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
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
too much upon our Ignorance and indeed to give too great a scandal to many of her own Communion more zealous than himself for this service And therefore we find it now expounded in a manner more conformable to the truth though still exceedingly mollified T is upon this is founded the Honour which we give to Images and again When we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our Intention is not so much to honour the Image as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image VII In the Section of Justification Monsieur de Meaux has omitted this whole paragraph since his first Edition The Catholick Church says he is no where more invincible than in this point and perhaps it would need no long discourse to shew that the more one searches by the Scriptures into the design of the redemption of Mankind which was to make us Holy the more one shall approach to our Doctrine and the more depart from the opinions of Calvin which are not maintainable nay are contradictory and ruinous of all true and solid piety 1 Ed. p. 36 37. Monsieur de Meaux may please some other time to expound to us what those Opinions of Calvin in this matter are which the Church of Rome is so invincible in and which all parties among them will agree to be so contradictory and ruinous to all true and solid piety as he then said In the mean time we will only beg leave to observe on occasion of this Correction that perhaps there are some in the Church of Rome of Mr. Calvin's mind in the worst of those Principles Monsieur de Meaux refers to and to assure him that there are several Protestants in the World that are not tho they dare not therefore so severely censure the Opinions of those that are IX Monsieur de Meaux having in a very few words explained the Doctrine of Justification upon which the Council of Trent is so long and perplex'd assured us in his first Exposition That that was enough for any Man to know to make him a through Christian Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification and our Adversaries would be extraordinarily contentious not to confess that there is no need to know any more to be a solid Christian 1 Ed. p. 47. This would have been of great advantage to us and have freed us from the Anathema's of many other Particulars of which we more doubt than of any thing Monsieur de Meaux has expounded of it but this others thought too great a Concession and the Bishop therefore without changing any thing in his Premises was forced to draw a very different Conclusion from them Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification and our Adversaries would be very unreasonable if they should not confess that this Doctrine suffices to teach Christians that they ought to refer all the Glory of their Salvation to God through Jesus Christ X. In the Article of Satisfaction Monsieur de Meaux speaking of the Temporal and Eternal Punishment of Sin and how the one may be retain'd when the other is forgiven had this Paragraph in the first Edition since struck out The Church has always acknowledged these two different manners of applying the Remission of Sins which we have proposed because she faw that in the Scriptures besides the first Pardon and which ought to be the only if Men were not ungrateful and which is pronounced in the terms of a pure Remission there is another Absolution and another Grace that is proposed in form of a Judgment where the Church ought not only to loose and remit but also to bind and retain 1 Edit p. 54 55. The Censure pass'd upon this were enough to make one suspect that either Monsieur de Meaux or his Correctors were sensible upon further Consideration that they could not so easily find out these two forms so distinguish'd in holy Scripture or prove that the Church had always acknowledged them and therefore judged it safer not to undertake it XI In the Article of Confirmation speaking of the Imposition of Hands Monsieur de Meaux insinuated in his first Exposition that it had always been accompanied with the use of Chrism ever since the Apostles Thus says he all Christian Churches have religiously retained this Practice accompanying it the Imposition of Hands with holy Chrism 1 Ed. p. 65. This was too clearly false to be suffer'd to pass and therefore it is now more loose so as to admit of an Equivocation and yet seem to say still the same thing Thus all Christian Churches since the Apostles times have religiously retained it making use also of holy Chrism XII In the Article of the Sacrifice of the Mass Monsieur de Meaux having expounded it according to our Principles in his first Edition concluded with us too So that it the Mass may says he be very reasonably called a Sacrifice 1 Ed. p. 115. But since the Correction the Conclusion is much strengthned tho the Premises remain the same So that there is nothing wanting to it to make it a true Sacrifice XIII As to the point of the Pope's Authority the first Exposition ran much higher than it seems the Spirit of the Gallicane Church could bear So that our Profession of Faith obliges us as to this point to believe the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and to render a true Obedience to the Pope the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ 1 Ed. p. 166. It is now more loose and in general thus We acknowledg a Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for that cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful 5 Ed. p. 210. But it may be what was struck out of the Exposition to please the Correctors Monsieur de Meaux recompensed in his Letter to satisfy his Holiness XIV In the Conclusion Monsieur de Meaux telling us that none of those Articles he had expounded according to our own Principles destroyed the Foundation of our Salvation added in his first Exposition what that Foundation was viz. The Adoration of one only God Father Son and Holy Ghost and the Trust in one only Saviour 1 Ed. p. 160. It is hard to say why this was not let pass for we are unwilling to believe that the Church of Rome has any other Foundation for Salvation than this But it may be to have put down this as the Foundation of Salvation would have been too plainly to shew that then we certainly have this and that without mixture of any thing destructive thereunto XV. Monsieur de Meaux go's on in a very candid manner since struck out In effect says he in all these Explications which contain the very bottom of our Belief there is not any one word repugnant to these two Principles either directly or by Consequence So that
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
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
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
