difference betwixt the Idea and this Material Image than that the one is in our Mind by something which was formerly in our Senses and the other is in our Mind by something which at that time strikes our Senses but the Adoration which is there performed is neither in the one nor in the other to the Image but to God whom it Represents And this is all that Scholastic Divines and that Cardinal Capisucchi means in that passage which our Defender cites from him which I give you entirely in the Margent * Ex his constat in Concili Niceno secundo in Tridentino alijsque Latriam duntaxat idosala ricam sacris Imaginibus denegari qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seipsis propter ipsas exhibeitur quaque Imagines sen Numina aut Divinitaâ—em continentia more Gen ilium colamur de hujusmodi enim Latriae Controversia crat cum Judaeis Haereticis qui hae ratione nos Imagines colere asserchant Caeterum de Latria illa quae Imaginibus S. Triritatis Christi Domini aut Sâ—â—ratissimae Crucis exhibetur ratione rei per eas repraesentatae quatenus cum re repraesentatú unum sunt in esse repraesentativo nullamque Divinitatem Imaginibus tribuit aut supponit nulla unquam suit aut esse poruit Controversis Nara liâ—jusmodi Latria Imaginibus Exhibetur non propter seipsas nec in iysit sistendo sed propter Exemplar in quod Adoratio illa transit unde sicut Purpura Regis etsi non sit Rex honoratur tamen codem honore quo Rex quatenus est conjuncta Regi cum Rege facit aliquomodo unum humanitas Christi etsi sit Creatura adoratur aderatione Latriae quia est unita personae Verbi unum Christum cum persona Verbiconstituit ita Imago Christiquia in esse representativo est unum idem cum Christe adoratur eadem Adoratione qua adoratur Christus whose Sense is in other more intelligible words what the Bishop of Meaux says that we do not so much honor the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in Presence of the Image If the Bishop of Meaux chose rather to speak in such intelligible terms and according to the Language of the Church in her Councils and Professions of Faith leaving the harder expressions of the Schools it do's not follow that he and Cardinal Capisucchi differ in the true meaning neither is it a mark that Papists as he says think it lawful to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrins they dislike I have shewn him in what Sense that may be true tho' it seems he did not understand it that is when the Principles in those Books touch only probable opinions or Philosophical conclusions they may approve what they dislike But I told him that in matters of Faith they do not think it lawful to set their hands to or approve the Principles they dislike neither can our Desender shew one Instance without wresting it to a Sense not intended by them What I have said of Images may be said of Relics Relics As for Justification §. 14. Justification if persons would but rightly understand things there can be no Controversie betwixt them and us the Council of Trent having declared so plainly Conc. Trid. Sess 6. cap. 8. that we are Justified Gratis and that none of those Acts which precede our Justification whether they be Faith or good Works can Merit this Grace but if after such a Declaration they will not believe us we can only pity them and Pray to God to make them less obstinate Again Merit Sess 6. can 26. for Merit of good works done after this Justification we say with the Council of Trent that the just may expect an Eternal reward from God through his Mercies and the Merits of Jesus Christ The just may expect a reward for their good works done in Grace if they persevere to the end in doing good and keeping the Commandments But the Council tels us nothing at all of the School questions as whether this Merit be of Justice or Fidelity or Condignity or Congruity and therefore they ought to be excluded from our disputes as being no necessary matters of our Faith. As to Satisfactions for Temporal punishments due to sin Satisfaction We satisfie by Christs satisfaction it is not of Faith as appears by the Conncils silence in those Points that our satisfactions are of Condignity or of congruity by justice or by mercy But it is of Faith that through the Merits of Christ we satisfie for such pains Sess 14. can 13.14 and that by Jesus Christ we satisfie for our sins by the help of his satisfactions which Merits of Christ proceed meerly from his mercy towards us Oppose this last then only and our Controversie will be shorter What a deal of stuff have we seen of late concerning Purgatory even by those who acknowledge §. 15. Purgatory that all the Council of Trent determins is that there is a Purgatory or middle state and that the Souls that are detained there are helped the suffrages of the Faithful but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar It is not what Bellarmin looks upon as Truths that we ought to maintain but only what is of necessary Faith and that is defined by the Council It is therefore no Article of necessary Faith without the belief of which we cut our selves off from the Communion of the Faithful that there is a Fire in Purgatory A short summary of the Principal Controversies c. pag. 42. neither has the Council of Florence defined it tho' a late Pamphlet says it did It is not defined what the pains are nor how grievous nor how long they shall last Had those Authors therefore let these Points alone and only Written against such a middle state the Printer would have got less by them but the People more Separate also what is not of Faith from Indulgences and the Controversie will be brought to this whether the Power of Indulgences hath been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ Indulgences and whether the use of them be beneficial to Christian People or no so that we should have nothing to do in our disputes about the Treasure of the Church nor about Indulgences whereby the punishment due in the Court of God sin remitted may be taken away or the pains in Purgatory but only about a Power to remit to Penitents some part of their public Canonical Penances if their life and laudable Conversation seemed to deserve it We affirm only §. 16. Sacraments that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments in the New Law Instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind tho' not all to every one And our Advesaries say there are two only generally
