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
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
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
Hope confounded and his Charity fallen to nothing only because he hath not-that which not contempt but impossibility with-holdeth When therefore so many ways have been allowed to excuse the defect of Baptism tho our Church has rather taken all imaginable care that Infants shall not die without it than presumed rashly to determine what shall become of them if they do yet we cannot but condemn the uncharitableness of the Church of Rome in Excluding them from all Part in Jesus Christ and denying that Mercy to a tender and impotent Age which they so liberally extend to those of Riper years If not the Want but the Contempt of this Sacrament be the only thing that is damnable to be sure no Contempt of Baptism can be in them If the desire of Baptism in those that are capable of it is by many of the Church confessed to be reputed for Baptism why shall we not hope that God who is all merciful will accept the Desire of the Church and of their Parents in their behalf who by their Age are not capable to have any of their own ‖ By Monsieur de Meaux see before If Faith Hope and Charity as Monsieur de Meaux himself implies may excuse them who actually have these Graces tho they want this Sacrament why may not that Faith that Hope that Charity of the Church which being imputed to them renders them capable of Baptism be as effectual to stand instead of it to them as their own proper Faith for Others if a necessity which could not be avoided prevents it In a word Since such is the Mercy of God that to things altogether impossible he bindeth no man but where what he Commands cannot be performed accepteth of our Will to do it instead of the Deed. 2. Seeing God's Grace is not so absolutely tyed to the Sacraments but that many exceptions have been and are still Confessed to be sufficient to obtain it without the external Application of them Seeing 1 Cor. 7. 3. St. Paul has told us that the Seed of faithfull Parentage is Holy from the very Birth as being born within the Covenant of Grace Tho we determine nothing yet we think it the part of Charity not only to take all the Care we can to Present our Infants to Baptism whilst they live but if by any unavoidable necessity they should die without it ‖ See Cassan Consult Art 9. de Bapt. Infant Where he cites many others of the C. of R. of the same Opinion to Hope well of them Remembring that Judgment of God Exod. 4. who when Moses neglected to Circumcise his Son spared the Child in that he was innocent but sought to kill Moses for his Carelesness in the Omission A necessity therefore of Baptism we constantly maintain but absolutely to determine that all those who die without it are excluded from the Grace of Christ neither will Monsieur de Meaux presume to do of Men nor dare we much less to affirm it of Infants The Lutherans condem the Anabaptists for refusing Baptism altogether to Children which we also condemn in them But that therefore they make no allowance for extraordinary Cases where both the Church and the Parents desired to have Baptized them only that some unavoidable Accident prevented it neither did Cassander believe Consult Art 9. nor do the terms of their Confession at all require For the Calvinists so far were they from being the Authors of this charitable opinion towards Infants dying unbaptized That many of the most Eminent men of the Church of ‡ Gerson Gabriel Biel Cajetan and others Rome have long before them maintained the same To conclude If Monsieur de Meaux himself do's in good earnest believe the danger so great as he pretends may he then please to consider What we are to Judge of those who in so many places have not left any Ministers at all to confer this Sacrament For our parts we freely declare their hazard to be infinitely greater than either the Childrens or their Parents who are so far from that indifference Monsieur de Meaux most injuriously charges them with that in places where publick Ministers reside that they have the opportunity to do it they fail not with all imaginable Care to Present them in the Ambassadors Chappels to Baptism if they have but the least apprehension that they are not in a Condition to be carried to their own Temples ARTICLE XI Of CONFIRMATION TO clear our way to that particular Examination that is necessary of the following pretended Sacraments of the Roman Chruch it will be necessary to observe that by their own Confession these three things are absolutely required to the Essence of a true Sacrament 1. Christ's Institution 2. An outward and visible Sign 3. An inward and spiritual Grace by Christ's promise annexed to that Sign We cannot but admire that neither in the Council of Trent or in the Catechism made by its Order is there any Attempt to prove either of these from the Holy Scripture as to the Point of Confirmation It was so much the more necessary to have done this in that Many of the greatest Note in the Roman Church had denied the Divine Institution of it and some of them were approved by the Holy See its self that did it The outward Sign has been none of the least Controversies that have exercised their own Pens and indeed since they have laid aside that of Imposition of hands which they confess the Apostles used it was but reasonable to have shewn us some Authority for that other they have established in its stead What Monsieur de Meaux expounds is a clear Vindication of our Practice but defends nothing of their own Doctrine That we think it to have been an Ancient custom in the Church and which the very Apostles themselves Practised to lay hands on those that had been Baptized and in imitation whereof we our selves at this day do the like the Practise of our Church sufficiently declares We Confess that the use