we do indeed misunderstand the meaning of it we must at least profess it to be so far from any wilfull mistake that we do no more than what their greatest men have done before us And inded it still seems most reasonable to us that either this Sacrifice is no true and proper Sacrifice as they say it is or it is truly and properly offer'd as we affirm they understand it to be ARTICLE XXI Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine IF my Reflections in this Article be but as good Vindicat. p. 97. as my Exceptions in the foregoing have been just against their Doctrine what the Vindicator has said to these here will I believe be found as little to the purpose as what he endeavoured to reply to those before Tho' Christ be acknowledged to be really present after a Divine and Heavenly manner in this Holy Eucharist yet will not this warrant the Adoration of the Host which is still nevertheless only Bread and Wine from being what our Church censures it Rubrick about kneeling at the end of the Communion Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians nor will such a real presenting of our Blessed Lord to his Father to render him propitious to us make the Eucharist any more than a metaphorical not a true and proper propitiatory Sacrifice If these men please to fix upon us any other notion of the real presence than what has been said and which alone our Church allows of we are neither concerned in the Doctrine nor shall we think our selves at all obliged to answer for those consequences they may possibly draw from it ARTICLE XXII Communion under both Species TO prove the lawfulness of their denying the Cup to the Laity Vindicat. p 98. the Vindicator advances three Arguments from the publick Acts of our own Church The 1st false The 2d both false and unreasonable The 3d. nothing to the purpose 1st He says the Church of England allows the Communion to be given under one species in case of Necessity Art 30. This is FALSE The Article establishes both Kinds and speaks nothing at all of any Case of Necessity or what may or may not be done on that account See Art 30. Sparrow 's Collect pag. 102 and 219. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be administred to all Christian men alike 2dly Edward the sixth he says 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 delivered and administred unto all Persons within our Realms of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds That is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This as it is thus alledged by the Vindicator is both False and Vnreasonable FALSE for that Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing See Sparrow 's Collect. p. 17. but only says That Forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was ordain'd viz. That the most blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ should from thenceforth be commonly Administred to all persons under both kinds c. 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 ‖ Note That this order of Communion was the first thing of this kind that was done after the Reformation The Mass was yet left remaining and Edward the 6th afterwards published two other Books in which were considerable Alterations and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind It is in the next place VNREASONABLE to argue as to the present state of the Church of England from what was allow'd only and that in case of necessity too in the very first beginning of the Reformation It was indeed the singular Providence of God That in the 2d year of that Excellent Prince things were so far Reformed from those long and inveterate Errors in which the Ignorance and Superstition of Several Ages had involved the Church That they had allowed nay commanded the Holy Sacrament to be given under both kinds when for so many years it had been received only under one But that labouring still under their former prejudices they should in case of Necessity permit that which had been the universal practice of the Church without any necessity at all before this is neither to be admired in them then nor is it reasonable to urge it against us now His 3d Argument is not only Vnreasonable upon the account we have now said but were it never so proper is absolutely nothing to the purpose In the Rubrick at the end of the same Order of the Communion there is this Remark Note that the Bread that shall be consecrated Sparrow 's Collect p. 24. shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed and every of the said consecrated Breads shall be broken in two pieces at the least or more by the discretion of the Minister and so distributed And men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole but in each of them the whole Body of our Saviour Jesus Christ The meaning of which Rubrick is very plain That whereas the people who had hitherto been accustomed to receive the Wafer entire were now to have but a part of it given to them to prevent any mis-conceits upon that account as if because they did not receive the whole Wafer as they were wont to do they did not receive the whole Body i. e. the Flesh of Christ for as to the Blood that they received afterwards in the Cup It was thought fit for the prevention of this scruple to tell them That they must not think less to be received in part than in the whole but in each of them the whole Body of Jesus Christ which what it makes for their denyal of the Cup to the Laity I cannot very well apprehend And now how well this Author has proved it to be the Doctrine of the Church of England to dispence with the Cup in the Holy Eucharist in case of necessity I shall leave it to any indifferent person to judge Tho' after all did we indeed as some others do believe that the Church had power to do this How will this excuse them who without any necessary or but reasonable cause deny it to the people altogether Concil Trid. Sess 21. Can. 1 2. and damn all those that will not believe they had not only power but just cause and reason so to do And why will it not as well follow that they may take away if they please the whole Sacrament from them and Damn all those that will not believe that they had just cause and power to do this too since even that in Case of Necessity
