acknowledging then this That the Church of Rome do's believe and profess all that is essential to preserve the substance of the Christian Religion so that they cannot reasonably impute to us any Doctrine contrary thereunto they must at the same time acknowledg by their own Principles that the Church of Rome is a true part of the Church of Christ to which every Christian is obliged to unite himself in his Heart and in effect as far as in him lies 1 Ed. Monsieur de Meaux may please to know that we do confess the Church of Rome to be a part of the true Church thô indeed we think one of the worst and that we do with all our Hearts desire a Union with her and in effect do shew it as far as we are able by retaining whatever we can of the same Doctrines and Practices with her And if this were all they desired of us as indeed it is all they ought and all we can do However an absolute Union would not thereby be obtained yet might we live at least like Christians and Brethren in a common Charity with one another and so dispose our Minds as by God's Grace to come in a little time to some better agreement in the rest too than ever we are like to do without it These are some of those Passages that gave occasion to the correction we have spoken of at the Sorbon and to the suppression of the whole first Edition however authorized by the Bishops of France in the same words it now is I might have added many more but instead of it will beg leave to offer the Reader one Correction made very lately by another Faculty that of Louvain if not immediatly of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition yet at least of a Doctrine which they were before-hand given to understand was so explained in it Monsieur de W itte Pastor and Dean of St. Maries in the City of Michlin having in a Discourse with some Persons of that City on the 8th of July last maintain'd the Authority of the Church and Pope according to the manner of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition complaint was made of him first to the Inter-noaen then to his Holiness himself and four Propositions drawn up against him as the Heads of his Heresy Monsieur de Witte maintain'd his Opinion in several Papers printed to that end in the * Intituled Prosecutio probationis locum Mar. 16. non recte resundi in Apostolorum principis successores 4th of which after several other Authorities of Persons of their Church defending the same Doctrine He tells them That the Golden Exposition of Faith of Monsieur the Bishop of Condom Nihil praeterea ad sanam Catholicam Orthodoxam fidem deposcit aurea illa Expositio Catholicae fidei Jacobi Episcopi Condomensis praeter Illustrissima Clarissimonum Virorum Elogia ipsius S. Patris Innocent xi peramantissimis literis comprobata required nothing more to the Sound Catholic and Orthodox Faith in this Matter which Exposition besides the Elogies of many other Eminent Persons was also approved by our Holy Father Innocent the 11th himself in his kind Letter to him But all this could not prevail with them to respect his Doctrine ever the more for Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition or his Holinesses Brief The Faculty of Divinity at the command of the Nonce and with the knowledg no doubt and assent of the Pope to whom the whole Affair had been communicated censured his Propositions Nov. 3. 1685. and especially the second in which Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition of the Catholick Faith was principally concerned as scandalous and pernicious Judicamus eam censurari posse uti scandalosam perniciosam May those who insist so much on the Fidelity and Authority of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition please calmly to consider these things and tell us how we can rely on such an Exposition of their Doctrine as notwithstanding so many formal Approbations first of the Bishops of France was yet corrected in so many places by the Sorbon and secondly of the Pope Cardinals and others in Italy and of the whole Body of the Clergy of France in their Assembly has yet so lately been censured at the command of the Nonce and with the consent of his Holiness by the Faculty of one of their most eminent Universities to be scandalous and pernicious A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES Contained in this TREATISE I. THe Introduction Page 3 II. That Religious Worship is to be paid to God only Page 6 III. Of the Invocation of Saints Page 9 IV. Of Images and Relicks Page 13 V. Of Justification Page 19 VI. Of Merits Page 21 VII Of Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences Page 24 PART II. VIII Of the Sacraments in general Page 33 IX Of Baptism Page 35 X. Of Confirmation Page 39 XI Of Penance and Confession Page 40 XII Of Extream Vnction Page 44 XIII Of Marriage Page 45 XIV Of Holy Orders Page 46 XV. Of the Eucharist and first of the Explication of those words This is my Body Page 47 XVI Do this in remembrance of Me. Page 54 XVII The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning this holy Sacrament 55 XVIII Of Transubstantiation and of the Adoration of the Host. 58 XIX Of the Sacrifice of the Mass 62 XX. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews 67 XXI Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine 69 XXII Of communicating under one kind 72 PART III. XXIII Of the Word written and unwritten 75 XXIV Of the Authority of the Church 76 XXV The Opinion of the Church of England as to the Authority of the Church 80 XXVI The Authority of the holy See and of Episcopacy 81 XXVII The Close 82 ERRATA PReface Page xxix the number of the Sections mistaken to the â—nd P. xxxii l. 15. dele 5 Ed. p. 210. P. xxxiv l. 28. r. Mechlin ib. l. 33. r. Inter-nonce Book P. 13. l. 10. r. Practise P. 20. l. 5. r. works it in us P. 22. in the Margin l. 9. del 16. P. 23. the same P. 24. Marg. del p. 66. P. 34. l. 18. r. Vertue P. 36. l. 13. r. Mr. de Meaux l. 14. Charity P. 40. l. 13. r. Vertue P. 69. Marg. ib. r. ver 24. AN EXPOSITION OF THE Doctrine of the Church of England In the several Articles expounded by Monsieur de MEAUX I. The Introduction IT has always been esteemed more reasonable to doubt of Principles first and then to deny the Conclusions that are drawn from them than having granted the Foundation afterwards to cavil at the clear and necessary Deductions from it To profess that Religious Worship is due to God only and at the same time to say that we ought to adore Men and Women Crosses and Images and all that infinite variety of Follies which these latter Ages have set forth under the pious name of Relicks To declare That we are saved only by Christ's Merits and yet still continue to teach us that we ought to set up our own In a
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
AN EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England IN THE Several ARTICLES proposed by Monsieur de MEAVX Late Bishop of Condom IN HIS EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Catholick Church To which is prefix'd a particular account of Monsieur de Meaux's Book LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXVI THE PREFACE THE smalness of this Treatise would hardly justifie the solemnity of a Preface but that it might be thought too great a rudeness to press without some Ceremony upon a Book which both the Merit and Character of the Author and the Quality of those Approbations he has prefix'd to it may justly seem to have fenced from all vulgar attempts as Sacred and inviolable It may perhaps be some satisfaction to the Reader too to know how it is come to pass that a Meer Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome pretending to contain nothing but what they have always professed and in their Council of Trent plainly declared to be their Doctrine should have become so considerable as not only to be approved by many Persons of the greatest Eminency in that Church but even to be recommended by the whole body of the Clergy of France in their Assembly 1682 Method 10. and whereever it has come done so many Miracles as not only common report speaks but even the Advertisement it self prefixed to it takes care to tell us that it has The first design of Monsieur de Meaux's Book was either to satisfie or to seduce the late Mareschal de Turenne How far it contributed thereunto I am not able to say but am willing to believe that the change that honourable Person made of his Religion was upon some better grounds than the bare Exposition of a few Articles of the Roman Faith and that the Author supplied either in his personal Conferences with him or by some other Papers to us unknown what was wanting to the first draught which we have seen of this The Manuscript Copy which then appeared and for about four Years together passed up and down in private hands with great applause wanted all those Chapters of the Eucharist Tradition The Authority of the Church and Pope which now make up the most considerable part of it and in the other points which it handled seemed so loosly and favourably to propose the Opinions of the Church of Rome that not only many undesigning Persons of that Communion were offended at it but the Protestants who saw it generally believed that Monsieur de Meaux durst not publickly own what in his Exposition he privately pretended to be their Doctrine And the Event shew'd that they were not altogether mistaken For in the beginning of the Year 1671 the Exposition being with great care and after the consideration of many years reduced into the form in which we now see it and to secure all fortified with the Approbation of the Archbishop of Reims and nine other Bishops who profess that Having examined it with all the Care which the importance of the matter required they found it conformable to the Doctrine of the Church and as such recommended it to the People which God had committed to their conduct it was sent to the Press The impression being finish'd and just ready to come abroad the Author who desired to appear with all the Advantage to himself and his Cause that was possible sent it to some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne for their Approbation to be joyn'd to that of the Bishops that so no Authority ordinary or extraordinary might be wanting to assert the Doctrine contained in it to be so far from the suspition the Protestants had conceived of it that it was truly and without disguise Catholick Apostolick and Roman But to the great surprise of Monsieur de Meaux and those who had so much cry'd up his Treatise before the Doctors of the Sorbonne to whom it was communicated instead of the Approbation that was expected confirmed what the Protestants had said of it and as became their faculty marked several of the most considerable parts of it wherein the Exposition by the too great desire of palliating had absolutely perverted the Doctrine of their Church To prevent the open Scandal which such a Censure might have cansed with great Industry and all the Secrecy possible the whole Edition was suppressed and the several places which the Doctors had marked changed and the Copy so speedily sent back to the Press again that in the end of the same year another much altered was publickly exposed as the first Impression that had at all been made of it Yet this could not be so privately carry'd but that it soon came to a publick knowledge insomuch that one of the first Answers that was made to it charged Monsieur de Meaux with this change I do not hear that he has ever yet thought fit to deny the Relation either in the Advertisement prefixed to the later Editions of his Book wherein yet