de Meaux has stated it after a manner so favourable to us that I am persuaded he will find more in his own Church than in ours to oppose his Doctrine It was the discipline of the Primitive Church when the Bishops imposed severe Penances on the Offenders and that they were almost quite performed if some great cause of pity chanced to arrive or an excellent Repentance or danger of death or that some Martyr pleaded in behalf of the Penitent the Bishop did sometimes Indulge him that is Did relax the remaining part of his Penance and give him Absolution Monsieur de Meaux having this Pattern before his Eyes frames the Indulgences now used in the Church of Rome exactly according to it When the Church says he imposes upon sinners hard and laborious Penances and that with Humility they undergo them this we call satisfaction and when having regard either to the fervour of the Penitents or to some other good works which she prescribes she relaxes some part of the Punishment yet remaining This is called Indulgence But to pass by for the present those abuses that are every day made of these Indulgences and which both the Council and Monsieur de Meaux seem willing to have redressed such essential differences we conceive there are between the Indulgences of the Primitive and those of the Roman Church that tho we readily enough embrace the One yet we cannot but renounce and condemn the Other In the Primitive Church these Indulgences were matters of meer discipline as the Penances also were the One to correct the sinner and to give others caution that they might not easily offend the Other to encourage the Penitent to honour the Martyr that interposed for his Forgiveness or to prevent his dying without Absolution In the Church of Rome they are founded upon an Errour in Doctrine that as their Penance is not matter of Discipline only to correct the sinner but to be undergone as a satisfaction to be made to God for the sin so their Indulgence is not given as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it upon any consideration had of the fervour of the Penitent to admit him to Absolution which he has already received but by the application of the Merits of their Saints who they suppose have undergone more temporal punishments than their sins have deserved to take off that pain which notwithstanding their Absolution the sinner should otherwise have remained liable to In the Primitive Church the Bishop received the Penitent to Absolution and the exemplariness of his Repentance or the intercession of the Martyr that supplicated for him was the only consideration they had for the Indulgence In the Church of Rome the Indulgence is to be had from the Pope only in whose hands the merits of their Saints lye the overplus of which are they say the Treasure of the Church to be dispensed upon all occasions to such as want and upon such terms as his Holiness shall think fit to propose In the Primitive Church these Indulgences were very rare given only upon some special occasions and the Bishop never relaxed the remainder of the Penance he had imposed till the Penitent had performed a considerable part of it and shew'd by his contrition that it had obtained the effect of bringing him to a sense of his sin and a hearty repentance for it which was the end they designed by all In the Roman Church they are cry'd about the Streets hung up in Tables over every Church Door prostituted for Money offer'd to all Customers for themselves or for their Friends for the dead as well as the living and to visit three Churches say a Prayer before this Altar at the other Saints Monument in a third Chappel is without more ado through the extraordinary Charity that Church hath for sinners declared sufficient to take off whatever such Punishment is due for all the sins of a whole Life And here then let Monsieur de Meaux in conscience tell us Is all this no more than to release some part of the remaining Penance in consideration of the fervour of the Penitent in performing the rest Such Pardons as these we do certainly with Reason conclude To be fond things See our 22d Artic. vainly invented and grounded upon no Authority of Holy Scripture but indeed repugnant to Gods Word But for the rest We profess our selves so far from being enemies to the Ancient Discipline of the Church that we heartily wish to see it revived And whenever the Penances shall be reduced to their former practice we shall be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described and as the Primitive Ages of the Church allow'd of ARTICLE VIII Of PVRGATORY BUT the Temporal Pains which they suppose due to sin has yet another Error consequent upon it That since every man must undergo them according to the proportion of his sins if any one chance to dye before he has so done he cannot pass directly into Heaven but must undergo these punishments first in the other Life and the place where these Punishments are undergone they call Purgatory So that the Doctrine then of Purgatory relies upon that Satisfaction which we our selves are to make for our sins besides what Christ has done for us And according to the measure that that is either true or false certain or uncertain this must be so too Since therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us only that the Church of Rome supposes the former to be true they can only suppose the latter in like manner and therefore till they are able certainly to assure us of that we shall still have reason to doubt of this That the Primitive Church from the very second Century made Prayers for the dead we do not deny But that these Prayers were to deliver them out of Purgatory this we suppose Monsieur de Meaux himself will not avow it being certain that they were made for the best Men for the Holy Apostles the Martyrs and