my self that I should have been ready in great measure to have acknowledged the Charge and to have submitted to his reproof I know how little fit I am for controversies of this kind That neither my Age nor Learning nor Opportunities have qualified me for such undertakings as the defence of my Religion and my duty to my Superiors have without any design of mine engaged me in And I doubt not but a Censor less severe than he who has thought fit to make himself my Adversary might have found out more real faults in my Book than he has noted pretended Errors But for the Calumnies and Misrepresentations Vindicat. pag. 22. for the unsincere dealings and falsifications he accuses me of and that in almost every Article here I must beg leave to justifie my self and assure the Vindicator whoever he be that my Religion I thank God needs not such defences nor would I ever have used these means to assert it if it did We have indeed heard of some that have look'd upon these things as not only lawful but even pious on such Occasions that have esteemed the interest of the Church so sacred as to be able to sanctifie the worst means that can be made use of to promote it Had I been bred in their Schools there might have been some more plausible grounds for such a suspicion and what wonder if I did no more than what I had been taught was lawful for me to do But I have not so learnt Christ Ephes 4.20 Rom. 3.8 I have been taught and am perswaded that no Evil may be done that good may come I am assured by S. Paul that they who say it may their damnation is just And did I now know of any one instance of those crimes whereof I am represented to the World as guilty in almost every Chapter I should think my self indispensably obliged to made a publick acknowledgement of it and thank the Vindicator that has called me to so necessary a duty But now that I am not conscious to my self of any thing of all this all that I have to reply to this uncharitable way of proceeding is to intreat him by the common name of Christian and those hopes of Eternity after which I believe we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend to consider how dangerous this way he has taken is what mischief it will bring in the opinion of all good Men of whatsoever perswasion they be to the very cause that is maintain'd by such means in a word what a sad purchace it will prove in the end if to lessen the reputation of an unknown obscure Adversary he should do that which shall lose him his own Soul But it is time now to clear my self of those Calumnies that are laid to my charge And the first is Vindicat. pag. 2. That I endeavour to represent Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition as a Book that palliates and prevaricates the Doctrine of his Church and the very Approbations of it as meer artifices to deceive the World not sincere much less authoritative Approbations either of the nature or principles of Monsieur de Meaux's Book I do not remember I have any where in express terms charged Monsieur de Meaux with prevaricating the Doctrine of his Church in the latter Editions of his Book though others I know have done it But however if this be the greatest of those Calumnies I am guilty of I am sure all that have ever lived among them and seen their practices and compared them with what he writes will easily absolve me and I shall hereafter shew that either Monsieur de Meaux has palliated or else the greatest of their Authors have strangely perverted the Doctrine of the Church As to the other part of the Accusation that I should say that the Approbations were meer Artifices to deceive the World it is not my Calumny but the Vindicator's mistake Expos of the C. E. pag. 15. I never thought those Letters Monsieur de Meaux has published any authoritative Approbations of his Book at all Indeed in the place which he cites I have said somewhat like it of the * Of which see more in the Appendix n. 3. p. 120. Popes Brief and am still of the same mind and till he shall think fit to answer the reasons that induced me to believe so he will hardly perswade me that this is a Calumny But if I am so little satisfied with the Approbations of Monsieur de Meaux 's Book Vindicat. pag. 3. I should at least have had some more authentick testimonies of what I my self publish And he thinks it wonderful that my Book should have found such a reception as it did only from my assuring the World that I had not palliated nor prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England but submitted it to her Censure and the sight of an Imprimatur when the Approbations of so many Learned Men and even of the Pope himself are not thought sufficient to secure Monsieur de Meaux's Treatise This indeed were somewhat if the truth of the Exposition were on either side to be taken from the number of the Approvers and not the nature of the Doctrine If Monsieur de Meaux has really palliated the Doctrine of the Church of Rome 't is not any number of Approbations that will be able to render him a faithful Expositor If my Exposition be conformable to the Doctrine of the Church of England and if not let him shew us the prevarications the want of a few Letters can at most argue only my interest not to have been so great as his or my Vanity less but will not render the Exposition ever the more unfaithful And though an Imprimatur be all the Authority that is usual with us on such Occasions yet the Vindicator may believe by the reception he acknowledges the Book to have had that it would have been no difficult matter to have obtain'd other Subscriptions than that of the Reverend Person who Licensed it and if that will be any satisfaction to him I do assure him it has been approved by several other Persons but little inferiour whether in Authority or Reputation to any Monsieur de Meaux has prefix'd to his Exposition For what remains of my Preface two things there are which he supposes worthy his Animadversion One that whereas I accuse Cardinal Capisucchi to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Exposition Vindicat. Pag. 17. we must take notice that the Bishop of Condom's intention was not to meddle with Scholastic Tenets but purely to deliver that Doctrine of the Church which was necessarily and universally receiv'd whereas Cardinal Capisucchi being obliged to no such strictness would not it may be contradict the problematical niceties of those Schools in which he had been Educated It is the Catholic distinction of this Author throughout his whole Vindication if any thing be alledged contrary to his liking that it is presently a Scholastic Tenet and not
the necessary and universally to be receiv'd Doctrine of the Church But that we may if possible discern what is the Doctrine and what the Scholastic Tenet in the present case we will take only what at first sight offers it self viz. That Cardinal Capisucchi do's positively affirm †To satisfie the Vindicator what the Cardinal's words are I will give them at length Ex his constat in concilio Nicaeno Secundo in Tridentino aliisque Latriam duntaxat Idololatricam Sacris imaginibus denegari qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seipsis propter ipsas exhibeatur quaque Imagines 〈◊〉 Numina aut Divinitatem continentia more Gentilium celantur de hujusmodi enim Latriâ controversia erat cum Judaeis Haereticis qui haec ratione nos Imagines colere assâ—ebant Caeterum de Latriâ illa quae Imaginibus S. Trinitatis Christi D. aut Sacratissimae Crucis exhibetur ratione rei per eas repraesenratae quatenus cum re repraesentatâ— unum sunt in esse repraesentativo nullamque divinitatem Imaginibus â—â—ibuitâ—aut supponit nulla unquamfuit antesse potuit Controversia Art 8. p. 647. That a Divine worship may be paid to Images upon the account of the thing which they represent and that this Doctrine was never doubted of in the Church nor deny'd by the Council of Trent Does Monsieur de Meaux allow of this Does he tells us that a Divine Worship may upon any account be paid to an Image Or rather does he not plainly insinuate that he can hardly allow the Image any honour at all Monsieur de Meaux's Expos pag 8. We do not says he so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image Let us then lay aside the barbarous distinctions by which he would excuse a foul Idolatry Be it a School nicety or whatever you will else Vindicat. pag. 19. Whether the representative Image as representative be representatively one and the same with the thing represented Our Question without this Gibberish is plain and intelligible Whether upon any account whatsoever the Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross be to be worshipped with Divine Worship This the Cardinal affirms and this if Monsieur de Meaux does allow let him speak it out without mincing If not 't is plain for all the pretences of a Scholastic nicety that they differ in the Exposition of a very material point of the Doctrine of the Roman Church The other thing which the Vindicator thinks fit to take notice of in my Preface Mindicat p. 16 17 19. is the Consequence which I draw from this and some other instances of the like kind viz. That the Papists think it lawful to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike In Answer to which he again distinguishes between Scholastic Tenets and matters of Faith and then tells us Every one knows that the Doctrines of a Church or matters of Faith being Tenets necessarily and universally received ought upon no account to be dissembled or disguised but as for Scholastic Opinions we see not only one Nation commanding one thing to be taught and another the quite contrary but even one University against another in the same Country c. But if I mistake not this is not to answer my Conclusion but to start a new Question The Point proposed was not whether in matters that are not of Faith Men may not hold different Opinions and yet live still in the same common Church whereof there can be no doubt but it was a Conclusion drawn from plain matter of fact viz. That those of the Church of Rome think it lawful to set their hands to and approve those Books whose principles they dislike This the Instances I have brought shew plainly they do If they know it to be a sin and yet do it they condemn themselves If they think otherwise then they believe it to be lawful which is all I affirm'd and to which the Vindicator has answered never a word There is yet one thing more remaining before I close this and that is the remark the Vindicator has made upon the passages collected by me out of Monsieur de Meaux 's first Edition Vindicat. pag. 20. which have either been altered or omitted in the following Impressions viz. That the Bishop in that Edition had been so far from proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome loosely and favourably as I pretend that on the contrary he rather proposed it with too much strictness In a word that he had been so far from perverting the Doctrine of the Church that I was not able to propose one Doctrine so perverted without a forced interpretation of my own according to my wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention As to the first of which no one ever charged the Bishop with proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome loosely and favourably in every point We know well enough that in some he has kept to the plain Doctrine of his Church as in that of the Eucharist in others proposed it rather with too much strictness as in the case of Infants dying unbaptized All we say is that in some other Articles such as the Invocation of Saints Worshipping of Images Sacrifice of the Mass c. he had expounded it more loosely and favourably than he ought to have done and that without any gloss or interpretation of mine to turn things to a wrong intention Does not the Church of Rome lay any Obligation on particular persons to joyn with her in the Invocation of Saints Collect. n. 5. Does she condemn those only who refuse it out of Contempt and with a spirit of dissention and revolt This Monsieur de Meaux once affirmed and I think there needs no comment to shew that this is to palliate the Doctrine of their Church Has the Church of Rome ascribed no other vertue to Images Ibid. n 6. than to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent Is that all the use they make of them Do they not so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image Or rather did not Monsieur de Meaux here also mollifie the known Doctrine and practice of his Church In a word Ibid. n. 12. Is the Church of Rome contented to teach only that the Mass may very reasonably be called a Sacrifice Is that Exposition reconcileable to what we now read in him That there is nothing wanting to make it a true Sacrifice May I not here at least without my wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention beg leave to say that either Monsieur de Meaux palliated the Doctrine of his Church in that or he has otherwise perverted it in this Had Monsieur de Meaux only retrenched or altered some things
