of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrifice of the Mass In which we ought to proceed with all the Caution such a Point requires as both makes up the chiefest part of the Popish Worship and is justly esteem'd one of the greatest and most dangerous Errors that offends us Monsieur de Meaux has represented it to us with so much tenderness that except perhaps it be his Foundation of the Corporeal Presence on which he builds and his Consequence that this Service is a true and real Propitiatory Sacrifice which his manner of expounding it we are perswaded will never bear there is little in it besides but what we could readily assent to We distinguish the two Acts which he mentions from one another By the Consecration we apply the Elements before common to a Sacred use by the Manducation we fulfil our Saviour's Command We take and eat and Do this in remembrance of Him This Consecration being separately made of his Body broken his Blood spilt for our Redemption we suppose represents to us our Blessed Lord in the figure of his Death which these holy Symbols were instituted to continue the memory of And whilst thus with Faith we represent to God the Death of his Son for the pardon of our sins we are perswaded that we incline his Mercy the more readily to forgive them We do not therefore doubt but that this presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us Were this all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it Where is that Christian that does not by Faith unite himself to his Saviour in this holy Communion That does not present him to God as his only Sacrifice and Propitiation That does not protest that he has nothing to offer him but Jesus Christ and the Merits of his Death That consecrates not all his prayers by this Divine Offering and whilst he thus presents to God the Sacrifice ofhis Son does not learn thereby to present also himself a lively Sacrifice holy and acceptable in his sight This is no doubt a Sacrifice worthy a Christian infinitely exceeding all the Sacrifices of the Law Where the Knife is the Word the Blood shed not but in a figure nor is there any Death but in Representation A Sacrifice so far from taking us off from that of the Cross that it unites us the more closely to it represents it to us and derives all its Vertue and Efficacy from it This is if any other truly The Doctrine of the Catholick Church and such as the Church of England has never refused and except it be our doubt of the Corporeal Presence Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to expect that there was nothing in this we could justly except against But now that all this is sufficient to prove the Mass to be a True and Proper Sacrifice Concil Trident. Sess 22. truly and properly propitiatory for the sins and punishments the satisfactions and necessities of the dead and the living and that to offer this true and proper Sacrifice our Saviour Christ instituted a true and proper Priesthood when he said Do this in Remembrance of Me This is what we cannot yet understand and what we think we ought not ever to allow of We know indeed that the Primitive Church called the holy Eucharist a Sacrifice in that large extent of the Expression whereby the holy Scripture stiles every religious performance our Prayers our Thanksgivings our Vertues our very Selves Sacrifices to God And accordingly in our own Liturgy we do without all scruple do the same But when it comes to be set in Opposition to a Sacrament and to be considered in the true and proper signification of the Word we must with all Antiquity needs profess That we neither have nor can we after that of Christ admit of any Hence it is that our Church following the Doctrine of the Holy Apostles and Primitive Christians teaches See Article 31. That the Offering of Christ once made is that proper Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the sins of the whole World and that there is no other Satisfaction for sin but that alone That the Application of Christs Death by Faith in the Holy Eucharist is made to all such as with true Repentance receive the same we undoubtedly believe We are perswaded that by our Prayers which in this holy Solemnity we never fail to offer for the wants and necessities the pardon and forgiveness not of our selves only but of all Mankind of those who have not yet known the Faith of Christ or that knowing it have prevaricated from the right way we incline Gods Mercy to become propitious unto them Only we deny that by this holy Eucharist as by a true and proper Propitiatory Sacrifice we can appease Gods Wrath for the sins of the whole World can fulfil the satisfactions and supply the necessities of other men of the dead and the living of them that are absent and partake not of it This we attribute to the Sacrifice of the Cross only and are perswaded that it cannot without derogation to the Merits of that most absolute Redemption which was there purchased for us be applied to any other When we examine the first Institution of this holy Communion we cannot perceive either in the words or action of our Blessed Saviour any Sacrifical Act or Expression He took bread and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take Eat This is my Body which is given for you Do this in Remembrance of Me. Monsieur de Meaux seems to imply that the Consecration made it a Sacrifice But this Vasquez tells us that others think to be only a preparation to it In. 3. D. Th. disp 222. c. 1. because till after the Consecration Christ is not there and by Consequence cannot be offered The Council of Trent seems to refer it to the Oblation This Bellarmine opposes L. 1. de Miss c. 27. because neither Christ nor his Apostles used any Bellarmine is positive that either Christ sacrificed in Eating Ibid. or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it Yet even this the greatest part of that Communion reject because Eating is not Offering and in the Ordination where the Priest receives the power of Sacrificing not any mention is made of it In Effect Reason will tell us That this is to partake of the Offering not to offer it and Monsieur de Meaux himself accordingly distinguishes the Two Acts of Consecration and Manducation from one another and refers the Sacrifice wholly to the former If we consider the Nature of a true and proper Sacrifice they universally agree that these Four Things are necessarily required to it 1. That what is Offered be something that is Visible 2. That of prophane which it was before it be now made sacred 3. That
