with the primitive Rule of Faith, as is explained by the Council of Nice and Constantinople; and happy had it been for the Church of Christ if it had ended there. But there are added afterwards a many new articles, and with reference to them, as well as to the articles of the old Creed; it concludes thus: "This true Catholick faith, without which none can be "saved, which I now willingly profess and unfeign "edly hold; the same I promise, vow, and swear, 66 by the help of God, most constantly to keep and "confess, entire and inviolate, evento my last breath "and to endeavour moreover, to the utmost of

my power, that it may be kept, taught, and pro❝fessed by all my subjects, or by those that are any 66 way under my care. So help me God, and these "his holy gospels."

Now, if you examine those articles that follow the Constantinopolitan Creed, you will find they are not merely explicatory of any article or articles of the old canon of faith (such as that of cor same substance in the Nicene Confession, which was virtually contained in the ancient canon, and by good consequence deducible from it, and was apparently also the sense of the Catholick Church before the Nicene Council); but they are plain additions to the Rule of Faith. Now, if these articles were true, yet they ought not presently to be made a part of our Creed; for every truth is not fundamental, nor every error damnable. We deny not but that general or provincial Councils may make constitutions concerning extra-fundamental verities, and oblige all

such as are under their jurisdiction to receive them, at least passively, so as not openly and contumaciously to oppose them. But to make any of these a part of the Creed, and to oblige all Christians under pain of damnation to receive and believe them, this is really to add to the Creed, and to change the ancient Canon or Rule of Faith. But, alas! these superadded articles of the Trent Creed, are so far from being certain truths, that they are most of them manifest untruths, yea, gross and dangerous errors. To make this appear, I shall not refuse the pains of examining some of the chief of them.

The first article I shall take notice of is this; "I "profess, that in the Mass is offered to God, a true, 66 proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and "the dead; and that in the most holy Sacrament of "the Eucharist, there is truly, and really, and

substantially the body and blood, together with the "soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and "that there is wrought a conversion of the whole "substance of the bread into the body, and of the "whole substance of the wine into the blood, which "conversion the Catholick Church calls Transub"stantiation." Were this proposition, [That in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead,] having that other of the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist immediately annexed to it, the meaning of it must necessarily be this, that in the Eucharist the very body and blood of Christ are again offered up to God as a

propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men.

Which is an impious proposition, derogatory to the one full satisfaction of Christ made by his death on the cross, and contrary to express Scripture, Heb. 7. and 27. and 9. and 12, 15, 26, 28, and 10, 12, 14. It is true the Eucharist is frequently called by the antient fathers, popopa, Guoía, an oblation, a sacrifice. But it is to be remembered, that they say also it is Ivoía nolinn ǹ ávalμan, a reasonable sacrifice, a sacrifice without blood: which, how can it be said to be, if therein the very blood of Christ were offered up to God?:

They held the Eucharist to be a contmemorative sacrifice, and so do we. This is the constant language of the antient liturgies, We offer by way of commemoration ;* according to our Saviour's words when he ordained this holy rite, Do this in commemoration of me. In the Eucharist, then Christ is offered not hypostatically as the Trent fathers have determined, (for so he was but once offered) but commemoratively only: and this commemoration is made to God the Father, and is not a bare remembering, or putting ourselves in mind of him. every sacrifice is directed to God, and the oblation therein made, whatsoever it be, hath him for its object, and not man. In the holy Eucharist therefore, we set before God the bread and wine, as figures or images of the precious blood of Christ shed for us, and of his precious body (they are the very words.of

*Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 296, 297.

For

the Clementine liturgy), and plead to God the merit of his Son's sacrifice once offered on the cross for us sinners; and in this sacrament represented, beseeching him for the sake thereof to bestow his heavenly blessings on us.

To conclude this matter: the ancients held the oblation of the Eucharist to be answerable in some respects to the legal sacrifices; that is, they believed that our Blessed Saviour ordained the sacrament of the Eucharist as a rite of prayer and praise to God, instead of the manifold and bloody sacrifices of the law. That the legal sacrifices were rites to invocate God by, is evident from many texts of scripture, see especially 1 Sam. 7. 9. and 13. 12. Ezra 6. 10. Prov. 15. 8. And that they were also rites for praising and blessing God for his mercies, appears from 2. Chron. 29. 27. Instead, therefore, of slaying of beasts, and burning of incense, whereby they praised God, and called upon his name under the Old Testament; the Fathers, I say, believed our Saviour appointed this sacrament of bread and wine, as a rite whereby to give thanks and make supplication to his Father in his name. This you may see fully cleared and proved by the learned Mr. Mede, in his treatise intituled, The Christian Sacrifice. The Eucharistical sacrifice thus explained, is indeed on voia, a reasonable sacrifice, widely different from that monstrous sacrifice of the Mass, taught in the Church of Rome

The other branch of the article is concerning Transubstantiation, wherein the Ecclesiastick professeth

upon his solemn oath his belief, that in the Eucharist there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ. A proposition that bids defiance to all the reason and sense of mankind. Nor (God be praised) hath it any ground or foundation in Divine Revelation. Nay, the text of Scripture on which the Church of Rome builds this article, duly considered, utterly subverts and overthrows it. She grounds it upon the words of the institution of the holy Sacrament by our Saviour, the same night wherein he was betrayed; when he took bread, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, This is my body, to Sidopevov, saith St. Luke, zò λvov, saith St. Paul, which is given and broken for you. After the same manner he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament, rò ixxvóμsor, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Now whatsoever our Saviour said, was undoubtedly true: but these words could not be true in a proper sense; for our Saviour's body was not then given, or broken, but whole and inviolate; nor was there one drop of his blood yet shed. The words therefore must necessarily be understood in a figurative sense; and then, what becomes of the doctrine of Transubstantiation? The meaning of our Saviour is plainly this: What I now do, is a representation of my death and passion near approaching; and what I now do, do ye hereafter, do this in remembrance of me; let this be a standing, per