of the Merits of Christ and partly of the superabundant Sufferings of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints who have suffer'd more than their Sins required The Pastors of the Church have obtain'd from God the power of granting Indulgences Ibid. c. 3. p. 19 27. and dispensing of the Merits of Christ and the Saints for this end out of the Sacraments The Punishments remitted by these Indulgences Ibid. c. 7. p. 47. are all those which are or might have been enjoyn'd for Sins and that whether the Persons be alive or dead WE believe there is a Power in the Church of granting Indulgences which concern not at all the Remission of Sins either Mortal or Venial but only of some temporal Punishments remaining due after the guilt is remitted So that they are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just Causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be enjoyn'd by the Pastors of the Church on Penitent Sinners according to their several degrees of demerit Papist Represent n. viii p. 10. M. de M. Expos § 8. p. 14. Of the Mass Old Popery New Popery THe * Concil Trid. Sess 22. Can. 1. 3. p. 196. ibid. c. 2. p. 191. Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice A Sacrifice not only Commemoratory of that of the Cross but also truly and properly propitiatory for the dead and the living Conc. Trent Art 16. †Verum reale Sacrificium veram realem mortem aut destructionem rei immolatae desiderat Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. p. 1062. C. Vel in Missa fit vera realis Christi mactatio occisio vel non fit Si non fit non est verum reale Sacrificum Missa Sacrificium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrificii 1063. A. And again Per consecrationem res quae offertur ad veram realem externam mutationem destructionem ordinatur quod erat necessarium ad rationem Sacrificii ib. l. D. Sect. Tertio Every true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real Death or Destruction of the thing sacrificed So that if in the Mass there be not a true and real Destruction on there is not a true and real Sacrifice Bellarmin To offer up Christ then in the Eucharist is not only to present him before God on the Altar but really and truly to Sacrifice i. e. destroy him Bellarmin THe Sacrifice of the Mass was instituted only to represent that which was accomplish'd on the Cross to perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the World and apply to us the saving Vertue of it for those Sins which we commit every day Vindicat. pag. 95. When we say That Christ is offered in the Mass we do not understand the word Offer in the strictest Sense but as we are said to Offer to God what we present before him And thus the Church does not doubt to say That She offers up our Blessed Jesus to his Father in the Eucharist in which he vouchsafes to render him himself present before him Vindicat. ibid. p. 96. Of the Popes Authority Old Popery New Popery WE acknowledg the Holy Catholick and Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and we Promise and Swear to the Bishop of Rome Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ a true Obedience Concil Trid. Jur. Pii 4ti p. xliv in fine The Pope has Power to depose Princes Si dominus temporatis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab Haeretica foeditate Excommunicationis Vinculo innodetur Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo Pontifici ut ex tunc Ipse Vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos terram exponat Catholicis occupandam Salvo jure Domini Principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum opponat Eadem nihil ominus lege servata circa EOS qui NON HABENT DOMINOS PRINCIPALES and absolve Subjects from their Allegiance So the Council of Lateran If the Temporal Lord shall neglect to purge his Land of Heresie let him be Excommunicated and if within a year he refuses to make satisfaction to the Church let it be signified to the Pope that from thenceforth He may declare his Vassals absolved from their Allegiance and expose his Land to be seised by Catholicks yet so as not to injure the right of the Principal Lord. Provided that he puts no stop or hindrance to this And the same Law is to be observed with reference to those who have no Principal Lords Concil Later 4. Can. 3. de Haeret. p. 147. This is no Scholastick Tenet but the Canon of a Council received by the Church of Rome as General WE acknowledg that Primacy which Christ gave to St. Peter in his Successors to whom for this cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the faithful As for those things which we know are disputed of in the Schools it is not necessary we speak of them here seeing they are not Articles of the Catholick Faith It is sufficient we acknowledg a Head Establish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his Paths which those who love Concord amongst Brethren and Ecclesiastical Unanimity will most willingly acknowledg Expos Monsieur de Meaux p. 40. Such is the difference of the present Controversies between us from what they were when it pleased God to discover