of Chrism in Confirmation was very Ancient yet such as we deny to have been Apostolical We do not our selves use it yet were that all the difference between us we should be far from judging those that did The Discipline of our Church allows none that is not of the Episcopal Order to Confirm And for the benefit of it as the Bishop prays to God for his Holy Spirit to assist us in the way of Virtue and Religion to Arm us against Temptation and to enable us to keep our Baptismal Covenant which we then our selves repeat and in the Presence of the Church-openly ratifie and confirm So we Piously hope that the Blessing of the Holy Spirit descends upon us through his Prayer for all these great Ends both to strengthen the Grace we already have and to increase it in us to a more plentiful degree ARTICLE XII Of Penance and Confession FOR Penance and Confession we wish our Discipline were both more
of Holy Scripture and without Gods infinite Mercy absolutely destructive of their eternal Salvation have been built upon it As we hope that these declarations have been permitted by God to fall from the greatest and most Esteemed of their Church not only to confirm us in our Faith but also to prepare the way for their return to that Catholick truth from which they have so long erred so we doubt not by Gods blessing but that they will in time attain to it when being sensible of that Tyrannical usurpation that has been made over their Consciences and resolved to use that Knowledg God has given them to search the Scriptures and examine their Faith and not servily follow every Guide that will but pretend to lead them They shall seriously and indifferently weigh all these things and find that therefore only they have thought us in darkness because their own Eyes were shut that they might not discern the light ARTICLE XIX Of Transubstantiation and of the Adoration of the Host WHat remains of this Subject of the Holy Eucharist being wholly consequent upon the foregoing mistaken interpretation of the Words of our Blessed Saviour before considered we should have passed them over as things we have in effect already declared that the Church of England receives not but that we are perswaded the particular consideration of them will yet more fully shew the falsness of that Foundation upon which they are built Monsieur de Meaux in proving the Corporeal presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist from the Words of institution This is my Body had something that at least seemed to favour his mistake but to produce them here for Transubstantiation that is not only to argue the presence of Christ's substance but also the change of the substance of the Bread and Wine into it he has not the least appearance of the Text for him Indeed were there no other way for Christ to be present in the Eucharist but only by this change it might then be allowed that having as he imagines proved the one he had in effect established the other But the number of those who interpret the Words in like manner according to the Letter yet are as great enemies as our selves to this change and suppose Christs Body to be present by a Vnion of it to the Bread rather then by a Conversion of the Bread into it not only shews that there is no necessary consequence at all between the real presence and Transubstantiation but that there is another manner of Christs presence both more agreeable to Holy Scripture than that which they advance and that takes off infinite difficulties which their Transubstantiation involves them in That the Substance of the Sacred Figures remains in this Sacrament after the Consecration those clear expressions of St. Paul wherein he so often calls them * 1 Cor. 10.16 c. 11.26 Bread and Wine after it seem to us plainly to shew †Acts 2.46 c. To break Bread the Holy Scripture tells us was the usual Phrase all the time of the Apostles for receiving the Holy Communion and which the Blessed Spirit himself dictated These passages Monsieur de Meaux certainly ought not to put off with a Figurative meaning unless he can give us some good reason why he follows the High road of the Literal interpretation in the one to establish the Substance of Christs Body in the Sacrament and forsakes it in the other to take away the Presence of the Bread from it For the Adoration of the Host The Church of England consequently to her Principles of the Bread and Wine 's remaining in their natural substances See her Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office professes that she thinks it to be Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians Monsieur de Meaux in Conformity to theirs tells us That the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as believe it without all scruple to the Adoration of it This therefore being taken as a Principle acknowledged by them it may not be amiss to observe that since it is certain that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised nor the Church for above 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament neither could they according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles have believed the Corporeal Presence of our Blessed Saviour in it Is there any of the Evangelists that mentions it They all tell us Take Eat Do this in remembrance of me But does any one add This is my Body fall down and Worship it When St. Paul reproved the Corinthians for violating this Holy Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.20 c. is it possible he could have omitted so obvious a Remark and so much to his purpose That in profaning this Holy Sacrament they were not only guilty of the Body and Bloud of Christ which it was instituted to represent to us but even directly affronted their Blessed Master corporally present there and whom instead of profaning they ought as they had been taught to Adore in it With what simplicity do