strictly required and more duly observed than it is The Canons of our Church do perhaps require as much as the Primitive Christians themselves did and it is more the decay of Piety in the People than any want of Care in her that they are not as well and regularly Practised We do not believe Penance to be a Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are because neither do we find any Divine Command for it nor is there any Sign in it established by Christ to which his Grace is annexed We suppose that if the Ancient Church had esteemed it any thing more than a part of Christian Discipline they would not have presumed to make such changes in it as in the several Ages it is evident they did The Primitive Christians interpreting those places of ‡ Mat. 18.18 John 20.23 St. Matthew and St. John which Monsieur de Meaux mentions of publick Discipline and to which we suppose with them they principally at least if not only refer at first Practised no other For private faults they exhorted their Penitents to Confess them to God and unless some particular Circumstances required the Communication of them to the Priest plainly signified that that Confession was not only in its self sufficient but in effect was more agreeable to Holy Scripture than any other If the Conscience indeed were too much burdened by some Great fault or that the Crime committed was notoriously Scandalous then they advised a Confession to the Priest too But this was not to every Priest nor for him just to hear the Confession and then without more ado to say I absolve thee They prescribed in every Church some Wise Physician of the Soul on purpose for this great Charge that might pray with the Penitent might direct him what to do to obtain Gods favour might assist him in it and finally after a long Experience and a severe Judgment give him Absolution This was the Practise of the Eastern Church till upon occasion of a certain scandal Nectarius first began to weaken it in his Church at Constantinople and St. J. Chrysostome his Successor seconded him in it They reduced the Practise to what it had been in the Beginning that open and scandalous Sins should be openly punished by the publick Discipline of the Church and the private be Confessed only to God Almighty Yet still the publick Confession remained in the Practise of the Western Church Pope Leo I. to take away the occasions of Fear and Shame that kept many from the exercise of it first ordered that it should be sufficient to Confess to God and the Priest only which is the first plausible Pretence offered by them for Auricular Confession Thus this Practise now set up for a Sacrament instituted by our Saviour and absolutely necessary to obtain God's pardon first began But the performance of it was yet left to every Mans liberty About 1215 Years after Christ the Council of Lateran first Commanded it to be of necessary observance But we do not find that till the Council of Trent in the last Age it was ever required to be received absolutely as a Sacrament of Divine Institution and necessary to Salvation This short View of the Practise of Antiquity in this point may be sufficient to shew that unless it were the publick power of the Church to censure open and scandalous Offenders which was the Key of Discipline our Blessed Saviour left to it for the rest several Churches and Ages had their several Practises They advised private Confession as upon many accounts which Monsieur de Meaux Remarks and which we willingly allow very useful to the Penitent but it was not for above a 1000 Years ever looked upon as absolutely necessary nor by Consequence as Sacramental The Church of England refuses no sort of Confession either publick or private which may be any way necessary to the quieting of mens Consciences or to the exercising of that Power of binding and loosing which our Saviour Christ has left to his Church We have our Penitential Canons for publick Offenders We exhort men if they have any the least doubt or scruple nay sometimes tho they have none but especially before they receive the Holy Sacrament to Confess their sins We propose to them the benefit not only of Ghostly Advice how to manage their Repentance but the great comfort of Absolution too as soon as they shall have compleated it Our form of Absolution after the manner of the Eastern Church at this day and of the Universal Church for above 1200 Years is Declarative rather than Absolute Whilst we are unable to search the Hearts of men and thereby infallibly to discern the sincerely contrite from those that are not we think it Rashness to pronounce a definitive Sentence in God's Name which we cannot be sure that God will always confirm When we visit our Sick we never fail to exhort them to make a special Confession of their sins to him that Ministers to them And when they have done it the Absolution is so full that the Church of Rome its self could not desire to add any thing to it For the rest We think it an unnecessary Rack to mens Consciences to oblige them where there is no scruple to reveal to their Confessor every the most secret fault even of Wish or Desire which the Church of Rome exacts Nor dare we pronounce this Discipline Sacramental and necessary to Salvation so that a contrite Sinner who has made his Confession to God Almighty shall not receive a Pardon unless he repeat it to the Priest too This we must beg leave with assurance to say is directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture And if this be all our Reformation be guilty of That we advise not that which may Torment and Distract but is no way apt to settle mens Consciences nor require that as indispensably necessary to Salvation which we find no where commanded by God as such we assure Monsieur de Meaux we see no cause at all either to regret the Loss or to be ashamed of the Change ARTICLE XIII Of Extreme Vnction OF all those pretended Sacraments of the Roman Church that have no foundation in holy Scripture this seems to stand the fairest for it Here is both an outward and visible Sign and an inward and spiritual Grace tied to it Insomuch that Monsieur de Meaux himself who never attempted to say any thing of it in the two foregoing Instances yet fails not to put us in mind of it in this To interpret rightly that place of St. 1 James 5.6 14.13 James which is alledged to prove it we must remark that anointing with Oyl was one of those Ceremonies used by the Apostles in working their miraculous Cures Mark 6.13 They cast out devils says the Evangelist and anointed many sick persons with Oyl and cured them Sometimes they used only Imposition of hands
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
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
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