great advantages by his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Calvinists in this point I thought my self unconcerned with his Objections the Church of England not having tyed her Faith to Calvin or any other but grounded it on the Scriptures Only that no man may suspect them to be of any force against the Doctrine held by the Church of England I saw it necessary to set down and explain her Doctrine and see whether any thing here urged can conclude it to be in the least absurd or inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures or with itself The Church of England then teaches 1 Catech. That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Prayer 2 Exhortation at the Communion That we therein spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and he with us 3 Art 28. The Bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ 4 Homily of the Sacrament That we must be sure to hold that there is no vain Ceremony no bare sign no untrue figure of a thing absent But as the Scripture saith the table of the Lord the bread and cup of the Lord the memory of Christ the annunciation of his death yea the Communion of the body and blood of the Lord in a marvellous Incorporation which by the operation of the Holy Ghost the very bond of our conjunction with Christ is through Faith wrought in the souls of the faithful whereby not only their souls live to eternal life but they trust also to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality Therefore 5 Prayer of Consecration she prays that in partaking of these his Creatures of bread and wine we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood 6 Catech. That the benefits that we receive by thus partaking of the body and blood of Christ are the strengthning and refreshing of our souls by these as our bodies are by the bread and wine 7 Homily of the Sacrament Ibid. That thus much the faithful see hear and know herein the favourable mercies of God sealed the satisfaction of Christ confirmed and the remission of sins established 8 Art 28. That nevertheless there is no Transubstantiation or Change of the substance of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper 9 Hom. Ib. Wherefore we are not to regard specially the earthly Creatures which remain but always to hold fast and cleave by Faith to Christ the Rock 10 Art 28. Whose body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner 11 Hom. Ib. Wherefore it is well known the meat we seek is spiritual heavenly and not earthly invisible and not bodily a ghostly substance and not carnal 12 Art Ib. The means therefore whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith 13 Hom. Ib. So that to think that without Faith we may enjoy the eating his body or drinking his blood is but to dream a gross and carnal feeding basely binding our selves to the Elements and Creatures As for those then that hold it no more than a bare sign and the Celebration and Communion thereof barely the renewing our Profession or a remembrance only of Christ Crucified whom it representeth they are wide from the Church of England on the one side as the Church of Rome on the other Nor do those who only hold it a sign effective to apply the benefits of the death of Christ not supposing it to tender Christ as present to us and to be received by us before we partake in the benefits of his death express exactly in my judgment the sense of our Church Although there is so near a conjunction of Christ with his benefits that one cannot well be apprehended without the other I conceive therefore that in the sense of our Church not only the benefits of Christ but Christ himself is tendred to us in this Holy Sacrament and is to be eaten by us before we partake of his benefits not that we are bodily to partake of him for this end but in that it seems to be the intention of our blessed Savour under these Elements to give us himself and to put us in the actual possession of himself so that in the use of this ordinance as verily as a man does bodily receive the earthly Creatures so verily does he spiritually receive the body and blood of Christ For our better apprehension of which Mystery it will be necessary more particularly to consider what it is which we do hereby receive and in what manner we are made partakers of it Concerning the first the truth which we hold you see is this that we do not here receive only the benefits that flow from Christ but the very body and blood of Christ i. e. Christ himself Crucified for as the bread and wine avails not to our bodily sustenance unless the substance of those Creatures be first received so neither do we partake of the benefits of Christ to our spiritual relief except we have first a Communion with Christ himself This the words of our blessed Saviour Joh 6. 57 Encline me to believe where he says that he that eateth him shall live by him intimating that we must be partakers of him before we can have life from him So the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16 The bread which we break Is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ evidently imply that we are therein to partake of Christ himself This I take to be that great mystery of our union with Christ whereby we are made members of his body of his flesh and of his bones And this I look upon to be that 〈◊〉 the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God in the 6th of St. John But now if it be demanded how we can eat the flesh of Christ and partake of his body and blood to conceive this eating in a carnal sense is as gross an imagination as that of those Joh. 6 who asked within themselves How can this man give us his flesh to eat we must not think then that we cannot truly feed on Christ unless we receive his substance into our bellies but must consider that the eating and drinking our Saviour speaks of must be spiritual according to the nature of his Gospel and therefore we must enquire therein what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now then if we consider what appetites are in our souls and what those appetites crave or ought at least to long after we shall easily discern what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now we know that in the 5th of St. Matthew our Saviour intimates to us that we ought to have a spiritual hunger and thirst after righteousness which
to God himself The Lutherans on the contrary knowing the Sacrament to consist of two things the one earthly the other heavenly direct their Adoration not to the Elements that remain lest worshiping them they should be found Worshippers of a Creature but to Christ alone God and Man who in that Action gives them his Body and Blood Secondly That the Romanists when they plead for the Adoration and worship of the Sacrament do not principally intend that Christ God and Man should be adored in the Action or Vse of his divine Institutions but labour to establish an Adoration of the bread at other times than in the use commanded by Christ namely when they carry it about in Processions which the Council of Trent does in the very Chapter wherein it commands the Adoration of the Sacrament And then afterwards he fully informs us of the manner of the Lutheran's worship viz. That they look not upon Christ as locally present in the bread or that there is any personal union between the bread and the body of Christ but that Christ hath promised in that action his presence by his grace after a peculiar manner Therefore as the Israelites worshipp'd not the Wood nor Gold nor the Cherubims that were upon the Ark of the Testimony but God alone who promised his presence there so the Adoration which they give to Christ in the Sacrament is to be understood to be directed to him only not at all to the outward Elements And the reason why they did not worship him out of the Sacramental exercise he says was because the promise of Christ's presence cannot be extended beyond the intent and action which he instituted So that there appears a visible and most considerable difference between these two the one cannot be Idolatrous because it directs not any worship to a creature the other certainly is if the creatures remain because their worship is terminated in the Sacrament as its object Again whereas M. Condom further endeavours to persuade us That their Sacrifice is a consequent Doctrine upon the real Presence and that the Lutherans understand not themselves so well as they in that they have not admitted it The Reader may judge which have the better understanding if he does but consider that the reason upon which the Lutherans reject the Sacrifice is the same upon which they reject Adoration out of the Sacramental Action namely because we have no warrant to promise our selves Christ's Presence in the Eucharist but only in that Action which he commands and for those ends for which he instituted it This I remember is that which Chemnitius pleads at large in his Book de Sacrificio Missae SECT XVI Of Communion in both kinds UPon this point the Church of England