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
and sometimes they did it without either Together with these outward signs they usually added Prayer too some Invocation at least in the name of Jesus Christ as the more substantial and more effectual Assistance So that St. James's Direction there If any man be sick let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with Oyl in the name of the Lord and the Prayer of Faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up referring as is evident to those miraculous cures which the Apostles and their Successors in the Primitive Church wrought by such anointing We look upon it that the advice in as much as it belonged to that could neither have been the Institution of a Sacrament at all and that together with the miraculous power of healing it is now long since ceased in the Church Monsieur de Meaux ought not to refuse this Interpretation : Vid. Sacram. Grge. p. 66 Et Rursus 251. serqq Menard annot 3 MSS. alia ejusd opin The Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for above 800 Years after Christ shew that they esteemed this to be the meaning of it they understand it plainly of bodily Cures Cajet Annot. in loc and Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confesses that it can belong to no other Our Saviour and his Apostles when they thus miraculously healed the infirmity of the Body at the same time forgave the sin of the soul too For this cause St James adds And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Tho this extraordinary Power be now ceased both in the One and the other kind yet we still endeavour to perform whatever we are capable of on these occasions We send for the Elders of the Church when we are sick they pray over us if we stand charged with any private sins or publick Censures we confess them to them and they fail not by their Absolution as far as in them lies to forgive us This is all we think is now remaining for us to fulfil of what this Text requires We anoint not our sick for the recovery of their bodily health as St. James here prescribed because the miraculous power of healing to which that Ceremony ministred is ceased in the Church We pray over them if it please God for the recovery of their present Health but especially for their Eternal Salvation We exercise the power of the Keys to the forgiveness of their sins because the benefit of this is the same now that ever it was Christ's Promise remains and whilst we piously make use of the same means we doubt not but it shall be to the like Effect ARTICLE XIV Of MARRIAGE FOR the point of Marriage Monsieur de Meaux says nothing but what we willingly allow of We deny that it is a ⸫ Lomb. of our side See Cassand Con. Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the holy Eucharist are because it both wants an outward sign to which by Christs Promise a Blessing is annex'd and is so far from being generally necessary to Salvation as they are and as we suppose all true and proper Sacraments ought to be that the Church of Rome has thought fit to deny one of the most considerable parts of their Communion altogether the use of it ARTICLE XV. Of Holy Orders THE Imposition of Hands in holy Orders being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Spirit may perhaps upon that account be called a kind of Particular Sacrament Yet since that Grace which is thereby conferr'd whatever it be is not common to all Christians nor by consequence any part of that foederal Blessing which our Blessed Saviour has purchased for us but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are The outward sign of it we confess to have been usually Imposition of hands and as such we our selves observe it Yet as we do not read that Christ himself instituted that sign much less tied the promise of any certain Grace to it so Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider that there are many of his own Communion that do not think it to be essential to holy Orders nor by consequence the outward sign of a Sacrament in them We confess that no man ought to exercise the Ministerial Office till he be first consecrated to it We believe that it is the Bishops part only to Ordain We maintain the distinction of the several Orders in the Church and tho we have none of those below a Deacon because we do not read that the Apostles had any yet we acknowledg the rest to have been anciently received in the Church and shall not therefore raise any controversie about them ARTICLE XVI Of the EVC HARIST And first of the Explication of those Words This is my Body IN our entry upon this Point we cannot but testifie our just regret That this holy Sacrament which was designed by our Blessed Saviour not only to be the greatest assurance of his love to us but the strongest Engagements of our Charity to one another should have become the chiefest subject of our contentions and widened that breach which it ought to have closed Monsieur de Meaux who grounds his opinion of the Corporeal presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist upon the words of Institution which he contends ought to be litterally understood yet proposes two Cases wherein he seems to allow it might have been lawful to forsake the Letter We will join issue with him upon his own terms and shew 1. That there are such grounds in those words for a figurative interpretation as naturally lead to it 2. That when we come to consider the Intention of our Saviour in this holy Sacrament we are yet more strongly confirmed in it It is confessed by the greatest Authors of the Church of Rome that if the relative This in that proposition This is my Body refers to that Bread which our Saviour Christ held in his hand at the time when he spoke those Words the natural repugnancy there is between the two things affirmed of one another Bread and Christs Body will necessarily require the figurative interpretation For this is impossible says ‖ Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Gratian That Bread should be the Body of Christ It cannot be says ⸫ L. 3. de Euch. c. 19. SS Primum Card. Bellarmine That that proposition should be true the former part whereof designeth Bread the later the Body of Christ ‡ Id. ib. l. 1. c. 1. So that if the Sense be This Bread is the Body of Christ either it must be taken Figuratively thus This Bread signifies the Body of Christ or it is plainly absurd and Impossible The whole difficulty therefore as to our first point consists in this Whether our Saviour Christ when he said This is