he replies to some other passages of the same Treatise or in any other Vindication Whether it be that such an imputation was not considerable enough to be taken notice of or that it was too true to be deny'd let the Reader judge But certainly it appears to us not only to give a clear account of the Design and Genius of the whole Book but to be a plain demonstration how improbable soever Monsieur de Meaux would represent it That it is not impossible for a Bishop of the Church of Rome Advertisement Pag. 1. either not to be sufficiently instructed in his Religion to know what is the Doctrine of it or not sufficiently sincere as without disguise to represent it And since a Copy of that very Book so marked as has been said by the Doctors of the Sorbonne is fallen into my hands I shall gratifie the * See the Collection at the end of the Preface Readers curiosity with a particular View of some of the Changes that have been made that so he may judge whether of the Two were the Cause of those great advances which the Author in that first Edition had thought fit to make towards us It might perhaps appear a very pardonable curiosity in us after the knowledge we have had of the first miscarriage of this Book at the Sorbonne to enquire how it comes to pass that among so many other Approbations as have with great Industry been procured to the later Editions of it we do not yet see any subscription of theirs to it even now Monsieur de Meaux could not certainly be ignorant of what weight the Censure of that Learned Faculty is with us and that such an Approbation might not only have been more easily obtained but would also more effectually have wiped away the blot cast upon his Book by their former refusal than all the Letters and Complements that could come from the other side the Mountains and which France it self hath taught
us in maters more considerable than this not to have too high a Value for Nor can we suppose any thing else than that the fear of a further Correction kept it from being any more submitted to their Censure and that the Author would rather pass without the Honour of their Approbation than run the hazzard of a second Refusal But for this because we cannot speak any thing certain we will not pursue our Conjectures Certain it is that whatever the judgment of the Sorbonne would now have been of it many of the Church of Rome were still dissatisfied with it * See his Advertisement And how improbable soever Monsieur de Meaux would have us think that one of his Answerers affirms that a Papist should have written against him Yet not only the confessed sincerity of Monsieur Conrart who often declared that he had seen it but the undoubted integrity of some others by whom I have been assured that they had it in their hands obliges me to joyn in the assertion that Monsieur M one of the Roman Communion had finish'd an Answer to it before any of the Protestants were published however upon some certain Considerations it was thought fit to suppress it It will perhaps be looked upon that this confirmation of that Manuscript Answer deserves as little assent as Monsieur de Meaux has thought fit to give to Monsieur de la B 's first Assertion of it And therefore to shew that it is not impossible nor indeed very improbable that Papists should write one against another and that the Method of the Exposition how plausible soever to deceive Protestants has nevertheless offended the sincere and Vndesigning of the other Communion I will beg leave to produce two or three undenyable Witnesses upon some of the first and chiefest Points of it and which though not written purposely against it yet I am perswaded Monsieur de Meaux himself will be so just as to confess that he cannot be altogether unconcerned in them For his first Point The Invocation of Saints The great moderation of the Exposition tells us only That it is useful to pray to them and that we ought to do it in the same Spirit of Charity and in the same Order of Brotherly Society with which we intreat our Friends on Earth to pray for us that all the Prayers of the Church howsoever they may be worded yet must still be understood to be reduced to this form PRAY FOR US Now what Monsieur de Meaux here says in general concerning the Invocation of Saints another Tract Printed about the same time at Cologne and intituled Salutary Advertisements of the Blessed Virgin Avis salutaires de la bien heureuse Vierge à ses Devots indiscrets This Tract was publish'd first at Gand in Latin by Monsieur Widenfelt a German Intendant of the Affairs of the Prince of Suarzembergh afterwards Translated into French to her indiscreet Adorers particularly applied to that Service which with so much superstition is paid in the Church of Rome to the Mother of Christ The Book is every where full of Expressions of Honour and Respect for her and only speaks against that Worship which Monsieur de Meaux here declares in the name of the Council of Trent to be none of theirs It was sent abroad into the World with all the Advantage imaginable It had the Approbation of the Bishop of Mysia Suffragan to the Archbishop of Cologne of the Vicar General of the place of the Censure of Gant of the Canons and Divines of Malines of the Vniversity of Louvain and Lastly of Monsieur the Bishop of Tournay who recommended it as a Treatise full of solid Piety and very fit and necessary to draw people out of those Errours and Abuses into which their Superstition had led them Yet notwithstanding all this Applause if we enquire what success this Book had with others Father Crasset the Jesuit who wrote purposely against it * See his Book entituled La veritable devotion envers La St. Vierge 4o. his Book Printed at Paris 1679 Licensed by the Provincial approved by the three Fathers of the Society appointed to examine it and Lastly authorized by the King's Permission tells us †La Preface p. 1 2. That for fear of giving Scandal to Hereticks he had given a very great one to those he calls Catholicks That the Learned Men of all Nations had written against him that the Holy See had condemn'd him Spain had banish'd him out of its Dominions and forbid to Read or Print his Book as containing Propositions suspected of Errour and Impiety that abused the Holy Scripture and imposed upon Catholicks by taking them off from the Piety and Devotion due to the Mother of God In a word from the general Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images I shall not need to say how far the Fathers Zeal carries him in the Answer it self It is evident that what Monsieur de Meaux tells us is only Useful Pag. 31. c. the Jesuit declares to be absolutely Necessary That we are indispensably obliged to pray to her That it is the intention of God that we should obtain both Grace and Glory by her That all Men should be saved by the Merits of the Son and the Intercession of the Mother and that forasmuch therefore as God has resolved not to give any Grace but what passes through the Hands of Mary as we cannot be saved without Grace so it must be confessed that we cannot be saved without her This is I presume somewhat more than what Monsieur de Meaux expounds to us and I shall leave it to any one to judge whether this Father who has shew'd himself so zealous against the Author of the Blessed Virgins Salutary Advertisements could have been very well pleased with Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition The next Point which the Exposition advances is concerning The Worship of Images Monsieur de Meaux in the Edition suppressed See the Collection at the end of the Preface affirmed That the Church of Rome does not so much honour the Image of the Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image And though the Censure passed upon this new fancy obliged him to speak a little more plainly yet is it only thus even now ' that when the Church pays an Honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr her intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image Concerning which the Reader may please to observe that Cardinal Capisucchi one of the Approvers of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition has lately set forth a Volume of Controversies at Rome with all the most solemn Permissions and Approbations that can be desired in which he formally contradicts the Doctrine of the same Exposition in this Point and concludes Art 8. p. 647. That the Church in the Councils of Nice and Trent forbids only such a Divine Honour to Images
and their Translation and the long History of them in the Advertisement were the effects of a labour and interest great as the long term of eight years that were spent in the procuring of them The second Answer to Monsieur de Meaux has so fully examined every one of these Approbations and so plainly shew'd how small account is to be made of them that we do not find that in four years that it has been publish'd any one has undertaken to reply to it I will therefore only add in general a remark or two that may serve to inform those of our own Country who are unacquainted with such intrigues what the Method of the Approbations of the Church of Rome is and how little stress is to be laid upon them It is a long time since it has been resolved by many of their Casuists that it is lawful to disguise the sentiments of their Religion not only in private Conferences but in the very Pulpit it self when there is a sufficient reason for the doing of it But I cannot tell whether it be yet so generally known that it is lawful for them to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike by an Art peculiar to themselves and which Protestants who are used to sincere dealing will find it a little difficult to believe The instance of Cardinal Capisucchi before mentioned is an undeniable proof of this for Italy Who about the same time that he sent his Letter and Approbation to Monsieur de Meaux of his Exposition wrote as we have seen directly contrary to the Doctrine of it and had his Book approved with no less solemnity at Rome than Monsieur de Meaux can pretend his to have been And for France a Person very justly esteemed both for his great Quality and his own worth Monsieur the Procureur General of the Parliament of Paris having clearly revealed the mystery of it I shall beg leave to represent it to the World under the advantage of so great and unquestionable an Authority Father Thomassin about twenty years since printed a Book which he called Notae in Concilia the design whereof was to set up the Authority of the Pope above all Councils which he renders in a manner useless to the decision of Ecclesiastical matters The Copies of this Book were all seized and look'd up in a Chamber of the Fathers Oratorians at Paris Ten or twelve years after with some changes to fill up the Leaves that had been censured and the Approbation of the Doctors of the Sorbonne he again attempted to have it publish'd But Monsieur the Procureur General opposed it and told him that but in consideration of Father Harlay his near Relation who interposed for him he would have had his Book burnt by the hand of the common Hangman The Father justified himself that his Book contained no other Principles than what were found in Cardinal Bellarmine's Controversies which had been printed with authority and were permitted to be every day publickly sold in France The Procureur General replyed That they suffered in France that an Italian should write according to the Principles of his Country and that this ought not to hinder but that a Book otherwise good might be publickly printed and sold with priviledge but that for a Frenchman