word to say That the Death of Christ was a perfect Sacrifice and one drop of his Blood more than sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind and nevertheless go on to require our Satisfactions as necessary too and oblige us to believe that other Propitiatory Sacrifices besides that of the Cross ought to be offered up continually to God in his Church for the Sins both of the Dead and the Living This must certainly be the part of a Disputant either too ignorant to understand or too obstinate to submit to any Conviction Monsieur de Meaux the design of whose Exposition seems rather to be an Apology for the Popish Religion than a free Assertion and Vindication of its Errors is above all things sensible of the Justice of this Reflection and therefore endeavours by all means possible in the very entry of his Treatise to prepare his Reader against it By shewing the Injustice of charging Consequences upon Men which they do not allow and that therefore tho their Superstructure should chance to overthrow their Foundation yet since they profess not to know that it does so they ought not to be taxed with what they do not believe It is not deny'd but that Consequences may be sometimes either so obscure or so far distant that a Person prejudicate for the Principle may well be excused the charge of a Collection which his Actions shew he neither believes nor approves But when the Conclusions as well as Principles are plain and confess'd and the Dispute is only about the Name not the Thing we must beg leave to profess that we cannot chuse but say that he believes not as he ought the infinite Merits of Christ's Sacrifice who requires any other Offering for Sin and that no subtilty of Argument will ever perswade us that those destroy not their Principle of worshipping God only whom we see contrary to his express Command prostrate every day before an Image with Prayers and Hymns to Creatures that have been subject to like Infirmities with our selves and that are perhaps at this very time in a worser Estate than the most miserable of those that call upon them for their assistance Be it therefore allow'd to be as great a Calumny as Monsieur de Meaux can suppose it to accuse Men of Consequences obscure and disavow'd the Opinions we charge the Church of Rome with are plain and confess'd the Practice and Prescription of the chiefest Authority in it And to refuse our Charge of them is in good earnest nothing else than to protest against a matter of Fact a Plea which even Justice it self has told us may without Calumny be rejected as invalid However thus much at least we have got by this Reflection that it directs us to the true State of the Controversy between us and shews That we who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as Innovators in Religion are at last by their own confession allow'd to hold the ancient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith and that the Question between us therefore is not Whether what we hold be true which is on all hands agreed but Whether those things which the Roman Church has added as Superstructures to it and which as such we reject be not so far from being necessary Articles of Religion as they pretend that they indeed overthrow that Truth which is on both sides allow'd to be Divine and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them The Declaration of this not so much by any new proof as by clearing rather the true state of those Points which are the subject of our Difference is the design of the following Articles in which I shall endeavour to give a clear and free account of what we can approve and what it is that we dislike in their Doctrine and as far as the shortness of this Discourse will allow touch also upon some of those Reasons that are the most usually given by us for both ARTICLE II. That Religious Worship is to be paid to God only THat Religious Worship is due to God only how necessary soever those Practices of the Roman Church which we are hereafter to consider may have rendred it to Monsieur de Meaux to declare yet is it we suppose but little necessary for us to say We firmly believe that the inward acknowledgment of his Divine Excellencies as the Creator and Lord of all things is a part of the supream Worship that is due to him We believe that all the Powers of our Soul ought to be tied to him by Faith Hope and Charity as to that God who alone can establish and make us happy And tho we do not think that there is now any sensible or material Sacrifice to be offered to Him under the Gospel as there was heretofore under the Law yet do we with all Antiquity suppose the Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving to be so peculiarly his due that it cannot without derogation to his Honour be applied to any other What our Opinion is of that Worship which the Roman Church pays to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed we shall hereafter fully shew But certainly great was the difference of those Holy Men whom Monsieur de Meaux mentions as their fore-runners in this practice from the present manner of the Popish Invocation Gregory Nazianzen in a Rhetorical Apostrophe called to Constantius in one to his Sister Gorgonia in another Oration but he prayed to neither St. Basil St. Ambrose St. J. Chrysostom St. Hierom St. Augustin they desired sometimes that the Martyr or Saint would joyn with them in their requests but they were rather Raptures and Wishes than direct Prayers and