too much upon our Ignorance and indeed to give too great a scandal to many of her own Communion more zealous than himself for this service And therefore we find it now expounded in a manner more conformable to the truth though still exceedingly mollified T is upon this is founded the Honour which we give to Images and again When we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our Intention is not so much to honour the Image as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image VII In the Section of Justification Monsieur de Meaux has omitted this whole paragraph since his first Edition The Catholick Church says he is no where more invincible than in this point and perhaps it would need no long discourse to shew that the more one searches by the Scriptures into the design of the redemption of Mankind which was to make us Holy the more one shall approach to our Doctrine and the more depart from the opinions of Calvin which are not maintainable nay are contradictory and ruinous of all true and solid piety 1 Ed. p. 36 37. Monsieur de Meaux may please some other time to expound to us what those Opinions of Calvin in this matter are which the Church of Rome is so invincible in and which all parties among them will agree to be so contradictory and ruinous to all true and solid piety as he then said In the mean time we will only beg leave to observe on occasion of this Correction that perhaps there are some in the Church of Rome of Mr. Calvin's mind in the worst of those Principles Monsieur de Meaux refers to and to assure him that there are several Protestants in the World that are not tho they dare not therefore so severely censure the Opinions of those that are IX Monsieur de Meaux having in a very few words explained the Doctrine of Justification upon which the Council of Trent is so long and perplex'd assured us in his first Exposition That that was enough for any Man to know to make him a through Christian Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification and our Adversaries would be extraordinarily contentious not to confess that there is no need to know any more to be a solid Christian 1 Ed. p. 47. This would have been of great advantage to us and have freed us from the Anathema's of many other Particulars of which we more doubt than of any thing Monsieur de Meaux has expounded of it but this others thought too great a Concession and the Bishop therefore without changing any thing in his Premises was forced to draw a very different Conclusion from them Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification and our Adversaries would be very unreasonable if they should not confess that this Doctrine suffices to teach Christians that they ought to refer all the Glory of their Salvation to God through Jesus Christ X. In the Article of Satisfaction Monsieur de Meaux speaking of the Temporal and Eternal Punishment of Sin and how the one may be retain'd when the other is forgiven had this Paragraph in the first Edition since struck out The Church has always acknowledged these two different manners of applying the Remission of Sins which we have proposed because she faw that in the Scriptures besides the first Pardon and which ought to be the only if Men were not ungrateful and which is pronounced in the terms of a pure Remission there is another Absolution and another Grace that is proposed in form of a Judgment where the Church ought not only to loose and remit but also to bind and retain 1 Edit p. 54 55. The Censure pass'd upon this were enough to make one suspect that either Monsieur de Meaux or his Correctors were sensible upon further Consideration that they could not so easily find out these two forms so distinguish'd in holy Scripture or prove that the Church had always acknowledged them and therefore judged it safer not to undertake it XI In the Article of Confirmation speaking of the Imposition of Hands Monsieur de Meaux insinuated in his first Exposition that it had always been accompanied with the use of Chrism ever since the Apostles Thus says he all Christian Churches have religiously retained this Practice accompanying it the Imposition of Hands with holy Chrism 1 Ed. p. 65. This was too clearly false to be suffer'd to pass and therefore it is now more loose so as to admit of an Equivocation and yet seem to say still the same thing Thus all Christian Churches since the Apostles times have religiously retained it making use also of holy Chrism XII In the Article of the Sacrifice of the Mass Monsieur de Meaux having expounded it according to our Principles in his first Edition concluded with us too So that it the Mass may says he be very reasonably called a Sacrifice 1 Ed. p. 115. But since the Correction the Conclusion is much strengthned tho the Premises remain the same So that there is nothing wanting to it to make it a true Sacrifice XIII As to the point of the Pope's Authority the first Exposition ran much higher than it seems the Spirit of the Gallicane Church could bear So that our Profession of Faith obliges us as to this point to believe the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and to render a true Obedience to the Pope the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ 1 Ed. p. 166. It is now more