the Ancient Fathers speak of this Communion in all their Writings The Elevation of the Sacred Symbols was not heard of till the Seventh Century and then used only to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross not to expose it to the People to adore it The Bell the Feast of the St. Sacrament the Pomp of carrying it through the Streets all the other Circumstances of this Worship are inventions of yesterday The exposing of it upon the Altar to make their Prayers before it their Addresses to it in times and cases of Necessity their performing the chiefest acts of Religion in its presence never mentioned in Antiquity Nay instead of this Worship they did many things utterly inconsistent with it They disputed with the Heathens for worshipping Gods their own Hands had made Was it ever objected to them that they themselves did the same Worship a Deity whose substance they first formed and then spoke it into a God They burnt in some Churches what remained of the Holy Sacrament They permitted the People to carry it home that had Communicated They sent it abroad by Sea by Land without any the least regard that we can find had to its Worship They buried it with their Dead they made Plaisters of the Bread they mix'd the Wine with their Ink. These certainly were no instances of Adoration Nor can we ever suppose that they who did such things as these ever believed that it was the very Body and Bloud of their dear Master whom they so much loved and whom doubtless they would have been as ready to have worshipped had they so believed as both Monsieur de Meaux supposes they ought to have been and as we see others for the rest no more pious than those Primitive Christians were now to do it ARTICLE XX. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass A Third Consequence of the Corporeal Presence
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
us in maters more considerable than this not to have too high a Value for Nor can we suppose any thing else than that the fear of a further Correction kept it from being any more submitted to their Censure and that the Author would rather pass without the Honour of their Approbation than run the hazzard of a second Refusal But for this because we cannot speak any thing certain we will not pursue our Conjectures Certain it is that whatever the judgment of the Sorbonne would now have been of it many of the Church of Rome were still dissatisfied with it * See his Advertisement And how improbable soever Monsieur de Meaux would have us think that one of his Answerers affirms that a Papist should have written against him Yet not only the confessed sincerity of Monsieur Conrart who often declared that he had seen it but the undoubted integrity of some others by whom I have been assured that they had it in their hands obliges me to joyn in the assertion that Monsieur M one of the Roman Communion had finish'd an Answer to it before any of the Protestants were published however upon some certain Considerations it was thought fit to suppress it It will perhaps be looked upon that this confirmation of that Manuscript Answer deserves as little assent as Monsieur de Meaux has thought fit to give to Monsieur de la B 's first Assertion of it And therefore to shew that it is not impossible nor indeed very improbable that Papists should write one against another and that the Method of the Exposition how plausible soever to deceive Protestants has nevertheless offended the sincere and Vndesigning of the other Communion I will beg leave to produce two or three undenyable Witnesses upon some of the first and chiefest Points of it and which though not written purposely against it yet I am perswaded Monsieur de Meaux himself will be so just as to confess that he cannot be altogether unconcerned in them For his first Point The Invocation of Saints The great moderation of the Exposition tells us only That it is useful to pray to them and that we ought to do it in the same Spirit of Charity and in the same Order of Brotherly Society with which we intreat our Friends on Earth to pray for us that all the Prayers of the Church howsoever they may be worded yet must still be understood to be reduced to this form PRAY FOR US Now what Monsieur de Meaux here says in general concerning the Invocation of Saints another Tract Printed about the same time at Cologne and intituled Salutary Advertisements of the Blessed Virgin Avis salutaires de la bien heureuse Vierge à ses Devots indiscrets This Tract was publish'd first at Gand in Latin by Monsieur Widenfelt a German Intendant of the Affairs of the Prince of Suarzembergh afterwards Translated into French to her indiscreet Adorers particularly applied to that Service which with so much superstition is paid in the Church of Rome to the Mother of Christ The Book is every where full of Expressions of Honour and Respect for her and only speaks against that Worship which Monsieur de Meaux here declares in the name of the Council of Trent to be none of theirs It was sent abroad into the World with all the Advantage imaginable It had the Approbation of the Bishop of Mysia Suffragan to the Archbishop of Cologne of the Vicar General of the place of the Censure of Gant of the Canons and Divines of Malines of the Vniversity of Louvain and Lastly of Monsieur the Bishop of Tournay who recommended it as a Treatise full of solid Piety and very fit and necessary to draw people out of those Errours and Abuses into which their Superstition had led them Yet notwithstanding all this Applause if we enquire what success this Book had with others Father Crasset the Jesuit who wrote purposely against it * See his Book entituled La veritable devotion envers La St. Vierge 4o. his Book Printed at Paris 1679 Licensed by the Provincial approved by the three Fathers of the Society appointed to examine it and Lastly authorized by the