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 [Page 2] 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 Ʋnsincerity 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 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 [Page 3] 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 [Page 4]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 [Page 5]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 'tis 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 [Page 7]from the Practice and Tradition of those before them, I am content to give him that satisfaction.’
For the First then: That Monsieur Daillé himself look'd upon them as no other than such Addresses as I have characterized, because Expos. Monsieur de Meaux, pag. 4. §. 3. It will not be unuseful to take notice how those of the P. Reformation begin to acknowledge, that the custom of Praying to Saints was established even in the fourth Age of the Church. Monsieur Daillé grants thus much in that Book he publish'd against the Tradition of the Latin Church, about the Object of Religious Worship. Monsieur de Meaux has represented him as if he allow'd that the custom of praying to Saints was establish'd in the Church in the fourth Century; I then cited his Opinion to the contrary, and have now subjoyn'd it in his own words Monsieur Daille's words are these: Neque eum à vero longè aberraturum pato, qui dixerit hunc fuisse apud Christianos primum ad Sanctos invocandos gradum, cum calefacti at (que) inardescentes rerum praeclarè ab iis gestarum meditatione, praedicatione, atque exaggeratione animi, ad eos denique Invocandos prorumperent. Certè quae de 4o Seculo prima hujus Invocationis afferuntur Exempla, ea ferè sunt hujus generis. Ex Encomiasticis quorundam disertissimorum & Eruditione Seculari florentissimorum hominum in Sanctos Orationibus desumpta, Gregorii Nazianzeni in Cyprianum; in Athanasium, in Basilium; Gregorii Nysseni in Theodorum, qui ambo 4o sed jam praecipiti seculo celebres habebantur, &c. Adv. Lat. Tradit. de cultas relig. Objecto, l. 3. c. 18. pag. 454..
Secondly: That these Addresses were really of this kind, the several passages that are usually brought from these Fathers, plainly shew: And both the The Examples I gave were from Greg. Naz. and they are these: 1. Invectiv. in Julian. pag. 2. He thus bespeaks Constantius. [...], ( [...]) [...]. Upon which the Greek Scholiast observes [...]. 2dly. Orat. 11. in Gorgon. p. 189. l D. He thus addresses to his Sister. [...]. Examples I gave, and the differences I assigned, do abundantly prove it.
That they could not have allow'd of such an Invocation as is now practised in the Church of Rome, I proved from this plain Argument, ‘The opinion that the souls of just men do not go staright to Heaven, seems to owe its rise to the Verses of the Sibylls; which being very ancient (within 140 years after Christ) and by the most primitive Fathers taken for A thentick, drew the whole stream of the Writers of those times into the same mistake. Blondel in his Book of the Sibylline Oracles affirms l. 2. c. 9. p. 103. That all the Authors we have left us of the Second, and as far as the middle of the Third Age, were of that Opinion: And adds that even in the following Ages many of those very men Monsieur de Meaux has alledged for the Invocation of Saints, were involved very far in the same Error; viz. S. Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom and S. Augustine. This is yet more fully shewn by Monsieur Daillè in his Book de Cult. rel. Obj. l. 3. c. 22. p. 474. & seq. and in another of his Rooks de Poenis & Satisfact. where to the Fathers last mentioned He adds S. Jerom l. 5 cap. 4, 5, 6. All which Sixtus Senensis himself confirms, Bib. l. 6. annot. 345. p. 569. and particularly as to the Fathers in question, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine. p. 571, 572. That they believed that the Saints departed, were not admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their decease; [Page 8]and therefore, by the Papists own Bellarm de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19. p. 2044. l. D. Not. est; quia ante Christi adventum Sancti qui moricbantur non intrabant in Coelum, nec Deum videbant, vec cognoscere poterant ordinarie preces supplicantium, ideo non fuisse consuetum in T. V. ut diceretur S. Abraham Ora pro me. See again c. 20. p. 2060. l. B. Sect. atque ex his duabus, collat. cum pag. 2059. l. D. Sect. alii dicunt. The same is Suarez's Opinion T. 2. in 3. D. Th. disp. 42. Sect. 1. p. 435. col. 1. l. E. Quod autem aliquis direct [...] oraverit Sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent, vel pro se orarent, nusquam legimus. Hic enim modus Orandi est proprius legis Gratiae, in quo sancti videntes Deum possant etiam in Eo videre Orationes quae ad ipsos funduntur. And this the common Doctrine of their Writers. Confession, ought to have believed that they could not be pray'd to.’ To all which the Vindicator is pleased to return never a word.
In short, That the Fathers of the fourth Century did herein begin to depart from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them, I proved from this, ‘This I before challeng'd the Answerer to do, and he has not attempted it. Bellarmin has but two within the first 300 Years. One of Irenaeus mis-interpreted, and one of Hilary, as little to the purpose. De Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19. p. 2047, 2043. That they are not able to produce any one instance of the three first Centuries of any such Invocation; but rather have So Cardinal Perron himself Repl. à la rep. du Roy de la grande Eretagre, liv. 5. cap 11, 19. Where he is forced to Monsieur de Meaux's shift of concluding from the following Ages what he could not prove from the preceding; and at last to confess freely, p. 1009. Quant aux Autheurs plus proches du siecle Apostolique, des quels la persecution neusra ravis la pluspart des ecrits, encore qu' il ne s'y trouve pas des Vestiges de cette coutûme [...] ill [...]ffit [...] qu'it ne se trouve rien en leurs Ecrits de repugnant a l'Eglise de 4. premiers Conciles, pour ce regard. Which is no more than Monsieur de Meaux himself insinuates, where to this very Assertion of Monsieur Daillé's I have made use of, he has only this to say, That 'tis not likely that Monsieur Daillé should at this distance understand the sentiments of the Fathers of the first three Centuries better than those of the next Age did, Expos. Sect. 3. p. 4. All which he allow'd in express terms in his suppressed Edition. See my Collect. n. 3 p. xxiii.been forced to confess that nothing of that kind was to be found among [Page 9]them.’ Besides that the Maxims of those Fathers concerning I shall mention but two; 1st, That they constantly defined Prayer, as due to God only: [...], says Basil. [...], Greg. Nyssen. [...], Chrysostom. [...], Damascen &c. And, 2dly, That it was the great Argument used by S. Athanasius, and the other Fathers of these Times, to prove our Saviour to be God, that he was prayed to. Prayer were such, as are utterly repugnant to such an Invocation.
These were the Arguments I then offer'd; to which the Vindicator would have done more justly to have try'd if he could have made some Reply, than after all this to cry out, as if nothing had been said, ‘What Authority does he bring for his Assertion? Vindicat. p. 29.By what Authority does he condemn these Prayers, these innocent Wishes and holy Raptures, as he calls them, as fond things, vainly invented? &c.’
And now that I have satisfied his demand, may I in my turn ask him, Where it is that I condemn those innocent Wishes, and holy Raptures, of these Fathers, as fond things, vainly invented? That I do, with our Church, censure their Invocation of Saints as such, is confess'd; but that I pretend to pass any judgment at all upon these holy Men, is false; nor was it any way necessary that I should do it.
As for the Authority he requires for our refusal of this Invocation, it were very easy to shew it, Vindicat. p. 30. had I nothing to do but to repeat things, that have been so often said already, that the World grows weary of them; and is abundantly satisfied that they have nothing to reply to them. Every Text of Scripture that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone, is a demonstration against them; and that one Passage of St. Paul, Rom. 10.14. How shall they call upon him [Page 10]in whom they have not believed? were not Men willing to be contentious, might end the Controversy. And for the Antiquity which he speaks of, What can be more ridiculous, than to pretend prescription for that which has not the least foundation, neither in Holy Writ, nor Primitive Christianity; of which not one Instance appears for the first three hundred Years after Christ, but much to the contrary.
He that desires a fuller satisfaction in these Points, may please to recur to that excellent Treatise I before mention'd, and which may well excuse me that I say no more about it. Only because this was one of the Points, in which I promised to shew, that they do adore Men and Women by such an Invocation as cannot possibly belong to any but God only; and that they make the Merits of their Saints to run parallel with the Merits of Christ, insomuch as for their Merits, to desire that their very Sacrifices may be accepted, and their Sacraments be available to them; I will subjoin a short Specimen of every one of these out of their Publick Rituals, to shew that there was neither Falshood nor Calumny in my Accusation of them.
Appendix to ARTIC. III. A Specimen of the Church of Rome's Service to Saints, taken out of their Publick Liturgies.
AS to the Prayers they make to them; we find them thus addressing to the Blessed Virgin: Sub tum praesidium confugimus S. Dei Genetrix; nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus, sed à periculis cunctis libera nos semper Virgo gloriosa & benedicta.We fly to thy Protection, O Holy Mother of God, despise not our Prayers which we make to thee in our Necessities, but deliver us from all Dangers, O Ever-glorious and Blessed Virgin. Offic. B. V. p. 84. And in one of their Antiphona's; Dignare me laudare Te Virgo Sacrata; Da mihi Virtutem contra hostes tuos.Vouchsafe me that I may be worthy to praise thee, O Sacred Virgin; Grant me strength and Power against thine Enemies. Ibid. p. 103. Nos cum prole pia, benedicat Virgo Maria. They desire her conjunctly with our Saviour, to bless them. Ibid. p. 105. And in their Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia Coeli Porta manes, & stella maris, succurre cadenti Surgere qui curat populo; tu quae genuisti Naturâ mirante ruum Sanctum Genitorem, Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab Ore Sumens illud Ave, Peccatorum miserere. Offic. B. V p. 122. Hymns, they address to her in the most formal manner; that she would help them that fall; that she would have pity upon Sinners; Maria Mater gratiae, Mater miserecordiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege, & horâ mortis suscipe. Ib. p. 123. that she would protect them against the Enemy, and receive them at the Hour of Death. I shall add only one Prayer more, part of which I before mention'd, and will [Page 12]now repeat it, because Bellarm. I. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 16. p. 2036. l. A. reflects upon Calvin in these words. Quinto ibidem dicit, nos rogare Virginem ut filium Jubeat facere quod petimus. At quis nostrum hoc dicit? Cur non probat ullo exemplo? I before observed that Cassander owns the Prayer, Consult. Art. 21. And Monsieur Daillé assures us, that in the Missal printed at Paris but in the Year 1634. in libr. Extrem. p. 81. It is still extant in these words; Cardinal Bellarmine, and some others are so ashamed of it, as totally to deny they have any such Prayer, O foelix Puerpera, nostra pians scelera, Jure Matris IMPERA REDEMPTORI. Da fidei foedera, Da salutis Opera, Da in vitae vesperâ Benè mori. And indeed however scrupulous Bellarmine is of this Matter, yet others among them make no doubt to say, that she does not only intreat her Son as a Suppliant, but COMMAND him as a Mother. So Peter Damien, Serm. 1. de Nat. Mariae, speaking to the Virgin, tells her, Accedis ante aureum illud humanae reconciliationis Altare, non solùm rogans sed IMPERANS. For so Father Crasset, who both cites and approves it, translates the Passage; Thou comest before the Golden Altar of our Reconciliation, not only as a Servant that Prays, but as a Mother that COMMANDS. And Albertus Magnus, Serm. 2. de laud. Virg. Pro salute famulantium sibi, non solùm petest filio supplicare, sed etiam potest Authoritate Maternâ cidem IMPERARE. That for the Salvation of those that serve Her, the Virgin cannot only Intreat Her Son, but by the Authority of a Mother can COMMAND Him. This Father Crasset proves from more of the like stuff, in his 1. Part. Trait. 1. Qu. 8. p. 60, 61. concluding the whole with this admirable Sentence; ‘Eadem potestas est Matris & Filii, quae ab omni potente Filio omnipotens facta est: The Power of the Mother and the Son is the same, who by her OMNIPOTENT Son, is made her self OMNIPOTENT.’ This is the last French Divinity, approved by the Society of the Jesuits, published with the King's Permission; and espoused at a venture by Monsieur de Meaux in his Epistle.O Happy Mother, expiating our Sins, By the right of a Mother COMMAND our Redeemer. Grant us the—of Faith, Grant us the good Works of Salvation; Grant us in the End of Lives that 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: 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 [Page 13]the Apostles and Evangelists: ‘Vos saecli justi Judices & vera Mundi lumina, votis precamur cordium, audite preces supplicum. Qui Coelum verbo clauditis, seras (que) 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, 'twere infinite to repeat the Prayers they make of this kind. I will subjoyn two or three. In the Feast of St. Nicholas, Dec. 6th: 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, 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 [Page 14]find either the Secretum, or Post-communio, to run in the same strain: I shall instance only in the Saints I formerly mentioned. ‘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: Praestent nobis quaesumus sumpta Sacramenta praesidium salutare, & intervenientibus B. Martini Confessoris tui at (que) 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 JESƲS CHRIST, who suffered [Page 15]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 utro (que) 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 [Page 17]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 inclinantes (que) 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 [Page 18]to say another: I shall transcribe only some part of it.
After a long preamble, they beseech God, Ut Sancti [...]fices tibi hoc signum Crucis at (que) 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, omní 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 CRƲCEM genibus EAM devotè ADORAT & osculatur: Idem faciunt quicun (que) 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 [Page 19]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. feria VI. in Parasceve. p. 247. Completis Orationibus Sacerdos depositâ Casulâ accedit ad cornu Epistolae, & ibi in posteriori parte Anguli altaris, accipit à Diacono Crucem jam in altari praeparatam; quam versâ facie ad populum à summitate parùm disco-operit, incipiens solus Antiphonam, Ecce lignum Crucis, ac deinceps in reliquis juvatur in Cantu à Ministris us (que) ad Venite Adoremus. Choro autem cantante, Venite Adoremus, omnes se prosternunt excepto celebrante. Deinde procedit ad anteriorem partem anguli ejusdem cornu Epistolae, & disco-operiens brachium dextrum Crucis, elevansque eam paulisper, altiùs quàm primò incipit, Ecce lignum Crucis; aliis cantantibus & adorantibus, ut supra. The Morning Prayers being finished, the Preist receives from the Deacon a Cross, standing ready on the Altar for that purpose; which he uncovers a little at the top, turning his face to the people, and begins this Antiphona, Behold the Wood of the Cross; the People following the rest to Come, let us Adore; at which all but the Priest that officiates fall upon the ground.