to do the same was another matter and would have different consequences and that inshort The Italians used the same method towards them And indeed the late change of the Jesuits in their Approbations plainly shews that it is permitted to those of the Church of Rome to write and approve not so much according to their own Opinions as to the Principles and Genius of the Country in which they live For which reason the Fathers of the Society do no longer now as formerly they were wont take out their Licence from the General of their Order but from their respective Provincials who accommodate themselves to the current Doctrine of the place in which the Book is publish'd without which it would be almost impossible for them to write in France but they should be subject to the danger of a censure at Rome After this general account of the Nature of the Approbations of the Church of Rome I shall spare both my self and Reader the trouble of examining the several Letters before the Exposition though otherwise they lie open to many exceptions only concerning his Holiness 's Brief which Monsieur de Meaux so much triumphs in it may not be amiss to observe that the last Pope in whose time the Exposition came first to Rome with great Recommendation yet never gave any Approbation to it and that the present Pope did it upon occasion of †L' Auteur fit avec un tres profond respect ses tres humbles remercimens au Pape par une Lettre du 22. Nov. 1678. dont il receut reponse par un Bref de sa Sainteté du 4 Jan. 79. Avertiss And in the Brief it self Devotionem interim atque Observatiam quam erga sanctam hanc sedem nosque ipsos qui in eâ Catholicae Ecclesiae immerito praesidemus tuae ad Nos Literaeluculenter declarant mutuae charitatis affectu complectimur a submissive Letter of the Authors to him and after the reports that he had heard of the great * The Bishop of Strasburgh having accounted to his Holiness his design of Translating the Exposition into the German Language Sa Sainteté lui fit dire qu'il connoissoit ce livre qu'on luy raportoit de tous costez qu'il faisoit beaucoup de Corversions Avertissement Conversions that were every where made by it to which such an Approbation would be likely to add a new force So plain is the intrigue and design of this that were the Popes Briefs otherwise of as great consideration as the Papists themselves shew them to be of little value yet this could not be regarded by us as any other than a meer Artifice to deceive us not a sincere much less authoritative Approbation either of the Nature or Principles of Monsieur de Meaux's Book But whatever the Opinion either of the Pope or Papists has been of this Exposition certain it is the Protestants have openly enough declared their thoughts concerning it and the Exposition according to the fate of all other great and extraordinary things Card. Bona's Letter has found enough on this side to oppose it It was but a very little time after the first Edition of it that Monsieur Noguier and another Author well known yet whose name I spare because he has not thought fit himself to discover it wrote against it and with so much success that the Papists themselves confest ' That it was an ill Cause defended extremely well Monsieur de Turenne not long before that last Campagne in which he lost his Life made great boasts of a Reply that was speedily to be publish'd to them but after the long expectation of above eight
my Body meant any thing else to be his Body than that Bread which was before him Now for this the Connexion of his discourse seems to us an evident Demonstration Our Saviour Christ took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave it to his Disciples Luk. 22.19 saying Take Eat This is my Body which is given for you do this in Remembrance of me For what did he demonstrate here and say was his Body but that which he gave to his Disciples What did he give to his Disciples but that which He brake What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly he took Bread What Jesus took in his hands that He blessed what He blessed the same He brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But Jesus says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said This is my Body In a word Forasmuch as the Papists themselves believe the Bread to be turned into the substance of Christ's Body because Christ said This is my Body Either those words refer to the Bread and then by their own Confession they will require our Interpretation or if they do not it is evident that then from these words they can have no Grounds to conclude their own pretended change So necessarily do both the words themselves and their own Confession lead us to the Exposition which we make of them And what these prepare us to receive the same 2dly The Intention of our Saviour in this Holy Sacrament do's yet more strongly confirm to us When God delivered the Children of Israel out of Egypt Excd. 12. he instituted the Passover to be a continual Remembrance of that great deliverance In like manner our Blessed Saviour being now about to work out a much greater deliverance for us by offering up himself upon the Cross for our Redemption he design'd by this Sacrament to continue the memory of this Blessing 1 Cor. 11.26 That as often as we eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup we might shew forth the Lords Death till his Coming That this Sacrament instituted for the like end which the Passover had been and now for ever to succeed in its place might be both the better understood and the easier received by them it pleased our Blessed Lord to accommodate himself as near as was possible to the Ceremonies and Phrases they had before been used to He retain'd the Symbols and even the Expressions they had so long been acquainted with only he changed the application of them to a new and more excellent Remembrance In the Jewish Passover the Master of the House took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt In this holy Sacrament our Saviour after the very same manner took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is broken for you Do this in remembrance of Me. Now as it is evident that that Bread which the Jews every Year took and brake and said This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt was not that very Bread which their Ancestors so many Generations before had eaten there but was design'd only to be the Type or Figure of it so neither could our Saviours Disciples to whom he spake and who as being Jews had so long been acquainted with that Phrase ever believe That the Bread which he held in his hand which he brake and gave them saying This is my Body which is broken for you Do this in remembrance of me was the very actual real Body of Christ which they saw before them at the Table They understood it no doubt to be the Type and Figure of that Body which was now about to be broken for them as that Bread which the Master of the Feast after the very same manner was wont to break to them was the Type of that Bread of Affliction which their Fathers had eaten in Egypt Nor does the Phrase My Body at all weaken but rather confirm this Idea as being the ordinary expression among the Jews whereby they called the Passover The body of the Passover The body of the Paschal Lamb. It was therefore used here by our Saviour with that allusion more expresly to signifie 1 Cor. 5.7 that he was the true Passover now to be sacrificed for us by whose Blood we were to be delivered from the destroying Angel and for the Remembrance whereof we were therefore to keep this Ceremony as the Jews had done their Passover for the other This we suppose to be the undoubted Interpretation of this place Monsieur de Meaux ought the less to except against it in that it was the original remark not of any Protestant or of any other Party of Christians differing from the Church of Rome in this matter but was objected to them by the very Jews themselves long before the Reformation upon the same account They shew'd by it that in the Doctrine of this pretended Change the Church of Rome had evidently opposed the design of our Saviours Iinstituion and advanced an Interpretation which no one accustomed to the Jewish Notions as the Apostles were could ever have understood to be his meaning The design of this discourse permits me not to proceed to any more particular vindication of this Exposition nor to mention many other Arguments more usually proposed and wherein it has clearly been shewn that they have not only the holy Scripture and the design of our Blessed Saviour in this Sacrament but Sense Reason Antiquity whatsoever is able to furnish an Argument all unanimously against them It remains only to examine whether what Monsieur de Meaux has proposed be any thing more reasonable that so we may go on to the Consequences established upon this foundation Where first we cannot conceive why Monsieur de Meaux designing to establish the Exposition of the holy Eucharist upon the Analogy which it has to the Jewish Sacrifices should flie off to the nature of their Sacrificesin general where the parallel is neither so clear nor so uncontroverted as to produce any necessary consequence from the allusion It would certainly have been more reasonable to compare it as we have done with that particular Sacrifice of the Passover to which it succeeded and from which therefore if any must be shewed the design of it But we will clear the whole difficulty in a reflection or two and prove that what has been offered to us as a convincing Argument is upon a nearer view a meer fallacy And 1. We desire it may be observed That the Peace-Offerings under the Law were designed as an acknowledgment on the peoples part for those temporal blessings which it pleased God to bestow upon them And because after the sacrifice of Isaac God first entred into the Covenant with Abraham and promised him his Blessing and to be his God Gen. 22.16
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
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