their formal Petitions but especially those of the Church were only to God Almighty They doubted whether the Saints could hear them or no and were rather inclined to believe that they could not The Addresses of the Mind which the Church of Rome allows no less than the others to them they look'd upon to be so peculiarly God's due that they supposed he did not communicate them to the very Angels that are in Heaven They declared against all thoughts of being assisted by the Merits of their Saints or that God would ever the more readily or indeed so soon accept their Prayers coming by the Intercession of another as if they had gone themselves directly to the Throne of Grace In a word they never imagined that this was an Honour due to them but on the contrary constantly taught that it was a Service belonging only to God Almighty Well therefore might * And that it is the most he does Se de Cult Lat. l. 3. c. 18. Monsieur Daillé refer the beginnings of this Invocation to these Men whose innocent Wishes and Rhetorical Flights being still increased by the Superstition of after-Ages first gave birth to this Worship But certainly the Romanists cannot with any reason alledge them in favour of their Error till it be shewn either that we are mistaken in those
c. and the God of his Seed after him it seems to have been further their intention in all these Sacrifices to call to remembrance that Offering of Isaac as the foundation of all those blessings for which these Sacrifices were appointed as a testimony of their Gratitude 2. That tho the Passover like the Sacrifice of the Cross was first offered as a sin-offering for the delivery of the first-born in the land of Egypt yet that yearly remembrance of it which God afterwards establish'd was always esteemed a Peace-offering and indeed the perpetual order of their Sacrifices clearly demonstrates that it could be no other So that the Parallel therefore for the explaining the nature of the holy Eucharist must be this 1. That as the Jews ate of their Peace-offerings in General to call to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac and give God thanks for t hose blessings which they received by it and of that of the Passover in particular in memory of Gods delivering them out of Egypt So the Christians partake of this blessed Sacrament in memory of that deliverance which the Sacrifice of the Cross of Christ whom both Isaac and the Paschal Lamb slain in Egypt typised has purchased for them 2. That as the Peace-affering which the Jews eat was not changed into the Substance of that first Sacrifice whereof it was the remembrance but was eaten as a figure or commemoration of it so the Christians in their Sacrament are not to think the Bread and Wine which Christ has appointed to be our Peace-offering should be changed into the very substance of that Body which was offered for us upon the Cross but to be received only as Types of it For thus was the Peace-offering in general a Type of Isaac and the Passover in particular the Type of that first Lamb which was slain for their deliverance in the Land of Egypt When therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us that the Jews ate the proper flesh of their Peace-offering we answer that so do we the proper substance of ours we eat the Bread which Christ appointed to be the remembrance of that deliverance which he has purchased for us as the body of the Lamb was commanded by God to be the remembrance of theirs Monsieur de Meaux adds That the Jews were forbidden to partake of the proper flesh of their Sin-offering and of the Blood because that a perfect Remission was not then obtain'd and that therefore by the rule of contraries we ought now to eat of Ours because a full satisfaction is now made by Christ For Reply to which it might suffice to say that this rule of contraries should we follow it according to the Letter would lead Monsieur de Meaux into so many absurdities that he would be forced himself to abjure his own Principle According to this rule the Apostles could not have eaten the flesh of Christ before his Resurrection the Priests under the Law being commanded not to eat of the Sin-offering after the third day and therefore by the rule of contraries they could not partake of it before Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider how far he will approve of this Conclusion In the mean time as to his Objection we have before said that the remembrance we make in the holy Eucharist like that of the Paschal Feast among the Jews shews it to be a Peace-offering and for the rest if as Monsieur de Meaux pretends this Blood was mystically forbid under the Law to shew that a perfect remission of sins was not then obtain'd It will follow that for the contrary reason Christ appointed the Cup to be received in this holy Sacrament to testifie that full remission which bis blood has purchased for us The Church of Rome therefore in refusing the Cup to the people not only violates the express command of our Blessed Saviour but according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles teaches them by it that a full remission of sins is not yet obtain'd even by the precious Blood of Christ himself It may by this appear what little advantage Monsieur de Meaux can get to justifie their Doctrine of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist from the Analogie of the ancient Sacrifices which do clearly and necessarily establish the contrary For what remains of