declares The Cup Art 30. of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-People for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be administred to all Christian men alike And certainly nothing can be more plain from our Lord's institution of this Sacrament when he blessed both bread and wine and said Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me that all that are obliged to any part of it are obliged to the whole There being not the least limitation of the Lawgiver's intent in the precept itself nor in any other part of Scripture nor which is more in the practice of the Church originally under the Apostles or generally throughout Christendom Now because we are so frequently desired by these Gentlemen to take special notice of the first grounds of the separation I am obliged to take notice here that this was one of the principal causes of it their with-holding the Cup being that which was universally complained of that which was most expresly desired and Petitioned for both to Pope and Council but in vain We therefore may reasonably expect something satisfactory in this Point To answer our expectation M. Condom lets us know That under one Species all that is essential to the Sacrament is received in that there being now no real separation betwixt the Body and the Blood we receive entirely him who is solely capable to satiate us And this he tells us is the solid foundation upon which his Church interpreting the precept of Communion has declared we may receive the satisfaction which this Sacrament carries with it under one sole Species and has reduced her Children to it But now if this be the foundation she builds upon and it be solid too we may well seek for it in the Apostles or in Christ himself but certainly neither of these support the building nay the foundation which Christ has laid is rejected and laid aside hereby For to what purpose does this Doctrine serve but to make it appear that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in both kinds to no end since as much must needs be received in one as in both But whereas he endeavours to ground this Doctrine upon the real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament it 's certain that if he be really present by virtue of the Consecration he can be present only according to it if therefore his words This is my body make his body present in the bread and the other This is my blood render his blood present instead of the wine then his blood can be no more present in the bread than his body in the wine neither can any thing more be present under bread than his body nor under wine than his blood according to their Principles which found the necessity of his presence upon the literal sense of the words And to how little purpose has M. Condom laboured to persuade us that it is a Sacrifice because the word of God is the spiritual Sword which makes a mystical Separation betwixt the body and blood of Christ if now at last there be no sacramental Separation of his blood from his body but they are both together under one species But the Church says he has not thus reduced her Children to one Species out of dis-esteem of the other but on the contrary to hinder those irreverences which the confusion and negligence of the People had occasioned in these later Ages Had he told us what Irreverencies had been occasioned that could not have been prevented but by this means he had said something that possibly might have shewn the care of his Church but because he has not been so kind I shall transcribe the many and those said to be great and important Reasons which she gives as the account of her so doing to her Children in her Catechism First Because special care ought to be taken that the blood of Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Euch. Sac. quando sumend the Lord be not spilt on the ground which cannot easily be avoided in administring to a great multitude Secondly Because the Eucharist being to be kept for the sick it was greatly to be feared that the Species of the wine would not keep but might sour
introduce the Sense he intends The ground he proceeds on I confess is such as must not be rejected as vain in this Dispute neither must it on the other side be allowed to conclude necessarily for though the correspondence between the Old and New Testament ought to be greatly regarded yet of itself it is not sufficient ground to build matter of Faith upon Again in whatever it be allowed to conclude it must be according to the difference between the Old and New Testament which must still be maintained and which is undeniably this That as Israel under the Old Testament were the Israel according to the Flesh and those under the New are the Israel according to the Spirit so the correspondence between the Law and Gospel may conclude from things that were carnally under the Law that the same are spiritually fulfilled under the Gospel but never that they are now to be fulfilled carnally because they were then For instance when the Apostle argues from Abraham's leaving his own Country to go into a strange Land that thereby also he sought an heavenly Country it may with the like force be argued that we who travel after God's Promises shall certainly arrive to the possession of that heavenly Country but not that we shall as certainly possess an earthly Canaan by the way So when he argues from Adam's being made a living Soul that the second Adam is a quickning Spirit we cannot certainly think him to be a quickning Spirit in that sense that the first Adam was a living Soul but in a much more spiritual manner This being premised I shall consider his Arguments First then he says That as the Jews did not in Spirit only partake of the Victim that was sacrificed for them but did in reality eat of the sacrificed Flesh which was to them a Mark of their partaking of that Oblation so Christ becoming our Victim would have us really eat his Flesh to assure us in particular that it was for us he gave it Thus much I allow the correspondence between the Old and New Testament may prove that whereas Christ has given us Bread as a representation of his sacrificed Body to partake of that he thereby intended to make us partakers of his Flesh to assure us that for us it was sacrificed but not that it shall hence follow that because the Jews eat carnally of the Flesh of their Sacrifices we must also eat of his after the like manner Who sees not upon the difference between the Law and the Gospel premised that the contrary does necessarily follow that they being the Israel after the Flesh did necessarily partake of the Flesh of their Sacrifices after a carnal manner those therefore that are the Israel after the Spirit must partake of their Sacrifices not as the others but spiritually Let then God's prohibiting the Jews to eat of the Sin-Offering because of their Sins not being expiated by those Sacrifices conclude that now our blessed Saviour having made himself an Offering for Sin we ought to partake of this Sacrifice to assure us that the Remission of sins is accomplished for us yet this shall not conclude against our partaking of this Victim after a spiritual manner As for God's prohibiting the Children of Israel to eat Blood because it was given for the expiation of Souls it being a prohibition of eating Blood in general as well as the particular blood of their Sacrifices if it conclude any thing it is chiefly for the eating Blood in general the reason of its being forbidden being ceased but yet neither for this doth it conclude necessarily for then the Apostles could not by their Decree have required the Gentiles to abstain from Blood But suppose it to conclude for our drinking the Blood of our Sacrifice yet it does not in the least prove that we are to drink it in a carnal and not in a spiritual manner but it will prove if it be allowed conclusive what will not at all please the Church of Rome that she cannot now with-hold the Sacramental Blood from us since our Sins are fully expiated by the Blood of Christ for a reason contrary to that upon which it was prohibited the Jews because this Blood being shed has wrought a full Remission of Sins Therefore upon so little that has been yet said to the purpose I admire the Gentleman should tell us That our Saviour to free us from the horror of eating humane Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper species thought fit to cloath them under another species but that the consideration that obliged him to this did not oblige him in the least to deprive us of the reality of his Substance For by what Authority does he presume to tell us what considerations moved our Saviour or how far this or that consideration shall oblige him Or how has he proved that it was ever the intent of our blessed Saviour to give us the Real as that signifies the fleshly Substance of his Body to be by us carnally received To accomplish then the ancient Figures we confess our blessed Saviour does give us his Body and Blood to possess us of the