c. and the God of his Seed after him it seems to have been further their intention in all these Sacrifices to call to remembrance that Offering of Isaac as the foundation of all those blessings for which these Sacrifices were appointed as a testimony of their Gratitude 2. That tho the Passover like the Sacrifice of the Cross was first offered as a sin-offering for the delivery of the first-born in the land of Egypt yet that yearly remembrance of it which God afterwards establish'd was always esteemed a Peace-offering and indeed the perpetual order of their Sacrifices clearly demonstrates that it could be no other So that the Parallel therefore for the explaining the nature of the holy Eucharist must be this 1. That as the Jews ate of their Peace-offerings in General to call to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac and give God thanks for t hose blessings which they received by it and of that of the Passover in particular in memory of Gods delivering them out of Egypt So the Christians partake of this blessed Sacrament in memory of that deliverance which the Sacrifice of the Cross of Christ whom both Isaac and the Paschal Lamb slain in Egypt typised has purchased for them 2. That as the Peace-affering which the Jews eat was not changed into the Substance of that first Sacrifice whereof it was the remembrance but was eaten as a figure or commemoration of it so the Christians in their Sacrament are not to think the Bread and Wine which Christ has appointed to be our Peace-offering should be changed into the very substance of that Body which was offered for us upon the Cross but to be received only as Types of it For thus was the Peace-offering in general a Type of Isaac and the Passover in particular the Type of that first Lamb which was slain for their deliverance in the Land of Egypt When therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us that the Jews ate the proper flesh of their Peace-offering we answer that so do we the proper substance of ours we eat the Bread which Christ appointed to be the remembrance of that deliverance which he has purchased for us as the body of the Lamb was commanded by God to be the remembrance of theirs Monsieur de Meaux adds That the Jews were forbidden to partake of the proper flesh of their Sin-offering and of the Blood because that a perfect Remission was not then obtain'd and that therefore by the rule of contraries we ought now to eat of Ours because a full satisfaction is now made by Christ For Reply to which it might suffice to say that this rule of contraries should we follow it according to the Letter would lead Monsieur de Meaux into so many absurdities that he would be forced himself to abjure his own Principle According to this rule the Apostles could not have eaten the flesh of Christ before his Resurrection the Priests under the Law being commanded not to eat of the Sin-offering after the third day and therefore by the rule of contraries they could not partake of it before Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider how far he will approve of this Conclusion In the mean time as to his Objection we have before said that the remembrance we make in the holy Eucharist like that of the Paschal Feast among the Jews shews it to be a Peace-offering and for the rest if as Monsieur de Meaux pretends this Blood was mystically forbid under the Law to shew that a perfect remission of sins was not then obtain'd It will follow that for the contrary reason Christ appointed the Cup to be received in this holy Sacrament to testifie that full remission which bis blood has purchased for us The Church of Rome therefore in refusing the Cup to the people not only violates the express command of our Blessed Saviour but according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles teaches them by it that a full remission of sins is not yet obtain'd even by the precious Blood of Christ himself It may by this appear what little advantage Monsieur de Meaux can get to justifie their Doctrine of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist from the Analogie of the ancient Sacrifices which do clearly and necessarily establish the contrary For what remains of this discourse we are but little concerned in it We Confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but we deny that therefore it must be his very Body We acknowledge the power of God to do whatever he pleases Yet Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider that Contradictions such as to be and not to be at the same time are even in their own Schools usually excepted Monsieur de Meaux supposes that because Christ did not explain his words in the figurative Sense the Apostles must needs have understood them in the Literal But we have before shewed that the Jews who are certainly the best Judges are of a quite contrary opinion viz. That his Apostles knowing his allusion could never have understood them otherwise than in a Figure In a word for his last Remark That the Laws of discourse which permit that where there is a just Proportion between the Sign and the thing signified the one may be put for the other Yet suffer it not to be so when a Morsel of Bread for instance is set to represent the Body of a Man We must beg leave to say that neither is the Proportion so small betwixt the Bread broken and Christs Body broken as Monsieur de Meaux would suggest Or that if there were yet since our Saviours institution has set the one to represent to us the other we think that designation ought to be of more Authority with us than all their new Laws of Discourse invented purposely only to set the fairer Gloss upon so great and apparent an Error ARTICLE XVII Do this in Remembrance of Me. THE Explication of the preceding Article having engaged us to a length extraordinary we will endeavour to recompence it by our shortness in this We are entirely agreed that the Intention of the Son of God was to oblige us by these words to commemorate that death which he underwent for our Salvation We Confess that that real Presence which we suppose in the Communion do's not at all contradict the Nature of this Commemoration We are persuaded that as the Jews eating of their Peace-Offering which was the remembrance of God's Covenant and particularly of the Passover the Type of that Paschal Lamb that was offered for them in Egypt called to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac and that great Deliverance God had wrought for them in bringing them up out of the Land of Bondage So whilst we Eat of those Holy Elements which our Saviour Christ has instituted like the Peace-Offering a-among the Jews to perpetuate the Memory of his death We call to mind the more lively that great deliverance which He has wrought for us and render