which we give to the Saints as our Adversaries do because it is Religious that on the contrary it ought to be blamed if it were not Religious There can be nothing more plain than that Monsieur de Meaux's Opinion when he wrote this was That the Honour which the Church of Rome pays to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed is a Religious Honour nay would deserve to be blamed if it were not Religious This was by others thought a little too ingenuous and what would give too great an advantage to our objections against it And therefore instead of that free honest Confession That the Church of Rome gives religious Honour to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed he now puts a doubt that insinuates the direct contrary The same Church teaches us that all religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and if the Honour which she rendereth to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sense be called Religious it is for its necessary relation to God So that really then the Honour they give their Saints in Monsieur de Meaux's opinion is Religious but 't is not fit that we should know it III. Monsieur Daillé some years since wrote a Volume of the Tradition of the Primitive Church concerning the Object of Religious Worship in which he clearly shews that the first 300 years knew nothing of the Invocation of Saints the Worship of Images Crosses and Reliques of the Adoration of the Host c. Monsieur de Meaux in his first Exposition granted the whole in these words since struck out For Monsieur Daillé says he he thinks fit to confine himself to the first three Centuries in which it is certain that the Church more exercised in suffering than in writing has left many things to be cleared afterwards both in its Doctrine and in its Practice 1 Edit p. 9. Now it being evident notwithstanding this new thought that the sufferings of the first 300 years have not hindred but that we have very large accounts of its Doctrine and Practice from the Writings of those Fathers who lived in them To confess that it is certain that the Tradition of the Church of Rome fails in many things both in Doctrine and Practice for the first 300 years is doubtless as fair a yielding up the Cause as to the matter of Tradition as we could desire and therefore however known by Monsieur de Meaux to be most certainly true was yet thought too much by others to be confessed to the World by a person of so great Learning and Eminence in their Church IV. As to the point of the Invocation of Saints Monsieur de Meaux still shews us that he knows not what account to give of the grounds of it He proposes several ways how the Saints may possibly know our Prayers but cannot well tell us by which it is they do so But in the first Edition he shew'd yet more doubt Not only which way the Saints hear them but whether they hear them at all or no Not only whether they joyn with them in their Prayers as they desire them to do but whether it is not rather by some other means yet more unknown to them and not by their Intercession that they receive the benefit of them The Church says he contents her self to teach with all Antiquity these prayers to be very profitable to such who make them Whether it be the Saints know them by the Ministry and Communication of Angels who according to the Testimony of Scripture know what passes amongst us being established by Gods order as administring spirits to co-operate with us in the work of our salvation Whether it be that God makes known to them our desires by a particular revelation Or whether it be that he discovers the secret to them in his Divine Essence in which all truth is compriz'd And that in the manner and according to the measure which he pleases or whether lastly by some other way yet more impenetrable and more unknown he causes us to receive the Fruit of those Prayers which we address to those blessed Souls 1 Ed. p. 23. So that in effect whether the Saints hear us or no whether they joyn with us in our requests or no according to Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition their Church knows not which is sure a sufficient prejudice against their Invocation and was it seems thought so by those who therefore caused all the latter part of this paragraph to be struck out for fear of the advantage we might reasonably make of it V. But if Monsieur de Meaux in his first Exposition freely confess'd how uncertain the grounds of this Invocation were he no less freely left it to our choice whether we would practise it or not He assured us there was no manner of obligation at all upon us so to do And that the Church would not condemn us if we did it not provided we refused it not out of contempt or with a Spirit of dissension and Revolt Furthermore says he there is nothing so unjust as to accuse the Church of placing all her piety in these devotions to the Saints since on the contrary she lays no obligation at all on particular persons to joyn in this Practice By which it appears clearly that the Church condemns only those who refuse it out of contempt and by a Spirit of dissension and revolt 1 Ed. p. 33 34. This was Monsieur de Meaux's first Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this point But such as his Correctors it seems would not admit of Who therefore obliged him wholly to strike out that passage That the Church imposes no obligation at all upon particular persons to practise this Invocation And instead of condemning only those that refuse it out of contempt or a Spirit of dissension and revolt which had freed us wholly from their Anathema to expound it now more severely That she condemns those who refuse this practice whether out of disrespect or Error Which will be sure to bring us under it VI. In the article of Images Monsieur de Meaux having first laid down this foundation That the Church of Rome does not attribute to them any other virtue than that of exciting in us the remembrance of those whom they represent added in his first Exposition which was suppressed 'T is in this consists the use and advantage of Images 1 Edit p. 25. And to assure us yet further how little Honour they had for them concluded thus So that to speak properly and according to the Ecclesiastical style we do not so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as we do honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image 1 Edit p. 26. Now though we do not doubt but that this is the real opinion of Monsieur de Meaux and all which he himself does yet to say that the Church of Rome does neither require nor practise nor intend any more was to presume
differences we have here declared to be between what they did and what the Church of Rome now practises or that they are otherwise proved to be so inconsiderable as not to make any notable alteration in it And yet that the Ages before knew nothing even of this not only their confessed inability to produce any Proofs from them of this Superstition but the contrary Testimonies of the undoubted Writings of Ignatius Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Novatian and Others so plainly shew that it ought not to be esteemed at all rash at this distance to assert that in this very small Change the Fathers of the fourth Century did certainly begin to depart from the Practice and Tradition of those before them And if that Reason of the Church of Rome be of any strength why they pray'd not to the Holy Men under the Old Testament viz. because they were not then admitted to the sight of God and therefore ought not to be prayed to It seems to us that not only the greater part of the Primitive Fathers but even those very Men Monsieur de Meaux mentions could not certainly have allowed such an Invocation as is now used in their Church the most of them being notoriously known and even by their own Writers freely confessed to have believed the same That neither do the Saints and Confessors of the Christian Church any more enjoy the Presence of God even now Thus much was thought fit to be said to remove that Prejudice Monsieur de Meaux had thrown in the way We go on now with him to consider the Doctrine it self and what our Church's Opinion is of it ARTICLE III. Of the Invocation of Saints THE Invocation of Saints as it is stated by Monsieur de Meaux we look upon to be one of those Practices which our Church stiles fond things vainly invented and grounded upon no Warrant of Holy Scripture but indeed repugnant to God's Word Artic. xxii Monsieur de Meaux himself dares not say that they do or can ordinarily by any ability in themselves hear see or know the Wants State or Prayers of Men upon Earth to be mindfull of them unto God in Heaven Nor can it ever be proved that by any of those ways which he proposes but seems himself not to lay any great stress upon they are certainly and particuly communicated to them We think therefore that till this be cleared it is â—o great a hazard to leave a Mediator who both certainly knows our wants and has promised to hear us that has invited us nay commanded us to come to him in all our Needs to go to Intercessors which God has no where appointed and which we can never be sure our Prayers shall come up to It sufficeth not that they may know some things in some places at some times and of some Men extraordinarily unless we could tell what Saints and what things and in what places and at what times they do know them When this is cleared it may then be more reasonable to desire us to joyn with them in this Service In the mean time tho we should not charge them with Idolatry meerly for this yet we must needs confess we cannot but think these Addresses to be too full of hazard and uncertainty to venture any Requests at all much less so many as they do every day upon them In vain therefore does Monsieur de Meaux endeavour to defend the Innocence of this Invocation whilst he forgets to shew us the Reasonableness of it We should be pleased indeed to be assured of that but we cannot be convinced that we ought to joyn in the Practice till we are satisfied of the other too And yet we cannot but regret that if their design be truly no more than this to entreat the Saints to pray for them we should find the greatest part of their Service addressing to them after so contrary a manner that they would interpose not only their Intercessions but their Merits too for their forgiveness Not only that they would pray to God for them but that they would themselves bless them That the Angels and Saints would give them Strength Grace Health and Power That St. Peter would have Mercy upon them and open to them the Gate of Heaven That the Blessed Virgin would protect them from their Enemies and receive them at their Death In a word that she would command her Son to forgive them by that Right This Passage is often deny'd See Cassander Consult in Art 21. which as a Mother she had over him All which their very publick Rituals so far allow that the Service which is paid to God in his Church by the Mediation of Christ is infinitely exceeded by the Addresses of this nature through the Merits of the Virgin Mary and of the Saints Now if these Prayers signify no more than as Monsieur de Meaux expounds them to entreat the Saints to pray for them why have we such Scandal given us in the Practice If they intend really what we suppose and what their words do certainly signify what Ingenuity can it be to impose upon us in the Declaration However at least they will please to excuse us that we have fallen at so just a stumbling Block and charged them as derogating from the Merits of Christ whilst they have thus cry'd up the Merits of their Saints and of a Presumption unwarrantable if not wholly Idolatrous in desiring any but God alone to help and succour and give them those Blessings which God only has power to dispense 1. When therefore we shall be certainly assured that all that infinite number which the Church of Rome has canonized are truly and infallibly Saints 2. When we shall be assured that these Saints do already enjoy the Presence of God Almighty a Circumstance which the Papists themselves confess necessary to warrant their Invocation 3. When it shall be made undoubtedly appear that either by their own Knowledg or by some other Revelation they do ordinarily and particularly understand all the Requests that are made to them so that we can be as secure of their hearing us as when we desire our Brethren upon Earth to pray for us 4. When the Liturgies of their Church shall be reformed and all those dangerous Insinuations of the Merit and Personal Assistance of their Saints be removed 5. When those desperate Doctrines and yet more desperate Addresses of their School-men and Controvertists which scandalize the more moderate even of their own Party shall be censured 6. And Men taught to practise this Invocation with such Sobriety as neither to make it so freely and publickly their Worship as they do nor with any Opinion of being either sooner heard or more effectually answered by this way of Address than by going directly to God by our Saviour and only Mediator Jesus Christ 7. In a word when even an Invocation so moderated shall be shewn either to have been commanded by God Almighty or to have been advised by