King's Permission tells us †La Preface p. 1 2. That for fear of giving Scandal to Hereticks he had given a very great one to those he calls Catholicks That the Learned Men of all Nations had written against him that the Holy See had condemn'd him Spain had banish'd him out of its Dominions and forbid to Read or Print his Book as containing Propositions suspected of Errour and Impiety that abused the Holy Scripture and imposed upon Catholicks by taking them off from the Piety and Devotion due to the Mother of God In a word from the general Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images I shall not need to say how far the Fathers Zeal carries him in the Answer it self It is evident that what Monsieur de Meaux tells us is only Useful Pag. 31. c. the Jesuit declares to be absolutely Necessary That we are indispensably obliged to pray to her That it is the intention of God that we should obtain both Grace and Glory by her That all Men should be saved by the Merits of the Son and the Intercession of the Mother and that forasmuch therefore as God has resolved not to give any Grace but what passes through the Hands of Mary as we cannot be saved without Grace so it must be confessed that we cannot be saved without her This is I presume somewhat more than what Monsieur de Meaux expounds to us and I shall leave it to any one to judge whether this Father who has shew'd himself so zealous against the Author of the Blessed Virgins Salutary Advertisements could have been very well pleased with Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition The next Point which the Exposition advances is concerning The Worship of Images Monsieur de Meaux in the Edition suppressed See the Collection at the end of the Preface affirmed That the Church of Rome does not so much honour the Image of the Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image And though the Censure passed upon this new fancy obliged him to speak a little more plainly yet is it only thus even now ' that when the Church pays an Honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr her intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image Concerning which the Reader may please to observe that Cardinal Capisucchi one of the Approvers of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition has lately set forth a Volume of Controversies at Rome with all the most solemn Permissions and Approbations that can be desired in which he formally contradicts the Doctrine of the same Exposition in this Point and concludes Art 8. p. 647. That the Church in the Councils of Nice and Trent forbids only such a Divine Honour to Images
Years only an Advertisement was prefix'd to a new Edition of the Book which neither touches at all the greatest part of the Exceptions that had been made against it nor gives any satisfaction to those it do's take notice of It has been the constant method of Monsieur de Meaux having once written to leave his Tracts to the World and take no care to defend them against those assaults that seem with success enough to have been sometimes made upon them We should think the great Employments in which he has had the Honour to be engaged might have been the cause of this did not he who takes no care to defend his old Books find still time enough to write new Perhaps he looks upon his pieces to be of a Spirit and Force sufficient to despise whatever attempts can be made upon them but sure he cannot be ignorant that Protestants make another and far different Conclusion and look upon those Opinions to be certainly indefensible which so able and eminent an Author is content so openly and if I may be permitted to add it so shamefully to forsake What other Answers besides those I have now mentioned have been made to it I cannot undertake to say Two others only that I know of have been publish'd the Author of the latter of which Monsieur de Brueys having in a very little time after his writing left his Religion might have made a new instance of Monsieur de Meaux 's Conquests did not his inability to answer his own arguments against the Exposition give us cause to believe that some other Motives than those of that Book induced him so lightly to forsake a Cause which he had so soundly and generously defended And now after so many Answers yet unreplied to if any one desires to know what the design of the present undertaking is they may please to understand that having by a long Converse among the Papists of our own and other Countries perceived that either by the ignorance or malice of their Instructors they have generally very false and imperfect Notions of our Opinions in the matters in Controversie between us I have suffered my self to be perswaded to pursue the Method of Monsieur de Meaux 's Exposition as to the Doctrine of the Church of England and oppose sincerely to what he pretends is the Opinion of the Roman Church that form of Faith that is openly profess'd and taught without any disguise or dissimulation among us I was not unwilling to take the Method of Monsieur de Meaux for my direction as well upon the account of the great Reputation both of the Book and of the Author as because it is now some years that it has pass'd in our Language without any answer that I know of made to it Besides that the late new Impression made of it with all the advantages of the Advertisement and Approbations which the later French Editions have added to it seemed naturally to require some such Consideration I do not pretend by any thing of this to treat Monsieur de Meaux as an Enemy but rather as both his great Learning and that Character which I have ever learnt very highly to reverence oblige me to follow him as my Guide To render an account to him and to the World what our differences are and point out in passing some of those reasons that are the most usually given amongst us wherefore we