paid to them is referred to the Originals which they represent So that by means of those Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and Kneel we adore CHRIST and venerate those Saints whose resemblance they bear which Doctrine has been taught by the Decrees of Councils against all Oppugners of Images Conc. Nicen. 2. Actio 3 4 6. especially by the second Synod of Nice But above all let the Bishop◠diligently teach That by the Historical Representations of the Mysteries of our Redemption painted or expressed in other forms the People are taught the Articles of our Faith and confirmed in them by a frequent Commemoration and Recollection as also That great Fruit is reaped from the use of all Holy Images not only because the People are admonished by them of the Benefits and Gifts which are bestowed upon them by JESVS CHRIST but also because the Miracles and salutary Examples which God has been pleased to shew us by his Saints are visibly represented to the Faithful that they may give God thanks for them and may conform their Lives and Manners to the Examples of the Saints and may be excited to adore and love God and practise Piety But if any one do teach or think contrary to these Decrees let him be Anathema But if any Abuses should chance to creep in amongst these holy and wholesom Observances the Sacred Synod earnestly desires they maybe entirely abolished so that no Images shall be permitted which may give the ruder People occasion of believing false Doctrines or dangerous Errors But if it shall sometimes happen to be expedient for the Instruction of the unlearned People to express or figure out some Histories or Relations of the Holy Scripture let the People be taught the Divinity is not therefore figured to them as if it could be seen with our corporal Eyes or expressed by Colours or Figures c. This is our Doctrine all other Additions or particular Doctrines we are not to answer for and this is what the Bishop of Condom has expresly taught ART V. Of Justification IN his Article of Justification he tells us Art 5. p. 19. That the Doctrine of Justification is one of those Points that deserves their careful Consideration as being not only one of the chiefest of those Points wherein they suppose the Church of Rome to have prevaricated the Faith but one of the first that gave occasion to that Reformation that was made from it If therefore the Doctrine of the Church Catholic when rightly explicated be clear from those gross Apprehensions they had of it and be in it self innocent and pure I hope he will grant the first Reformers to have been strangely out in their Measures and that all those who have followed their Footsteps in that Schism are obliged to return to their Mother-Church He speaks of wonderful Extravagances in Pardons Indulgences c. in former times and that generally the People put more confidence in the Inventions of Men than in the Merits of JESVS CHRIST but allows us to be better instructed since or at least more cautious for which he says we may thank the Reformation But I believe he will find that all those strange Extravagances were only the Fictions of their own Brains and Calumnies raised on purpose to make us odious and that if he look into our Councils and Doctors of those Ages he will find our Doctrines to have always been the same and our Practices conformable I need not take notice how much he consents to the Exposition of the Bishop of Condom nor of the nice Distinction which he gives us betwixt Justification and Sanctification which he tells us is the Doctrine of their Church but I believe will be hard put to to prove it neither need I tell you how much he imposes upon us as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of Justification and so by consequence said that our Justification it self is wrought also by our Good Works for since he tells us That were these things clearly stated and distinguished the difference betwixt us considered only in the Idea would not be very great and that they might safely allow whatsoever M. de Meaux has advanced upon this Point provided it be but well and rightly explained we need not make any further demur but go on with him to see how the following Doctrines will stand upon this Foundation ART VI. Of Merits HEre he tells us Art 6. Pag. 22. That if what the Bishop of Condom has explicated be all the Church of Rome ascribes to Good Works that is That our Justification proceeds absolutely from Gods Bounty and Mercy and but accidentally only in as much as God has tied himself by his Word and Promise to reward them from our own performances they need no long Exhortations to receive a Doctrine which they have always defended But he presently dashes these our hopes of Union by flying to the particular niceties of the Schools and thinks it sufficient to shelter the Justice of their dissent in those Particulars from our Accusations because some of those niceties have not been censured by the Church I need not here say any thing more to him than what I have said before that it is sufficient the Church has declar'd her Doctrine in the Council of Trent and that the Bishop of Meaux has explicated it accordingly The niceties of the Schools when truly represented as they make no Division in the Church so ought they not to make any amongst Christians But however if this Author had been so ingenuous as to have given us the Words or the true Sence of those Authors he cites the World would have seen no such great difference as he pretends there is betwixt them and the Church of Rome He tells us first That Maldonate the Jesuit upon Ezek. 18.20 says That we do as truly and properly merit Rewards when we do well as we do merit Punishments when we do ill But had he read Maldonate he would have found his Words when taken as they lie to carry with them a very different sence from what he seems to conclude they bear For being to explicate this part of the twentieth Verse Justitia justi super eum erit impietas impii erit super eum The justice of the just shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him he tells us Ex hoc loco perspicuum est in nobis aliquam esse nostram ut vocant inhoerentem propriamque justitiam quamvis ex Dei Gratia largitate profectam nos tam proprie ac verè cum Gratia Dei bene agentes proemia mereri quam sine illa male agentes supplicia meremur De proemio enim justi supplicio impii eodem prorsus modo loquitur i. e. From this Passage it is very clear both that there is in us an Inherent as they call it and Proper Justice of our own altho' proceeding from the
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
from granting this to them that on the contrary we always accuse them of Innovations and denying those Articles which are Fundamental and as necessary and as plainly revealed as many of those others which they admit We always affirm We are in possession of our Doctrines and our Practices that these have been delivered down to us by our Predecessors as Truths revealed to the Prophets and Apostles we always tell them We have the Decisions of a Church in our behalf a Church I say 1 Tim. 3.15 which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth Matth. 