Selected quad for the lemma: father_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66189
|
An exposition of the doctrine of the Church of England in the several articles proposed by Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, in his Exposition of the doctrine of the Catholick Church to which is prefix'd a particular account of Monsieur de Meaux's book.
|
Wake, William, 1657-1737.
|
1686
(1686)
|
Wing W243; ESTC R25162
|
71,836
|
127
|
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
it be offered to God And 4. by that offering suffer an essential destruction Now we suppose that the greatest part of these Conditions are evidently wanting to this pretended Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Mass 1. It is Invisible They confess it 2. It was never prophane that it should be made sacred They will not presume to say that it was 3. It suffers no Essential destruction The Blood is not spilt but in a Mystery says Monsieur de Meaux nor is there any Death but in Representation As therefore none of these things truly and properly agree to this holy Eucharist so we suppose that neither can it be truly and properly a Sacrifice We are perswaded that the Offering its self like the necessary and essential Properties of it must be only in Figure and Representation This is what we willingly allow Monsieur de Meaux and what their own Principles do undoubtedly prove For what our Saviour adds Do this in Remembrance of Me However the Council of Trent has Canonically resolved it to be the Institution of a true and proper Priesthood See Sess 22. cap. 1. to offer this Sacrifice yet that it has no such Proof the preceding Discourse evidently shews Our Saviour Christ commanding his Apostles to Do this commanded them to Do no more than what himself had done So that if he therefore did not Sacrifice himself neither did he give any Authority to them or to their Successors to Sacrifice ARTICLE XXI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews THE Epistle to the Hebrews so clearly establishes our Doctrine in Opposition to the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass that Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to enter on a particular consideration of it We will after his Example follow the same Method and shew the whole Design of that Sacred Book to be directly contrary to the Principles of the Roman Church Monsieur de Meaux observes that the Author of this Epistle concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to be offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered Now the reason which the Apostle gives is this Because that otherwise says he Heb. 9.25 26. Christ must often have suffered Plainly implying that there can be no true Offering without Suffering So that in the Mass then either Christ must Suffer which Monsieur de Meaux denies or he is not Offered which we affirm This is so evidently the meaning of that place and so often repeated That without Bloud Heb. 9.22 there is no Remission that Monsieur de Meaux is forced freely to declare that if we take the word Offer as it is used in that Epistle they must profess to the whole World that Christ is no more Offered either in the Mass or any other way Now how these things can stand together that the Epistle to the Hebrews contradicts not the Offering of the Mass and yet that the same Epistle absolutely declares that Christ can no more be Offered because he can no more Suffer nor any more become a Propitiatory Sacrifice because without Bloud there is no Propitiation All which Monsieur de Meaux allows and professes to the whole World that in the Notion of the Epistle to the Hebrews Christ is not offered in the Mass nor can be any where else we are not very well able to comprehend But that Epistle goes yet further It tells us that Christ ought to be but once offered because by that one Offering he has fully satisfied for our sins Heb. 10.14 and has perfected for ever them that are Sanctified If therefore by that first Offering he hath fully satisfied for our sins Ibid. v. 18. there is then no more need of any Offering for sin If by that first Sacrifice he hath perfected for ever them that are Sanctified the Mass certainly must be altogether needless to make any addition to that which is already perfect Ibid. v. 〈◊〉 In a word if the Sacrifices of the Law were therefore repeated as this Epistle tells us because they were imperfect and had they been otherwise they should have ceased to have been offered What can we conclude but the Church of Rome then in every Mass she Offers does violence to the Cross of Christ and in more than one sense Crucifies to her self the Lord of Glory Lastly The Council of Trent declares that because there is a new and proper Sacrifice to be offered it was necessary that our Saviour Christ should institute a new and proper Priesthood to offer it And so they say he did after the Order of Melchisedeck Hebr. 7.3 in opposition to that after the order of Aaron under the Law Now certainly nothing can be more contrary to this Epistle than such an assertion Both whose description of this Priesthood shews it can agree only to our Blessed Lord and which indeed in express terms declares it to be peculiar to him Ibid. v. 27. It calls it an unchangeble Priesthood that passes not to any other as that of Aaron did from Father to Son but continues in him only because that he also himself continues for evermore ARTICLE XXII Reflections on the foregoing Doctrine ANd here then let us conjure our Brethren of the Church of Rome seriously to consider these things and into what desperate consequences that great Errour of the Corporeal presence has insensibly led them Can any thing be more rash or more uncharitable even the Literal interpretation of this Holy Eucharist being allow'd than their Canon of Trasubstantiation To cut off from their Communion the greatest and most Orthodox part of the Christian Church only for a Nicety a manner of presence which neither has the Scripture any where revealed and which they themselves never understood Is it possible for men to fall into a grosser or more dangerous Error than to set up a Wafer for their God and pay a divine Worship to a Morsel of Bread Shall their good Intentions secure them Had not the Israelites a good Intention to hold a feast unto the Lord Exod. 32.5 when they Worshipped the Molten Calf Were they therefore not Idolaters for it Had this been a sufficient excuse Nadab and Abihu had not been punished Their intention was certainly good to burn Incence to the Lord. Lev. 10. The Jews had a good intention even in Crucifying the Lord of glory St. Paul thought it Zeal to presecute his Disciples Our Blessed Saviour has foretold and we live to see it accomplished that the time should come when Men should kill their Brethren and think they did God good service Joh. 16.2 The Church of Rome may do well to consider whether their good intention will justifie them that do it and whether both in this and that they do not run a desperate hazard if it appear that they have no other plea than a well meant mistake to excuse them For our parts we must needs profess that these things give us