cannot totally assent to what he proposes I am perswaded the whole is done with that Charity and Moderation that there is nothing in it that can justly offend the most zealous Enemy of our Church If I knew of any thing in it that without dissembling the Truth might have been omitted I sincerely profess I would most willingly have done it being desirous to please all that so if it be the will of God I may by any means gain some For this cause chiefly have I forborn to set my name to it lest perhaps any prejudice against my Person might chance to injure the Excellence of the Cause which I maintain This effect at least if no other I would willingly hope such a Treatise may have upon those of our Country that have been taught to believe very differently concerning us That they would please no longer to form such horrible Ideas of our Profession as they have heretofore been wont to do at least till it can be shewn that I have either palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England in this Exposition Which I am yet so assured I have not done that I◠here intirely submit both my self and it to her Censure of whose Communion I esteem it my greatest Happiness that I am and for whose preservation and Enlargement I shall never cease as I ought to pray A Collection of some of those Passages that were corrected in the first Edition of the EXPOSITION suppressed by Monsieur de Meaux To which is added the Censure of the Faculty of Louvain upon some part of the Doctrine still remaining in it § I. MOnsieur de Meaux in the very beginning of his Book speaking of the design of it had these Words 1. Edit So that it seems then to be very proper to propose to them the Protestants the Doctrine of the Catholick Church separating those Questions which the Church has decided from those which do not belong to Faith p. 1. It is evident the meaning of Monsieur de Meaux in that passage must have been this That whatsoever was either not at all contained in his Exposition or was otherwise maintain'd by any particular Authors beyond the Exposition he gives us of those Points which are here mentioned was not to be look'd upon by us as any of the Church's Decision nor necessary to be received by us as matter of Faith I shall not need to say how many Doctrines and Decisions not only of private Writers but of the very Council of Trent it self this would have at once cut off It would perhaps have been one of the fairest Advances towards an Union that ever the Church of Rome yet offered But it seems whatever Monsieur de Meaux supposed this was thought too great a condescension by others and he was therefore obliged without changing any thing in his Book to give us a quite other account of the design of it Later Editions So that it seems then we can do nothing better than simply to propose to them the Protestants the sentiments of the Catholick Church and distinguish them from those Opinions that have been falsely imputed to her Which is but little to the Purpose II. 1 Edit p. 7 8. The same Church teaches That all Religious Worship ought to terminate upon God as its necessary End So that the Honour which the Church gives to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints is religious only because it gives them that Honour with relation to God and for the love of him So that then so far ought one to be from blaming the Honour
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
de Meaux has stated it after a manner so favourable to us that I am persuaded he will find more in his own Church than in ours to oppose his Doctrine It was the discipline of the Primitive Church when the Bishops imposed severe Penances on the Offenders and that they were almost quite performed if some great cause of pity chanced to arrive or an excellent Repentance or danger of death or that some Martyr pleaded in behalf of the Penitent the Bishop did sometimes Indulge him that is Did relax the remaining part of his Penance and give him Absolution Monsieur de Meaux having this Pattern before his Eyes frames the Indulgences now used in the Church of Rome exactly according to it When the Church says he imposes upon sinners hard and laborious Penances and that with Humility they undergo them this we call satisfaction and when having regard either to the fervour of the Penitents or to some other good works which she prescribes she relaxes some part of the Punishment yet remaining This is called Indulgence But to pass by for the present those abuses that are every day made of these Indulgences and which both the Council and Monsieur de Meaux seem willing to have redressed such essential differences we conceive there are between the Indulgences of the Primitive and those of the Roman Church that tho we readily enough embrace the One yet we cannot but renounce and condemn the Other In the Primitive Church these Indulgences were matters of meer discipline as the Penances also were the One to correct the sinner and to give others caution that they might not easily offend the Other to encourage the Penitent to honour the Martyr that interposed for his Forgiveness or to prevent his dying without Absolution In the Church of Rome they are founded upon an Errour in Doctrine that as their Penance is not matter of Discipline only to correct the sinner but to be undergone as a satisfaction to be made to God for the sin so their Indulgence is not given as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it upon any consideration had of the fervour of the Penitent to admit him to Absolution which he has already received but by the application of the Merits of their Saints who they suppose have undergone more temporal punishments than their sins have deserved to take off that pain which notwithstanding their Absolution the sinner should otherwise have remained liable to In the Primitive Church the Bishop received the