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
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
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
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
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
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
his Apostles or to have been practised ordinarily and directly by the most Primitive Christians Or lastly but to be no way injurious to the excellent Goodness of that Intercessor who has so kindly invited and even conjured us to come to Him in all our needs Then will we not fail to joyn our Ora pro Nobis with them But till then we must beg leave to conclude with a Charity and Moderation which we suppose they themselves cannot but approve in us That it is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Holy Scripture but rather indeed contrary thereunto And what we have now said of their Prayers we must in the next place apply to their Sacrifices too To mention the Names of the Holy Saints departed in the Communion this we look upon to be a Practice as innocent as 't is ancient So far are we from condemning it in them that we practise it our selves We name them at our Altars we give God thanks for their Excellencies and pray to him for Grace to follow their Examples But as we allow thus much to their Memories so we cannot but condemn that Practice which Monsieur de Meaux seems to have omitted tho yet the chief thing that offends us that they recommend the Offerings which they make to God through the Merits of their Saints which they commemorate and desire that by their Merits they may become available to the Churches needs As if Christ himself whom they suppose to be the Sacrifice needed the Assistance of St. Bathildis or Potentiana to recommend him to his Father Or that the Merits of an Offering which they tell us is the very same with that of the Cross should desire the joynt Deserts of a St. Martin to obtain our Forgiveness They who shall consider these things as they ought will we doubt not confess that we have some reason to complain both that they derogate herein from Christ's Merits and attribute to their Saints more than they ought to do If this Paactice be reformed our Complaint as to this point ceaseth If it be not in vain does Monsieur de Meaux endeavour to perswade us that they only name their Saints to give God thanks for their Excellencies whilst their publick Practice avows that they desire both the pardon of their Sins and even the acceptance of their very Sacrifices themselves by their Mediation ARTICLE IV. Of Images and Relicks VVHat the Opinion of the Church of England is concerning the Worship of Images and Relicks will need no long Declaration to shew they being joyn'd by her in the same Article with that of the Invocation of Saints before-mentioned Artic. XXII and by consequence submitted by her to the same Censure But then as we before complained that both the Practice of their Church in the publick Liturgies of it and the approved Doctrine of their most reputed Writers should so far contradict what Monsieur de Meaux would have us think is their only design in that Service so we cannot but repeat the same Complaints in this That if all the use their Church would have made of Images and Relicks be only to excite the more lively in their Minds the remembrance of the Originals not only the People should be suffered to fall into such gross Mistakes as 't is undeniably evident they do in their Worship of them but even their Teachers be permitted without any Reproof to confirm them in their Errors Has St. Thomas and his Followers nay and even their Pontifical it self ever yet been censured by them for maintaining in plain terms that the Image of the Cross ought to be worshipped with the same Worship as that Saviour who suffered on it Have the Jesuits been condemned for teaching Men to swear by it Does not their whole Church upon Good-friday yet address her self to it in these very dangerous words Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us adore it And do not their Actions agree with their Expressions and the whole Solemnity of that day's Service plainly shew that they do adore it in the utmost propriety of the Phrase Does she not pray to it that in this time of the Passion it would strengthen the Righteous and give Pardon to the Guilty Is the Hymn for the day of the Invention corrected wherein they profess that the Cross heals their Sicknesses ties up the Devil and gives them Newness of Life and thereupon desire it to save its Assembly gathered together in its honour Is the manner of consecrating them changed in which they intreat God to bless the Image of the Cross which they there sanctify that it may be for the establishment of their Faith an increase of their good Works the Redemption of their Souls and their Protection against the cruel Darts of the Enemy That Christ would embrace this Cross over which they pray as he did that upon which he suffer'd That as by that he delivered the whole World from its Guilt so by the Merits of this they who dedicate it may receive remission of their Sins In a word that as many as bow down before it may find health both of their Souls and Bodies by it And is all this in good earnest no more than to excite more lively in our minds the remembrance of Him that loved us and delivered himself to the Death for us and to testifie by some outward marks our acknowledgment of that favour by humbling our selves in presence of the Cross to declare thereby our submission to Him that was crucified Is not this rather if not absolutely to fall into yet certainly too nearly to approach to that which Monsieur de Meaux himself confesses to be Idolatry viz. to trust in the Images as if there were some divinity or virtue joyned to them and for which they not only shew all imaginable marks of outward Worship by Kissings Prostrations and the like Ceremonies but make as formal Addresses to them and that in the publick Service of the Church as to God himself How this allow'd practice can be reconciled with the prohibition of the Council of Trent Not to believe any Divinity or Virtue tied to their Images for which they ought to be adored nor to demand any Grace of them nor place any Trust or Confidence in them Monsieur de Meaux may please to expound to us In the mean time as we are so far from condemning the making of all sorts of Images that we think it not any Crime to have the Histories of the Gospel carved or painted in our very Churches which the Walls and Windows of several of them do declare As we publickly use the sign of the Cross in one of our very Sacraments and censure no Man for practising it only without Superstition on any other occasion so we cannot but avow the Scandal that is given us by those Doctrines and Practices before mentioned and that we think that Worship justly to be abolished which the Primitive Church abhorred and which at this