this discourse we are but little concerned in it We Confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but we deny that therefore it must be his very Body We acknowledge the power of God to do whatever he pleases Yet Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider that Contradictions such as to be and not to be at the same time are even in their own Schools usually excepted Monsieur de Meaux supposes that because Christ did not explain his words in the figurative Sense the Apostles must needs have understood them in the Literal But we have before shewed that the Jews who are certainly the best Judges are of a quite contrary opinion viz. That his Apostles knowing his allusion could never have understood them otherwise than in a Figure In a word for his last Remark That the Laws of discourse which permit that where there is a just Proportion between the Sign and the thing signified the one may be put for the other Yet suffer it not to be so when a Morsel of Bread for instance is set to represent the Body of a Man We must beg leave to say that neither is the Proportion so small betwixt the Bread broken and Christs Body broken as Monsieur de Meaux would suggest Or that if there were yet since our Saviours institution has set the one to represent to us the other we think that designation ought to be of more Authority with us than all their new Laws of Discourse invented purposely only to set the fairer Gloss upon so great and apparent an Error ARTICLE XVII Do this in Remembrance of Me. THE Explication of the preceding Article having engaged us to a length extraordinary we will endeavour to recompence it by our shortness in this We are entirely agreed that the Intention of the Son of God was to oblige us by these words to commemorate that death which he underwent for our Salvation We Confess that that real Presence which we suppose in the Communion do's not at all contradict the Nature of this Commemoration We are persuaded that as the Jews eating of their Peace-Offering which was the remembrance of God's Covenant and particularly of the Passover the Type of that Paschal Lamb that was offered for them in Egypt called to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac and that great Deliverance God had wrought for them in bringing them up out of the Land of Bondage So whilst we Eat of those Holy Elements which our Saviour Christ has instituted like the Peace-Offering a-among the Jews to perpetuate the Memory of his death We call to mind the more lively that great deliverance which He has wrought for us and render
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
too much upon our Ignorance and indeed to give too great a scandal to many of her own Communion more zealous than himself for this service And therefore we find it now expounded in a manner more conformable to the truth though still exceedingly mollified T is upon this is founded the Honour which we give to Images and again When we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our Intention is not so much to honour the Image as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image VII In the Section of Justification Monsieur de Meaux has omitted this whole paragraph since his first Edition The Catholick Church says he is no where more invincible than in this point and perhaps it would need no long discourse to shew that the more one searches by the Scriptures into the design of the redemption of Mankind which was to make us Holy the more one shall approach to our Doctrine and the more depart from the opinions of Calvin which are not maintainable nay are contradictory and ruinous of all true and solid piety 1 Ed. p. 36 37. Monsieur de Meaux may please some other time to expound to us what those Opinions of Calvin in this matter are which the Church of Rome is so invincible in and which all parties among them will agree to be so contradictory and ruinous to all true and solid piety as he then said In the mean time we will only beg leave to observe on occasion of this Correction that perhaps there are some in the Church of Rome of Mr. Calvin's mind in the worst of those Principles Monsieur de Meaux refers to and to assure him that there are several Protestants in the World that are not tho they dare not therefore so severely censure the Opinions of those that are IX Monsieur de Meaux having in a very few words explained the Doctrine of Justification upon which the Council of Trent is so long and perplex'd assured us in his first Exposition That that was enough for any Man to know to make him a through Christian Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification and our Adversaries would be extraordinarily contentious not to confess that there is no need to know any more to be a solid Christian 1 Ed. p. 47. This would have been of great advantage to us and have freed us from the Anathema's of many other Particulars of which we more doubt than of any thing Monsieur de Meaux has expounded of it but this others thought too great a Concession and the Bishop therefore without changing any thing in his Premises was forced to draw a very different Conclusion from them Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification and our Adversaries would be very unreasonable if they should not confess that this Doctrine suffices to teach Christians that they ought to refer all the Glory of their Salvation to God through Jesus Christ X. In the Article of Satisfaction Monsieur de Meaux