to our Fathers the Errors they had so long been involved in Were I minded to shew the division yet greater there want not Authors among them and those approved ones too from whence to collect more desperate Conclusions in most of these Points than any I have now remark'd And the Practice and Opinion of the people in those Countries where these Errors still prevail is yet more Extravagant than any thing that either the One or Other have written What now remains but that I earnestly beseech all sober and unprejudiced Persons of that Communion seriously to weigh these things And consider what just reason we had to quit those Errors which even their own Teachers are ashamed to confess and yet cannot honestly disavow It has been the great business of these new Methodists for some years past to draw over ignorant men to the Church of Rome by pretending to them that their Doctrines are by no means such as they are commonly mis-apprehended to be This is popular and may I believe have prevailed with some weak persons to their seduction tho' we know well enough that all those abroad who pretend to be Monsieur de Meaux's Proselytes were not so upon the conviction of his Book but for the advantages of the Change and the Patronage of his Person and Authority But surely would men seriously weigh this Method there could be nothing more
their Separation was at first unlawful their Return will now by consequence be necessary to them How far this method might heretofore have concluded with those whom it principally concerns the vulgar and ignorant I cannot tell but God be thanked there are few now so ill instructed in their Religion but what will have enough to free them from the sin of Schism if the knowledge of a sufficient reason of their Separation may be allow'd to do it Thus much only I will beg leave to observe on occasion of these several methods that have been proposed for our Conviction That the great design of them all has been to prevent the entring on particular Disputes which had hithexto been the way but such as experience had taught them to be the least favourable of any to them And the same is the design of the late peaceable method set forth by Monsieur Maimbourg in which from the Authority of the Church in matters of Faith confess'd as he says by us he proves That the Church in which both parties once were must then have had this Authority over us all and to whose decision in the Council of Trent we all by consequence ought to submit It is not necessary that I should here say any thing to shew the Weakness and Sophistry of these several Methods That has been the business of those particular Examinations that have with success enough been made of them This I suppose may at first sight appear upon the bare proposal of them That they have more of Ingenuity than of Solidity in them and were no doubt designed by their Inventors to catch the unwary with a plausi le shew of that Reason which the Wise and Judicious know them to be defective in How far we may conclude from hence as to the Nature and Design of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition I shall leave it to others to consider This is undenyable That as it came out at a time when these kind of Methods were all in repute and with a design to help forward the same great business of Conversion then in agitation so has it been cry'd up by those of that Communion as exceeding all others in order to that End and if we may believe their reports been above all others the most happy and successful in it It is not easie to conceive that a Person of Monsieur de Meaux 's Learning should seriously believe That a bare Exposition of their Doctrine should be sufficient to convince us of the truth of it He could not but know that our first Reformers were Persons abundantly qualified to understand the real profession of a Church in which they had been born and bred and in which many of them were admitted to holy Orders Priests and professors of Divinity Nor is the Council of Trent so rare or so obscure that a meer Exposition of its Doctrine should work such effects as neither the Council nor its Catechism were able to do In a word Monsieur de Meaux himself confesses His design was to represent his Church as favourably as he could to take off that hideous and terrible form in which the Ministers Advertisment Pag. 2 4. he says were wont to represent Popery in their Pulpits and expose it in its natural dress free from those frightful Idea's in which it had so long been disguised by them One would imagine by this discourse that the whole business of the Ministers of the Reformed Religion was to do nothing but invent new Monsters every day and lay them to the Church of Rome And that after all our pretences to Peace and Union we were really such Enemies to it that we did all we could even by Lies and Calumnies to keep both our selves and the people from it But indeed these hideous Idea's Monsieur de Meaux speaks of if they are such false representations as he pretends they are not the Ministers that invent them but their own greatest Zealots their Schoolmen their Bishops their Cardinals nay their very Popes themselves that have been the Authors of them How far Monsieur de Meaux ' s Exposition differs from what they have delivered us as the Doctrine of their pretended Catholick Church has been in some measure shewn already and shall in the following Discourse be more fully evidenced And whosoever shall please to consider the Elogies and Approbations which these Men have received no less than Monsieur de Meaux will be forced to confess it to be at least a disputable point Whether the Ministers from these Authors