A VINDICATION OF THE BISHOP of CONDOM's EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Catholic Church In Answer to a Book Entituled An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England c. With a Letter from the said Bishop Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1686. A VINDICATION OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Catholic Church PART I. Containing an Answer to the Preface IT is no less strange than much to be deplored that Religion which ought to be the Common Band of Unity should by the subtilty of Satan become the Occasion of Discord and Contention amongst Christians And that all the Methods which the Catholic Church makes use of or the Means her dutiful Children can suggest should be so far from opening the Eyes of many otherwise clear-sighted and well-meaning Persons led away with the Prejudice of Education as to give them occasion to calumniate her Doctrines censure her Practices and condemn her Pastors One would have thought such a Book as is the Bishop of Condom's Exposition free from Passion grounded upon the Pure Doctrine of the Council of Trent and seconded by the greatest Authority in the Church next to that of the Council it self should have calm'd the Minds of them who pretend to be lovers of Peace and Unity and have made those who propose to themselves any thing of sincerity in matters of such high concerns to acknowledge the Doctrines of the Catholic Church to have been faithfully Expounded in it But we see the contrary and that a Book thus grounded upon the manifest Doctrine of a General Council approv'd as such by the Learned Prelates of divers Nations and by the Pope himself must be made to pass amongst our New Reformers as a Book which Palliates or Prevaricates the Doctrine of our Church and the very Approbations as meer Artifices to deceive the World and not as Sincere much less Authoritative Approbations either of the Nature or Principles of the same Doctrine Pref. p. 15. Had the Author indeed of this Calumny who pretends to lay down the Doctrine of the Church of England given us some more Authentic Testimonies for what he Publishes or taught us some better Method whereby to know the Doctrine of a Church he might have had a more plausible appearance of Reason to complain But when we see him giving us the Doctrines of his Church upon no better Testimony than his own and that of an Imprimatur when we see him to be so far from fixing himself to the known Doctrine of the Church of England exhibited in her Canons and Thirty nine Articles that in several places he asserts what is not to be found amongst them and when we hear him telling us he has forborn to set his Name to it Pref. p. 18. least perhaps any prejudice against his Person might chance to injure the Excellence of the Cause which he maintains I cannot without some wonder reflect upon his Censure and the Reception his Book is said to have had But it seems for him to tell us He is so assured he has not Palliated or Prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England in his Exposition Ibidem that he entirely submits himself and it to her Censure and the sight of an Imprimatur Carolus Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc Lond. prefix'd before it is sufficient in some Mens Judgments to Authorize an Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England when the Approbation of so many Learned Judicious and Pious Prelates of the Church of Rome together with that of the whole Assembly of the Clergy of France and of the Pope himself at two several times must by our Author be noted as proceeding from a Peculiar Art unknown to Protestants who are accustomed as he says to sincere dealing Pref. p. 13. But we shall have occasion shortly to examine whether he has made use of that sincerity to which he makes so strong Pretentions Indeed an Answer to his Book seems so needless that I often thought it would be sufficient to tell this Nameless Author That when his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has receiv'd from the Church of England as full and as Authentick a Testimony of being neither Palliated nor Prevaricated by him as hath the Exposition of the Bishop of Meaux from the Church Catholic and that when his Arguments appear so much as directly to confront the Bishops Exposition it would be time enough to Publish a Justification of that Work against his Calumnies But because this Author has declar'd tho rashly in the name of Protestants that they look upon those Opinions to be indefensible Pref. p. 16. which are not maintain'd against the Assaults of every one that pleases to write against them and that 't is an open and shameful forsaking of them not to take care to defend every thing that is Publish'd it may be some unwary Persons may look upon all he has said as Gospel unless his Discourse be unravell'd and the mistakes he has fallen under with the Sophistry of his Arguments be shewn But before I begin it will be necessary to give the Reader a short Account of the Bishop of Meaux's Intention in publishing this Book and what he expected from any one who should go about to Answer it which may serve for a true state of the Question And First as for his Intention having all along observ'd that our Doctrines were strangely Misrepresented and that not only the private Opinions of Scholastic Authors but even the Inventions of our Enemies were most commonly objected to us as the Tenets of our Church he thought it necessary to propose her Doctrine plainly and simply Expos p. 1. and to distinguish it aright from those Tenets which have been falsly imputed to her Note that the Quotations out of the Exposition are from the Impression published by His Majesty's Command by which he hop'd many of those false Notions of her Doctrine which divers Persons had form'd to themselves would have been remov'd and an Union much more easily obtain'd For it is a certain Truth That if the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church when truly Represented be Innocent and Pure and so far from destroying the acknowledg'd Foundations of the Christian Faith that it alone bears proportion and conformity to them then all the pretended Reformations of that Doctrine are but vain and unprofitable Labours and a Separation from that our ancient Mother-Church upon no better Grounds must be Schismatical and therefore all those who have broken the Unity of the Church upon such a pretended Reformation are oblig'd to return to her Bosom and Communion So that his Intentions were not so much to Argue or Dispute upon Points of Catholic Doctrine as to Propose them truly and render them Intelligible And therefore he pitch'd upon the Council of Trent as the fittest Compass by which he might