Confessors of the Church nay for the Blessed Virgin her self all which at the same time they thought in happiness and who the Papists themselves tell us never toucht at Purgatory Many were the private Opinions which the particular Christians of old had concerning the Reason and Benefit of Praying for the dead Some then as we do at this day only gave thanks to God for their Faith and their Examples Others prayed for them either for the Bodies Resurrection or for their acquitting at the final Judgment as supposing it to be no way unfit to pray to God for those very Blessings which he has absolutely promised and resolved to give Some thought an Increase of Glory might be obtained to the Righteous by their Prayers All believed this that it testified their hope of them and manifested their Faith of that Future Resurrection which they waited for and in the mean time maintained a kind of Fellowship and Communion between the Members of Christ yet alive
as is Idolatrous i. e. says he which is paid to Images in and for themselves and by which the Image is worshipped as if some God or Divinity were contained in it But for that Divine Worship which is paid to the Images of the Holy Trinity of our Saviour Christ and the Holy Cross upon the account of the things represented by them and as they are in that respect one and the same with the thing which they represent and ascribes not any Divinity to the Images there never was nor can be any dispute of it Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider whether this be not sufficiently contrary to the Doctrine Expounded by Him and how we are to reconcile the Controversies of the Cardinal Capisucchi with the Letter and Approbation of the * So he was when he wrote to Monsieur de Meaux Master of the Sacred Palace In the mean time I will beg leave to add one instance more that is nigher home and I think still at this time depending and which the particular interest Monsieur de Meaux has more ways than one had in it will I suppose undoubtedly satisfie him that notwithstanding the Assembly of the Clergy have recommended so much both his Book and his Method all nevertheless at this day are not very well satisfied even in France it self either with the one or other Monsieur †The whole of this is taken out of the Factum which he printed of his Case Imbert Priest and Doctor of Divinity in the Province of Bourdeaux was not long since accus'd that upon Good Friday before he proceeded to the solemn service of that day which consists chiefly in the Adoration of the Cross He turned to the People and taking occasion from the rashness of some of the Fathers of the Mission whom he had with grief heard maintain That the Cross was to be adored after the very same manner as Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist profess'd to them that he could not enter on the service of that day without declaring truly to them what the real Doctrine of the Church as to this point was That the Church designed not that we should adore the Cross which we see but that we should adore Jesus Christ whom we do not see That there was a great difference between the Cross and the Holy Sacrament That in this our Saviour Christ was really present whereas that was only a simple figure or representation of him This was his Accusation and he confessed that his Opinion was That the Church adored not the Cross and that the contrary Opinion was not only false but Idolatrous That not only the Protestants made their advantage of those who maintain'd such Errours but that he himself was scandalized to converse every day with the Missionaries and others whom he had openly heard preach a hundred times ' That we ought to adore the Cross with Jesus Christ as the Humane nature of our Saviour with the Divine Being accused for this he defended himself with all the strength of Argument that he was able yet being still accounted a Heretick for it he finally alledged in his defence ' That the Exposition of Monsieur de Meaux defended the very same that he went upon his principles whose book was approved by the Pope and several Cardinals in Italy by the Bishops and Clergy of France and others of the greatest note in the Church of Rome Nevertheless he was suspended in a manner grievous and extraordinary He wrote to Monsieur de Meaux himself about it who presently sent to the Archbishop of Bourdeaux in his behalf He addressed himself besides to many other the most considerable Persons of the Kingdom to Monsieur the Chancellour Monsieur de Chatteau-neuf to the Intendant of the Province only that he might have justice in a cause which according to Monsieur de Meaux's principles was certainly very favourable But I do not hear that he has yet had any other Effect of all his supplications and the interest of those Honourable persons in his behalf than that they still draw more and severer menaces from his Judges and threats either of perpetual Imprisonment or even death it self for his Offence After this clear conviction I may reasonably hope it will appear no improbable matter to Monsieur de Meaux himself either that one Papist should have written against his Book or that many others should have expressed themselves to be of a mind very different from the principles and opinions of it Had it pleased him to have gratified the World with the sight of Cardinal Buillon's and Monsieur l'Abbé de Dangeau 's letters to Cardinal Bona and Cardinal Chigi as well as of their answers to them they would perhaps have shewn that not only the Protestants pretended such oppositions of his own party to his Book but that Monsieur de Meaux himself was not altogether unsensible of it No sooner was the first Impression of the Exposition which was permitted to pass abroad See the Advertisement finish'd but presently a Copy was