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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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