loose and in general thus We acknowledg a Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for that cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful 5 Ed. p. 210. But it may be what was struck out of the Exposition to please the Correctors Monsieur de Meaux recompensed in his Letter to satisfy his Holiness XIV In the Conclusion Monsieur de Meaux telling us that none of those Articles he had expounded according to our own Principles destroyed the Foundation of our Salvation added in his first Exposition what that Foundation was viz. The Adoration of one only God Father Son and Holy Ghost and the Trust in one only Saviour 1 Ed. p. 160. It is hard to say why this was not let pass for we are unwilling to believe that the Church of Rome has any other Foundation for Salvation than this But it may be to have put down this as the Foundation of Salvation would have been too plainly to shew that then we certainly have this and that without mixture of any thing destructive thereunto XV. Monsieur de Meaux go's on in a very candid manner since struck out In effect says he in all these Explications which contain the very bottom of our Belief there is not any one word repugnant to these two Principles either directly or by Consequence So that
thanks for it and by faith and repentance apply to our selves the Merits of it Thus whilst we receive these Holy signs which he has instituted for our Memorial we need no real descent of the Son of God from Heaven no new Crucifying of the Lord of Glory to raise in our Souls those just resentments we ought to have of so excellent a Blessing But as a Child cannot but recollect the kindness and affection of a dear Father as often as he beholds the Monument where his dead Body lies interred So we much more cannot chuse but excite our Love to our blessed Redeemer as often as we see before our eyes these Sacred Elements under which he is vailed Nor is it necessary for this that this Mystick Tomb as Monsieur de Meaux phrases it should any more be changed into the very real Body of our Saviour to raise this remembrance than that natural One into the dead Corps of the Father to recall the tender Affections of his Child at the sight of it In a word As we will not now move any Argument from the nature of this remembrance to oppose that substantial change which we have before combated on more solid grounds so we suppose muchless ought Monsieur de Meaux from the sole opinion of that more lively remembrance which he imagines the actual eating of the very Flesh of Christ would raise in us then only to do it in a figure to conclude him to be substantially there It is evident that they who believe this change and they who believe it not receive him entirely alike They see and taste and feel the same thing It is Faith alone which works in both and makes the one believing him spiritually present to remember him with the same love to honour him with the same reverence and embrace him with the same hope as the other who thinks him corporeally but yet after a manner altogether unperceivable contain'd under the sacred Elements that are presented to him ARTICLE XVIII The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning this Holy Sacrament THe sum of our belief as to the nature of this holy Sacrament is this We esteem it designed by Christ to be a perpetual memorial of his suffering for us That so often as we eat of this Bread and Drink of this Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 we might shew forth the Lords Death till his coming We believe that in this Communion we do not only remember but effectually partake our Blessed Saviour and all the benefits of his passion Insomuch that to such as rightly See our 28. Article and worthily and with Faith receive the same the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ and likewise the Cup of the blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ For the manner of this Participation We believe that the Body and Blood of Christ See the same Article are given taken and eaten in this Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner and that the means whereby this is done is Faith We believe that the wicked and such as are void of Faith The same Article tho they may visibly and carnally press with their teeth as St. Augustin saith the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are no way partakers of Christ but rather as St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 11. eat and drink their own damnation not discerning the Lords body In a word The same Article We believe that Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs Body and Blood can never be proved by Holy Scripture but is repugnant thereunto contrary to the intention of our Blessed Saviour and to the nature of this Holy Sacrament and has given cause to many great abuses As in the following Article we shall have occasion more particularly to shew This is our Faith of this holy Eucharist And in this Faith we are confirmed not only by those unanswerable proofs which our Writers have given and some of which we have before touch'd upon but also from those irreconcilable differences which this Error has thrown the Writers of the Church of Rome into In effect we find every party exposing the