they now adventure to say that were things clearly stated and distinguished one from another the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very grew a and that they can safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be will and rightly explained And he has advanced nothing but what is the Doctrin of the Council of Tront The Expositor and I were agreed in most things §. 30 Sanctification and Justification only I told him I thought he would be hard put to it to prove the Distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification to be the Doctrin of the Church of England and that he imposed upon us when he affirmed us so to make our Inward Righteousness a part of Justification that by Consequence we said our Justification it self is wrought by out good Works To the first It appears indeed he is hard put to it when he is forced to a Deduction how clear let others judge from their 11th and 12th Articles and from the Homily of Salvation which as he cites it calls the forgiveness of sins Justification but does not say that Justification is only the Remission of our sins which was his undertaking But had I told him of the little less than contradictions he fell under in that place he would have seen the difficulty of getting clear For having told us before that they confess with M. de Meaux Expos pag. 19. that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed but actually Communicated to the Faithful He here tels us Pag. 20. They believe their sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us Nay tho' he tell us their Church by Justification understands only the Remission of sins Contradictions and by Sanctification the Production of the habit of Righteousness in us yet within two lines he tells us that this Remission of sin is only given to those that Repent and that they who Repent are those in whom the Hoty Ghost produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and holiness of Life which is just as much as to say we distinguish Justification and Sanctification But no man can be Justifiel unless he be also Sanctified That our sins are Pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us but that his Merits are not only imputed but actudlly Communieated to us He will oblige us if he please to tell us how these agree as also how the Doctrin of their 11th Article We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour J. Christ by Faith and not for our own works and deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a wholesomt Doctâ—in and very full of comfost Art. 11. Sparrows Canons pag. 95. that we are Justified by Faith only is consistent with what he tells us pag. 19 of his Exposition that none of those things which precede our Justification whether our Faith or our Good works could Merit this Grace And what he summs up pag. 21. That Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commandments from time to time and if we persevere in this Cavenant Crowns us finally with Eternal Life Thus far he But Is awaking and answering to his Call is persevering in his Covenant no good works And if these be necessary to have God freely Justifie us and Grown us with Eternal Life how are we I pray Justified by Faith only As for the other part in which I told him §. 31. he imposed upon â—s as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of our Justification and so by consequence said that our Justification it self is wrought also by our Good works A false Imposition Doth he think that I told him he imposed upon us when he affirmed that we comprehend under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the Production of that inherent Righteousness which they call Sanctification No the Imposition did notilie in that part of the Proposition Our justification is gratis Gratis autem justificari ideo dicamur Quia nihileorum quae justificationem praeccdunt sive fides sive opera ipsam Justi ficationis gratiam promeretur Si enim Graâ—ia est jam non ex operibus Alioquin ut idem Apostolus inqun Gratia jam non est Gratia. Conc. Trid. Sess 6. de Justif cap. 8. but in the consequence which he drew viz. That we say our Justification is wrought also by our Good works This was the Imposition and if he had remembred what he had Copied out of the Bishops Exposition and the Bishop from the Council he would not have gone about to justifie his Accusation For the words are these We believe with him the Bishop of Meaux That our Sins are â—eely for given by Gods Mercy through Christ and that none of those things which precede Iustification whether our Faith or our good works could merit this Grace to which very words the Council of Trent adds this reason for if it Justification be a Grace it prâ—ceeds not from Good Works for other wise as the same Apostle says Grace would be nom no more Grace Well how do's he justifie his Imposition By a Canon of the Council forsooth which has not one word in it to his purpose but it seems he either did not understand it or else had a mind so to blunder it in his Translation that they who understood not the Latin might take it for granted to speak his Sense And by I know not what negligence of the Corrector fuerit was Printed instead of fiunt so that even those who did understand the Language could not find out the Error without consulting the Council it self The Council speaks of persons already Justified Si quiâ— dixerit konsinis justificati boma opers ita esse dexa Dei ut non sint etiam bona ipsim Justisicati merita aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei Gratiam Jesu Christi meritum cujus vivum membrum est fiunt non verè mereri augmentum Gratiae vitam aeternam iâ—siut vitae aeternae si tamen in gratia decesserit consecutioâ—em atque etiam Glorie augmentum Anathema sis and tells you that their good works performed through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Members they are do truly Merit Increase of Grace and Eternal Life and that they are not so the gifts of God but that they are also the