dispatch'd to Rome with Letters and recommendations to prepare the way for its reception in that Court Cardinal Bona's Letter V. E. mi accenna che alcuni to Accusano de qual che mancamento And a little after Ne mi maraviglio che gli habbino trovato â dire perche turte le Opere grande e che Sormontano l'Ordinario sempre hanno Contradittori Answer to Cardinal Buillon and provide against those faults which some it seems accused it of if the Contradictors which opposed it at home should think fit to pursue it thither It is not to be supposed that either the dignity of the Cardinal who sent the Book or of him to whom it was address'd would have permitted them in such a manner to take notice of the faults and the Contradictors which their Letters speak of had they not been both things and Persons worthy their consideration But much less would Monsieur l'Abbé de Dangeau have used his interest with Cardinal Chigi to gain the favour of the Master of the Sacred Palace See the Answer of Cardinal Chigi to Monsieur L'Abbé de Dangaeau Parlai al Padre Maestro di S. Palazzo al. Secretario della congregatione dell'Indice e connobbi Veramente che non vi era stato chi havesse a questi padri parlato in disfavore del medesimo and of the Congregation del Indice if any one had or should speak against it had there been no cause to apprehend that any one would attempt either What other particular persons were employ'd upon the like Offices is a secret too close for us to be able to penetrate Only the Advertisement it self gives us cause to believe that great interest was made even by the French Ambassador himself to his Holiness about it See Advertisement c. and that the few Letters we see set out with so much Industry both in the Originals
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
the sight of God because that it is God who by Charity works in us only we think it withal such as is too weak to obtain for us the pardon of our Sins which Monsieur de Meaux seems content to confess with us We willingly acknowledg that our Righteousness is not perfect in this Life Whilst we are in the Body the Flesh will lust against the Spirit and in many things we shall offend all The Life of a Christian is a continued state of Repentance and he must be too much opiniated of himself that refuses to conclude with St. Augustine That our Righteousness in this Life consisteth rather in the Remission of our Sins than in the Perfection of our Vertue In a word the sum of our Difference as to this Point seems to be this Our Church by Justification understands only the Remission of our Sins We distinguish it from Sanctification which consists in the production of the Habit of Righteousness in us We believe our Sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us And for the rest we say that this Remission of Sins is given only to those that repent that is in whom the holy Spirit produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and Holiness of Life The Church of Rome comprehends under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the production of that inherent Righteousness which we call Sanctification They suppose with us that our Sins are forgiven only by the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ But then as they make that inward Righteousness a part of Justification too so by consequence they say our Justification it self is wrought also by our own good Works It appears by this that were these things clearly stated and distinguish'd the one from the other the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very great And that we might safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be but well and rightly explained tho in some things he has expressed himself after a manner unusual among us and which we suppose not so entirely conformable to the Expressions of holy Scripture The sum of all is this Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this Call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commands for the time to come and if we persevere in this Covenant crowns us finally with Eternal Life And all this he is pleased to do not for any thing which we have or can perform but only through the Merits and Satisfaction of his Son by Faith applied to us This is the Foundation wherein Monsieur de Meaux seems content to agree with us We go on to see how the following Doctrine will stand upon this Foundation ARTIC VI. Of Merits FOR what concerns the Merits of Good Works we are content to accept of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition That eternal life ought to be proposed to Man as the Grace of God mercifully bestow'd upon us through Jesus-Christ and as a recompence that is faithfully rento their good Works and to the merits of them by vertue of Gods Promise The word Merit we acknowledge to have been very antient in the Church and tho to prevent those mistakes which many in these latter ages have made an occasion of that expression we think it safer to discourse more reservedly of the Merit and press more strongly the Necessity of good Works Yet if it be understood so as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it That all our Merit derives its force only from the Merits of Jesus Christ who works in us both to will and to do and when we have done renders by the same Merits our good Works acceptable to God and available to our Eternal Life we shall not be difficult to allow of it If this be All the Church of Rome ascribes to Good works that our Justification proceeds absolutely from God's Bounty and Mercy and but accidentally only in as much as God has tied himself by his Word and Promise to reward them from our own Performances We need no long exhortations to receive a Doctrine which we have always defended against such of the Church of Rome as have opposed it and are not yet that we know of censured for their so doing That which we reject is That we do as truly and properly merit Rewards when we do well as we do merit Punishment when we do ill so says the Jesuit Maldonate EZek. 18.20 That our Good Works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of God's Covenant and Acceptation De Justif l. 5. c. 17. Vasquez in D. Th. 1 2 ae q. 114. d. 214. c. 5. but also by reason of the Work it self so says Cardinal Bellarmine All which Vasquez sums up in the three following Conclusions 1. That the Good Works of just Persons are of themselves without any Covenant or Acceptation worthy of the reward of Eternal Life and have an equal value of Condignity to the obtaining of Eternal Glory 16. c. 7. 