my Body meant any thing else to be his Body than that Bread which was before him Now for this the Connexion of his discourse seems to us an evident Demonstration Our Saviour Christ took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave it to his Disciples Luk. 22.19 saying Take Eat This is my Body which is given for you do this in Remembrance of me For what did he demonstrate here and say was his Body but that which he gave to his Disciples What did he give to his Disciples but that which He brake What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly he took Bread What Jesus took in his hands that He blessed what He blessed the same He brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But Jesus says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said This is my Body In a word Forasmuch as the Papists themselves believe the Bread to be turned into the substance of Christ's Body because Christ said This is my Body Either those words refer to the Bread and then by their own Confession they will require our Interpretation or if they do not it is evident that then from these words they can have no Grounds to conclude their own pretended change So necessarily do both the words themselves and their own Confession lead us to the Exposition which we make of them And what these prepare us to receive the same 2dly The Intention of our Saviour in this Holy Sacrament do's yet more strongly confirm to us When God delivered the Children of Israel out of Egypt Excd. 12. he instituted the Passover to be a continual Remembrance of that great deliverance In like manner our Blessed Saviour being now about to work out a much greater deliverance for us by offering up himself upon the Cross for our Redemption he design'd by this Sacrament to continue the memory of this Blessing 1 Cor. 11.26 That as often as we eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup we might shew forth the Lords Death till his Coming That this Sacrament instituted for the like end which the Passover had been and now for ever to succeed in its place might be both the better understood and the easier received by them it pleased our Blessed Lord to accommodate himself as near as was possible to the Ceremonies and Phrases they had before been used to He retain'd the Symbols and even the Expressions they had so long been acquainted with only he changed the application of them to a new and more excellent Remembrance In the Jewish Passover the Master of the House took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt In this holy Sacrament our Saviour after the very same manner took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is broken for you Do this in remembrance of Me. Now as it is evident that that Bread which the Jews every Year took and brake and said This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt was not that very Bread which their Ancestors so many Generations before had eaten there but was design'd only to be the Type or Figure of it so neither could our Saviours Disciples to whom he spake and who as being Jews had so long been acquainted with that Phrase ever believe That the Bread which he held in his hand which he brake and gave them saying This is my Body which is broken for you Do this in remembrance of me was the very actual real Body of Christ which they saw before them at the Table They understood it no doubt to be the Type and Figure of that Body which was now about to be broken for them as that Bread which the Master of the Feast after the very same manner was wont to break to them was the Type of that Bread of Affliction which their Fathers had eaten in Egypt Nor does the Phrase My Body at all weaken but rather confirm this Idea as being the ordinary expression among the Jews whereby they called the Passover The body of the Passover The body of the Paschal Lamb. It was therefore used here by our Saviour with that allusion more expresly to signifie 1 Cor. 5.7 that he was the true Passover now to be sacrificed for us by whose Blood we were to be delivered from the destroying Angel and for the Remembrance whereof we were therefore to keep this Ceremony as the Jews had done their Passover for the other This we suppose to be the undoubted Interpretation of this place Monsieur de Meaux ought the less to except against it in that it was the original remark not of any Protestant or of any other Party of Christians differing from the Church of Rome in this matter but was objected to them by the very Jews themselves long before the Reformation upon the same account They shew'd by it that in the Doctrine of this pretended Change the Church of Rome had evidently opposed the design of our Saviours Iinstituion and advanced an Interpretation which no one accustomed to the Jewish Notions as the Apostles were could ever have understood to be his meaning The design of this discourse permits me not to proceed to any more particular vindication of this Exposition nor to mention many other Arguments more usually proposed and wherein it has clearly been shewn that they have not only the holy Scripture and the design of our Blessed Saviour in this Sacrament but Sense Reason Antiquity whatsoever is able to furnish an Argument all unanimously against them It remains only to examine whether what Monsieur de Meaux has proposed be any thing more reasonable that so we may go on to the Consequences established upon this foundation Where first we cannot conceive why Monsieur de Meaux designing to establish the Exposition of the holy Eucharist upon the Analogy which it has to the Jewish Sacrifices should flie off to the nature of their Sacrificesin general where the parallel is neither so clear nor so uncontroverted as to produce any necessary consequence from the allusion It would certainly have been more reasonable to compare it as we have done with that particular Sacrifice of the Passover to which it succeeded and from which therefore if any must be shewed the design of it But we will clear the whole difficulty in a reflection or two and prove that what has been offered to us as a convincing Argument is upon a nearer view a meer fallacy And 1. We desire it may be observed That the Peace-Offerings under the Law were designed as an acknowledgment on the peoples part for those temporal blessings which it pleased God to bestow upon them And because after the sacrifice of Isaac God first entred into the Covenant with Abraham and promised him his Blessing and to be his God Gen. 22.16
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