falseness and impossibility of every ones Hypothesis but his own Their greatest men confess the uncertainty of their own proofs That there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation So ‖ Lomb. 4. sent dist 10. Lombard * Scotus 4. dist 2. q. 11. Scotus and many others That there is not any that without the declaration of the Church would be able to evince it * Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. ss secundo dicit Where be cites many others of the same Opinion So Cardinal Bellarmine himself confesses That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words the other might with as good warrant have been received So says ⸫ In 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. Cardinal Cajetan That if the words of Consecration refer to the Bread which is changed by them then they must be taken in our sense So the generality of that Communion confess In a word ‖ See Scotus cited by Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss Unum tamen So also Gabriel cited by Suarez T. 3. disp 50. sect 1. So Lombard l. 4. sent dist 11. lit A. That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 year after Christ and that had not that and the Council of Tent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day And here who can chuse but admire the Power of Truth That after so many Outcries against us for Opposing a Doctrine which they would make the World believe it is as clear as if it were written with a Ray of the Sun after so many Anathema's against us for Hereticks and Schismaticks and ten thousand repetitions of their great Scriptum est This is my Body they should at last be forced to confess That they are not cannot nor are ever like to be agreed in the Explication of them That they contain nothing in them necessary to prove this change That had not the Church declared its self for the Litteral meaning the Figurative interpretation might with as good Reason have been received That for 1200 years this Doctrine was no matter of Faith and but for the Council of Lateran had not been then In short that if the words of Institution refer to the Bread then are we doubtless in the right and if they do not how will they ever prove the change which they pretend is made of the Bread into the Body of Christ by them Certainly confessions such as these ought to awake every Papist careful of his own Salvation into an unprejudiced Examination at least of these things To consider what Foundation there really is for this Doctrine and what desperate Consequences unknown to Antiquity contrary to the formal words
Years only an Advertisement was prefix'd to a new Edition of the Book which neither touches at all the greatest part of the Exceptions that had been made against it nor gives any satisfaction to those it do's take notice of It has been the constant method of Monsieur de Meaux having once written to leave his Tracts to the World and take no care to defend them against those assaults that seem with success enough to have been sometimes made upon them We should think the great Employments in which he has had the Honour to be engaged might have been the cause of this did not he who takes no care to defend his old Books find still time enough to write new Perhaps he looks upon his pieces to be of a Spirit and Force sufficient to despise whatever attempts can be made upon them but sure he cannot be ignorant that Protestants make another and far different Conclusion and look upon those Opinions to be certainly indefensible which so able and eminent an Author is content so openly and if I may be permitted to add it so shamefully to forsake What other Answers besides those I have now mentioned have been made to it I cannot undertake to say Two others only that I know of have been publish'd the Author of the latter of which Monsieur de Brueys having in a very little time after his writing left his Religion might have made a new instance of Monsieur de Meaux 's Conquests did not his inability to answer his own arguments against the Exposition give us cause to believe that some other Motives than those of that Book induced him so lightly to forsake a Cause which he had so soundly and generously defended And now after so many Answers yet unreplied to if any one desires to know what the design of the present undertaking is they may please to understand that having by a long Converse among the Papists of our own and other Countries perceived that either by the ignorance or malice of their Instructors they have generally very false and imperfect Notions of our Opinions in the matters in Controversie between us I have suffered my self to be perswaded to pursue the Method of Monsieur de Meaux 's Exposition as to the Doctrine of the Church of England and oppose sincerely to what he pretends is the Opinion of the Roman Church that form of Faith that is openly profess'd and taught without any disguise or dissimulation among us I was not unwilling to take the Method of Monsieur de Meaux for my direction as well upon the account of the great Reputation both of the Book and of the Author as because it is now some years that it has pass'd in our Language without any answer that I know of made to it Besides that the late new Impression made of it with all the