A collection of several discourses against popery By William Wake, preacher to the honourable society of Grays-Inn.

ARTICLE I. Introduction.

HE that accuses another of great and heinous crimes, ought to take all prudent care not to be guilty him∣self of these faults which he con∣demns 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, viz. to shew that all those Books to * 1.1 which an Imprimatur is prefix'd, will not hereaf∣ter be concluded free from Errour; He needed not sure have taken such pains for that: For I be∣lieve no one before him ever imagined that a per∣mission to print a Book, was a mark of its Infal∣libility;

Nor that every nameless Author, who pro∣fesses * 1.2

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 contra∣ry, I believe it will in the end appear, that an Im∣primatur 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 Unsincerity 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.

My * 1.3 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, Calum∣niatory.

But if in the following Articles it be made ap∣pear, 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 Missal 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 sa∣crifice for the sins of the Dead and Living, and yet cannot say it is the very same with that of the

Cross: If, finally, their greatest Writers do allow a Merit of Condignity, and that not as a Scholastick Tenet, but as the Doctrine of their Church, and agreeable to the intention of their Council they so much talk of; Then I hope the premises may be as clear of the Calumny they are charged with, as my inference is allow'd to be just, for the consequence I would establish.

In the mean time, pass we on to the state of * 1.4 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 Ar∣ticles 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, is to state the Que∣stion * 1.5 after a new Mode, and represent them as con∣senting 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, he * 1.6 says, is,

Whether the Protestants or Papists do in∣novate? The Protestants in refusing to believe those Doctrines which the Church of Rome pro∣fesses to have received with the grounds of Chri∣stianity, or the Papists in maintaining their pos∣session: And the dispute is, Whether Roman Ca∣tholicks

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 * 1.7 against the Roman Catholick Doctrine be so weigh∣ty, 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 re∣ceived 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 Ro∣man 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 con∣cessions as to this Point, will find it clear enough * 1.8 that he did; if the Foundation consists of Funda∣mental Articles, and that we are on both sides agreed in these, as his discourse manifestly im∣plies. But the Vindicator, jealous for the Autho∣rity of his Church, and to have whatever she pro∣poses

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, de∣stroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed * 1.9 to be Fundamental.

But if I have not mistaken the Question be∣tween the Papists and Protestants, I am sure the Vindicator has that between Him and Me.

He * 1.10 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 Ac∣count 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 seve∣ral 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 alto∣gether, which has been so learnedly and fully managed, but very lately, in a particular † 1.11 Dis∣course on this Subject. Yet since the Vindicator de∣sires to know what Authority I have for my As∣sertion,

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 * 1.12 against them, viz. That they did herein begin to de∣part

from the Practice and Tradition of those before them, I am content to give him that satisfaction.

For the First then: That Monsieur Daillé him∣self look'd upon them as no other than such Ad∣dresses as I have characterized, becuase * 1.13 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 † 1.14.

Secondly: That these Addresses were really of this kind, the several passages that are usually brought from these Fathers, plainly shew: And both the * 1.15 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,

* 1.16 That they believed that the Saints departed, were not admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their decease;

and therefore, by the Papists own † 1.17 Confession, ought to have believed that they could not be pray'd to.

To all which the Vindicator is pleased to re∣turn never a word.

In short, That the Fathers of the fourth Cen∣tury did herein begin to depart from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them, I proved from this,

† 1.18 That they are not able to produce any one instance of the three first Centuries of any such Invocation; but rather have * 1.19 been forced to con∣fess that nothing of that kind was to be found among

them.

Besides that the Maxims of those Fathers con∣cerning † 1.20 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? * 1.21 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 * 1.22 of this Invocation, it were very easy to shew it, 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 no∣thing to reply to them. Every Text of Scripture that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone, is a de∣monstration against them; and that one Passage of St. Paul, Rom. 10. 14. How shall they call upon him

in whom they have not believed? were not Men wil∣ling 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 be∣fore 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 Invoca∣tion 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 Litur∣gies.

AS to the Prayers they make to them; we find them thus addressing to the Blessed Virgin: 1 1.23 We fly to thy Protection, O Holy Mother of God, despise not our Prayers which we make to thee in our Ne∣cessities, but deliver us from all Dangers, O Ever-glo∣rious and Blessed Virgin. Offic. B. V. p. 84. And in one of their Antiphona's; 2 1.24 Vouchsafe me that I may be worthy to praise thee, O Sacred Virgin; Grant me strength and Power against thine Enemies. Ibid. p. 103. 3 1.25 They desire her conjunctly with our Savi∣our, to bless them. Ibid. p. 105. And in their 4 1.26 Hymns, they address to her in the most formal manner; that she would help them that fall; that she would have pity upon Sinners; 5 1.27 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

now repeat it, because ‖ 1.28 Cardinal Bellarmine, and some others are so ashamed of it, as totally to deny they have any such Prayer, 6 1.29 O Happy Mother, expia∣ting 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 our 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: 7 1.30

That he would loose the Guilt of their polluted Lips, that the Tongues of his Servants might sound out his Praise.