2. That there comes no accession of Dignity to the Works of just Persons by the Merits or Person of Christ which the same would not otherwise have if they had been done by the same Grace bestowed freely by God alone without Christ 3. 16. c. 8. That God's Promise is indeed annex'd to the Works of just Men but yet belongs no way to the Merit of them but cometh rather to the Works themselves which are already not only worthy but meritorious also From all which he draws this remarkable Corallary Disp 222. c. 3. n. 30 31. Seeing the Works of just Men do merit Eternal Life as an Equal Recompence and Reward there is no need that any other condign Merit such as that of Christ should interpose to the end that Eternal Life might be rendred to them Wherefore we never pray to God that by the Merits of Christ the Reward of Eternal Life may be given to our worthy and meritorious Works but that Christ's Grace may be given to us whereby we may be enabled worthily to merit this Reward This is that Doctrine of good Works which we most justly do detest And if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be so directly opposite to it as Monsieur de Meaux professes we are a little surprised that no Index Expurgatorius no authentick Censure has ever taken notice of so dangerous a Prevarication But contrary-wise these are the great Authors of their Party approved embraced and almost adored by the Greatest and most Learned of that Communion These
Hope confounded and his Charity fallen to nothing only because he hath not-that which not contempt but impossibility with-holdeth When therefore so many ways have been allowed to excuse the defect of Baptism tho our Church has rather taken all imaginable care that Infants shall not die without it than presumed rashly to determine what shall become of them if they do yet we cannot but condemn the uncharitableness of the Church of Rome in Excluding them from all Part in Jesus Christ and denying that Mercy to a tender and impotent Age which they so liberally extend to those of Riper years If not the Want but the Contempt of this Sacrament be the only thing that is damnable to be sure no Contempt of Baptism can be in them If the desire of Baptism in those that are capable of it is by many of the Church confessed to be reputed for Baptism why shall we not hope that God who is all merciful will accept the Desire of the Church and of their Parents in their behalf who by their Age are not capable to have any of their own ‖ By Monsieur de Meaux see before If Faith Hope and Charity as Monsieur de Meaux himself implies may excuse them who actually have these Graces tho they want this Sacrament why may not that Faith that Hope that Charity of the Church which being imputed to them renders them capable of Baptism be as effectual to stand instead of it to them as their own proper Faith for Others if a necessity which could not be avoided prevents it In a word Since such is the Mercy of God that to things altogether impossible he bindeth no man but where what he Commands cannot be performed accepteth of our Will to do it instead of the Deed. 2. Seeing God's Grace is not so absolutely tyed to the Sacraments but that many exceptions have been and are still Confessed to be sufficient to obtain it without the external Application of them Seeing 1 Cor. 7. 3. St. Paul has told us that the Seed of faithfull Parentage is Holy from the very Birth as being born within the Covenant of Grace Tho we determine nothing yet we think it the part of Charity not only to take all the Care we can to Present our Infants to Baptism whilst they live but if by any unavoidable necessity they should die without it ‖ See Cassan Consult Art 9. de Bapt. Infant Where he cites many others of the C. of R. of the same Opinion to Hope well of them Remembring that Judgment of God Exod. 4. who when Moses neglected to Circumcise his Son spared the Child in that he was innocent but sought to kill Moses for his Carelesness in the Omission A necessity therefore of Baptism we constantly maintain but absolutely to determine that all those who die without it are excluded from the Grace of Christ neither will Monsieur de Meaux presume to do of Men nor dare we much less to affirm it of Infants The Lutherans condem the Anabaptists for refusing Baptism altogether to Children which we also condemn in them But that therefore they make no allowance for extraordinary Cases where both the Church and the Parents desired to have Baptized them only that some unavoidable Accident prevented it neither did Cassander believe Consult Art 9. nor do the terms of their Confession at all require For the Calvinists so far were they from being the Authors of this charitable opinion towards Infants dying unbaptized That many of the most Eminent men of the Church of ‡ Gerson Gabriel Biel Cajetan and others Rome have long before them maintained the same To conclude If Monsieur de Meaux himself do's in good earnest believe the danger so great as he pretends may he then please to consider What