[Page 20]Then the Priest uncovers the right Arm of the Crucifix, and holding it up, begins louder than before, Behold the Wood of the Cross, the rest singing and adoring as before.
Then finally the Priest goes to the middle of the Altar, Deinde Sacerdos procedit ad medium altaris, & discooperiens Crucem totaliter, ac elevans eam, tertiò altiùs incipit, Ecce lignum Crucis, in quo salus mundi pependit, Venite Adoremus: aliis cantantibus & adorantibus ut supra. Postea Sacerdos solus portat Crucem ad locum ante Altare praeparatum, & genu flexus ibidem eam locat: Mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad ADORANDAM CRƲCEM; ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculetur. Hoc facto revertitur, & accipit calceamenta & casulam. Postmodum ministri Altaris, deinde alii Clerici & Laici, bini & bini, ter genibus flexis, ut dictum est, CRUCEM ADORANT. Interim dum fit ADOEATIO CRUCIS cantantur, &c.—Deinde cantatur com muniter Annā: CRUCEM tuam ADORAMUS Domine. P. 209. and wholly uncovering the Cross, and lifting it up, begins yet higher, Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung, come, let us adore: the rest singing and adoring as before.
This done, the Priest alone carries the Cross to a place prepared for it before the Altar, and kneeling down, leaves it there. Then he puts off his Shoes, and draws near to ADORE the CROSS, bowing his Knees three times before he kisses it: which done, he retires and puts on his Shoes. After him the Ministers of the Altar, then the other Clergy and Laity, two and two, after the same manner, ADORE the CROSS.
In the mean time while the Cross is Adoring, the Quire sings several Hymns; one of which begins with these words, We adore thy Cross, O Lord.
This is the Service of that Day. And now whether I had reason or no to apply, as I did, the Adoration to the Cross, let any reasonable Man consider; and whether I had not some cause to say then, what I cannot but here repeat again, ‘That the whole Solemnity of that days Service plainly shews, that the Roman Church does adore the Cross in the utmost propriety of the phrase.’
As for my last Argument from the Hymns of the Church, he acknowledges the Fact, but tells us, Vindicat. p. 40. ‘That these are Poetical Expressions; and that the word CROSS, by a Figure, sufficiently known to Poets, fignifies JESƲS CHRIST, to whom they pray in those Hymns.’ I shall not ask the Vindicator by what Authority he sends us to the Poets for interpreting the Churches Hymns: But if he pleases to inform us what that Figure is which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ, in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross; and who those Poets are to whom this Figure is sufficiently known, he will oblige us. For that this is the case in very many of those Hymns, is apparent: I shall instance only in One, and that so noted, that St. 3. p. q. 25. art. 4. p. 53. thus argues: Illi exhibemus Latriae cultum, in quo ponimus spem salutis, sed in Cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis, Cantat enim Ecclesia, O Crux ave, &c. Thomas, unacquainted it seems, as well as we, with this Figure, concluded the Adoration of the Cross, to be the sense of their Church from it. ‘Vexilla Regis prodeunt,Fulget Crucis mysterium,Quo carne carnis ConditorSuspensus est patibulo. Arbor decora & fulgida,Ornata Regis purpurâ,Electa digno stipite,Tam Sancta membra tangere. Beata cujus brachiisSoecli pependit pretium.Statera facta Corporis,Praedam (que) tulit Tartari. O Crux Ave spes unica!Hoc passionis tempore,Auge piis Justitiam,Reis (que) dona Veniam. Vid. Breviar. Rom. Dom. Passionis. p. 295, 296. The Banner of our King appears, The Mystery of the Cross shines, Ʋpon which the Maker of our Flesh was hanged in the Flesh. Beautiful and bright Tree! Adorn'd with the Purple of a King, Chosen of a Stock worthy to touch such Holy Members: Blessed, upon whose Arms, The Price of the World hung. Hail, O Cross, our only Hope! In this time of the Passion, Encrease the Righteousness of the Just, and give Pardon to the Guilty.’ Now by what Figure to make the Banner and the King the same; the Cross upon which the maker of our Flesh hung, not different from that Flesh that hung upon it; the Tree chosen of a Stock worthy to touch [Page 22]Christ's Sacred Members, the same with his Sacred Members; What noted Figure this is which is so well known to the Poets, and yet has been so long concealed from us, that we are amazed at the very report of such a Figure, The English Translation in the Office of the Holy Week, is this: O lovely and refulgent Tree, Adorned with purpled Majestie; Cull'd from a worthy Stock, to bear Those Limbs which sanctified were. Blest Tree, whose happy Branches bore The Wealth that did the World restore: Hail Cross of Hopes the most sublime, Now in this mourning Passion Time, Improve Religious Souls in Grace, The Sins of Criminals efface. Pag. 355, 356. and believe it next a kin to Transubstantiation, the Vindicator may please hereafter to inform us.
In the Point of Reliques, OF RELIQƲES. the Council of Trent proceeded so equivocally, that the Vindicator ought not to think it at all strange, if I endeavour'd more plainly to distinguish, what the ambiguity of their Expressions had so much confounded. Con. Tr. Sess. 25. Affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis venerationem at (que) honorem non deberi, damnandos esse. ‘They, says the Council, are to be condemned, who affirm that no Veneration or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints.’ To this I replied, that honour them we do; but that the Council of Trent requires more, not only to honour, but worship them too: so I render their Venerari, whether well or ill is now the question.
And first I observe, that in the very Point before us, Thom. 3. p. q. 25. art. 6. pag. 54. their own St. Thomas gives the very same interpretation to the same word. For having proposed the Question in these terms, Whether the Reliques of Saints are to be ADORED? Utrum Reliquiae Sanctorum sint ADORANDAE? He concludes it in the terms of the Council, ‘Seeing we VENERATE the Saints of God,’ we must also VENERATE their Bodies and Reliques.
And again, In his second Objection against this Conclusion, Conclus: Cum Sanctos Dei Veneremur, corum quoque corpora & Reliquias Venerari oporter. Sec. Obj. Stultum videtur rem insensibilem VENERARI. Resp. Ad secund. dicend. Quod Corpus illud insensibile non ADORAMUS propter scipsum; sed, &c. he argues against the Adoration of Reliques thus; ‘It seems very foolish to VENERATE an insensible Thing.’ To which he replies thus; ‘We do not ADORE the insensible Thing for it self, &c.’ From all which it is beyond dispute evident, that by the VENERATION, Thomas understood ADORATION of Reliques.
Secondly, That it is the Doctrine of their Church, that RELIQƲES are to be ADORED, their greatest Authors render it beyond denial evident. Vasquez in 3. p. D. Th. disp. 112. p. 808. proposes this Question: An Corpora & aliae Sanctorum Reliquiae VENERANDAE sint? To this he answers, c. 2. p. 809. Apud Catholicos veritas indubitata est, Reliquias Sanctorum, sive fuerint partes ipsorum, ut Ossa, Carnes, & Cineres; five res aliae quae ipsos tetigerunt, vel ad ipsos pertineant, ADORANDAS & in honort Sacro habendas esse. And again, Disp. 113. c. 1. p. 816. Cum ergo jam contra Haereticos constitutum sit, Reliquias esse ADORANDAS, superest explicare quo genere cultûs & honoris eas VENERARI debeanius. Vasquez in his Disputations upon Thomas, tell us, It is, says he, ‘among the [pretended] Catholicks, a Truth not to be doubted of, that the RELIQƲES of Saints, whether they be any parts of them, as Bones, Flesh, or Ashes; or any other Things that have touched them, or belonged to them, ought to be ADORED. And in conclusion says, That he has proved against Hereticks, that Reliques are to be ADORED:’ And this too in Answer to the Question proposed in the very terms of the Council, ‘Whether the Bodies, and other RELIQƲES of Saints ought to be VENERATED?’
Nor is this a Scholastic Tenet, or to be put off with an impropriety of Speech. The Messieurs du Port Royal, are by all allow'd to have been some of the most learned Men of their Church, that this last Age has produced; and too great Criticks in the French [Page 24]Tongue, to use any Expressions subject to ambiguity, which, that Language so particularly avoids. The word ADORE in French is much more rarely used to signify in general any Honour or Veneration, than in the Latine; Yet these very Men, in one of their Treatises publish'd by them, Response à un ecrit publié sur les Miracles de la Sainte Espine. Pag. 15, 18, —22, &c. Cited by Monsieur Daillé. Of the Miracles of the Holy Thorne, use this word to express the Veneration they thought due to them. Thus speaking of ‘one of the Religious that was troubled with the Palsie,’ She was carry'd, say they, to the Port Royal to ADORE the Holy Thorne. Of another, that having ADORED the Holy Thorne, she was relieved of her Infirmity. They boast of the great multitudes that frequented their Church to ADORE the Holy Thorne. And in one of their Prayers which they teach their Votaries to say before it, ‘We ADORE thy Crown, O Lord.’
And now I suppose it is from all these Instances sufficiently evident, Vindicat. p. 42. that I had reason to interpret Ʋenerari in the Council, by Worship in my Exposition. As for the other thing he charges me with; That referring to the words of the Council I should make it say, ‘That these Sacred Monuments are not unprofitably revered, but are to be sought unto for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance: whereas indeed the Council's meaning is, to obtain the Help and assistance of the Saints, not the Reliques: This is not my Invention, but his own Cavil;’ And his citation of the words of the Council a Trick to deceive those who understand it only in his Translation. For whereas he renders it, ‘So that they who affirm, that no Veneration or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints, or that those Reliques and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honoured by the Faithful; or [Page 25]that they do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints, to the end they may obtain their Aid (the Aid of the Saints, Eorum) are to be condemned.’ He has indeed transposed the Latin, on purpose to raise a Dust, and deceive his Reader; the true Order being plainly as I before rendred it; Ita ut Affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis Venerationem atque Honorem non deberi, vel eas aliá (que) sacra Monumenta inutiliter honorari, at (que) Eorum opis impetrandae Causâ memorias Sanctorum frustra frequentari, omnino damnandos esse. ‘So that they who shall Affirm, that no Worship or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints; or that these and the like Sacred Monuments, are unprofitably honoured; and that for the obtaining of their help (the help of these Sacred Monuments, Eorum) the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented, are to be condemned.’ This is the true sense of the Council; and for the Instances I added for the Explication of it, they are the same by which their own Catechism excites them to this Worship, and every Day's Experience shews how zealously the People follow these Reliques, in order to these Ends.
ARTICLE V. Of Justification.
HOW far the true Doctrine of Justification was over-run with such Abuses, as I mention'd, Vindicat. p. 46. at the beginning of the Reformation, he must be very ignorant in the Histories of those Times that needs to be informed. I do not at all wonder that the Vindicator denies these things, who knows very well how far the Interest of his Church is concerned in it. But sure I am, a confident denial, which is [Page 26]all the proof he brings, will satisfy none but those, who think themselves obliged to receive the Tradition of their Church, with the same blindness in Matters of Fact, that they are required to do it in Points of Faith.
As to the present Article before us, two things there are that he doubts I shall be hardly put to prove. Vindicat. p. 47. One, That it is the Doctrine of our Church to distinguish between Justification and Sanctification; tho the 11th and 12th Articles of our Church do clearly imply it; and our Pag. 12. The 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, 'tis 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, at (que) 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, at (que) 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 [Page 29] 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 propriám (que) justitiam, quamvis ex Dei gratiâ, & largitate profectam: & nos tam proprie & verè, cum gratiâ Dei benè agentes praemia mereri, quàm 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 acceptation, but also by reason of the Work it self.’
Meritum ex Condigno tribus modis variari potest. Nam si fortè opus aliquod sit multò inferius mercede ex conventione promissâ, ut si dominus Vineae conduceret Operarios, & non denarium diurnum, sed centum aureos promercede promitteret, esset ejusmodi. meritum ex condigne ratione pacti, non Operis. P. 1299. l. B. This is his Position: For the explication of it, he tells us, that a Merit of Condignity may be vary'd three ways. For, 1st, if the work to be performed should be very much less than the hire promised by [Page 30]the Agreement; as if the Lord of the Vineyard instead of a Penny, should have promised the Labourers a hundred pound a day for their work: this would be a merit of condignity upon the Account of the Agreement, or Covenant. And this he thinks too little for our Good Works, and condemns Scotus for holding, ‘Opera justorum esse Bona vtrè & propriè, sed non tam excellentia ut proportionem habeant cum vitâ aeternâ. Et ideò acceptari quidem à Deo ad justam & dignam mercedē vitae aeterflae, sed ex pacto & promissione non ex Operis dignitate. p. 1300. l. A That the Works of Just Men are truly and properly good, but not so excellent as to bear a proportion to Eternal Life: and therefore that they are indeed accepted of God to a just and worthy Reward of Eternal Life, but only by the Covenant and Promise of God, not for the dignity of the Work it self.’
Si Opus fit revera aequale merctdi, vel etiam majus, sed conventio nulla intervenerit. Another sort of Condignity is, When the Work is equal, or perhaps greater than the Reward, but there is no Covenant that the Reward shall be given to it; This is Condignity upon the account of the Work, not the Covenant. And such Cajetan, and Soto, esteemed our Good Works; Opera Bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex condigno ratione Operis, etiarusi nulla extaret divina conventio. p. 1299. D.Meritorius of Eternal Life upon ‘the account of the Work it self, tho there were no Covenant that they should be accepted. This also he rejects.’