And in general, thus they address to

the Apostles and Evangelists:

8 1.31 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: 9 1.32 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 recom∣mending to God their Offerings, and Sacraments, by the Merits of their Saints; we will see that too. And for an instance of these we need go no farther than their very first Saint, 10 1.33 St. Andrew, to whom in their Secretum they thus address.

We beseech thee, O Lord, that the Holy Prayer of the Blessed Apostle, St. Andrew, may procure thy Favour to our Sacrifice; that as it is solemnly offer'd in his Honour, so it may be rendred acceptable by his Merits, through our Lord.

He that shall survey the following Festivals, will

find either the Secretum, or Post-communio, to run in the same strain: I shall instance only in the Saints I formerly mentioned.

11 1.34 Let the Merits of St. Ba∣thildis, O Lord, prevail, that our Gifts may be accepted by thee: 12 1.35 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, and that truly, of my complaining that the approved Do∣ctrine * 1.36

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 representa∣tive, * 1.37 or memorative Sign, which is therefore apt to put us in mind of JESUS CHRIST, who suffered

upon the Cross for us; and the Honour which we there shew, precisely speaking, and according to the Ecclesiasti∣cal 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, the Doctrine of * 1.38 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 Ponti∣fical, 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. ‖ 1.39 In the Order of receiving an Em∣perour, it is appointed, that if there be a Legat pre∣sent, his Cross shall take the upper hand of the Em∣perors Sword, because a Divine Worship is due to it.

† 1.40 As to St. Thomas, he tells us only this,

That the Cross is not to be adored upon its own account, but either as it is the figure of Christ crucified, or be∣cause it toucht his Members when he was crucified upon it: That the Wood of the true Cross is to be wor∣shipped with Divine Adoration upon both these ac∣counts, but any other Crucifix only upon the former.

What does all this avail to the pretences of the Vin∣dicator? 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 Vindi∣cator'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 seve∣ral Passages which clearly shew, that they attribute such things to the Cross, as are directly contrary to * 1.41 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. Propter Deum, for the sake of God. It is very * 1.42 certain that I did leave out these words, as I did seve∣ral others, I believe, as much to the purpose as these. But that I may shew how little reason there

was for my expressing them, and to convince the World how clearly this passage charges them with Adoring the Cross, I will now propose it in its full length.

In the form of consecrating a new Cross; First the * 1.43 Bishop makes several prayers;

† 1.44 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 Ho∣ly Water, and incenses it; and then Consecrates it in these words:

* 1.45 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.

‖ 1.46 Then the Bishop Kneels down before the CROSS, and devoutly ADORES it, and kisses it.

But if the Cross be of any Metal, or of precious Stone, instead of the former Prayer, the Bishop is

to say another: I shall transcribe only some part of it.

After a long preamble, they beseech God, * 1.47 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 suf∣fered;] 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.

* 1.48 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 plain∣ly shews he had nothing to say to them;

All the * 1.49 rest of his Expressions, says he, drawn from the Pon∣tifical, are of the same nature; either lame, or patch'd up from several places, and therefore if they make any thing against us, are not worthy our regarding.

For Monsieur de Meaux, I shall only beg leave to remark this One thing; that if the Church of Rome looks upon the Cross only as a memorative Sign; to what End is all this Consecration; so many Prayers shall I say, or rather magical Incantations? And how

comes it to pass that a Cross, without all this ado, is not as fit to call to mind Jesus Christ who suffered upon the Cross, as after all this superstition, not to say any worse, in the dedication of it?

My third Argument to prove that they Adored the Cross, was from their Good Fryday's Service: And * 1.50 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 that hung 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. ‖ 1.51

* 1.52 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.

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, and wholly uncovering the Cross, and lifting it up, begins yet higher, Behold the Wood of the Cross * 1.53 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 whe∣ther 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 * 1.54 Church, he acknowledges the Fact, but tells us,

That these are Poetical Expressions; and that the word CROSS, by a Figure, sufficiently known to Poets, fignifies JESUS 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 ob∣lige 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. * 1.55 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.