speaking of the Temporal and Eternal Punishment of Sin and how the one may be retain'd when the other is forgiven had this Paragraph in the first Edition since struck out The Church has always acknowledged these two different manners of applying the Remission of Sins which we have proposed because she faw that in the Scriptures besides the first Pardon and which ought to be the only if Men were not ungrateful and which is pronounced in the terms of a pure Remission there is another Absolution and another Grace that is proposed in form of a Judgment where the Church ought not only to loose and remit but also to bind and retain 1 Edit p. 54 55. The Censure pass'd upon this were enough to make one suspect that either Monsieur de Meaux or his Correctors were sensible upon further Consideration that they could not so easily find out these two forms so distinguish'd in holy Scripture or prove that the Church had always acknowledged them and therefore judged it safer not to undertake it XI In the Article of Confirmation speaking of the Imposition of Hands Monsieur de Meaux insinuated in his first Exposition that it had always been accompanied with the use of Chrism ever since the Apostles Thus says he all Christian Churches have religiously retained this Practice accompanying it the Imposition of Hands with holy Chrism 1 Ed. p. 65. This was too clearly false to be suffer'd to pass and therefore it is now more loose so as to admit of an Equivocation and yet seem to say still the same thing Thus all Christian Churches since the Apostles times have religiously retained it making use also of holy Chrism XII In the Article of the Sacrifice of the Mass Monsieur de Meaux having expounded it according to our Principles in his first Edition concluded with us too So that it the Mass may says he be very reasonably called a Sacrifice 1 Ed. p. 115. But since the Correction the Conclusion is much strengthned tho the Premises remain the same So that there is nothing wanting to it to make it a true Sacrifice XIII As to the point of the Pope's Authority the first Exposition ran much higher than it seems the Spirit of the Gallicane Church could bear So that our Profession of Faith obliges us as to this point to believe the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and to render a true Obedience to the Pope the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ 1 Ed. p. 166. It is now more loose and in general thus We acknowledg a Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for that cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful 5 Ed. p. 210. But it may be what was struck out of the Exposition to please the Correctors Monsieur de Meaux recompensed in his Letter to satisfy his Holiness XIV In the Conclusion Monsieur de Meaux telling us that none of those Articles he had expounded according to our own Principles destroyed the Foundation of our Salvation added in his first Exposition what that Foundation was viz. The Adoration of one only God Father Son and Holy Ghost and the Trust in one only Saviour 1 Ed. p. 160. It is hard to say why this was not let pass for we are unwilling to believe that the Church of Rome has any other Foundation for Salvation than this But it may be to have put down this as the Foundation of Salvation would have been too plainly to shew that then we certainly have this and that without mixture of any thing destructive thereunto XV. Monsieur de Meaux go's on in a very candid manner since struck out In effect says he in all these Explications which contain the very bottom of our Belief there is not any one word repugnant to these two Principles either directly or by Consequence So that
the sight of God because that it is God who by Charity works in us only we think it withal such as is too weak to obtain for us the pardon of our Sins which Monsieur de Meaux seems content to confess with us We willingly acknowledg that our Righteousness is not perfect in this Life Whilst we are in the Body the Flesh will lust against the Spirit and in many things we shall offend all The Life of a Christian is a continued state of Repentance and he must be too much opiniated of himself that refuses to conclude with St. Augustine That our Righteousness in this Life consisteth rather in the Remission of our Sins than in the Perfection of our Vertue In a word the sum of our Difference as to this Point seems to be this Our Church by Justification understands only the Remission of our Sins We distinguish it from Sanctification which consists in the production of the Habit of Righteousness in us We believe our Sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us And for the rest we say that this Remission of Sins is given only to those that repent that is in whom the holy Spirit produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and Holiness of Life The Church of Rome comprehends under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the production of that inherent Righteousness which we call Sanctification They suppose with us that our Sins are forgiven only by the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ But then as they make that inward Righteousness a part of Justification too so by consequence they say our Justification it self is wrought also by our own good Works It appears by this that were these things clearly stated and distinguish'd the one from the other the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very great And