have represented their Church in a hideous and terrible form or whether Monsieur de Meaux rather has not instead of removing the Visor to shew her in her natural dress a little varnish'd over her Face to hide her defects and make her appear more charming and attractive than her own natural deformity would otherwise permit her to do Now of this a more convincing proof cannot I think be desired than what I before advanced and see no reason yet to retract viz. Exposit Pag. 3. That out of an extraordinary desire of palliating he had proceeded so far as in several points wholly to pervert the Doctrine of his Church Insomuch that when his Book was sent to some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation they corrected so many places in it that Monsieur de Meaux was forced to suppress the whole Edition and change those places that had been mark'd by them and put out a new and more correct Impression as the first that had ever been made of it This Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to deny as an utter falsity Vindicat. Pag. 8 9. For that he never sent his Book to the Sorbonne that their custom is not to License Books in Body and that that Venerable company knows better what is due to Bishops who are naturally and by their Character the true Doctors of the Church than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors In a word that it is a manifest falsity to say that a first Edition of his Book was suppress'd because the Doctors of the Sorbonne had something to say against it That he never did publish not cause to be printed any other Edition than that which is in the hands of every one to which he never added nor diminish'd one syllable nor ever fear'd that any Catholick Doctor could find any thing in it worthy of reprehension This is indeed a severe charge against me and such as if true it cannot be doubted but that I have been as great a Calumniator as his Vindicator has thought Fit to represent me or as for ought I know Monsieur de Meaux himself will be in danger of being reputed if it should be false And therefore to satisfie the World in this main fundamental point between us I do hereby solemnly declare That there was an Impression of the Exposition such as I spake of That out of it I transcribed with my own hand the
feria VI. in Parasceve p. 247. Completis Orationibus Sacerdos depositâ Casulâ accedit ad cornu Epistolae ibi in posteriori parte Anguli altaris accipit à Diacono Crucem jam in altari praeparatam quam versâ facie ad populum à summitate parùm disco-operit incipiens solus Antiphonam Ecce lignum Crucis ac deinceps in reliquis juvatur in Cantu à Ministris usque ad Venite Adoremus Choro autem cantante Venite Adoremus omnes se prosternunt excepto celebrante Deinde procedit ad anteriorem partem anguli ejusdem cornu Epistolae disco-operiens brachium dextrum Crucis elevansque eam paulisper altiùs quà m primò incipit Ecce lignum Crucis aliis cantantibus adorantibus ut supra The Morning Prayers being finished the Preist receives from the Deacon a Cross standing ready on the Altar for that purpose which he uncovers a little at the top turning his face to the people and begins this Antiphona Behold the Wood of the Cross the People following the rest to Come let us Adore at which all but the Priest that officiates fall upon the ground Then the Priest uncovers the right Arm of the Crucifix and holding it up begins louder than before Behold the Wood of the Cross the rest singing and adoring as before Then finally the Priest goes to the middle of the Altar Deinde Sacerdos procedit ad medium altaris disco-operiens Crucem totaliter ac elevans eam tertiò altiùs incipit Ecce lignum Crucis in quo salus mundi pependit Venite Adoremus aliis cantantibus adorantibus ut supra Postea Sacerdos solus portat Crucem ad locum ante Altare praeparatum genu flexus ibidem eam locat Mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad ADORANDAM CRVCEM ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculetur Hoc facto revertitur accipit calceamenta casulam Postmodum ministri Altaris deinde alii Clerici Laici bini bini ter genibus flexis ut dictum est CRUCEM ADORANT Interim dum fit ADOEATIO CRUCIS cantantur c. Deinde cantatur com muniter Annā CRUCEM tuam ADORAMUS Domine P. 209. and wholly uncovering the Cross and lifting it up begins yet higher Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung come let us adore the rest singing and adoring as before This done the Priest alone carries the Cross to a place prepared for it before the Altar and kneeling down leaves it there Then he puts off his Shoes and draws near to ADORE the CROSS bowing his Knees three times before he kisses it which done he retires and puts on his Shoes After him the Ministers of the Altar then the other Clergy and Laity two and two after the same manner ADORE the CROSS In the mean time while the Cross is Adoring the Quire sings several Hymns one of which begins with these words We adore thy Cross O Lord. This is the Service of that Day And now whether I had reason or no to apply as I did the Adoration to the Cross let any reasonable Man consider and whether I had not some cause to say then what I cannot but here repeat again That the whole Solemnity of that days Service plainly shews that the Roman Church does adore the Cross in the utmost propriety of the phrase As for my last Argument from the Hymns of the Church he acknowledges the Fact but tells us Vindicat. p. 40. That these are Poetical Expressions and that the word CROSS by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets fignifies JESVS CHRIST to whom they pray in those Hymns I shall not ask the Vindicator