in his Book for the greater exactness of the Method or neatness of Stile he must have been a very peevish Adversary indeed that would have pretended to censure him for that But to change not only the words but Doctrine too to give us one Exposition of it in one Edition and a quite contrary in another this I think may if not be represented as a heinous crime Vindicat. pag. 21.22 yet at least deserve a remark and let the Vindicator do what he can will I doubt make the Author pass with all indifferent persons for such as yet I had never represented him had not he himself first made the dilemma viz. M. de M's Advert p. 2. One that either did not sufficiently understand the Doctrine of his Church or that had not sincerity enough to expound it aright I should now pass to the consideration of those Exceptions that have been made against what I have advanced in my Book it self but before I do this it will be requisite that I take notice of those directions the Vindicator has thought fit to give me in his Postscript in order thereunto And here not to deceive either his Vindicat. pag. 12â— 12â— or the Reader 's expectation I must beg leave to excuse my self from entring any farther into dispute with the Bishop of Condom than I have already done I never designed a direct answer to his Book and the reflections I have made upon it in my former Treatise were more to clear the Doctrine of the Church of England than to argue against what he offered in behalf of the Romish Faith This has been the undertaking of another Pen from whom the Vindicator I suppose may expect what is reasonably enough refused by me But for the other part of his desire that I would take the pains to peruse my self the Authors cited by me Vindicat. pag. 121. and not transcribe Quotations nor take up things by halves I have been so scrupulous in observing it that I doubt I shall receive but little thanks from himself for it It cannot be deny'd but that there have been faults enough committed on both sides for want of this care and I do not desire to add to the number I have done my best to take nothing of them without a serious Examination of their sense Ibid. and a sincere application of it to the point in Question How far I have attain'd this I must leave it to others to judge but for the rest the truth of my Citations I have been so cautious in them that allowing only for the Errata's of the Press I desire no favour if I am found faulty in that I should indeed stand in need of a large Apology to those into whose hands these Papers may chance to fall that I have in many places run them out into so great a length But the Accusation that has been brought against me for want of doing this before how unjust soever it be has obliged me to this Caution now and they are so ordered as to be no hindrance to those that are minded to pass them by This benefit at least I shall attain by them with those who please to compare them with what the Vindicator alledges that they will find he might have spared himself the troublesome Vindicat. pag. 122. and ungentile Office indeed of undertaking what he could not effect to demonstrate to the World the unsincerity which I have shewn in my Quotations and the falsifications of them His endeavours wherein have been so very unsuccessful that I know not whether himself or his Religion will suffer more by the weakness of his attempt A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES Contained in the following TREATISE PART I. I. INtroduction Page 1 II. That Religious Worship is terminated only in God Page 6 III. Invocation of Saints ibid. IV. Images and Reliques Page 14 V. Justification Page 25 VI. Merits Page 28 VII 1. Satisfactions Page 32 2. Indulgences Page 35 3. Purgatory Page 36 PART II. VIII Sacraments in General Page 37 IX Baptism ibid. X. Confirmation Page 39 XI Penance Page 41 XII Extreme Vnction Page 42 XIII Marriage Page 52 XIV Holy Orders Page 53 XV. c. Eucharist Page 54 XIX Sacrifice of the Mass Page 67 XX. Epistle to the Hebrews Page 69 XXI Reflections on the foregoing Doctrine Page 70 XXII Communion under both kinds Page 71 PART III. XXIII Of the written and unwritten Word 75 XXIV c. Authority of the Church 77 XXVI Authority of the Holy See 82 XXVII The Close 83 THE EXPOSITION OF THE Doctrine of the Church of England Vindicated c. ARTICLE I. Introduction HE that accuses another of great and heinous crimes ought to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself of those faults which he condemns in others Had the Author of the Vindication thought fit to govern himself by this rule he would have spared a great part of that odious Character he has been pleased to draw of me in the beginning of this Article But it is not my business to recriminate nor need I fly to such arts for my justification Only as to the advantage he proposes to himself from these endeavours Vindicat. pag. 22. viz. to shew that all those Books to which an Imprimatur is prefix'd will not hereafter be concluded free from Errour He needed not sure have taken such pains for that For I believe no one before him ever imagined that a permission to print a Book was a mark of its Infallibility Nor that every nameless Author Vindicat. pag. 22. who professes to be sincere should pass for an Oracle It is not to be doubted but that faults there might have been in my Book for all that priviledge though the Vindicator has had the ill fortune to miss the most of them And for ought he has proved to the contrary I believe it will in the end appear that an Imprimatur Car. Alston is at least as good a mark of Infallibility as a Permissu Superiorum and a Church of England Expositor as fit to pass for an Oracle as a Popish Vindicator But Calumny and Vnsincerity are now the Catholick cry And to make it good against me I am charged in this one Article to have been guilty of both Vindicat. pag. 23. My Introduction is Calumny in a high degree and my state of the Question drawn from thence as unsincere I tell them he says of adoring Men and Women Crosses Images and Reliques of setting up their own Merits and making other propitiatory sacrifices for sin than that of the Cross And that these are all contrary to their pretended principles that Religious worship is due to God only That we are to be saved only by Christ's Merits and that the death of Christ was a perfect sacrifice The Logick of which he is content to own that the Consequence is good but the Accusation he says is false and the charge Calumniatory But if in the following Articles it be
strong for our Reformation than this one thing That the wisest and best men of the Roman Church esteem it the greatest honour and advantage they can do to their Religion to represent it as like ours as is possible and that their strongest argument to make Proselytes is this That were things but rightly understood there is but very little or no difference at all betwixt us And would to God indeed this were truly so that these differences were not only as small as they pretend but wholly taken away With what joy should we embrace the happy return of so many of our lost Brethren into the Arms of their Mother How should we go forth with the highest transports to welcome them into our Communion And celebrate the joyful festival on Earth which would create an Exultation even among the blessed Angels and Saints in Heaven And why shall we not hope that this in time shall be the issue The good work is already begun The Errors are many of them discover'd and what is more disavow'd And wherefore should we then distrust the Mercy of Heaven to hear our Prayers which we never make with more real zeal and fervour than in their behalf to shew them the Truth and open their Eyes to a perfect Conviction Till this be accomplish'd Let us who by God's Grace are already Members of the Church of England that is of the best reform'd and best establish'd Church in the Christian World so seriously weigh these things as not only to stand stedfast in that Faith which has been delivered to us but to use our utmost endeavours to convince others also of the Excellence of it Let not any fond pretences of Antiquity or Possession amuse us Vindic. p. 112 c. Against God and Truth there lies no prescription nor ought we to be at all concern'd to forsake Errors tho' never so Ancient for more Ancient Truths Let no prospect or temptation whether of worldly evils on the one hand or worldly advantages on the other draw us from our stedfastness 1 Cor. 10.13 God is faithful who will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able Matt. 10.33 And he who for any of these things denies Christ or his Religion on Earth shall be denied by Christ before his Father which is in Heaven But let us be firm and sincere to God and our own Souls careful to search out and ready to embrace the Truth whereever we find it So shall our lives be Orthodox tho' perhaps our faith should not and if in any thing we do err for we pretend not to Infallibility nor is it therefore impossible for us to be mistaken yet at least we shall not be HERETICKS FINIS APPENDIX Containing a COLLECTION Of the following PIECES I. The Extract of a Letter written from Paris concerning Monsieur de Meaux's Pastoral Letter II. An Extract of Father Crasset 's Doctrine concerning the Worship which the Roman Church allows to the Blessed Virgin III. Cardinal Bona 's Exposition and Practice of the same IV. Monsieur Imbert 's Letter to Monsieur de Meaux proving that his Persecution was truly for maintaining the Doctrine of that Bishop's Exposition V. The Epistle of St. Chrysostome to Caesarius suppress'd by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne for being contrary to the Roman Canon of Transubstantiation VI. A Catalogue of the Editions made use of by me in my Quotations to prevent if it may be all future Calumnies LONDON Printed MDCLXXXVI ADVERTISEMENT THE following Pieces have so near a relation to the present Controversie and are in themselves of so great a Moment that if their length deny'd them a place in the Work it self their Importance hath made it necessary not to omit them here I have prefix'd to every one of them such particular Accounts as may serve to satisfie the Reader 's Curiosity concerning them and shall I hope be a sufficient Apology for me that I have so largely insisted upon them APPENDIX NUM I. The Extract of a Letter written from Paris concerning Monsieur de Meaux 's Pastoral Letter TO shew that Monsieur de Meaux does not always so write at first as not to stand in need of any Correction afterwards I will beg leave to subjoyn the Extract of a Letter dated from Paris concerning his late Pastoral Letter which 't is there said he is about to change somewhat in whether only for the better advantage of the Method and greater neatness of Stile as in his Exposition we shall be better able hereafter to judge It is in the last Nouvelle Juin 1686. Pag. 736 737. ON ecrit de Paris que M. de Meaux retranchera de la 2 Edition de sa Lettre Pastorale l'endroit où il dit aux nouveaux Catholiques de son Dioceze Qu' ils n'ont point souffert de Violence en leurs Biens ni en leurs Personnes qu'il a oui dire la même chose aux autres Eveques Je ne sçaurois dire precisement si ce sont ces propres mots car je n'ay point veû cette Lettre Pastorale je sçai seulement que c'est ce qu'on ecrit de Paris Ce Prelat a eu en vûe dans sa Lettre de preparer à la Communion Paschale ces nouveaux Diocezains Je ne sçai pas ce qu'ils ont fait mais ailleurs quand on a presenti les Convertis on leur a trouvé si peu de disposition à communier à Pâques qu'on n'a pas jugé à propos de pousser l'affair Dans la dernier Fête-Dieu plusieurs ont mieux aimé payer une Amende que de tendre devant leurs Maisons Apres cela il est apparent que M. de Meaux retranchera l'endroit ci-dessus marqué que les Gens d'honneur se plaindront in petto de ce qu'on se tue de leur soutenir que les Huguenots ont signé le Formulaire le plus volontairement du monde Bien entendu que ces gens d'honneur n'auront pas le tour d'Esprit de Conscience du quel nous avons parlé ci-dessus pag. 471. They write from Paris that Monsieur de Meaux will retrench in the second Edition of his Pastoral Letter the place where he tells the new Converts of his Diocess That they have not suffer'd any Violence either in their Goods or in their Persons and that he heard the other Bishops say the same I cannot say precisely whether these were his very words having neber seen his Pastoral Letter I only know this that thus they write from Paris The design of this Prelate in his Letter was to prepare his new Diocesans to communicate at Easter What they did I cannot tell but in other parts when they presented the Converts in order to receive it they found them so little disposed to communicate at Easter that they have not thought fit to force them to it Upon Corpus Christi day last many of them chose rather
made appear that their own Authors do allow of all this If they do give a divine Worship to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed If their very Missab and Pontifical do command them to adore the Cross If it appear that their Council of Trent damns all those who deny the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the Dead and Living and yet cannot say it is the very same with that of the Cross If finally their greatest Writers do allow a Merit of Condignity and that not as a Scholastick Tenet but as the Doctrine of their Church and agreeable to the intention of their Council they so much talk of Then I hope the premises may be as clear of the Calumny they are charged with as my inference is allow'd to be just for the consequence I would establish In the mean time Expos p. 5. pass we on to the state of the Question which I propose in these terms That we who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as Innovators in Religion are at last by their own confession allow'd to hold the antient and undoubted foundation of the Christian Faith And that the Question therefore between us is not Whether what we hold be true But whether those things which the Roman Church has added as superstructures to it and which as such we reject be not so far from being necessary Articles of Religion as they pretend that they do indeed overthrow that truth which is on both sides allowed to be divine and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them This the Vindicator says Vindicat. pag. 24. is to state the Question after a new Mode and represent them as consenting to it Let us see therefore what the Old way of stating it is and wherein the insincerity he charges me with consists The true state of the Question betwixt us Ibid. p. 25. he says is Whether the Protestants or Papists do innovate The Protestants in refusing to believe those Doctrines which the Church of Rome professes to have received with the grounds of Christianity or the Papists in maintaining their possession And the dispute is Whether Roman Catholicks ought to maintain their possession for which he says many Protestants themselves grant they have a prescription of above 1000 Years Or whether the Authorities brought by Protestants against the Roman Catholick Doctrine be so weighty Ibid. p. 26. that every Roman Catholick is obliged to renounce the communion of that Church in which he was bred up and quit his prescription and possession In all which the only difference that I can find is this That He presumes for his Church in the state of the Question I for mine I suppose the points in Controversie to be Superstructures which they have added to the Faith He that they are Doctrines received with the grounds of Christianity In short the point we both put upon the issue is precisely the same viz. Whether the Roman Catholicks ought to maintain their possessions of these Doctrines or to quit them as Erroneous Whether Protestants to embrace the belief and practice of them as true and lawful or to continue as they are separate from the Roman Communion upon the account of them But where then is my unsincerity In this I suppose that I seem to insinuate as if the Roman Church granted that we held the ancient and undoubted foundation of the Christian Faith What others of that Communion will grant I cannot tell but whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daillè's concessions as to this Point See his Expos §. 