his Apostles or to have been practised ordinarily and directly by the most Primitive Christians Or lastly but to be no way injurious to the excellent Goodness of that Intercessor who has so kindly invited and even conjured us to come to Him in all our needs Then will we not fail to joyn our Ora pro Nobis with them But till then we must beg leave to conclude with a Charity and Moderation which we suppose they themselves cannot but approve in us That it is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Holy Scripture but rather indeed contrary thereunto And what we have now said of their Prayers we must in the next place apply to their Sacrifices too To mention the Names of the Holy Saints departed in the Communion this we look upon to be a Practice as innocent as 't is ancient So far are we from condemning it in them that we practise it our selves We name them at our Altars we give God thanks for their Excellencies and pray to him for Grace to follow their Examples But as we allow thus much to their Memories so we cannot but condemn that Practice which Monsieur de Meaux seems to have omitted tho yet the chief thing that offends us that they recommend the Offerings which they make to God through the Merits of their Saints which they commemorate and desire that by their Merits they may become available to the Churches needs As if Christ himself whom they suppose to be the Sacrifice needed the Assistance of St. Bathildis or Potentiana to recommend him to his Father Or that the Merits of an Offering which they tell us is the very same with that of the Cross should desire the joynt Deserts of a St. Martin to obtain our Forgiveness They who shall consider these things as they ought will we doubt not confess that we have some reason to complain both that they derogate herein from Christ's Merits and attribute to their Saints more than they ought to do If this Paactice be reformed our Complaint as to this point ceaseth If it be not in vain does Monsieur de Meaux endeavour to perswade us that they only name their Saints to give God thanks for their Excellencies whilst their publick Practice avows that they desire both the pardon of their Sins and even the acceptance of their very Sacrifices themselves by their Mediation ARTICLE IV. Of Images and Relicks VVHat the Opinion of the Church of England is concerning the Worship of Images and Relicks will need no long Declaration to shew they being joyn'd by her in the same Article with that of the Invocation of Saints before-mentioned Artic. XXII and by consequence submitted by her to the same Censure But then as we before complained that both the Practice of their Church in the publick Liturgies of it and the approved Doctrine of their most reputed Writers should so far contradict what Monsieur de Meaux would have us think is their only design in that Service so we cannot but repeat the same Complaints in this That if all the use their Church would have made of Images and Relicks be only to excite the more lively in their Minds the remembrance of the Originals not only the People should be suffered to fall into such gross Mistakes as 't is undeniably evident they do in their Worship of them but even their Teachers be permitted without any Reproof to confirm them in their Errors Has St. Thomas and his Followers nay and even their Pontifical it self ever yet been censured by them for maintaining in plain terms that the Image of the Cross ought to be worshipped with the same Worship as that Saviour who suffered on it Have the Jesuits been condemned for teaching Men to swear by it Does not their whole Church upon Good-friday yet address her self to it in these very dangerous words Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us adore it And do not their Actions agree with their Expressions and the whole Solemnity of that day's Service plainly shew that they do adore it in the utmost propriety of the Phrase Does she not pray to it that in this time of the Passion it would strengthen the Righteous and give Pardon to the Guilty Is the Hymn for the day of the Invention corrected wherein they profess that the Cross heals their Sicknesses ties up the Devil and gives them Newness of Life and thereupon desire it to save its Assembly gathered together in its honour Is the manner of consecrating them changed in which they intreat God to bless the Image of the Cross which they there sanctify that it may be for the establishment of their Faith an increase of their good Works the Redemption of their Souls and their Protection against the cruel Darts of the Enemy That Christ would embrace this Cross over which they pray as he did that upon which he suffer'd That as by that he delivered the whole World from its Guilt so by the Merits of this they who dedicate it may receive remission of their Sins In a word that as many as bow down before it may find health both of their Souls and Bodies by it And is all this in good earnest no more than to excite more lively in our minds the remembrance of Him that loved us and delivered himself to the Death for us and to testifie by some outward marks our acknowledgment of that favour by humbling our selves in presence of the Cross to declare thereby our submission to Him that was crucified Is not this rather if not absolutely to fall into yet certainly too nearly to approach to that which Monsieur de Meaux himself confesses to be Idolatry viz. to trust in the Images as if there were some divinity or virtue joyned to them and for which they not only shew all imaginable marks of outward Worship by Kissings Prostrations and the like Ceremonies but make as formal Addresses to them and that in the publick Service of the Church as to God himself How this allow'd practice can be reconciled with the prohibition of the Council of Trent Not to believe any Divinity or Virtue tied to their Images for which they ought to be adored nor to demand any Grace of them nor place any Trust or Confidence in them Monsieur de Meaux may please to expound to us In the mean time as we are so far from condemning the making of all sorts of Images that we think it not any Crime to have the Histories of the Gospel carved or painted in our very Churches which the Walls and Windows of several of them do declare As we publickly use the sign of the Cross in one of our very Sacraments and censure no Man for practising it only without Superstition on any other occasion so we cannot but avow the Scandal that is given us by those Doctrines and Practices before mentioned and that we think that Worship justly to be abolished which the Primitive Church abhorred and which at this
day scandalizes not only so great a number of Christians but even our common Enemy the Jew Turk In a word which is so far from being commanded by God that it needs many nice Distinctions to render it not directly opposite to an express Prohibition and is therefore if not down-right Idolatry to those who know how to direct their Intention aright yet to the Simple and Ignorant that is to the much greater number and the most zealous practioners of this Service so very near it that the Generality of the wisest Papists no less than We complain of it For the honour that is due to Reliques no Protestant will ever refuse whatever the Primitive Church paid them or may be fit to express the Honour we ought to retain for those Bodies that by Martyrdom have been made Sacrifices to God Almighty If this be all Mr. de Meaux desires of us we are ready to profess our Opinion that we judg it to be neither offensive to God nor fit to be scrupled by any good Man We believe that according to the Circumstances of the Times the Church may testify this Honour by more or less outward Signs and Marks of Respect And we do with satisfaction read that Declaration of Mr. de Meaux That we ought not to be servilely subjected to these outward Ceremonies but to be invited by them to offer up to God that reasonable service in Spirit and in Truth which he requires of us And if this be the State of the Question we confess the Explication of it has taken away a great part of the difficulty But what then means the Council of Trent to tell us That we are not only to honour them but to worship them too That by doing so we shall obtain many Benefits and Graces of God That these sacred Monuments are not unprofitably revered but are to be sought unto for the obtaining their help and assistance to cure the Sick to give Eyes to the Blind Feet to the Lame and even Life to the Dead How comes it to pass that their Church not only honours them which we could allow but carries them in Processions makes Offerings to them gives Indulgences to such as shall go to visit them prescribes Pilgrimages to them swears by them touches their Beads or Hankerchiefs with them to sanctify them thinks to obtain one Blessing by virtue of this Relick another from that and the like superstitious usages which we suppose we have good reason with our Chnrch to conclude to be fond things vainly invented Art xxii and grounded upon no Authority of Holy Scripture but indeed repugnant thereunto When therefore all these Abuses which we have named and which Monsieur de Meaux seems content to allow with us to be such shall be corrected When in the matter of Images 1. The Hymns and Addresses that teach us so contrary to the Spirit of Christianity to demand Graces of them and to put our Trust in them shall be reformed St. Thomas and his Abettors censured and all other Marks of an unwarrantable Worship be forbidden 2. When the Pictures of God the Father and of the holy Trinity so directly contrary both to the second Commandment and to St. Paul's Doctrine shall be taken away and those of our Saviour and the blessed Saints be by all necessary Cautions rendred truly the Books not Snares of the Ignorant When in points of Relicks 3. they shall be declared to have no sanctifying Virtue in them 4. Nor that they ought to be sought to for any Assistance Spiritual or Temporal to be expected from them 5. When it shall be resolved to be no matter of Merit to go to visit them 6. Nor any more extravagant Indulgences be set forth for Pilgrimages unto them When all these things which Monsieur de Meaux passes over and which yet are undeniably their Practice and our Scandal shall be corrected Then will we both believe and submit to the rest which he desires of us We will honour the Relicks of the Saints as the Primitive Church did we will respect the Images of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin And as some of us now bow towards the Altar and all of us are enjoyned to do so at the Name of the Lord Jesus so will we not fail to testify all due Respect to his Representation In the mean time if the Outcries of their own Church at these Abuses cannot prevail with them to redress them yet at least they will confirm us in the Reformation we have made of them and whilst we find Hezekiah commended in the holy Scripture for destroying the Brazen Serpent thô made by God's express Command and in some sort deservedly honourable for that great Deliverance it brought to the Jews 2 King 18. Because the Children of Israel offered Incense unto it We shall conclude our selves to be by so much the more justifiable in that the Images we have removed were due only to the Folly and Superstition of Men and have been more scandalously abused to a worser and greater dishonour of God ARTIC V. Of Justification THE Doctrine of Justification is one of those Points that deserves our careful Consideration as being not only one of the chiefest of those Points wherein we suppose the Church of Rome to have prevaricated the Faith but as Monsieur de Meaux remarks one of the first that gave occasion to that Reformation that was made from it It is not necessary to say to what an Extravagance the business of Pardons Indulgences and other means of satisfying the Divine Justice was arrived and how much more confidence the People generally put in the Inventions of Men than in the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ If they have been somewhat better instructed since they may thank the Reformation for it tho we fear all the difference is that they are somewhat more reserved in exposing these Follies now but yet still retain the Foundation of that Doctrine upon which they are built We willingly allow Monsieur de Meaux this honour that he has reduced the long Decrees of the Council of Trent to a short and easie Debate and proposed the things which contain our Difference with such tenderness as might invite us to close with a great part of it did not the Decrees of the Council seem too plainly to refuse Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition of them We believe with him That our Sins are freely forgiven by God's Mercy through Christ and that none of those things which precede our Justification whether our Faith or our good Works could merit this Grace We are perswaded that our Sins are not only covered but are entirely done away by the Blood of Jesus Christ We confess that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed but actually communicated to the Faithful through the operation of the holy Spirit in so much that they are not only reputed but made just by his Grace We deny not that this Righteousness is a true Righteousness even in