Father would be much troubled I should think there was For Cardinal Capisucchi he is so far from being contrary to the Doctrine I have taught that his express Approbation is to be found among those which are Printed in my Edition of 1676 and it is he who as Master of the Sacred Palace Licens'd the Impression of the Italian Version in the Year 1675 Printed at the Congregation De Propagandâ Fide These are them my Adversaries bring against me As for that Monsieur Imbert and the Pastor of St. Maries at Mechlin whom they pretend to have been condemn'd tho' they alledg'd my Exposition as a Warrant for their Doctrines the Question is whether they alledg'd it right or wrong And such Matters of Fact as these advanc'd without Proof * * Or bringing the Propositions maintain'd by them and Condemn'd merit not any further Information But because you desire to know something concerning them I must tell you that this Imbert is a Man of no Renown as well as of no Learning who thought to justifie his Extravagances before the Archbishop of Bourdeaux his Superior by alledging my Exposition to this Prelate who had Subscribed to the Approbation in the Assembly of 1682. But all Mankind saw very well that Heaven and Earth was not more opposite then my Doctrine from that which this daring Person has presum'd to broach Moreover it never enter'd into the Mind of any Catholic that we ought to adore the Cross after the same manner as JESVS CHRIST in the Sacrament of the Eucharist nor that the Cross with JESVS CHRIST was to be ador'd as the Human Nature of our Saviour with the Divine in the Person of the Son of God And if this Man gives out he is Condemn'd for denying those Errors which no body ever sustain'd he shews his Malice to be as great as his Ignorance For the Pastor of St. Mary of Mechlin who I am inform'd is a Person of Merit I have seen a little Printed Treatise of his call'd Motivum Juris where he advances this Proposition That the Pope is in the Church as the President in a Council and the Major or Bourghemaster as they call them in the Low-Countries amongst the Company of Aldermen A Proposition very different from my Exposition where I acknowledge the Pope to be as a Head Establish'd by God to whom we owe Submission and Obedience If then the Faculty of Louvain has Censur'd this Book * * Or any other Proposition of that nature which this Author if he had been Ingenuous ought to have mentioned I am not engag'd in that Dispute And on the other hand my Exposition is so far from being rejected in the Low-Countries that on the contrary it has been Printed at Antwerp in their own Language with all the Marks of Public Authority as well Ecclesiastical as Secular As for those Passages which they pretend I have Corrected in a second Edition for fear of offending the Sorbon it is as you see a chymerical Invention and I do here once more repeat it That I neither publish'd nor conniv'd at nor caus'd to be made any Edition of my Book but that which is well known in which I never alter'd any thing 'T is true this little Treatise being at first given in Writing to some particular Persons for their Instruction many Copies of it were dispersed and it was Printed without my order or knowledge No body found fault with the Doctrine contai'nd in it and I my self without changing any thing in it of importance and that only as to the order and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile caus'd it to be Printed as you now see If upon that account they will have me in some manner to have been contrary to my self they show themselves to be too credulous But suppose it had been so and that to free my Book from the danger of all Attempts I had in some places Corrected my Expressions which God be thanked I had no occasion to do the Work ought to be so far from being disesteem'd upon that account that on the contrary it would be a Proof I had at last brought it to that Exactness that neither the Sorbon nor any other could find any thing to say against it as in reality no Catholic Reprehends any thing contained in it The last Objection which this English Minister brings against me is That I am fertile enough in producing new Labours but steril in Answering what is written against my Works from whence he concludes that I am conscious they cannot be Defended 'T is true I have written three little Treatises of Controversie one of which is this of the Exposition As the principal Objection against this was That I had palliated and prevaricated the Catholic Doctrine the best Answer I could make to it was to relate the Approbations which were sent me undesignedly from all Parts of Europe and that from the Pope himself repeated This Answer will bear no Reply and I have said what was necessary upon that Subject in the Advertisement prefix'd to the Edition of 1676. If he who has sent you the Objections of the English Minister has not seen this Advertisement I desire you would take it up at Cramoisy's in virtue of this Order and send it to him as it is Printed this Year 1686 because I have there added the Approbation of the French Clergy These Approbations are added in the Edition publish'd by his Majesty's Command and a second Approbation of the Pope's very Authentic And if he will but take the pains to joyn this Advertisement and the Approbations to his Translation of the Exposition he will render his Labour more profitable to the Public and stop the Mouths of all those who contradict it Concerning the two other Treatises which I writ upon Matters of Controversie one of them is upon Communion under both Species and the other is my Conference with M. Claude Minister of Charenton upon the Authority of the Church with Reflections upon the Answers of that Minister In these Treatises I have endeavour'd to prevent the principal Objections and to give Answers to them so that all Men of sence are satisfi'd After which to multiply Disputes and to compose Books after Books to embroil the Question and quit the first Design neither do's Charity require it of me nor do's my Employment give me leisure You may send this Letter into England that he who desires this Information may make use of what he thinks convenient and if he think it may be beneficial to mention he has had what concerns these Matters of Fact and my Intentions from me he may do it and also assure them without the least apprehension that there is nothing in this Letter but what is public and certain c. From Meaux April the 6th 1686. SIR Your very humble and affectionate Servant ✚ J. Benigne E. de Meaux BEhold what the Bishop of Meaux himself has thought good to Answer to a