2. p. 2. will find it clear enough that he did if the Foundation consists of Fundamental Articles and that we are on both sides agreed in these as his discourse manifestly implies But the Vindicator jealous for the Authority of his Church and to have whatever she proposes pass for Fundamental confesses that we do indeed hold a part but not all those Articles that are Fundamental This therefore we must put upon the issue in which we shall not doubt to shew them that those Articles their Church has added are so far from being Fundamental Truths that indeed they are no Truths at all but do by evident and undoubted consequence as I before said and as the Vindicator himself confesses Vindicat. Pag. 23. destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental But if I have not mistaken the Question between the Papists and Protestants Vindicat. pag. 26. I am sure the Vindicator has that between Him and Me. He tells us our present Question which we are to examine in the following Articles is Whether Monsieur de Meaux has faithfully proposed the sense of the Church declared in the Council of Trent And thereupon asks me What it do's avail me to tell them That I will in the following Articles endeavour to give a clear and free Account of what we can approve and what we dislike in their Doctrine To which I reply That it avails very much to the end I propounded in my Book viz. To give a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Points proposed by Monsieur de Meaux So that in reality the Question between us is this Not whether Monsieur de Meaux has given a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which it has been the business of others to examine but whether I have given a just account of the Doctrine of the Church of England This was what I undertook to do and what this Author ought if he could to have shewn I had not done ARTICLE II. That Religious Worship is terminated only in God IN this Article I am but little concern'd The Vindicator states the Case what 't is they mean by Religious honour being terminated only in God He distinguishes between what they pay Him and what they give to the Saints how truly or to what purpose it is not my business to examine Those who desire to be satisfied in it may find a sufficient Account in several late Treatises written purposely against this part of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition and I shall not repeat what is so fully and clearly established there ARTICLE III. Invocation of Saints I Might well have pass'd over this Point altogether which has been so learnedly and fully managed but very lately in a particular †Discourse concerning the Worship of the B. Virgin and the Saints in Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the fourth Age. Discourse on this Subject Yet since the Vindicator desires to know what Authority I have for my Assertion That the Addresses which Monsieur Daillé allows to have been used by the Fathers of the fourth Century were rather innocent wishes and rhetorical flights than direct Prayers but especially for that Accusation which he says I bring against them viz. That they did herein begin to depart from the Practice and
very beginning of the Homily Because all Men be Sinners and Offenders against God c. no Man can by his own Acts c. be justified or made righteous before God but every Man is constrain'd to seek for another Righteousness or Justification to be received at God's Hands i. e. the Forgiveness of his Sins and Trespasses in such Things as he hath offended Edit Oxon. 1683. Homily of Salvation in express words interpret Justification to be the Forgiveness of Sins The Other That I impose upon them as if they made their inward Righteousness a part of Justification and so by consequence said that their Justification it self was wrought by their own Good Works As to the former part of which Imposition as he calls it 't is the very definition of the Council of Trent †Justificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio sed sanctificatio renovatio interioris hominis C. Tr. Sess vi c. 7. p. 31. By Justification is to be understood not only remission of Sins but Sanctification and the renewing of the inward Man Insomuch that in their 11th Canon they damn all such as dare to deny it ‖ Siquis dixerit homines Just ficari vel solâ imputatione justitiae Christi vel solâ peecatorum remissione exclusâ gratiâ charitate quae in cordibus Eorum per Spiritum S. diffundatur atque illis inhaereat aut etiam gratiam qui justificamur esse tantùm favorem Dei Anathema sit Can. 11. Sess vi If any one shall say that Men are justified either by the alone Imputation of Christ's Righteousness or only by the remission of Sins excluding Grace and Charity which is diffused in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost and inheres in them or that the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God let him be Anathema And for the other Point that they esteem their Justification to be wrought not only by Christ's Merits but also by their own good Works The 32 Can. of the same Session is a sufficient proof where an Anathema is denounced against him who shall assert * Siquis dixerit hominis justificati bona Opera ita esse Dona Dei ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati Merita aut ipsum Justificatum bonis Operibus quae ab eo per Dei gratiam Jesu Christi Meritum cujus vivum Membrum est fuerit non verè mereri augmentum gratiae Vitam aeternam ipsius Vitae Aeternae si tamen in gratiâ decesserit consecutionem atque etiam gloriae Augmentum Anathema sit the good Works of a justified Person to be so the Gift of God that they are not also the Merits of the same justified Person or that He being justified by the good Works which are performed by him through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Member he is does not truly merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life Now if those words truly merit do signify that our good Works do in their own nature merit a Reward then it must be confess'd that our Justification is wrought by them If they say that they are therefore only meritorious because accompanied with the infinite Merits of Christ What can be more improper than to affirm that that which in its own nature has nothing of Merit should truly merit only because something which has infinite Merit goes along with it It would certainly be more reasonable in the Church of Rome if they do indeed believe what these Men seem to grant that Good Works are not in themselves meritorious instead of affirming that they do truly merit Eternal Life to confess with us that they have no Merit at all in them but yet through the infinite Merits of our Blessed Redeemer shall according to God's Promises have a most ample Reward bestowed on them ARTICLE VI. Of Merits IT ought not to be wondred at Vindicat. p. 48. if to shew the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to the Point of Merits I recurr'd not to the Niceties of the Schools but the Exposition of their greatest Men and whose Names were neither less nor less deservedly celebrated in their Generations than Monsieur de Meaux's or the Vindicators can be now The Council of Trent has spoken so uncertainly in this Point as plainly shews they either did not know themselves what they would Establish or were unwilling that others should Let the Vindicator think what he pleases of these Men and their Opinions we shall still believe them as able Expositors of the Council of Trent as any that have ever undertaken it And whoso shall compare what they say with what the Council has defined will find it at least as agreeable to it as any of those new Inventions that have been started since The Doctrine of Merits establish'd by the Council in the Canon I but now cited is clearly this That the Good Works of a justified Person are not so the Gift of God Concil Trid. Sess vi Can. 32. that they are not also the Merits of the same Justified Person That being justified by the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ he do's then truly merit both encrease of Grace and Eternal Life In a word the Point of Merit as we now consider it amounts to this Whether we do truly and properly merit by our own Good Works or Whether whatsoever we receive be not a Reward that is given us only through God's Acceptance and promise in Christ Jesus This We affirm they the Other and whether the Testimonies I produced for the further clearing of their Doctrine do prove it or no is now to be enquired by us 1st ‖ Maldon in Ezek. 18.20 p. 425. Ex hoc loco perspicuum est aliquam esse nostram ut vocant inherentem propriámque justitiam quamvis ex Dei gratiâ largitate profectam nos tam proprie verè cum gratiâ Dei benè agentes praemia mereri quà m sine illâ malè Agentes supplicia mereamur Maldonate is Express and the Vindicator's Exception utterly impertinent to us who dispute not the Principle but Merit of Good Works It is very clear says he that there is in us an inherent as they call it and proper justice of our own tho proceeding from the Grace and Bounty of God and that we do as truly and properly when we do well through God's Grace merit Rewards as we do deserve Punishment when without this Grace we do Ill. 2dly for Bellarmine †De Justif l. 5. c. 17. Opera bona justorum meritoria esse ex condigno non solùm ratione pacti sed etiam ratione Operum The title of his Chapter cited by me the Vindicator says is something towards the sence I give it He would more honestly have said is word for word the translation of it viz. That our Good Works do Merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of God's Covenant and
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
Unsincerity and shew what a kind of Religion that must be Vind. p. 222. that is not maintainable without such sinister doings But I shall remit him wholly to the Reader 's Censure and his own Conscience for Correction As for my last Assertion Vindic. p. 88. That Transubstantiation was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after Christ They are the very words of Scotus cited by Bellarmine See p. 64. and all his Sophistry will not be able to prove that they make but little for my purpose Thus notwithstanding all the little Endeavours of the Vindicator to evade the truth of those Concessions made by the greatest of his own Communion in favour of our Doctrine my Argument still stands good against them and Transubstantiation appears to have been the monstrous Birth of these last Ages unknown in the Church for almost 1200 years Vind. p. 92 93. For what remains concerning the Adoration of the Host since he has thought fit to leave my Arguments in their full force I shall not need say any thing in defence of that which he has not so much as attempted to destroy ARTICLE XIX Of the Sacrifice of the Mass IF I affirmed Vindic. p. 94. The Sacrifice of the Mass to be one of those Errors that most offends us I said no more than what the Church of England has always thought of it And had the Vindicator pleased to have examined my Arguments instead of admiring them he would perhaps have found I had reason to do so * Canon 1. Siquis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo verum proprium Sacrificium aut quod offerri non fit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari Anathema fit * Canon 3. Siquis dixerit Missae Sacrificium tantum esse laudis gratiarum actionis aut nudam commemorationem Sacrificii in Cruce peracti non autem Propitiatorium vel soliprodesse sumenti neque pro Vivis Defunctis pro peccatis paenis satisfactionibus aliis necessitatibus offerri debere Anathema sit The Council of Trent affirms Concil Trid. Sess 22. p. 196. de Missa That the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice offered to God a Sacrifice not only of Praise and Thanksgiving nor yet a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross but truly Propitiatory for the Dead and the Living and for the Sins Punishments Satisfactions and other Necessities of both of them †Ibid. Cap. 2. p. 191. Una eademque est Hostia idem nunc offerens Sacerdotum Ministerio qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit sola offerendi ratione diversa A Sacrifice wherein the same Christ is now offered without Blood that once offer'd himself in that bloody Sacrifice of the Cross the same Sacrifice the same Offerer Christ by his Priests now who then did it by himself offering himself only differing in the manner of Oblation This is in short what their Council has defined as to this Mass-Sacrifice and what we think we have good reason to be offended at That there should be any true and proper Sacrifice truly and properly Propitiatory after that of the Cross that Christ who once offer'd up himself upon the Tree for us should again be brought down every day from Heaven to be Sacrificed a new in ten thousand places at a time on their Altars And by all these things so great a dishonour done to our Blessed Lord as most evidently there is and our Writers have unanswerably proved in the whole design Practice and Pretences of it How little the Doctrine of the real Presence Vindicat. ib. as understood by the Church of England will serve to support this Innovation is at first sight evident from the Exposition I before gave of it That those who are ordained Priests ought to have power given them to Consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ and make them present in that holy Eucharist after such a manner as our Saviour appointed and as at the first Institution of this Sacred Mystery they certainly were this we have always confessed and our †In the ordering of Priests when the Bishop imposes his hands he bids him be a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments And again when he delivers him the Bible Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments c. Sparrow Collect. p. 158. Rituals shew that our Priests accordingly have such a Power by Imposition of Hands conferred on them But that it is necessary to the Evangelical Priesthood that they should have power to offer up Christ truly and properly as the Council of Trent defines this we deny and shall have reason to do so till it can be proved to us that their Mass is indeed such a Sacrifice as they pretend and that our Saviour left it as an Essential part of their Priesthood to offer it For the rest Vindic. p. 95. If with the Council of Trent he indeed believes the Mass to be a true and proper Sacrifice he ought not to blame us for taking it in that Sence in which they themselves understand it For certainly it is impossible for words to represent a Sacrifice more strictly and properly than the Council of Trent has defined this ARTICLE XX. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews TO elude the authority of this Epistle Vindicat. p. 96 97. the Vindicator after Monsieur de Meaux thinks it sufficient to tell us That they understand the word Offer when they apply it to the Mass Mr. de M's Expos p 31. in a larger signification than what the Apostle there gives it as when we are said to offer up to God whatever we present before him And that 't is thus they pretend to offer up the Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Mass Vind. p. 96. in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him That this is to prevaricate the true meaning of that phrase the Doctrine of the foregoing Article plainly shews If Christ be in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice as was there said it will necessarily follow that then he must be truly and properly sacrificed ‖ Sacrificium verum reale veram realem Occisionem exigit quando in Occisione ponitur Essentia Sacrificii Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. cap. 27. p. 1663. A. And one essential Propriety and which they tell us distinguishes a Sacrifice from any other Offering being the true and real destruction of what is offered insomuch that where there is not a true and proper destruction neither can there be as they themselves acknowledg a true and proper Sacrifice It must be evidently false in these men to pretend that by Offering in this matter is meant only a presenting of Christ before God and not a real change and destruction of his Body offered by them If in this Exposition of their Doctrine