we are to Judge of those who in so many places have not left any Ministers at all to confer this Sacrament For our parts we freely declare their hazard to be infinitely greater than either the Childrens or their Parents who are so far from that indifference Monsieur de Meaux most injuriously charges them with that in places where publick Ministers reside that they have the opportunity to do it they fail not with all imaginable Care to Present them in the Ambassadors Chappels to Baptism if they have but the least apprehension that they are not in a Condition to be carried to their own Temples ARTICLE XI Of CONFIRMATION TO clear our way to that particular Examination that is necessary of the following pretended Sacraments of the Roman Chruch it will be necessary to observe that by their own Confession these three things are absolutely required to the Essence of a true Sacrament 1. Christ's Institution 2. An outward and visible Sign 3. An inward and spiritual Grace by Christ's promise annexed to that Sign We cannot but admire that neither in the Council of Trent or in the Catechism made by its Order is there any Attempt to prove either of these from the Holy Scripture as to the Point of Confirmation It was so much the more necessary to have done this in that Many of the greatest Note in the Roman Church had denied the Divine Institution of it and some of them were approved by the Holy See its self that did it The outward Sign has been none of the least Controversies that have exercised their own Pens and indeed since they have laid aside that of Imposition of hands which they confess the Apostles used it was but reasonable to have shewn us some Authority for that other they have established in its stead What Monsieur de Meaux expounds is a clear Vindication of our Practice but defends nothing of their own Doctrine That we think it to have been an Ancient custom in the Church and which the very Apostles themselves Practised to lay hands on those that had been Baptized and in imitation whereof we our selves at this day do the like the Practise of our Church sufficiently declares We Confess that the use of Chrism in Confirmation was very Ancient yet such as we deny to have been Apostolical We do not our selves use it yet were that all the difference between us we should be far from judging those that did The Discipline of our Church allows none that is not of the Episcopal Order to Confirm And for the benefit of it as the Bishop prays to God for his Holy Spirit to assist us in the way of Virtue and Religion to Arm us against Temptation and to enable us to keep our Baptismal Covenant which we then our selves repeat and in the Presence of the Church-openly ratifie and confirm So we Piously hope that the Blessing of the Holy Spirit descends upon us through his Prayer for all these great Ends both to strengthen the Grace we already have and to increase it in us to a more plentiful degree ARTICLE XII Of Penance and Confession FOR Penance and Confession we wish our Discipline were both more
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
c. and the God of his Seed after him it seems to have been further their intention in all these Sacrifices to call to remembrance that Offering of Isaac as the foundation of all those blessings for which these Sacrifices were appointed as a testimony of their Gratitude 2. That tho the Passover like the Sacrifice of the Cross was first offered as a sin-offering for the delivery of the first-born in the land of Egypt yet that yearly remembrance of it which God afterwards establish'd was always esteemed a Peace-offering and indeed the perpetual order of their Sacrifices clearly demonstrates that it could be no other So that the Parallel therefore for the explaining the nature of the holy Eucharist must be this 1. That as the Jews ate of their Peace-offerings in General to call to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac and give God thanks for t hose blessings which they received by it and of that of the Passover in particular in memory of Gods delivering them out of Egypt So the Christians partake of this blessed Sacrament in memory of that deliverance which the Sacrifice of the Cross of Christ whom both Isaac and the Paschal Lamb slain in Egypt typised has purchased for them 2. That as the Peace-affering which the Jews eat was not changed into the Substance of that first Sacrifice whereof it was the remembrance but was eaten as a figure or commemoration of it so the Christians in their Sacrament are not to think the Bread and Wine which Christ has appointed to be our Peace-offering should be changed into the very substance of that Body which was offered for us upon the Cross but to be received only as Types of it For thus was the Peace-offering in general a Type of Isaac and the Passover in particular the Type of that first Lamb which was slain for their deliverance in the Land of Egypt When therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us that the Jews ate the proper flesh of their Peace-offering we answer that so do we the proper substance of ours we eat the Bread which Christ appointed to be the remembrance of that deliverance which he has purchased for us as the body of the Lamb was commanded by God to be the remembrance of theirs Monsieur de Meaux adds That the Jews were forbidden to partake of the proper flesh of their Sin-offering and of the Blood because that a perfect Remission was not then obtain'd and that therefore by the rule of contraries we ought now to eat of Ours because a full satisfaction is now made by Christ For Reply to which it might suffice to say that this rule of contraries should we follow it according to the Letter would lead Monsieur de Meaux into so many absurdities that he would be forced himself to abjure