Sacrifice offered for our Sins but to maintain the difference between the Law and the Gospel our eating must be spiritual not carnal It matters not whether it be the plainness of our Saviour's Words alone or as joyned with other things that are said concerning it in Scripture that forceth us to confess and acknowledge what we do we need no forcing for we most readily acknowledge all we conceive the Scripture does oblige us to in it and the Question is whether any thing said therein will oblige us to take their Sense or does not oblige to the contrary I shall not enter into Dispute of what the power of Christ can do or whether his Dominion over universal Nature can make his Body present in several places at once and under several Extents and not destroy the properties of a Body in it his Omnipotence having nothing to do herein any further than it appears his intent to bring something to pass by it We may therefore without questioning what can be wrought by his omnipotent power expect an Evidence that what they pretend him to bring to pass thereby was by him intended to be brought to pass before we are obliged to believe it Whether therefore these Words This is my Body will conclude it to be our Saviours intent to make that Bread to be no longer Bread but to become the very Substance of his Body is the thing in question which cannot be presumed before we have considered the whole Discourse of our Saviour and also what other things are said of it by his Apostles Matth. 26. 26. we find it set down thus Whilst they were eating Jesus took Bread and having blessed broke and gave it to his Disciples and said Take Eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and blessing gave to them saying Drink all of this for this is my Blood
of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of Sins But I say unto you that I drink not henceforth of the Fruit of the Vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of my Father When St. Matthew here tells us that our Lord took Bread and having blessed brake and gave it to his Disciples saying This is my Body and having took the Cup and blessed likewise gave it to them saying This is my Blood Is it not manifest that he says this Bread is my Body Can this demonstrate any thing but what he gave to them broke blest and took in order to it when there is no mark given to know that he intended to speak of somewhat else Nor will it avail to say This does not demonstrate that he took at first because he blessed after he had taken it before he said This is my Body for at least it must be that which he broke after he had given Thanks and that of necessity is the same Bread that he took Again his words This is my Body will never bear such a forced Construction as This Bread is now abolished to make room for my Body for his Affirmative Is does not in the least alter it but requires and supposes the thing true at the time he speaks it This must be This i. e. Bread and Wine which God's Word demonstrateth at the time that it is his Body and Blood But whatever This may demonstrate it will be impossible to prove the Disciples understood it to demonstrate any thing which the Scriptures express not Now when St. Matthew brings in our Lord speaking after the delivery of the Cup that he would not drink any more of the Vine does he not apparently suppose it to be Wine after his delivery of it to his Disciples or at least when he delivered it Nor will it at all advantage them to say that St. Luke makes him speak it before the Consecration or Blessing of the Elements for whether he spoke it before or after or both it is certain that if St. Matthew had understood the Wine to be no more Wine he could not have placed these words of our Lord after the delivery of the Cup. So when St. Paul says 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Does not he say that it is Bread still though it be the Communion of the Body of Christ Nor shall any thing hinder but that the substance of Bread remaining we may spiritually communicate of his Body If our Communion were carnal possibly it might be difficult to understand but that being not proved nor to be proved for the Reasons given from the difference between the New and Old Testament no man can find any difficulty in apprehending it So then M. Condom's great Bluster about our Saviour's explicating usually to his Disciples what he taught in Parables and Figures which is not done here and his Omnipotence to work whatever he said falls to nothing For our Lord's Discourse being easily intelligible according to our Sense of his presenting his Body and Blood under these Elements to be spiritually received but not to be understood so easily in theirs they have the most need to seek for an explication that shall determine them to their Sense especially since it is thus evident that the Apostles understood it to be Bread and Wine as we do so that 't is they have made the forced Construction by denying it Nor can our Lord's Omnipotence take place here till it be proved what he intended to bring to pass thereby Whereas he says The Laws of Discourse that teach us a Sign receives often the Name of the thing represented yet will not allow it in a Sign that has no relation to the thing as in this instance of a morsel of Bread to signifie the Body of man what if we should say the less relation it has to the thing the further it is from being it and the more probable to be only a Sign how would he disprove us by the Laws of Discourse which being used only to express our Conceptions can receive no more bounds than they Yet had he considered but the purpose for which our blessed Saviour gives us his Body to be the Nourishment of our Souls he would not have determined so positively that Bread which is the Food of our Bodies has no analogy with that which is to feed our Souls He might have found Examples even in holy Writ where Christ calls himself a Door the Way and a Vine which things have yet not the least analogy with the Body of a man but yet sufficiently represent the purposes for which he calls himself so and are easily understood without conceiving him to be changed into a Door c. or any of these to be changed into him SECT XI Of the Words Do this in remembrance of Me. NOT having at all insisted on these Words Do this in remembrance of me I am not at all concerned to answer what he says to prove That a Remembrance may be consistent with a real partaking of a thing remembred being sure that let him make the best of it it can never make any thing against me or conclude that we must partake of Christ in any other manner than what I have set sorth But whereas he pretends to take an advantage from an Answer generally used by us That this Remembrance does not exclude all kind of Presence but that which strikes the Senses so as to make this his own for that they though they affirm Jesus Christ to be present yet acknowledg at the same time that he is not present after a sensible manner He must give me leave to say that not determining as yet any thing concerning our Doctrine till after it be explained and considered his Answer is perfectly an Illusion in that though they pretend him not present in a sensible manner i. e. visibly appearing to their Senses yet they own him present in a bodily and carnal manner and to be eaten carnally as if a man should swallow a Pill in a Conserve the Pill is not taken in a sensible manner but yet the very substance of it is taken into the Stomach I shall not therefore demand by that Query which he is pleased to call Equivocal why they think it not enough to say The Son of God is present to us by Faith but by that he confesses to be without equivocation how they come to know by Faith that he is present after a bodily or carnal manner And whether his Real Presence though spiritual known by Faith is not sufficient to work all the necessary Effects in the just man who lives by Faith SECT XII Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Real Presence WHereas M. Condom thinks himself to have gotten