advantages of the Advertisement and Approbations which the later French Editions have added to it seemed naturally to require some such Consideration I do not pretend by any thing of this to treat Monsieur de Meaux as an Enemy but rather as both his great Learning and that Character which I have ever learnt very highly to reverence oblige me to follow him as my Guide To render an account to him and to the World what our differences are and point out in passing some of those reasons that are the most usually given amongst us wherefore we cannot totally assent to what he proposes I am perswaded the whole is done with that Charity and Moderation that there is nothing in it that can justly offend the most zealous Enemy of our Church If I knew of any thing in it that without dissembling the Truth might have been omitted I sincerely profess I would most willingly have done it being desirous to please all that so if it be the will of God I may by any means gain some For this cause chiefly have I forborn to set my name to it lest perhaps any prejudice against my Person might chance to injure the Excellence of the Cause which I maintain This effect at least if no other I would willingly hope such a Treatise may have upon those of our Country that have been taught to believe very differently concerning us That they would please no longer to form such horrible Ideas of our Profession as they have heretofore been wont to do at least till it can be shewn that I have either palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England in this Exposition Which I am yet so assured I have not done that I◠here intirely submit both my self and it to her Censure of whose Communion I esteem it my greatest Happiness that I am and for whose preservation and Enlargement I shall never cease as I ought to pray A Collection of some of those Passages that were corrected in the first Edition of the EXPOSITION suppressed by Monsieur de Meaux To which is added the Censure of the Faculty of Louvain upon some part of the Doctrine still remaining in it § I. MOnsieur de Meaux in the very beginning of his Book speaking of the design of it had these Words 1. Edit So that it seems then to be very proper to propose to them the Protestants the Doctrine of the Catholick Church separating those Questions which the Church has decided from those which do not belong to Faith p. 1. It is evident the meaning of Monsieur de Meaux in that passage must have been this That whatsoever was either not at all contained in his Exposition or was otherwise maintain'd by any particular Authors beyond the Exposition he gives us of those Points which are here mentioned was not to be look'd upon by us as any of the Church's Decision nor necessary to be received by us as matter of Faith I shall not need to say how many Doctrines and Decisions not only of private Writers but of the very Council of Trent it self this would have at once cut off It would perhaps have been one of the fairest Advances towards an Union that ever the Church of Rome yet offered But it seems whatever Monsieur de Meaux supposed this was thought too great a condescension by others and he was therefore obliged without changing any thing in his Book to give us a quite other account of the design of it Later Editions So that it seems then we can do nothing better than simply to propose to them the Protestants the sentiments of the Catholick Church and distinguish them from those Opinions that have been falsely imputed to her Which is but little to the Purpose II. 1 Edit p. 7 8. The same Church teaches That all Religious Worship ought to terminate upon God as its necessary End So that the Honour which the Church gives to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints is religious only because it gives them that Honour with relation to God and for the love of him So that then so far ought one to be from blaming the Honour
strictly required and more duly observed than it is The Canons of our Church do perhaps require as much as the Primitive Christians themselves did and it is more the decay of Piety in the People than any want of Care in her that they are not as well and regularly Practised We do not believe Penance to be a Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are because neither do we find any Divine Command for it nor is there any Sign in it established by Christ to which his Grace is annexed We suppose that if the Ancient Church had esteemed it any thing more than a part of Christian Discipline they would not have presumed to make such changes in it as in the several Ages it is evident they did The Primitive Christians interpreting those places of ‡ Mat. 18.18 John 20.23 St. Matthew and St. John which Monsieur de Meaux mentions of publick Discipline and to which we suppose with them they principally at least if not only refer at first Practised no other For private faults they exhorted their Penitents to Confess them to God and unless some particular Circumstances required the Communication of them to the Priest plainly signified that that Confession was not only in its self sufficient but in effect was more agreeable to Holy Scripture than any other If the Conscience indeed were too much burdened by some Great fault or that the Crime