by what Authority he sends us to the Poets for interpreting the Churches Hymns But if he pleases to inform us what that Figure is which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross and who those Poets are to whom this Figure is sufficiently known he will oblige us For that this is the case in very many of those Hymns is apparent I shall instance only in One and that so noted that St. * 3. p. q. 25. art 4. p. 53. thus argues Illi exhibemus Latriae cultum in quo ponimus spem salutis sed in Cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis Cantat enim Ecclesia O Crux ave c. Thomas unacquainted it seems as well as we with this Figure concluded the Adoration of the Cross to be the sense of their Church from it ‖ Vexilla Regis prodeunt Fulget Crucis mysterium Quo carne carnis Conditor Suspensus est patibulo Arbor decora fulgida Ornata Regis purpurâ Electa digno stipite Tam Sancta membra tangere Beata cujus brachiis Soecli pependit pretium Statera facta Corporis Praedamque tulit Tartari O Crux Ave spes unica Hoc passionis tempore Auge piis Justitiam Reisque dona Veniam Vid. Breviar Rom. Dom. Passionis p. 295 296. The Banner of our King appears The Mystery of the Cross shines Vpon which the Maker of our Flesh was hanged in the Flesh Beautiful and bright Tree Adorn'd with the Purple of a King Chosen of a Stock worthy to touch such Holy Members Blessed upon whose Arms The Price of the World hung Hail O Cross our only Hope In this time of the Passion Encrease the Righteousness of the Just and give Pardon to the Guilty Now by what Figure to make the Banner and the King the same the Cross upon which the maker of our Flesh hung not different from that Flesh that hung upon it the Tree chosen of a Stock worthy to touch Christ's Sacred Members the same with his Sacred Members What noted Figure this is which is so well known to the Poets and yet has been so long concealed from us that we are amazed at the very report of such a Figure The English Translation in the Office of the Holy Week is this O lovely and refulgent Tree Adorned with purpled Majestie Cull'd from a worthy Stock to bear Those Limbs which sanctified were Blest Tree whose happy Branches bore The Wealth that did the World restore Hail Cross of Hopes the most sublime Now in this mourning Passion Time Improve Religious Souls in Grace The Sins of Criminals efface Pag. 355 356. and believe it next a kin to Transubstantiation the Vindicator may please hereafter to inform us In the Point of Reliques OF RELIQVES the Council of Trent proceeded so equivocally that the Vindicator ought not to think it at all strange if I endeavour'd more plainly to distinguish what the ambiguity of their Expressions had so much confounded ‖ Con. Tr. Sess 25. Affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi damnandos esse They says the Council are to be condemned who affirm that no Veneration or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints To this I replied that
819 c. Trent but rather a true and natural Exposition of it ARTICLE VII §. 1. Of Satisfactions IF the †Conc. Trid. Sess 14. cap. 8. Can. 73. Council of Trent has express'd it self in such terms Vindicat. pag. 54 55. as do plainly ascribe to our Endeavours a true and proper Satisfaction whatever Monsieur de Meaux or his Vindicator expound to the contrary we are not to be blamed for charging them with it 'T is not enough to say that they believe Christ to have made an intire satisfaction for Sin and that the necessity of that paiment which they require us to make for our selves does not arise from any defect in that but from a certain Order which God has established for a salutary Discipline and to keep us from offending If Christ has made an intire satisfaction for us I am sure it must be very improper if not altogether untrue to say that We can make any for our selves If God indeed has establish'd any such Order as they pretend let them shew it to us in Scripture Otherwise we shall never believe that God's Justice does at all require it since for the infinite Merits of a crucified Saviour that has made an infinite Satisfaction to his Justice he may as well forgive Temporal as Eternal Punishment That * Lib. 1. de purg c. 10. to this Objection Si applicatur nobis per nostra Opera Christi satisfactio vel sunt duae satisfactiones simul junctae una Christi altera nostra vel una tantùm Resp p. 1899. After two other manners of Explication he adds Tertius tamen modus videtur probabilior quòd una tantùm sit actualis satisfactio eáque nostra Neque hinc excluditur Christus vel satisfactio ejus nam per ejus satisfactionem habemus gratiam unde satisfactiamus hoc modo dicitur applicari nobis Christi satisfactio non quòd Immediatè ipsa ejus satisfactio tollat poenam temporalem nobis debitam sed quòd Mediatè eam tollat quatenus viz. ab eâ gratiam habemus sine quâ nibil Valeret nostra satisfactio Bellarmine has taught That it is we who properly satisfy for our own Sins and that Christ's Satisfaction serves only to make ours valid Had the Vindicator been ingenuous he would not have thought it sufficient to answer with the Error of the Press but have look'd into the place where it indeed was C. 10. of that Book That both * As to the Point of Satisfaction Belarmine distinguishes between a Satisfaction to Justice and a Satisfaction to Friendship And then concludes Cum homines peccant in Deum Amicitiam simul Justitiam Violant As to the former Non potest homo Deo satisfacere c. p. 1675. the Question is De satisfactione quâ Justitiae restauretur Aequalitas And because he supposes that the Guilt being remitted and we received into Friendship with God the Eternity