the sight of God because that it is God who by Charity works in us only we think it withal such as is too weak to obtain for us the pardon of our Sins which Monsieur de Meaux seems content to confess with us We willingly acknowledg that our Righteousness is not perfect in this Life Whilst we are in the Body the Flesh will lust against the Spirit and in many things we shall offend all The Life of a Christian is a continued state of Repentance and he must be too much opiniated of himself that refuses to conclude with St. Augustine That our Righteousness in this Life consisteth rather in the Remission of our Sins than in the Perfection of our Vertue In a word the sum of our Difference as to this Point seems to be this Our Church by Justification understands only the Remission of our Sins We distinguish it from Sanctification which consists in the production of the Habit of Righteousness in us We believe our Sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us And for the rest we say that this Remission of Sins is given only to those that repent that is in whom the holy Spirit produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and Holiness of Life The Church of Rome comprehends under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the production of that inherent Righteousness which we call Sanctification They suppose with us that our Sins are forgiven only by the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ But then as they make that inward Righteousness a part of Justification too so by consequence they say our Justification it self is wrought also by our own good Works It appears by this that were these things clearly stated and distinguish'd the one from the other the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very great And that we might safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be but well and rightly explained tho in some things he has expressed himself after a manner unusual among us and which we suppose not so entirely conformable to the Expressions of holy Scripture The sum of all is this Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this Call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commands for the time to come and if we persevere in this Covenant crowns us finally with Eternal Life And all this he is pleased to do not for any thing which we have or can perform but only through the Merits and Satisfaction of his Son by Faith applied to us This is the Foundation wherein Monsieur de Meaux seems content to agree with us We go on to see how the following Doctrine will stand upon this Foundation ARTIC VI. Of Merits FOR what concerns the Merits of Good Works we are content to accept of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition That eternal life ought to be proposed to Man as the Grace of God mercifully bestow'd upon us through Jesus-Christ and as a recompence that is faithfully rento their good Works and to the merits of them by vertue of Gods Promise The word Merit we acknowledge to have been very antient in the Church and tho to prevent those mistakes which many in these latter ages have made an occasion of that expression we think it safer to discourse more reservedly of the Merit and press more strongly the Necessity of good Works Yet if it be understood so as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it That all our Merit derives its force only from the Merits of Jesus Christ who works in us both to will and to do and when we have done renders by the same Merits our good Works acceptable to God and available to our Eternal Life we shall not be difficult to allow of it If this be All the Church of Rome ascribes to Good works that our Justification proceeds absolutely from God's Bounty and Mercy and but accidentally only in as much as God has tied himself by his Word and Promise to reward them from our own Performances We need no long exhortations to receive a Doctrine which we have always defended against such of the Church of Rome as have opposed it and are not yet that we know of censured for their so doing That which we reject is That we do as truly and properly merit Rewards when we do well as we do merit Punishment when we do ill so says the Jesuit Maldonate EZek. 18.20 That our Good Works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of God's Covenant and Acceptation De Justif l. 5. c. 17. Vasquez in D. Th. 1 2 ae q. 114. d. 214. c. 5. but also by reason of the Work it self so says Cardinal Bellarmine All which Vasquez sums up in the three following Conclusions 1. That the Good Works of just Persons are of themselves without any Covenant or Acceptation worthy of the reward of Eternal Life and have an equal value of Condignity to the obtaining of Eternal Glory 16. c. 7. 2. That there comes no accession of Dignity to the Works of just Persons by the Merits or Person of Christ which the same would not otherwise have if they had been done by the same Grace bestowed freely by God alone without Christ 3. 16. c. 8. That God's Promise is indeed annex'd to the Works of just Men but yet belongs no way to the Merit of them but cometh rather to the Works themselves which are already not only worthy but meritorious also From all which he draws this remarkable Corallary Disp 222. c. 3. n. 30 31. Seeing the Works of just Men do merit Eternal Life as an Equal Recompence and Reward there is no need that any other condign Merit such as that of Christ should interpose to the end that Eternal Life might be rendred to them Wherefore we never pray to God that by the Merits of Christ the Reward of Eternal Life may be given to our worthy and meritorious Works but that Christ's Grace may be given to us whereby we may be enabled worthily to merit this Reward This is that Doctrine of good Works which we most justly do detest And if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be so directly opposite to it as Monsieur de Meaux professes we are a little surprised that no Index Expurgatorius no authentick Censure has ever taken notice of so dangerous a Prevarication But contrary-wise these are the great Authors of their Party approved embraced and almost adored by the Greatest and most Learned of that Communion These
