receive it is that they cannot receive the benefit of Christs Presence without a lively Faith but should rather Eat and Drink their own Damnation as is more fully express'd in the next Article and also that the expressions of a Heavenly and Spiritual manner are only to oppose that Carnal and Gross manner which a Natural Body has as having local extention c. which Body as such cannot possibly be in more places then one as St. Augustin affirms and to which that part of the Article in Edw. Sparrow's Canons pag. 49. the Sixths days to which this has succeeded do's allude If he think I impose upon their Church I desire him to let us know by some Authentic Testimony what is the meaning of that part of the Article and to shew us how it can stand with the Doctrine deliver'd in the Church Chatechism which affirms as I have told you that The inward thing signified is the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST which is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful it do's not say by Faith but by the Faithful As also how it agrees with these words of the same Article The Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of CHRIST and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of CHRIST If then he admit with King James Causab Ep. ad Card. Per. that they believe JESUS CHRIST to be as really present in the Sacrament as Roman Catholics do but only know not the manner Pag. 61. What becomes of all his Sarcasms of Worshipping a Deity whose substance they first form'd and then spake it into a God c. He knew full well that such Objections were the very Calumnies of the Heathens who did not only object to Christians their eating of their God but also of eating Mans Flesh in their Sacrifices of drinking Childrens Blood and several other such like accusations all which proceeded from some imperfect knowledge they had got of the Christian Sacrifice notwithstanding all the care the Primitive Christians took to conceal that Adorable Mystery from Infidels and even Catechumens What becomes of all the Arguments brought from pretended contradictions and an impossibility of being present in many places at once Do's not their real Participation if as the Bishop says there be any Sence in the Words fall under the same censures And what becomes of all his Objections rais'd from the difference betwixt some Schoolmen who endeavour to explicate the manner of his presence and the free acknowledgment of others that we are ignorant of it Do not they themselves profess the same And if we cannot comprehend how God can be three and one or the Divinity be Incarnate must we necessarily therefore deny the Blessed Trinity or the Incarnation In a word what will become of all the Arguments in General brought against Transubstantiation substantiation Adoration Sacrifice of the Altar Communion under one Species c. seeing Learned Protestants themselves confess that if the words of the Institution be taken in a Literal Sence without which a Real Presence can never be admitted they must yield up the Cause in all those Points to Roman Catholics This Brerelay has shown in his Liturgy of the Mass Printed Anno 1620. pag. 225 339. from several of their own Authors But he tells us that many of our Schoolmen acknowledge there is not in the Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation that there is not any Texts that without the declaration of the Church would be able to evince it that it was not a matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran and then triumphs as if these expressions were a perfect yielding up of our Cause But I would gladly have him to consider upon what account it is these Learned Men use those expressions and examine a little their Reasons and then I doubt not but if he observe the Connection of their Discourse he will not find such an occasion of triumphing It is an usual thing with Novelists to pretend nothing must be admitted as a matter of Faith but what can be manifestly proved from plain Texts of Scripture This Catholics deny and tell them such a proposition destroys all our Faith because no body can prove for example by Scripture the Books of the Gospels or the Epistles of St. Paul to be the Word of God or Divine Revelation and if they cannot prove those Scriptures to be Divine but by Tradition and the Interposition of the Church and yet tell us Tradition and Church Authority are not sufficient what will become of all the Articles contain'd in those Books Nay further Catholics tell them that if they rely only upon the bare words of Scripture without having recourse to the Authority of a Church and the Consent of Pastors and Teachers in all Ages and Places they will never be able to demonstrate any one Doctrine that is they can never prove it so clearly as to convince those who rely wholly upon their Reason and will admit of nothing for a proof in such weighty matters but what is so clear that whoever understands the Terms and Propositions must necessarily consent to the Conclusion drawn from them The Schoolmen do not only instance the Real Presence and Transubstantiation in proof of this but the Trinity also and Incarnation and in a word all the Articles of our Creed And the very opposition which Heretics in the several Ages of the Church have form'd against those Doctrines is a clear proof of this seeing they upon all occasions pretended Scripture for their grounds and because Catholics could not bring any Text of Scripture against them so clear but they could elude it by some seeming Exposition therefore Scripture alone could never decide the Controversies but the voice of the Church in her Councils was in all Ages esteem'd necessary to stop their Mouths and her