‖ 1.56 The Banner of our King ap∣pears, The Mystery of the Cross shines, Upon 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 * 1.57 such Holy Members: Blessed, upon whose Arms, The Price of the World hung. Hail, O Cross, our only Hope! In this time of * 1.58 the Passion, Encrease the Righteousness of the Just, and give Pardon to the Guilty.

Now by what Figure to make the Banner * 1.59 and the King the same; the Cross upon which the maker of our Flesh hung, not dif∣ferent from that Flesh that hung upon it; * 1.60 the Tree chosen of a Stock worthy to touch

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, and believe it next a kin to * 1.61 Transubstantiation, the Vindicator may please hereaf∣ter to inform us.

In the Point of Reliques, the Council of Trent pro∣ceeded * 1.62 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. ‖ 1.63

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 ho∣nour, 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, their own St. Thomas gives the very same inter∣pretation * 1.64 to the same word. For having proposed the Question in these terms, Whether the Reliques of Saints are to be ADORED? He concludes it in the terms of the Council,

Seeing we VENERATE * 1.65 the Saints of God, we must also VENERATE their Bodies and Reliques.

And again, In his second Objection against this Conclusion, he argues against the Adoration of Reliques thus;

It seems very foolish to VENERATE an insen∣sible 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 RELIQUES are to be ADORED, their greatest Authors render it beyond denial evident. * 1.66 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 RELIQUES 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 conclu∣sion 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 RE∣LIQUES 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 Roy∣al, 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

Tongue, to use any Expressions subject to ambi∣guity, 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, ‖ 1.67 Of the Miracles of the Holy Thorne, use this word to express the Venera∣tion 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 In∣firmity. They boast of the great multitudes that fre∣quented 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 * 1.68 sufficiently evident, that I had reason to interpret Ue∣nerari in the Council, by Worship in my Exposition. As for the other thing he charges me with; That re∣ferring to the words of the Council I should make it say,

That these Sacred Monuments are not unprofita∣bly revered, but are to be sought unto for the obtain∣ing of their Help and Assistance: whereas indeed the Council's meaning is, to obtain the Help and assi∣stance of the Saints, not the Reliques: This is not my Invention, but his own Cavil;

And his citati∣on 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 Monu∣ments are unprofitably honoured by the Faithful; or

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 be∣ing plainly as I before rendred it; * 1.69

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 In∣stances 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 or∣der to these Ends.

ARTICLE V. Of Justification.

HOW far the true Doctrine of Justification was * 1.70 over-run with such Abuses, as I mention'd, 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

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. * 1.71 One, That it is the Doctrine of our Church to distin∣guish between Justification and Sanctification; tho the 11th and 12th Articles of our Church do clearly im∣ply it; and our * 1.72 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 Justi∣fication, and so by consequence said, that their Justifi∣cation 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;

† 1.73 By Justification is to be understood, not only remission of Sins, but Sanctification, and the renewing of the in∣ward Man:

Insomuch that in their 11th Canon they damn all such as dare to deny it:

‖ 1.74 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 Me∣rits, 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,

* 1.75 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 there∣fore only meritorious, because accompanied with the infinite Merits of Christ; What can be more impro∣per 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, if to shew the true * 1.76 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 celebra∣ted 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 Coun∣cil, 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, that they are not also the Merits * 1.77 of the same Justified Person; That being justified by the Grace of God, and Merits of Jesus Christ, he do's then truly merit both encrease of Grace, and Eternal Life:

In a word, the Point of Merit, as we now consider it, amounts to this, Whether we do truly and

properly merit by our own Good Works? or, Whether whatsoever we receive, be not a Reward that is given us only through God's Acceptance, and promise in Christ Jesus?

This We affirm, they the Other; and whether the Testimonies I produced for the further clearing of their Doctrine do prove it or no, is now to be enqui∣red by us.

1st, ‖ 1.78 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: † 1.79 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] con∣dignly, not only by reason of God's Covenant and acceptation, but also by reason of the Work it self.

* 1.80 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

the Agreement; as if the Lord of the Vineyard instead of a Penny, should have promised the Labourers a hun∣dred 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,

x 1.81 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.

‖ 1.82 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;

* 1.83 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.

† 1.84 A third sort of Condignity is, If there be both a Covenant, and that the Work be truly equal to the Re∣ward: 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 or∣der 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 possi∣bly does not desire that the Council should be so freely expounded, as Bellarmine here has done it.

But Vasquez goes yet further: ‖ 1.85 1st, He rejects the Opinion of Bellarmine, as too little for their Good Works: and then proposes his own in the * 1.86 three Conclusions mentioned by me; to which I must refer the Reader, and leave him to judg, Whether the lit∣tle 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 Vin∣dicator complains he could not find, is the very Sub∣ject 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 † 1.87 Trent, but rather a true and natural Exposition of it.