that we might safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be but well and rightly explained tho in some things he has expressed himself after a manner unusual among us and which we suppose not so entirely conformable to the Expressions of holy Scripture The sum of all is this Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this Call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commands for the time to come and if we persevere in this Covenant crowns us finally with Eternal Life And all this he is pleased to do not for any thing which we have or can perform but only through the Merits and Satisfaction of his Son by Faith applied to us This is the Foundation wherein Monsieur de Meaux seems content to agree with us We go on to see how the following Doctrine will stand upon this Foundation ARTIC VI. Of Merits FOR what concerns the Merits of Good Works we are content to accept of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition That eternal life ought to be proposed to Man as the Grace of God mercifully bestow'd upon us through Jesus-Christ and as a recompence that is faithfully rento their good Works and to the merits of them by vertue of Gods Promise The word Merit we acknowledge to have been very antient in the Church and tho to prevent those mistakes which many in these latter ages have made an occasion of that expression we think it safer to discourse more reservedly of the Merit and press more strongly the Necessity of good Works Yet if it be understood so as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it That all our Merit derives its force only from the Merits of Jesus Christ who works in us both to will and to do and when we have done renders by the same Merits our good Works acceptable to God and available to our Eternal Life we shall not be difficult to allow of it If this be All the Church of Rome ascribes to Good works that our Justification proceeds absolutely from God's Bounty and Mercy and but accidentally only in as much as God has tied himself by his Word and Promise to reward them from our own Performances We need no long exhortations to receive a Doctrine which we have always defended against such of the Church of Rome as have opposed it and are not yet that we know of censured for their so doing That which we reject is That we do as truly and properly merit Rewards when we do well as we do merit Punishment when we do ill so says the Jesuit Maldonate EZek. 18.20 That our Good Works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of God's Covenant and Acceptation De Justif l. 5. c. 17. Vasquez in D. Th. 1 2 ae q. 114. d. 214. c. 5. but also by reason of the Work it self so says Cardinal Bellarmine All which Vasquez sums up in the three following Conclusions 1. That the Good Works of just Persons are of themselves without any Covenant or Acceptation worthy of the reward of Eternal Life and have an equal value of Condignity to the obtaining of Eternal Glory 16. c. 7. 2. That there comes no accession of Dignity to the Works of just Persons by the Merits or Person of Christ which the same would not otherwise have if they had been done by the same Grace bestowed freely by God alone without Christ 3. 16. c. 8. That God's Promise is indeed annex'd to the Works of just Men but yet belongs no way to the Merit of them but cometh rather to the Works themselves which are already not only worthy but meritorious also From all which he draws this remarkable Corallary Disp 222. c. 3. n. 30 31. Seeing the Works of just Men do merit Eternal Life as an Equal Recompence and Reward there is no need that any other condign Merit such as that of Christ should interpose to the end that Eternal Life might be rendred to them Wherefore we never pray to God that by the Merits of Christ the Reward of Eternal Life may be given to our worthy and meritorious Works but that Christ's Grace may be given to us whereby we may be enabled worthily to merit this Reward This is that Doctrine of good Works which we most justly do detest And if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be so directly opposite to it as Monsieur de Meaux professes we are a little surprised that no Index Expurgatorius no authentick Censure has ever taken notice of so dangerous a Prevarication But contrary-wise these are the great Authors of their Party approved embraced and almost adored by the Greatest and most Learned of that Communion These
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
not only a scandal but a horrour for their Religion Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to say that this is the Chiefest and most important of all our controvesies and wherein we are at the farthest distance from one another And would to God they had only offended us by these Errours and had not exposed our common Name to the reproach of the very Heathen who have been confirmed by them in their Idolatry and thought it more rational to adore a Stock or a Stone than with the Christians to Worship this moment what they Eat the very next But Monsieur de Meaux thinks we have no reason to appear so obstinate against them who declare our selves so favourably towards the Lutherans who yet are involved in the same Error T is true we believe the Lutherans mistaken in their Literal interpretation of this Holy Sacrament But we are perswaded they are infinitely less so and less dangerously than the Papists They confess that there is no change made in the Substance of the