16.18 a Church against which the Gates of Hell by the express Promise of JESUS CHRIST was never to prevail Eph. 4.11 12 c. and in which Pastors and Teachers were to remain for ever lest we should be led away with every wind of Doctrine We tell them He who denies one Article revealed by God and proposed by his Church as so revealed is as guilty of the Breach of Faith as he who denies them all because he rejects God's Veracity upon which that Faith is grounded And by consequence we cannot but tell them That whilst they renounce those Articles which we believe are revealed Truths they are guilty of Fundamental Errors and hold not the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith So that the true State of the Controversie in general betwixt Catholics and Protestants is whether they or we do Innovate they in refusing to believe those Doctrines we profess to have receiv'd with the Grounds of Christianity or we in maintaining our Possession And the Dispute is Whether Roman Catholics ought to maintain their Possession for which many Protestants themselves grant they have a Prescription of above 1000 Years or whether the Authorities brought by Protestants against the Roman Catholic Doctrine be so weighty that every Roman Catholic is oblig'd to renounce the Communion of that Church in which he was bred up and quit his Prescription and Possession Which certainly they are not obliged to do unless it can be plainly prov'd they have innovated or taught such Doctrines as overthrow those Truths which are on both Sides allow'd to be Divine This the Bishop of Condom knew they could never do and that our Doctrines when truly represented were so far from contradicting those mutually-received Articles of our Faith that on the contrary they confirm'd our Belief of them And therefore he undertook to separate the Articles of our Faith from what was falsly imputed to us and resolved to propose them according to the received Sence of the Church declared in the Council of Trent And whether he has faithfully perform'd this Undertaking or no is our present Question which we are to examine in these following Articles What do's it therefore avail this Author to tell us Pag. 6. he will in the following Articles endeavour to give a clear and free Account of what they can approve and what they dislike in the Doctrines of the Catholic Church unless he first shew us and that by some Authentic Acts of the Church that those are her Doctrines and secondly give us some assurance of greater Authority then the Prescription of the Roman Catholic Church that they are Novelties or Erroneous ART II. Religious Worship is terminated only in God THat all Religious Worship is terminated in God alone is the Biship of Condom's Assertion Art 2. and the Churches Doctrine to which both this and another later Author agree Answer to a Discourse entituled Papists Protesting c. but both of them will have the Invocation of Saints and the Honour which we pay to Images and Relics to be inconsistent with that Maxim What the Bishop has said is enough to satisfie any one who is not obstinate his Words are these The same Church teaches us Expos p. â— That all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be call'd Religious it is for its necessary relation to God From which Words it is plain the Bishop thought Religious Honour or Worship might be taken in a double sence the first strict and that he acknowledges is only due to God the other in a larger sence which may be paid to Creatures But how this other may be called Religious Honour he tells us is because of the reference which it has to God Thus that Civil Honour or Obedience which we pay to Magistrates if we do it for Conscience sake that is purely to obey the Ordinance of God may be not improperly call'd a Religious Honour or Obedience because by Honouring or Obeying them for God's sake we Honour and Obey God Thus to visit the orphan and the widow in their tribulations is called by St. James a clean and unspotted Religion James 1.27 But if we take Religion in a stricter sence for a Supreme and Sovereign Honour or an adhesion to an Independent Being with all the Powers of our Soul c. it is only proper to God and cannot be paid to Creatures and in that sence the Honour which we pay to our Blessed Lady and other Saints is far from being a Religious Honour Let Mary be Honoured Epiph. Haer. 79. but let God be Adored was the Saying of an ancient Father not with Divine Honour for that is due to God alone Soli Deo honor gloria but with an Inferiour Honour which if our Authors will not have us call Religious we will not dispute about the Name We ought not to deprive God of any thing that is due to him alone that we may give it to his Creatures neither Honour nor Worship nor Prayer nor Thanksgiving nor Sacrifice But yet we may honour those whom God has honoured we may give an inferiour Degree of Worship to those who are in some Degree of Honour above us in this World and why not to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other so it elevate them not above the State of Creatures We may pray to our Friends and Parents here on Earth to pray for us without derogating from our Duty to God and why the same may not be addressed to Saints and Angels who are no less our Friends without robbing God of what is his due is I must confess to me unintelligible If you tell me the first is only Civil or if it may be called a Religious Love or Honour Answ to Papist Protest p. 38. when it is done for God's sake yet it is but an extrinsecal Denomination from the Cause and Motive not from the Nature of the Act and therefore cannot make Gods of them we affirm the same of the second and renounce any other sort of Religious Worship which is so from the nature of the Act and by consequence only due to God This Distinction reflected on will be sufficient to answer all the Objections brought against our Doctrine by both those Authors And we cannot
but wonder that Persons should use so many endeavours not to understand us Expos p. 10. and because as the Bishop of Condom has observ'd in one sence Adoration Invocation and the name of Mediator are only proper to God and JESUS CHRIST we are astonish'd why they will still misapply those terms to render our Doctrine odious whereas if they would but strictly keep to the sence in which we use them all their Objections and Accusations would loose their force and we might have some hopes of a more Christian Unity ART III. Invocation of Saints AS for the Invocation of Saints Art 3. p. 9. he grants with Monsieur Daillè that several of the Primitive Fathers in the Fourth Age of the Church pag. 7. made Addresses to them but will have them to be only Innocent Wishes and Rhetorical Flights What Authority do's he bring for this Assertion and his farther accusation of these Fathers of the Fourth Century that they did certainly begin to depart from the Practice and Tradition of those before them pag. 8. Did any in that or the following Ages accuse or censure them If not by what Authority do's he condemn those Prayers those Innocent Wishes and Holy Raptures as he calls them because he will not have them to be Prayers as fond things vainly invented c. We only tell you it is lawful to Pray to them and condemn such as censure all those Antient and Orthodox Fathers What Authority have you to oppose us You say it is repugnant to Gods Word shew that Word If you cannot we are in Possession and the Antiquity and Uninteruptedness of our Doctrine besides the Reasonableness and Innocence of it confirms us in our belief and ought to be more prevalent with us than all the Sophistical Arguments brought against us We name them in our Sacrifices and give God thanks for the Victories they have obtain'd through his Grace and humbly beseech him to vouchsafe to favour us by their Intercession if we mention their merits 't is only those Victories they had obtain'd by his Favours which we beseech him to look upon and not to regard our unworthiness even as we beg of him to hear their Prayers which are more prevalent then our own because more pure But this is far from such an idle fancy as if Christ who is our Sacrifice pag. 12. needed as he says the Assistance of St. Bathildis or Potentiana to recommend him to his Father or the deserts of a St. Martin to obtain our forgiveness We detest such thoughts and abominate such Doctrines The Bishop of Condom has fully explicated our Tenets what this Author or others impose upon us we are not to answer for nor are we concerned to maintain the ill consequences which follow from such Impositions ART IV. Images and Relics HIs next Article of Images and Relics complains how the approved Doctrine of our most reputed Writers contradicts what M. de Meaux would have us to think is their only design in that Service Art 4. Pag. 13. Let us examine this a little The Bishop of Condom's business is to explicate the universally approv'd Doctrine of the Church according to the Sentiments of the Council of Trent and not to meddle with Scholastic Opinions or those Practices which are neither necessary nor generally received He tells us therefore Expos Sect. 5. pag. 