ARTICLE VII.

§. 1. Of Satisfactions.

IF the † 1.88 Council of Trent has express'd it self in such * 1.89 terms, 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 esta∣blished 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 al∣together 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 insi∣nite Merits of a crucified Saviour, that has made an infinite Satisfaction to his Justice, he may as well for∣give Temporal as Eternal Punishment.

That * 1.90 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 * 1.91 He and † 1.92 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, or any o∣ther * 1.93 single Point as the cause of our separating from 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 con∣fident 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 Scrip∣ture 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, the Vindicator thinks it suffi∣cient * 1.94 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, diffe∣rent 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 neces∣sary, nor universally received, to believe that these In∣dulgences satisfy for the temporal Pain of Sin? Do they not put up Bills over their Church Doors and Al∣tars, almost every Sunday, to vend them on this Ac∣count? Is not his Holiness still esteem'd the Churches Treasurer? And has he not but very lately sent a † 1.95 U∣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 Pri∣mitive * 1.96 Christians in praying for the Dead, would have deserved either an ingenuous acknow∣ledgment of the truth of it, or some reasonable proof of its falseness or impertinence. We cannot but su∣spect that he was hard put to it for Arguments, when all the reason he brings us for the belief of Purgato∣ry, is built upon the Authority of two Councils, nei∣ther 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. Other∣wise '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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Vindicat. pag. 22.
• * 1.2

  Vindicat. pag. 22.
• * 1.3

  Vindicat. pag. 23.
• * 1.4

  Expos. p. 5.
• * 1.5

  Vindicat. pag. 24.
• * 1.6

  Ibid. p. 25.
• * 1.7

  Ibid. p. 26.
• * 1.8

  See his Ex∣pos. §. 2. p. 2.
• * 1.9

  Vindicat. Pag. 23.
• * 1.10

  Vindicat. pag. 26.
• † 1.11

  Discourse concerning the Worship of the B. Virgin and the Saints, in Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Ap∣peal to the fourth Age.
• * 1.12

  Vindicat. Pag. 29.
• * 1.13

  Expos. Mon∣sieur de Meaux, pag. 4. §. 3. It will not be unuseful to take notice how those of the P. Re∣formation 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.
• † 1.14

  Monsieur Daillé's words are these: Neque eum à vero longè aberraturum puto, qui dixerit hunc fuisse apud Christianos primum ad Sanctos invocandos gradum, cum calefacti at{que} inar∣descentes rerum praeclarè ab iis gestarum meditatione, praedicatione, atque exaggeratione animi, ad eos denique Invocandos prorumperent. Certè quae de 4^o Seculo prima hujus Invocationis afferuntur Exempla, ea ferè sunt hujus generis. Ex Encomiasticis quorundam disertissimorum & Eruditione Seculari florentissimorum hominum in Sanctos Orationibus desumpta, Gregorii Nazi∣anzeni in Cyprianum; in Athanasium, in Basilium; Gregorii Nysseni in Theodorum, qui ambo 4^o sed jam praecipiti seculo celebres habebantur, &c. Adv. Lat. Tradit. de cultûs relig. Objecto, l. 3. c. 18. pag. 454.
• * 1.15

  The Exam∣ples I gave were from Greg. Naz. and they are these: 1. Invectiv. in Julian. pag. 2. He thus bespeaks Constantius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Upon which the Greek Scholiast observes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2dly. Orat. 11. in Gorgon. p. 189. l D. He thus addresses to his Sister. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.16

  The opini∣on 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 ma∣ny 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 con∣firms, Bibl. l. 6. annot. 345. p. 569. and particularly as to the Fathers in question, S. Am∣brose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine. p. 571, 572.
• † 1.17

  Bellarm. de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19. p. 2044. l. D. Not. est; quia ante Christi adventum Sancti qui moriebantur non intrabant in Coelum, nec Deum videbant, nec 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 Sua∣rez's Opinion T. 2. in 3. D. Th. disp. 42. Sect. 1. p. 435. col. 1. l. E. Quod autem aliquis directè oraverit Sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent, vel pro se orarent, nusquam legimus. Hic enim modus Orandi est proprius legis Gratiae, in quosancti videntes Deum passunt etiam in Eo videre Orationes que ad ipsos funduntur. And this the common Doctrine of their Writers.
• † 1.18