his own Principle According to this rule the Apostles could not have eaten the flesh of Christ before his Resurrection the Priests under the Law being commanded not to eat of the Sin-offering after the third day and therefore by the rule of contraries they could not partake of it before Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider how far he will approve of this Conclusion In the mean time as to his Objection we have before said that the remembrance we make in the holy Eucharist like that of the Paschal Feast among the Jews shews it to be a Peace-offering and for the rest if as Monsieur de Meaux pretends this Blood was mystically forbid under the Law to shew that a perfect remission of sins was not then obtain'd It will follow that for the contrary reason Christ appointed the Cup to be received in this holy Sacrament to testifie that full remission which bis blood has purchased for us The Church of Rome therefore in refusing the Cup to the people not only violates the express command of our Blessed Saviour but according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles teaches them by it that a full remission of sins is not yet obtain'd even by the precious Blood of Christ himself It may by this appear what little advantage Monsieur de Meaux can get to justifie their Doctrine of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist from the Analogie of the ancient Sacrifices which do clearly and necessarily establish the contrary For what remains of this discourse we are but little concerned in it We Confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but we deny that therefore it must be his very Body We acknowledge the power of God to do whatever he pleases Yet Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider that Contradictions such as to be and not to be at the same time are even in their own Schools usually excepted Monsieur de Meaux supposes that because Christ did not explain his words in the figurative Sense the Apostles must needs have understood them in the Literal But we have before shewed that the Jews who are certainly the best Judges are of a quite contrary opinion viz. That his Apostles knowing his allusion could never have understood them otherwise than in a Figure In a word for his last Remark That the Laws of discourse which permit that where there is a just Proportion between the Sign and the thing signified the one may be put for the other Yet suffer it not to be so when a Morsel of Bread for instance is set to represent the Body of a Man We must beg leave to say that neither is the Proportion so small betwixt the Bread broken and Christs Body broken as Monsieur de Meaux would suggest Or that if there were yet since our Saviours institution has set the one to represent to us the other we think that designation ought to be of more Authority with us than all their new Laws of Discourse invented purposely only to set the fairer Gloss upon so great and apparent an Error ARTICLE XVII Do this in Remembrance of Me. THE Explication of the preceding Article having engaged us to a length extraordinary we will endeavour to recompence it by our shortness in this We are entirely agreed that the Intention of the Son of God was to oblige us by these words to commemorate that death which he underwent for our Salvation We Confess that that real Presence which we suppose in the Communion do's not at all contradict the Nature of this Commemoration We are persuaded that as the Jews eating of their Peace-Offering which was the remembrance of God's Covenant and particularly of the Passover the Type of that Paschal Lamb that was offered for them in Egypt called to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac and that great Deliverance God had wrought for them in bringing them up out of the Land of Bondage So whilst we Eat of those Holy Elements which our Saviour Christ has instituted like the Peace-Offering a-among the Jews to perpetuate the Memory of his death We call to mind the more lively that great deliverance which He has wrought for us and render
consigned to Writing By which means the Word written and unwritten were not Two different Rules but as to all necessary matters of Faith one and the same And the unwritten Word so far from losing its Authority that it was indeed the more firmly Establish'd by being thus delivered to us by the holy Apostles and Evangelists We receive with the same Veneration whatsoever comes from the Apostles whether by Scripture or Tradition provided that we can be assured that it comes from them And if it can be made appear that any Tradition which the Written Word contains not has been received by All Churches and in All Ages we are ready to embrace it as coming from the Apostles Monsieur de Meaux therefore ought not to charge us as Enemies to Tradition or obstinate to receive what is so delivered Our Church rejects not Tradition but only those things which they pretend to have received by it But which we suppose to be so far from being the Doctrine of the Apostles or of All Churches in All Ages that we are perswaded they are many of them directly contrary to the Written Word which is by Themselves confessed to be the Apostles Doctrine and which the best and purest Ages of the Church adhered to ARTICLE XXV Of the Churches Authority THE Church i. e. The Vniversal Church in All Ages having been Establish'd by God the Guardian of the Holy Scriptures and of Tradition we receive from her the Canonical Books of Scripture It is upon this Authority that we receive principally the Song of Solomon as Canonical and reject other Books as Apochryphal which we might perhaps with as much readiness otherwise receive By this Authority we reverence these Books even before by our own reading of them we perceive the Spirit of God