good Merits of the same Justified person But how do's all this prove that the good works of a person who is not Justified Merit his first Justification There 's the Point We say indeed that it is necessary the free Will should co-operate with the Grace of God and that a person should be disposed by convenient preparations to receive that Grace but still we say it is a Grace which is given us Gratis and as I said before from the Council which neither Faith nor good works which precede Justification could Merit for us His Translation is amiss in this A false Translation that he renders these words Aut ipsum Justificatum bonis operibus c. Thus Or that he being Justified by good works do's not truly Merit increase of Grace c. As if he were Justified by his good Works Whereas the Sense is manifestly this Or whoever shall say that he who is Justified do's not by his good works which are performed by him through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ whose living Member he is truly Merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life let him be Anathema That this was the Sense of that Canon he seems to have understood when in the next Page he expresses it thus that our Doctrin of Merits in that Canon is That Man being Justified by the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ do's then truly Meru both encrease of Grace and Eternal Life So that it appears manifestly tho' he would disguise it that we do not say our Works done out of the state of Grace are meritorious of Grace or Salvation But we say that those good works which are done in the state of Grace do Merit an increase of Grace and if they be persever'd in to the last the reward of Glory If he deny this let him speak plain but let him take care how he thwarts the many express Texts of Scripture which prove our Doctrin ART VI. Of Merits I Told him upon this Article that the Niceties of the Schools §. 32. Vindic. pag. 48. Scholastic Niceties to be avoided as they make no Division in the Church so ought they not to make any amongst Christians But yet for all this our Defender must have recourse to them for want of better hold The Opinions of Bellarmin Vasquez Scotus c. must be brought again and their words quoted in the Margent as if the whole stress of the cause lay there But would he have considered what he was forced to acknowledge that Bellarmin is against Scotus Vasquez against Bellarmin c. and have reflected that all of them were Catholics united in the Principles of one Faith tho' dissenting in these School Questions I say would he but have considered these things he would have saved himself a great deal of pains and his Readers much trouble But he says he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our Greatest Men whose names were neither less nor less deservedly celebrated in their Generations than M. de Meaux 's or the Vindicators forsooth can be now No doubt those persons Names were and are deservedly Celebrated in Generationibus suis and whatever proportion the Bishop of Meaux may Challenge in the esteem of the World amongst these Celebrated Writers the Vindicator defires only to rest in his obscurity But to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools but to the Expositions of our greatest Men is what may pass in Discourse or from the Pulpit where no body contradicts him but should not have been exposed to view in Print because it will not abide the Tryal I never heard that these persons writ direct Expositions upon the Council it self tho' they make use of it for the establishment of their private opinions And to say he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools when he had recourse to Merit de Condigno and the various opinions of Catholic Divines upon that Question is such a piece of Boldness Bellarmin having summed up the three opinions the Defender mentioned and rejected the first and third tho' he affirmed them to be far from Heresie says he looks upon the middle Sentence to be the more probable Nobis media sententia probabiltor esse videtur de Justif lib v. c. 17. A. pa. 1122. The very Titles also of the Chapters cited by the Desender shew that what Vasquez there disputes of is only a Scholastic Question In operibus justerum non esse meritum simpliciter aut condignum vitae aeternae nonnulli Scholastici docuerunt Vasquez Quaest 114. disp 213. cap. 3. Tit. See also the Titles of the 1 2 3 and 4. Chapters of his next Disputation that cannot pass the honest Readers censure What I have already observed of the various opinions of Catholic Divines summed up by those Authors he mentions in the respective Chapters is a sufficient proof of what I say and I shall not trouble my Readers with any other But the Council of Trent has he says spoken so uncertainly in this point § 33. as plainly shews either they did not know themselves what they would establish or were unwilling that others should How great pity it is so learned and sincere a Censor as this Defender is lived not in that Age or assisted not at that very Council What is it they did not know Was it the Doctrin of the Church concerning Merits Or was it the Doctrin of the Schools Neither the one nor the other But this he may say and that truly that they were not willing to enter into the particular disputes of the Schools nor to mix uncertainties tho' of the highest probability with what they had been always taught to be of Faith No wonder therefore if they speak not so positively in those differences he proposes seeing they are not Doctrins of the Church but the opinions of our Schools I say therefore to him that if he like not Vasquez nor the Cardinals opinion pray let him follow that of Scotus and he will be still a Catholic as to that point But Maldonate comes in The Defender says my Exception against his false Quotation is Impertinent Why so good Sir To tell you A mutilation that you mutilate Sentences at pleasure and give us what you please for the Sense of our Authors His words were We do as properly and truly when we do well together with the Grace of God Merit areward as we do Merit punishment when we do ill without it And is it Impertinent to tell you you read the Author in hast or copied the words from some other which made you leave out those words together with the Grace of God Yes says he It is impertinent as to them who dispute not the Principle but the Merit of Good Works Pray who ever maintained that Good Works had any Merit or were acceptable unless joyned with the Principle the Grace of God And if you will not take the Principle