Penitent to Absolution and the exemplariness of his Repentance or the intercession of the Martyr that supplicated for him was the only consideration they had for the Indulgence In the Church of Rome the Indulgence is to be had from the Pope only in whose hands the merits of their Saints lye the overplus of which are they say the Treasure of the Church to be dispensed upon all occasions to such as want and upon such terms as his Holiness shall think fit to propose In the Primitive Church these Indulgences were very rare given only upon some special occasions and the Bishop never relaxed the remainder of the Penance he had imposed till the Penitent had performed a considerable part of it and shew'd by his contrition that it had obtained the effect of bringing him to a sense of his sin and a hearty repentance for it which was the end they designed by all In the Roman Church they are cry'd about the Streets hung up in Tables over every Church Door prostituted for Money offer'd to all Customers for themselves or for their Friends for the dead as well as the living and to visit three Churches say a Prayer before this Altar at the other Saints Monument in a third Chappel is without more ado through the extraordinary Charity that Church hath for sinners declared sufficient to take off whatever such Punishment is due for all the sins of a whole Life And here then let Monsieur de Meaux in conscience tell us Is all this no more than to release some part of the remaining Penance in consideration of the fervour of the Penitent in performing the rest Such Pardons as these we do certainly with Reason conclude To be fond things See our 22d Artic. vainly invented and grounded upon no Authority of Holy Scripture but indeed repugnant to Gods Word But for the rest We profess our selves so far from being enemies to the Ancient Discipline of the Church that we heartily wish to see it revived And whenever the Penances shall be reduced to their former practice we shall be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described and as the Primitive Ages of the Church allow'd of ARTICLE VIII Of PVRGATORY BUT the Temporal Pains which they suppose due to sin has yet another Error consequent upon it That since every man must undergo them according to the proportion of his sins if any one chance to dye before he has so done he cannot pass directly into Heaven but must undergo these punishments first in the other Life and the place where these Punishments are undergone they call Purgatory So that the Doctrine then of Purgatory relies upon that Satisfaction which we our selves are to make for our sins besides what Christ has done for us And according to the measure that that is either true or false certain or uncertain this must be so too Since therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us only that the Church of Rome supposes the former to be true they can only suppose the latter in like manner and therefore till they are able certainly to assure us of that we shall still have reason to doubt of this That the Primitive Church from the very second Century made Prayers for the dead we do not deny But that these Prayers were to deliver them out of Purgatory this we suppose Monsieur de Meaux himself will not avow it being certain that they were made for the best Men for the Holy Apostles the Martyrs and Confessors of the Church nay for the Blessed Virgin her self all which at the same time they thought in happiness and who the Papists themselves tell us never toucht at Purgatory Many were the private Opinions which the particular Christians of old had concerning the Reason and Benefit of Praying for the dead Some then as we do at this day only gave thanks to God for their Faith and their Examples Others prayed for them either for the Bodies Resurrection or for their acquitting at the final Judgment as supposing it to be no way unfit to pray to God for those very Blessings which he has absolutely promised and resolved to give Some thought an Increase of Glory might be obtained to the Righteous by their Prayers All believed this that it testified their hope of them and manifested their Faith of that Future Resurrection which they waited for and in the mean time maintained a kind of Fellowship and Communion between the Members of Christ yet alive
and sometimes they did it without either Together with these outward signs they usually added Prayer too some Invocation at least in the name of Jesus Christ as the more substantial and more effectual Assistance So that St. James's Direction there If any man be sick let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with Oyl in the name of the Lord and the Prayer of Faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up referring as is evident to those miraculous cures which the Apostles and their Successors in the Primitive Church wrought by such anointing We look upon it that the advice in as much as it belonged to that could neither have been the Institution of a Sacrament at all and that together with the miraculous power of healing it is now long since ceased in the Church Monsieur de Meaux ought not to refuse this Interpretation : Vid. Sacram. Grge. p. 66 Et Rursus 251. serqq Menard annot 3 MSS. alia ejusd opin The Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for above 800 Years after Christ shew that they esteemed this to be the meaning of it they understand it plainly of bodily Cures Cajet Annot. in loc and Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confesses that it can belong to no other Our Saviour and his Apostles when they thus miraculously healed the infirmity of the Body at the same time forgave the sin of the soul too For this cause St James adds And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Tho this extraordinary Power be now ceased both in the One and the other kind yet we still endeavour