Si & Pactum intercedat, & Opus sit verè par Mercedi; ut cum operarii ad vineam conducuntur pro denario diurno, id meritum erit ex Condigno ratione Operis & ratione pacti: And he explains it thus, p. 1300. l. B. Non quidem quòd sine pacto, vel Acceptatione non habeat Opus bonum proportionem ad Vitam aeternam; sed quia non tenetur Deus acceptare ad illam mercedem Opus bonum, quamvis par & aequale Mercedi nisi conventio interveniat. Quam sententiam Conformem esse non dubitamus Concilio Tridentino, &c. A third sort of Condignity is, If there be both a Covenant, and that the Work be truly equal to the Reward: as when the Labourers were hired for the Vineyard at a Penny a day. And thus it is with our Good Works; not that, without any Covenant, the Good Work does not bear a proportion to the Reward of Eternal Life; but because, without the Covenant, God would not be bound to accept the Good Work, in order to that Reward, tho otherwise even or equal to it.
This is so plain an account of their Doctrine of Merits, and so clearly given us as the sense of the Council of Trent, that I hope the length of it will be excused by every one but the Vindicator; who possibly does not desire that the Council should be so freely expounded, as Bellarmine here has done it.
But Vasquez goes yet further: Vasquez in 1, 2dae. q. 114. d. 214. c. 3. p. 802. Jam verò hâc nostrâ Aetate non pauci Theologiae Professores mediam quandam Viam elegerunt, inter Scoti Opinionem quam primo Cap. memoravimus, & aliorum sententiam quam nos ut Veram inferius probabimus. Dicuntergo rationem Meriti perfecti & condigni, quod simpliciter Meritum dicitur, duobus compleri, nempe & dignitate Operis, & promissione mercedis: which was Bellarmine's Opinion. 1st, He rejects the Opinion of Bellarmine, as too little for their Good Works: and then proposes his own in the Pag. 803. The first is that of c. 5. p. 804. Bona Opera Justorum, abs (que) ullà Acceptatione & pacto, ex se habere dignitatem Vitae Aeternae. This is against Scotus and the Hereticks, whose Doctrine he thus represents: Opera bona necessaria esse ad Vitam Aeternam; ita tamen ut Ipsa Justorum Opera non sint digna remuneratione Vitae Aeternae, nisi Deus benignitate suâ dignaretur illa remunerare. Scotus's Opinion he puts down thus, c. 1. p. 800. Opera Justorum ex se spectata, quatenus procedunt ex auxilio gratiae Dei, & positâ Sanctitate Animae, per quam Spiritus S. in justis habitat, non habere condignitatem & rationem meriti Vitae Aeternae, sed totam dignitatem, & totam rationem meriti habere petitam ex promissione & pacto Dei. The second Conclusion, c. 7. p. 809. is this: Operibus justorum nullum dignitatis Accrementum provenire ex Meritis aut Personâ Christi, quod alias eadem non haberent, si fierent ex eâdem gratiâ à solo Deo liberaliter sine Christo collata. The third; which the Vindicator pretends he could not find, tho the Title and Subject of the very next, c. 8. p. 811. is; Operibus justorum aecessisse quidem divinam promissionem, eam tamen nullo modo pertinere ad rationem Meriti, sed potius advenire Operibus, non tantum sam dignis, sed etiam jam meritoriis. As for the Conclusion, wherein the Vindicator endeavours to excuse him, it is this: First he supposes the Merits of Christ to have obtain'd Grace for us, whereby we may be enabled to work out our Salvation; and then this supposed, he affirms, That we have no more need of Christ's Merits to supply our Defects, but that our own good Works are of themselves sufficient, without any more imputation of his Righteousness. See this at large, q. 114. art. 8. d. 222. c. 3. n. 30, 31. p. 917. three Conclusions mentioned by me; to which I must refer the Reader, and leave him to judg, Whether the little Exceptions the Vindicator has made, be sufficient to excuse the Doctrine of them. All I have now to observe is, that the third Conclusion, which the Vindicator complains he could not find, is the very Subject of the Chapter to which I refer him; and which he could not well overlook, having found the Second but in the foregoing: And for the rest, that Vasquez to take away all doubt of his Opinion, does largely shew that it is no way contrary to the Council of See disp. 214. c. 11, 12. p. 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.
'Tis 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, eá (que) nostra. Ne (que) 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 hàctenus 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; 'tis enough for us to reject them, that we cannot find any footsteps of them, either in Scripture or Antiquity; and have good reason to believe, by the weakness of their Attempts, that there are not any.
ARTICLE VII. §. 2. Of Indulgences.
FOR Indulgences, Vindicat. p. 58. the Vindicator thinks it sufficient to answer all the Difficulties I proposed, to confess that ‘some Abuses have crept in; that there are indeed many Practices in the Church of Rome, different from that of the Primitive Church; but these being neither necessary, nor universally received, he will not quarrel with us about them.’
But are not these Abuses still cherish'd in his Church? Does not the Pope still dispatch them abroad, and his Missionaries preach them now as shamefully almost, as when Luther first rose against them? Is it not necessary, nor universally received, to believe that these Indulgences satisfy for the temporal Pain of Sin? Do they not put up Bills over their Church Doors and Altars, almost every Sunday, to vend them on this Account? Is not his Holiness still esteem'd the Churches Treasurer? And has he not but very lately sent a † This Bull is dated August 11. 1683. and it runs thus: We give and grant, by virtue of the Presents, a Plenary Indulgence, and intire remission of all Sins. And that the Confessors absolve them in the Court of Conscience of all Sins, Excesses, Crimes and Faults, how grievous or enormous soever they have been, and in what fashion soever they were reserved. And for all this, The Condition proposed is, To visit some one of the Churches appointed by the Ordinary, to fast the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; to confess their Sins, and receive the Sacrament, and give somewhat to the Poor. And this the A. B. of Paris promises the People, in his Instructions for the Jubilee, shall restore them to the same state they were first put into by Baptism. Instructions pour Gagner le Jubilé, pag. 11. Paris, 1683. par Ordre de Monseigneur l'Archeveque. Ʋ niversal Indulgence throughout their whole Church?
When these things are considered, I doubt it will little avail the Vindicator to put me in mind of my Promise, ‘That whenever the Penances shall be reduced to their Primitive Practice, we shall be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described, and as those first Ages of the Church allow'd of.’
Purgatory. §. 3.
WHat I have said as to the Design of the Primitive Christians in praying for the Dead, Vindicat. p. 59. would have deserved either an ingenuous acknowledgment of the truth of it, or some reasonable proof of its falseness or impertinence. We cannot but suspect that he was hard put to it for Arguments, when all the reason he brings us for the belief of Purgatory, is built upon the Authority of two Councils, neither of which are very much esteemed by Us; and the eldest of them 1400 Years after Christ.
If the Vindicator has any thing of moment to offer for it, he shall not fail of a just Consideration. Otherwise 'twill be as foolish as it is false, to pretend to tell the World, ‘That we make a Breach in the Church, and condemn Antiquity upon no other grounds, than a bare supposition that it is injurious to the Merits of Jesus Christ; and which has no other Proof than our own Presumption.’
PART II.
ARTICLE VIII. Of the Sacraments in General.
AS to the number of the Sacraments, Vindicat. p. 59. the Vindicator confesses that it is not to be found, either in Scripture or Antiquity. He thinks it sufficient that the Scripture mentions an Exteriour Ceremony, and an Interiour Grace annexed thereunto. He should then have shewn us that all those seven which they receive, have at least such an outward Sign as he Pretends, and an inward Grace, by Christ's Institution, annex'd to it. And this so much the rather, for that no One of his Church has yet been able to do it, tho the Council of Trent damns all those that dare to deny it.
ARTICLE IX. Of Baptism.
WE do not complain of the Church of Rome, Vindicat. p. 61. for not believing that Infants dying unbaptised are certainly Saved: But we must, and do complain of Monsiur de Meaux, for declaring so positively, what we judge to be at least as uncertain as it is uncharitable, that they have not any part in Christ.
If I argued for the more favourable side, I confess'd at least that the Church of England had determined nothing concerning it; But that I went about to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome on this Account, is a Calumny as great, as the little reflection of Huguenot or Puritan, before was ridiculous.
That he should be astonish'd to hear a Church of England Man argue for this Point, shews how little acquainted he ever was with the Writers of it: I shall mention only two, who I believe were never suspected as Puritanically inclined, and yet have argued much more strongly than ever I could have done for it: One the venerable and judicious Pag. 275, &c. Mr. Hooker in his Eccles. Polity. Lib. 5. Sect. 60. The Other the learned Arch-Bishop Bramhall in a set Discourse, which he thus concludes, A. Bp Bramhall's Works, Tom. 4. Disc. 5. p. 983. ‘This I take to be the Doctrine of the foundest English Divines, and which I believe to be the Truth: Saving always my Canonical Obedience to my Spiritual Mother the Church of England, and in a higher degree to the Catholick Church, when it shall declare it self in a true and free Oecomenical Council. But neither I, nor any Protestants, do believe that the Church of Rome, including all Other Churches of that Patriarchate, or of its Communion, is that Catholick Church.’
For the rest, whether his Arguments or mine on this Point are the better, I am but little concerned, tho he be very much. That which seemed the most to deserve an Answer, he has thought fit wholly to pass by, viz. that several of his own Authors had "maintained the same with me; and I persume he will not say were Puritans or Huguenots for their so doing.
But that the World may see with what rashness these Men talk, I will now be yet more Express; [Page 39]That whereas Mr. de Meaux, M. de Meaux's Exp. p. 16. affirms that this denyal ‘of Salvation to Infants dying unbaptized, was a Truth which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question, it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the Faithful.’ This is so notoriously false, that not only the most Learned of their own First we have Cassander, libr. de Baptismo Infant. p. 762. and he there cites of his side Jo. Gerson, Serm. in Nat. B. Mariae, par. 3. preached before the Council of Constance, and all the Fathers there assembled, p. 769. Gabriel Biel in 4. dist. 4. q. 2. Cajetan in 3. p. D. Th. q. 68. art. 1, 2, 3. Tilmannus Segebergensis de 7 Sacram. c. 1. art. 3. Church as I proved before, but the very Grot. Via ad pacem, p. 290. in art. 9. Consult. Cassandr. adds to these, Inter Veteres, Scriptorem quaestionum ad Antiochum quae Athanasio tribuuntur; Nazianzenum de S. Baptismate, duobus locis; & Scholiastem ejus Nicetam: Fathers themselves, have many of them declared for this Doctrine; even St. sed & ipsum Augustinum antequam in certamine cum Pelagio incalesceret, l. 3. de lib. arb. c. 23. locum Joan. 3. intelligendum de iis qui possunt & contemnunt baptizari, asserit Lombard. l. 4. dist. 4.Augustine himself not excepted, till his Dispute with Pelagius provoked him to deny that, which in his cooler thoughts, he had more reasonably allow'd before.
ARTICLE X. Of Confirmation.
IN the Article of Confirmation, Vindicat. p. 63. I affirm'd that several of their own Party had deny'd the Divine Institution of this pretended Sacrament; and that neither the Council of Trent, or their Catechism, had offered any thing to prove it.
The Vindicator replies, ‘That my Confession that the Apostles used Imposition of Hands, and that when our Bishops after their Examples do the like, and pray for the Blessing of the Holy Spirit upon us, we piously hope that their Prayers are heard; is a sufficient [Page 40]proof of an outward Visible Sign, of an inward and Spiritul Grace.’
Had I indeed affirm'd that the Apostles had instituted this Imposition of Hands, to be continu'd in the Church, and promised that the Grace of the Holy Ghost should certainly descend at their doing of it, for all those great Ends our Prayers design; this might have made Confirmation look somewhat like a Sacrament to Us. But to argue from a meer indifferent Ceremony, continued only in imitation of the Apostles, and to which no blessing is ascribed that may not equally be allow'd to any Other the like Prayer; and then cry out that this must needs argue the Divine Institution of it, because none but God can promise Grace to an outward Sign, this is in effect to confess that there is nothing at all to be said for it.
It is wonderful to see with what confidence those of the Church of Rome, urge the Apostles Imposition of Hands for proof of Confirmation, as it is now practised amongst them; in which there is not any the least resemblance. Our Bishops lay on Hands after their Example: But for theirs, ‘they anoint, make Crosses in the Forehead, tie a Fillet about their Heads, give them a box on the Ear,’ &c. for which there is neither Promise, Precept, nor Example of the Apostles: but for Imposition of Hands, the only thing they did, this they have resolved to be but an So Estius in 4. Sent. dist. 7. §. 7. p. 81. Accidental Ceremony, and accordingly have in their So the same Estius proves from the Council of Florence; In quo, says he, legitur quòd loco illius manùs impositionis per quam Apostoli dabant Spiritum S. in Ecclefiâ datur Confirmatio, cujus materia est Chrisma. Ex quibus verbis utrum (que) colligitur, & initio necessariam fuisse manuum impositionem Sacramenti necessitate, & eandem ejus necessitatem, signaculo Chrismatis introducto, cessâsse. practice wholly laid it by.
ARTICLE XI. Of Penance.
THat Penance is not truly and properly a Sacrament, Vindicat. p. 64. nor was ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church, I at large proved in my Exposition of it: and the Vindicator has not in his Reply advanced any one thing to answer the Objections that were brought against it.