the Fathers of the first 400 years some of which I have before shewn had as affective expressions to the Saints even in their Sermons and Catechistical Discourses as any now used by the Church even in her Hymns and if he can Interpret them to be in the Antient Fathers only Innocent wishes and Rhetorical flights why can he not Interpret the Hymns after the same manner where there has been always more Poetical License taken Neither are these expressions so contrary to the Scripture phraise §. 17. The Church imitates the Scripture phrase in her Prayers to Saints For tho' our Blessed Jesus be our only Savior and Redeemer the only Rock and Foundation of his Church the sole and only Judge of the Quick and the Dead our Hope our Joy our Crown of Glory c. Yet we find a Judg 3.9 Othoniel graced in Holy Writ with the Title of Savior b Act 7.35 Moyses called a Redeemer and a c Gal 3.19 Mediator St. Paul tells St. d 1 Tim 4.16 Timothy that by doing those things which he prescribes he shall save himself and those that hear him e Math 16 28 St. Peter is Termed the Rock and Foundation upon which God would Build his Church The f Marth 19.28 Apostles and others shall sit as Judges with Christ Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel And St. Paul calls the g 1 Thes 2.19 Thessalonians his Hope his Joy his Crown of Glory Grace and Peace are the Proper Gifts of God and yet St. John says h Age 1.4 This equals a Nos cum prcle pia ben dicat Virgo Maria. to the Seven Churches in Asia Grace be unto you and Peace from him which is and which was and which is to come and from the SEVEN SPIRITS which are before the Throne Nay the very Name of God which is peculiar to the Almighty is in Holy Writ given to the Priests and Rulers of his People Ego dixi Dii estis Those then who Reading these expressions in Scripture can by a moderate Interpretation reconcile them with that Duty which we owe to God alone would do well also if in a Spirit of Charity they would not put all our expressions upon the Rack to force them to a Sense which neither the Church nor her faithful have intended As for those extravagant kind of Expressions which he confesses Bellarmin and some others are ashamed of It may suffice to tell him that if they crept into some corner of the Church they are now expunged and therefore I hope he will not have the whole to be answerable for them at this day His next Cavil is at the word Merit §. 18. Merit which we use in our public Prayers desiring God by the Merits of his Saints to grant us our Requests or accept our Sacrifices and this he thinks to be of such a nature that it makes the Merits of our Saints run parallel with the Merits of Christ Defence pag. 10. Is the word Merit never to be used but it must signify that we do by our own natural force alone deserve the reward of Grace and Glory The word Merit equivocal and often misapplied by the Defender or must Catholics be always represented as taking it in that strict sense If indeed the Word cannot be taken in any other sense he has reason to accuse us But if the Word may be taken otherwise so that we intend no more than that the Works of Christians may be said to Merit because they apply the Merits of Jesus Christ to us and are the means by which we attain eternal life in vertue of the promises of God and Merits of our Blessed Redeemer which even Mr. Thern like Epilogue lib. 2. of the Covenant of Grace cap. ult pag. 307. Thorndike acknowledges to be the sense of the Latin Fathers what Injustice is it to impose another sense upon us whereby to render us odious to the undistinguishing Multitude The moderation of the aforesaid Writer would me thinks have suited him much better who tels us That as concerning the term of Merit perpetually frequented in these Prayers Idem lib. 3. of the Laws of the Church cap. 30. pag. 357. The Mass more antient than the greatest part of the Latin Fathers An unjust cavil it has been always maintained by those of the Reformation that it is not used by the Latin Fathers in any other sense than that which they allow Therefore the Canon of the Mass saith he truly and judiciously and probably other Prayers which are still in use being more antient than the greatest part of the Latin Fathers there is no reason to make any difficulty of admitting it in that Sense But that we may further see the Injustice of this Cavil let us consider those Prayers which are all of them reduced to this Form that God would be pleased not to regard our unworthiness but the Merits of our Redeemer presupposed respect the Merits of his Saints also and for their sakes hear our Prayers or accept our Sacrifices solemnly concluding with what I told you was presupposed PER DOMINVM NOSTRVM JESVMCHRISTVM FILIVM TVVM QVI c. in which style they always end So that this is no more than to beg of God Almighty that he would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious actions and sufferings of his Saints performed in and by his Grace and upon those accounts accept our Sacrifices The word Merit in our Prayers conformable to the language of Holy Writ consonant to his regvealed Will in that matter or hear our Prayers For that this kind of Prayer is conformable to Holy Writ is manisest to any that is pleased to observe how God tels Isaac * Gen. 16.4 5. that he will bless him that he will give all those Countries to his Seed nay that all Nations of the Earth shall be blessed in it and what is the reason but Because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge my Commandments my Statutes and my Laws He again tells him Pers 24. that he will multiply his Seed for his Servant Abrahams sake Then did not (a) Exod. 32.23 Deut. 9.17 Moyses pray to God for the People desiring him to remember Abraham Isaac and Israel and not to look upon the stubborness of the People nor to their wickedness nor to their Sin Did not God shew mercy to (b) 3 Reg. 11.12 32 33 34. Salomon for his Father Davids sake and because again he kept his Commandments and his Statutes So also to the City of Juda * 4 Reg. 8 19-19.34-20.6 Isa 37 35. In another place Were not the same Abraham Isaac and Jacob mentioned by (c) 3 Reg. 18.36 Tornudike lib. 3. of the Laws of the Church cap. 30. pag. 383. Elijah in his Prayer at the Evening Sacrisice Certainly fromt these Passages the same Thorndike concludes thus As our Saviour argueth well that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are alive and shall rise