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
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
not only a scandal but a horrour for their Religion Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to say that this is the Chiefest and most important of all our controvesies and wherein we are at the farthest distance from one another And would to God they had only offended us by these Errours and had not exposed our common Name to the reproach of the very Heathen who have been confirmed by them in their Idolatry and thought it more rational to adore a Stock or a Stone than with the Christians to Worship this moment what they Eat the very next But Monsieur de Meaux thinks we have no reason to appear so obstinate against them who declare our selves so favourably towards the Lutherans who yet are involved in the same Error T is true we believe the Lutherans mistaken in their Literal interpretation of this Holy Sacrament But we are perswaded they are infinitely less so and less dangerously than the Papists They confess that there is no change made in the Substance of the Sacred Elements They believe that the Bread and Wine continue in their proper Natures and that Christs Body is present only when he is received They adore not the Holy Eucharist They found no Propitiatory Sacrifices upon it They say no Masses for the sins and satisfactions for the wants and necessities of the Dead and the Living They deny not the Cup to the People their Errour in one word whatsoever it be is only a matter of simple belief has no ill consequences attending it nor do they damn us for not receiving it Let the Church of Rome do all this Let them raze their Anathema's out of their Councils and banish their Masses and Adorations out of their Churches Let them no longer scandalize us with any unwarrantable practices nor desire to enslave our Consciences by submitting them to their own inventions and though we shall still think Transubstantiation to be the greater Error yet will we receive them with the same charity we do the Lutherans We will pray to God to give them a better understanding but will not drive them from our Communion for matters of simple belief and which are only to themselves tho' they be wrong But till then in vain do's Monsieur de Meaux exhort us to consider the ways of providence to bring us to a Union which God knows we could be glad to have on any terms but the loss of truth In the mean time if the Church of Rome in good earnest thinks that as we tolerate the foundation of all these Errours the Corporeal presence in the Lutherans so we ought to bear the consequences of it in them Let them at least do what the Lutherans have done let them embrace our Communion let them leave off to persecute us where they have power and damn us where they have not let them receive us as Brethren not Lord it over us as our Masters This will make us hope that they are sincere when they conjure us to be at peace with them and they may justly then accuse us of partiality if we continue to repute them as Enemies when they will be thus content to love and receive and deal with us as friends ARTICLE XXIII Of Communicating only under one kind THis is the last of those consequences that give us a just detestation for that great Errour of the Corporeal presence on which they are founded It is so plainly contrary to the express command of our Blessed Saviour that we are perswaded it has pleased God to suffer them to fall into it on purpose to correct that vanity whereby they have so proudly aspired to an Opinion of Infallibility That whilst they Lord it over mens Consciences and will not so much as give them leave to ask them a Reason of what they do they might here at last be surprised in an Error which the most vulgar Eye is able to discern The Church of England conformably to all Antiquity declares See our 30th Article That the Cup ought not to be deny'd to the Lay-people forasmuch as both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike For indeed Did not he who said of the Bread Take Eat this is my Body say also of the Wine with the same expressness Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins Did not he who commanded them Do this in Remembrance of Me for the Bread even according to their own Construction Take and Consecrate and give to Others as I have done to you command them for the Cup in like manner Do this i. e. consecrate and give it to Others as I have done to you in remembrance of Me We confess That the Grace of God is not tied to the outward signs Yet we think withal that without taking the outward and visible signs we can have no pretence to the inward and spiritual Grace of that holy Sacrament which deriving all its Effect from our Saviour's Promise we can have no security that it shall have any good one to them who do not receive it according to his Institution Had Christ esteemed it sufficient for us to receive the Blood in the body we suppose he would not have consecrated the Cup afterwards But if it was our Saviour's pleasure that to commemorate the more lively his Passion we should take his Blood as it was spilt for our Redemption separate from his Body we think it an unwarrantable presumption for us to make our selves wiser than God and say that it is sufficient to participate of Both in One. Monsieur de Meaux has received so full an Answer upon this point from the Reply made to his Treatise written purposely on this Subject that he will have no cause to complain of us for not repeating here what has been so fully and so successfully handled there Only as to that Negligence of these latter Ages which he is pleased to alledge as the reason of this change We must needs say that God be thanked we cannot observe any such Negligence of this holy Communion in our Churches where yet this holy Sacrament is administred to as large Congregations and with as great frequency as any where among Them Both our Priests and the People give and receive it with that Care and Reverence that we find as little grounds for any such pretence as there is reason in it were it never so true to justifie so great and unwarrantable a Change PART III. OF THE CHURCH ARTICLE XXIV Of the Word Written and Unwritten OUR Blessed Saviour having founded his Church upon the Word which He preached we confess that the unwritten Word as to that Gospel which he preached was the first Rule of Christians But God Almighty foreseeing how liable such a Rule must have been to infinite Inconveniencies thought fit to have that Word which was first spoken by Mouth afterwards
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