to perform whatever we are capable of on these occasions We send for the Elders of the Church when we are sick they pray over us if we stand charged with any private sins or publick Censures we confess them to them and they fail not by their Absolution as far as in them lies to forgive us This is all we think is now remaining for us to fulfil of what this Text requires We anoint not our sick for the recovery of their bodily health as St. James here prescribed because the miraculous power of healing to which that Ceremony ministred is ceased in the Church We pray over them if it please God for the recovery of their present Health but especially for their Eternal Salvation We exercise the power of the Keys to the forgiveness of their sins because the benefit of this is the same now that ever it was Christ's Promise remains and whilst we piously make use of the same means we doubt not but it shall be to the like Effect ARTICLE XIV Of MARRIAGE FOR the point of Marriage Monsieur de Meaux says nothing but what we willingly allow of We deny that it is a ⸫ Lomb. of our side See Cassand Con. Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the holy Eucharist are because it both wants an outward sign to which by Christs Promise a Blessing is annex'd and is so far from being generally necessary to Salvation as they are and as we suppose all true and proper Sacraments ought to be that the Church of Rome has thought fit to deny one of the most considerable parts of their Communion altogether the use of it ARTICLE XV. Of Holy Orders THE Imposition of Hands in holy Orders being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Spirit may perhaps upon that account be called a kind of Particular Sacrament Yet since that Grace which is thereby conferr'd whatever it be is not common to all Christians nor by consequence any part of that foederal Blessing which our Blessed Saviour has purchased for us but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are The outward sign of it we confess to have been usually Imposition of hands and as such we our selves observe it Yet as we do not read that Christ himself instituted that sign much less tied the promise of any certain Grace to it so Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider that there are many of his own Communion that do not think it to be essential to holy Orders nor by consequence the outward sign of a Sacrament in them We confess that no man ought to exercise the Ministerial Office till he be first consecrated to it We believe that it is the Bishops part only to Ordain We maintain the distinction of the several Orders in the Church and tho we have none of those below a Deacon because we do not read that the Apostles had any yet we acknowledg the rest to have been anciently received in the Church and shall not therefore raise any controversie about them ARTICLE XVI Of the EVC HARIST And first of the Explication of those Words This is my Body IN our entry upon this Point we cannot but testifie our just regret That this holy Sacrament which was designed by our Blessed Saviour not only to be the greatest assurance of his love to us but the strongest Engagements of our Charity to one another should have become the chiefest subject of our contentions and widened that breach which it ought to have closed Monsieur de Meaux who grounds his opinion of the Corporeal presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist upon the words of Institution which he contends ought to be litterally understood yet proposes two Cases wherein he seems to allow it might have been lawful to forsake the Letter We will join issue with him upon his own terms and shew 1. That there are such grounds in those words for a figurative interpretation as naturally lead to it 2. That when we come to consider the Intention of our Saviour in this holy Sacrament we are yet more strongly confirmed in it It is confessed by the greatest Authors of the Church of Rome that if the relative This in that proposition This is my Body refers to that Bread which our Saviour Christ held in his hand at the time when he spoke those Words the natural repugnancy there is between the two things affirmed of one another Bread and Christs Body will necessarily require the figurative interpretation For this is impossible says ‖ Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Gratian That Bread should be the Body of Christ It cannot be says ⸫ L. 3. de Euch. c. 19. SS Primum Card. Bellarmine That that proposition should be true the former part whereof designeth Bread the later the Body of Christ ‡ Id. ib. l. 1. c. 1. So that if the Sense be This Bread is the Body of Christ either it must be taken Figuratively thus This Bread signifies the Body of Christ or it is plainly absurd and Impossible The whole difficulty therefore as to our first point consists in this Whether our Saviour Christ when he said This is
c. and the God of his Seed after him it seems to have been further their intention in all these Sacrifices to call to remembrance that Offering of Isaac as the foundation of all those blessings for which these Sacrifices were appointed as a testimony of their Gratitude 2. That tho the Passover like the Sacrifice of the Cross was first offered as a sin-offering for the delivery of the first-born in the land of Egypt yet that yearly remembrance of it which God afterwards establish'd was always esteemed a Peace-offering and indeed the perpetual order of their Sacrifices clearly demonstrates that it could be no other So that the Parallel therefore for the explaining the nature of the holy Eucharist must be this 1. That as the Jews ate of their Peace-offerings in General to call to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac and give God thanks for t hose blessings which they received by it and of that of the Passover in particular in memory