and properly speaking tho' not possibly in such a rigorous sence as may be put upon the Words If she do not what means her Ordination and the Title of Priesthood which her Ministers challenge with so much earnestness And if she do why will he quarrel with the Council of Trent for calling it a True and Proper Sacrifice Sess 22. c. a True and Proper Priesthood especially since the same Council tells us that this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished upon the Cross to perpetuate the Memory of it to the end of the World Sess 22. c. r. and so apply to us the saving virtue of it for the remission of those Sins which we commit every day In a word The Bishop of Meaux has expressed himself so clearly and consequently to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and of the Catholic Church that I cannot but admire any one who affirms as this Author do's that the Doctrine the Bishop of Meaux has express'd Pag. 63. is truly the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and such as the Church of England has never refus'd and except it be their doubt of the Corporeal Presence Mons de Meaux had certainly reason to expect there was nothing in it which they could justly except against I cannot I say but admire he should upon no better grounds than a pure Cavil about the Name and Nature of a Sacrifice when taken in the strictest Sense and the word Corporeal instead of Real Pag. 62. affirm this to be one of the most dangerous Errours that offend them But the Breach must be kept open and widened too if possible And because the offering of Christ once made is that proper Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World and because there is no other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone Article 31. as their Article expresses it and we allow therefore this Author must from thence conclude that the Representation Commemoration and Application of that first Offering by those who are Members of that Priesthood according to the Order of Melchisedec which the Apostle tells us was to be perpetual must not be called a True Heb. 6. Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice tho' it be only Commemorative and Applicatory ART XVII Of the Epistle to the Hebrews BUT the next Article shews us more manifestly Art 21. p. 67. that all this Dispute is purely de Nomine In which it manifestly appears that he mistakes the Sence of the word Offer Pag. 32. as used by the Catholic Church in this place for the Bishop of Meaux tells us the Catholic Church forms her Language and her Doctrine not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scripture and therefore tho' in that strict sence in which the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the word Offer JESUS CHRIST cannot be said to be now offered neither in the Eucharist nor any where else yet because in other places of Scripture the word is used in a larger signification where it is often said we offer to God what we present before him therefore she do's not doubt to say that she offers up our Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Eucharist in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him But this must not suffice for then that which he calls the principal and most dangerous Errour would appear to be none at all and therefore because the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of one Offering which has fully satisfied for our Sins of one Offering which was no more to be offered that is of an Offering in a strict Sence in which there must be a Real Suffering and Death of the Victim therefore this Epistle must be against the Doctrine of the Roman Church tho' she speak only of an Unbloody Sacrifice of a Commemorative Sacrifice which without the Sacrifice of the Cross would be no Sacrifice which takes its Virtue Efficacy and very Name from it because it refers to it and applies the Virtue of it to our Souls Let any one judge if this be not next door to a wilful misunderstanding of our Tenets Pag. 63. especially when he had before confessed that the presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us and that if this were all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it This is what she means by it that is an application of the Merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross which was to be but once offered and from whence it takes all its value But this he will not have to be our Doctrine and I see no reason for it but because if he admit it to be so one of the greatest grounds of their pretended Reformation must needs vanish ART XVIII Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine HIs Reflections upon this Doctrine run altogether upon the same strain Art 22. p. 69. and therefore what I have said will suffice in answer to that Article If he admit a Real Presence with the Church of England Reason must necessarily assure us that where Christ is really he ought to be Ador'd and where he really presents himself to his Father to render him Propitious to us he may be said to offer up himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice And those who will admit the Reality or not condemn the belief of it in others ought not to condemn the necessary Consequences of it in us into which we have penetrated better than they ART XIX Communion under both Species COmmunion under one kind being also a Consequence of the Doctrine of the Real Presence Art 23. p. 72. Those who admit the Real Presence or condemn it not ought not to condemn the Consequence of it He refers us to the Answer to M. de Meaux's Book of Communion and I refer him to M. de Meaux's Book which so fully explicates and proves this Doctrine that all the effects against it are but vain But if the Church of England allow the Communion to be given under one Species in case of necessity See Art 30. how will it stand that she esteems it to be the express Command of JESUS CHRIST which is certainly indispensable Edw. Sparrows Canons p. 15. the Sixth in his Proclamation before the Order of Communion ordains That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST should from thenceforth be commonly deliver'd and administred unto all Persons within our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require And after the Order of Communion there is this Annotation Note that the Bread that shall be Consecrated shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed And every of the said Consecrated Breads shall be broken into two pieces at