He allows Publick Confession to have been a part of Discipline only, and alterable at pleasure; Ibid. p. 65. but then affirms that either Publick or Private was always necessary; and this we are to take of him upon his own word.
In short, he repeats the Sum of their Doctrine to us; Ibid. p. 67. and then, as if he had done his Business, ‘This, says he, we have always held and practised, and this we affirm to be conformable to the practice of the most Antient and Orthodox Churches; and adds, that He is astonish'd at our rejection of it.’ All which Stuff is easily said, and may with the same ease and reasonableness be deny'd.
And therefore to conclude this in a word; If ever he gets so well out of his Astonishment, as to come to his Reason again, and will then undertake to prove Penance to be truly and properly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, and necessary to Salvation, either in Act or Desire, he shall not fail of an ingenuous Reply to his Arguments. In the mean time, I have before shewn, that we do practise it, as far as is either necessary or [Page 42]convenient; and farther than this we shall not think our selves bound to go, till we are somewhat better convinced of our Obligations to it, than the Vindicator has hitherto been willing or able to do.
ARTICLE XII. Of Extreme Unction.
IN explaining the words of St. Vindicat. p. 68. James brought for this pretended Sacrament, I follow'd the Interpretation which both the practice of the Primitive Church naturally leads to; and which Cardinal Cajetan confesses, and their own publick Liturgies shew, was for above 800 Years esteem'd the undoubted meaning of them.
The Vindicator, from Bellarmine, advances many Things, as he supposes, contrary to this Exposition; but the greatest part of which are utterly false, the rest impertinent.
‘The Grace of curing the Sick, he says, was not given to all Priests and Elders alike, but only to some select Persons.’ If this be true, it was then best like St. James's Intention, that they should send for those Priests to whom it was given. And however some Others might have this Grace, yet certainly it was principally at least given to the Priests and Elders, for the honour and benefit of their Ministry.
‘These did not only cure the Sick, but the Lame and the Blind.’ And therefore he would, I suppose, have had St. James taken notice of these two. He [Page 43]might have added the Dead likewise; for those who healed the Lame and the Blind, raised the Dead also. But what if St. James's word be [...] answers to the Hebrew [...] and signifies all sorts of INfirmities: and [...], is no unheard of phrase for being Lame. general, and may very well be extended to all these? Yet since these Gifts were but rare in the Church, in respect of that the Apostle here speaks of, and did evidently belong to a greater Power, We deny his Supposition, that those who ordinarily cured the Sick by anointing, had also the Power to heal the Lame and the Blind.
‘Their Power of Miracles was not tied to Ʋnction only:’ Mark 6.13. But yet since we find in St. Mark that this was the ordinary Sign, what wonder if St. James describe it by that which was the most common and frequent amongst them?
‘All those that were anointed, were not cured.’ This is false, Vindicat. p. 69. and cannot be maintain'd without dishonour to that Spirit by which they acted: ‘Neither had all they that were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing, any assurance by that Cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins.’ This again is false: The Sin here promised to be forgiven is that for which the Sickness was sent, if it was sent for any: Now St. James expresly promise, that in this case, whenever the Health of the Body was restored, this Sin should be forgiven too; and therefore it must be false to say it was not.
He adds, lastly, ‘That St. James promises, that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: Which if it had been meant of bodily Health, those only would have died in the Apostle's Time, who either neglected this Advice, or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony.’ And if it must be understood of the Soul's [Page 44]Health, then it will follow that none were damned, either then or now, but what neglect this Advice, or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Ceremony; concerning the Truth of which the Vindicator may please to give us his Opinion.
But the Vanity of this Objection proceeds from the want of a true Notion of the Nature of these Gifts. They who had the greatest measure of them, could not yet exercise them when they would. The same Spirit that helped them to perform the Miracle, instructed them also when they should do it. So that they never attempted it, but when they saw the sick Person had Faith to be healed, and that it would be for the greater Glory of God to do it. St. Paul had doubtless this Gift of Healing; and yet he neither cured Timothy of the weakness of his Stomach,1 Tim. 5.22.and his other frequent Infirmities; and left Trophimus at Miletum sick. 2 Tim. 4.20. That this Gift of Healing was in the Church at this time, is not to be doubted, though this place should not belong to it. Will the Vindicator argue against this, that then none died till it went out of the Church, but such as refused the benefit of it, or died suddenly before they had time to do it?
It may appear by this, Vindicat. p. 69, — 70. how little they have to object against the true Design and Interpretation of this passage: Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis: sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus, à Discipulis exercendam in aegrotis. Cajet. Annot. in Loc. For Cardinal Cajetan's Authority, the Vindicator tells us, That ‘had I said only, that he thought it could not be proved, neither from the Words, nor the Effect, that St. James speaks of the Sacramental Ʋnction of Extreme Ʋnction; but rather [Page 45]of that Ʋnction which our Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick, I had been a faithful Quoter of his Sense: But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other, is to impose upon him and the Readers.’ As if when two Things only are in controversy for the Cardinal, absolutely to exclude the one, and apply it to the other, were not in effect (for I design'd not to translate his words) to confess, that it could belong only to that.
But that which is most considerable is, that the Antient Liturgies of the Church, and the publick practice of it, for above 800 Years, shew, that they esteemed this Ʋnction to belong primarily to bodily Cures, and but secondarily only to the sickness of the Soul. And because these Rituals are not in every bodies hands, to argue at once the truth of my Assertion, and shew how little conversant the Vindicator has been in them, I will here insert some particular proofs of it.
Upon the Thursday in the Holy Week, when this Oil was wont to be consecrated, they did it with this Prayer:
Ex S. Gregorii Libr. Sacram. p. 66.
‘Fer. 5. post Palm. Emitte domine Spiritum S. tuum paraclitum de Coelis in hanc pinguedidem Olivae, quem de Viridi ligno producere dignatus es; ad refectionem Corporis; ut tuâ sanctâ [Page 46]benedictione sit omni hoc unguentum tangenti tutamen Mentis & Corporis, ad Evacuandos omnes Dolores, omnes (que) infirmitates, omnem aegritudinem corporis.’
‘That by this Blessing it might become the Defence both of the Mind and Body; The same is in effect the Prayer of the Greek Church: [...] ( [...]) [...]. Euch. p. 863. Nor is it much different in that publish'd by Thomasius, as P. Gelasius's Ritual, before P. Gregories, upon the same day, p. 69. only that he generally joins Mentis & Corporis.to cure all Pains and Infirmities, and sickness of the Body:’ nothing else mentioned.
In the Office of Visiting the Sick, several Introductory Prayers, all for the Bodies Recovery, are first said: such as this, pag. 251, &c.
Ad visitand. infirm. p. 251. ‘Deus qui famulo tuo Hezekiae ter quinos Annos ad vitam donâsti, ita & famulum tuum N. à lecto aegritudinis tua potentia erigat ad salutem. Per.’
O God, who didst add ‘to the [...] thy Servant Hezekiah fifteen Years, let thy Power in like manner raise up this thy Servant from his Bed of Sickness. Through &c.’
Some of these being said, the Priest goes on thus:
‘Domine Deus, qui per Apostolum locutus es, Infirmatur quis in Vobis, S. James 5.14, 15.inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae & orent super eum ungentes eum oleo Sancto in Nomine Domini, &c. Cura quaesumus Redemptor noster gratiâ Spiritûs Sancti languores istius Infirmi: & sua sana vulnera, ejus (que) dimitte [Page 47]peccata, at (que) dolores cunctos cordis & corporis expelle, plenam (que) & interius exterius (que) sanitatem miserecorditer redde: ut ope miserecordiae tuae restitutus & Sanatus, ad pristina Pietatis tuae reparetur Officia; Per &c.’
‘O Lord God, who by thy Apostle hast said, If any Man be sick, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord, &c: Cure we beseech thee, O our Redeemer, by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the sickness of this infirm [Page 47]Person: Heal his Wounds, and forgive his Sins, and expel all the Pains, both of his Heart, and of his Body; and restore him mercifully to full health, both inward and outward: that being by thy merciful Aid Recovered and Healed, he may be strengthned to the former Duties of thy Service; Through &c.’
Then the sick Person kneels down upon the right Hand of the Priest, and this Antiphona is sung:
‘Dominus locutus est Discipulis suis, In Nomine meo Daemonia ejicite, & super Infirmos manus vestras imponite & bene habebunt. Psalm. Deus Deorum Dominus locutus est: Et repetit, In Nomine meo &c.’
‘The Lord said unto his Disciples, In my Name cast out Devils; and lay your hands upon the Sick and they shall Recover. Then the 49 Psalm, The Lord, the Mighty God, hath spoken, &c. After which they repeat again: In my Name &c. as before.’
Then follows this Prayer.
‘Oremus Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, & cum omni supplicatione [Page 48]rogemus, ut hunc famulum suum N. per Angelum Sanctum suum visitare, laetificare, & confortare dignetur.’
Afterwards this Antiphona.
‘Succurre Domine Infirmo isti N. & Medica eum spirituali Medicamine, ut in pristinâ sanitate restitutus, gratiarum tibi sanus referat Actiones.’
‘Succour, O Lord, this Infirm Person N. and heal Him with a spiritual Medicine, that being restored to his former Health, when he is Well, he may return thanks unto thee.’
Then follows another Psalm, and after it this Antiphona:
‘Sana Domine infirmum istum cujus Ossa turbata sunt, & cujus Anima turbata est Valdè: sed tu Domine convertere, & sana eum, & eripe animam ejus.’
‘Heal, O Lord, this sick Person whose Bones are troubled, and whose Soul is very much afflicted: but turn thou, O Lord, and heal him, and deliver his Soul.’
After this is said the 6th Psalm, from whence the Antiphona was taken; which being ended, they anoint the sick Person in several parts, but especially in that where the pain lies; saying this Prayer:
‘Inungo te de Oleo sancto in Nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritûs Sancti: ut non lateat in Te Spiritus immundus, neque in membris, neque in medullis, ne (que) in nullâ compagine membrorum; sed in te habitet virtus Christi Altissimi & Spiritûs Sancti; quatenus per hujus Operationem Mysterii, atque per hanc Sacrati Olei Ʋnctionem, at (que) nostram deprecationem, virtute Sanctae Trinitatis medicatus sive fotus, pristinam & immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem: Per eundem.’
‘I anoint thee with this Holy Oil, Instead of this, Arcudius gives us this Form out of a very ancient Manuscript in the Greek Church: [...], &c. And in another Office; [...]. Arcudius de Sac. Ext. Ʋnct. p. 394. And the Prayers in the Office of the Euchelaion are all exactly conformable, to what I have here observed. in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that no unclean Spirit my remain in thee, but that the vertue of the most highest of Christ, and the Holy Ghost may dwell in thee: to the End that by the Operation of this Mysterie, and through the Ʋnction of this holy Oil, and our Prayers, thou may'st be healed and restored by the Vertue of the Holy Trinity, and receive thy former and better health, Through the same.’
Then follows this Prayer.
‘Domine Deus Salvator noster, qui es vera salus & Medicina, à quo omnis Sanitas & Medicamentum venit, qui (que) nos Apostoli documento instruis ut languentes Olei liquore Orantes tangeremus, respice propitius super hunc famulum tuum N. & quem languor curvat ad exitum, & virium defectus trahit ad Occasum, medela tuae gratiae restituat in Salutem. Sana quo (que) quaesumus omnium medicator ejus febrium, & cunctorum languorum Cruciatus, aegritudinemque, & dolorum omnium dissolve tormenta, viscerum (que) ac cordium interna Medica: Medullorum quo (que) & Cogitationum: Sana discrimina ulcerum, vanitatum (que) putredines evacua, Conscientiarum (que) at (que) plagarum obducito cicatrices veteres, immensas (que) remove passiones: Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma, delictorum (que) [Page 51]cunctorum veniam tribue; sic (que) illum tua pietas jugiter custodiat, ut nec ad Correptionem aliquando Sanitas, nec ad perditionem nunc, Te auxiliante, perducat Infirmitas; sed fiat illi haec Olei Sacri perunctio, morbi & languoris praesentis expulsio, at (que) peccatorum omnium optata remissio: Per Dominum nostrum.’
‘O Lord God our Saviour, who art the true Health and Medicine, and from whom all Health and Medicine doth proceed: who also, by the Instruction of thy Holy Apostle hast taught us, that we should anoint the Sick with Oil, look down we beseech thee in mercy upon this thy Servant N: and whom his weakness has brought down to Death, and the decay of his strength draws towards his End, Let the power of thy Grace restore to Health: Heal, we beseech thee, his Feavours, &c. — And let the Holy Ʋnction of this Oil be the Expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity, and the remission of all his Sins: Through.’
Then let the Priest give him the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ: and if occasion be, let them repeat this seven days; ‘And the Lord shall raise him up; and IF he be in Sins, they shall be remitted.’
The Priest ought also to say the Morning and Evening Service every day to the Sick Person, adding the Hymn; See the Hymn, Cassaadr Oper. p. 287. Christe Coelestis Medicina Patris; which is a Prayer entirely for the recovery of the Bodily Health.
This was the method of their Ʋnction in Pope Gregory's Missal; and which I suppose shews that it had somewhat more than a bare respect to bodily Cures; indeed was, as I before affirm'd, especially designed for them. It were an easy matter to shew the very same to be the practice of the Greek Church at this Day; insomuch that Arcud. de Sacram. Extr. Unct. l. 5. c. 5. de formâ hujus Sacramenti. Arcudius himself could not dissemble it: But I shall close this with one Observation more which Cassander. Oper. p. 289. where he also cites Cusanus for the same Remark. Cassander has given us, that it was anciently the custom to anoint, not only the Elder Persons, but even Infants, after the same manner; not sure for the forgiveness of those remains of Sin which the former Sacraments had not sufficiently cleared, but for the same End for which they then did all others, the Recovery of their bodily Health.