8. That all the Honour that is given them ought to be referred to the Prototypes represented by them and that we do not attribute to them any other Vertue but that of exciting in us the Remembrance of those they represent That the Honour we render them is grounded upon this that the very seeing of the Image of JESUS CHRIST Crucified cannot but excite in us a more lively Remembrance of him who died upon the Cross for our Redemption That whilst this Image before our Eyes causes this precious Remembrance in our Souls we are naturally moved to testifie by some exteriour Signs how far our Gratitude bears us which exteriour Signs are not paid to the Image but to JESUS CHRIST represented by that Image So that properly speaking according to the Bishop of Meaux's sence and that of the Council the Image of the Cross is to be only look'd upon as a Representative or Memorative Sign which is therefore apt to put us in mind of JESUS CHRIST who suffered upon the Cross for us and the Honour which we there shew precisely speaking and according to the Ecclesiastic Style is not properly to the Cross but to JESUS CHRIST represented by that Cross Not to JESUS CHRIST as present in or with or to that Cross as if the Cross it self were the Object of our Worship as another Answerer represents our Doctrine Answer to Papist Protesting Sect. 5. passim but to him in Heaven whose becoming Man and dying for us we remember by looking upon the Cross So that JESUS CHRIST is the sole Object of our Adoration and not the Cross The Cross therefore whether taken as Wood or Stone or moreover as the Image of JESUS CHRIST Crucified is not properly the Object of our Worship but is a Help to recall our wandring Thoughts back to a Consideration of the Benefits we have received by his dying for us and whilst we have these good thoughts in our Minds our Affections are inflamed and we in presence of that Image which occasioned those pious Affections shew by some exteriour Act what are our inward Sentiments and pay our Adorations to our Redeemer but not to the Image that represents him This is the Pure and Innocent Doctrine of the Church without mixture of Scholastic Subtilities and this the above-named Author acknowledges to be very innocent Ibid. p. 84. It is says he a very innocent thing to worship GOD or CHRIST when any Natural or Instituted Sign brings them to our minds even in the presence of such a Sign as if a Man upon viewing the Heavens and the Earth and the Creatures that are in it should raise his Soul to God and adore the Great Creator of the World or upon the accidental sight of a Natural Cross and why not upon the designed sight of an Artificial one should call to mind the Love of his Lord who died for him and bow his Soul to him in the most submissive Adorations But because he could not deny this to be Innocent therefore he will not have it to be the Doctrine of our Church but will have the Use of Images in our Church to be not primarily for Remembrance but for Worship Ibid. Pag. 85. and this he tells us the Council of Trent expresly teaches but is far from proving it The Council indeed tells us as he cites That the Images of JESVS CHRIST Sess 25. Dec. de Invoc c. c. are to be had and retained especially in Churches not as he renders it especially to be had and kept in Churches and that due Honour and Veneration is to
of our selves make a true and proper satisfaction to God for Sin as he insinuates I would gladly therefore have this Author and with him all Protestants to consider whether what he says be a sufficient ground to break off from an establish'd Church and separate from her Communion All the Authority he brings is Pag. 24. We think the whole of this point to be the advancement of a Doctrine grounded upon no Authority of Scripture c. and we are persuaded that when ever God remits the Crime he remits the Punishment also Pag. 25. it being a way most suitable to his Divine Goodness He tells us indeed that this is the Doctrine of the Church of England but cites no Authority of Canons or Articles for it which is very strange seeing this Doctrine is of such concern that it gives more to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have Mercy upon us than all the Plenary Indulgences of the Catholic Church against which they make such clamours And here also I cannot but wonder that he who so often uses no other Argument but we are persuaded we think we suppose that in almost every Article he brings this as his chiefest Argument we suppose this is contrary to Scripture or we think this is not to be found in it or in Antiquity Pag. 25. should yet quarrel with the Bishop of Meaux for using that word and tell us he ought to have brought some better proof for so great a Doctrine than barely we suppose And this especially when the Bishop did not use the word but only nous croyons we believe and so it was rendred by me But it matters not this served to make a shew of an Argument Pag 25 27 31. and must be improved upon several occasions Indulgences INdulgences follow next Art 7. pag. 27. And here he tells us That the Bishop of Meaux has stated our Doctrine after a manner so favourable to them that he is persuaded he will find more in his own Church than in theirs to oppose his Doctrine We do not hear of any one yet that has opposed it nay on the contrary we see it almost every where approved If the Disputes in the Schools have descended to some particular Niceties not expressed by the Bishop neither he nor we are concerned in them and if some Abuses have crept in seeing he acknowledges that both the Council and the Bishop of Meaux seem willing to have them redressed Pag. 28. methinks it should suffice He tells us indeed of many Practices in the Church of Rome different as he says from that of the Primitive Church but these being neither necessary nor universally received we will not quarrel with him about them but content our selves with what he has promised if he will stand to his word That whenever the Penances shall be reduc'd to their former Practice they will be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described and as the Primitive Ages of the Church allowed of Purgatory THo' he will not allow a Purgatory Act. â— yet he is forced to acknowledge Prayer for the Dead in the very second Century Pag. 31. He would willingly attribute this to any other Intention than that of the Church of aiding or helping Souls departed nay further he tells us they will not condemn the Practice Pag. 32. so it be not made an Article of our Faith But since two General Councils have declared it that of Florence in which the Grecian Bishops were and that of Trent and since the Practice of all Nations and the Testimonies of every Age confirm the Custom of Praying for the Dead that they might receive help what can we say to them who make a Breach in the Church and condemn Antiquity upon no other grounds than a bare supposition that it is injurious to the Merits of JESVS CHRIST which yet has no other Proof but their vain Presumption ART VIII Of the Sacraments in general IN his second Part he tells us Art 9. pag. â—â— That the Doctrine of the Sacraments has always been esteemed one of the most considerable Obstacles to their Union with the Church of Rome That they cannot imagine why M. de Meaux should insinuate as if our Disputes about these except it be in the Point of the Eucharist were not so great as about other Matters unless says he it be to serve for an Excuse for his own passing so lightly over them or to make us less careful in examining their Doctrine One would think to hear this Discourse that this Author had something very material to bring against our Church neither has he given us any reason to suspect he would be careless in such a grand Concern We will trace him in each Sacrament and see whether the Arguments he brings be sufficient or no to justifie a Breach in the Church which has been the occasion of so great Evils And first in this Article we find little difference betwixt our Doctrines as to the Nature and Efficacy of the Sacraments or as to the Necessity of them or manner how they confer Grace or the Dispositions requisite to partake