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
are the Principles which we suppose to have been an unwarrantable derogation to the Grace of God and directly opposite to the nature of Justification by Faith in Christ before established And tho this point was far from being the only cause of our Separation from their Communion yet let Mr. de Meaux himself please to say whether such a Doctrine of Merits as this were not sufficient if not to engage us wholly to leave a Church that taught such things yet at least to dissent from her in these Particulars ARTIC VII c. Of Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences THE whole of this Point we think to be the advancement of a Doctrine grounded upon no Authority of Holy Scripture but on the contrary derogatory to God's Mercy in Jesus Christ and as the Doctrine of Merits before considered inconsistent with the nature of that Justification we before establish'd Monsieur de Meaux was pleased there to tell us of God's justifying us freely for Christ's Merits That our Sins are not only covered but entirely done away by his Mercy and the Sinner not only reputed but made just by his Grace We cannot but be troubled to see our selves so soon deprived of this excellent Hope and required our selves to satisfy God's Justice here which he assured us was entirely done for us by Christ before When Christ says Monsieur de Meaux who alone was able to make a sufficient Satisfaction for our Sins See above p. 66. died for us having by his Death abundantly satisfied for them he became capable of applying that Satisfaction to us after two very different manners Either by giving us an entire Forgiveness of our Sins without reserving any Pains for us to undergo for them or in changing only a greater Pain into a lesser the Eternal Torments of Hell into a Temporal Punishment The former of these being the more entire and the more agreeable to the Divine Goodness he accordingly makes use of it at our Baptism But we suppose he gives the second only to them who after Baptism fall again into sin being in a manner forced to it through the Ingratitude whereby they have abused his former Gifts so that they are to suffer some Temporal pain tho the eternal be remitted to them This is a very great Doctrine and ought certainly to have some better Proof of it than barely We suppose However it be our Church has declared its self of an opinion directly contrary That since the absolute forgiving of sin is Confessed to be the more perfect way and more becoming the Divine Goodness and that God has never that we know of revealed any other but rather has constantly encouraged us to expect his Pardon after the largest and most ample manner that it is possible for words to set forth We are persuaded that accordingly whenever God do's pardon it is in that way which is the most suitable to his Divine goodness and which alone he hath declared to us that he do's it intirely for Christs merits not for any Works or Sufferings of our own In vain therefore does Monsieur de Meaux labour to reconcile this Doctrine with Christ's absolute Satisfaction We confess that we ought not to dispute with God the manner of his Dispensations Nor think it at all strange if he who shews himself so easie at our Baptism is afterwards more difficult for those sins which we commit being Baptized There is nothing in all this but what we could most readily allow of were there but any tollerable Arguments to establish the Doctrine that requires it But whilst this is so destitute of all Proof that it is acknowledged to introduce a manner of forgiveness neither so intire nor so befitting Gods mercy as a total remission of the Punishment together with the Guilt whilst we have the Sufferings of Christ to rely upon which are so far from needing any addition of our own that they are Confessed to have been Super-abundant to whatever the divine Justice could require of us Tho we can and do practice the same Discipline for the other benefits of it viz. To shew our Indignation against our selves that we have offended and to keep us from sinning for the future yet we cannot be so forgetful of our dear Master as to pretend to any part in that Redemption but only to enjoy the benefits of that forgiveness which by his alone Merits he has intirely purchased for us nor do we see any reason to believe that Gods Justice will require any more than what has been Super-abundantly paid upon the Cross for the Iniquities of mankind 'T is true Monsieur de Meaux tells us That the necessity of this Payment does not arise from any defect in Christ's Satisfaction but from a certain Order which God has establish'd for a salutary Discipline and to keep us from offending This indeed were something would either Monsieur de Meaux have been pleased to shew us this Establistment or had not the Council of Trent declared more Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 8. viz. That the Justice of God requires it and that therefore the Confessors should be charged to Proportion the Satisfaction to the Crime From whence Cardinal Bellarmine concludes L. 1. de purg c. 14. That it is We who properly satisfie for our own sins and that Christs Satisfaction serves only to make ours Valid This is an Exposition somewhat different from Monsieur de Meaux's who will have the Church of Rome believe That we do not our selves satisfie in the least for our sins but only apply the infinite Satisfaction of Christ to them Upon the whole it appears 1. That these Penances are not only a Salutary discipline but a Satisfaction too 2. They change the Mercy of God into a forgiveness that is confessed neither to be in its self Perfect nor so becoming the Divine goodness as an intire remission of sin the Punishment as well as Guilt would be 3. Their Establishment depends only upon a humane Supposition of its fitness and derogates from the very Foundation of that Covenant God has entred into with us by Christ Hebr. c. 8. v. 12. That he will be merciful to our unrighteousness and our Sins and our Iniquites he will remember no more Upon all which accounts tho we Practise this Discipline for many other benefits of it and wish it were universally Established not only in a more perfect manner than either in Ours or Their Church it is Catech conc Trid. but even in a strictness equal to what they tell us it is fallen from yet we cannot believe that by any of these things we are able to make a true and proper Satisfaction to God for sin which he only could do who Himself bore our sins in his own Body upon the Cross and by that one suffering Hebr. 10.14 for ever perfected them that are Sanctified ARTICLE VII Of INDVLGENCES THE Doctrine of Indulgences the Council of Trent has asserted only not explained Monsieur
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
and those who were departed only not lost by death But then it is to be observed that when they most ordinarily prayed for the dead yet was there nothing determined as to this Point all was left to the Piety and Opinion of particular men nor durst they absolutely resolve whether the dead received any benefit by them as both the learned of the Church of Rome themselves Confess and the Writings of Primitive Antiquity even to St. Augustine himself undoubtedly shew Now as there is none of us that will condemn the Charity of any man to pray or fast or afflict himself for the Pardon and Forgiveness of his Friends his Countrey or his Church so it be done without any fond Opinion of Merit or Satisfaction and to hope too by such Prayers to obtain God's mercy for them So if any one will put up his particular Requests for the dead too for any of those ends for which the Primitive Christians did we shall not condemn him Only let not that be made an Article of our Faith which we can never be assured of and which when it was most Practised was received only as a private Opinion and in a Sense far different from what is now asserted And for the rest We shall not refuse to Consent to any Liberty whereby Peace may be obtained and our free Justification by Faith in Christ not injured PART II. OF THE SACRAMENTS ARTICLE IX Of the Sacraments in General THE Doctrine of the Sacraments has always been esteemed one of the most considerable obstacles to our union with the Church of Rome We cannot imagine why Monsieur de Meaux should insinuate as if our disputes about these except it be in the point of the Eucharist were not so great as about other matters unless it be to serve for an excuse for his own passing so lightly over them or to make us less careful in examining their Doctrine The Sacraments of the New Testament in that proper sense in which we now take the word we have always look'd upon to be not only Holy Signs to represent and confirm to us the Grace of God but also effectual Tokens of his good Will to us by which he does work invisibly in us and strengthen and confirm our Faith in him To obtain the benefit of the Holy Sacraments we cannot believe it to be enough that we have no ill disposition but do suppose that it is a sufficient Obstacle if we have not a good one Artic. 