may be dispensed with and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it prove neither damnable nor dangerous PART III. ARTICLE XXIII Of the Written and Vnwritten Word AS to this Article Vindic. p. 100. there is indeed an Agreement between Monsieur de Meaux and Me so far as We handle the Question and keep to those general terms Of the Traditions being universally received by all Churches and in all Ages for in this Case We of the Church of England are perfectly of the same Opinion with them and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the Apostles with a like Veneration to that we pay to the written Word it self But after all this there is as the Vindicator observes a very material difference betwixt us viz. Who shall be judge when this Tradition is Vniversal He tells us Vind ibid. they rely upon the judgment of the present Church of every Age declaring her sense whether by the most General Council of that Age or by the constant practice and uniform voice of her Pastors and People And this is that to which he conceives every private person and Church ought to submit without presuming to examine how ancient that Tradition does appear to be or how agreeable it is to the Written Word of God Now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of Traditions for these two reasons 1. Because whether there were any such particular Doctrine or Practice received by the Primitive Church is a matter of fact and as such is in many cases distinctly set down by such Writers as lived in or near that first Age of the Church Now where the case is thus the Accounts that are given by these Writers are certainly to those who are able to search into them a better Rule whereby to judge what was an Ancient Doctrine and Tradition than either the Decree of a Council of a latter Age or the Voice and Practice of its Pastors and People For let these agree as much as they will in voting any Doctrine or Practice to have been Primitive yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing Men if the authentick Histories and Records of those times shew it to have been otherwise And this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the Councils and practised by the Pastors and People in the Roman Church we cannot look upon her late Decrees and Practices to be a good or a safe Rule for judging of the Antiquity or Vniversality of Church-Traditions But 2. There is yet a more cogent Reason against this Method which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures and to give this Vnwritten Word the upper hand of the Written For according to this Method if the Church in any Age does but decree in Council or does generally Teach and Practice any thing as an ancient Tradition then this must obtain and be of force with all its Members tho' many of them should be perswaded that they cannot find it in nay that it is contrary to the Written Word of God Now this we cannot but look upon as an high affront to the Holy Scriptures And let them attribute as much as they please to the Decrees and Practices of their Church We cannot allow that any particular Church or Person should be obliged upon these grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in nay to be contrary to the written Word of God In this Case we think it reasonable that the Church's Sentence should be made void and the Voice of her pretended Traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God ARTICLE XXIV XXV Of the Authority of the Church IN the two next Articles Vind. p. 101. concering the Authority of the Church I was willing to allow as much and come up as near to Mons de Meaux as Truth and Reason would permit This it seems made the Vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my Concessions But these his hopes are soon dasht when he finds me putting in some Exceptions and not willing to swallow the whole Doctrine as it is laid down in the Exposition Now the Exceptions that seem most to offend him are these 1. That the Church of Rome should be taken for a particular and not the Catholick Church 2. That She should be supposed as such either by Error to have lost or by other means to have prevaricated the Faith even in the necessary points of it 3. That any other Church should be allow'd to examine and judg of the Decisions of that Church 4. That it should be left to private or individual Persons to examine and oppose the Decisions of the whole Church if they are evidently convinced that their private belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Holy Word These are the Exceptions at which he is the most offended Vind. p. 103. The 1. of these he calls an Argument to elude the Authority of the Church of Rome and to shew the Fallacy of it he thinks it sufficient to say That they do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholick Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Now if this in truth be that which they mean when they stile the Church of Rome the Catholick Church then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholick as that of Rome it self For seeing it is the Purity or Orthodoxness of the Faith which is the bond of this Communion this renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholick with the rest and reduces the Church of Rome as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocess and so makes it only a particular not the Vniversal Church But now should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of and that it were proper to understand by that name all those other Churches which are in Communion with her yet all this would not make her the whole or Catholick Church unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the World besides those in Communion with her and that all Christian Churches have in all Ages profess'd just the same Faith and continued just in the same Worship as She hath done And this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the Grecian Armenian Abassine Churches all which have plainly for several Ages differed from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion in points relating both to Faith and Worship So that in respect of these and the like Christian Churches which were not of her Communion She could not be looked upon as a Vniversal but only as a Particular Church Now if this be
so then the Vindicator himself allows Vind. p. 102. 2dly That a Particular Church may either by Error lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in the necessary points of it Indeed that promise of our Saviour Matt. 16.18 That the gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church seems on all hands acknowledged to refer to his whole Church not to any one particular Branch or Portion And therefore tho' the particular Church of Rome should have fallen into gross Errors both in matters of Faith and Practice yet the Catholick Church of Christ may still as to other of its members retain so much Truth and Purity as to keep it from falling away or being guilty of an intire Infidelity And then for the 3d. Exception The allowing any other Particular Church to examine and judg of the Decisions of this Church of Rome If She her self be but a particular Church and has no more Command or Jurisdiction over the Faith of other Churches than they have over hers then every other National Church is as much impow'red to judg for her self as She is and has an equal right to examine her Decisions as those of other Churches and may either receive or reject what by Gods Grace directing her She Judges to agree or disagree with his Holy Word Nor do's one Branch of Christ's Church in this respect invade the Prerogative of another since they do herein only follow the Apostles Rule in trying all things and holding fast that which is good But the 4th Exception he says Vind. p. 102. is yet more intollerable than all the rest That it should be left to every individual Person not only to examine the Decisions of the whole Church but also to glory in opposing them if he be but evidently convinced that his own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word Ibid. p. 103. This he says is a Doctrine which if admitted will maintain all Dissenters that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World These indeed are very ill Consequences but such as do not directly follow from this Doctrine as laid down in my Exposition For 1st I allow of this Dissent or Opposition only in necessary Articles of Faith where it is every Mans concern and duty both to judg for himself and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able And 2dly As I take the Holy Scriptures for the Rule according to which this Judgment is to be made so do I suppose these Scriptures to be so clearly written as to what concerns those necessary Articles that it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial Enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion Now these two things being supposed that in matters of Faith a man is to judg for himself and that the Scriptures are a clear and sufficient rule for him to judg by it will plainly follow That if a man be evidently convinced upon the best Enquiry he can make that his particular Belief is founded upon the Word of God and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in Opposition to that of the Church And the Reason of this must be very evident to all those who own not the Church but the Scriptures to be the ultimate rule and guide of their Faith For if this be so then individual Persons as well as Churches must judg of their Faith according to what they find in Scripture And tho it be highly useful to them to be assisted in the making of this Judgment by that Church of which they are Members yet if after this Instruction they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith between the Voice of the Church and that of the Scripture they must stick to the latter rather than the former they must follow the superior not inferior Guide And however this method may through the Ignorance or Malice of some men be liable to some Abuse yet certainly in the main it is most Just and Reasonable and most agreeable to the Constitutions of the Church of England which do's not take upon her to be Absolute Mistress of the Faith of her Members See Article 20. but allows a higher Place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions As to the Authority by which I back'd this Assertion viz. that of St. Athanasius tho' it is not doubted but that that Expression of his being against the whole World and the whole World against him did refer chiefly to the Eastern Bishops and was not so literally true as to those of the West yet if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and Sirmium and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith sent to him from Ariminum and was for that reason deposed from his Bishoprick and banished out of Italy yet afterwards when the Emperor Constantius sent for him to Sirmium and required his assent to a form of Faith in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted Sozomen Eccl. Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. he yielded thus far and was thereupon restored to his Bishoprick I say if we consider these and the like Particulars related by the Church Historians we shall have little reason to believe that the Western Bishops or even the Pope himself did throughly adhere to the Faith of St. Athanasius and therefore that neither was He or I much in the wrong in affirming That he stood up in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils and almost the whole Church fell away ARTICLE XXVI Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy IN this Article the Vindicator is pleased to declare that he has nothing to say against the Opinion of the Church of England Vindic. p. 106. only he thinks fit to advise me to enquire What that Authority is which the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give the Pope Indeed a very little inquiry will serve the turn to let a man see that their Pope do's at this day lay claim to a great deal more than those Councils or Fathers did ever allow him And we should be glad he would direct us to those places either in the first Councils or the Primitive Fathers where the Pope is stiled the Vniversal Bishop or the Supreme Head on Earth of the whole Christian Church where it is said That he is Christs immediate Vicar and that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him These are things which he do's now pretend to but we can find no Footsteps of them in the first Councils or Fathers of the Church On the contrary we find innumerable passages which