A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRIN OF THE Church of England Being a Further VINDICATION OF THE Bishop of CONDOM'S Exposition of the Doctrin of the CATHOLIC CHURCH With a second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1687. THE PREFACE THEY who consider seriously the mischief which Heresie and Schism bring along with them §. 1. The mischief of Heresie and Schism not only to the individual persons that are guilty of them but also to the Nations in which they are propagated will certainly commend the endeavors of those Sons of Peace who labor to Establish Truth and Unity and condemn theirs who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other They also who cast an Eye upon the Controversies about Religion which have been agitated in this and the last Age and the miserable Broyls and other worse consequences that have attended them cannot but deplore the unhappy fate of Europe which has for so long time been the Seat of this Religious War. And they who will but impartially consider matters will find Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace that Catholics have upon all occasions sought the most advantagious means to procure this Christian Peace tho' to their grief they have still been hindred from effecting this good work by the ignorance of some and the malice or self-interest of others The Defender tells us in the beginning of his Preface that several Methods have been made use of in our Neighboring Nation to reduce the pretended Reformed to the Catholic Communion but that this of the Bishop of Meaux was looked upon as exceeding all others in order to that end This shews indeed the great Zeal those persons bad for the Salvation of their Brethren And tho' the Defender is pleased to call those excellent Discourses of the Perpetuity of the Faith and the Just Prejudices against Calvinists and M. Maimbourg's peaceable Method c. Sophistical and to represent M. de Meaux's Exposition as either palliating or perverting the Doctrin of his Church Yet seeing he only asserts the former without going about to prove it and has been so unsuccesful in the later charge as I shall fully shew in the following Treatise I hope the judicious Reader will suspend his Judgment till he has examined things himself and not take all for Gospel that is said with confidence He tells us also that the Great design of these several Methods Pag 4. has been to prevent the Entring upon particular Disputes And pretends it was because Experience had taught us that such particular Disputes had been the least favorable to us of any of them But the Truth is §. 2. We neither decline particulars nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons We Appeal to Scripture we have never declined fighting with them at any Weapon nor refused upon occasion to enter upon each particular neither need we go to France for Instances we have enough at home Some even amongst the first pretended Reformers appealed to Scripture only neither would they admit of Primitive Fathers nor Councils and tho' these very persons who were for nothing but what was found in Scripture were convinced by the following Sects that their Reformation was defective if Scripture alone was to be the Rule of Reformation every Year almost since the first Revolt producing some new Reform of all those that had gone before And tho' Catholics might justly decline to argue from Scripture only till Protestants had proved it to be the Word of God by some of their own Principles yet were they not afraid to joyn Issue with them all even in the Point of Scriptures clearness for our Doctrins abstracting from the Primitive Fathers and Councils And thereupon besides several Catechisms the Catholic Scripturist and other excellent Books two Treatises were published here in England and never that I heard of Answered The first An Anchor of Christian Doctrin wherein the principal Points of Catholic Religion are proved by the only Written Word of God. in 4 Volums in 4o. Anno 1622. The other A Conference of the Catholic and Protestant Doctrin with the express words of Scripture being a second part of the Catholic Ballance Anno 1631. 4o. in which was shewn that in more than 260 Points of Controversie Catholics agree with the Holy Scripture both in words and Sense and Protestants disagree in both Other Protestants perceiving they could not maintain several Tenets and Practices of their own by the bare words of Scripture § 3. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages and despairing of Fathers and Councils of later Ages pretended at least to admit the first four General Councils and the Fathers of the first three or four hundred Years But how meer a pretence this was appeared by the many Books Written abroad upon that Subject as Coccius his Thesaurus Gualterus his Chronology and others and at home Dr. Pierce found it too hard a task to make a reply to Dean Crecy 's Answer to his Court Sermon and the present nibling at the Nubes Testium shew how hard a task they find it to elude their plain expressions A third sort of Protestants ventured to name Tradition as an useful means to arrive at the True Faith §. 4. To an uninterrupted Tradition but many excellent Treatises have shewn that no other Doctrins will bide that Test but such as are taught by the Catholic Church For Novelty which is a distinctive mark of Error appearing in the very Name of Reformation an uninterrupted Tradition can never be laid claim to by them who pretend to be Reformers And indeed the exceptions which they usually make and the General Cry against Fathers Councils and Tradition shew how little they dare rely upon them Nay there has not been any thing like an Argument produced against our Faith or to justifie their Schism but what has been abundantly Answered and refuted and yet the same Sophisms are returned upon us as Current Coyn notwithstanding they have been often brought to the Test and could not stand it Moreover Catholics have so far complyed with the infirmities of their Adversaries that they have left no Stone unturned to reduce them to Unity of Faith and that by meekness as well as powerful reasonings They have not only condescended to satisfie the curiosity of them who have most leisure by Writing large Volums upon every particular Controversie proving what they hold by Scripture Councils Fathers Reason and all other pressing Arguments but because most persons cannot get time to peruse such vast Treatises they have gon a shorter way to work and some have manifested the Truth of our Doctrin from the unerrable Authority of the Church of Christ against which he had promised that the Gates of
