Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

The

following note has been received from the Rev. J. Mendham. The name of the writer is ample apology for its insertion.

[ocr errors]

“In Dr. Cumming's edition of Gibson's Preservative against Popery, vol. xiii. p. 229, in the continuation of a note by the Editor, occur the following words, respecting the change of the expression in some Missals, and in one of the Hymns or Prose, Jure matris impera Redemptori, as addressed to the Virgin Mary-the charge is taken from Daillé. The Editor proceeds : Natalis Alexander says of this idolatrous and blasphemous language; Non est ab Ecclesia probata, et quibusdam tantum Missalibus olim inserta. Hist. Eccles. Sæc. v. dis. 25. vol. ix. p. 773. Bing. ad Rhenum. 1787 The quotation, which is not continued, proceeds thus, continuously :-ejus auctor ignotus : nec diu in usu fuit : quanquam innoxius esset iste loquendi modus; jure matris impera Redemptori.' The blasphemy is not says Alexander) approved by the Church. Missals, &c. are not usually, if ever, formally approved; but was this expression ever disapproved ? Rome has obvious, and almost necessary means when public, of so doing repeatedly and authoritatively, in her Indexes Prohibitory, (not, as frequently and ignorantly called, Expurgatory). Of these Alexander, it is probable, possessed and cultivated almost complete ignorance. Perhaps by the term church, he understands himself and his party, and their approbation, that of their own private judgment. And what does he think of the private judgment of the churches which concocted, approved and used, the poor discarded prosa containing the terms?

Again; the prosa now so virtuously abandoned, was used only in some churches. Did Stillingfleet and his authorities above, say more? Many are specified in the text, and I will tell Alexander and his friends, what, I believe, neither he, nor they, knew before, that those Missals are confined to the Church of France, which before and after the Reformation, and even after the Council of Trent, had in her various cities and towns, Missals peculiar to herself. Several are mentioned above; and I am able to add one of Chartres, which has likewise in it another prosa containing the words Jube natum ; two of Liege (one a fine folio), one belonging to a friend, and

vi

a

one of Paris. The first of the three is of the 16th century, the others of the 17th. But will a true member of the (socalled) Catholic Church stigmatize the most Christian Church of France as unworthy of being listened to, when she enunciates what is unpalatable to his and his sect's private judgment, for the plain purpose of escaping from a difficulty? And it may be plainly seen with what unwillingness and hypocrisy the gem is parted with, by the reserve which follows, but does not appear in the Editor's extract, that the expression, Jure matris impera Redemptori (by the right of a mother command the Redeemer) is innoxious without fault. If this be not a complete felo-de-se of the whole argument, it will be difficult to find one.

In fact, the whole argument, as far as it pretends to be one, is as inconsecutive and despicable as could be expected from the most unscrupulous advocate.

“The argument indeed has something of a parallel in that which would discredit the appeal to the Creed of Pius IV. as binding on the conscience of the Papal world, on the ground of its being limited to the ecclesiastic class ; which, however, is not the fact, for that Creed, on oath, is enjoined on Professors of Medicine, Philosophy, &c. on Schoolmasters, Heads of Monastic Institutions, Doctors of Universities, on one Military Order—that of St. Maurice, even on every distinct soldier of it; as the Bullarium will testify.

“ Alexander brought into full practice the style of Papal defence which Bossuet introduced, and Gother with others followed, of shewing Popery under a mask, and giving just occasion to the writers in the latter part of the Preservative especially, of distinguishing between Old Popery and the New.

THE

DOCTRINES IN DISPUTE

BETWEEN THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE CHURCH OF ROME

TRULY REPRESENTED.

AN

ANSWER TO THE REPRESENTER'S REFLECTIONS

UPON THE

STATE AND VIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY,

WITH

A REPLY TO THE VINDICATOR'S FULL ANSWER;

SHEWING,

THAT THE VINDICATOR HAS UTTERLY RUINED THE NEW DESIGN OF EXPOUNDING AND REPRESENTING POPERY.

THE PREFACE.

I HAVE here brought together the Representer and the Vindicator, two friends that seem to have been great strangers to one another of late. They have been so busy each of them in pursuing his own proper part, that they have had no eye to the safety of that design which is common to both.

Nothing seems to require a more nice and exact care, than so to expound and represent the Roman religion, as to gain Protestants, and yet not to hazard the very pretences to infallibility in the Roman Church, and to unity amongst themselves. And, therefore, since these two were engaged in this work, they ought, above all things, to have proceeded by common advice; and like two even squares, if it were possible, they should have touched one another in every point.

[blocks in formation]

a

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

But something or other has broken off this correspondence : for the Vindicator has undone the Representer, if that man can be undone by another, who had undone himself before. And betwixt them both, there is a hopeful cause lost, which can never be retrieved but by new hands, or by a declared war between these two, in which the Representer, if he can, must undo the Vindicator.

If the Representer has a better opinion of his own affairs, he is a happy man ; for I dare almost undertake, that for the future nobody shall go about to disturb him, but he shall keep possession in peace.

I was for this time prevailed with to come in for one of his answerers. He has shaked off two or three already, and he is enough to tire out all the controvertists in town.

To write against him is now grown as unprofitable a drudgery, as to plough upon a rock, where there is no soil to be turned up. He gives little or no occasion to write any thing that will answer the attention of a judicious reader, and hardly of a curious one. He may be confuted indeed, and exposed as he deserves to be; but it is but a mere trial of skill, which nobody is the better for. To answer him now will never pay the charge of a book, and therefore he that undertakes it must either leave him, as he was wont to serve his adversaries, or be content with pertinence where it is good for nothing.

This is the best apology I have to make for those barren pages which occur sometimes in the answer to him. And if the reader will accept it now, I pass my word to need it no more. The Representer may from this time, either carry on the character-controversy upon his old thirty-seven points, or he may think of some new additions to patch up a fourth part out of his first three, as he compounded a third out of his first and second ; and he may come out with fifteen fresh articles of representation once a year as long as he lives, without any great fear of being opppsed.

He may now write with a privilege, and say what he pleases, if H. Hills will but give his consent ; for I think nobody else is like to discourage him. And if he puts out a reply to this answer, he shall do very well

, but then I promise him he shall answer it himself; and get the victory by fighting the battle on both sides.

The Vindicator is making all the haste he can after him : In truth the Representer came first to perfection, by nothing else but getting the start of him. For I have no skill at all,

a

« AnteriorContinuar »