to pay a Fine than put up Hangings before their houses for the Procession After this 't is more than probable that M. de Meaux will strike out the passage above-mention'd and that men of sense will complain in their minds to be thus eternally wearied with their pretences that the Hugonots have signed the Formulary with all the readiness in the world Always provided that these men of sense be not endow'd with that turn of Wit and Conscience of which we have spoken heretofore pag. 471. above NUM II. An Extract of Father Crasset 's Doctrine concerning the Worship which the Roman Church allows to the Blessed Virgin MOnsieur de Meaux is very much of opinion that Father Crasset has nothing in his Book contrary to the Principles of his Exposition I must transcribe his whole Book would I insist upon every thing in it opposite to this Pretence But I shall content my self for the present to propose only to Monsieur de Meaux some of this Fathers Questions that he may please to tell us whether he be indeed of the same Opinion with the Father in them 'T will be an admirable Vindication of his Exposition and we shall not doubt after that of its being a true Representation of the Doctrine of the Roman Church Question 1. Whether the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin to God for us Page 31. be not only profitable but necessary to our Salvation Resp 1 Pt. trait 1. q. 4. I do not find the Father positive in his assertion here but at least he recounts abundance of their Saints that are so St. Germain St. Anselme St. Bernard the Abbè de Celles St. Antonine and St. Bernardine whose horrid Blasphemies see at large repeated and approved Qu. 2. Whether a tender and constant Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Page 39. be not a mark of Predestination ANSWER This is what we read in all Books hear from all Pulpits There are but few Catholicks but what are of this Opinion and that this Devotion towards the Mother of God is a mark of Salvation the good Father undertakes to prove by the Authority of the Scripture Page 39 40. explain'd by the Fathers and confirmed by Reason Qu. 3. Whether a Christian that is devout towards the Blessed Virgin can be damned Page 54. ANSWER 1. Page 57. The Servants of the Blessed Virgin have an Assurance morally infallible that they shall be saved Qu. 4. Whether God ever refuses any thing to the Blessed Virgin Ibid. ANSWER 1. Page 60 61. The Prayers of a Mother so humble and respectful are esteemed a Command by a Son so sweet and so obedient 2. Being truly our Saviour's Mother as well in Heaven as she was on Earth she still retains a kind of natural Authority over his PERSON over his GOODS and over his OMNIPOTENCE So that as Albertus Magnus says she cannot only intreat him for the Salvation of her Servants but by her MOTHERLY AUTHORITY can COMMAND him and as another expresses it The Power of the Mother and of the Son is all one she being by her Omnipotent Son made HER SELF OMNIPOTENT Qu. 5. What Blessings the Virgin procures for her Servants Page 91. ANSWER 1. Page 92. She preserves them from Error and Heresie if they are in danger to fall into it and recovers them out of it if they are fallen 2. Page 98. She defends and protects them in their Temptations against their Enemy and this not only Men but other Creatures insomuch that a Bird which a young Lady had taught to say his Ave Maria being one day seized by a Hawk whilst he was in his Claws said only his Ave Maria and the Hawk terrified with the Salutation let him go and so he return'd to his Mistress Page 94. 3. She comforts them in their Distresses assists them in their Dangers counsels them in their Doubts Ib. 95. eases them in their Pains animates them in their Combats and finally procures them a good Death To this end 4. She gives them a timely foreknowledge of their Death Ib. 96. that they be not surprised She sends the Angels to assist them in it and sometimes comes her own self in Person Ib. 97. 5. She obtains them the Grace of Repentance if they are in Sin and of Perseverance Page 98. if they be in a State of Grace Qu. 6. Whether the Blessed Virgin has ever fetcht any out of Hell Page 99. ANSWER 1. As to Purgatory 't is certain that the Virgin has brought several Souls from thence as well as refreshed them whilst they were there 2. Page 100. 'T is certain she has fetcht many out of Hell i. e. from a State of Damnation before they were dead 3. The Virgin can and has fetcht men that were dead in mortal Sin out of Hell by restoring them to Life again that they might repent Page 102. which the Father proves at large for the Establishment of our FAITH and of our HOPE Qu. 7. What Honour ought we to render to the Blessed Virgin 2 Part. Pag. 73. ANSWER Pag. 79. We ought to render to her a Religious Honour 2. To honour her Images also with a Religious Honour as sacred things and this the many Miracles done by them do require 3. To build Temples to her Pag. 92. which many grave Authors do assure us was done before her Birth Pag. 99. during her Life and since her Death and Coronation in Heaven Qu. 8. Whether it be good to make Vows and Pilgrimages to the Honour of the Virgin Pag. 138. ANSWER It is good to make Vows and undertake Pilgrimages to the places where she is specially honoured Ibid. The Practice of Devotion towards Her 1. To wear her Scapulary which whoso does Pag. 315. shall not be damned but this Habit shall be for them a Mark of Salvation a Safeguard in Dangers and a Sign of Peace and eternal Alliance They that wear this Habit Pag. 316. shall be moreover delivered out of Purgatory the Saturday after their death 2. To enter into her Congregations Pag. 321. And if any man be minded to save himself 't is impossible for him to find out any more advantageous means than to enrol himself into these Companies Pag. 322. 3. To devote ones self more immediately to Her Service Pag. 339. For which the Father gives several very grave Forms Ib. seq These are some of the Heads of Father Crasset's Book It were infinite to recount his particular Follies with which every Page and Sentence is crouded And however Monsieur de Meaux is pleased at a Venture to espouse all this yet I must still beg leave to believe that he neither approves this Practice nor will receive these Principles And these things not only Monsieur de la B in his Answer but the Author of the Preservative at large alledged against him which being a Book so well known in France and mentioned to Monsieur de Meaux in a particular manner by In his Letter below N. 4. Monsieur Imbert in his Letter to
A DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England Against the EXCEPTIONS OF Monsieur de MEAVX Late Bishop of Condom AND HIS VINDICATOR The Contents are in the next Leaf LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI THE CONTENTS I. THE Preface containing a farther account of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition with an Answer to his Exceptions against my former Preface II. The Defence of my Exposition being a full Reply to whatsoever has been alledged against it by the Vindicator particularly as to the false citations he pretends of Their Authors and misrepresentation of their Tenets III. Appendix Being a Collection of some pieces relating to this controversie viz. 1. The account of Monsieur de Meaux's Pastoral Letter taken out of the last Nouvelle c. 2. A summary of Father Crassets Doctrine of the Worship of the B. Virgin 3. The Opposition between Card. Bona and Monsieur de Meaux in the same point 4. A Copy of Monsieur Imbert's Letter to Monsieur de Meaux giving him an account of his beiong persecuted by the A. B. of Bourdeaux for maintaining the Doctrine of his Exposition 5. The Letter of S. Chrysostom to Caesarius suppress'd by some Doctors of the Sorbonne for being contrary to their Canon of Transubstantiation with an Account of that whole transaction 6. An account of Authors cited by me with their Editions to prevent any new Calumnies THE PREFACE MY former Treatise of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has given so full an account of the Occasion and Design of Monsieur de Meaux 's Book as might supersede the Necessity of adding any more upon that subject But being called to a necessary justification of what I there advanced not so much by the weak defence of his Vindicator embarqued with him in the same Cause as by the flat denial of Monsieur de Meaux himself of the principal foundation on which that Account was built I hope I shall need no great Apologie if upon this Occasion I enter somewhat farther upon a new History than might otherwise seem absolutely necessary for my defence and by comparing this method of Expounding with some others of a different Nature which have of late been sent abroad by those of the Roman Communion endeavour to shew what the real intent of them all has been and what the design of those who now pursue the same Method among us may reasonably be supposed to be It is I presume at this time not unknown to any what great Endeavours have been used in our neighbour Nation for the reducing of those of the Reformed Religion to the Roman Communion And it must be confess'd indeed they have omitted nothing that Language and Sophistry could be made to do for the Attainment of so great an End The Jansenists were some of the first who began this work and it is not to be doubted but that Persons of their avow'd reputation in point of Learning and who seem'd to have had this means only left them to regain the favour of their King whose design they pursu'd would be sure to offer something worthy themselves and proportionable at once both to the Work it self and to their Engagements to it The first Attempt they made was a little piece that has since given Occasion to a very long Controversie between Monsieur Arnauld and Monsieur Claude La perpetuité de la foy de l'Eglise Catholique touchant l'Eucharistie Ann. 1664. of the Perpetuity of the Faith as to the real Prefence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist A Tract which if we regard only the neatness and subtilty of the composure it must be avow'd scarce any thing ever appear'd more worthy that Applause it met with in the World And the design though express'd in one particular only yet so applicable to all the rest that were the Argument good the Church of Rome would have needed no other defence for all the corruptions that had or could possibly creep into it But the Sophistry of this method has been sufficiently exposed in the Volumes composed on this occasion And indeed without entring on a particular Examination any Man 's own reason will tell him at first sight that a Logical subtilty advanced against matter of Fact may be worth the considering for the curiosity of the undertaking but like the Philosopher's Argument against Motion will never be able to convince any but such as want Diogenes 's demonstration to expose its Sophistry In effect the design of this first Method amounted to thus much That Transubstantiation and the same might have been said of any other point in dispute was visibly once the common Doctrine of the Church And 't is impossible it should have been so then had it ever been otherwise before And this to be believed upon the strength of a sophistical Argument Albertinus de Eucharistiae Sacramento Fol. notwithstanding all the evident instances of matter of Fact which Monsieur d'Aubertine and others have at large collected to the contrary The next Attempt and that as useful and universal as the former was by another of the same party and with no less applause whether we regard the novelty of the invention or the neatness of the performance And his Method was Prejugez tegitimes contre les Calvinists An. 1671. by advancing certain matters of fact which he calls just prejudices against the Calvinists to shew that without entring into dispute about any of the points in debate the bare external consideration of the Protestants in the manner of their Reformation and some other particulars was enough to shew that the truth could not possibly be on their side But alas this too proved an Argument too weak to stand the first examination that was made of it and Monsieur Pajon Examen du livre qui porte pour titre Prejugez legitimes c. An. 1673. who undertook the defence of his Party against it has shewn that in his proof he has not only advanced an Argument that might indifferently be brought against all sides but which a * Monsieur Jurieu Prejugez legitimes contre le Papisme An. 1685. late Author has since proved to be ten times more strong against themselves than it could ever be thought to be against us I shall not undertake an exact account of all the other Methods that have succeeded these with less Applause and as little Effect One as is said by the same Author Les Pretendus Reformez convaincûs de Schisme 1684. was published not long since to prove us guilty of Schism in separating from the Church of Rome whether we had sufficient grounds or not for our so doing And that for this reason because however the learned Men of our party might have been convinced of the reasonableness of it yet the generality being uncapable of forming such a judgment must have separated without reason and so have been Schismatics And if
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
Monsieur de Meaux as to cite scarce any thing out of those places that were in the Manuscript part but have chosen such rather where the printed Copy gave me full Assurance and Authority to do it But to argue the improbability of all this Monsieur de Meaux observes That the Sorbonne is never used to License Books in Body And I desire Monsieur de Meaux to tell us Vindicat. Pag. 8. who ever said or thought they did That that venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops who are naturally and by their Character Doctors of the Church than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors I doubt not but the Sorbonne very well knows the respect that is due to Bishops but that it should be any argument of disrespect to approve a Bishop's Book when it was sent to them for that purpose I cannot conceive In short we understand the Reputation and Authority of that venerable Company too well to believe it at all improbable that Monsieur de Meaux should desire their Approbation nor are we so little acquainted with their Books as not to know That it is no unheard of thing to see Doctors of the Sorbonne setting their approbation to a Book approved and authorized by Bishops before The next Exception Monsieur de Meaux makes is Vindicat. Pag. 9. That I should confirm what had before been urged against him of a Papist's answering his Book in the truth of which I am as little concern'd as himself can be Only the assurance I have had of it from a Person of undoubted sincerity makes me still believe that it was so and Monsieur de Meaux may remember that Monsisieur Conrart often profess'd that he had seen it in Manuscript who was not only his old Friend but as himself characteriseth him M. de M's Advert p. 3. One endowed with all that the Catholics themselves could desire in a Man excepting a better Religion For what relates to Father Crasset it is not for me to contradict Monsieur de Meaux ' s Declaration Vindicat. pag. 10. that he never read his Book But that he never heard it mentioned that there was any thing in it contrary to his Exposition this I must confess is admirable whether we consider the notoriety of the thing as it related to the Salutary Advertisements and the Bishop of Tournay ' s Pastoral Letter which made so great a noise in France or that it was particularly proved in the Answer to his own Advertisement dedicated to Monsieur de Ruvigny above five Years since Seconde Reponse p. 79 c. to be directly opposite to his Exposition And for the rest For all this see the Appendix num 2. I must beg leave to believe whatever Monsieur de Meaux flatters himself with that that Father would be so far from being troubled that any Body should think his Principles contrary to Monsieur de Meaux ' s that I dare say he would rather think his pains but ill spent in Writing of so large a Book did he not believe he had convinced the World that he looks upon them nay and has proved them too to be little less than Heretical As for Cardinal Capisucchi Vindicat. pag. 10. Monsieur de Meaux tells us he is so far from being contrary to the Doctrine of the Exposition that his express Approbation has been prefix'd to it This indeed were a good presumption that he should not have any Principles contrary to Monsieur de Meaux See Appendix num 3. where I have shew'd Cardinal Bona another of his approvers to be nevertheless in his own Writings contrary to Monsieur de M's Exposition but if what I have alledged out of his Controversies be really repugnant to what he approved in the Exposition it may indeed speak the Cardinal not so consistent with himself as he should be but the contradiction will be never the less a contradiction for his so doing The next thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is The relation of Monsieur Imbert and Monsieur de Witte The Stories are matters of Fact and