  This I be∣fore chal∣leng'd the Answerer to do, and he has not at∣tempted it. Bellarmin has but two within the first 300 Years. One of Irenaeus mis-in∣terpreted, and one of Hilary, as little to the purpose. De Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19. p. 2047, 2048.
• * 1.19

  So Cardinal Perron himself Repl. à la rep. du Roy de la grande Bretagne, liv. 5. cap. 11, 19. Where he is forced to Monsieur de Meaux's shift of con∣cluding 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 nous a ravis la pluspart des ecrits, encore qu' il ne s'y trouve pas des Vestiges de cette coutûme—ill suffit—qu'it ne se trouve rien en leurs Ecrits de repug∣nant à 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.
• † 1.20

  I shall men∣tion but two; 1st, That they constantly de∣fined Prayer, as due to God only: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says Basil. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Greg. Nyssen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chrysostom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.
• * 1.21

  Vindicat. p. 29.
• * 1.22

  Vindicat. p. 30.
• 1 1.23

  Sub tuum praesidium con∣sugimus S. Dei Genetrix; no∣stras depreca∣tiones ne de∣spicias in ne∣cessitatibus, sed à periculis cunctis libera nos semper Virgo gloriosa & benedicta.
• 2 1.24

  Dignare me laudare Te Virgo Sacra∣ta; Da mihi Virtutem con∣tra hostes tu∣os.
• 3 1.25

  Nos cum prole pia, be∣nedicat Virgo Maria.
• 4 1.26

  Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia Coeli Porta manes, & stella maris, succurre cadenti Surgere qui curat populo; tu quae genuisti Naturâ miran•…•…e tuum Sanctum Genitorem, Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab Ore Sumens illud Ave, Peccatorum miserere. Offic. B. V p. 122.
• 5 1.27

  Maria Mater gratiae, Mater miserecordiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege, & horâ mortis suscipe. Ib. p. 123.
• ‖ 1.28

  Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 16. p. 2036. l. A. reflects upon Calvin in these words. Quintò ibidem dicit, nos ro∣gare Virginem ut filium Ju∣beat facere quod petimus. At quis nostrum hoc dicit? Cur non probat ullo exemplo? I before ob∣served 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;
• 6 1.29

  O'foelix Puerpera, nostra pians scelera, Jure Matris IMPERA REDEMPTORI. Da fidei foedera, Da salutis Opera, Da in vitae vesperâ Benè mori. And in∣deed 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 Fa∣ther 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 potest filio supplicare, sed etiam potest Authoritate Maternâ eidem 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 ad∣mirable Sentence;

  Eadem potestas est Matris & Filii, quae ab omni po∣tente Filio omnipotens facta est: The Power of the Mother and the Son is the same, who by her OMNIPOTENT Son, is made her self OM∣NIPOTENT.

  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.
• 7 1.30

  Ut queant laxis resonare fibris, Mira gestorum fa∣muli tuorum, Solve polluti labii reatum, Sancte Johannes.
• 8 1.31

  Vos saecli justi Judices & vera Mundi lu∣mina, votis pre∣camur cordium, audite preces supplicum. Qui Coelum verbo clauditis, se∣ras{que} ejus sol∣vitis, Nos à peccatis omnibus solvite Jussu quaesumus. Quo∣rum praecepto subditur salus & languor omnium, Sanate Aegros moribus, Nos reddentes Virtutibus. Ut cum judex adveneric Christus in fine saeculi, Nos sempiterni gaudii, Faciat esse compotes. ibid. p. 497.
• 9 1.32

  Deus qui B. Nicolaum Pon∣tificem innu∣meris decora∣sti miraculis, tribue quaesu∣mus ut ejus Meritis & Pre∣cibus à Gehen∣nae incendiis liberemur.
• 10 1.33

  Sacrifici∣um nostrum tibi Domine quaesumus B. Andraei Apostoli precatio sancta conciliet, ut in cujus honore solemniter ex∣hibetur Ejus Meritis efficia∣tur acceptum. Per. Missale Rom. Fest. Nov. p. 513.
• 11 1.34

  Ut haec Munera tibi Domine ac∣cepta sint S. Bathildis ob∣tineant Merita; quae seipsam tibi hostiam vivam, sanctam & beneplacen∣tem exhibuit.
• 12 1.35

  Praestent nobis quaesumus sumpta Sacrament a praesidium salutare, & interve∣nientibus B. Martini Confessoris tui at{que} Pontificis Meritis ab omnibus nos absolvant peccatis. See Missale in usum Sarum fol. 9. & 68. in Fest. Nov.
• * 1.36