of their Effects the chief difference lying in the diversity of Expression And as for the number of Sacraments he has removed the chief Obstacle by telling us in the close of this Article That their own Church says but little more than what our greatest Schoolmen have voluntarily confessed But he needed not to have gone to the Schoolmen for if they exact this Notion of a Sacrament that it must be generally necessary to Salvation as their Catechism expresses it 't is true they will not find Seven Sacraments but I am afraid also they will scarce establish Two and if they add with this Author that the other Sacraments are not Sacraments after the same manner that Baptism and the Lords Supper are pag. 41. it will be readily granted them seeing the very Words of our Profession of Faith express much-what the same thing when it tells us there are Seven Sacraments of the New Law Instituted by JESVS CHRIST for the Salvation of Mankind tho' all be not necessary for every Man If the number of Seven Sacraments be not mentioned by the Ancient Fathers it is no wonder seeing they writ not Catechisms but neither do they limit them to Two It is sufficient that in discoursing upon any of these Seven they generally and properly call them Sacraments Neither can any Argument drawn from Scripture against this Number be of force since the Scripture do's not term any of them Sacraments but only Marriage It is sufficient Eph. 5. that the Scripture mentions an exteriour Ceremony and an interiour Grace annexed thereto which shews the nature of a Sacrament ART IX Of Baptism AS for Baptism we both agree Art 10. p. 35. That it is the Law of Christ which the Eternal Truth has established that seeing all men are
not defire to add any thing to it That they Advise even Private Confession upon many accounts which the Bishop of Meaux has remarked and which they willingly allow as very useful to the Penitent that is I suppose he allows with the Bishop the Penitential Court of Judicature to be a curb to Liberty Expos pag. 18. a plentiful sourse of Wise Admonitions and a sensible consolation for Souls afflicted for their Sins all which he acknowledges render it very useful and convenient even to those who have no doubt nor scruple But yet he will not have this so beneficial an exercise to be necessary where the Sinner can quiet his Conscience without it but calls it an unnecessary Rack to Mens Consciences So that if a Man be either insensible of his sins or have brought his Conscience to such a pass that it checks him not or be presumptious of Gods Mercies and upon that think himself secure of a Pardon it seems it is not necessary with them he should either have that Curb or those Admonitions whereas we think those Persons have most need of all the helps imaginable and doubt not but that God who gave so large a Commission to his Priest to bind or loose did not exempt those who stand in need of it from a due submission to that Tribunal We assirm therefore that Penance is necessary not for every Man in particular but to those only who have offended mortally after Baptism That true Contrition which must vertually include all the parts of it is sufficient in case of a non-possibility of performing some of them That Confession which is one of the parts of it either public or private is necessary to be performed to a Priest that they who have Authority to bind or loose may know upon what it is they are to pronounce Sentence That tho' our Sentence be absolute yet since we cannot know when the Penitent has those due Dispositions which are required to receive the Benefit of it neither also can we be sure that God always confirms our Sentence These are our Doctrines this we have always held and practis'd and this we affirm to be conformable to the practice of the most Antient and Orthodox Churches and we cannot but be astonished why they should be rejected and no better grounds brought than we suppose Pag. 43. or we must beg leave with assurance to say that such Doctrines ar directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture If he say he only undertook an Exposition of their Doctrine and therefore was no more oblig'd to prove it than the Bishop of Meaux himself I must tell him the difference is great for the Bishop of Meaux undertaking to Expound a Doctrine establish'd in the Church that very Possession was a sufficient proof of its Antiquity and Universality it being a constant maxim in our Church that no particular Opinions or Practises ought ever to be establish'd as necessary to all and that nothing can be declared as an Article of our Faith which was not materially so before that is which was not handed down to us by universal Tradition as a reveal'd Truth Whereas this Author undertaking to give us an Exposition of a Doctrine which dissents from ours so establish'd and of which we are in possession if he would have it bear any weight he ought to have given some solid Reasons for their defection from those Doctrines which had been establish'd in England for above a Thousand Years from the very time that Pagan Idolatry was rooted out by St. Augustin the Benedictin Monk he ought I say to have given some solid Reasons such as were no less than Domonstrations or manifest Revelations to which and to no other those who are in Possession of a Doctrine so establish'd ought to submit and without which all Arguments for a Reformation dwindle into this which is very inefficacious we suppose we have a just reason to reform we think we are in the right we are persuaded it is according to Scripture c. but we are not certain ART XII Of Extream Vnction AS to the Sacrament of Extream Vnction Art 13. p. 44. this Author cannot deny but the words of St. James If any man be sick James 5.14 15. let him call for the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the Name of our Lord. And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick and our Lord shall lift him up and if he be in sins they shall be remitted to him I say he cannot deny but these words exhibit to us an outward Visible Sign and an Inward Spiritual Grace but yet he will not have the meaning of this Passage to reser at all to a Sacrament but only to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles contrary to the express words of Scripture and to the sence of them received and delivered to us by Antiquity The Grace of Curing the Sick was not given to all Priests or Elders alike but only to some select Persons these did not only cure the Sick but the Lame and the Blind their Power of Miracles was not tied to the Ceremony of Unction only all those that were anointed were not cured neither had all they who were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing any assurance by that Cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins Yet St. James here speaks of those only that are Sick he appoints them to call in the Priests in general and not them only who had the Gift of Healing he speaks only of anointing them with Oyl and not of any other Ceremonies used by CHRIST or his Apostles in order to the curing of the Sick He promises The prayer of faith shall save the sick adn the Lord shall lift him up which if it had been meant of Bdily Health those only would have died in the Apostles time who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of that Ceremony And lastly he pronounces That if they be in sins they shall be remitted which shews plainly enough it cannot belong only to Bodily Cures as he would have it But he tells us The Rituals of the Roman Church for above Eight hundred years understood it plainly of Bodily Cures and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confesses that it can belong to no other Had he only told us that the ancient Roman Rituals shew this Ceremony had a respect to Bodily Cures as well as to the Cures of the Mind he had told us nothing but what our Rituals at this day manifest and what may be gathered from the Council of Trent as the Bishop of Meaux observes Sess 14. de Sac. Extrem Unc. cap. 2. which speaking of the Effects of this Sacrament tells us That the Sick Person do's sometimes by it obtain Health of Body when it is expedient for the Salvation of the Soul Had he told us also only that
Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body referred to the Bread that our Saviour held in his Hands the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and CHRIST's Body will necessarily required the Figurative Interpretation But unless he can prove that the Pronoun hoc this must necessarily relate to Panis Bread and not to Corpus Body his Argument will avail him nothing but that all his Logic will never be able to effect Pag. 45. His Argument is this What did he say was his Body but that which he gave to his Discipoles What did he give to his Disciples but that which he broke What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly He took Bread But what follows from all this but that JESVS took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat THIS IS MY BODY But he go's on What JESVS took in his Hands that he blessed What he blessed the same he brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But JESUS says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said THIS IS MY BODY But what do's all this argue against us unless he beg the Question and suppose that no real Change was made by those Words Which to shew how true it is let us propose an Example We will suppose and that not incongruously that our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these either mental or vocal Words This is Wine or let this be Wine Now here it is manifest the Word This was not determined but only signified Substance till the Word Wine was annexed This supposed if any one would see the force of his Argument let him change the Expression and instead of Bread use Water and instead of Body use Wine and then reflect whether he can from thence prove that these Words This is Wine must necessarily mean This Water is Wine or rather whether that would not be a Proposition which implies a Contradiction Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 19. SS prumum as Gratian and Cardinal Bellarmine prove in the foregoing Places cited by him of the like Proposition This is my Body But it will not be amiss to consider Cardinal Bellarmine's Argument to which this Author refers He tell us there how these Words Take and eat for this is my Body must necessarily infer either a real Change of the Bread as Catholics or else a metaphorical Change as the Calvinists hold but that they will by no means admit of the Lutheans sence Which Proposition he endeavours to prove against the Lutherans assirming the Words This is my Body to bear necessarily one of these three sences First This which is contained under the species of Bread is my Body which is the Catholic sence and supposes a Mutation The second is that of the Sacramentaries who admit of no Mutation and their sence is This Bread is the Figure of my Body The third which is that of the Lutherans who admit of no Change but yet allow a Real Presence must bear this Interpretation This truly Wheaten Bread is truly and properly my Body But this says he can by no means be admitted whether we speak of the thing it self or of the Proposition For it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another for it would be that thing and would not be that thing Moreover in an Affirmative Proposition it is necessary the Subjectum or thing of which any thing is affirmed and the Praedicatum or thing affirm'd of it should have a regard to the same thing Then follow the Words which he cites It cannot therefore be that that Proposition should be true in which the Subjectum or former part designs Bread and the Praedicatum or latter part the Body of CHRIST For Bread and the Body of CHRIST are two very different things This indeed may prove that the Words of the Institution may possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation but are far from proving that they oblige us to take them so which was what the Bishop of Condom affirmed and which he if he had used Sincerity should have oppugned and not have spent so much time to prove what was not the Question But as I said it is not my Business here to justifie our Tenets but to see what he has to say against the Exposition as such I do not find he pretends here that the Bishop of Meaux has palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But I observe he uses frequently the Word Corporeally and the Corporeal Presence which the Bishop has avoided keeping himself to the Terms of the Council of Trent which tells us only that JESVS CHRIST is truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament but uses not the Word Corporeally I suppose because it may bear a double sence and signifie either first that the Body is really and substantially present tho' not after a carnal gross manner with all the Qualifications of a Natural Body and this is the sence of those Catholics who make use of it Or secondly it may be taken as signifying the Body to be present after a corporeal carnal manner with all the Conditions and Qualities of a Natural Body which sence our Enemies are apt to impute to us as if it were our Doctrine tho very unjustly But had he been Faithful in giving us the Doctrine of the Church of England I doubt not but the Arguments he brings against the Bishop of Meaux would have proved as much against it as it do's against ours He tells us Pag. â—â— They confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but they deny that therefore it must be his very Body I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing it self but yet is more than a meer Gigure of it If he mean that it is not the Body Corporeally according to the Explication of the word as I have given it in the Second Sence we agree with him But if he mean by this somewhat more than a meer Figure that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful in the Lords Supper as their Church Catechism has it I see not also in what the difference consists betwixt us neither can I see how his Arguments oppugn our Doctrine without confuting theirs 'T is true their Twenty eighth Article tells us that The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and that the means whereby the Body of CHRIST is receiv'd and eaten in the Supper is Faith Yet because I am not willing to think their Canons and Church Catechism contradict one another I am willing to think the meaning of the saying that Faith is the means by which they
But the second continues he which the Gospel has not explicated we have expresly received from the Church that is the Conversion of Bread into the Body of CHRIST which he says we have not only received from the ancient Doctors of the Church but from the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third De Summa Trinit Fide Cath. Firmiter credimus where both Points are expressed viz. That the Body and Blood of CHRIST are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine which regards the first And it follows The Bread bein transubstantiated into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by Divine Power After this he speaks of the Reality of CHRIST's Body in the Eucharist and of the Manner how it becomes there viz. by Conversion and of the first he says Sciendum est omnes circa primam novitatem continentiae re voce consensisse dum omnes communiter fatemur corpus Christi prius non contentum sub hac hostia modo veraciter contineri quamvis circa modum quo continetur variae sint opiniones i.e. We must know that all Persons are at perfect agreement both as to the manner of Expression and as to the thing it self when we speak of the first new Change which is there made of the thing contained seeing we all commonly confess that the Body of CHRIST which was not at first contained under this Host is now truly there contained tho there be various Opinions concerning the manner how he is there contained Then summing up several of those Opinions as Whether it be by such a Change as is made by Nutrition or Whether the Bread be Annihilated or Whether it be by a true Conversion he undertakes to prove that it is by a Conversion which do's produce and effect the Presence of CHRIST in the Host and freely confesses that this Conversion is