Decisions and Declarations of the Sence of Scripture was that which confounded all their Errors Thus it was that Arius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Nice not by the sole words of Scripture but by the words of Scripture as understood and explicated by the consent of the Catholic Church and thus it was that Berengarius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Lateran and several others and that Condemnation confirm'd by that of Trent He tells us moreover That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran Pag. 56 1200 years after CHRIST and had not That and the Council of Trent interposed it would not have been so to this very day And cites Lombard Scotus Gabriel and Bellarmine for this Assertion Let us examine his Quotations but first we will represent the State of the Question as the best Method to understand their Meanings We must therefore take notice that the word Transubstantiation was first publicly used in the Council of Lateran as the word Consubstantial was in the first Council of Nice but that
A VINDICATION OF THE BISHOP of CONDOM's EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Catholic Church In Answer to a Book Entituled An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England c. With a Letter from the said Bishop Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1686. A VINDICATION OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Catholic Church PART I. Containing an Answer to the Preface IT is no less strange than much to be deplored that Religion which ought to be the Common Band of Unity should by the subtilty of Satan become the Occasion of Discord and Contention amongst Christians And that all the Methods which the Catholic Church makes use of or the Means her dutiful Children can suggest should be so far from opening the Eyes of many otherwise clear-sighted and well-meaning Persons led away with the Prejudice of Education as to give them occasion to calumniate her Doctrines censure her Practices and condemn her Pastors One would have thought such a Book as is the Bishop of Condom's Exposition free from Passion grounded upon the Pure Doctrine of the Council of Trent and seconded by the greatest Authority in the Church next to that of the Council it self should have calm'd the Minds of them who pretend to be lovers of Peace and Unity and have made those who propose to themselves any thing of sincerity in matters of such high concerns to acknowledge the Doctrines of the Catholic Church to have been faithfully Expounded in it But we see the contrary and that a Book thus grounded upon the manifest Doctrine of a General Council approv'd as such by the Learned Prelates of divers Nations and by the Pope himself must be made to pass amongst our New Reformers as a Book which Palliates or Prevaricates the Doctrine of our Church and the very Approbations as meer Artifices to deceive the World and not as Sincere much less Authoritative Approbations either of the Nature or Principles of the same Doctrine Pref. p. 15. Had the Author indeed of this Calumny who pretends to lay down the Doctrine of the Church of England given us some more Authentic Testimonies for what he Publishes or taught us some better Method whereby to know the Doctrine of a Church he might have had a more plausible appearance of Reason to complain But when we see him giving us the Doctrines of his Church upon no better Testimony than his own and that of an Imprimatur when we see him to be so far from fixing himself to the known Doctrine of the Church of England exhibited in her Canons and Thirty nine Articles that in several places he asserts what is not to be found amongst them and when we hear him telling us he has forborn to set his Name to it Pref. p. 18. least perhaps any prejudice against his Person might chance to injure the Excellence of the Cause which he maintains I cannot without some wonder reflect upon his Censure and the Reception his Book is said to have had But it seems for him to tell us He is so assured he has not Palliated or Prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England in his Exposition Ibidem that he entirely submits himself and it to her Censure and the sight of an Imprimatur Carolus Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc Lond. prefix'd before it is sufficient in some Mens Judgments to Authorize an Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England when the Approbation of so many Learned Judicious and Pious Prelates of the Church of Rome together with that of the whole Assembly of the Clergy of France and of the Pope himself at two several times must by our Author be noted as proceeding from a Peculiar Art unknown to Protestants who are accustomed as he says to sincere dealing Pref. p. 13. But we shall have occasion shortly to examine whether he has made use of that sincerity to which he makes so strong Pretentions Indeed an Answer to his Book seems so needless that I often thought it would be sufficient to tell this Nameless Author That when his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has receiv'd from the Church of England as full and as Authentick a Testimony of being neither Palliated nor Prevaricated by him as hath the Exposition of the Bishop of Meaux from the Church Catholic and that when his Arguments appear so much as directly to confront the Bishops Exposition it would be time enough to Publish a Justification of that Work against his Calumnies But because this Author has declar'd tho rashly in the name of Protestants that they look upon those Opinions to be indefensible Pref. p. 16. which are not maintain'd against the Assaults of every one that pleases to write against