appetites being necessarily required in us no man can hence have so gross an imagination as to conceive that we must take in the righteousness thus hungred and thirsted after at our mouths as we do our bodily food Consider then withal the words of our Lord Joh. 6. 35 36 I am the bread of life he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst But I said unto you You have also seen me and believed not And compare it with Vers 63 64 It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh prositeth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life But there are some of you that believe not And judg from hence Whether our Lord does not propose himself as that food which can give satisfaction to the spiritual hunger and thirst of our souls and if so whether it can be thought that he is to be received any otherwise than spiritually for the satisfaction of those appetites that are spiritual And then withal consider Vers 27 Labour not for the meat that perisheth but that which shall endure to eternal life and Vers 28 What shall we do to work the works of God And 29 This is the work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath sent And I suppose it will perfectly appear that our Saviour speaks not here of any eating but what is spiritual and that inasmuch as when the People questioned him What they should do to work the works of God upon his exhorting them to labour after the meat that endureth to life eternal he answers them that to do his works is to believe on him whom he hath sent and again tells us that he that cometh to him shall never hunger and he that believeth on him shall never thirst and again that his words are spirit and life but 〈◊〉 of them would not believe them Hereby he fully shews us thâ—… â—…at him is to believe and lay hold on him by Faith As for the Corporal eating we are expresly told that the flesh thus taken if it might be so taken prositeth nothing whereas taken after that manner that Christ recommendeth to us it is of such profit that it preserveth the eater from death and maketh him to live for ever It is not therefore such an eating with which every man that brings a bodily mouth can receive him but a spiritual uniting of us to Christ whereby he dwelleth in us and we in him Neither is it in the least necessary that Christ should be bodily present which were indeed necessary were our eating corporal or carnal but being altogether spiritual and supernatural there is no necessity of his local presence It is sufficient for a spiritual union with Christ that he and we though distant in place be knit together by that spiritual nexture which is intimated to us by St. John namely the quickning spirit derived from him our Head to us his Members and a lively faith wrought by the same spirit proceeding from us to lay hold on him That this operation of the spirit is that which constitutes our union with Christ cannot be doubted by any that will consider how the Scripture tells us on the one hand 1 1 Cor. 15. 45. That Christ is made unto us a quickning spirit 2 Joh. 5. 21. That he quickneth whom he will 3 Joh. 1. 16. That he having received the spirit without measure we all partake of his fulness And on the other side 1 1 Cor. 6. 17. That he that is joyned the Lord is one spirit 2 Eph. 4. That we are all partakers of the same spirit 3 1 Joh. 4. 13. That hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in us by the spirit that he hath given us For what can give a more plain evidence than this that our union with Christ is wrought by the operation of this spirit of his descending from him upon us and working those graces in us that lift up our souls to take hold on and cleave unto him The same is also plain from hence that the Just are said to live by faith for are we not properly said to live by that whereby we receive our food Thus Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith Ephes 3. 17. That this is perfectly the sense of the Church of England is evident from what I have made appear already in that she teaches 1 Artic. 28. That the body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner and the means whereby it is received and eaten is faith And again 2. That this marvellous incorporation of Christ with us is wrought by the operaration of the holy Ghost the very bread of our conjunction with Christ through faith in the hearts of the faithful And having thus truly received the body and blood of Christ by faith and being hereby perfectly united to him we partake in all the benefits of his Death and Passion and are put in the possession of these benefits by our first possessing him But if still it be pleaded by M. Condom that we cannot thus distinguish between the participation of our blessed Saviour and our participation of the fruits of his Death unless we distinguish between the participation of his divine body and all spiritual participations by faith and that if we participate of both spiritually by faith we cannot participate of them as things distinct I may upon good reason deny his supposition and say that we do perfectly distinguish them and yet participate of both by faith spiritually for what should hinder but that a man may conceive he partakes of things distinct and yet partakes of both the same way as a man eats different meats in one way of eating but yet discovers them to be different If he should yet require me to explain what I mean by eating Christ spiritually by Faith he puts me upon a thing very difficult not because it is not easily conceived but because it is most obvious to our apprehensions for who can by plainer words express what our Saviour means by hungring and thirsting after righteousness whereas it is not any difficulty of apprehending his meaning that makes it thus difficult to be expressed otherways but that those words are so obvious to our understandings that nothing can better express it to our conception But however to give a more full satisfaction I shall endeavour if possible to be yet more plain For this purpose therefore I must suppose That God's tender of his Son Christ to us in the Sacrament does not greatly differ from his tender of him to the World when he became flesh and dwelt among us any further than a general tender to the whole World from a peculiar tender to this or that particular person and an offer of him as of one that was sent to be the Saviour of the World from the offer of him as he has saved
us And I conceive my supposition is not groundless for if God out of the abundance of his love sent his Son into the World that through him we might have everlasting life and that the World through him might be saved as the Apostle tells us John 3. 16. and his flesh in the Sacrament be given us only that we may live thereby John 6. 51. who shall deny but that when Christ is tendred to the same effect of giving us life these several tenders are only different as a general tender from a particular application especially when we consider again that both take effect only in them that believe as is plain by comparing Joh. 3. 16. with Chapter 6. 35. and shall it not then from hence follow that our receiving him as first tendred by God to the whole World and our eating him in the holy Sacrament are of the same nature preserving only that difference I have premised if believing be that which makes him ours in both offers undoubtedly receiving in one respect and eating in the other are no more than believing in both still maintaining the difference between Faith grounded upon a general Promise and a particular Application He that shall consider what belief of him was then required viz. 1 Joh. 17. 3. To know the only true God and his Son Jesus Christ whom he has sent 2 Joh. 5. 24. To hear the Word of Christ and believe on him that sent him 3 Rom. 10. 9. To confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in the heart that God hath raised him from the dead 4 Rom. 3. 25. To rely on him whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through faith in his blood may easily resolve what it is to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament namely that a man does then partake of Christ when he considers the death of Christ i. e. the crucifying of his flesh and the pouring out of his blood with that faith that supposes all this to be true and the ends of it to be such as God has declared him to be given for and by a further consideration of the particular tender of Christ that is in this Sacrament made to him for all those ends and effects if Christ who is thus particularly tendred be received by him as he ought to be is induced to resolve and undertake all which that belief does oblige him to and with faith grounded upon that resolution lays hold on and firmly relies on Christ for those effects for which he was first given to the World and is now peculiarly tendred unto him Then I say it is that a man truly eats the flesh and drinks the blood of Christ and certainly there cannot be found a more exact analogy than is between that nourishment of the body in the strength whereof it moves and those reasons whereupon the mind frames its resolutions to direct our conversation and then God having further promised to communicate his holy spirit to all that out of a true faith resolve upon the doing his will and as many as have the holy Ghost having thereby an union with Christ from whom this spirit is derived have also an assurance that by the holy Ghost that dwelleth in them their bodies shall be raised to life everlasting Rom. 8. 