not explicitly mentioned in the Gospel but only deduced from the words This is my Body by the Doctors of the Church After which returning to his first Point in which he had concluded that the Body of CHRIST was truly in the Sacrament he tels us In hoc omnes fideles conveniunt sed modus quo est in disputationem vertitur All the Faithful agree in this but as to the manner how he is there that is a disputable Question This is in short the Intent of that Article which is far from what this Author has imposed upon him Next he tells us That the generality of our Commanion confess that if the Words of Consecration refer to the Bread which is changed by them they must be taken in their Figurative sence Pag. 74 75. But this has been sufficiently cleared already Lastly He tells us That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after CHRIST and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day What Doctrine do's he here mean Not that of the Schools concerning the manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament for a little after he tells us That Anathema's have been pronounced against them and they esteemed Heretics and Schismatics for opposing it But the Church never yet proceeded so far as to declare the Manner or censure any Opinions concerning it By this Doctrine then which he tells us was not of Faith till the Council of Lateran he must understand the Doctrine of the Church and say That the Body and blood of JESUS CHRIST was not till then believed to be truly really and substantially present under the species or appearances of Bread the Substance of Bread being not so present after Consecration But how do's he prove this He first brings Scotus cited by Bellarmine but we have already examined his Concessions pag. 84. which make but little for our Adversary Then he quotes Gabriel cited by Suarez T. 3. Disp 50. sect 1. But Suarez there undertaking to prove two Assertions the first That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is made by a true Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of CHRIST which he tells us is of Faith and the second That this Sacrament is made by a true Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body and of the Wine into the Blood of CHRIST he tells us That the word Transubstantiation taken in its proper and strict sence signifies transitum seu conversionem totius substantiae in totam substantiam a Transition or Conversion of a whole Substance into a whole Substance After which he concludes thus From this Doctrine of Faith we may gather first That the Scholastics as Scotus and Gabriel are to be corrected and secondly That the thing it self was ancient and perpetually believed in the Church Non suerit tam apertè explicata sicut mode est tho perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is In the last place he quotes Lombard L. 4. Dist 11. Lit. A. But it is manifest that Lombard speaks there only of a Scholastic Tenet Which to the end you may see as also what was esteemed of Faith in his time before the Council of Lateran I will give you a short account of his whole Doctrine as to this Point He begins his eighth Distinction telling us Lomb. in 4. dist 8. Lit. B. That the Blessed Sacrament was instituted when JESUS CHRIST after the Typical Lamb gave to his Disciples his Body and Blood in the Last Supper Then speaking of the Form This is my Body c. Lit. C. he tells us Cum haec verba proferuntur conversio fit panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi That when these words are pronounced there is made a Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of CHRIST Then speaking of a Sacrament as being the Sign of a Sacred thing Lit. D. he tells us what is the sign and what is the Thing in this Sacrament The Form i.e. Appearance says he of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Sign of the Sacred thing So that the species bear the Name of the Things which they were before that is of Bread and Wine But the thing signified is twofold the one contained under those species and signified by them the other signified but not contained The thing contained and signified is the Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us But the thing which is signified and not contain'd is the Unity of the Church in those who are Predestinated Called Justified and Glorified So that there are says he three things to be distinguish'd one which is only a Sacrament and not the thing viz. the visible species of Bread and Wine another which is the Sacrament and the thing viz. the proper Flesh and Blood of Christ and a third which is the thing and not the Sacrament viz.
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 JESVS CHRIST In the Proclamation it is ordain'd that it shall be commonly deliver'd under both kinds except necessity otherwise require which shews manifestly that the Church of England thought then that one kind was sufficient in case of necessity and that whole Sacrament was contained under one kind for half a Sacrament is no Sacrament And if a necessary occasion be sufficient to dispense with the Administration of it in both kinds who ought to be Judge but the Pastors and Teachers in every Age or the Church Representative which shews that this is a part of Discipline and not of Faith since both sides confess that in case of necessity it may be given in one kind and that by receiving each Particle one receives the whole Body of JESUS CHRIST as appears by the Annotation so that the Bishop of Condom's Argument against the Calvinists of France has its full force against the Church of England ART XX. Of the wrÃtten and unwritten Word IN the next Articlé we are agreed in the main Art 24. p. 75. We both acknowledge the unwritten Word to have been the first Rule of Christians and that it was so far from losing any thing of its Authority by addition of the Written Word that it was indeed the more firmly established We receive with equal veneration the Written and the Unwritten Word when we are assured they come from the Apostles And as we do not admit of every thing which is called Tradition so what is made appear to have been received in all Churches and in all Ages we are ready to embrace as coming from the Apostles Our difference consists only in this who shall be judge when this Tradition is Universal We rely upon the Judgment of the present Church in every Age either assembled in the most general Council that Age can afford or else declaring her Doctrine by her constant practice and the uniform Voice of her Pastors and People and are assured it is not sufficient for any Private Persons or Church to say we suppose or we are persuaded they are contrary to the Written Word or we find it not there to make the Churches Sentence void or justifie a dissent ART XXI Of the Authority of the Church IN his next Article Art 25. p. 76. of the Authority of the Church he grants many things which the Bishop of Meaux had asserted from which we might expect great Fruit but he presently nips all our hopes in the very bud He grants the Catholic Church to be the Guardian of the Holy Scriptures Pag. 76 77. and of Tradition and that it is from her Authority they reeeive both That they never deny the Church to have an Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline Pag. 78. but even of Faith too That they neither fear the entire defection of the Catholic Church nor that she should fall into such an entire Infidelity as should argue her not to be a Church Pag. 80. And in his next Article he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith and declares as a Doctrine of his Church that they allow such a deference to a Churches Decisions as to make them their directions what Doctrine they may or may not publicly maintain and teach in her Communion that they shew whatever submission they can to her Authority without violating that of God declared to us in the Holy Scripture And lastly that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General In which none shall be more ready to assist nor to which none shall be more ready to submit These are fair offers to establish a Church-Authority and did he manifestly destroy