them and that 't is an open and shameful forsaking of them not to take care to defend every thing that is Publish'd it may be some unwary Persons may look upon all he has said as Gospel unless his Discourse be unravell'd and the mistakes he has fallen under with the Sophistry of his Arguments be shewn But before I begin it will be necessary to give the Reader a short Account of the Bishop of Meaux's Intention in publishing this Book and what he expected from any one who should go about to Answer it which may serve for a true state of the Question And First as for his Intention having all along observ'd that our Doctrines were strangely Misrepresented and that not only the private Opinions of Scholastic Authors but even the Inventions of our Enemies were most commonly objected to us as the Tenets of our Church he thought it necessary to propose her Doctrine plainly and simply Expos p. 1. and to distinguish it aright from those Tenets which have been falsly imputed to her Note that the Quotations out of the Exposition are from the Impression published by His Majesty's Command by which he hop'd many of those false Notions of her Doctrine which divers Persons had form'd to themselves would have been remov'd and an Union much more easily obtain'd For it is a certain Truth That if the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church when truly Represented be Innocent and Pure and so far from destroying the acknowledg'd Foundations of the Christian Faith that it alone bears proportion and conformity to them then all the pretended Reformations of that Doctrine are but vain and unprofitable Labours and a Separation from that our ancient Mother-Church upon no better Grounds must be Schismatical and therefore all those who have broken the Unity of the Church upon such a pretended Reformation are oblig'd to return to her Bosom and Communion So that his Intentions were not so much to Argue or Dispute upon Points of Catholic Doctrine as to Propose them truly and render them Intelligible And therefore he pitch'd upon the Council of Trent as the fittest Compass by which he might
steer his Course resolving not to deviate from its Sence being that of the Catholic Church but meerly to separate Matters of Faith from such Opinions as are neither necessarily nor universally receiv'd Expos p. 2. And therefore he declar'd Secondly That they who would go about to Answer his Exposition ought not to undertake to Confute the Doctrine contain'd in it Expos p. 43. seeing his Design was only to Propose it without going about to Prove it That it would be a quitting the Design of his Treatise to Examine the several Methods which Catholic Divines make use of to Establish or Explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the different Consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it That it would avail them nothing Advert p. 20. either to object against us those Practises which they call general or the particular Opinion of Doctors because it suffices in one word to say That those Practices and Opinions be they what they will which are not found conformable to the Intent and Decisions of the Council are nothing to Religion nor to the Body of the Catholic Church nor ought by Consequence as the pretended Reform'd do themselves avouch Daillè Apol c. 6. p. 8. to give the least pretence to Separate from us because no one is oblig'd either to approve or follow them Expos p. 43. Lastly That to urge any thing solid against his Treatise and which may come home to the Point it must be prov'd that the Churches Faith is not faithfully Expounded in it and that by Acts which the same Church has oblig'd her self to receive or else it must be shown that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the Disputes untouch'd or in fine it must be precisely shown in what this Doctrine subverts the Foundation of Faith So that if they who Answer'd his Book brought only Arguments against the Doctrine deliver'd in it from private Authors holding particular Scholastic Opinions and not from Authentic Acts receiv'd by the Catholic Church or did not manifestly show the Bishop of Condom to have left out the chief Matters in Dispute and touched only lesser Difficulties or did not demonstrate how the Doctrine as Expounded by him subverted the remaining Maxims wherein both Protestants and we agree the Bishop might justly esteem their Answers not worthy his Reflection and that every Judicious Reader would grant his Pieces were as this Author terms them tho' in derision of a spirit and force sufficient to despise whatever Attempts could be made upon them of that nature Pref. p. 16. How true it is that nothing solid of this kind was objected by the Pretended Reform'd in France appears by his Advertisement And what our Author of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has Propos'd is now our Province to Examine And first as to his Preface He tells us of a first Edition suppress'd and another with Corrections publish'd in its place because the Sorbon refus'd to Approve the first He tells us of one Imbert and a Pastor of Mechlin Condemn'd the one by the Archbishop of Bourdeaux and the other by the Faculty of Lovain tho' they both alledg'd the Bishop of Condom's Exposition for proof of their Doctrines He tells us that Cardinal Capisucchi and Father Crasset have taught Doctrines contrary to that of the Exposition c. But suppose all he there says should be true what force can his Argument bear against the Doctrine as now Explicated in the later Editions of the Exposition what if some particular Persons have sustain'd Scholastic Opinions which in some sence seem to thwart the Doctrine of the Exposition as to such Scholastic