is thereby taken from the Pain the Question amounts to thus much An satisfacere possint homines pro expiando reatu illius Poenae qui interdum remanet post remissionem culpae And whether those Works by which it is done Sint dicenda propriè satisfactoria ita ut nos dicamur Verè ac propriè domino satisfacere Now both these he affirms and explicates the latter from the Council thus C. 7. de poenit lib. 4. p. 1694. l. C. Per opera illa poenalia de quibus hà ctenus locuti sumus verè ac propriè Domino satisfieri pro reatu poenae qui post culpam dimissam remanet expiandus He and †I shall instance only in Vasquez in 3 p. d. 2. c. 1. p. 11. First he lays down the Opinion of several of the Schoolmen Alex. d'Ales Ricardus Ruardus Tapperus c. who held That a meer Man might condignly satisfy for his own Sins This he rejects because he supposes it cannot be done without God's assisting Grace to which we forfeited all right by Sin And so it will follow Nostram satisfactionem pro peccato proprio perfectam non esse ex eo quòd fiat non ex propriis sed ex Acceptis p. 21. c. 5. n. 53. But now Secondly God's Grace being supposed he concludes as to Mortal Sins c. 6. p. 22. n. 58. Nos reipsa nunc satisfacere Deo pro nostro Peccato Offensâ He tells us that some indeed allow that our Contrition may be called a Satisfaction tho not a sufficient One n. 59. Nam qui pro compensatione exhiber id quod potest licet minus sufficiens illud sit dicitur aliquo modo satisfacere This Reason Vasquez dislikes he is content this Satisfaction should be called Minus sufficiens but then only upon the account before mentioned o its proceeding from the Grace of God So that Si Contritio praecederet infusionem Gratia habitualis ex parte Efficientis non solùm satisfaceret pro maculâ peccati condignè sed etian condignè mereretur Gratiae habitualis infusionem And this he Expounds as the Doctrine of the Council of Trent N. 62 63 p. 23. As for Venial Sins Disp 3. c. 3. p. 27. Ita concedi mus says he homini justo pro suo peccato Veniali condignam perfectam satisfactionem u ea non indigeat favore Dei condonantis peccatum vel aliquid illius aut acceptantis satisfactionem sed talis sit ut ex naturâ suâ deleat maculam poenam peccati Venialis Others of their Communion have taught it as the Doctrine of their Church That we can make a true and proper Satisfaction for Sin is beyond denial evident and it has before been said that the Council of Trent approves their Doctrine But that Protestants ever assigned this Vindicat. p. 57. or any other single Point as the cause of our separating fron their Communion That we ever taught that any thing at all should be given to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon me much less more than they pretend to give by all the Plenary Indulgences of their Church this is so shameful a Calumny that I am confident the Vindicator himself never believed it For his last Remark if it deserves any Answer That I reflect upon the Bishop of Meaux for bringing only we suppose to establish this Doctrine when yet very often I do no more my self I have only this to say that I believe he can hardly find any one Instance wherein that is the only Argument I bring for our Doctrine Not to add that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient not to receive their Innovations till they can bring us some better Arguments to prove that we ought to quit our Supposition They who pretend to impose such things as these are the Persons on whom the Proof will lie 't is enough for us to reject them that we cannot find any footsteps of them either in Scripture or Antiquity and have
Mother lies almost dissolved in tears for the divisions of her Children and her dutiful Sons on both sides are praying and endeavouring with all their industry to close them like an unnatural off-spring divert themselves in the quarrel find a harmony in her groans and make a droll of that which had they indeed any true zeal for Religion they ought to wish rather they could with their dearest Blood be so happy as to redress For what remains of the Vindication Vindicat. p. 106 107. I shall say but very little to it He enters upon his Conclusion with a tragical harangue of the hardships they have suffer'd both by and ever since our Reformation and how well we deserve their Excommunication upon that account And 't is no hard matter when men so well disposed as this Author seems to be to speak evil of us are to draw our Character to make it appear as odious and deformed as they desire Were I minded to recriminate I need not tell those who are but very little acquainted with the true History of these things what a fair field I should have for a requital The corruptions of the Church when this Reformation begun the unchristian lives of those Religious Inhabitants that he says were turn'd by us into the wide world the Cheats and Ignorance of the Clergy the Tricks and Artifices of their Popes to prevent that Reformation which many of their own Party no less than the Protestants desired both in the Head and the Members And since he mentions Cruelties the barbarous Butcheries executed on the Reformed in Savoy Bohemia Germany Ireland and to say no more the proceedings at this day in one of our Neighbour Countries whereof we have been our selves Eye-witnesses and of which the noble Charity of our Royal Soveraign towards these poor distressed Christians See the words of His Majesty's Brief notwithstanding all the vain endeavours of some to hide it suffers no honest Englishman now to doubt All these would furnish out matter enough for a Reply and satisfie the World that were the Reformed as bad as Hell it self could represent