the Papers from whence they were collected published by themselves Vindicat. p. 10 11. If they alledged Monsieur de Meaux ' s Authority for Principles that he maintained not For what concerns Mr. Inbert see his own Letter to Monsieur de Meaux Appendix num 4. For Monsieur de Witte 's case it has been already printed and I have nothing new to add to it this concerns not us nor whatever the little Comment on the Bishop ' s Letter pretends was it at all needful to be shewn by me that they did not in the recital of the propositions held by them 'T is sufficient that they both declared themselves to stand to Monsieur de Meaux ' s Exposition and were both condemned without any regard had to Monsieur de Meaux ' s Authority or being at all convinced or so much as told that they were mistaken in their pretences to it The last thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is Vindicat. p. 14. That I reflect upon him for being fertile enough in producing new Labours but steril in answering what is brought against his Works I do not at all envy Monsieur de Meaux ' s fertility his productions have not been many and those so short and with such an ingenuous Character of temper and moderation as ought to be acknowledged even in an Enemy But I must confess I do admire as many others do that no Reply has been made by him to those Answers that have been sent abroad not only against his Exposition but even against the Advertisement it self which he says can bear no Reply See de la B's Answer to the Advertisement p. 5. This we so much the rather wonder at for that an Answer was openly promised by Monsieur de Turenne and not without some kind of boasting too And that several of his own Communion were so well satisfied with the pieces that had been publish'd against Him as to expect no less than We some such Vindication And here I shall take my leave of Monsieur de Meaux for whom I must yet again profess that I still retain all that respect that is due to a Person whose Character I honour and whom I hope I have treated with all the caution and civility that the necessary defence of my self and of the truth would permit me to do For what remains my business now must be wholly with his Vindicator who has been pleased to fix such an odious Character upon me as I hope to make it appear I have as little deserved as I shall desire to return it upon him Had he charged me with Ignorance had he loaded me with mistakes arising from thence or had he imputed to me the faults only of Carelesness and Incogitancy All this might have pass'd without my Censure and I should have been so far from vindicating
we may die well Nor is it the Blessed Virgin only to whom they thus address The Prayer to St. John is in the same strain 7 Ut queant laxis resonare fibris Mira gestorum famuli tuorum Solve pollati labii reatwn Sancte Johannes That he would loose the Guilt of their polluted Lips that the Tongues of his Servants might sound out his Praise And in general thus they address to the Apostles and Evangelists 8 Vos saecli justi Judices vera Mundi lumina votis precamur cordium audite preces supplicum Qui Coelum verbo clauditis serasque ejus solvitis Nos à peccatis omnibus solvite Jussu quaesumus Quorum praecepto subditur salus languor omnium Sanate Aegros moribus Nos reddentes Virtutibus Ut cum judex advenerit Christus in fine saeculi Nos sempiterni gaudii Faciat esse compotes ibid. p. 497. O ye just Judges and true Lights of the World we pray unto you with the Requests of our Hearts That you would hear the Prayers of your Suppliants Ye that by your Word shut and open Heaven We beseech you deliver us by your Command from all our Sins You to whose Command is subjected the Health and Sickness of all Men Heal us who are sick in our Manners and restore us to Vertue that so when in the end of the World Christ the Judg shall come He may make us partakers of Everlasting Joy For the next Point the Merits of their Saints 't were infinite to repeat the Prayers they make of this kind I will subjoyn two or three In the Feast of St. Nicholas Dec. 6th 9 Deus qui B. Nicolaum Pontificem innumeris decorasti miraculis tribue quaesumus ut ejus Meritis Precibus à Gehennae incendiis liberemur O God who hast adorned thy Bishop St. Nicholas with innumerable Miracles grant we beseech thee that by his Merits and Prayers we may be delivered from the Fire of Hell Offic. B. Virg. p. 561. And many there are of this nature all along their Office But since the main question is about their recommending to God their Offerings and Sacraments by the Merits of their Saints we will see that too And for an instance of these we need go no farther than their very first Saint 10 Sacrificium nostrum tibi Domine quaesumus B. Andraei Apostoli precatio sancta conciliet ut in cujus honore solemniter exhibetur Ejus Meritis efficiatur acceptum Per. Missale Rom. Fest Nov. p. 513. St. Andrew to whom in their Secretum they thus address We beseech thee O Lord that the Holy Prayer of the Blessed Apostle St. Andrew may procure thy Favour to our Sacrifice that as it is solemnly offer'd in his Honour so it may be rendred acceptable by his Merits through our Lord. He that shall survey the following Festivals will find either the Secretum or Post-communio to run in the same strain I shall instance only in the Saints I formerly mentioned 11 Ut haec Munera tibi Domine accepta sint S. Bathildis obtineant Merita quae seipsam tibi hostiam vivam sanctam beneplacentem exhibuit Let the Merits of St. Bathildis O Lord prevail that our Gifts may be accepted by thee 12 Praestent nobis quaesumus sumpta Sacramenta praesidium salutare intervenientibus B. Martini Confessoris tui atque Pontificis Meritis ab omnibus nos absolvant peccatis See Missale in usum Sarum fol. 9. 68. in Fest Nov. Let the Sacraments which we have received we beseech thee be our saving Defence and through the Merits of thy Blessed Martyr St. Martin interposing absolve us from all Sin Such is their Service of the Saints How agreeable to that Duty we owe to God or to the very pretences of Monsieur de Meaux and the Vindicator let the World judg ARTICLE IV. Images and Reliques IN this Article the Vindicator takes notice Vindicat. p. 31. and that truly of my complaining that the approved Doctrine of their most reputed Writers should so much contradict what Monsieur de Meaux would have us think is their only design in that Service He tells us that properly speaking according to the Bishop of Meaux's sense and that of the Council The Image of the Cross is to be lookt upon only as a representative Ibid. p. 32. or memorative Sign which is therefore apt to put us in mind of JESVS CHRIST who suffered upon the Cross for us and the Honour which we there shew precisely speaking and according to the Ecclesiastical Stile is not properly to the Cross but to Jesus Christ represented by that Cross To this I opposed the Doctrine of St. Thomas and the Authority of their own Rituals to shew that they expresly adored the Cross of Christ and not only Jesus Christ represented by that Cross In answer to the former of which Vindicat. p. 38. the Doctrine of St. Thomas he tells me that he is not to maintain every Opinion held by the Schools That had I been sincere I ought to have taken notice of the reason brought by St. Thomas and his Followers which shews that it is purely upon the account of Jesus Christ represented and not upon the account of the Cross it self that he allows Adoration to it In short He concludes the Doctrine of St. Thomas to be in effect the same with Monsieur de Meaux 's Exposition That it is an Adoration of Jesus Christ represented by the Crucifix but not an Adoration of the Crucifix it self And the same is the account he gives of the Pontifical which he confesses admits of an Adoration in the same sense For the business of the Pontifical we shall see more particularly hereafter In the mean time this short instance may serve to shew that his Destinction is purely arbitrary ‖ Pontific Ord. ad recip processionaliter Imperat p. 205. col 2 si verò Legatus Apostolicus Imperatorem reciperet aut cum eo Urbem intraret vel alias secum iret vel equitaret ille qui Gladium Imperatori praefert alius Crucem Legati portans simul ire debent Crux Legati Quia debetur ei Laerla erit à dextris Gladius Imperatoris à sinistris In the Order of receiving an Emperour it is appointed that if there be a Legat present his Cross shall take the upper hand of the Emperors Sword because a Divine Worship is due to it †Thomas 3. p. q. 25. art 4. Utrum Crux Christi sit adoranda adorationi LATRLAE Conclus Crux Christi in quà Christus crucifixus est tum propter repraesentationem tum propter membrorum Christi contactum LATRIA ADORANDA EST Crucis verò Effigies in aliâ quâvis materià priori tantùm ratione LATRIA ADORANDA EST. And in the body Unde utroque modo adoratur eâdem adoratione cum Christo scil ADORATIONE LATRIA As to St. Thomas he tells us only this That
the Cross is not to be adored upon its own acccount but either as it is the figure of Christ crucified or because it toucht his Members when he was crucified upon it That the Wood of the true Cross is to be worshipped with Divine Adoration upon both these accounts but any other Crucifix only upon the former What does all this avail to the pretences of the Vindicator It shews indeed St. Thomas's grounds for his Conclusion but we are little concerned in them nor was it any unsincerity in me not to transcribe all his Reveries The Conclusion he makes is plain and positive and neither to be reconciled with the Vindicator's Fancy nor to be eluded by his Sophistry That the CROSS of Christ is to be ADORED with DIVINE ADORATION What his reason is we matter not sure we are that no good one can be brought by him or any body else for it The next Argument I made use of was That in the Office of the Benediction of a new Cross there are several Passages which clearly shew that they attribute such things to the Cross Vindicat. p. 39. as are directly contrary to Monsieur de Meaux's Pretences As that they who bow down before it may find health both of Soul and Body by it This he cannot deny but charges me with leaving out two words that he says would have explain'd all viz. Page 39. Propter Deum for the sake of God It is very certain that I did leave out these words as I did several others I believe as much to the purpose as these But that I may shew how little reason there was for my expressing them and to convince the World how clearly this passage charges them with Adoring the Cross I will now propose it in its full length In the form of consecrating a new Cross Pontificale de benedictione novae Crucis pag. 161. col 2. First the Bishop makes several prayers †Rogamus Te Domine pater omnipotens sempiterne Deus ut digneris benedicere hoc lignum Crucis tuae ut fit remedium salutare generi humano sit soliditas fidei bonorum Operum profectus redemptio Animarum sit solamen protectio tutela contra saeva jacula Inimicorum Per. That God would bless this Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind An Establishemnt of the Faith for the Increase of good Works and the Redemption of Souls a Comfort and Protection against the cruel Darts of the Enemy After some other Prayers to the same purpose the Bishop blesses the Incense sprinkles the Cross with Holy Water and incenses it and then Consecrates it in these words * Ibid. p. 162. col 1. Sancti †ficetur istud lignum in Nomine Pa †tris Fi †lii Spiritus †Sancti Et benedictio illius ligni in quo sancta membra salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam Crucem inveniant Corporis Animae fanitatem Per. Let this Wood be sanc †tified in the Name of the Fa †ther and of the S †on and of the Holy †Ghost Let the blessing of that Wood on which the members of our Saviour were hanged be in this present Wood that as many as pray and bow down themselves for God before this Cross may find health both of Soul and Body through the same Jesus Christ ‖ Tum Pontifex flexis ante CRUCEM genibus ipsam devotè ADORAT osculatur Then the Bishop Kneels down before the CROSS and devoutly ADORES it and kisses it But if the Cross be of any Metal or of precious Stone instead of the former Prayer the Bishop is to say another I shall transcribe only some part of it After a long preamble they beseech God * Ut Sanctiâ—fices tibi hoc signum Crucis atque cons †cres Illis ergo manibus hanc Crucem accipe quibus illam amplexus es de sanctitate illius hanc sancti †sica sicuti per illam mundus expiatus est à reatu ita offerentium famulorum tuorum animae devotissimae hujus CRUCIS merito omnà careant perpetrato peccato P. 162. That he would sanc †tify to himself this Cross and bless it That our Saviour Christ would embrace this Cross which they consecrate as he did that on which he suffered and by the holiness of that sanc †tify This That as by that the World was redeemed from guilt so the devout Souls who offer it may by the Merits of this Cross be freed from all the Sins they have committed * Tum Pontifex flexis ante CRVCEM genibus EAM devotè ADORAT osculatur Idem faciunt quicunque alii voluerint Then the Bishop as before Kneeling down before the CROSS devoutly ADORES it and kisses it I hope this length will not seem tedious to any who desire a true information of the Doctrine and Practice of the Roman Church in this Matter And I shall leave it to any one to judge what benefit those two words I omitted could have brought to excuse such foul and notorious Idolatry For the rest of my Citations he passes them over so triflingly as plainly shews he had nothing to say to them Vindicat. p. 39. All the rest of his Expressions says he drawn from the Pontifical are of the same nature either lame or patch'd up from several places and therefore if they make any thing against us are not worthy our regarding For Monsieur de Meaux I shall only beg leave to remark this One thing that if the Church of Rome looks upon the Cross only as a memorative Sign to what End is all this Consecration so many Prayers shall I say or rather magical Incantations And how comes it to pass that a Cross without all this ado is not as fit to call to mind Jesus Christ who suffered upon the Cross as after all this superstition not to say any worse in the dedication of it My third Argument to prove that they Adored the Cross was from their Good Fryday's Service Vindicat. p. 40. And here I am again accused for not giving All the words of the Church and of adding somewhat that was not there to make it speak my own sense The words I cited are these Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us Adore it Whereas their Church intends not that we should Adore it i.e. The Cross but come Let us Adore i.e. The Saviour of the World thathung upon it To judge aright of this Cavil and yet more expose their Idolatry I shall here give a just account from the Missal of the whole Service of that Day as to this Point ‖ Note first That in the Office of the Holy Week printed in Latin English at Paris 1670 The Title of this Ceremony is THE ADORATION OF THE CROSS pag. 342. * Missale Rom.