ARTICLE XIII. Of Marriage.
THat Marriage is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called, Vindicat. p. 70. as the Council of Trent has defined it, their own Authors sufficiently shew. Cassaud. Consult. Art. 13. de num. Sacram. in fine. De Matrimonio verò non modò P. Lombardus negavit in eo gratiam conferri, sed longè post eum Durandus disertè inquit, non esse Matrimonium univocè Sacramentum sicut alia Sacramenta novae legis, nam nec conferre gratiam non habenti, nec augere habenti; non esse ita (que) Sacramentum propriè ac strictè dictum. Lombard denies that there is any Grace conferr'd in it, and affirms it as a Lib. 4. d. 2. l. C. p. 696. Fuit tamen Conjugium ante Peccatum institutum, non uti (que) propter Remedium, sed ad Sacramentum. Et d. 26. l. A. Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum & propter peccatum exordium sumpserint, Matrimonii Sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum à Domino. Sacrament, to have been instituted not only before Christ, but even before the Fall; and therefore was not cited, either for Ostentation, or for the silly Reason mention'd by the Vindicator.
4 Sent. d. 26. q. 3. Durandus in express terms declares, that forasmuch as it neither confers Grace where it is not, nor encreases it where it is, it cannot be a Sacrament truly and properly so called.
It is therefore evidently false to say, that Lombard is against me in this Matter; and for the torrent of Fathers and For his torrent of Fathers, Bellarmine has been able to collect but six or seven, of which not one to the purpose, nor any very ancient: And for the Scriptures, Estius one of the wisest of their own Party, is forced to confess; Cum igitur hujus Doctrinae non poffit ex Scripturis haberi probatio, saltem aperta & evidens; consequens est articulum hunc, Matrimonii Sacramento gratiam conferri, unum esse extraditionibus Ecclesiae non Scriptis, & ad Virbum Dei non scriptum sed traditum pertinere. 4 Sent. d. 26. §. 7. p. 61.Scriptures which he talks of, it would have been more to this purpose to have produced their Authorities, than thus vainly to boast of that which we certainly know he is not able to perform.
ARTICLE XIV. Of Holy Orders.
IF the Vindicator be truly agreed with Me in this Article, Vindicat. p. 71. He must then renounce the number of his seven Sacraments. I deny'd that there was any Sign instituted by Christ, to which his Grace is annexed: All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture, being only the Example of three or four places, where it was practised indeed, but no where commanded. I affirm'd that several of his own Church had declared it not to be Essential to Holy Orders, nor by consequence the outward Sign of a Sacrament in them. In a word, I said, that the Grace conferr'd was no Justifying Grace, nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament: To all which he has thought fit not to offer one word in Answer.
ARTICLE 15, 16, 17, 18. Of the Eucharist.
AS to the Business of the Eucharist, Vindicat. p. 72. I had not entred on any Argument about it, had not Monsieur de Meaux here thought fit to lay aside the Character of an Expositor, to assume that of a Disputant.
For the words of Institution, which are the principal part of this Controversy, I proposed two Arguments to confirm the Interpretation which our Church gives of them: One from the the natural import of the words themselves; the Other from the intention of our Saviour in the institution of this Holy Sacrament. To the former of these the Vindicator thought he could answer somewhat; but for the latter, it has been urged chiefly since Bellarmine's time, and so our Author had nothing to say to it.
For the former then he tells us, Ibid. first, Of the insincerity ‘of my Attacque; Pag. 73, 74.That the Bishop declared there was nothing in the words of Institution OBLIGING them to take them in a figurative sense; to which I oppose only, That there are such Grounds in them for a figurative Interpretation, as NATƲ RALLY lead to it.’ 'Tis true, I have not here used the very word OBLIGED, but yet in my proof I proceed upon such Grounds as I said would NECESSARILY REQƲIRE a figurative Expos. Ch. of Eng. p. 47.[Page 55]Interpretation; which is much the same thing. And though I cannot tell what will Oblige Him to take those words in their true, i. e. figurative sense; yet if I have proved, ‘That there are such Grounds in those words as Naturally,’ indeed necessarily lead to it; any reasonable Man would think, that joyn'd with the Other proof from the Reason of the thing it self, might be sufficient to Oblige him to acquiesce in it.
But we will examine his Process, which whether it argues more my unsincerity, or the falseness of their Interpretation, I shall leave it to the Reader to judg.
First; He confesses, as to my first Position, Vindicat. p. 73. that the words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation. ‘No-Body, says he, ever deny'd but the words as they lie (without considering the Circumstances and Practice of the Church, delivering the Interpretation of them down to us) might possibly lead to a figurative Interpretation: Seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture: As for Example, I am a Door, I am a Vine, &c. Which being always taken by the Church in a figurative sense, we should esteem him a Mad-man that should think it possible after this, to perswade all the World they ought to be taken in a literal. And as it would be a madness to suppose all Mankind might in future Ages be so sottish, as to renounce this figurative Interpretation of Jesus Christ's being a Dore, and a Vine, and fall so far into the literal sense, as to believe him to be substantially present in them, and pay the utmost adorations [Page 56]to him there, set them up in Temples to be Adored, and celebrate Feasts in honour of them; This is the Pretence of Mr. Arnauld, and at large refuted by Mr. Claude in his answer to him; whose Works being in English, I shall refer the Reader, who desires to see the vanity of this Argument exposed, to what he has there said. So we cannot but think it to be irrational to imagine, that if the Disciples and whole Church in all Nations, had been once taught these words, This is my Body, were to be taken in a figurative sense, it could ever have happen'd that the Visible Church in all Nations, should agree to teach their Children the literal, &c.’
The meaning of which Discourse, if I understand it aright, is this Concession, that the words of Institution do in themselves as naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation, as those other Expressions, I am a Vine, I am a Door: And the only thing which makes the difference is, that the Church, as he supposes, has from the beginning interpreted the One according to the Letter, the Other in a figurative Acceptation.
‘Secondly, As to my Argument, That if the Relative This, in that Proposition, this is my Body, referr'd to the Bread which our Saviour held in his Hand, the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another, Bread and Christ's Body will NECESSARILY REQƲIRE the figurative Interpretation.’ This De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. p. 462. l. D. speaking of Carolstrad's Opinion of the Eucharist; Scripsit, says he, Verba Evangelistae, Hoc est Corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, Hic Panis est Corpus meum, quae sententia aut accipi debet tropicè, ut Panis sit Corpus Christi significativè, aut est planè absurda & Impossibilis, nec enim fieri potest, ut Panis sit Corpus Christi. Et l. 3. c. 19. p. 747. Non potest fieri ut vera fit propositio in quâ Subjectum supponit pro Pane, praedicatum autem pro Corpore Christi, &c. Bellarmine, Hoc est impossibile quod Panis fit Corpus Christi: de Consecrat. d. 2. c. 55. p. 2393. in Gloss.Gratian, and others do confess, and the Vindicator himself seems contented with it: Only he [Page 57]believes, That all my Logic will never be able to prove that the Pronoun THIS must necessarily relate to (Panis) In the Aethiopian Church they give the Holy Eucharist with this Explication, Hic Panis est Corpus meum. Ludolphi Hist. l. 3. c. 5. n. 56. Bread, and not to (Corpus) Body. How far my Logic has been able to do this, I must leave it to others to determine; but for the Vindicator's satisfaction, I do assure him, that Bellarmine looks upon it to be Good Logic. And because it is in the middle of the citation I referred to, and which he has almost intirely transcribed, excepting only the part I am now speaking of, I will not charge him with unsincerity in the omission, but I must needs say 'twas indiscreet to put the issue of the Question upon what his Cardinal had so freely confessed: Bellarm de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. p. 746. Lit. D. Dominus accepit in manibus panom, eum (que) benedixit, & dedit discipulis & de eo ait, Hoc est Corpus meum. Ita (que) panem accepit, panem benedixit, panem dedit, & de Pane dixit, Hoc est corpus meum. ‘The Lord, says he, took Bread in his hands, and blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said of it, This is my Body: Therefore he took BREAD, and blessed BREAD, and gave BREAD to his Disciples, and said of BREAD, This is my Body.’ And in Id. l. 1. c. 11. p. 517. Lit. B. Siquis digito aliquid ostendat, dum Pronomen effert, valdè absurdum videtur dicere Pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Dominus accepit Panem, & Illum porrigens ait, Hoc est Corpus meum; videtur igitur demonstravisse Panem. Ne (que) obstat quòd propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis. Nam etsi ita est de propositione quae est Oratio quaedam, tamen demonstrativa pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid, etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces. Et sanè in illis verbis, Bibite ex hoc omnes, valdè durum est non demonstrari, I D. quod Erat, sed I D. tantùm quod futurum erat. another place, arguing against this very Opinion of the Vindicator, That THIS in that proposition belongs to BODY, not the BREAD which he held in his hand; says, ‘That if a Man points with his finger to a thing whilst he utters a pronoun demonstrative, 'twere absurd to say that any thing else should be referred to, but that thing. Our Lord took Bread, and reaching it out to them, said, Take, Eat, THIS is my Body; He seems to have pointed to the BREAD; and therefore must have shewn some certain thing, even before the other words were pronounced.’
From which put together, I think we may frame this Argument:
If the Relative THIS, in that Proposition, This is my Body, belong to the Bread, so that the meaning is, This Bread is my Body, then it must be understood Figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and impossible:
But the relative This in that proposition, This is my Body, does belong to the Bread, forasmuch as Christ took Bread, and blessed Bread, and gave Bread to his Disciples, and therefore said of Bread, This is my Body: Therefore
That proposition, This is my Body, must be understood figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and impossible.
How far the Vindicator will approve this Logick, I cannot tell; but the first proposition is their common concession, and he himself seems contented with it. The second is Bellarmine's own grant, nay what he contends for, and indeed what the connexion of the Words do evidently require: And then for the conclusion, I believe a very little Logick will be enough at any time to make good the sequel of it.
But the Vindicator has an Exception against all this, Vind. p. 75. and tells us, ‘That it will all argue nothing against them, unless I beg the Question, and suppose that no real change was made by those words.’ I presume it is as much a begging of the Question for him to suppose there was, as for me that there was not. We do not now enquire how to expound the Proposition, supposing there were such a change made as they imagine; but the Question is, Whether these Words do necessarily imply any such change, nay, rather do not oblige us to take them in a figurative sense to shew that there is none?
However he is resolved he will suppose the Question first, and then prove it, tho' I must not. ‘We will suppose, says he, and that not incongruously, That our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine, might have made use of these words THIS IS WINE,’ or LET THIS BE WINE. I hope he does not look upon these two to be one and the same. But in short, If our Saviour had said Let this be Wine, the meaning must have been, Let this which is now Water become Wine. If he had said, This is Wine, and the conversion not yet made, it would have been false: If after the conversion, no more than this, This that is contained in these Pots is Wine; or, This which before was Water, now is Wine.
And so in the point before us; Had our Blessed Saviour said, LET THIS BE MY BODY, and a conversion had been thereupon as truly made, as of the Water into Wine, we should have made no doubt, but that it was a command for that which before was Bread to become his Body. If we take the Words as they are, THIS IS MY BODY, and no conversion made before they were pronounced, the Proposition in the literal sense must plainly be false. If a real conversion had first been made, as when the Water was turned into Wine, then would it signifie no more than this, This which before was Bread, is now my Body. So that all this will as little avail him, as he says the other did us, unless he also beg the Question, and suppose a real change made by these words, which he knows is the very thing which we deny; as we shall have reason to do, till they can prove that what, we are sure, was Bread, is converted into the Body of Christ.
And thus much for his disputing; Vindicat. p. 77, 78, 79, 80. Before he enters on an Examination of those Authorities I produced to [Page 60]shew the novelty and uncertainty of Trany-substantiation, he is willing to state the Case, and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say, that ‘Christ is not Corporeally present in this Sacrament: Or how that which is not the thing it self, is yet more than a meer figure of it.’ In answer to which, I shall need seek no farther than those Testimonies I before alledged out of the publick Acts of our Church to satisfie him. See the Church Catechism. Our Catechism affirms, ‘That the inward part, or thing signified in this Holy Supper, is the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, which are VERILY AND INDEED taken and received by the faithful in the Lords-Supper:’ And the meaning of it our 28th Article 28. Article expounds thus; ‘The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord's Supper, ONLY AFTER A SPIRITƲAL AND HEAVENLY MANNER; and the means by which this is done, is FAITH. So that to such as rightly, and worthily, and with Faith receive the same, The Bread which we break, is, as St. Paul declares it, The Communion of the Body of Christ, and the Cup of Blessing which we bless, The Communion of the Blood of Christ.’ In a word; We say, that the faithful do really partake of Christs Body after such a manner, as those who are void of Faith cannot, tho' they may participate the Outward Elements alike; Whom therefore our Church declares, ‘Article 29. To receive only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but to be no way partakers of Christ; but rather as St. Paul again says, to Eat and Drink their own Damnation, not discerning the Lords Body.’
See the Appendix. N. V. in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same account of it. These are the Words of our Church; and the meaning is clearly this: Christ is really present in this Sacrament, inasmuch as they who worthily receive it, have thereby really convey'd to them our Saviour Christ, [Page 61]and all the benefits of that Body and Blood, whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs. This great effect, plainly shews it to be more than a meer Figure; yet is it not his Body after the manner that the Papists imagine, ‘Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office. Christ's Body being in Heaven, and not on the holy Table; and it being against the truth of Christs natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one.’