  Vindicat. p. 31.
• * 1.37

  Ibid. p. 32.
• * 1.38

  Vindicat. p. 38.
• ‖ 1.39

  Pontific. Ord. ad recip. proces∣sionaliter Impe∣rat. p. 205. col. 2 si verò Legatus Apostolicus Im∣peratorem reci∣peret, aut cum eo Urbem intraret, vel alias secum iret vel equitaret, ille qui Gladium Im∣peratori praefert, & alius Crucem Legati portans simul ire debent. Cr•••• Legati, Quia debetur ••i La∣tria, erit à dextris, & Gladius Imperatoris à ••inistria.
• † 1.40

  Thomas 3. p. q. 25. art. 4. Utrum Crux Christi sit ado∣randa adoratio∣ne LATRIAE? Conclus. Crux Christi in quâ Christus cruci∣fixus est, tum propter re∣praesentatio∣nem, tum propter mem∣brorum Chri∣sti contactum, LATRIA ADORANDA EST: Crucis verò Effigies in aliâ quâvis materiâ, prio∣ri tantùm ra∣tione LATRIA ADORANDA EST. And in the body, Unde utro{que} modo adoratur eâdem adoratione cum Christo, scil. ADORATIONE LATRIA.
• * 1.41

  Vindicat. p. 39.
• * 1.42

  Page 39.
• * 1.43

  Pontificale de benedictione novae Crucis. pag. 161. col. 2.
• † 1.44

  Rogamus Te Domine pater omnipotens sempiterne Deus, ut dig∣neris benedi∣cere hoc lignum Crucis tuae, ut sit remedium salutare generi humane; sit soliditas fidei, bonorum Operum profe∣ctus, & redemptio Animarum; sit solamen & protectio, & tutela contra saeva jacula Inimicorum. Per.
• * 1.45

  Ibid. p. 162. col. 1. Sancti†ficetur istud lignum in Nomine Pa†tris, & Fi†lii, & Spi∣ritus † Sancti: Et benedictio illius ligni in quo sancta membra salva∣toris suspensa sunt, sit in isto ligno, ut orantes inclinantes{que} se [propter Deum] ante istam Crucem, inveniant Corporis & Animae fanitatem: Per.
• ‖ 1.46

  Tum Pontifex flexis ante CRUCEM, genibus ipsam devotè ADORAT & osculatur.
• * 1.47

  Ut Sancti†fi∣ces tibi hoc signum Crucis at{que} conse†cres:—Illis ergo manibus hanc Crucem accipe, quibus illam amplexus es; & de sanctita∣te illius, hanc sancti†fica: & sicuti per illam mundus expiatus est à reatu, ita offerentium famulorum tuorum animae devotissimae, hu∣jus CRUCIS merito, omni careant perpetrato peccato. P. 162.
• * 1.48

  Tum Ponti∣fex flexis ante CRUCEM genibus EAM devotè ADO∣RAT, & oscu∣latur: Idem faciunt qui∣cun{que} alii vo∣luerint.
• * 1.49

  Vindicat. p. 39.
• * 1.50

  Vindicat. p. 40.
• ‖ 1.51

  Note first, That in the Office of the Holy Week, printed in Latin & Eng∣lish at Paris, 1670, The Ti∣tle of this Ce∣remony is, THE ADORA∣TION OF THE CROSS. pag. 342.
• * 1.52

  Missale Rom. feria VI. in Pa∣rasceve. p. 247. Completis O∣rationibus 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 po∣pulum à summitate parùm disco-operit, incipiens solus Antiphonam, Ecce lignum Crucis, ac de∣inceps 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, elevans∣que eam paulisper, altiùs quàm primò incipit, Ecce lignum Crucis; aliis cantantibus & ado∣rantibus, ut supra.
• * 1.53

  Deinde Sacer∣dos procedit ad medium al∣taris, & disco∣operiens Cru∣cem totaliter, ac elevans eam, tertiò altiùs incipit, Ecce lignum Crucis, in quo salus mundi pependit, Venite Adoremus: ali∣is cantantibus & adorantibus ut supra. Postea Sacer∣dos folus por∣tat Crucem ad locum ante Al∣tare praepa∣ratum, & genu flexus ibidem eam locat: Mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad ADORANDAM CRUCEM; 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 ADO∣RATIO CRUCIS cantantur, &c.—Deinde cantatur communiter Annā: CRUCEM tuam ADORAMUS Domine. P. 209.
• * 1.54

  Vindicat. p. 40.
• * 1.55

  3. p. q. 25. art. 4. p. 53. thus argues: Illi exhibemus Latriae cultum, in quo poni∣mus spem salutis, sed in Cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis, Cantat enim Ecclesia, O Crux ave, &c.
• ‖ 1.56