25. of the Ch. of En. We confess that the Faith of the Church and those who present them to Baptism is all that is required to prepare Infants to receive the spiritual Regeneration which that Sacrament confers But for those who by age are capable of it we suppose both in Baptism and in the holy Eucharist an actual faith of Gods Promise annexed to the outward signs which we receive to be indispensably necessary for the partaking of their effects And tho if the rest be agreed we shall not desire to determine any mans belief as to the manner how the Sacraments confer that Grace which God has promised by them yet we judg it more agreeable to the Analogy of our Faith to say That upon the performance of the outward Ceremony God bestows the inward Blessing than that the Blessing is conferr'd by Virtue of the Words which are pronounced and the action which is done to us as Monsieur de Meaux has expounded it We do not by this at all take off from the necessity of the outward signs We confess That besides the inward Preparation there is required for our Sanctification a special operation of the holy Spirit and an application of Christs Merits by the means of the holy Sacraments This we are so perswaded of that we profess them to be ‖ So our Chu Catechism necessary to Salvation insomuch that whosoever either carelesly neglects or presumptuously despises the use of them will in vain expect it by any other means For the number of the Sacraments we acknowledg only two as generally necessary to Salvation and are surprized to see the Council of Trent damning all such as will not receive a number which neither has the Scripture any where declared nor was it that we know of till the very 12th Century ever heard of in the Church * De Cerm. Ec. c. l. 1. c. 12. Hugo de St. Victor is the first that we can find it in 1130 Years after Christ ‖ Lib. 4 Sent. Dist 2. Lombard and the Schoolmen follow'd him Pope ‡ Ann. 1439. in Conc. Flor. Eugenius in his instructions to the Armenians gave yet more countenance to it but that all those Ceremonies which the Church of Rome now receives are truly and properly Sacraments and that there be neither more nor less than Seven never any one absolutely determined till the Council of Trent first Canonically decreed it and commanded the Church under an Anathema to receive it The special consideration of their five pretended Sacraments will give us an opportunity more particularly to establish that number we our selves propose This presumption of the truth we must not omit here That not only the Ancient Fathers of the Church when they speak of the Sacraments properly as we now do mention only Baptism and the Lords Supper but even the Papists themselves who establish more yet confess these to be so far the Principal that our own Article says but little more than what their greatest Schoolmen have voluntarily confessed ARTICLE X. Of BAPTISM HOW strict our Church is in maintaining the necessity of Baptism the very Office by which we do administer it sufficiently shews See our Office Of Pub. Bapt We declare that all men are conceived and born in sin and that none can enter into the Kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Spirit This is the Law of Christ which the Eternal Truth has established and whosoever shall presume to oppose it let him be Anathema But now as all other Laws so this of Christ must we think be interpreted according to the rules of natural Equity The Ancient Church constantly professed her belief that Martyrdom excused the defect of Baptism Many of the Papists themselves suppose that the desire of it when by some unavoidable necessity the Sacrament its self cannot be obtained shall be reputed for it Monsieur de Meanx insinuates that the Acts of Faith Hope and Charicy may supply the want of it ⸫ Ep. 70. if it be indeed his St. Bernard plainly concludes the same If says he a man desirous of Baptism be suddenly cut off by Death in whom there wanted neither found Faith nor devout Hope nor sincere Charity God be Merciful unto me and pardon me if I err but verily of such a Ones Salvation in whom there is no other defect but his faultless lack of Baptism despair I cannot nor induce my mind to think his Faith void his
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
of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrifice of the Mass In which we ought to proceed with all the Caution such a Point requires as both makes up the chiefest part of the Popish Worship and is justly esteem'd one of the greatest and most dangerous Errors that offends us Monsieur de Meaux has represented it to us with so much tenderness that except perhaps it be his Foundation of the Corporeal Presence on which he builds and his Consequence that this Service is a true and real Propitiatory Sacrifice which his manner of expounding it we are perswaded will never bear there is little in it besides but what we could readily assent to We distinguish the two Acts which he mentions from one another By the Consecration we apply the Elements before common to a Sacred use by the Manducation we fulfil our Saviour's Command We take and eat and Do this in remembrance of Him This Consecration being separately made of his Body broken his Blood spilt for our Redemption we suppose represents to us our Blessed Lord in the figure of his Death which these holy Symbols were instituted to continue the memory of And whilst thus with Faith we represent to God the Death of his Son for the pardon of our sins we are perswaded that we incline his Mercy the more readily to forgive them We do not therefore doubt but that this presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us Were this all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it Where is that Christian that does not by Faith unite himself to his Saviour in this holy Communion That does not present him to God as his only Sacrifice and Propitiation That does not protest that he has nothing to offer him but Jesus Christ and the Merits of his Death That consecrates not all his prayers by this Divine Offering and whilst he thus presents to God the Sacrifice ofhis Son does not learn thereby to present also himself a lively Sacrifice holy and acceptable in his sight This is no doubt a Sacrifice worthy a Christian infinitely exceeding all the Sacrifices of the Law Where the Knife is the Word the Blood shed not but in a figure nor is there any Death but in Representation A Sacrifice so far from taking us off from that of the Cross that it unites us the more closely to it represents it to us and derives all its Vertue and Efficacy from it This is if any other truly The Doctrine of the Catholick Church and such as the Church of England has never refused and except it be our doubt of the Corporeal Presence Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to expect that there was nothing in this we could justly except against But now that all this is sufficient to prove the Mass to be a True and Proper Sacrifice Concil Trident. Sess 22. truly and properly propitiatory for the sins and punishments the satisfactions and necessities of the dead and the living and that to offer this true and proper Sacrifice our Saviour Christ instituted a true and proper Priesthood when he said Do this in Remembrance of Me This is what we cannot yet understand and what we think we ought not ever to allow of We know indeed that the Primitive Church called the holy Eucharist a Sacrifice in that large extent of the Expression whereby the holy Scripture stiles every religious performance our Prayers our Thanksgivings our Vertues our very Selves Sacrifices to God And accordingly in our own Liturgy we do without all scruple do the same But when it comes to be set in Opposition to a Sacrament and to be considered in the true and proper signification of the Word we must with all Antiquity needs profess That we neither have nor can we after that of Christ admit of any Hence it is that our Church following the Doctrine of the Holy Apostles and Primitive Christians teaches See Article 31. That the Offering of Christ once made is that proper Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the sins of the whole World and that there is no other Satisfaction for sin but that alone That the Application of Christs Death by Faith in the Holy Eucharist is made to all such as with true Repentance receive the same we undoubtedly believe We are perswaded that by our Prayers which in this holy Solemnity we never fail to offer for the wants and necessities the pardon and forgiveness not of our selves only but of all Mankind of those who have not yet known the Faith of Christ or that knowing it have prevaricated from the right way we incline Gods Mercy to become propitious unto them Only we deny that by this holy Eucharist as by a true and proper Propitiatory Sacrifice we can appease Gods Wrath for the sins of the whole World can fulfil the satisfactions and supply the necessities of other men of the dead and the living of them that are absent and partake not of it This we attribute to the Sacrifice of the Cross only and are perswaded that it cannot without derogation to the Merits of that most absolute Redemption which was there purchased for us be applied to any other When we examine the first Institution of this holy Communion we cannot perceive either in the words or action of our Blessed Saviour any Sacrifical Act or Expression He took bread and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take Eat This is my Body which is given for you Do this in Remembrance of Me. Monsieur de Meaux seems to imply that the Consecration made it a Sacrifice But this Vasquez tells us that others think to be only a preparation to it In. 3. D. Th. disp 222. c. 1. because till after the Consecration Christ is not there and by Consequence cannot be offered The Council of Trent seems to refer it to the Oblation This Bellarmine opposes L. 1. de Miss c. 27. because neither Christ nor his Apostles used any Bellarmine is positive that either Christ sacrificed in Eating Ibid. or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it Yet even this the greatest part of that Communion reject because Eating is not Offering and in the Ordination where the Priest receives the power of Sacrificing not any mention is made of it In Effect Reason will tell us That this is to partake of the Offering not to offer it and Monsieur de Meaux himself accordingly distinguishes the Two Acts of Consecration and Manducation from one another and refers the Sacrifice wholly to the former If we consider the Nature of a true and proper Sacrifice they universally agree that these Four Things are necessarily required to it 1. That what is Offered be something that is Visible 2. That of prophane which it was before it be now made sacred 3. That