committed was notoriously Scandalous then they advised a Confession to the Priest too But this was not to every Priest nor for him just to hear the Confession and then without more ado to say I absolve thee They prescribed in every Church some Wise Physician of the Soul on purpose for this great Charge that might pray with the Penitent might direct him what to do to obtain Gods favour might assist him in it and finally after a long Experience and a severe Judgment give him Absolution This was the Practise of the Eastern Church till upon occasion of a certain scandal Nectarius first began to weaken it in his Church at Constantinople and St. J. Chrysostome his Successor seconded him in it They reduced the Practise to what it had been in the Beginning that open and scandalous Sins should be openly punished by the publick Discipline of the Church and the private be Confessed only to God Almighty Yet still the publick Confession remained in the Practise of the Western Church Pope Leo I. to take away the occasions of Fear and Shame that kept many from the exercise of it first ordered that it should be sufficient to Confess to God and the Priest only which is the first plausible Pretence offered by them for Auricular Confession Thus this Practise now set up for a Sacrament instituted by our Saviour and absolutely necessary to obtain God's pardon first began But the performance of it was yet left to every Mans liberty About 1215 Years after Christ the Council of Lateran first Commanded it to be of necessary observance But we do not find that till the Council of Trent in the last Age it was ever required to be received absolutely as a Sacrament of Divine Institution and necessary to Salvation This short View of the Practise of Antiquity in this point may be sufficient to shew that unless it were the publick power of the Church to censure open and scandalous Offenders which was the Key of Discipline our Blessed Saviour left to it for the rest several Churches and Ages had their several Practises They advised private Confession as upon many accounts which Monsieur de Meaux Remarks and which we willingly allow very useful to the Penitent but it was not for above a 1000 Years ever looked upon as absolutely necessary nor by Consequence as Sacramental The Church of England refuses no sort of Confession either publick or private which may be any way necessary to the quieting of mens Consciences or to the exercising of that Power of binding and loosing which our Saviour Christ has left to his Church We have our Penitential Canons for publick Offenders We exhort men if they have any the least doubt or scruple nay sometimes tho they have none but especially before they receive the Holy Sacrament to Confess their sins We propose to them the benefit not only of Ghostly Advice how to manage their Repentance but the great comfort of Absolution too as soon as they shall have compleated it Our form of Absolution after the manner of the Eastern Church at this day and of the Universal Church for above 1200 Years is Declarative rather than Absolute Whilst we are unable to search the Hearts of men and thereby infallibly to discern the sincerely contrite from those that are not we think it Rashness to pronounce a definitive Sentence in God's Name which we cannot be sure that God will always confirm When we visit our Sick we never fail to exhort them to make a special Confession of their sins to him that Ministers to them And when they have done it the Absolution is so full that the Church of Rome its self could not desire to add any thing to it For the rest We think it an unnecessary Rack to mens Consciences to oblige them where there is no scruple to reveal to their Confessor every the most secret fault even of Wish or Desire which the Church of Rome exacts Nor dare we pronounce this Discipline Sacramental and necessary to Salvation so that a contrite Sinner who has made his Confession to God Almighty shall not receive a Pardon unless he repeat it to the Priest too This we must beg leave with assurance to say is directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture And if this be all our Reformation be guilty of That we advise not that which may Torment and Distract but is no way apt to settle mens Consciences nor require that as indispensably necessary to Salvation which we find no where commanded by God as such we assure Monsieur de Meaux we see no cause at all either to regret the Loss or to be ashamed of the Change ARTICLE XIII Of Extreme Vnction OF all those pretended Sacraments of the Roman Church that have no foundation in holy Scripture this seems to stand the fairest for it Here is both an outward and visible Sign and an inward and spiritual Grace tied to it Insomuch that Monsieur de Meaux himself who never attempted to say any thing of it in the two foregoing Instances yet fails not to put us in mind of it in this To interpret rightly that place of St. 1 James 5.6 14.13 James which is alledged to prove it we must remark that anointing with Oyl was one of those Ceremonies used by the Apostles in working their miraculous Cures Mark 6.13 They cast out devils says the Evangelist and anointed many sick persons with Oyl and cured them Sometimes they used only Imposition of hands