Opinions and others like drowning Persons have grasp'd at any thing to save themselves whether for them or against them It follows not that the Exposition gives us not the Doctrine of the Church But to show the World what has been imposed upon them on this account by those who in their own Countries studied to maintain old Calumnies by new Inventions I shall here insert the Copy of a Letter lately sent me by that Learned and Pious Prelate in which they will see the true Matter of Fact as to those things alledg'd against his Exposition Very Reverend Father IT will not be difficult to answer your Letter of the Third Instant nor to solve the Objections drawn from Matters of Fact sent you out of England against my Exposition of the Catholic Doctrine The English Minister who has oppugn'd it and whose Objections you have sent me has done nothing but gather'd together the vain Inventions which our Huguenots endeavor'd to publish here and which are come to nothing of themselves without my being oblig'd to combat them This Author first tells us the Sorbon would not Approve to my Book But all the World here knows I never so much as thought of asking it The Sorbon is never us'd to Licence Books in Body If it did I should not need its Approbation having that of so many Bishops and being Bishop also my self That Venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops who are naturally and by their Character the true Doctors of the Church than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors when moreover most of those Bishops who have approv'd my Book are of the Body of the Sorbon and I my self also partake of that Honor. It is a great weakness to require of me to produce the Approbation of Sorbon when they see in my Book that of so many Learned Bishops that of the whole Clergy of France in the General Assembly of 1682 and that of the Pope himself You see by this Sir that it is a manifest Falsity to say that a first Edition of my Book was suppress'd because the Doctors of Sorbon had something to say against it I never did publish nor cause to be Printed any other Edition but that which is in the Hands of every one to which I never added nor diminish'd one Syllable and I never yet fear'd that any Catholic Doctor could find in it any thing worthy of Reprehension This to the first Objection of the English Author As for what he adds in the Second place That a certain Catholic whose Name he designs by a Capital Letter had written against me suppose it had been true so much the worse for that ill Catholic But this is as the rest an Invention of their own Heads Our Huguenots have in vain endeavour'd to vend such false Wares here no body ever yet heard of that Catholic they could never name him and all the World has scoffed at them for going about it In the Third place he tells us That Father Crasset a Jesuit has oppugned my Doctrine in a Book Entituled La veritable Devotion envers la Sainte Vierge I have not read that Book but neither did I ever hear it mention'd there was any thing in it contrary to mine and that
particular Account was given him by Letter touching these Matters of Fact There are two things remaining in the Preface which seem to require a farther Examination because they were not fully Represented to the Bishop The first is the Objection drawn from Cardinal Capisucchi's Book which this Author affirms to contradict the Bishop of Condom's Exposition The other is the Consequence he draws from thence and from other pretended Actions to wit That Roman-Catholics think it lawful even to set their Hands to Pref. p. 13. and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike To the First Whereas he affirms Cardinal Capisucchi to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Exposition we must first take notice The Bishop of Condom's intention was not to meddle with Scholastic Tenets but purely to deliver that Doctrine of the Church which is necessarily and universally receiv'd whereas Cardinal Capisucchi being oblig'd to no such strictness would not it may be contradict the Problematical Niceties of those Schools in which he had been Educated so that what he said might pass without a Censure And yet even in this if his Sence be rightly understood the unbiass'd Reader will plainly see that his Doctrine is the same with that of the Exposition The Bishop of Condom declares Expos p. 8. Sess 24. Dec. de Invoc c. from the Council of Trent That we are forbidden to believe any Divinity or Vertue in Images for which they ought to be reverenc'd That the Honour which is given to them ought to be referr'd to the Prototypes represented by them And this the Cardinal tells us in express Terms Oh! but he tells us of a Divine Worship says this Author paid to the Images of the Holy Trinity of our Blessed Saviour and of the Holy Cross Whether he use that Expression or no I know not having not yet seen the Book but yet this very Author tells us how the Cardinal explicates himself That the Honour which is paid to the Images is only upon account of the Things represented by them and not upon account of the Images themselves as thinking any Divinity in them for to do that he confesses would be Idolatry Ibidem And what is this but what the Bishop of Condom has express'd in other Terms from the Council of Trent That the Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent Sess 25. Dec. de Inv. c. that by the means of those Images we kiss and before which we kneel we adore JESUS CHRIST Nay more the Cardinal tells us That this Honour is not to be paid to them otherwise than upon account of the Things represented by them and as they are in that respect one and the same with the Thing which they represent