it be offered to God And 4. by that offering suffer an essential destruction Now we suppose that the greatest part of these Conditions are evidently wanting to this pretended Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Mass 1. It is Invisible They confess it 2. It was never prophane that it should be made sacred They will not presume to say that it was 3. It suffers no Essential destruction The Blood is not spilt but in a Mystery says Monsieur de Meaux nor is there any Death but in Representation As therefore none of these things truly and properly agree to this holy Eucharist so we suppose that neither can it be truly and properly a Sacrifice We are perswaded that the Offering its self like the necessary and essential Properties of it must be only in Figure and Representation This is what we willingly allow Monsieur de Meaux and what their own Principles do undoubtedly prove For what our Saviour adds Do this in Remembrance of Me However the Council of Trent has Canonically resolved it to be the Institution of a true and proper Priesthood See Sess 22. cap. 1. to offer this Sacrifice yet that it has no such Proof the preceding Discourse evidently shews Our Saviour Christ commanding his Apostles to Do this commanded them to Do no more than what himself had done So that if he therefore did not Sacrifice himself neither did he give any Authority to them or to their Successors to Sacrifice ARTICLE XXI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews THE Epistle to the Hebrews so clearly establishes our Doctrine in Opposition to the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass that Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to enter on a particular consideration of it We will after his Example follow the same Method and shew the whole Design of that Sacred Book to be directly contrary to the Principles of the Roman Church Monsieur de Meaux observes that the Author of this Epistle concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to be offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered Now the reason which the Apostle gives is this Because that otherwise says he Heb. 9.25 26. Christ must often have suffered Plainly implying that there can be no true Offering without Suffering So that in the Mass then either Christ must Suffer which Monsieur de Meaux denies or he is not Offered which we affirm This is so evidently the meaning of that place and so often repeated That without Bloud Heb. 9.22 there is no Remission that Monsieur de Meaux is forced freely to declare that if we take the word Offer as it is used in that Epistle they must profess to the whole World that Christ is no more Offered either in the Mass or any other way Now how these things can stand together that the Epistle to the Hebrews contradicts not the Offering of the Mass and yet that the same Epistle absolutely declares that Christ can no more be Offered because he can no more Suffer nor any more become a Propitiatory Sacrifice because without Bloud there is no Propitiation All which Monsieur de Meaux allows and professes to the whole World that in the Notion of the Epistle to the Hebrews Christ is not offered in the Mass nor can be any where else we are not very well able to comprehend But that Epistle goes yet further It tells us that Christ ought to be but once offered because by that one Offering he has fully satisfied for our sins Heb. 10.14 and has perfected for ever them that are Sanctified If therefore by that first Offering he hath fully satisfied for our sins Ibid. v. 18. there is then no more need of any Offering for sin If by that first Sacrifice he hath perfected for ever them that are Sanctified the Mass certainly must be altogether needless to make any addition to that which is already perfect Ibid. v. 〈◊〉 In a word if the Sacrifices of the Law were therefore repeated as this Epistle tells us because they were imperfect and had they been otherwise they should have ceased to have been offered What can we conclude but the Church of Rome then in every Mass she Offers does violence to the Cross of Christ and in more than one sense Crucifies to her self the Lord of Glory Lastly The Council of Trent declares that because there is a new and proper Sacrifice to be offered it was necessary that our Saviour Christ should institute a new and proper Priesthood to offer it And so they say he did after the Order of Melchisedeck Hebr. 7.3 in opposition to that after the order of Aaron under the Law Now certainly nothing can be more contrary to this Epistle than such an assertion Both whose description of this Priesthood shews it can agree only to our Blessed Lord and which indeed in express terms declares it to be peculiar to him Ibid. v. 27. It calls it an unchangeble Priesthood that passes not to any other as that of Aaron did from Father to Son but continues in him only because that he also himself continues for evermore ARTICLE XXII Reflections on the foregoing Doctrine ANd here then let us conjure our Brethren of the Church of Rome seriously to consider these things and into what desperate consequences that great Errour of the Corporeal presence has insensibly led them Can any thing be more rash or more uncharitable even the Literal interpretation of this Holy Eucharist being allow'd than their Canon of Trasubstantiation To cut off from their Communion the greatest and most Orthodox part of the Christian Church only for a Nicety a manner of presence which neither has the Scripture any where revealed and which they themselves never understood Is it possible for men to fall into a grosser or more dangerous Error than to set up a Wafer for their God and pay a divine Worship to a Morsel of Bread Shall their good Intentions secure them Had not the Israelites a good Intention to hold a feast unto the Lord Exod. 32.5 when they Worshipped the Molten Calf Were they therefore not Idolaters for it Had this been a sufficient excuse Nadab and Abihu had not been punished Their intention was certainly good to burn Incence to the Lord. Lev. 10. The Jews had a good intention even in Crucifying the Lord of glory St. Paul thought it Zeal to presecute his Disciples Our Blessed Saviour has foretold and we live to see it accomplished that the time should come when Men should kill their Brethren and think they did God good service Joh. 16.2 The Church of Rome may do well to consider whether their good intention will justifie them that do it and whether both in this and that they do not run a desperate hazard if it appear that they have no other plea than a well meant mistake to excuse them For our parts we must needs profess that these things give us
not only a scandal but a horrour for their Religion Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to say that this is the Chiefest and most important of all our controvesies and wherein we are at the farthest distance from one another And would to God they had only offended us by these Errours and had not exposed our common Name to the reproach of the very Heathen who have been confirmed by them in their Idolatry and thought it more rational to adore a Stock or a Stone than with the Christians to Worship this moment what they Eat the very next But Monsieur de Meaux thinks we have no reason to appear so obstinate against them who declare our selves so favourably towards the Lutherans who yet are involved in the same Error T is true we believe the Lutherans mistaken in their Literal interpretation of this Holy Sacrament But we are perswaded they are infinitely less so and less dangerously than the Papists They confess that there is no change made in the Substance of the Sacred Elements They believe that the Bread and Wine continue in their proper Natures and that Christs Body is present only when he is received They adore not the Holy Eucharist They found no Propitiatory Sacrifices upon it They say no Masses for the sins and satisfactions for the wants and necessities of the Dead and the Living They deny not the Cup to the People their Errour in one word whatsoever it be is only a matter of simple belief has no ill consequences attending it nor do they damn us for not receiving it Let the Church of Rome do all this Let them raze their Anathema's out of their Councils and banish their Masses and Adorations out of their Churches Let them no longer scandalize us with any unwarrantable practices nor desire to enslave our Consciences by submitting them to their own inventions and though we shall still think Transubstantiation to be the greater Error yet will we receive them with the same charity we do the Lutherans We will pray to God to give them a better understanding but will not drive them from our Communion for matters of simple belief and which are only to themselves tho' they be wrong But till then in vain do's Monsieur de Meaux exhort us to consider the ways of providence to bring us to a Union which God knows we could be glad to have on any terms but the loss of truth In the mean time if the Church of Rome in good earnest thinks that as we tolerate the foundation of all these Errours the Corporeal presence in the Lutherans so we ought to bear the consequences of it in them Let them at least do what the Lutherans have done let them embrace our Communion let them leave off to persecute us where they have power and damn us where they have not let them receive us as Brethren not Lord it over us as our Masters This will make us hope that they are sincere when they conjure us to be at peace with them and they may justly then accuse us of partiality if we continue to repute them as Enemies when they will be thus content to love and receive and deal with us as friends ARTICLE XXIII Of Communicating only under one kind THis is the last of those consequences that give us a just detestation for that great Errour of the Corporeal presence on which they are founded It is so plainly contrary to the express command of our Blessed Saviour that we are perswaded it has pleased God to suffer them to fall into it on purpose to correct that vanity whereby they have so proudly aspired to an Opinion of Infallibility That whilst they Lord it over mens Consciences and will not so much as give them leave to ask them a Reason of what they do they might here at last be surprised in an Error which the most vulgar Eye is able to discern The Church of England conformably to all Antiquity declares See our 30th Article That the Cup ought not to be deny'd to the Lay-people forasmuch as both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike For indeed Did not he who said of the Bread Take Eat this is my Body say also of the Wine with the same expressness Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins Did not he who commanded them Do this in Remembrance of Me for the Bread even according to their own Construction Take and Consecrate and give to Others as I have done to you command them for the Cup in like manner Do this i. e. consecrate and give it to Others as I have done to you in remembrance of Me We confess That the Grace of God is not tied to the outward signs Yet we think withal that without taking the outward and visible signs we can have no pretence to the inward and spiritual Grace of that holy Sacrament which deriving all its Effect from our Saviour's Promise we can have no security that it shall have any good one to them who do not receive it according to his Institution Had Christ esteemed it sufficient for us to receive the Blood in the body we suppose he would not have consecrated the Cup afterwards But if it was our Saviour's pleasure that to commemorate the more lively his Passion we should take his Blood as it was spilt for our Redemption separate from his Body we think it an unwarrantable presumption for us to make our selves wiser than God and say that it is sufficient to participate of Both in One. Monsieur de Meaux has received so full an Answer upon this point from the Reply made to his Treatise written purposely on this Subject that he will have no cause to complain of us for not repeating here what has been so fully and so successfully handled there Only as to that Negligence of these latter Ages which he is pleased to alledge as the reason of this change We must needs say that God be thanked we cannot observe any such Negligence of this holy Communion in our Churches where yet this holy Sacrament is administred to as large Congregations and with as great frequency as any where among Them Both our Priests and the People give and receive it with that Care and Reverence that we find as little grounds for any such pretence as there is reason in it were it never so true to justifie so great and unwarrantable a Change PART III. OF THE CHURCH ARTICLE XXIV Of the Word Written and Unwritten OUR Blessed Saviour having founded his Church upon the Word which He preached we confess that the unwritten Word as to that Gospel which he preached was the first Rule of Christians But God Almighty foreseeing how liable such a Rule must have been to infinite Inconveniencies thought fit to have that Word which was first spoken by Mouth afterwards
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