Mode he tells us the KING and his IMAGE are not TWO but ONE KING one would think it should not be so difficult a thing for him to understand also how Jesus Christ and his Image are but one Christ and how the Adoration that is Paid to them is but one Adoration to one Christ Hear his own words In a word in the Hypostatical Vnion tho' 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 tho' there be Two different things united the Bread and Christs 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 c. Which expression is the very ground why St. Thomas Cardinal Capisucchi c. maintain that Doctrin as appears by the words of the Cardinal cited by the Defender with the reason annexed to it which he thought not fit to transcribe but which I have mentioned in the Preface This Doctrin taken in this sense as paying nothing to the Image it self See before in the Margent at * but only as it is one in respect of it's representation with the person whose Image it is or if we speak properly with St. Thomas taken not as if we adored the Cross but only Christ Crucified upon it and making use of the Cross only to help us to call him to mind and form in our Imaginations the Image of him whom we ought to adore this Doctrin I say thus taken is innocent and they who hold it are no more guilty of Idolatry for making use of that material Image than they who form one in their Imagination either according to the Picture they saw last or the Discourse they heard or read before which Idea they adore Christ represented by it not distinguishing him from that Idea it self which is in some sense one in it's representative nature with him whom it represents What necessity then is there that St. Thomas who as it is manifest intended that sense or the Pontifical which speaks in the same manner should be accused of Idolatry But this Scholastic nicety is not easily understood by every Doctor of the Populace and therefore they must be made to believe That Catholics hold the Cross it self absolutely and in the grossest manner is to be adored as Jesus Christ otherwise they could not so easily make them pass for Idolaters This then may suffice concerning the Doctrin of St. Thomas §. 24. The Pontifical as also in Answer to that Expression taken out of the Rubric of the Pontifical where it is mentioned that the Legats Cross must take place of the Emperors Sword because Relativè Latria is due thereto yea also to that of the Messieurs du Port Royal Def. pa. 24. who speak of adoring the Holy Thorn In all which we may say with St. Thomas as above that there is some kind of Impropriety in the Speech but such as clears it self by the application of the premises His next Argument is taken from the Pontifical in the Ceremony of the Benediction of a new Cross I told him he had mutilated a Sentence and left out two little words Propter Deum for Gods sake which would have sufficiently answered his Objection A Falsification He cannot deny the Fact but says he left out others also as much to the purpose as these I am sorry that he did What amends does he make in this Defence He troubles himself to give us an Abridgment of the Ceremony and here and there picks up expressions which may seem scandalous to those who like mortal Enemies are resolved to wrest every word and action of their Adversaries to an odious sense and at last magisterially pronounces those pious Ejaculations to be rather magical Incantations than Prayers and the Ceremony of this Dedication he should have said Benediction to be Superstition not to say worse But pray Pag. 13.19 Good Sir call to mind the two words you made a shift to leave out Propter Deum Is not all that is here done done for Gods sake Are not the Prayers addressed to him Are not the Ceremoneis as well as the Cross it self which is blessed ordained to put us in mind of the Benefits of our Redemption of the price was payd for our sins of the Obligations we have received upon that account and to excite us to perform them What is it then you find in these Prayers An Unchristian and Unscholar-like Calumny or in this Ceremony designed for the Honor and Glory of God deserving that Vnchristian and Vnscholar-like expression of Superstition or magical Incantations The words you câ—e are that God would bloss this Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind a means for the establishing our Faith for the encrease of good Works for the Redemption of Souls and a comfort and Protection against the crueâ— darts of our Enemies What is there I pray amiss in these words unless you wrest them to a Sense the Church never intended Does not every pious Preacher beg the same for the Discourse he is about to make to the People May not every Author of a devout Book beg of God that he would give a Blessing to his Labors that what he writes may be a saving Remedy to Mankind that it may establish the Faith of his Readers excite them to the performance of Good works aid them to work out their Redemption be their Comfort and Consolation and arm them with Arguments of defence against the Suggestions of their Enemies What Magic is there in all this And why I pray may not we then beg the same for these Books of the unlearned these Emblems or if I may so call them Dumb Sermons which as they are naturally apt to put us in mind of the price of our Redemption will no doubt of it by the assistance of Gods Grace which we implore animate us to perform those Duties which are required of us in order to the application of our Ransom But the Bishop blesses the Incense sprinkles the Cross with Holy Water incenses it and then Consecrates it in these words Let this Wood be sanctified c. And after a long Preamble if the Cross be not of Wood beseeches God that he would SANC ✚ TIFY to himself this CROSS c. What is it he here again quarrels at Where is the foul the notorious Idolatry Pag. 18. The use of Incense and Holy-water very antitient Is it the Incense or the sprinkling with Holy Water Certainly he will not condemn the use of those Creatures sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer a Practice so ancient and universal in the Church that according to (a) Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institurum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime
together with the Action which is therefore Meritorious because joyned with that Principle you dispute not against us no more than they would do who to deny the power of Water in Baptism to wash away Original Sin should speak nothing of the Power of God annexed to the Sacrament or tell us it is impertinent to mention it c. St. Paul said Omnia possum in co qui me confortat that he could do all in him that strengthened him he tells us that he labored more than all the rest but yet not he but the Grace of God with him Jam non ego sed Gratia Dei mecum Nay The Churches Doctrin our Blessed Saviour tells us that we can do nothing without him sine me nihil potestis facere Will any one say Cum enim ille ipse Christus Jesus tanquam caput in membra tanquam vitis in palmites in ipsos Justificatos jugiter virtutem influat quae virtus bona corum opera somper antecedit comitatur subsequitur sine qua nuto paâ—â—o grata meriteria esse possent Nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est quo minus plene illis quidem operibus quae in Deo sunt facta Divinae legi pro hujus vitae statu satisfecisse vitam aeternam suo etiam tempora si lamen in gratia decesserint consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur Cum Christus Salvator noster aicat si 〈◊〉 biberit ex aqua quam ego dabo ti non sities in aternum sed fiet in eâ— sons aquae salientis invitem 〈◊〉 Conâ— Trid. sess 6. de Justif cap. 16. that St. Paul did nothing all this time because if he had not had that Divine Assistance he could not have done it Or would it have been impertinent to keep such Disputants to the words of the Text They who would see our Doctrin upon this Point need but look into the Council of Trent where notwithstanding all the Obscurity he pretends they will find it clearly expressed that we only therefore think the Good Works of Justified persons to be Meritorious and Acceptable to God because being performed in the Grace of Jesus Christ who at all times showers down a Powerful Influence upon Justified persons as the Head upon the Members and as the Vine into it's Branches which Powerful Influence preceeds accompanies and follows all their actions they want nothing to make them truly Meritorious seeing our Lord himself has told us that if any one drink of the Water that he will give him he shall not thirst for ever but it shall be in him a Fountain of Water springing into Eternal Life ART VII SECT 1. Of Satisfactions AFter having given so full an Account of the Doctrin of the Council of Trent §. 34. Defence p. 32. from the Council it self in my Vindication I little thought any one would have charged me and Monsieur de Meaux with going contrary to the Council without any further proof of the Accusation but a bare citation in the Margent of the very Chapter I had almost entirely rendred into English and the Canon expressing that same Doctrin He would have done well to have shewn in what place the Council ascribes to our Endeavors quatenus ours atrue and proper Satisfaction This would have been indeed proper to his Business But to fly again to Bellarmin and Vasquez and bring them in as affirming us to make a proper Satisfaction for our sins and that in such Disputes as they themselves only call probable avails little Had he shewn us that any Council of the Church nay I may boldly say any approved Divine had said No Satisfaction without the Grace of God and Merits of Christ That Man of his own self without the Grace of God accompanying his actions and without being justified first by Gods free Mercy and Goodness can properly satisfie for his Sins he would have had reason to condemn such Doctrin But when I have shewn him how the Council says expresly Thu Satisfaction which we make for our Sins is not so ours that it is not Jesus Christs for we who of our selves can do nothing can do all things with him who serengthens us c. And he himself having taken notice in the Margent how those Authors whom he cites mention those Works only to be Satisfactory which are done after the guilt of sin is remitted and the Sinner justified and received into Favor and that the Works which are Satisfactory must be done also together with the Grace of God methinks hè might have spared his pains in this point But perhaps he will tell me he disputes not the Principle but the Value c. as he told me in his last Article If so I must again tell him if he separate the Principle from the Action he Disputes not against us but his own Chimera's As for his first Quotation from Bellarmin I wonder how he would have had me to seek for it He cites Bellarmin as affirming That it is we who properly satisfy for our sins and that Christ's Satisfaâ—tioâ— serves only to make ours Valid Whereas the words he cites from Bellarmin are very different for answening an Objection that if Christs Satis faction be applyed to us by our Works either there are two Satisfactions joyned or but one c. He says first with some Divines there is but one Sitisfaction and that Christs and that we do not properly satisfy 2. With others that there are two Satisfactions but one depending on the other But the third says he videtur PKOB ASILIOR seems more PROBABLE that there is only one actual Satisfactian and that ours neither is Christ or his Satasfaction excluded by this for by his Saisfactian we have the Grace by which we sathfy And after this manner it is that Christs satisfaction is said to be applied to us not that his Sactification does immediately take away the temporal pain which is due to us but mediately that is in as much as from is we receive Grace without which our Satisfaction would have no value How does this third Answer agree with our Defenders Proposition when he grants there was an Error in the Press And I doubt not but all those who read his English and compare it with the Latin he now cites in the Margent will excuse me that I did not find it for really he must be a more skilful Man in Languages than I that can find that Position as he words it in the place he cites It would have been more ingenuous to have given us the words of the Author at length than by such a turn as he has done to make the Proposition as it lies neither Bellarmin's Sense nor tenable I know the Doctrin of Satisfactions §. 35. was not the sole pretence of their Separation tho' it was represented as one of the most necessary But if it be proved that this alone was so far from being a sufficient