And what is that but to adore God or JESUS CHRIST in presence of the Image Ibid. Pontif. de Bened Imag. as the Bishop of Condom has express'd it from the Pontifical This St. Thomas explicates by a familiar Example of the Royal Robes For as we plainly see the Purple puts us in mind of the Prince and so do's the Cross of our Crucified Saviour We pay a Sovereign Honour to the King when in His Robes but in Incognito we pay not a Respect with such Formalities 't is not the Purple or the Robes we honour for themselves but as making one with the King nor is it the Cross we honour but in respect of CHRIST If the Honour which we shew to the Purple or the Chair of State may in some sence be call'd Regal or Sovereign Honour 't is only in respect of our King or Sovereign and in like manner if that Honour which is shewn to the Crucifix may in some sence be call'd Religious or which is more Divine 't is purely in respect of JESUS CHRIST who is both God and Man All the difference therefore betwixt Cardinal Capisucchi and the Master of the Sacred Palace is thus easily reconcil'd and if there be any difference it only consists in this that when the Master of the Sacred Palace wrote to the Bishop of Condom he approv'd his Book in which he stuck close to the necessary and universally receiv'd Doctrine of the Church and conform'd himself to the Language of it making a distinction betwixt the Images and things represented by them whereas the Cardinal Capisucchi conform'd himself to a Scholastic Stile and suppos'd the Representative as Representative to be representatively one and the same with the thing represented But I needed not to have taken this pains to reconcile the Bishop of Meaux with Cardinal Capisucchi seeing another particular Examination of the Bishop's Book upon this Point Answ to Papist Protesting c. pag. 91. has reconcil'd the Bishop's Doctrine with that of St. Thomas that is with Cardinal Capisucchi's tho' he erre in the right Explication of both their Doctrines Now Secondly as for his Assertion That we think it lawful to disguise the Sentiments of our Religion and his Confirmation of it from the Procureur General of Paris his Answer to Father Thomassin Pref. p. 14. That they suffer'd in France an Italian should write according to the Principles of his Country but for a Frenchman to do the same was another matter He ought to have made a distinction between Matters of Faith and Scholastic Opinions or to use other Terms the Doctrines of a Church and the Doctrines in a Church Every one knows that the Doctrines of a Church or Matters of Faith being Tenets necessarily and universally receiv'd ought upon no account to be dissembled or disguis'd and he can bring no one Example of that nature But as for Scholastic Opinions or the Doctrines in a Church of which daily Disputes are rais'd in the Schools we see not only one Nation commanding one thing to be taught and another quite the contrary but even one University against another in the same Country nay one College against another in the same University without the least breach of Unity or note of Intriguing Dissimulation Thus Father Thomassin having undertaken a Scholastic Dispute of the Authority of the See Apostolic above that of a General Council a Dispute which is defended in the Schools of Italy but forbid in France and neither generally nor necessarily received by the Church no wonder if the Procureur General of Paris should refuse to suffer it to be Printed Thus also it is the Jesuits have found it convenient upon other accounts also it may be as well as that such as is the difficulty of sending to Rome for the Approbation of every Book c. to take their Licences from their respective Provincials Thus much for his Preface And as for the Collections he has given of some Passages in the Edition printed without the Bishop of Condom's consent we have little to say to them more than what the Bishop has himself answer'd in his Letter unless it be to thank this Author for being so ingenuous as to
print them for every unbiass'd Reader may there see that the first Edition instead of proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as this Author says it did so loosly and favourably Pref. p. 2. that many undesigning Persons of that Communion were offended at it Ibid. p. 3. did on the contrary if any fault be to be found on that score propose the same Doctrine with too much strictness They may see also that the Sorbonne was so far from marking out as he says several of the most considerable Parts of it Ibid. wherein the Exposition by too much desire of palliating had absolutely perverted the Doctrine of their Church that this very Author in his Collections could not propose one Doctrine so perverted without a forced Interpretation of his own nay on the contrary he is sensible that in some places the Bishop had rather spoken with too much strictness and therefore after his wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention he tells his Reader Collect. p. 23. That th' other was really the true Sence of the Church but it was thought too ingenuous and 't is not fit Protestants should know it And in another place Ibid p. 32. That the first Exposition ran much higher than it seems the Spirit of the Gallicane Church could bear But it may be what was struck out of the Exposition to please the Correctors M. de Meaux recompensed in his Letter to satisfie his Holiness But if in some other Places he has either retrench'd or alter'd his Expression any one who is not willing to take every thing by a wrong Handle may easily see it was not out of such ill Designs as this Author endeavours to persuade us but purely to retrench what was not conformable to his