in them And when by our reading them we find all things conformable to so Excellent a Spirit we are yet more confirmed in the belief and reverence we before had of them This Authority therefore we freely allow the Church that by her hands in the succession of the several Ages we have received the Holy Scriptures And if as universal and uncontroverted a Tradition had descended for the Interpretation of the Scriptures as for the receiving of them we should have been as ready to accept of that too Such a declaration of the sense of Holy Scripture as had been received by all Churches and in all Ages the Church of England would never refuse But then as we profess not to receive the Scriptures themselves only or perhaps principally upon the Authority of the Roman Church which has in all Ages made up but a part and that not always the greatest neither of this Tradition so neither can we think it reasonable to receive the sense of them only from her though she profess never so much to invent nothing of her self but only to declare the Divine Revelation made to her by the Holy Ghost which she supposes has been given to her for her direction Whilst we are perswaded that neither has any Promise at all been made to any particular Church of such an infallible direction and have such good cause to believe that this particular Church too often instead of the divine Revelations declares only her own Inventions When the dispute arose about the Ceremonies of the Law Acts 15. the Apostles assembled at Jerusalem for the determination of it When any Doubts arise in the Church now we always esteem it the best Method to decide them after the same manner That the Church has Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline but even of Faith too we never deny'd But that therefore any Church so assembled can with the same Authority say now as the Apostles did then Acts 15.28 It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to Vs This we think not only an unwarrantable presumption for which there is not any sufficient ground in Holy Scripture but evidently in its self untrue seeing that many such Councils are by the Papists themselves confessed to have erred Hence it is that we cannot suppose it reasonable to forbid Men the Examination of the Churches Decisions which may err when the Holy Apostles nay our Saviour Christ himself not only permitted but exhorted their Disciples to search the Truth of their Doctrine which was certainly Infallible Yet if the determination be matter of Order or Government as not to Eat of things offered to Idols c. or of plain and undoubted Precept as to abstain from Fornication and the like Here we fail not after the Example of Paul and Silas to declare to the faithful what her decision has been and instead of permitting them to judg of what has been so resolved teach them throughout all places to keep the Ordinances of the Apostles Acts 16.4 Thus is it that we acquiesce in the judgment of the Church and professing in our Creed a Holy Catholick Church we profess to believe not only that there was a Church planted by our Saviour at the beginning that has hitherto been preserved by him and ever shall be to the end of the World but do by consequence undoubtedly believe too that this Vniversal Church is so secured by the Promises of Christ that there shall always be retain'd so much Truth in it the want of which would argue that there could be no such Church We do not fear that ever the Catholick Church should fall into this entire Infidelity But that any particular Church such as that of Rome may not either by Error lose or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in the necessary Points of it this we suppose not to be at all contrary to the Promise of God Almighty and we wish we had not too great cause to fear that the Church of Rome has in effect done both It is not therefore of the Catholick Church truly such that we either fear this infidelity or complain that she hath endeavoured to render her self Mistress of our Faith But for that particular Communion to which Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to give the Name tho she professes never so much to submit her self to the Holy Scripture and to follow the Tradition of the Fathers in all Ages yet whilst she usurps the absolute Interpretation both of Scripture and Fathers and forbids us to examine whether she does it rightly or no we must needs complain that her Protestations are invalid whilst her Actions speak the contrary For that if this be not to render her self Mistress of our Faith we cannot conceive what is In a word tho we suppose the Scriptures are so clearly written that it can very hardly happen that in the necessary Articles of Faith any one man should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion Yet if such a one were evidently convinced that his Belief was founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word so far would it be from any Horror to support it that it is at this day