11. whereby they that eat the body and blood of Christ are united and incorporated into one body with him and shall not die but have everlasting life What then have I fully express'd hereby all that the spiritual eating of Christ by faith implies no certainly it is not possible to express by words that infinite love of God wherewith he tenders his Son unto us in this holy Mystery nor the mysterious supernatural but efficacious application of him unto us nor on the other side the strength the vigor the resolution the confidence of that faith wherewith the pious soul transported with that abundant love of God that infinite and peculiar mercy which it sensiblâ— feels in this Sacred Action receives embraces and lays hoâ—… in Christ nor is it possible to express the eagerness and impatience of those appetites wherewith it hungers and thirsts after him panting as the Hart after the water-brooks till it be satisfied with him or those transcendent gusts which are tasted in receiving this divine immortal Food But by what I have been able to express I cannot but think any man may apprehend my conceptions and how I clearly distinguish the participation of Christ from the partaking of his benefits the latter not being to be obtained but by first partaking of the former although all these benefits are indeed obtained so soon as we can conceive a man to have partaken of Christ And that the Church of England does fully preserve this distinction appears more evidently by her Thanksgiving after the Communion which begins thus Almighty and everliving God we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy Son and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness toward us and that we are very members incorporate into his mystical body c. And hereupon I conceive I am enabled to determinate upon what ground he that eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and eats and drinks his own damnation although he does not therein eat or drink the body and blood of Christ for he discerns not the Lords body For if this was the condemnation when God first sent his Son into the World that men believed not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God John 3. 18. who can deny but that this shall be the greater condemnation to all that come to this Sacrament wherein Christ is pleased to make a peculiar tender of himself requiring every one to receive him that they have not believed on nor received the blessed Son of God who is herein so peculiarly and particularly so graciously and so mercifully tendred to their reception I foresee an Objection levelled against the Doctrine that I have thus explained which must be here answered it is this That if Christ be only here eaten spiritually by faith we have many times faith and the spirit of God before and so might eat him without coming to this Sacrament To which I answer The spirit is received in divers measures and faith bestowed upon us in different degrees upon which account our conjunction with Christ may every day be made straiter and our hold firmer To receive the spirit not by measure is the priviledge of our Head we that receive it out of his fulness must daily look for it to be 1 Phil. 1. 19. supplied unto us 2 Rom. 1. 17. So also the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith i. e. from one degree and
Institution of our Lord who blessed Bread and Wine for this only purpose that we might take eat and drink and thereby partake of his Body and Blood in that it not only lays aside the End of his Institution but sets up a new Action of a greater value as is pretended in that also whilst it pretends to apply the Benefits of Christ's Death by this new means it takes off the necessity of using that of our Saviour's own appointment and occasions men to be wholly careless of it when hereby they are warranted to partake of all his Benefits and incur not the danger they would if they should come to partake of the Sacrament with impenitent hearts in that likewise it pretends this Sacrifice propitiatory for men after Death thereby in a great measure voiding the necessity of a Christian Life especially considering that Doctrine which is commonly taught in that Church that this Sacrifice avails ex opere operato that all the Benefits of Christ are derived upon the People by the very external Work done the people not being concerned in or assisting to the Sacrifice either in their Prayers or participation and withal their practice of sacrificing for any whatever dying within their Communion to free them from the pains of Purgatory SECT XI Of his Reflections BY the Grounds then upon which I have proceeded I am little concerned with the Explication he gives of the Epistle to the Hebrews to shew that their Doctrine of the Sacrifice ascribing all the virtue wholly to the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not impeach or prejudice its efficacy which the Apostle there pleads Which if it were granted as that it cannot well be for that they have set up a Sacrifice which shall make God more propitious to us than the Sacrament which does possess us of all the Benefits of Christ's Death yet this could no way justifie them in setting up a Sacrifice representative of Christ's Death to Effects which he had not appointed pretending thereby to make application of his Sacrifice on the Cross which he has not warranted them to apply by such means and to such persons also as they cannot from Scripture warrant it beneficial to However notwithstanding M. Condom seems to remove all Equivocation in the Word Offer he either still uses it equivocally or expresses not the Sense of those of his Communion for Bellarmine places not the Sacrifice only in presenting to God Christ crucified but in destroying the Elements that were there before and making Christ present under their Species as dead on the Cross And the Catechism favours this Sense when it says The Priests that sacrifice act not in their own persons but in the person of Christ when they make to be present his Body and Blood So that if we consider this especially if joyned with the Doctrine of Eckius that those Representations which the Church makes of Christ as dead by making his Body as such to appear before God and his Blood as separate from it by these Ceremonies that are used in this Action are the things that constitute the Sacrifice Against whom Chemnitius disputes so largely from this Epistle to the Hebrews If this be considered it will be evident that in this Epistle was not made use of to such impertinent purpose against them as this Gentleman pretends In his Reflections there is little material for me to consider the Grounds of all their Doctrine being overthrown But because he presses it so earnestly I must take notice of the main thing in it Here then he would first perswade us that the main difference between us is that of the Real Presence This we indeed allow That their Error in this Point is the Foundation of the Doctrines they build upon it but this makes it not necessary that their consequent Doctrines and Practices shall not be judged more prejudicial to Christianity than their first Error There scarce ever was a Heresie but pretended to deduce all its Errors from some Doctrine that had appearance of Truth and that did not in itself expresly contradict or prejudice the Faith though by the progression they drew from it the whole Faith has been subverted But then he farther argues That the Real Presence is owned by the Lutherans though they consider not the consequences of it That the Calvinists themselves have declared the Lutheran Doctrine to have no poyson in it and that it does not subvert the Foundations of Faith That further some Calvinists have said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans whence he concludes It is an established Truth that the Roman Doctrine in this point contains nothing but the Doctrine of the Real Presence rightly understood An Inference that has not the least coherence with the Premises Can any man of Sense allow this a rational Argument The Lutherans hold a Real Presence the Calvinists say There is no Poyson in their Doctrine The Lutherans admit not such Consequences as we do the Calvinists say we reason better than the Lutherans therefore it is an established Truth that our Doctrine contains nothing but the Real Presence rightly understood But to answer it so far as it may seem any way to give him an advantage The Lutherans do indeed hold a Real Presence in a Sense different from that I have explained but then they do no obtrude their Sense upon others as a necessary condition of Communion so that we may communicate with them without professing their error nor do they hold such a Local Presence as the Church of Rome nor does their Opinion lead them to the Worship of any Creature nor do they acknowledge any Presence of Christ therein but only in the act and to the end of his Institution of this Sacrament and if this has led some to a Declaration that the Lutheran Opinion does not subvert the foundation of Faith upon this account that it proceeds not to any further Effects destructive of it shall this be taken for an acknowledgment that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which obliges to such practices upon it as are inconsistent with the Faith is not such as ought to break communion with her And suppose it to have been said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans if it has been said by any of those that allowed Communion with the Lutherans it 's manifest that when they said so they did not think but that the Roman Doctrine was much more inconsistent with Christianity And that the World may see it is so I shall transcribe the difference which a Lutheran gives us between the Adoration they tender Christ in the Eucharist and that which is given by the Church of Rome He places the difference chiefly in two Particulars First that the Church of Rome requires that the Sacrament Gerhard Loc. Com De sacra Caena de Vener it self or all that which according our Lord's Institution we receive should be adored with the honour due