Design of a bare Exposition or what had been sufficiently express'd before to keep himself more precisely to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent or to obviate any malicious Interpretations which Persons disposed to take all things in a wrong sence might force upon his Expressions if he worded them not more cautiously But above all it seems to me most strange that any especially one who dares publish to the World the Doctrine of a Church should make the alteration or retrenchment of some manner of Expressions in a Book writ as he owns four Years before so hainous a Crime that the Author must needs pass for one that either did not understand his own Doctrine Pref. p. 4. or at least had not the Sincerity to Expound it right He may wish it may be he had been as cautious in his own Book as the Bishop was in his However we have nothing to do with the first Impression 'T is this other put out by the Bishop of Meaux himself which has been presented to you and to which so many Authentic Approbations and Testimonies have been given And I affirm he must be strangely deceiv'd or wilfully blind who will not grant it to contain the true Doctrine of the Church according to the Sence of the Council of Trent But now to the Book it self PART II. ART I. INTRODVCTION SHould I undertake to examine all the Calumnies Misrepresentation unsincere Dealings and Falsifications of this Author in almost every Article I should swell this Answer beyond the Bounds I have prescrib'd to my self and make it tedious to the Reader yet some however I shall take notice of as they fall in my way from whence I hope we shall find this advantage that all those Books to which an Imprimatur Carolus Alston c. is prefixed will not hereafter be concluded free from Errours nor will every nameless Author who professes to be sincere pass hereafter for an Oracle His Introduction is Calumny in a high Degree and the State of his Question drawn from thence as unsincere He tells us of adoring Men and Women Crosses Introd p. 3 4 5. Images and Relics of setting up our own Merits and making other Propitiatory Sacrifices for Sin distinct from that of the Cross which he says P. 5. are contrary to our pretended Principles to wit That Religious Worship is due to God alone That we are to be sav'd only by Christ's Merits and That the Death of CHRIST was a perfect Sacrifice but yet are not as he tells us obscure Consequences drawn from our Doctrines but the plain and confessed Opinions of the Church of Rome the Practice and Prescription of the Chiefest Authority in it and therefore for us to refuse their Charge is to protest against a matter of Fact a Plea which even Justice it self has told us may without Calumny be rejected as invalid Were these Doctrines and Practices which he alledges the plain and confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome he would 't is true have reason to say they contradict our Principles But seeing they are all so solemnly renounced by us that we detest the very thoughts of them and cannot hear these repeated Accusations without nauseating them and seeing he has been so often told that these Consequences are not only far-fetch'd obscure and disavowed but Consequences which are so false that no Connection can be found betwixt them and our Doctrines and Practices when truly represented we have just reason to refuse the Charge and tell him they have no more Justice to accuse us of them than Dissenters from the Church of England have to accuse her of Idolatry and Superstition for Bowing to the Altar and at the Name of JESUS or for using the Cross in Baptism or then the Quakers have for accusing them and us of breach of the First Commandment because we use the Civility of Hat and Knee to them who are but meer Creatures as we our selves But however these things must be charged upon us as an Introduction and then the Question must be stated after a new mode and we represented as consenting to it He tells us therefore Pag. 5. That they have got thus much at least by that Reflection that it shews them how they who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as INNOVATORS IN RELIGION are at last by our own Confession allowed to hold the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith and from this pretended Concession he draws up the State of the Controversie you may be certain favourably to himself But who is it I pray that allows him this Proposition That the New Reformers hold the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith and where do's he allow it The Exposition has Sect. 2. p. 2. 't is true a Section to shew how those of the Pretended Reform'd Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion But how do's he from thence shew that Catholics reciprocally grant them to hold all those Fundamental Articles I say all for no body ever deny'd they held some of them This Author knows very well we are so far