  Vexilla Regis prodeunt, Fulget Crucis mysterium, Quo carne carnis Condito•• Suspensus est patibulo.
• * 1.57

  Arbor decora & fulgida, Ornata Regis purpurâ, Electa digno stipite, Tam Sancta membra tangere.
• * 1.58

  Beata cujus brachiis Soecli pependit pretium. Statera facta Corporis, Praedam{que} tulit Tartari.
• * 1.59

  O Crux Ave spes unica! Hoc passionis tempore, Auge piis Justitiam, Reis{que} dona Veniam.
• * 1.60

  Vid. Breviar. Rom. Dom. Passionis. p. 295, 296.
• * 1.61

  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.
• * 1.62

  OF RELIQUES.
• ‖ 1.63

  Con. Tr. Sess. 25. Affirmantes Sanctorum Re∣liquiis venera∣tionem at{que} ho∣norem non de∣beri, damnan∣dos esse.
• * 1.64

  Thom. 3. p. q. 25. art. 6. pag. 54.
• * 1.65

  Utrum Reli∣quiae Sancto∣rum sint A∣DORANDAE? Conclus: Cum Sanctos Dei Veneremur, eo∣rum quoque corpora & Reliquias Ve∣nerari opor∣tet. Sec. Obj. Stultum vide∣tur rem insen∣sibilem VENERARI. Resp. Ad secund. dicend. Quod Corpus illud insensibile non ADO∣RAMUS propter seipsum; sed, &c.
• * 1.66

  Vasquez in 3. p. D. Th. disp. 112. p. 808. pro∣poses this Que∣stion: An Cor∣pora & aliae Sanctorum Re∣liquiae VENE∣RANDAE sint? To this he an∣swers, c. 2. p. 809. Apud Catholicos ve∣ritas indubita∣ta est, Reliqui∣as Sanctorum, sive fuerint partes ipsorum, ut Ossa, Carnes, & Cineres; sive res aliae, quae ipsos tetigerunt, vel ad ip∣sos pertineant, ADORANDAS & in honore Sacra habendas esse. And again, Disp. 113. c. 1. p. 816. Cum ergo jam contra Haereticos constitutum sit, Reliquias esse ADORANDAS, super∣est explicare quo genere cultûs & honoris eas VENERARI debeamus.
• ‖ 1.67

  Response à un ecrit pub∣lié sur les Mi∣racles de la Sainte Espine. Pag. 15, 18,—22, &c. Cited by Mon∣sieur Daillé.
• * 1.68

  Vindicat. p. 42.
• * 1.69

  Ita ut Affir∣mantes San∣ctorum Reli∣quiis Venera∣tionem atque Honorem non deberi, vel eas aliá{que} sacra Mo∣numenta inuti∣liter honorari, at{que} Eorum o∣pis impetran∣dae Causâ me∣morias Sancto∣rum frustra frequentari, omnino dam∣nandos esse.
• * 1.70

  Vindicat. p. 46.
• * 1.71

  Vindicat. p. 47.
• * 1.72

  Pag. 12. The very beginning of the Homily: Because all Men be Sin∣ners and Of∣fenders 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 For∣giveness of his Sins and Trespasses in such Things as he hath offended. Edit. Oxon. 1683.
• † 1.73

  Justificatio, non est sola peccatorum re∣missio, sed & san∣ctificatio & re∣novatio interi∣oris hominis. C. Tr. Sess. vi. c. 7. p. 31.
• ‖ 1.74

  Siquis dixe∣rit, homines Justificari vel solâ imputa∣tione justitiae Christi, vel solâ peccatorum remissione ex∣clusâ gratiâ & charitate quae in cordibus Eorum per Spiritum S. diffundatur, at{que} illis inhae∣reat; aut etiam gratiam quâ justificamur esse tantùm favorem Dei, Anathema sit. Can. 11. Sess. vi.
• * 1.75

  Siquis dixe∣rit hominis ju∣stificati bona Opera ita esse Dona Dei, ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justi∣ficati Merita; aut ipsum Ju∣stificatum bo∣nis 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.
• * 1.76

  Vindicat. p. 48.
• * 1.77

  Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. Can. 32.
• ‖ 1.78

  Maldon. in Ezek. 18. 20. p. 425. Ex hoc loco perspicu∣um est ali∣quam esse no∣stram, ut vo∣cant, inheren∣tem propri∣ám{que} justiti∣am, quamvis ex Dei gratiâ, & largitate profectam: & nos tam proprie & verè, cum gratiâ Dei benè agentes praemia mereri, quàm sine illâ malè Agentes supplicia mereamur.
• † 1.79