not in this last on which Eternity depends Holy Michaël Archangel who camest to help the People of God Prince of the Heavenly Host Deliver me from the Snare of unclean Spirits and bring my Soul into a Place of comfort and refreshment And thou Holy Angel to whose Safeguard and Protection I unworthy Sinner have been committed Assist me in this moment Drive far from me all the Power of Satan Save me from the Mouth of the Lion Draw me out of the Snare which they have laid for me and Preserve my soul from their evil designs Assist me you also O my Patrons and turelary Saints Thou first of all O St. JOHN forerunner of Christ Make my Paths straight and Direct my way in the sight of the Lord. Blessed PETER Key-Bearer of the Heavenly Kingdom Prince of the Apostles by the Power that is committed to thee Loose thou the Bonds of my Sins and Open unto me the Gate of Paradise And thou O Glorious Father of the Monks of St. Benedict impute not thou unto me to my Damnation the innumerable transgressions that I have made of thy Rule O ye Captains and Heads of the Holy Order of the Cistercians St. ROBERT St. ALBERIC St. STEPHEN and St. BERNARD who have so long patiently endured me an unfruitful Tree in this your Vineyard O Forsake me not in this Hour But Remember that I am your Son tho' unworthy the Name The Cardinal goes still further on with the rest of his Patrons for he had taken care to provide enough of them but I fear I have tired the Reader with these I have already transcribed Monsieur de Meaux I know will tell us that all this is no more than if he had desired as many of the good Company that were about him at this time to have done the same and for his Expressions though they are some of them a little Extraordinary yet the Cardinal's intention no doubt like that of the Church was to have them all reduced to this one and the same Catholick meaning PRAY FOR ME. And for those who are resolved to believe this fond Pretence there is no hopes of conviction But for unprejudiced Persons who see the Vanity indeed the unreasonableness and absurdity of this Evasion I doubt not but they will find a plain Opposition between Monsieur de Meaux's Principles and the Cardinal 's and that this good Man needed a very great Apology to his Patrons for having approved a Doctrine so derogatory to their Power and Honour as that of the Exposition in his Opinion undoubtedly was But I shall say no more to shew the unsincerity of Cardinal BONA in this matter I might have added a yet greater instance than either of these Cardinals of the same pious Fraud in the Approbation of the POPE himself See the Procez verbal de l'Assembleé eatraordinaire des Messeigneurs l'Archeveques Eveques en Mars May 1681. Mr. de Meaux himself was one of this Assembly and signed with the rest the Report of the A. B. of Reims in which there is abundantly sufficient to shew how repugnant his Holiness's Proceedings were to the Doctrine of the Exposition approved by him at the very same time that he was engaged in these attempts so contrary to it I know not whether it be worth the observing that the very same day the Pope sent his complementing Brief to Monsieur de Meaux in approbation of his Exposition he sent another to the Bishop of Pamiéz to approve his defending the Rights of his Church against the King which was judg'd in the Assembly of which Mr. de Meaux was one to be an interposing in an Affair which neither the Holy Councils nor Fathers had given him any Authority to meddle with whose Briefs with reference to the Affairs of France and which this Bishop who has had so great a part in them could not be ignorant of however publish'd at the same time that he sent his Complement to Mr. de Meaux do but ill agree with his Exposition Indeed they run in such a strain as plainly shews that were but his Power equal to his Will he would soon convince the World that not this Mans Pretences but the Dictates of Pope GREGORY VII the UNAM SANCTAM Bull and the Canon of LATERAN were the true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church And of this I am ready to make an ample proof from the several pieces set out by publick Authority in France when ever Mr. de Meaux or his Vindicator shall think fit to question the truth of what I now say NUM IV. Copie d'une Lettre ecrite à Monsieur l'Evêque de Meaux cy devant Evêque de Condom Au Port de St. Marie ce 13. Juin 1683. Monseigneur VOtre Grandeur rapellera sans doute mieux l'Ideé de mon nom lors que je luy dirai que je suis celuy pour qui elle a eu la bonté de parler il y a environ 16 ans à Madame de Chaune pour avoir son consentement d'une Chapelle comme tutrice de Monsieur de j ' eûs l'Honneur de la voir plusieurs fois à St. Thomas du Louvre avec Messeigneurs de Perigueux de Xainte Depuis ce tems la j'ai souffert la Persecution particulierement depuis l'Exposition de la Foi que vôtre grandeur a publiée Ses Enemis qui n'osent pas se declarer contre Elle se declarent contre ceux qui disent la même chose Et aujourdui Monseigneur l' Archevêque de Bourdeaux me fait faire le Proces pour avoir expliqué à l' Epargne le jour de Vendredi Saint Que nous adorions Jesus Christ crucifié en presence de la Croix que nous n'adorions rien de ce que nous voyons Et parce que le Curé dit sur le champ assez haut Le Bois Le Bois j ' ajoutai Non non C'est Jesus Christ non pas le Bois Et comme il ajouta Ecce Lignum Venite Adoremus je le relevai en luy disant Auquel le Salut du Monde a eté ataché Venez adorons ce Salut de Monde J ' ajoutai que le sentiment de l'Eglise etoit que si par impossible nous pouvions separer la Divinité da Fils de Dieu d'avec son humanité nous n' adorerions pas l'humanité puis qu'il est certain qu'il n' y a rien d'adorable que Dieu qu' ainsi nous devions nous persuader que nous allions au Calvaire adorer Jesus Christ sans nous arreter au Crucifix Que l'Eglise comme une bonne Mere nous l'avoit donné par une sainte Invention pour aider à nôtre Foi pour fraper plus vivement nôtre imagination non pour etre l'Objet de nôtre Culte 〈◊〉 se termine à Jesus Christ Voila Monseigneur tout mon crime ce que l'on me
reproche J'ai ecrit au Promoteur au Vicaire General à Monseigneur l'Archevêque Je leur expose que j ' ofre à me dedire si j'ai mal parlé j ' ofre à me justifier Au prejudice de cela il persiste dans l'interdiction qu' il lacha verbalement sur le champ Je me suis pourvû par apel comme d'abus au Parlement de Guienne j'ai fait assigner le Promoteur bien que j'ay fait toutes les honetetes possibles à la Justice Ecclesiastique rendu toutes les deferences le dit Seigneur Archevêque me menace comme ceux qui luy ont rendu ma Lettre me le mandent de Prison perpetuelle de Fers aux Pieds Vôtre Grandeur peut connoitre par ce procedé combien il y a de Personnes qui detournent nos Freres separéz de rentrer dans l'Eglise L'on m'objecte ce que l'on dit contre vôtre livre que j'adoucis mais que le sentiment de l'Eglise est contraire On le verra mieux dans le Proces que me sera fait car je defie mes Enemis de pouvoir faire des reproches contre ma vie moeurs de me reprocher d'autre Doctrine que celle de vôtre Grandeur que je tache d'exprimer dans les mêmes termes la trouvant tres conforme aux sentimens de l' Eglise Romaine ainsi si je suis convaincu d'Heresie j'ose dire à vôtre Grandeur qu' elle doit etre à ma Garentie Jose pourtant l'assurer que j'ay assez de lumiere pour bien defendre cette Doctrine pour detruire le Preservatif si l'on ne me fait point de Violence Je defie tous les Docteurs du Monde de toutes les Religions La Grace que je demande à V. G. est que si l' Archevêque se servoit de toute son Authorité pour m' opprimer qu' Elle daigne interposer la sienne pour m' obtenir la liberté de me defendre Elle voit combien l'honneur de Dieu yest interessé dans un tems ou toute la Province est remplie de Missionaires de Capucins de Jesuites ignorans qui prechent l' Adoration de la Croix la font faire dans une Province ou tout est remplie de Religionaires ou j'ose promettre 10000 Conversions si la Religion etoit pratiquée conformément à vôtre Exposition Les Messieurs de la Religion P. R. n'ont autre Objection à me faire si ce n'est que l'Eglise Romaine Vous traite Me traite d'Heretique Je demande Pardon à Vôtre Grandeur Monseigneur si j'ai crû etre obligé de luy faire connoitre mon Procedé apres quoi je l'assureray de la Soumission De son tres humble tres obeissant Serviteur IMBERT Prieur The Copy of a Letter sent to Monsieur the Bishop of Meaux formerly Bishop of Condom Port St. Mary June 13th 1683. My Lord YOur Lordship without doubt will better call to mind my Name when I shall have told you that I am the Person for whom you had the goodness about 16 years since to speak to Madam de Chaune to obtain her consent as Tutress to Monsieur de for a certain Chappel since which I have had the honour to see you several times at St. Thomas in the Louvre with my Lords of Perigueux and Xainte Since that I have suffered Persecution and especially since the time that your Lordship has published your Exposition of the Faith Your Enemies who dare not declare themselves against your Lordship declare themselves against those who say the same things And at this instant the Archbishop of Bourdeaux has caused a Process to be made against me for having explain'd upon Good-Friday That we adore JESUS CHRIST crucified in presence of the Cross and that we do not adore any thing of what we see And forasmuch as the Curé replied upon the place aloud The WOOD the WOOD I added No no 't is JESUS CHRIST and not the WOOD. And when he added Ecce Lignum venite adoremus I took him up saying On which the Saviour of the World hung come let us adore this Saviour of the World I said further that the Doctrine of the Church was That if by an impossible Supposition we could separate the Divinity of the Son of God from his Humanity we should not adore his Humanity forasmuch as 't is certain that there is nothing adorable but God and that therefore we ought to think that we are now going out of Mount Calvary to adore JESUS CHRIST without stopping at the Crucifix That the Church like a good Mother had given that to us by a holy Invention to assist our Faith and make the livelier Impression upon our Imagination but not to be the Object of our Worship which must terminate upon JESUS CHRIST Behold my Lord all my Crime and what I am reproached with I have writ to the Promoter and to the Vicar General and to the Archbishop himself I have offered if I have spoken any thing amiss that I will recant it I have offered to justifie my self Notwithstanding all this his Grace still persists in the verbal Interdict which he immediately pronounced against me I have transferr'd my Cause by Appeal as of Abuse to the Parliament of Guienne I have caused the Proctor to be summon'd and though I have used all imaginable fairness with reference to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction paid them all possible deference nevertheless the said Archbishop threatens me as I am informed by those who gave him my Letter with perpetual Imprisonment and Chains for my Offence Your Lordship may see by this Proceeding how many there are that hinder our separating Brethren from returning to our Communion They object to me that which is also said against your Lordship's Book That I do mollifie but that the Doctrine of the Church is quite the contrary This will more plainly appear by the Process against me for I defie my Enemies to reproach me for my Life and Manners or for any other Doctrine than that of your Lordship which I endeavour to express in the self same Terms as finding them most agreeable to the Sentiments of the Roman Church so that if I am convicted of Heresie I am bold to say your Lordship must be my Surety But I dare assure you my Lord that I have Knowledge enough to defend this Doctrine and destroy the An Answer to Monsieur de Maux's Exposition intituled Preservatif contre le changement de Religion Preservative might I be but secure from Violence I defie all the Doctors of the World of whatsoever Religion they be The Favour which I have to beg of your Lordship is That if the Archbishop should make use of his Authority to oppress me you will please to interpose yours so far as to procure me only the Liberty to defend my self You see how far the