of Gods delivering them out of Egypt So the Christians partake of this blessed Sacrament in memory of that deliverance which the Sacrifice of the Cross of Christ whom both Isaac and the Paschal Lamb slain in Egypt typised has purchased for them 2. That as the Peace-affering which the Jews eat was not changed into the Substance of that first Sacrifice whereof it was the remembrance but was eaten as a figure or commemoration of it so the Christians in their Sacrament are not to think the Bread and Wine which Christ has appointed to be our Peace-offering should be changed into the very substance of that Body which was offered for us upon the Cross but to be received only as Types of it For thus was the Peace-offering in general a Type of Isaac and the Passover in particular the Type of that first Lamb which was slain for their deliverance in the Land of Egypt When therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us that the Jews ate the proper flesh of their Peace-offering we answer that so do we the proper substance of ours we eat the Bread which Christ appointed to be the remembrance of that deliverance which he has purchased for us as the body of the Lamb was commanded by God to be the remembrance of theirs Monsieur de Meaux adds That the Jews were forbidden to partake of the proper flesh of their Sin-offering and of the Blood because that a perfect Remission was not then obtain'd and that therefore by the rule of contraries we ought now to eat of Ours because a full satisfaction is now made by Christ For Reply to which it might suffice to say that this rule of contraries should we follow it according to the Letter would lead Monsieur de Meaux into so many absurdities that he would be forced himself to abjure his own Principle According to this rule the Apostles could not have eaten the flesh of Christ before his Resurrection the Priests under the Law being commanded not to eat of the Sin-offering after the third day and therefore by the rule of contraries they could not partake of it before Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider how far he will approve of this Conclusion In the mean time as to his Objection we have before said that the remembrance we make in the holy Eucharist like that of the Paschal Feast among the Jews shews it to be a Peace-offering and for the rest if as Monsieur de Meaux pretends this Blood was mystically forbid under the Law to shew that a perfect remission of sins was not then obtain'd It will follow that for the contrary reason Christ appointed the Cup to be received in this holy Sacrament to testifie that full remission which bis blood has purchased for us The Church of Rome therefore in refusing the Cup to the people not only violates the express command of our Blessed Saviour but according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles teaches them by it that a full remission of sins is not yet obtain'd even by the precious Blood of Christ himself It may by this appear what little advantage Monsieur de Meaux can get to justifie their Doctrine of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist from the Analogie of the ancient Sacrifices which do clearly and necessarily establish the contrary For what remains of this discourse we are but little concerned in it We Confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but we deny that therefore it must be his very Body We acknowledge the power of God to do whatever he pleases Yet Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider that Contradictions such as to be and not to be at the same time are even in their own Schools usually excepted Monsieur de Meaux supposes that because Christ did not explain his words in the figurative Sense the Apostles must needs have understood them in the Literal But we have before shewed that the Jews who are certainly the best Judges are of a quite contrary opinion viz. That his Apostles knowing his allusion could never have understood them otherwise than in a Figure In a word for his last Remark That the Laws of discourse which permit that where there is a just Proportion between the Sign and the thing signified the one may be put for the other Yet suffer it not to be so when a Morsel of Bread for instance is set to represent the Body of a Man We must beg leave to say that neither is the Proportion so small betwixt the Bread broken and Christs Body broken as Monsieur de Meaux would suggest Or that if there were yet since our Saviours institution has set the one to represent to us the other we think that designation ought to be of more Authority with us than all their new Laws of Discourse invented purposely only to set the fairer Gloss upon so great and apparent an Error ARTICLE XVII Do this in Remembrance of Me. THE Explication of the preceding Article having engaged us to a length extraordinary we will endeavour to recompence it by our shortness in this We are entirely agreed that the Intention of the Son of God was to oblige us by these words to commemorate that death which he underwent for our Salvation We Confess that that real Presence which we suppose in the Communion do's not at all contradict the Nature of this Commemoration We are persuaded that as the Jews eating of their Peace-Offering which was the remembrance of God's Covenant and particularly of the Passover the Type of that Paschal Lamb that was offered for them in Egypt called to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac and that great Deliverance God had wrought for them in bringing them up out of the Land of Bondage So whilst we Eat of those Holy Elements which our Saviour Christ has instituted like the Peace-Offering a-among the Jews to perpetuate the Memory of his death We call to mind the more lively that great deliverance which He has wrought for us and render
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