a thing very greatly to be feared whilst the substance under it is the blood of Christ. Thirdly Many men cannot abide the taste nor smell of wine wherefore that that which was ordained for spiritual health might not prejudice the health of the Body it was very wisely enacted by the Church that all her faithhful Children should receive one kind alone To this may be added other reasons That in some Countries wine is scarce and cannot be gotten without long and tedious Journeys But that which is most of all to the purpose the Heresie of such was to be rooted out as declared whole Christ to be under both Species and said the Body only was contained in the bread and the blood in the wine But he further tells us That the Church has reserved to her self the re-establishment of both kinds according as it should become more advantagious to Peace and Unity 'T is well she has kept to herself a Power of re-establishing that which she never had Power to dis-establish but how forward she has been to do any thing towards Peace and Unity all the World sees by her sirst occasioning so great a breach by this very thing And to me her last reason that she gives makes it evident that she still maintains and justifies her Sacriledg which robs Christians of their Birthright to the apparent prejudice of Peace yea to the rendring Unity impossible unless men will part with their Christianity But it 's most ridiculous when he comes to conclude from the concession of some Protestants That bread alone might be administred in case a man made protestation of a natural aversion to wine that therefore according to the Principles of the Reformed the matter in question regards not Faith and so is altogether in the Power of the Church For without determining whether their decision be right or wrong can it be argued from them that allow the Church may administer it only in one Species in case of such necessity that therefore the Church has authority to refuse administring it in both wheresoever she pleases to refuse it Can it be said that those who allow her a Power to dispense with some in case of absolute necessity do thereby allow her any Power to prohibit all People who are not comprehended in the case and being not comprehended look upon themselves greatly injured by being thus deprived of it And whereas he infers from hence that it regards not Faith his argument is as strong as if because the Jews were not circumcised in the Wilderness it should be said the Synagogue might have dispensed afterwards with that Law and said that Circumcision was not essentially necessary to a Jew because in a case of necessity where it could not be used Jews had lived without it SECT XVII Of the written and unwritten Word WHereas he says That the unwritten Word was the first Rule of Christianity and when the Writings of the New Testament were added this did not lose its Authority so that whatever was taught by the Apostles by Writing or Word of Mouth is to be received with equal veneration and that it is a sign that a Doctrine comes from the Apostles when it is universally received by all Christian Churches without any possibility of shewing its beginning I must not admit it but with these limitations First That nothing shall be imposed on us as a Doctrine coming from the Apostles but what shall evidently appear to have been universally received by all Christian Churches without beginning and that as fully to in all the parts of it that shall now be pleaded for For it is in vain to tell us that some things were delivered by the Apostles by Word of Mouth and those that have been from the beginning so received in the Christian Church universally throughout all Ages and Places ought to be looked upon as such unless what ever they would have us submit to as such be made appear so to be Secondly That these Traditions be not acknowledged of themselves sufficient to build any matter of Faith upon and this for two Reasons one because we cannot have that certainty of these as ought to be had to ground any thing as necessary to salvation of this all the Scriptures are an evident proof for undoubtedly the Apostles wrote not any thing to their Churches which they had not by preceding instructions gave them ability to understand notwithstanding which we see those instructions are now in great part lost though the Scriptures are preserved and they were so soon gone out of the Church that in a few Ages after the Apostles we find men giving them divers interpretations The other because we are told The Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15. which though spoken of the Writings of the Old Testament yet since none can deny the Divine Providence to have had the same end in ordering and inspiring the Writers of both namely that the Scriptures should be written for our Learning is as undeniable a Truth with reference to the New as Old Testament so that whatsoever is necessary to salvation must be either contained in or deducible from them Whereupon the Church of England professes That Holy Scripture containeth Art 6. all things necessary to salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be requiredof any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation These exceptions which were necessary in respect of the premises laid down are altogether needless if we look to the Conclusion inferred viz. That we ought not to wonder if they being careful to gather all their Fathers left them should conserve the Deposition of Tradition as well as that of the Scriptures Certainly no man ever blamed the Church of Rome for keeping the Tradition she received from the Apostles but for setting up Traditions that were never deposited with her much less with the whole Church The Council of Trent indeed in its first Decree is very reserved concerning Traditions and speaks cautiously thus The Holy Synod finding Christ's Truth and Holy Discipline partly in Scriptures and partly in unwritten Traditions which either were taken from Christ's Mouth by the Apostles or were Sess 4. delivered by the Apostles themselves inspired by the Holy Ghost and have passed as it were from hand to hand to us and following the example of the Orthodox Fathers doth with the like Religious affection receive all the Books of the New and Old Testament as also the Traditions themseves pertaining to Faith and Manners But under this fair pretence of receiving Traditions either taken from Christ's Mouth or delivered by the Apostles themselves and passed from hand to hand unto them they make their Decrees by Traditions of a quite different nature Traditions of yesterday such as appear neither always nor universally received abusing likewise their more ancient to justifie all the abuses time
effects I suppose the Church of England does allow the help of the Elders of the Church useful to the sick and therefore has provided that none lack this assistance but inasmuch as the Promises relating to these effects are different the Promise to one effect being perpetual and common to the Church in all ages to the other temporary whilst God empowered it to work such effects the Church which thinks she can only ground her Faith upon God's promises does still retain and declare her power in the cure of sin having a continued promise of God's grace to go along with its Ministry in effecting of it but not being assured nor having any promise to assure it that its Ministry shall be effectual to the recovery of bodily health it dares not warrant it to her children and therefore does not think fit to use the Ceremony of anointing the sick with oyl which was then used as a sign effective of their recovery Not that she is not ready to pray for this on their behalf grounding herself upon the general promise God has pride to hear the Prayers of his Church but not having any sure word of promise to ground a firm Faith upon as to the absolute recovery of the sick and it being the Prayer of Faith to which the Apostle here attributes this recovery as Faith indeed and that special and extraordinary was always necessary to all miraculous effects she therefore thinks she cannot use that sign which was then applied to the sick to assure him of his recovery by that power which God was then pleased to give for the working such cures That this Reason is not inconsiderable the Church of Rome herself is forced to allow and thereupon is greatly