the greatest glory of S. Athanasius that he stood up alone against the whole World in defence of Christs Divinity when the Pope the Councils the whole Church fell away Conclude we therefore that God who has made us and knows what is best and most proper for us as he has subjected us to the Government and Direction of his Church for our Peace and Welfare so to secure our Faith he has given us his Holy Word to be the last resort the final infallible Rule by which both we and the Church its self must be directed And from this therefore if any one shall endeavour to turn us aside or preach any other Gospel unto us than what we have therein received Gal. 1.8 9. tho he were an Apostle from the Grave or even an Angel from Heaven let him be Anathema ARTICLE XXVI The Opinion of the Church of England as to the Authority of the Church FOR the two last Articles of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition I might very well have pass'd them by The Church of England whose Doctrine I pretend to explain is but very little concerned in them Therefore only in a word That we allow the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith both the declaration of our xxth Article and the subscription we make to the whole 39 shew Such a deference we allow to her decisions that we make them our directions what Doctrine we may or may not publickly maintain and teach in her Communion In effect we shew whatever Submission we can to her Authority without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures Whatsoever deference we allow to a National Church or Council the same we think in a much greater degree due to a General And whensoever such a one which we much desire shall be freely and lawfully assembled to determine the Differences of the Catholick Church none shall be more ready both to assist in it and submit to it ARTICLE XXVII Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy FOR the Pope's Authority tho' we suppose no good Consequence can be drawn from that Primacy we are content to allow St. Peter among the Apostles for that exorbitant Power which has of late been pretended to Yet when other Differences shall be agreed and the true Bounds set to his Pretences we shall be content to yield him whatsoever Authority the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the Holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give him This Monsieur de Meaux ought to be contented with who himself absolves us from yielding to those pretences that have indeed very justly rendred this Authority not only odious but intolerable to the World Let those who are Enemies to Episcopacy and who deny any due respect to the Chair of St. Peter answer for themselves The Church of England has both retain'd the one and will be ready according to what we have before declared when ever it shall be requisite to acknowledge the other THE CLOSE SUCH is the Doctrine of the Church of England in those points which Monsieur de Meaux has thought fit to propose as the principal matters in debate betwixt us May it please the unprejudiced Papist to say what he can find in All these to warrant that bitter and unchristian hatred they have conceived against us To cut us off as much as in them lies from the Communion of Christs Church on Earth and to deny us all part of his promises in Heaven We firmly believe the Holy Scriptures and whatsoever they teach or command we receive and submit to as to the Word of God We embrace all the ancient Creeds and in them all that Faith which the Primitive Christians supposed and which the Religious Emperors by their Advice decreed should be sufficient to intitle us to the common name of Catholicks What new Donatists Gentlemen are you to presume to exclude us from this Character And may we not justly demand of you what S. Augustin once did of them on the same occasion You say that Christ is Heir of no Lands De unitate Eclesia c. 6. but where Donatus is Co-heir Read this to us out of the Law and the Prophets out of the Psalms out of the Gospel out of the Sacred Epistles Read it to us and we will believe We accept the Tradition of Primitive Antiquity truly such with a Veneration we dare confidently say greater than your selves We have shew'd that the very grounds of our difference is that you require us to believe and practise such things as the Holy Scripture forbids us and the Primitive Church never knew You command us to worship Images See Article 4. Is it not evident that both the Law and the Gospel have forbid it and is it not confess'd that both the Apostles and their Successors abhorred the very name You command us to communicate only under one kind That is in our Opinion nay it is in yours too Article 23. to contradict the Institution of our Blessed Saviour and the practice of the very Roman Church for above a Thousand years and of all other Christians to this very day You command us to pray to Saints and Angels Article 3. Col. 2. v. 18. Rev. 19.10 22.9 Does not St. Paul forbid it Did not the holy Angel twice refuse it from St. John And many Centuries pass without One probable Instance of any that did it You command us under pain of your Anathema to believe Transubstantiation Article 19. Do you your selves understand what you mean by it Is it any where written Was it ever mention'd for above a Thousand years You bid us Adore the Holy Sacrament Article 19. Has Christ prescribed it Have his holy Apostles written it Did not here also above a Thousand years pass before any one attempted it You require us to believe the blessed Eucharist to be a true and real Propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins and satisfactions both of the Dead and of the Living Article 20. Have ye any probable proof of it Are ye yet or ever like to be agreed among your selves about it Do not your own principles evidently shew the contrary Men and Brethren Consider we conjure you these things And if you please consider us too what we are and what our Manners and Conversation among you has been Believe us at least that we have no other End but Truth in these Enquiries No other Interest but to save our souls and go the surest and directest way to Heaven The Proofs we offer they are not vain Conjectures they are clear we think convincing Arguments And though the design of this little Treatise has been rather to shew you what our Doctrine is than to give a just account of those Reasons that detain us in it Yet perhaps even in this there may be somewhat to shew that we do not altogether build in the Air but deserve certainly to have our Articles and our Canons both better