And I will add to