The Sacramental Bread and Wine then remain still in their very natural Substance; nor is there any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood at the holy Altar. The Presence we allow, is Spiritual, and that not only as to the manner of the Existence Vindicat. p. 77, 78., which the Vindicator seems to insinuate (for we suppose it to be a plain Contradiction, that a Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Body, That this Exposition is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ch. of England, the Authorities already cited, shew. See also the Homily concerning the Sacrament, part 1. p. 283. &c. and the same is the Explication, which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it; as is evident by the Collation of them made by Bishop Cofins, in his History of Transubstantiation, cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large, p. 6. &c. i. e. Corporal) but as to the nature of the thing it self; and yet it is Real too: The Bread which we receive, being a most real and effectual Communion of Christ's Body, in that Spiritual and Heavenly manner which St. Paul speaks of, and in which the Faithful, by their Faith are made partakers of it.
Thus does our Church admit of a real Presence, and yet Vindic. p. 80., neither take the Words of Institution in their literal Sense Ibid. p. 79., and avoid all those Absurdities we so justly charge them with: As to the Authorities of their own Writers, which I alledged to shew that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had no Grounds, neither in Scripture nor Antiquity: He is content to allow that the Scriptures are not so plain in this matter, [Page 62]but that it was necessary for the Church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it. Vind. p. 80, 81. And for Antiquity, he desires us to observe, 1st, ‘That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon, Ibid. p. 82.defined the. true, real, and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament, brings this Transubstantiation, Sess. 13. Can. 2.or Conversion of one Substance into another, as the natural Consequence of it. Can. 2. If any one shall say, That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body, and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood, the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining; which Conversion the Catholick Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation, let him be Anathema.’
The design of the Council in which Canon is evidently this, To define not only the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, against the Sacramentaries, which before was done Can. 1.; but also the manner or mode of his Presence, against the Lutherans, in two Particulars; 1st, Of the Absence of the Substance of the Bread and Wine. 2ly, Of the Conversion of their Substance into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Species only remaining. But this the Vindicator will not allow, but advances an Exposition so contrary to the design of the Council, and Doctrine of his Church, that it is wonderful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself, or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an Illusion.
‘It is manifest, Vindic. p. 83. says he, that the Church does not here intend to fix the manner of that Conversion, but only to declare the matter, viz. That the Body and Blood [Page 63]of Jesus Christ becomes truly, really, and substantially Present; the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly, really, and substantially Present, tho the Appearances thereof remain.’ Now this is so evidently false, that Suarez doubts not to say 'tis HEREST to affirm it, ‘Forasmuch, says he, See Suarez cited below. as the Council not only determines the Presence of Christ's Body, and Absence of the Substance of the Bread, but also the true Conversion of the one into the other; thus establishing, not only the two former, but this last also as an Article of Faith.’
Our dispute therefore, is not only, as this Author pretends, about the real Presence of Christ's Body, Vindic. p. 83. and Absence of the Substance of the Bread, which he calls the thing it self; but also about the Manner, how Jesus Christ is Present; viz. Whether it ‘be by that WONDERFUL and singular CONVERSION which their Church calls so aptly TRANSUBSTANTIATION?’ Now this being that we are to enquire into, let us see whether the Authorities I have brought, have not the force I pretend against their Tenets.
And 1. LOMBARD writing about this Conversion, plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time. For having first asserted the real Presence in this Sacrament, and the change which he supposed was made upon that account: He goes on to that which the Vind. p. 92. Vindicator is pleased to call a Scholastick Nicety; and it was indeed at that time no other, tho since become a matter of Faith, Lombard. l. 4. d. 11. lit. A. p. 736. De modis Conversionis. Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa Conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis, desinire non sustineo: Quibusdam esse videtur substantia is, &c. viz. What kind of Conversion is there made? Whether formal or substantial, or what else? And for this, he tells us freely, He is not able to define it: That some have thought it to be [Page 64]a SƲBSTANTIAL CHANGE; but for his part, he will not undertake to determine it.
But 2dly, SCOTƲS is yet more free Dicendum, says Scotus, quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei. Si quaeras, quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus Articuli, cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem, & vericrem secundum apparentiam; Dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae, quo conditae. See 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 63.. He declares our Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation, to be the more easie, and to all appearance the more true: Insomuch, that the Churches Authority is the And before, in Sect. Quantum ergo, He profess'd, Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet Romana Ecclesia. In a Word, Bellarmine himself cites Scotus for this Opinion: ‘Non extare locum ullum Scripturae, tam expressum, ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere, Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767. L. D.’ Principal thing that moved him to receive their Doctrine. And again, p. 768 L. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus, quod minime probandum est, Ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem. He tells us that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very Ancient, nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran; all which the Vindicator himself does in effect confess.
The same is, Vind. p. 88. 3ly, affirmed by Suarez in 3 part. D. Th. vol. 3 disp. 50. § 1. p. 593. Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem Panis & Vini in Corpus & Sanguinem Christi. Haec assertio est de fide: Nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in Scriptura, ea tamen docet Ecclesia ab Apostolis edocta; docens simul ita esse intelligenda Verba formae, & in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri. And then p. 594. col. 2. adds, 1mo, Ex hac Fidei Doctrina, colligitur corrigendos esse Scholasticos qui hanc Doctrinam de Conversione hac, seu de Transubstantiatione, non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt, inter quos sunt Scotus & Gabriel Biel, lect. 41. in Can. &c. And then, 2do infero, Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi, & absentiam Panis, neget tamen veram Conversionem unius in aliud, in HAERESIN labi, quia Ecclesia Catholica, non solum duo priera, sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet. SƲAREZ of GABRIEL, and confess'd by the Vindicator; who also, contrary to his pretences, calls this manner of Conversion, an Assertion, that is, of Faith; tho he confesses, it is not expresly to be found in Scripture, but deduced thence by the Interpretation of the Church. Nay, so opposite is he to the Opinion and Pretences of this Man, that he declares in this very place, [Page 65]which our good Author examined; but amidst all his sincerity, overlook'd this passage, as not much for his purpose; ‘That if any one should confess the real Presence of Christ's Body, and Absence of the Bread, and yet deny the true CONVERSION of the one into the other, he would fall into HEREST; forasmuch as the Church has defined, not only the two former, but also the third likewise.’ But,
4thly, The Prevarication of our Author in the next Citation is yet more unpardonable. I affirmed, ‘That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged, that had not the Church declared her self for the proper Sense of the Words, the other might with as good reason have been received. This he says, is false; Vind. p. 86. for that Cajetan says no such thing; nay, rather the contrary, as will appear to any one who reads that Article:’ And then with wonderful assurance, begins a rabble of Citations nothing to the purpose, in the very next Words to those in which mine end.
‘For the better clearing of this Doctrine, Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art. 1. p. 130. Col. 1. In comment. circa praesentis & sequentium Articulorum Doctrinam, pro claritate & ampliori intellectu difficultatum, sciendum est ex Autoritate S. Scripturae de Existentia Corporis Christi in Sacramento Eucharistiae, nihil aliud haberi expresse, nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis, Hoc est Corpus meum: Oportet enim Verba haec vera esse. Et quoniam verba sacrae Scripturae, exponuntur dupliciter, vel Proprie vel Metapherice; Primus Error circa hoc fuit Interpretantium haec Domini Verba Metaphorice; quem magister Sent. l. 4. d. 10. Tractat. Qui & hoc Articulo reprobatur. Et consistit VIS Reprobationis in HOC, Quod verba Domini intellecta sunt ab ECCLESIA Proprie, & PROPTEREA oportet illa verificari proprie Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio, &c. Cited by the Vindicator. says Cajetan, we must know, That as to the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, there is nothing to be had expresly from the Authority of the holy Scripture, but the words of our Saviour, saying, This is my Body. For it must needs be that these words are true; and because the Words of Scripture may be expounded two ways, either Properly, or Metaphorically; the first Error was of those who interpret [Page 66]these words Metaphorically, which is rejected in this Article. And the force of the Rejection consists in this, That the words of our Saviour have been understood in their proper Sence by the Church, and therefore must be properly true.’
This the Vindicator was pleased to pass by, tho' the very next words to those he cites: Nay, to say, That Cajetan had no such thing in that Article; and appeal to any that should read it, for the truth of it. Should a Protestant have done this, he would, I believe, have found out a great many hard Names for him, to testifie his Zeal against Falshood and 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 [Page 68]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 [Page 69]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 'tis thus they pretend to offer up the Blessed JESƲS 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 we do indeed misunderstand the meaning of it, we must at least profess it to be so far from any wilfull mistake, that we do no more than what their greatest men have done before us: And inded it still seems most reasonable to us, that either this Sacrifice is no true and proper Sacrifice, as they say it is; or it is truly and properly offer'd, as we affirm they understand it to be.
ARTICLE XXI. Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine.
IF my Reflections in this Article be but as good, Vindicat. p. 97. as my Exceptions in the foregoing have been just, against their Doctrine; what the Vindicator has said to these here, will I believe be found as little to the purpose, as what he endeavoured to reply to those before.
Tho' Christ be acknowledged to be really present after a Divine and Heavenly manner in this Holy Eucharist, yet will not this warrant the Adoration of the Host, which is still nevertheless only Bread and Wine, from being what our Church censures it, Rubrick about kneeling at the end of the Communion. Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians; nor will such a real presenting of our Blessed Lord to his Father, to render him propitious to us, make the Eucharist any more than a metaphorical, not a true and proper propitiatory Sacrifice.
If these men please to fix upon us any other notion of the real presence than what has been said, and which alone our Church allows of; we are neither concerned [Page 71]in the Doctrine, nor shall we think our selves at all obliged to answer for those consequences they may possibly draw from it.
ARTICLE XXII. Communion under both Species.
TO prove the lawfulness of their denying the Cup to the Laity, Vindicat. p 98.the Vindicator advances three Arguments from the publick Acts of our own Church: The 1st. false; The 2d. both false and unreasonable: The 3d. nothing to the purpose.
1st. He says, the Church of England allows the Communion to be given under one species in case of Necessity: Art. 30. This is FALSE: The Article establishes both Kinds; and speaks nothing at all of any Case of Necessity, or what may, or may not be done on that account. See Art. 30. Sparrow's Collect. pag. 102, and 219. ‘The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people, for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, ought to be administred to all Christian men alike.’
2dly. ‘Edward the sixth, he says, 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 delivered and administred unto all Persons within our Realms of England and Ireland, and other our Dominions, under both kinds, That is to say of Bread and Wine, except necessity otherwise require.’
This, as it is thus alledged by the Vindicator, is both False and Ʋnreasonable: FALSE, for that Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing, See Sparrow's Collect. p. 17. but only says, That ‘Forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was ordain'd, viz. That the most blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, should from thenceforth be commonly Administred to all persons under both kinds, &c.’ He for the greater Decency, and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist, now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it.
Note, That this order of Communion was the first thing of this kind that was done after the Reformation; The Mass was yet left remaining; and Edward the 6th afterwards published two other Books, in which were considerable Alterations, and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind. It is in the next place ƲNREASONABLE, to argue as to the present state of the Church of England, from what was allow'd only, and that in case of necessity too, in the very first beginning of the Reformation.
It was indeed the singular Providence of God, That in the 2d year of that Excellent Prince, things were so far Reformed from those long and inveterate Errors, in which the Ignorance and Superstition of Several Ages had involved the Church, That they had allowed, nay, commanded the Holy Sacrament to be given under both kinds, when for so many years it had been received only under one. But that labouring still under their former prejudices, they should in case of Necessity permit that, which had been the universal practice of the Church, without any necessity at all before; this is neither to be admired in them then, nor is it reasonable to urge it against us now.
His 3d Argument is not only Ʋnreasonable upon the account we have now said; but were it never so proper, is absolutely nothing to the purpose. In the Rubrick, at the end of the same Order of the Communion, there is this Remark: ‘Note that the Bread that shall be consecrated, Sparrow's Collect. p. 24.shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed; and every of the said consecrated Breads shall be broken in two pieces at the least, or more by the discretion of the Minister, and so distributed. And men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole Body of our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ The meaning of which Rubrick is very plain; That whereas the people who had hitherto been accustomed to receive the Wafer entire, were now to have but a part of it given to them; to prevent any mis-conceits upon that account, as if because they did not receive the whole Wafer as they were wont to do, they did not receive the whole Body, i. e. the Flesh of Christ, (for as to the Blood, that they received afterwards in the Cup:) It was thought fit for the prevention of this scruple, to tell them, ‘That they must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole Body of Jesus Christ;’ which what it makes for their denyal of the Cup to the Laity, I cannot very well apprehend.
And now how well this Author has proved it to be the Doctrine of the Church of England, to dispence with the Cup in the Holy Eucharist, in case of necessity, I shall leave it to any indifferent person to judge. Tho' after all, did we indeed, as some others do, believe [Page 74]that the Church had power to do this; How will this excuse them, who without any necessary or but reasonable cause deny it to the people altogether; Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1, 2. and damn all those that will not believe ‘they had not only power, but just cause and reason so to do?’ And why will it not as well follow, that they may take away if they please the whole Sacrament from them, and Damn all those that will not believe that they had just cause and power to do this too; since even that in Case of Necessity 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 Ʋnwritten 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 Ʋniversal?
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 Ʋniversality 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 Ʋnwritten 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 Ʋniversal 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 [Page 79]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 Ʋniversal, 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 [Page 80]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 [Page 81]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 [Page 82]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 Ʋniversal 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 plainly shew, that no such Title or Authority was anciently claimed by, or allow'd to the Bishop of Rome: And therefore we say, That [Page 83]these new and groundless pretences must be laid aside, before we can be content to yield him that Honour, which has been sometimes given to his Predecessors.
As to that new Question he has hookt in at the end of this Article, Vindic. p. 106. ‘Whether the first four General Councils might not be term'd neither General nor Free, with as much reason as the Council of Trent;’ I suppose it may easily be answer'd in the Negative.