Honour of God is concerned in it and especially at a time when the whole Province is filled with Missionaries Capuchins ignorant Jesuits and others who preach up the Adoration of the Cross and cause it to be done in a Country full of Protestants and among whom I durst promise 10000 Converts were the Practice of our Religion conformable to your Exposition The Protestants have hardly any other Objection to make to me than this That the Church of Rome treats both your Lordship and me as Hereticks I beg your Lordship's Pardon for this I thought my self obliged to acquaint you with my Case after which I have only remaining to assure you of the Submission of My LORD Your Lordship 's most humble and obedient Servant IMBERT Such was the Account which Monsieur Imbert gave of his Case to M. de Meaux I was the more willing to publish it 42 pages in 4to that those who have never seen the Factum which he printed of it and which is too long to be inserted here may at least by this perceive that his Crime was truly his adhering to M. de Meaux's Exposition and that he had reason to say as he does in this Letter to him That if he was convicted of Heresie M. de Meaux ought to be his warrant for it And because the Bishop has been pleased to endeavour to take off the force of this great Allegation Vindicat. p. 116. Cet Imbert est un homme sans sçavoir qui crût justifier ses extravagances en nommant mon Exposition c. by lessening the Character of the Person I shall leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge whether this Letter carries any thing of the Stile of an extravagant a man of no learning as well as of no Renown such as M. de Meaux in his Answer pretends him to be NUM V. The Epistle of St. Chrysostome to Caesarius cut by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne out of the Greek Edition of Palladius published by Monsieur Bigot 1680. with a Dissertation premised containing an Historical Account of the whole Affair IT will perhaps be look'd upon by some as a little unseasonable to joyn a piece of Antiquity so considerable as this Epistle to a Treatise of so little Importance as the foregoing Defence may justly be esteem'd to be But since the main thing I charge M. de Meaux with is That a first Edition of his Book was suppress'd for containing some Assertions not so suitable to the Sentiments of the Sorbonne Doctors to whom it was sent for their Approbation to shew the undistinguishing Justice of their Proceedings and that M. de Meaux is not the only Bishop they have dealt thus rudely with on these Occasions I was willing to communicate to the World one Instance more of the like nature especially since the Original Leaves rased out and suppress'd by them have here also fallen into my Hands and may at any time be seen with the suppress'd Edition of M. de Meaux's Exposition It may be some Satisfaction to M. de Meaux to consider that in this Case he has run no other fortune than what is common to him with the great St. Chrysostome And possibly the Reader too will from hence begin to find it no difficult matter to believe that those who made no scruple to suppress a whole Epistle of St. Chrysostome a Patriarch and a Saint for contradicting their Doctrine in one only Point may indeed have made as little of correcting M. de Meaux's Exposition tho' a Bishop's that had prevaricated their Faith in so many Nor was I less engaged on the Vindicator's account to this Publication 't is one of his greatest difficulties and which he seems the most desirous to be resolv'd in how there can be such a thing as the Real Presence in the Eucharist without Transubstantiation I have before told him what I suppose sufficient to explain this matter But because I cannot expect that either my Church or Book should pass pass with him for an Oracle it may be some confirmation of the Idea to shew him one of their pretended Patrons concurring with me in the Exposition and manifestly supposing a Union betwixt the Bread and Christ's Body in the holy Eucharist and yet stifly contending at the same time that the Nature of the Bread is not changed in it All the danger is that this holy Father who as Monsieur See Mr Bigot's Preface below Bigot observes has hitherto pass'd for the great Doctor of the Eucharist as St. Austin of Grace may possibly by this run the hazard of losing his Credit amongst them and as it has fared but very lately with Theodoret upon the same account that they will henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation since they cannot any longer suppress his Doctrine But before I offer the Epistle it self it is fit that I premise something for the better understanding of it It was written to Caesarius a Monk that had a little before fallen into the Apollinarian Heresie to reduce him to the Catholick Faith I shall therefore beg leave to begin my Reflections with a short account of that as far as may serve to open the way to what we are to read of it in this REFLECTION I. Of APOLLINARIUS and his HERESIE APOLLINARIVS the younger from whom this Heresie derives its name was Son to the elder Apollinarius Godefry vie de S. Athanase livre II. cap. 13. Ex Basil Ep 74. a very learned Man and never that we read of charged with any Heresie He was of Alexandria where he was ordain'd a Priest and became deservedly eminent for this That when Julian forbad the Christians the reading of human Writers being envious of that Reputation which many of the Fathers of the Church had so justly acquired in that sort of Learning he with his Son Socrat. Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap 16. Calvisii Chronol pag. 525. an 362. repaired in great measure this Disadvantage by opening of two Schools The Father turning the Writings of the Old Testament into Heroick Verse and composing several Tragedies of the Historical Parts of them The Son explaining the New in Dialogues after the Platonick manner and by this means preserving the Church from that Ignorance which the Apostate Emperor thought to have reduced it to II. As for the younger Apollinarius he is on all hands acknowledged to have been a very extraordinary Man Sozomen Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 25. See Epiphan Haer. 77. Theophilus l. 1. paschal Vincen. Lirin lib. adv prof novationes Quid illo praestantius acumine exercitatione doctrinâ Quam multas ille Haereses multis voluminibus oppresserit quot inimicos fidei confutaverit errores indicio est opus illud 30 non minus librorum nobilissimum maximum quo insanas Porphyrii calumnias magnâ probationum mole confudit Longum est universa ipsius opera commemorare quibus profectò summis Aedificatoribus Ecclesiae par esse potuisset nisi profanâ illâ haereticae curiositatis libidine novum
de Valentia Vasquez Suares Perron Gamachaeus and last of all Father Nouet de la presence de Jesus Christ dans les tres saint Sacrement liv 4. c. 5. art 3 p. 285. Nouet in his Controversie against Monsieur Claude VI. This is indeed to cut the Knot when it was not to be untied and makes St. Chrysostome in effect to say thus much That the Nature of BREAD after the Consecration still remains though indeed the Nature be changed and only the Accidents continue And would it not have been an admirable Similitude to shew that the Humane Nature of Christ was not changed into the Divine as the Appollinarian pretended to alledge the Example of the Eucharist in which the Nature of the BREAD was changed into the very Nature of Christ's Body as the Papists believe VII But S. Chrysostome was not so absurd as these men would represent him and his other Expressions utterly overthrow this Evasion 1. He tells us plainly that all the Change that was made in the BREAD by Consecration was in the Name See this Argument managed by Monsieur Claude Rep. à Pere Nouet Partie 5. c. 6. p. 488. not the Substance That whereas before it was called BREAD by being consecrated it became worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY 2. Had St. Chrysostome believed the BREAD to have been truly changed and become the very Body of Christ would he have said that it became WORTHY to be CALLED the Body of Christ and not rather plainly have told us that it became the VERY BODY of Christ Do men use to say that the Heaven is worthy to be called the Heaven The Sun worthy to be called the Sun And why shall we think St. Chrysostome the only ridiculous man to use such a Phrase as no man in the World ever did or would have done besides But 3. And to put this point beyond all doubt When St. Chrysostome here speaks of the Nature of BREAD in allusion to the Nature of CHRIST if we will have him consistent with himself we must suppose him to have used that Expression with reference to both in the same sense As therefore in his Discourse immediately before and after by Nature with reference to CHRIST he does not mean the Properties only but the very Substance of his Humanity and Divinity so here in his allusion to the Eucharistical BREAD he must still mean the same the Substance of the BREAD and not barely the Properties or Accidents of it and of this I am perswaded no indifferent Person will make any doubt Secondly As to the design of this Allusion VIII The Apollinarians as we have seen affirm'd the Change of one Nature in Christ into the other That however before the Vnion they were two distinct things yet by being united the humane Nature became converted or if you will transubstantiated into the Divine IX Now the Falseness of this S. Chrysostom shews by the Example of the Eucharist That as there the BREAD by being consecrated becomes indeed worthy to be called CHRIST's BODY yet do's not lose its own Nature but continues the same BREAD as to its Substance that it was before So here the Humane Nature of Christ being by the Incarnation hypostatically united to the Divine did not cease to be a Humane Nature but still continued what it was before however united with the other in one Person X. So that as certainly then as the Humane Nature of Christ does now continue to be a Humane Nature notwithstanding that Incarnation so certainly does the BREAD in the Eucharist continue BREAD after this Consecration As certainly as Apollinarius was deceived in supposing the Manhood of Christ to be swallowed up and changed into the Godhead so certainly is the Papist deceived in imagining the Substance of the BREAD to be swallow'd up and converted into the Substance of CHRIST'S BODY in this Holy Sacrament XI Christ's Humane Nature being united to the Divine became worthy thereby to be called together with it by the same common Name of Christ Lord Jesus the Word the Son of God the BREAD being by Consecration mystically united to Christ's BODY becomes worthy to be called together with it THE LORD's BODY but that is all the Humane Nature still continues what it was before in the one the Nature of the BREAD still continues what it was before in the other and there is no Transubstantiation made in either XII In a word in the Hypostatick Vnion though there be two distinct Natures God and Man yet there is but one Person one Son made up of both So in the Holy Eucharist though there be two different things united the BREAD and CHRIST's BODY yet we do not say there be two Bodies but one mystical Body of Christ made up of both as the King and his Image to use the Similitude of the Antient Fathers are not two but one King Or in the Example of St. Chrysostome himself Christ and the Church are not two but one Body REFLECTION III. Of the Epistle it self and the Attempts that have been made against it I. ANd now when such is the force of this Epistle that it utterly destroys one of the principal Errors of Popery It is not at all to be wondred at if those men who were resolved not to be convinced by it themselves have used all imaginable means to provide that others should not II. Ann. 1548. It is now above 100 years since this passage was first produced by Peter Martyr in his Dispute with Gardiner Bishop of Winchester concerning the Eucharist He then profess'd that he had copied it out of the Florentine MS. and that the whole Epistle was put by him into Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Library Lovanii Confutatio Cavillationum c ad Obj. 201. This Gardiner could not deny who therefore in his Answer to him 1552. endeavour'd first to ascribe it to another John of Constantinople who lived about the beginning of the 6th Century Secondly to elude the force of this Passage by that strange interpretation of the Word Nature I have before mentioned and in which all the others have since follow'd him III. Libr. 1. de Euchar. cap. 18. Turrian who by his writing seems to shew that he had somewhere or other seen this Epistle contends in like manner and if we may believe Vasquez Vasquez dis 180. c. 9. n. 102. Valentia de Transub cap. 7. §. Similiter and de Valentia proves it too that this Epistle was not Chrysostom's but the other John's to whom the Bishop of Winchester had before ascribed it But yet still the Argument recurr'd upon them forasmuch as this other John was in the beginning of the 6th Age and Transubstantiation by consequence was not the Doctrine of the Church then IV. And indeed Gamachaeus is not very unwilling to acknowledge this for having with the rest assigned this Epistle to the other John he tells us Excusari posse quod nec Transubstantiatio ejus temporibus ita perspicuè tradita explicata fuerat sicut