all he has here said by some other exceptions we might have hoped some good effects of such a Submission He tells us Pag. 79. and that truly that any particular Church may either by errour lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in necessary points of it And yet notwithstanding he do's not only set up a particular Church to examin the Churches Decisions Pag. 78. which he tells us after all may err but even every individual Person who according to his Doctrine may not only examine the Decisions of the whole Church but glory in opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word His words are these Pag. 79. Tho' we suppose the Scriptures are so clearly written that it can hardly happen that in necessary Articles of Faith any one Man should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion He had told us a little before that any particular Church such as he esteem'd the Church of Rome to be might either by Errour lose or by any other means prevaricate the Faith even in necessary points of it and yet what he there wishes they had not too great cause to fear the Church of Rome has in effect done he here tells us can hardly happen to one particular Man But what follows is more intolerable and since he gives us it as a Doctrine of the Church of England I desire him to tell us in what Canon Article or Constitution it is contain'd But says he if such an one were evidently convinc'd that his belief was founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word so far would it be from any Errour to support it against the whole Church that it is at this day the greatest Glory of St. Athanasius that he slood up alone against the whole World in defence of Ghrists Divinity when the Pope the Councils the whole Church fell away Behold here a Doctrine which if admitted will not only maintain all the Dissenters that are but that ever can be from a Church a Doctrine which will establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World every one of which may if he be but evidently convinced that is if he have but impudece enough to think he is so that his belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Word not only oppose the whole Church but glory in it And a Doctrine backed by as false and Authority as the Assertion it self is false and scandalous for never any one yet before this Man said that the Pope the Councils and the whole Church fell in St. Athanasius his time on the contrary it is manifest to all those who have read any thing of History that the Pope and all the Western Churches and the approved General Councils of those times all stood up for St. Athanasius and if he said he was against all and all against him it was only to express the great number of Eastern Bishops that oppos'd his Doctrine
But any thing must pass now to deceive the vulgar tho' Men of Sence see the contrary Another Argument he brings to delude the Authority of the Church of Rome is to make her apss only for a particular Church But how often have they been told that Catholics do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholic Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome And that this is the true Church appears by the marks of it deliver'd in the Nicene Creed no other Church being able to pretend to that Unity Sanctity Universality and Antiquity which she is manifestly invested with The true Church must be one and by conquence free from Schism which destroys that notion which some of late have held that the true Church is that Catholic Church which is composed of all Christians the Roman the Grecians the Armenians Prtoestants c. all which they acknowledge to be Members of the True Church tho' they may be rotten ones and this notion our Author seems to have of it when he tells us that the Roman Church has in all ages made up but a part of the Church Pag. 77. and that not always the greatest neither The true Church must be also Holy and must by consequence be free from Heresie and teach no Erroneous Doctrine which how it stands with that Idea which this Author insinuates that the Church of Rome has erred event in necessary points of Faith and is yet a Member of the True Church is worthy a mature Consideration This indeed made the first Reformers who accused the Roman Catholic Church of Idolatry and Superstition say that the Church of JESUS CHRIST was hidden fled into the Wilderness See the Protestant Authors cited by Brereley in his Protestant Apology Tract 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. and invisible for 1000 or 1200 years that the Pope was Antichrist and the Church of Rome Antichristian But the Men of our Age being sufficiently convinced that the Church of Christ was to have Kings and Queens for Nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers that she was to have Pastors and Teachers in all Ages Whitakers contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 260. that the Administration of the Sacraments and the Preaching of the true word of God were the Essential Proprieties of the Church c. and that all these marks do necessarily denote a Visible Church and finding moreover they could never prove any Christian Kings before Luther Converted to Protestancy or any visible Pastors or Teachers of their Doctrine or any Assembly that Administred the Sacraments as they do or Preached the word of God in their Sence and finding they could not deny the Conversion of many Kings and Nations to the Religion established in the Church of Rome found themselves obliged also to admit her as a part of the True Church tho' a corrupted one and would rather destroy the Sanctity of Christs Church and her Vnity than acknowledge themselves to be justly cut off from being Members of her The third Mark is Catholic which is universal as to Place Time and Doctrine that Church cannot be the true Church the sound whereof is not gone through the whole Earth and is not it self spread over and visible in all Nations that cannot be the true Church which has not continued in all Ages Visible Holy and Uniform neither lastly can that be the true Church which either adds or diminishes from the Doctrines revealed by God to the Prophets and Apostles so that those are as guilty of the Breach of Faith who refuse to believe what has been taught as those who impose new Doctrines The last mark of the Church is that she must be Apostolic that is grounded upon the Doctrines and Faith of the Apostles and deriving a continual Succession from them All which marks are so far from being applicable to the Church of England or to the Universal Church according to the notion given of it be these late Writers that a Man of the smallest judgment if Impartial cannot but see the fallacy thereof ART XXII Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy AS for his two other Articles The Opinion of the Church of England as to the Authority of the Church and that of the See Apostolic and Episcopacy I have nothing to say to him but to desire him to remember his promises Pag. 81. and to enquire what is the Authority the Antient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the Holy Fathers have always taught the Faithful to give to the Successour to St. Peter and whether the first Four General Councils might not be termed neither General nor Free with as much Reason as the Council of Trent or those others acknowledged by all the Western World and most of the Eastern Churches before the new pretended Reformation The Conclusion I Come now to his Close in which he sums up all the Poison of his Book lays what he pleases to our charge and draws what Consequences he will to inflame his Reader He tells us of Bitter and Vnchristian Hatred we have conceiv'd against them Pag. 82. and desires to know what warrant we have for it I desire all unprejudic'd Persons to consider whether we have not more reason to complain than he Here was a Church established in England Truths delivered to her with Christianity it self were here Practis'd and Preach'd Religious Houses were here endow'd with ample Revenues c. when behold a Pretended Reformation comes destroys this Church dissolves all the Constitutions of it changes