  De Justis. l. 5. c. 17. Opera bona justorum me∣ritoria esse ex condigno, non solùm ratione pacti, sed eti∣am ratione Operum.
• * 1.80

  Meritum ex Condigno tri∣bus modis va∣riari potest. Nam si fortè opus aliquod sit multò inferius mercede ex conventione promissâ, ut si dominus Vineae conduceret Opera∣rios, & non denarium diurnum, sed centum aureos promercede promitteret, esset ejusmodi meritum ex condigne ratione pacti, non Operis. P. 1299. l. B.
• x 1.81

  Opera justo∣rum esse Bonae verè & propriè, sed non tan excellentia ut proportionem ha∣beant cum vitâ aeternâ. Et ideò acceptari qui∣dem à Deo ad justam & dig∣nam mercedē vitae aeternae, sed ex pacto & promissione non ex Operis digni∣tate. p. 1300. l. A
• ‖ 1.82

  Si Opus sit re∣vera aequale mer∣cedi, vel etiam majus, sed con∣ventio nulla in∣tervenerit.
• * 1.83

  Opera Bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex con∣digno ratione Operis, etiamsi nulla extaret divina conven∣tio. p. 1299. D.
• † 1.84

  Si & Pactum intercedat, & Opus sit verè par Mercedi; ut cum operarii ad vi∣neam condu∣cuntur pro de∣nario diurno, id meritum e∣rit 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 te∣netur Deus acceptare ad illam mercedem Opus bonum, quamvis par & aequale Mercedi nisi conventio interveniat. Quam sententiam Conformem esse non dubitamus Concilio Tridentino, &c.
• ‖ 1.85

  Vasquez in 1, 2dae. q. 114. d. 214. c. 3. p. 802. Jam verò hâc no∣strâ Aetate non pauci Theologiae Professores mediam quan∣dam Viam ele∣gerunt, inter Scoti Opinio∣nem quam primo Cap. memoravi∣mus, & alio∣rum sententi∣am quam nos ut Veram infe∣rius probabi∣mus. Dicunt ergo rationem Meriti perfecti & condigni, quod simpliciter Meritum dicitur, duobus compleri, nempe & digni∣tate Operis, & promissione mercedis: which was Bellarmine's Opinion.
• * 1.86

  Pag. 803. The first is that of c. 5. p. 804. Bona Opera Justorum, abs{que} ull•• 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 Ip∣sa Justorum Opera non sint digna remuneratione Vitae Aeternae, nisi Deus benignitute 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 Con∣clusion, 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 sobo Deo li∣beraliter 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 aocessisse quidem divinam promissionem, eam tamen nullo modo pertinere ad rationem Meriti, sed potiùs advenire Operi∣bus, non tantum jam 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.
• † 1.87

  See disp. 214. c. 11, 12. p. 819, &c.
• † 1.88

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. cap. 8. Can. 73.
• * 1.89

  Vindicat. pag. 54, 55.
• * 1.90

  Lib. 1. de purg. c. 10. to this Objection, Si applicatur nobis per no∣stra Opera Christi satis∣factio, vel sunt duae satisfactio∣nes simul jun∣ctae, una Chri∣sti, 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 satisfaciamus; & hoc modo dicitur applicari nobis Christi satisfa∣ctio; non quòd Immediatè ipsa ejus satisfactio tollat poenam temporalem nobis debitam, sed quòd Mediatè eam tollat, quatenus, viz. ab eâ gratiam habemus sine quâ nihil Valeret nostra sa∣tisfactio.
• * 1.91

  As to the Point of Satis∣faction, Belar∣mine distin∣guishes be∣tween a Satis∣faction to Ju∣stice, and a Sa∣tisfaction 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.
• † 1.92

  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 exhibet id quod potest; licet minus sufficiens illud sit, dicitur aliquo modo satisfacere. This Reason Vasqutz dislikes; he is content this Satisfa∣ction should be called Minus sufficiens; but then only upon the account before mentioned, of its proceeding from the Grace of God: So that, Si Contritio praecederet infusionem Gratiae habitualis ex parte Efficientis, non solùm satisfaceret pro maculâ peccati condignè, sed etiam 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, ut ea non indigeat favore Dei condonantis peccatum, vel aliquid illius, aut acceptantis satisfa∣ctionem, sed talis sit ut ex naturâ suâ deleat maculam & poenam peccati Venialis.
• * 1.93

  Vindicat. p. 57.
• * 1.94

  Vindicat. p. 58.
• † 1.95

  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 Ordi∣nary, 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.
• * 1.96

  Vindicat. p. 59.