1st, It was not so General, because it was not call'd by so great and just an Authority as those were: That was an Authority to which Christians of all Places, and all Ranks, acknowledged themselves bound to submit, and attend where they were summon'd by it; whereas this was a meer Ʋsurpation, and being so, was not regarded by a great part of the Christian World, who were sensible that they ow'd no Subjection to it.
2dly, It was not so Free, because those who had most to say in defence of the Truth, durst not appear at Trent, being sufficiently forewarn'd by what others had lately suffered in a like case at Constance: Add to this, That those who being present, did set themselves most to oppose Error and Corruption, were perpetually run down, and outvoted by Shoals of new made Bishops, sent out of Italy for that purpose. So that such a Council as this, could not with any shew of Reason be termed, either Free or General, much less ought it to be compared with those first four Councils, which were in all these Respects most opposite to it.
CLOSE XXVII.
AND now, Vindic. p. 106. that I have gone through the several Articles of the Vindication, and found the Pretensions of this Author against me as false, as I think I [Page 84]have shewn his Arguments to have been frivolous; what shall I say more? Shall I complain of his Injuries, or rather shall I yet again beseech him to consider the little grounds he had for them; and see whether he has been able in any one Instance, to make good that infamous Character, which he has told the World, I have deserved in almost every Article of my Expoposition.
Have I Calumniated them in any thing? Have I Misrepresented their Doctrines? I have already said, I do not know that I have; I think I may now add, I have made it appear that I have not.
Where are the Ʋnsincere dealings, the Falsifications, the Authors Miscited, or Misapplied? Excepting only an Error or two, that's the most, of the Press; has he given any one Example of this? Some words now and then I omitted, because I thought them impertinent, and was unwilling to burden a short Treatise with tedious Citations. And I am still perswaded that they were not material, and that he might as well have found fault with me for not Transcribing the whole Books, from whence they were produced, as for leaving out those Passages which he pretends ought to have been inserted. And for this, I appeal to the foregoing Articles to be my Vindication.
But our Author has well observed ‘That nothing can be so clearly expressed,’ Vind. p. 120. or so firmly established, let me add, or so kindly and charitably performed, ‘but that a person who intends to cavil, may either form a seeming Objection against it, or wrest it into a different sense.’
I never had the vanity to fancy my Exposition to be Infiallible, or that the sight of an Imprimatur should make me pass for an Oracle. But yet I was willing to hope, that amidst the late pretences to Moderation, [Page 85]such a peaceable Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England might at least have been received with the same civility by them, as that of the Church of Rome was by us; and that our new Methodists had not so wholly studied the palliating part of their Master, as not to have learnt something of his fairness and civility also.
This I had so much the greater reason to expect, for that it has been esteemed not the least part of the artifice of Monsieur de Meaux, not only to mollifie the Errors of his Church; but to moderate that passion and heat that for the most part occurs in the defenders of it: And by the temper and candidness of his Stile, insinuate into his Reader a good Opinion of his Doctrine.
But this is an Artifice that our late Controvertists seem resolved we shall have no great cause to apprehend. Who therefore have not only wholly laid aside the Modenation of this Prelate; but have in some of their last Pieces fallen into such a vein of lightness and scurrility, as if their Zeal for their Church had made them forget that Religion is the Subject, and Christians and Scholars, to say no more of them, their Antagonists.
I am ashamed to say, what mean Reflections, and trivial Jestings make up almost the sum of their latest attempts. The Papist Represented, which seemed to promise something of seriousness and moderation, expiring in a FANATICK Sermon; done indeed so naturally, as if the once Protestant Author had dropt not out of the Church of England; but a Conventicle into Popery. His late Majesties Papers Answered with Reason, and (whatever is pretended) with respect too by Us; instead of being Vindicated, ridiculed in the Reply: In which it is hard to say, whether the Author has least shewn his charity to us, or his respect to [Page 86]the Persons and Church that he defends. These are the new Methods that are now taken up; but sure such as neither Church I suppose will be very well satisfied with: And which seem more accommodated to the Genius of those Sceptics who divert themselves at the expence of All Religion on both sides, than designed to satisfie the sober and conscientious of either.
It is not improbable but that some such ingenious Piece may in a little time come forth against what I have now publish'd; to call me a few ill names, pass a droll or two upon the Cause, tell the World how many Sheets there were in my Defence, and put the curious to another Shilling expence, Amicab'e Accommodation. as a late Author has very gravely observed. If this be the Case, I hope I shall need no Apology to men of sense and sobriety, if I here end both their trouble and my own together. Let those who have been always used to it, rally on still with Holy things if they think good; for my part I esteem the Salvation of mens Souls, and the Truth of Religion, to be a more serious Subject than to be exposed to the levity of a Jest, and made the subject of a Controversial Lampoon. And if an account shall hereafter be given for every idle word that we now speak, I profess I cannot but tremble to think what shall be the judgment of those men, who in the midst of such unhappy differences as the Church now labours under; whilst our common Mother lies almost dissolved in tears for the divisions of her Children, and her dutiful Sons on both sides are praying and endeavouring with all their industry to close them; like an unnatural off-spring, divert themselves in the quarrel, find a harmony in her groans, and make a droll of that, which had they indeed any true zeal for Religion, they ought to wish rather they could with their dearest Blood be so happy as to redress.
For what remains of the Vindication, Vindicat. p. 106, 107. I shall say but very little to it. ‘He enters upon his Conclusion with a tragical harangue of the hardships they have suffer'd, both by, and ever since our Reformation; and how well we deserve their Excommunication upon that account.’ And 'tis no hard matter when men so well disposed, as this Author seems to be, to speak evil of us, are to draw our Character, to make it appear as odious and deformed as they desire.
Were I minded to recriminate, I need not tell those who are but very little acquainted with the true History of these things, what a fair field I should have for a requital. The corruptions of the Church when this Reformation begun; the unchristian lives of those ‘Religious Inhabitants that, he says, were turn'd by us into the wide world;’ the Cheats and Ignorance of the Clergy; the Tricks and Artifices of their Popes to prevent that Reformation, which many of their own Party, no less than the Protestants, desired both in the Head and the Members; And since he mentions Cruelties, the barbarous Butcheries executed on the Reformed in Savoy, Bohemia, Germany, Ireland; and to say no more, the proceedings at this day in one of our Neighbour Countries, whereof we have been our selves Eye-witnesses, and of which, the noble Charity of our Royal Soveraign towards these poor distressed Christians, See the words of His Majesty's Brief. notwithstanding all the vain endeavours of some to hide it, suffers no honest Englishman now to doubt; All these would furnish out matter enough for a Reply, and satisfie the World, that were the Reformed as bad as Hell it self could represent them, the Romanists yet would of all men living have the least cause to complain of them.
But I desire not to heighten those Animosities, which I so heartily wish were closed; and would rather such [Page 88]things as these might on all hands be buried in eternal oblivion, than brought forth to prevent that Union, we had never more cause to hope for than at this time. And for our Laws which, he says, have been made against them, he knows well enough what occasion was given to Queen Elizabeth and King James the 1st to establish them; and I shall rather refer him to the See that and a Vindication of it by the Secular Priests An. 1601. published with some other pieces in a Collection, called, The Jesuits Loyalty. 4to. Answer which my Lord Burleigh made above 100 years since to this complaint, than take the opportunity, he has so fairly given me, to revive the Reasons.
As for those injuries he tells us that Perjury and Faction loaded them with; Vindicat. p. 111. we are not concerned in them. It is well known that the Church of England was no less, if not more, struck at in those times than themselves: If their present change of fortune makes them indeed neither remember those injuries, nor desire to revenge them, it shews only that the favour of Providence has not made them forgetful of their duty; nor their present prosperity unmindful of their future Interest. This is not our concern, who have never that we know of injured them, unless to take all fair and lawful ways to defend our Religion as by Law established, may possibly, in some mens apprehensions, be esteemed an injury.
The peace and liberty which we enjoy, we do not ascribe to their Civility; it is Gods Providence and our Soveraign's bounty, whom the Church of England has ever so Loyally served; whose Rights She asserted in the worst of times, when to use our Authors own words, ‘Perjury and Faction for this very cause, loaded her with all the injuries Hell it self could invent.’ But we gloried to suffer for our duty to Him then, and shall not fail, should there ever be occasion, to do it [Page 89]again. And we have this testimony from our King, which no time or malice shall be able to obliterate, That the Church of England is by principle a Friend to Monarchy, and I think cannot be charged to have ever been defective in any thing that might serve to strengthen and support it.
For what remains with reference to the Points in Controversie, the foregoing Articles are but one continued confutation of his vain pretences: And I shall only add this more to them, that whenever he will undertake to make good any one thing that he has advanced against us, either in his Book or Conclusion; I will not fail to prove what I now affirm, That there is not a word of truth in either of them.
In the mean time, before I close this, I cannot but take notice, how much the state of our controversie with these men has of late been changed; and what hopes we are willing to conceive from thence, as to the sober part of their Communion, that those Errors shall in time be reformed, which they already seem not only to have discovered, but to be ashamed of.
When our Fathers disputed against Popery, the Question then was, Whether it were lawful to Worship Images; to Invocate Saints; to Adore Reliques; to depend upon our own Merits for Salvation; and satisfie for the pain of our own Sins. This was their task; and they abundantly discharged it, in proving these things to be unlawful, contrary to our duty towards God, and to the Authority of Holy Scripture.
But now in these our days, there is started up a new Generation of men, too wise to be imposed upon with those illusions, that in blind and barbarous Ages had led the Church into so much Error and Superstition. These see too clearly, that such things as these must, if possible, be deny'd, for that they cannot be maintain'd. [Page 90]And they have accordingly undertaken it as the easier task, by subtile distinctions, and palliating expressions, to wrest the definitions of their Councils to such a sense as may serve the best to protect them from these Errors; rather than to go on in vain with their Predecessors, to draw the Scripture and Fathers into the Party to defend them.
And that it may not be said I speak this at all adventures, I will beg leave in a short recapitulation of what is largely proved in the foregoing Articles, to offer a general view of it.