the established Doctrines and alters many of its antientest Practices pulls down Religious Houses and Churches alienates the Revenues turns the Religious Inhabitants into the wide World make Laws against all those who should defend that Doctrine Imprisonment loss of Goods and Fortunes nay even of Life it self are the Punishments ordained for them who are found guilty of Practising or Preaching that Religion And what less could such a Church do than Excommunicate they who thus Renounc'd her Doctrines Contemned her Authority and persecuted her Children But this Excommunication must be called Severity and unchristian hatred And if we declare that all those who forsake the Unity of the Church are guilty of Schism and they who will not acquiess to those Points of Faith which God has Revealed and the Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth has declar'd to have been so Reveal'd are guilty of Heresie and that Heresie and Schism will bring inevitable damnation to all those who die without repenting of them we must be esteem'd uncharitable I must therefore Retort his Popular Argument and ask him and all unprejudic'd Protestants what they can find in all our Doctrines when truly Represented to warrant that bitter and unchristian hatred they have conceiv'd against us a hatred which has occasioned so many Penal and Sanguinary Laws and still makes them use all endeavours to keep them in full force against
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
us Do we not firmly believe the Holy Scriptures according to the Sence and unanimous consent of the Antient and Primitive Fathers Do we not embrace the three Creeds nay and believe all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Do you not acknowledge us to be true Members of the Catholic Church and by Consequence your Brethren tho' you will have us to be unsound and weak If we maintain any Doctrines different from yours do we not shew you plain Texts of Scriture for most of them and the consent of Primitive Fathers and the acknowledged Practices of the Church for above 1000 Years for every one of them Do we not fix our Grounds upon the undoubted Word of God deliver'd down to us either by Writing or uninterrupted Tradition and explicated by the unanimous consent of the Pastors and Teachers in all times and places If we tell you a due Honour is to be paid to Images purely upon the account of being Representatives and not for themselves is it not agreeable to your own Practice who bow to the Altar keep uncover'd in a Church bend the Knees at the Name of JESVs not for the sake of the Altar Fabric or Sound but with a reference to the Victim which Consecrates the Altar to God who is in a peculiar manner present in the Church and to JESVS CHRIST the Son of God understood by that sound which Honour if it may be called Religious in some respect it is not manifestly because it tends ultimately to God himself If we desire the Saints and Angels who Reign in Heaven to Pray with us and for us to their and our Common Creator and if we acknowledge such Prayers are good and beneficial to aid and help us in our necessities we know no more injury is done to JESVS CHRIST our sole Redeemer by such Addresses than by your own to a Parent or a Friend we detest that Religion of Angels mentioned by the Apostle Col. 2. 18. accoding to that Sence that place manifestly bears and as the Antient Fathers understood it but we think with the same Fathers that a due Honour ought to be given them as to the Messengers and Friends of God And any undue Worship which elevates them above the pitch of our fellow Creatures we detest What more can any one in reason desire of us And if we pronounce Anathema's against those who deny it to be lawful to make such innocent Addresses or to pay such a due and limited Honour it is because they contradict Antiquity and the approved Fathers of the Church We acknowledge 't is true a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of JESVS CHRIST under the Species or Appearances of Bread and Wine and are we not assured of it by the very Words of JeSVS CHRIST by the manifest consent of Antiquity by the continual practice of both the Greek and Latin Churches If we be ignorant of the manner at least we are not of the thing And do's not your Chatechism and your most Learned Divines acknowledge as much your Confession of your ignorance of the manner of his being present do's not hinder you from acknowledging the Body and Blood of our Blessed Saviour to be verily and indeed taken and receiv'd not only by Faith but by the Faithful in the Lords Supper This Real Presence is grounded upon the Words of our Blessed Saviour This is my Body taken literally from whence also it necessarily follows that after the words of Consecration 't is not more Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of JESVS CHRIST This Consequence of the Real Presence many Protestants themselves confess and acknowledge that if the words must be taken literally they must necessarily grant both Transubstantiation Adoration and all the rest of our Doctrines about this Sacrament And if any one ask us why we take it literally we may with the Bishop of Condom say they may as well ask us why we keep the High Road that is all the Fathers of the Church in all Ages having taken it in that Sence we ought no more to deviate from it than from a beaten Road. If we adore our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament it is but a necessary Consequence of his Real Presence and what they who believe him present cannot but think themselves oblig'd to do We acknowledge that where Gods Commands are Positive they are indispensible and therefore if we judge Communion under both kinds not to be positively Commanded we judge so because the Church in all Ages dispensed with it and you your selves grant that in cases of necessity eveyr Pastor may give it under one kind only and is he not left judge when that case occurs and when he may make use of it These things considered I must use your own words Men and Brethren Pag. 84. consider we conjure you these things and if you please consider us too what we are and what our Manners and Conversation amongst you has been even when Perjury and Faction loaded us with all the Injuries Hell it self could invent and exercised their utmost severities upon us What also we are at present and how our change of Fortune makes us neither remember former Injuries nor desire to revenge them Believe us at least that we have no other ends but Truth no designs but to convince your Judgments and if we dare not be over curious in enquiring into the manner how the Mysteries that are revealed can possibly be true 't is because we know they are revealed and doubt not of Gods Veracity Believe us that we have no other Interest but the Salvation of our own Souls and those of others by endeavouring to represent our Doctrines as they truly are and soliciting the Children of the Church to return to their Mothers Bosome We are in possession the Proofs you bring against us are only Negatives and meer Conjectures you think them convincing Arguments but are not certain but that you may fail in your Concjectures You cannot shew one positive Argument against the Invocation of Saints either from Scripture or from Fathers Not one against the Doctrine of the Real Presence Transubstantiation Veneration of Images upon account of their Representations not one against the number of Sacraments not one to prove Communion under both kinds to be indispensible or that Children dying without Baptism are saved In a word you cannot shew one positive Argument against any one Doctrine of our Church if you state it right All you can say is it do's not appear to us out of Scripture it do's not appear to us from Antiquity shew us you say your Authentic Records your Deeds of Gift your Revelation and we will believe as if uninterrupted possession were not sufficietn Proof Our Plea is good olim possidio prior possidio If you will dispute our Title you must shew your positive Records of a more Antient Date But what need of so much bitterness whilst you plead your Cause Is it not enough to dispossess us