perplexed to find out a Reason why the first of these effects the Forgiveness Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Extrem Vnct. qua praep of Sins being provided for by the Sacrament of Penance there should be another Sacrament provided for this purpose To solve which she has invented a Distinction not to be found in the Apostles words I am sure that the Grace of this Sacrament is to extinguish our Venial Sins the other being chiefly provided for the forgiveness of Deadly Sins No less is she perplexed as to the other for seeing de facto that the Ministry of the Church does not take effect to the bodily recovery and withal knowing it necessary that all who come to a Sacrament ought to come with a Faith that they shall receive the Benefit tendred by it she orders that the Priest shall labour to perswade Ibid. the Sick to offer himself to this Unction with no less a Faith than those tendred themselves who were miraculously cured by the Apostles That if the Sick reap not so much Benefit Ibid. by it at this time as of old this must not be ascribed to any defect in the Sacrament but we are to believe it so happens for this cause rather that Faith is weaker in the greatest part of those that are anointed with this sacred Oyl or in those that administer it the Gospel telling us that our Lord did not many mighty works in his own Country because of their Vnbelief And yet for all this at last she is forced to confess the true Reason That Miracles do not seem so necessary now since Christianity has taken so wide and deep a root as they were in the beginning of the Church Which Reason as it shews that we ought not to expect the like effects now as then does likewise fully justifie the practice of the Church of England in not using Vnction to warrant the recovery of the Sick tho' she be ready to assist them with her Prayers which may be hoped effectual in an ordinary way to all that is consistent with the Divine Will Marriage Whereas our Blessed Saviour was pleased to reduce this State of Marriage to its first Institution and to make the Bond of it insoluble we do believe it the Concern yea the Duty of the Church to see that its Members joyned together in this holy State do preserve this Bond inviolable And the preserving it thus requiring as all other Christian Duties the assistance of God's Grace our Church thinks herself obliged as to see to the Marriages that shall be contracted between its Members so to implore a Blessing on them at their entrance into that State begging the Assistance of the Divine Grace to enable them to live as Christians ought in the State of Wedlock And whereas the Apostle has thought fit to represent to us the near Conjunction and inseparable Union of Christ with his Church by that near and inseparable Union which this State supposes we forget not the Thanks we owe our blessed Lord who is thus pleased to unite himself to his Church nor the Concern that lies on us the Members of it to preserve an Vnion with him inviolable But we cannot think that because the State of Matrimony is a Sign of that Mystical Union between Christ and his Church having some analogy with it that therefore the entrance into this State has the promise of any Grace to joyn or preserve us in that Union with Christ and his Church and for that reason we exclude it from the Sacraments of Christ's Church as these are Signs effective of Grace Order We allow the Necessity of ordaining Ministers for the Service of Christ's Church and acknowledge not only the Ceremony of Imposition of hands in that Action to be of Apostolical Institution but also that there is a Promise of Grace annex'd to enable persons so ordain'd to act according to their several Functions and that with effect to those Ends which their Ministries serve in the Church of Christ But we admit it not properly a Sacrament as I said before because the Grace promised does peculiarly relate to their Office and the Benefit of the Church not particularly to the Salvation of him that receives it Neither do we allow the Grace here promised to belong to any but those Orders that we find from the Beginning in the Church of Christ viz. Bishops Priests and Deacons SECT X. Of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist NOW we are come to the great Points that are in dispute about the Eucharist wherein M. Condom has greatly enlarged himself as confident of the Victory Here in the first place he tells us The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is established by the Words of the Institution which they understand literally and therefore are not to give Reasons for so doing but expect Reasons why they should not We should take this Gentleman off a great Advantage which he presumes himself to have if we should deny theirs to be the Literal Sense and plead ours to be it and oblige them to give Reasons for their imposing a new construction upon them However leaving that in question for a time I must at present examine the Reasons he gives to
measure of it to another and consequently we must still labour and pray to him 3 1 Thess 3. 10. to encrease our faith As we have therefore received Christ so we must walk in him 4 Eph. 4. 15. growing up unto him in all things which is our Head from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectual working in the measure of every part maketh encrease of the body unto the edifying of itself in love and for this end hath God ordained Publick Officers in his Church 6 Eph. 4. 12. for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ wherefore God hath made them able Ministers of the New Testament 7 2 Cor. 3. 6. even Ministers of the spirit that giveth life 8 1 Cor. 3. 5. Ministers by whom we believe even as the Lord gives to every man When we have therefore received the spirit and faith we must desire 9 1 Pet. 2. 2. to grow thereby and as grown men too we must desire this food of the Lord's Table to continue our strength of which being made partakers the Lord doth grant us 10 Eph. 3. 16 19. to be strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man that Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith and being rooted and grounded in love may comprehend and know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge and be filled with all the fulness of God Hereby therefore all that M. Condom argues from the Doctrines of the Reformed in this point falls to nothing that which he urges against those who say the Sacraments are bare signs proves nothing to the prejudice of the Church of England which I have shewn accounts them to be Seals exhibitive of the body and blood of Christ So for the advantage that he builds upon from the Gallican Catechism which he tells us teaches That though Christ be truly communicated to us both by Baptism and the Gospel yet nevertheless it is only in part and not fully I for my own part should not stick to say as much and I presume the reason given above for the necessity of this Sacrament will abundantly justifie me in it and that I need not upon this account be forced to hold any other participation of Christ in the holy Sacrament than that by spiritual faith Nor should I stick to say what the Gallican Confession does concerning our partaking of Christ's substance namely Although Christ be in Heaven there to remain till he come to judge the World yet we believe that through the secret and incomprehensible power of his spirit he nourisbeth and quickneth us by the substance of his body and blood apprehended or received by faith Nor need I by this be obliged to allow the substance of Christ to be otherwise than spiritually eaten or that our union is any other than the participation of his quickning spirit As little is the advantage he pretends from another thing in their Catechism That the body of our Lord Jesus offered to reconcile us to God is now given to assure us of that reconciliation it having been shewn how our blessed Saviour is truly tendred to that effect in this holy Sacrament and yet that Christ is to be received spiritually and by faith to that effect also that with this Doctrine there may be and is an apparent distinction maintained between the participation of Christ and that of his benefits Having thus shewn his Objections all invalid I need not enter into a particular discussion of the large Harangue he makes upon them which is no other than an illusion But to shew him that is so good at finding out difficulties for us that we need not seek far to find some for them Let him resolve us according to their Principles First How Christ being as they say bodily and wholly received by them into their bowels there should be any need of receiving this Sacrament more than once They cannot use the answer insisted on by us for that they plead they receive him not by faith spiritually and to find a way of solving it they must shew how Christ that is once truly received into their bodies goes out again Again Let them shew us how the body and blood of Christ which being bodily present is also bodily received and eaten both by good and bad should turn to the salvation of one and damnation of the other when our Saviour saith whoso eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood hath eternal life Joh. 6. 