and properly speaking tho' not possibly in such a rigorous sence as may be put upon the Words If she do not what means her Ordination and the Title of Priesthood which her Ministers challenge with so much earnestness And if she do why will he quarrel with the Council of Trent for calling it a True and Proper Sacrifice Sess 22. c. a True and Proper Priesthood especially since the same Council tells us that this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished upon the Cross to perpetuate the Memory of it to the end of the World Sess 22. c. r. and so apply to us the saving virtue of it for the remission of those Sins which we commit every day In a word The Bishop of Meaux has expressed himself so clearly and consequently to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and of the Catholic Church that I cannot but admire any one who affirms as this Author do's that the Doctrine the Bishop of Meaux has express'd Pag. 63. is truly the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and such as the Church of England has never refus'd and except it be their doubt of the Corporeal Presence Mons de Meaux had certainly reason to expect there was nothing in it which they could justly except against I cannot I say but admire he should upon no better grounds than a pure Cavil about the Name and Nature of a Sacrifice when taken in the strictest Sense and the word Corporeal instead of Real Pag. 62. affirm this to be one of the most dangerous Errours that offend them But the Breach must be kept open and widened too if possible And because the offering of Christ once made is that proper Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World and because there is no other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone Article 31. as their Article expresses it and we allow therefore this Author must from thence conclude that the Representation Commemoration and Application of that first Offering by those who are Members of that Priesthood according to the Order of Melchisedec which the Apostle tells us was to be perpetual must not be called a True Heb. 6. Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice tho' it be only Commemorative and Applicatory ART XVII Of the Epistle to the Hebrews BUT the next Article shews us more manifestly Art 21. p. 67. that all this Dispute is purely de Nomine In which it manifestly appears that he mistakes the Sence of the word Offer Pag. 32. as used by the Catholic Church in this place for the Bishop of Meaux tells us the Catholic Church forms her Language and her Doctrine not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scripture and therefore tho' in that strict sence in which the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the word Offer JESUS CHRIST cannot be said to be now offered neither in the Eucharist nor any where else yet because in other places of Scripture the word is used in a larger signification where it is often said we offer to God what we present before him therefore she do's not doubt to say that she offers up our Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Eucharist in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him But this must not suffice for then that which he calls the principal and most dangerous Errour would appear to be none at all and therefore because the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of one Offering which has fully satisfied for our Sins of one Offering which was no more to be offered that is of an Offering in a strict Sence in which there must be a Real Suffering and Death of the Victim therefore this Epistle must be against the Doctrine of the Roman Church tho' she speak only of an Unbloody Sacrifice of a Commemorative Sacrifice which without the Sacrifice of the Cross would be no Sacrifice which takes its Virtue Efficacy and very Name from it because it refers to it and applies the Virtue of it to our Souls Let any one judge if this be not next door to a wilful misunderstanding of our Tenets Pag. 63. especially when he had before confessed that the presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us and that if this were all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it This is what she means by it that is an application of the Merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross which was to be but once offered and from whence it takes all its value But this he will not have to be our Doctrine and I see no reason for it but because if he admit it to be so one of the greatest grounds of their pretended Reformation must needs vanish ART XVIII Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine HIs Reflections upon this Doctrine run altogether upon the same strain Art 22. p. 69. and therefore what I have said will suffice in answer to that Article If he admit a Real Presence with the Church of England Reason must necessarily assure us that where Christ is really he ought to be Ador'd and where he really presents himself to his Father to render him Propitious to us he may be said to offer up himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice And those who will admit the Reality or not condemn the belief of it in others ought not to condemn the necessary Consequences of it in us into which we have penetrated better than they ART XIX Communion under both Species COmmunion under one kind being also a Consequence of the Doctrine of the Real Presence Art 23. p. 72. Those who admit the Real Presence or condemn it not ought not to condemn the Consequence of it He refers us to the Answer to M. de Meaux's Book of Communion and I refer him to M. de Meaux's Book which so fully explicates and proves this Doctrine that all the effects against it are but vain But if the Church of England allow the Communion to be given under one Species in case of necessity See Art 30. how will it stand that she esteems it to be the express Command of JESUS CHRIST which is certainly indispensable Edw. Sparrows Canons p. 15. the Sixth in his Proclamation before the Order of Communion ordains That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST should from thenceforth be commonly deliver'd and administred unto all Persons within 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 And after the Order of Communion there is this Annotation Note that the Bread that shall be Consecrated shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed And every of the said Consecrated Breads shall be broken into two pieces at