agreeing word for word with the True one but a little Justice must needs make them acknowledge the difference there to regard only the Beauty or Conciseness of the Style and not at all the Substance of the Faith. This is visible even in the instances which you say they produce from that pretended first Edition Had I said for Example that the honor which is given to the Blessed Virgin ought to be blamed if it were not Religious that is to say if it did not refer to God who is the Object of Religion there is nothing but truth in that expression if we examin it to the bottom And if afterwards I have given it another Turn it is only that I might speak with more Brevity and avoid the Pitiful Equivocations which are every day made upon the Word Religious I would fain ask the Protestants of England if the Feasts they there Celebrate in honor of the Saints do not make a part of the Religious Worship they pay to God in Testimony of their thanks for his having Sanctified them and Crown'd them with Glory In a word that I may not lose time in discussing such trivial things and slight changes that I can scarce remember 'em my self let such as are minded to maintain them to be more considerable than I say they are only put their pretended Edition into the hands of some person of Credit where I may have it seen by some of my Friends and I do then engage my self either to shew the manifest Falsity of it or if it has been truly Printed after my Manuscript to make appear as clear as the day that the differences they so much magnifie deserve not even to be thought upon You see Reverend Father that I persue as far as I can the design of your Charity towards the weak for as to my self once more what have I to do to defend such slight corrections seeing I should be very ready to acknowledge great faults had I been so meanly instructed to commit them with much hearty Thankfullness towards God who had open'd my Eyes to see them There is nothing in the Third Objection that particularly concerns me and I must tell you freely I am so far from being moved by the Epistle of St. Chrysostom which your Ministers tax the Sorbon to have supprest that on the contrary I am perswaded it is very advantagious to the Church Insomuch that I am so far from suppressing of it That I shall always advise it should be Published as all the other works of the Fathers in which there is only some difficulties in appearance but never any solid Objections against the Doctrin of the Church But this is the Subject of another entertainment and I must speak at present of the Objections they bring you against my Exposition In the Fourth Objection they will have it that a Catholic has Writ against my Book because they have as they say heard M. Conrart say that he had seen the Writings With their Permission who make such vain Objections what do they pretend to conclude from thence And suppose upon the Credit of Monsieur Conrart a Huguenot hot headed if any one ever was with his Religion they should suffer themselves to be persuaded that a Catholic did Write against me Are there not Good and had Catholics Jealous Indiscreet and Ignorant ones And what can any one think of such a Catholic who has none but Huguenots for his Confidents in a work he undertakes against a Bishop of his own Communion Certainly it shews a great weakness to magnifie such poor Objections And they who suffer themselves to be imposed on by them must needs have a mighty inclination to be deceived Fifth Objection I still continue to say that I have never Read Father Cressets Book which they bring against me I know well indeed that Monsieur Jurieux Objected it to me but seeing Protestants themselves acknowledge this Author to mingle True False and doubtful things together I do not think I am at all obliged to inform my self of the greatest part of the Objections that he brings against me any more than I do to answer him I will only add here that Father Cresset himself troubled and offended that any one should report his Doctrin to be different from mine has made his complaints to me and in a Preface to the Second Edition of his Book has declared that he varied in nothing from me unless perhaps in the manner of expression which whether it be so or no I leave to them to Examin who will please to give themselves the trouble Moreover every body knows that when we would understand what is Doctrinal we must consider what is Written Theologically and precisely in a Dogmatical work and not some exaggerations which may have escaped in some Books of Devotion In this Fifth Objection they also take notice of what I said in my Pastoral Letter touching that which passed in the Diocess of Meaux and several others as I was informed by the Bishops my Brethren and other my Friends And I do again assert in the Presence of God who is to Judge the Living and the Dead that I spoke nothing but the Truth and that the Author de la Republique des Lettres received very bad intelligence when he said that I intended to strike that Clause out of the following Editions whereas for my part I never so much as Dreamt of doing it As for what they Object in the Sixth place about Cardinal Capisucchi you see as well as I Reverend Father that it is a weak Objection which runs upon the Equivocation of the word Latria you understand the School Distinctions between Absolute and Relative Worship And in short all this falls so visibly into a Dispute about words that I cannot imagin how Men of Sense can amuse themselves about it As for me who never engaged my self to defend the expressions of the School tho' never so easie to be explicated but only the Language of the Church in her decisions of Faith I was not obliged to enter into those subtilties And Cardinal Capisucchi who has Writ an express Treatise of them has said nothing in the whole that contradicts me The Seventh Objection is a Letter Written to me some Years since by one Imbert who hoped he should obtain some Protection from me by telling me he suffered Persecution upon account of the same Doctrin taught by me in the Book of my Exposition I did not believe him because I was too well acquainted with my Lord the Arch-bishop of Bourdeaux his Diocesan of whom he made his complaint But as I had always lived in a strict correspondence and Friendship with that Archbishop I wrote to him upon this Subject and understood that this Mr. Imbert was a hot-headed Man who had done even in the Church very remarkable extravagancies which he was more cautious than to boast of to me His conduct had been tainted with many other irregularities which indeed hindered me from