54. They cannot say the one eats him spiritually the other not since they make the sacramental eating not to be spiritual both therefore eating him sacramentally we are to look for a reason of its different effects Nay let them shew us how when Christ tells us his flesh profiteth nothing which must necessarily be understood if carnally received according to the gross conception of those that questioned how he would give them his flesh to eat their eating it which is no other than taking the substance of his flesh into their bodies should be at all profitable to eternal life SECT XIII Of Transubstantiation and Adoration c. TO return then with M. Condom to consider their Doctrine of Transubstantiation and Adoration consequent upon it I shall not dispute with him whether those species or accidents that remain supposing according to their Doctrine the substance of the Elements changed be a sign or not But having shewn from the plain words of our Lord and evident testimonies of the Apostles that the sense of our Lord's words infer no such corporal presence of Christ as they suppose nor any such change of the Elements as they call Transubstantiation and likewise shewn all that this Gentleman seeks to prove it by insignificant I may well conclude the Church of Rome has in this point set up a new Doctrine of Faith even destructive of the Faith inasmuch as it decrees and commands Adoration even the honour due to God himself to be given to this Sacrament Which Concil Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. many of themselves confess to be Idolatry supposing this first Doctrine of Transubstantiation false Nor will it signifie any thing to say as M. Condom That some of the most learned and intelligent of the Reformed have granted those who are perswaded of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament ought to pay him in it their adorations who they are that have said so much I am not concerned to search possibly some may have said that if he was indeed really present as they say Adoration ought to be given to him but none I believe that all who are perswaded of its being so ought to pay it him there so as to imply that men ought upon a perswasion that may be false to venture
upon an action that is Idolatry if it should be false without examining the grounds on which they hold such a vain perswasion and destructive practice Questionless we are to adore God wherever he is present yet to pay our Adorations where he has not assured his presence though we fondly imagine it shall not excuse us from Idolatry SECT XIV Of the Sacrifice of the Mass COncerning this the Church of England declares Article 31. Articles of the the Church of England Article 31. The offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sin but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and dead to have remission of pain or guilt were blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits Nevertheless it must be observed that she does not stick to call the holy Sacrament 1 Thanksgiving after the Communion A Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving 2 Ibid. yea and to plead before God the Merits and Death of his Son that through faith in his blood we and all his whole Church may obtain Remission of sins and all other benefits of his Passion So that she does not deny it to be after some sort propitiatory Further She directs us most fully to render our souls and bodies an acceptable Sacrifice to the service of Almighty God So that whilst M. Condom has thus ambiguously explicated their Doctrine the difference does not appear so great as really it is for the Church of Rome is not content if we say that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving or a commemorative Sacrifice representing that upon the Cross but requires Concil Trid. Sess 22. can 3. that we acknowledge it a true propitiatory Sacrifice and decrees Anathema against all that do not own it to be truly such So that when M. Condom tells us from the Council of Trent That this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished on the Cross to perpetuate the Memory of it and to apply its saving Virtue for the remission of sins which we daily commit All this must be allowed true and the proper ends of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament But the Council pleads them for the Institution of a different thing a Sacrifice as distinct from a Sacrament as is plain in that very Sess 22. cap. 1. Chapter Which is more fully exprest in the Catechism which teaches That the Eucharist was instituted by our Lord for Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Euch. Sacrif Two Causes one to be our heavenly Food and to preserve us in our spiritual Life the other That the Church might have a perpetual Sacrifice for the expiation of Sins Then it tells us that these two Ends are greatly different the Sacrament is perfected by the Consecration but the efficacy of the Sacrifice consists in its being offered Wherefore the Eucharist whilst it is in the Pyx or when it is carried to the Sick is only a Sacrament not a Sacrifice Again as a Sacrament it is only Matter of Merit to them that receive but as a Sacrifice it is effectual both to Merit and Satisfaction for as Christ by his Sufferings merited and satisfied for us so those that offer Concil Trid. Sess 22. this Sacrifice merit the Fruits of his Passion and satisfie also Hereupon the Council further decrees 1 Cap. 2. That this Sacrifice be offered as propitiatory not only for the Sins Punishments satisfactions and other Necessities of the Living but likewise for the Dead that are not throughly purged from their Guilt And then 2 Cap. 6. It approves and commends private Masses wherein the Priest alone communicates offering the Sacrifice for all the People Thence 3 Can. 3. It condemns those who say it is profitable only to them that communicate or that say it ought not to be offered for the Sins Punishments Satisfactions and other Necessities both of the Dead and Living The whole Dispute then ought not to be reduced to the Real Presence only as M. Condom would perswade us but to these further Queries First Upon what ground they make our Saviour in the Institution of his last Supper to have instituted it to a different Purpose than that of a Sacrament so as it may be a Sacrament to a man when it is not a Sacrifice and a Sacrifice propitiatory for them that partake not of it as a Sacrament Secondly Upon what ground they make this Action as a Sacrifice distinct from that of communicating propitiatory for the Quick and Dead Thirdly Upon what account they attribute a certain Satisfaction to this offering of Christ which a man obtains not by partaking of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament whereas if all the virtue be by them confess'd to be from Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross he that is a partaker of Christ must certainly by being so be partaker of all the Merits and Satisfaction of his Death Fourthly Upon what ground they warrant their private Masses to be propitiatory for particular persons whether dead or living for whom they offer them having no warrant from their Christianity to make application of his Merits to them in this way Nor does any thing said by M. Condom give us the least satisfaction to these Demands for he shews us but a very insufficient ground upon which he does not doubt but this Action as distinct from that of communicating makes God propitious to us viz. because it represents his Son Christ unto him as crucified For to ground a Hope he should have shewn us a Promise that God would be propitious upon such a Representation We doubt not but Jesus Christ presenting himself before the face of God is powerful in his intercession for us but what assurance have we that upon every fancied Representation of ours we can cause him thus to present himself For presume him present from the Consecration we cannot till the End to which his Presence is applied by private Masses be first shewn to be the End of Christ's Institution and blessing Bread and Wine to be used to such a purpose and after such a way Nor does M. Condom pretend to shew us by what authority his Church warrants the application of this Sacrifice to the Dead that are in Purgatory-pains or to the Living that come not to partake thereof View then but this Doctrine which the Church of Rome maintains that as it is a Sacrifice it is more available than as a Sacrament that as a Sacrifice it is applied to those who do not partake of it as a Sacrament that also as such it is propitiatory for the sins punishments satisfactions and all other necessities not of the living only but likewise of the dead and judge whether this Doctrine does not in effect yea in reality void the