them the Romanists yet would of all men living have the least cause to complain of them But I desire not to heighten those Animosities which I so heartily wish were closed and would rather such things as these might on all hands be buried in eternal oblivion than brought forth to prevent that Union we had never more cause to hope for than at this time And for our Laws which he says have been made against them he knows well enough what occasion was given to Queen Elizabeth and King James the 1st to establish them and I shall rather refer him to the ‖ See that and a Vindication of it by the Secular Priests An. 1601. published with some other pieces in a Collection called The Jesuits Loyalty 4to Answer which my Lord Burleigh made above 100 years since to this complaint than take the opportunity he has so fairly given me to revive the Reasons As for those injuries he tells us that Perjury and Faction loaded them with Vindicat. p. 111. we are not concerned in them It is well known that the Church of England was no less if not more struck at in those times than themselves If their present change of fortune makes them indeed neither remember those injuries nor desire to revenge them it shews only that the favour of Providence has not made them forgetful of their duty nor their present prosperity unmindful of their future Interest This is not our concern who have never that we know of injured them unless to take all fair and lawful ways to defend our Religion as by Law established may possibly in some mens apprehensions be esteemed an injury The peace and liberty which we enjoy we do not ascribe to their Civility it is Gods Providence and our Soveraign's bounty whom the Church of England has ever so Loyally served whose Rights She asserted in the worst of times when to use our Authors own words Perjury and Faction for this very cause loaded her with all the injuries Hell it self could invent But we gloried to suffer for our duty to Him then and shall not fail should there ever be occasion to do it again And we have this testimony from our King which no time or malice shall be able to obliterate That the Church of England is by principle a Friend to Monarchy and I think cannot be charged to have ever been defective in any thing that might serve to strengthen and support it For what remains with reference to the Points in Controversie the foregoing Articles are but one continued confutation of his vain pretences And I shall only add this more to them that whenever he will undertake to make good any one thing that he has advanced against us either in his Book or Conclusion I will not fail to prove what I now affirm That there is not a word of truth in either of them In the mean time before I close this I cannot but take notice how much the state of our controversie with these men has of late been changed and what hopes we are willing to conceive from thence as to the sober part of their Communion that those Errors shall in time be reformed which they already seem not only to have discovered but to be ashamed of When our Fathers disputed against Popery the Question then was Whether it were lawful to Worship Images to Invocate Saints to Adore Reliques to depend upon our own Merits for Salvation and satisfie for the pain of our own Sins This was their task and they abundantly discharged it in proving these things to be unlawful contrary to our duty towards God and to the Authority of Holy Scripture But now in these our days there is started up a new Generation of men too wise to be imposed upon with those illusions that in blind and barbarous Ages had led the Church into so much Error and Superstition These see too clearly that such things as these must if possible be deny'd for that they cannot be maintain'd And they have accordingly undertaken it as the easier task by subtile distinctions and palliating expressions to wrest the definitions of their Councils to such a sense as may serve the best to protect them from these Errors rather than to go on in vain with their Predecessors to draw the Scripture and Fathers into the Party to defend them And that it may not be said I speak this at all adventures I will beg leave in a short recapitulation of what is largely proved in the foregoing Articles to offer a general view of it Of Religious Worship Old Popery New Popery 'T IS a wicked and foolish Error of the Lutherans and Calvinists to attribute * Impius Imperitus Lutheranorum Calvinistarum Error est nullum nisi Deo Religionis honorem tribuentium Maldonat in Matt. 5.34 pag. 126. B. Index Expurgat in Athanas
nescio quod adinvenisset quo cunctos labores suos velut cujusdam leprae admixtione foedaret committeret ut doctrina ejus non tam aedificatio quam tentatio potiùs ecclesiastica diâ—eretur eminent for his Learning and particularly cherished by St. Athanasius as one of the most zealous Defenders of the Nicene Faith whilst he was yet but Reader in the Church of Laodicea He wrote against Porphyry in 30 Books against the Arrians Eunomians Origen and the other Hereticks of those times In a word both his Zeal and his Learning were such that if we may take the account which Vincentius Lirinensis has left of him had he not fallen into Heresie he might justly have been equall'd to the chiefest Builders of the Church III. The Occasion of his Heresie is diversely reported by Ecclesiastical Writers Russin lib. 2. cap. 20. Ruffinus tells us that his extraordinary Facility to write upon all sorts of Subjects and his great Understanding in all kinds of Learning raised in him a love of Disputation and that the desire of refuting whatever others said made him at last himself become a