Sacred Elements They believe that the Bread and Wine continue in their proper Natures and that Christs Body is present only when he is received They adore not the Holy Eucharist They found no Propitiatory Sacrifices upon it They say no Masses for the sins and satisfactions for the wants and necessities of the Dead and the Living They deny not the Cup to the People their Errour in one word whatsoever it be is only a matter of simple belief has no ill consequences attending it nor do they damn us for not receiving it Let the Church of Rome do all this Let them raze their Anathema's out of their Councils and banish their Masses and Adorations out of their Churches Let them no longer scandalize us with any unwarrantable practices nor desire to enslave our Consciences by submitting them to their own inventions and though we shall still think Transubstantiation to be the greater Error yet will we receive them with the same charity we do the Lutherans We will pray to God to give them a better understanding but will not drive them from our Communion for matters of simple belief and which are only to themselves tho' they be wrong But till then in vain do's Monsieur de Meaux exhort us to consider the ways of providence to bring us to a Union which God knows we could be glad to have on any terms but the loss of truth In the mean time if the Church of Rome in good earnest thinks that as we tolerate the foundation of all these Errours the Corporeal presence in the Lutherans so we ought to bear the consequences of it in them Let them at least do what the Lutherans have done let them embrace our Communion let them leave off to persecute us where they have power and damn us where they have not let them receive us as Brethren not Lord it over us as our Masters This will make us hope that they are sincere when they conjure us to be at peace with them and they may justly then accuse us of partiality if we continue to repute them as Enemies when they will be thus content to love and receive and deal with us as friends ARTICLE XXIII Of Communicating only under one kind THis is the last of those consequences that give us a just detestation for that great Errour of the Corporeal presence on which they are founded It is so plainly contrary to the express command of our Blessed Saviour that we are perswaded it has pleased God to suffer them to fall into it on purpose to correct that vanity whereby they have so proudly aspired to an Opinion of Infallibility That whilst they Lord it over mens Consciences and will not so much as give them leave to ask them a Reason of what they do they might here at last be surprised in an Error which the most vulgar Eye is able to discern The Church of England conformably to all Antiquity declares See our 30th Article That the Cup ought not to be deny'd to the Lay-people forasmuch as both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike For indeed Did not he who said of the Bread Take Eat this is my Body say also of the Wine with the same expressness Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins Did not he who commanded them Do this in Remembrance of Me for the Bread even according to their own Construction Take and Consecrate and give to Others as I have done to you command them for the Cup in like manner Do this i. e. consecrate and give it to Others as I have done to you in remembrance of Me We confess That the Grace of God is not tied to the outward signs Yet we think withal that without taking the outward and visible signs we can have no pretence to the inward and spiritual Grace of that holy Sacrament which deriving all its Effect from our Saviour's Promise we can have no security that it shall have any good one to them who do not receive it according to his Institution Had Christ esteemed it sufficient for us to receive the Blood in the body we suppose he would not have consecrated the Cup afterwards But if it was our Saviour's pleasure that to commemorate the more lively his Passion we should take his Blood as it was spilt for our Redemption separate from his Body we think it an unwarrantable presumption for us to make our selves wiser than God and say that it is sufficient to participate of Both in One. Monsieur de Meaux has received so full an Answer upon this point from the Reply made to his Treatise written purposely on this Subject that he will have no cause to complain of us for not repeating here what has been so fully and so successfully handled there Only as to that Negligence of these latter Ages which he is pleased to alledge as the reason of this change We must needs say that God be thanked we cannot observe any such Negligence of this holy Communion in our Churches where yet this holy Sacrament is administred to as large Congregations and with as great frequency as any where among Them Both our Priests and the People give and receive it with that Care and Reverence that we find as little grounds for any such pretence as there is reason in it were it never so true to justifie so great and unwarrantable a Change PART III. OF THE CHURCH ARTICLE XXIV Of the Word Written and Unwritten OUR Blessed Saviour having founded his Church upon the Word which He preached we confess that the unwritten Word as to that Gospel which he preached was the first Rule of Christians But God Almighty foreseeing how liable such a Rule must have been to infinite Inconveniencies thought fit to have that Word which was first spoken by Mouth afterwards