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
A 'TIS a wicked and foolish Error of the Lutherans and Calvinists, to attribute Impius & Imperitus Lutheranorum & Calvinistarum Error est, nullum nisi Deo Religionis honorem tribuentium. Maldonat in Matt. 5.34. pag. 126. B. Index Expurgat. in Athanas. Adorari solius Dei est; Creatura nulla Adoranda est. Dele. pag. 52. Religious honour ONLY to God. And therefore such Sentences as these, ‘That God only is to be adored: That no creature is to be adored,’ must be put into the Index Expurgatorius, to be blotted out of S. Athanasius and other Authors in which they do occurr. | A REligious honour or worship if taken strictly and properly is due only to God: Soli Deo honor & gloria. We ought not to deprive God of any thing that is due to him alone; neither honour, nor worship, nor prayer, nor thanksgiving, nor sacrifice. We may honour those whom God has honoured; but so as not to elevate them above the state of creatures. And this may be called a Religious love or honour, when it is done for God's sake, yet it is but an [Page 91]Extrinsecal Denomination from the cause and motive, not from the nature of the Act. Vind. p. 27, 28. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
Speaking of S. Bernard, he concludes, C'est de cettegrande Verité qu'il conclut que nous sommes obligez indispensablement de l'honorer & de la prier; Quia sic est Voluntas dei, qui Totum nos habere voluit per Mariam. Il veut que Nous ayons par Marie la Grace & la Gloire: And p. 33. Il veut que tous les hommes soient sauvéz par les merites du fils & par l'intercession de la Mere; d'autant que Dieu a resolu de ne nous faire aucune Grace qui ne passe par les maines de Marie. Comme on ne peut estre sauvé sans Grace, il faut dire qu'on ne le peut estre que par Marie, qui est le canal de toutes les Graces qui descendent du Ciel en Terre. IT is necessary to pray to the Blessed Virgin. It is the intention of God that we should obtain both Grace and Glory by her: That all men might be saved by the Merits of the Son, and the Intercession of the Mother. Crasset. p. 30, 31. Mandat S Synodus omnibus Episcopis, & caeteris docendi munus curam (que) sustinentibus, ut—de Sanctorum—Invocatione fideles diligenter instruant; Docentes eos, Sanctos una cum Christo Regnantes Orationes suas pro Hominibus Deo offerre; Bonum atq, Ʋtile esse suppliciter eos invocare; & ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per filium ejus Jesum Christum, ad eorum Orationes, Opem, Auxilium (que) confugere. p. 291, 292. The Curates therefore shall diligently instruct the people, That the Saints who reign togegether with Christ, do offer to God their Prayers for Men: A That it is good and profitable in a suppliant manner to invocate them; and recur to [Page 92]their Prayers, Help, and Assistance, for the obtaining Blessing of God by his Son. Concil. Trid. Sess 25. c. de Invocatione, &c. ss. Ʋpon this account in all their publick service of the Church they address their Prayers to them, after the same manner that they do to Christ, together with whom, the Council says, A They Reign in Heaven: So that if 'tis necessary to go to Church, 'tis necessary to pray to them. They confess their Sins to them; Ord. Commend. Animae. p. 120.they dismiss departing Souls out of this World in their Names; they make direct Addresses to them as the Council speaks, not only for their Prayers, but also for their Help and Assistance; B they desire for their Merits to be heard by God; and that he would accept their Sacrifices themselves for the sake of the Saints they Commemorate; C as in the 3d Article of this Treatise is fully to be seen. | FOr Invocation of Saints, A we only tell you it is lawful to pray to them; Vind. p. 30. That we do it in the same spirit of Charity, and in the same order of brotherly society with which we intreat our Friends on Earth to Pray for us. Monsieur de Meaux, p. 5. If we mention their Merits, 'tis only those Victories they had obtained by his favours, which we beseech him to look upon, and not regard our unworthiness. Vind. ib. As to the recommending our Sacrifices to God by [Page 92]their Prayers, as if Christ who is the Sacrifice, needed any other to recommend him to his Father, we detest such Thoughts, we abominate such Doctrines. Vinicat. p. 30. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
A Imagines Christi & Sanctorum venerandae sunt non solùm per accidens vel improprie, sed etiam per se & proprie; Ita ut ipsae terminent Venerationem ut in se consider antur, & non solum ut vicem gerunt Exemplaris. THE Images of Christ and the Saints, are to be venerated, not only by accident and improperly, but properly and by themselves, so as to terminate the [Page 93]Worship upon them, and that as consider'd in themselves, and upon their own account, not only as they are the Representatives of the Original, Bellarin. de Imag. l. 2. p. 2148. A Pont. Rom. p. 205. See above, p. 15, 16, 17. The Wood of the Cross is to be Adored with Divine Adoration; and upon this account, if the Popes Legate at any time conduct the Emperor into any City, his Cross must take place of the Emperor's Sword; ‘Because a Divine Worship is due to it,’ Pontific. See above, art 4. p. 15. A Missal. Rom. feria VI. in Parascev. p. 247. This Adoration is properly to the Cross, as is evident, in that the Church invites the People on Good Friday to Adore it; and in its Hymns distinguishes the Cross from Christ, and addresses to the Cross, as such. See Article 4. above, ib. B Pontificale de Benedictione no [...] [...] The Church of Rome in praying to God, that several Vertues may proceed from the Cross, shew it to [Page 94]be their Opinion, that it has other Vertues, than barely to excite the remembrance of those they represent. See above in the Consecration of a new Cross. Art. 4. p. 16, 17. | A THe use we make of Pictures or Images, is purely as representatives, or memorative Signs, which call the Originals to our Remembrance. Vindicat. p. 35. [Page 93]When the Church pays an Honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, A her Intention is not so much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image. Expos. M. de M. p. 8. B Nor do we attribute to them any other Vertue, but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent. Id. p. 8. Vind. p. 31. The Honour we render them, is grounded upon this, that the very seeing of Jesus Christ crucified, cannot but excite in us a more lively Remembrance of him, who died upon the Cross for our Redemption: Now whilst this Image before our Eyes, causes this precious Remembrance in our Souls, we are naturally moved to testifie by some exterior Signs, how far our Gratitude bears us; A which exterior Signs are not paid to the Image, but to Jesus Christ represented by that Image. Vindicat. ib. p. 31. Mons. de Meaux Expos. p. 8, 9. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
A Thom. 3. par. qu. 25. Art. 6. p. 54. See above p. 22, 23. SEeing we Adore the Saints of God, we must also Adore their Reliques. Thomas. A This is an undoubted truth amongst Catholicks, That the Reliques of the Saints, Vasquez in 3 part. D. Tho. disp. 112. p. 808. whether they be any parts of them, as Bones, Flesh, Ashes, or some other things that have toucht them, or belonged to them, are to be adored. Vasques, See above, Art. 4. p. 50. Ita ut affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis Venerationem atque Honorem non deberi, vel eas aliaque sacra Monumenta à fidelibus inutilitier honorari, atque eorum opis impetrandae causa, Sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari, omnino damnandi sunt, p. 292, 293. Those are to be condemned, who assirm that no Worship or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints; or that those sacred Monuments are unprofitably revered by the Faithful; or that for obtaining their Help, men ought not to frequent the Memories of the Saints. Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. c. de Invocat. &c. | WE honour Reliques as we do Images, for those whom they belong'd to. Vind. p. 40. A We will not quarrel how we ought to call this Respect and Honour, p. 43. Vind. but it is not Worship, Ib. p. 42. B We seek not to them for any Aid and Assistance, to cure the Blind, &c. and are therefore falsly charged with so doing, Vind. p. 41. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. p. 31. BY Justification is to be understood, not only Remission of Sins, but Sanctification, A and renewing of the inward Man. Concil. Trid. If any one shall say that men are Justified, either by the alone Imputation of Christs 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. Concil. Trid. ib. See above, Art. 5. p. 53. B See above, Art. 5. p. 27. If any one shall affirm the works of a justified man to be so the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of the justified man himself; or that he being justified by the good Works which are perform'd by him, through the Grace of God, and Merit of Jesus Christ, whose living Member he is, do's not truly merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life; let him be Anathema. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 32. | THey impose upon us who say that we make our inward righteousness a part of Justification; A and by Consequence hold that our Justification it self is also wrought by our good Works. B Vind. p. 47. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
A WE do as truly and properly, Maldonat. in Ezek. 18, 20. p. 425. when we do well by Gods Grace merit Rewards, as we do deserve Punishment, when without his Grace, we do ill. Maldonat. The Works of just Persons,Bellarmin. de Justificatione lib. 5. cap. 17.A are truly equal to the Reward of Eternal Life; as the Work of those who labour'd in the Vineyard to the peny which they earned: And God by his Covenant is bound to accept it for the reward of Eternal Life. This is the Doctrine of the Council of Trent. Bellarmin. see art. 6. above. They, AVasquez in D. Th. 12ae. q. 114. disp. 214. p. 800.therefore, are to be condemned who think our Works of themselves, not to be worthy of Eternal Life, but to have the whole nature of Merit that is in them, from the Covenant and Promise of God. This was the Opinion of Scotus, condemn'd above Art. 7. p. 31, 31. Christ indeed, Vasquez ibid. p. 917. &c.first obtain'd Grace for us, whereby we might be enabled to work out our own Salvation; but this being done, we have no more need of Christ's [Page 97]Merits to supply our defects: But our own good Works are of themselves sufficient to Salvation, without any Imputation of his righteousness. Vasquez, See above l. c. | A ETernal Life ought to be proposed to the Children of God, as a Grace that is mercifully promised to them, by the Medition of our Lord Jesus Christ; and a recompence that is faithfully render'd to their good Works, and Merits, A in Vertue of this Promise. Expos. M. de M. p. 11. We ask all things, we hope all things, we render thanks for all things, through our Lord Jesus Christ, we confess that we are not acceptable to God., but in and by him. Ib. p. 12. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
A TO this Question whether our Works are to be called truly and properly Satisfactory? Bellarm. de Poenit. lib. 4. cap. 7. Bellarmin replies, That they are; so that we may be said truly and properly to satisfie the Lord. See above, Art. 7. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purgat. cap. 10. It is immediately our Satisfaction, and Christs only, in as much as we receive Grace from him, whereby we our selves may be able to satisfie. Id. ib. Art. 7. As to mortal Sins, Vasquez in 3 part disp. 2. See above, Art. 7. Gods Grace being supposed to be given to us in Christ, Vasquez declares, We do truly satisfie God for our Sins and Offences. As for venial Sins, we do so satisfie, as not to need any Grace or Favour of God to forgive our Sins, or accept our Satisfaction; but our Satisfaction is such, as doth in its own nature blot out both the stain and punishment of Sin. Vasquez above, l.c. [Page 98]Quidam asserunt, Nos proprie non satisfacere, sed solum facere aliquid cujus intuitu Deus applicat nobis Christi Satisfactionem: Quae sententia erronea mihi videtur. Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. p. 1899. A. B. There are some who say, That we do not properly satisfie, but do somewhat for the sake of which God applies to us Christs Satisfaction; This Opinion seems to me to be Erroneous. Bellarm. | A THey impose upon us, who say that we believe that by our own endeavours we are able to make a true and proper Satisfaction to God for Sin. Vindicat. p. 54, 55. That which we call Satisfaction, B following the Example of the Primitive Church, is nothing but the Application of the infinite Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. M. de M. Expos. p. 15. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
THere being in all Sins a temporal Punishment to be undergone after the Eternal, Bellarm. de Indulgentiis lib. 1. cap. 1. p. 3. by the Sacrament of Penance, is remitted; We call Indulgence the Remission of those Punishments that remain to be undergone after the forgiveness of the Fault, and Reconciliation obtain'd by the Sacrament of Penance. The Foundation of these Indulgences, Ibid. cap. 2. is the Treasure of the Church, consisting partly of the Merits of Christ, and partly of the superabundant Sufferings of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, who have suffer'd more than their Sins required. [Page 99]The Pastors of the Church have obtain'd from God the power of granting Indulgences, Ibid. c. 3. p. 19, 27. and dispensing of the Merits of Christ, and the Saints, for this end, out of the Sacraments. The Punishments remitted by these Indulgences, Ibid. c. 7. p. 47. are all those which are, or might have been enjoyn'd for Sins; and that whether the Persons be alive or dead. | WE believe there is a Power in the Church of granting Indulgences; which concern not at all the Remission of Sins, either Mortal or Venial, but only of some temporal Punishments remaining due after the guilt is remitted. So that they are nothing else but a Mitigation, or Relaxation, upon just Causes of Canonical Penances, which are, or may be enjoyn'd by the Pastors of the Church, on Penitent Sinners, according to their several degrees of demerit. Papist Represent, n. viii. p. 10. M. de M. Expos. § 8. p. 14. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
A THe Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 1. & 3. p. 196. & ibid. c. 2. p. 191. Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice: A Sacrifice not only Commemoratory of that of the Cross, but also truly and properly propitiatory for the dead and the living. Conc. Trent. Art. 16. B Verum & reale Sacrificium. veram & realem mortem aut destructionem rei immolatae desiderat. Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. p. 1062. C. Vel in Missa fit vera & realis Christi mactatio, & occisio, vel non fit: Si non fit, non est verum & reale Sacrificum Missa: Sacrificium enim verum & reale, veram & realem occisionem exigit, quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrificii. 1063. A. And again, Per consecrationem res quae offertur, ad veram, realem, & externam mutationem & destructionem ordinatur, quod erat necessarium ad rationem Sacrificii. ib. l. D. Sect. Tertio. Every true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real Death or Destruction of the thing sacrificed: So that if in the Mass there be not a true and real Destruction, on, [Page 100] there is not a true and real Sacrifice. Bellarmin. To offer up Christ then in the Eucharist, is not only to present him before God on the Altar, but really and truly to Sacrifice, i. e. destroy him. Bellarmin. | A THe Sacrifice of the Mass was instituted only to represent that which was accomplish'd on the Cross, to perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the World, and apply to us the saving Vertue of it, for those Sins which we commit every day. Vindicat. pag. 95. When we say, That Christ is offered in the Mass, we do not understand the word Offer in the strictest Sense, but as we [Page 100]are said to Offer to God what we present before him. And thus the Church does not doubt to say, That She offers up our Blessed Jesus to his Father in the Eucharist, in which he vouchsafes to render him himself present before him. Vindicat. ibid. p. 96. |
Old Popery. | New Popery. |
WE acknowledg the Holy Catholick, and Roman Church, to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and we Promise and Swear to the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, a true Obedience. Concil. Trid. Jur. Pii 4ti p. xliv. in fine. The Pope has Power to depose Princes, Si dominus temporatis requisitus & monitus ab Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit, ab Haeretica foeditate. Excommunicationis Vinculo innodetur Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc, Ipse Vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos, & terram exponat Catholicis occupandam. — Salvo jure Domini Principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum opponat: Eadem nihil ominus lege servata circa EOS qui NON HABENT DOMINOS PRINCIPALES. and absolve [Page 101]Subjects from their Allegiance: So the Council of Lateran: ‘If the Temporal Lord shall neglect to purge his Land of Heresie, let him be Excommunicated; and if within a year he refuses to make satisfaction to the Church, let it be signified to the Pope, that from thenceforth, He may declare his Vassals absolved from their Allegiance; and expose his Land to be seised by Catholicks—yet so as not to injure the right of the Principal Lord. Provided that he puts no stop or hindrance to this: And the same Law is to be observed with reference to those who have no Principal Lords.’ Concil. Later. 4. Can. 3. de Haeret. p. 147. This is no Scholastick Tenet, but the Canon of a Council received by the Church of Rome as General. | WE acknowledg that Primacy which Christ gave to St. Peter, in his Successors; to whom, for this cause, we owe that Obedience and Submission, which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the faithful. As for those things which we know are disputed of in the Schools, it is not necessary we speak [Page 101]of them here, seeing they are not Articles of the Catholick Faith. It is sufficient we acknowledg a Head Establish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his Paths, which those who love Concord amongst Brethren, and Ecclesiastical Unanimity, will most willingly acknowledg. Expos. Monsieur de Meaux. p. 40. |
Such is the difference of the present Controversies between us from what they were, when it pleased God to discover to our Fathers the Errors they had so long been involved in. Were I minded to shew the division yet greater, there want not Authors among them, and those approved ones too, from whence to collect more desperate Conclusions in most of these Points, [Page 102]than any I have now remark'd. And the Practice and Opinion of the people, in those Countries where these Errors still prevail, is yet more Extravagant than any thing that either the One or Other have written.
What now remains, but that I earnestly beseech all sober and unprejudiced Persons of that Communion, seriously to weigh these things; And consider what just reason we had to quit those Errors, which even their own Teachers are ashamed to confess, and yet cannot honestly disavow.
It has been the great business of these new Methodists for some years past, to draw over ignorant men to the Church of Rome, by pretending to them that their Doctrines are by no means such as they are commonly mis-apprehended to be. This is popular, and may I believe have prevailed with some weak persons to their seduction; tho' we know well enough that all those abroad who pretend to be Monsieur de Meaux's Proselytes were not so upon the conviction of his Book, but for the advantages of the Change, and the Patronage of his Person and Authority.
But surely would men seriously weigh this Method, there could be nothing more 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 [Page 103]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.