Heretick Sozomen lib. 6. c. 25. Sozomen relates that St. Athanasius in his Passage through Laodicea where Apollinarius then was contracted so intimate a Friendship with him that George Bishop of that place and who detested the Communion of St. Athanasius as the other Arrians did excommunicated Petavius saies it was for keeping too much company with the Heathen Epiphanius See dogm Theol. T. 4. l. 1. p. 25. c. 6. Apollinarius upon this account and would never be perswaded to receive him whatever Instances he could make to that purpose and that upon this he conceived so great a discontent that it carried him in the end to form himself a new Heresie And lastly Theodoret Eccles Hist l. 5 c. 4. Theodoret differing from both these tells us That being rejected from the Government of the Church to which in the Contest between Meletius and Paulinus he also as Head of a third Party aspired he thereupon began to spread openly that Heresie he had before invented and to set himself up for chief of it IV. Whether any or all these Causes concurr'd to ruine one of the greatest Ornaments of the Church and who had till then been the Admiration of the best Men not only St. Athanasius Basil c. who were his Friends but all the others as many as have left us any account of the History of those times having constantly represented him in the most advantageous manner that could be expected Epiphan Haer. 77. Certain it is that his loss was a very sensible Blow to the Church and is as such exceedingly lamented by Epiphanius in the account of his Heresie V. He had now been some time made Godefry places it An. 361. See Bals Zon com in Can 1. Concil Oâ—c secundi Bishop of Laodicea whether of the great Laodicea in Syria or of the other in Phoenicia of Libanus is not certainly known It was not long after this Promotion that he became a Heretick Athanasius who died within 10 years after having written a long Letter to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth against his Errors tho' either his respect to a Person he had so much esteem'd See this Letter in Epiphan Haeres 77. or being unwilling to exasperate One whom he so earnestly desired to reduce to the Catholick Faith made him that he did not once name him in his whole Epistle VI. But we will come yet nearer for in the year 362. Athanasius being the third time return'd from Banishment held a Council at Alexandria in which See this Council in Labbe's Collection T. 2 p. 816. among other things we find the Heresie of Apollinarius expresly condemned tho' no mention made of his Name whether it were that he was not yet known as chief of those Hereticks Vid. Binnii not loc cit or that as some think he sent a Renuntiation of his Heresie to the Council by the Monks that went thither About ten years after Anno 373. the same Heresie was again condemned in another Council at Rome under Pope Damasus and lastly in the second General Council at Constantinople Anno 381. He is by name anathematized among the other Hereticks Can. 1. of that Synod VII As to the Heresie it self I shall not enter any farther into the search of it than may serve for the Explication of that Capital Error which gave Occasion to this Epistle of St. Chrysostome Now this Photii bibl in Eulogio p 850. to take it in his own words as they are reported by Photius from Eulogius was That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God and flesh make up but one Nature Comment in Conc. 2. Occumen can 1. which Balsamon and Zonaras thus explain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he said that the Son of God took indeed an animate Body of the blessed Virgin but without the Rational Soul the Divinity serving instead of that VIII And the same is the account which the other Ecclesiastical Writers have left of him Gregory Nazianzen Theodoret Epiphanius Theorianus c. all which unanimously agree in this point of his asserting Theodoret. Haeres Fabul l 5. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Body of our Saviour was animated but that he had not the Rational Soul for that that Soul was superfluous where the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was present IX But tho' this were the last Resolution of his Heresie as to this point yet was it not his first Error It was a part of the Doctrine maintained by Arrius and Eunomius That Christ took a Body destitute not only of the Rational Soul but altogether inanimate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saie Theodoret Theodoret. Haeres Fab. l. 4. c. 1. Epist 124. de Arrio Eunomio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God the Word took a meer Body and that himself supplied the want of the Soul And the same was the beginning of Apollinarius's Heresie too Socrates Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saies Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They first asserted That God at his Incarnation took upon him Man without any Soul Afterwards as if they repented and meant to correct their Error they held That he took indeed the animal Soul but was destitute of the Rational God the Word being instead of that Both which Vincentius Lirinensis tells us Vincent Lirinens adv Haeres c. 17. they sometimes joyned together saying In ipsa Salvatoris nostri carne aut animam humanam penitus non fuisse aut certe talem fuisse cui mens ratio non esset That in the Body of our Saviour there was either no Human Soul at all or at least such as was not rational X. I shall not now enter on any other Points of their Heresie such as their making this Flesh not to have been assum'd by Christ at his Conception Epiphan Haeres 77. Theodoret. Eccles Hist l. 5. cap. 3. Greg. Naz.