Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A46986
|
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.
|
Johnston, Joseph, d. 1723.
|
1686
(1686)
|
Wing J871; ESTC R2428
|
69,931
|
128
|
may be enabled worthily to merit this Reward which is also a manifest sign that we do not expect a new Imputation of the Merits of CHRIST besides that by which we at first received Grace and Strength to operate rightly and merit worthily For when we say that CHRIST has merited Eternal Life for us we do not understand it as if he merited it so for us that it would not be rendred to our Good Works and condign Merits unless by that succeeding Application of the Merits of CHRIST but because CHRIST by his Merits has obtain'd Justification for us and all other things by which we are prepared to it and moreover obtained for them who are already justified those Helps by which they might rightly operate and merit Eternal Life From which last Words and the others left out by this Author it appears manifestly that Vasquez was not disputing whether we merited Grace and Glory of our own selves without the Assistance of the Grace of JESVS CHRIST but whether after that JESVS CHRIST had merited for us Justifying Grace and all other Helps necessary to make our Works good acceptable and meritorious there was still another Grace of JESVS CHRIST required over and above these his other Assistances without which we could not obtain Eternal Life Is this that Doctrine then which he says they most justly detest Pag. 23. and are not a little surprized to finde that no Index Expurgatorius no Authentic Censure has ever taken notice of so dangerous a Prevarication Or rather are they not his own Prevarications which he has put upon us as our Doctrines and which are as detestable to us as they are to him nay more if he thinks these Authors held it possible for us to merit of our selves without the Grace of God which prevents accompanies and Crowns all our Actions for he acknowledges that such a Doctrine of Merit as that which he has represented as theirs would at least justifie a Dissent from a Church in those Particulars tho' it would not engage them wholly to forsake a Church that taught such things whereas we doubt not to say That it cannot be a True Church which teaches such Erroneous Doctrines and therefore that we ought not to communicate with such an one ART VII Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences HIs next Article is of Satisfactions Art 7. p. 24. In which he confesses that what the Bishop of Meaux has said they could most readily allow of Pag 25. were there but any tolerable Arguments to establish the Doctrine that requires it Pag. 27. He tells us also that they practice that Discipline for many other benefits of it and wish it were universally established even in a strictness equal to what it is fallen from But yet he will impose upon us a belief that by our own endeavours we are able to make a true and proper satisfaction to God for sin How do's he prove it Ibidem Or how do's he shew that the Council of Trent is contrary to the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition He tells us indeed Page 26. that the Council of Trent declares Conc. Trid. Sess 14. c. 8. That the justice of God requires it and that therefore the Confessors should be charged to proportion the Satisfaction to the Crime which he thinks is more than what the Bishop had explicated when he affirm'd That the necessity of this payment do's not arise from any defect in Christs Satisfaction but from a certain Order which God has established for a wholsome Discipline and to keep us from offending and tells us that Bellarmine concludes from these words of the Council that it is we who properly satisfie for our own sins and that Christs Satisfaction serves only to make ours Valid and cites in the Margin Lib. 1. de Purg. c. 14. whereas there are but eleven Chapters in that Book But that you may see how just he is in his Accusation of the Council of Trent I will give you the words of it The Council having declar'd the necessity of Satisfactions both from various Examples of Scripture Gen. 3. 2 King 12. Numb 12 20. in which it appears manifestly that God sometimes remits the guilt of Sin and yet retains a Punishment as also from the Justice of God which seems to exact a severer punishment for Sins committed against a greater Grace and Knowledge than for Sins committed through Ignorance before Baptism And having also declared the use and benefits of Penitential Works to form in us a true Sense of the Enormity of Sin to be as a Curb to keep us from sinning and as a Medicine to heal the remnants of Sin and conquer evil habits and to render us conformable to our Head CHRIST JESUS with whom if we suffer (a) Rom. 8.17 Conc. Trid. Sess 14. c. 8. we shall raign also adds these words Neque vero ita nostra est satisfactio hoec quam pro peccatis nostris exsolvimus ut non sit per CHRISTUM JESUM nam qui ex nobis tanquam ex nobis nihil possumus eo cooperante qui nos confortat omnia possumus Ita non habet homo unde glorietur sed omnis gloriatio nostra in Christo est in quo vivimus in quo meremur in quo satisfacimus facientes fructus dignos Poenitentioe qui ex illo vim habent ab illo offerunt Patri per illum acceptantur a Patre Debent ergo Sacerdotes Domini quantum Spiritus prudentia suggerit pro qualitate criminum Poenitentium facultate salutares convenientes satisfactiones injungere ne si forte peccatis conniveant indulgentius cum Poenitentibus agant loevissima quoedam opera pro gravissimis delictis injungendo alienorum peccatorum participes efficiantur But this Satisfaction which we make for our Sins is not so ours that it is not JESUS CHRIST 's for we who (b) 2 Cor. 3.5 Phil. 4.13 of our selves as of our selves can do nothing can do all things with him who strengthens us So that Man hath nothing wherein to glory (c) 1 Cor. 1.31 2 Cor. 10.17 Gal. 6.3 But all our glory is in Christ in whom (d) Acts 17.28 we live in whom we merit and in whom we satisfie bringing forth (e) Matth. 3.8.4.17 Luc. 3.8.10 17. Fruits worthy of Repentance which have their Power from him By him are offered to his Father From all which the Council concludes thus Therefore the Priests of our Lord ought as Prudence and the Spirit of God shall dictate to enjoyn salutary and convenient Satisfactions according to the Quality of the Crimes and the Abilities of the Penitents least if they should chance to connive at Sins and be too indulgent to Penitents by enjoyning light Penances for great Offences they should be made partakers of the Sins of others Is not this the very Sense of the Bishop of Meaux And what proof can he bring from hence that we think we can
Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body referred to the Bread that our Saviour held in his Hands the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and CHRIST's Body will necessarily required the Figurative Interpretation But unless he can prove that the Pronoun hoc this must necessarily relate to Panis Bread and not to Corpus Body his Argument will avail him nothing but that all his Logic will never be able to effect Pag. 45. His Argument is this What did he say was his Body but that which he gave to his Discipoles What did he give to his Disciples but that which he broke What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly He took Bread But what follows from all this but that JESVS took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat THIS IS MY BODY But he go's on What JESVS took in his Hands that he blessed What he blessed the same he brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But JESUS says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said THIS IS MY BODY But what do's all this argue against us unless he beg the Question and suppose that no real Change was made by those Words Which to shew how true it is let us propose an Example We will suppose and that not incongruously that our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these either mental or vocal Words This is Wine or let this be Wine Now here it is manifest the Word This was not determined but only signified Substance till the Word Wine was annexed This supposed if any one would see the force of his Argument let him change the Expression and instead of Bread use Water and instead of Body use Wine and then reflect whether he can from thence prove that these Words This is Wine must necessarily mean This Water is Wine or rather whether that would not be a Proposition which implies a Contradiction Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 19. SS prumum as Gratian and Cardinal Bellarmine prove in the foregoing Places cited by him of the like Proposition This is my Body But it will not be amiss to consider Cardinal Bellarmine's Argument to which this Author refers He tell us there how these Words Take and eat for this is my Body must necessarily infer either a real Change of the Bread as Catholics or else a metaphorical Change as the Calvinists hold but that they will by no means admit of the Lutheans sence Which Proposition he endeavours to prove against the Lutherans assirming the Words This is my Body to bear necessarily one of these three sences First This which is contained under the species of Bread is my Body which is the Catholic sence and supposes a Mutation The second is that of the Sacramentaries who admit of no Mutation and their sence is This Bread is the Figure of my Body The third which is that of the Lutherans who admit of no Change but yet allow a Real Presence must bear this Interpretation This truly Wheaten Bread is truly and properly my Body But this says he can by no means be admitted whether we speak of the thing it self or of the Proposition For it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another for it would be that thing and would not be that thing Moreover in an Affirmative Proposition it is necessary the Subjectum or thing of which any thing is affirmed and the Praedicatum or thing affirm'd of it should have a regard to the same thing Then follow the Words which he cites It cannot therefore be that that Proposition should be true in which the Subjectum or former part designs Bread and the Praedicatum or latter part the Body of CHRIST For Bread and the Body of CHRIST are two very different things This indeed may prove that the Words of the Institution may possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation but are far from proving that they oblige us to take them so which was what the Bishop of Condom affirmed and which he if he had used Sincerity should have oppugned and not have spent so much time to prove what was not the Question But as I said it is not my Business here to justifie our Tenets but to see what he has to say against the Exposition as such I do not find he pretends here that the Bishop of Meaux has palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But I observe he uses frequently the Word Corporeally and the Corporeal Presence which the Bishop has avoided keeping himself to the Terms of the Council of Trent which tells us only that JESVS CHRIST is truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament but uses not the Word Corporeally I suppose because it may bear a double sence and signifie either first that the Body is really and substantially present tho' not after a carnal gross manner with all the Qualifications of a Natural Body and this is the sence of those Catholics who make use of it Or secondly it may be taken as signifying the Body to be present after a corporeal carnal manner with all the Conditions and Qualities of a Natural Body which sence our Enemies are apt to impute to us as if it were our Doctrine tho very unjustly But had he been Faithful in giving us the Doctrine of the Church of England I doubt not but the Arguments he brings against the Bishop of Meaux would have proved as much against it as it do's against ours He tells us Pag. â—â— They confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but they deny that therefore it must be his very Body I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing it self but yet is more than a meer Gigure of it If he mean that it is not the Body Corporeally according to the Explication of the word as I have given it in the Second Sence we agree with him But if he mean by this somewhat more than a meer Figure that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful in the Lords Supper as their Church Catechism has it I see not also in what the difference consists betwixt us neither can I see how his Arguments oppugn our Doctrine without confuting theirs 'T is true their Twenty eighth Article tells us that The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and that the means whereby the Body of CHRIST is receiv'd and eaten in the Supper is Faith Yet because I am not willing to think their Canons and Church Catechism contradict one another I am willing to think the meaning of the saying that Faith is the means by which they