is wont to call Sacramental It is by virtue of these words alone that the consecration is made one would think that the others signifie nothing or that they be nothing in comparison of the former whereas if we rightly take the thing according to the end which it is plain our Lord proposed to himself in this Institution these first words are onely the introduction the vehicle or the foundation of all that follows as in arguing the first propositions are onely a leading unto the conclusion and are far less considerable than the conclusion it self The true essence the force virtue of the Sacrament is without doubt in the sense of these other terms 1 Cor. 11. Luk 22.19 which is broken for you do this and do it in remembrance of me and to shew forth my death until I come which is the sense in which St. Paul explicates these latter words of our Saviours for Jesus Christ gives his body 1 Coâ— 11. onely as it was broken for us and his bloud as poured out for our sins This is properly the Mystery of our salvation the expiation of our sins the accomplishment of the Law These are the words properly which make the true likeness betwixt the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Cross betwixt the Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament We ought to take them altogether to form a true Idea of this Mystery and it may be truly said that it is onely for not taking them altogether that the Church of Rome is fallen into all these errours which make us separate from her If instead of insisting so much as she doth upon these first words this is my body she had weighed a little more the following words which is broken for you she would doubtless have acknowledged that Jesus Christ having not yet suffered death when he spake them and nevertheless giving his body as broken and in a state of death his intention could not be that his proper body was really in the Sacrament and less yet that it was there in a state of life such as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome doth suppose it If instead of insisting so much as she doth upon the first words she had also weighed a little more those other do this in remembrance of me she would have also understood thereby that the sense of these words imports that Jesus Christ kept aloof from and did not at all put himself in the place of the bread and to conclude if she had a little better weighed these last words drink ye all of this instead of insisting onely upon the former she had never proceeded so far as to take away the cup in the Sacrament But to return to the point on which we are here principally concerned what hath been now said doth not onely shew the relation there is betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ but doth wholly overthrow the consequence of the Bishop of Condom's Argument to wit that Jesus Christ did not on this say any thing to explain himself as he was careful to doe in the other figures or in other parables For in the first place we know that Jesus Christ did not explain generally all the Figures he used whether it were that he would leave some exercise for our Faith and meditation or that he thought them sufficiently intelligible of themselves as we do pretend that this very passage is 2. If this Figure had not been so plainly intelligible of it self it hath been already shewed that Jesus Christ had prepared the Apostles to understand it having told them that these sorts of expressions were to be understood spiritually And to conclude John 6 63. how can it be said that Jesus Christ said nothing to explain himself If our Lord had said no more but these words this is my body as the Bishop of Condom onely frames his Argument upon these words it might seem somewhat less strange that they should dare to speak thus to us but Jesus Christ said all in the same breath this is my body which was broken for you doe this in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.24 Mat. 26.29 This is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for many I will not any more drink of this fruit of the vine c. And the Apostle St. Paul who very well understood the words of our Lord doth add 1 Cor. 11.26 that as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come What greater explication or rather what greater clearness can be desired in a Mystery to give to understand that Jesus Christ leaving his Apostles and speaking to them as it were his last Farewel left them this Sacrament as an earnest a memorial and a seal of the death which he suffered for them and for us XI The explication of those words Do this in remembrance of me The Bishop of Condom passing over the first words of the Institution This is my body to those which immediately follow Doe this in remembrance of me is no longer the Traveller that those follows the great High way I mean words he no longer understands the words of our Lord according to the letter The literal and natural sense of these last words altogether Do this in remembrance of me is this that we should do what Jesus Christ ordained to put us in remembrance of him for it is Jesus Christ that saith in remembrance of me But the Bishop of Condom somewhat detorts this sense and would have it that the intention of our Lord should be only to oblige us to remember his death under pretence that the Apostle concludes with these words that we shew forth the death of our Lord. It is not difficult to comprehend what this the Bishop of Condom's little detortion tends to namely that if this be the sense of those words Do this in remembrance of me we ought to call to remembrance the very person of Jesus Christ This sense leads us naturally to believe that the divine person that we ought to call to remembrance is not really present For according to the manner of usual conceiving and speaking amongst men to call to remembrance is properly of persons absent Otherwise supposing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as the Church of Rome supposeth the sense and the Idea which these words carry Do this in remembrance of me is this Eat my proper body to call your selves to remembrance of me in my presence or as if I were present which makes but an odd and inconsistent sense In the mean time neither the nature of the thing that is to say Jesus Christ who was now about to leave the Apostles nor his expressions at all suffer us to doubt but that he requires precisely these two things to wit to call our selves to remembrance of him by an act of love and acknowledgment and that we meditate also on his death as an effect
means of Salvation or a sign and sacred Ceremony as the Bishop of Condom terms it but a true Sacrament properly so called as are Baptism and the Eucharist though it is plain that there is nothing properly here whereby the blessing of the Word might be joyned unto some visible sign which serves as matter according to the Doctrine of St. Austin 2. Is it not also an odd thing that the Council doth make articles of Faith of all these distinctions of Attrition Contrition and several others which at least ought to be left to the Schools and that because a certain Father speaking of Repentance after sin * St. Jerom compares it unto a Plank by which a man saves himself when the Vessel is cast away Sess 14. de Sacram Paenit Can. 2. the Council applying this comparison unto the Sacrament of Pennance and of Confession which nevertheless is quite another thing as hath been shewed thunders out an Anathema against all such who do not agree that Pennance is rightly called a second Plank after Shipwrack as it were canonising a Figure of Rhetorick Perhaps it may be said that the Council intended onely to define the thing it self but let them say herein what they will it doth not at all suit with the simplicity and gravity of the Subject nor with the honour and gravity of the Council it self and it cannot be but that this easiness in making articles of Faith of all things throwing out Anathema's on all hands must create offence in some and contempt in others To conclude if it be true as the Council it self hath once defined it touching all the Sacraments in general and here in particular touching this of Pennance that when the Priest hath no real intention to absolve the sinner or when he doth not make use of this Form of Absolution Ego te absolvo c. I absolve thee c which is the essential and necessary Form of this Sacrament in which principally consists all its virtue according to the same Council or where the Priest hath not power to absolve as in cases reserved unto the Bishop or unto the Pope himself in all these cases Confession is without any effect and the sinner without pardon of what nature then is this Doctrine or Religion which runs all along upon so uncertain principles which makes the grace of God and the salvation of men to depend still upon the villany giddiness errour or want of power of one man The Bishop of Condom hath almost throughout used an easie expedient to disentangle himself for either he saith nothing of all these Doctrines of the Council or he doth not engage himself to prove any thing of what he himself speaks to them if it be not sometimes when he thinks that the matter is favourable for him or that he may inlarge himself without the least danger Here he wraps himself up in two opinions which are little to the purpose keeping a profound silence upon all the rest The First is that the terms of the Commission which is given to the Ministers of the Church to remit sins are so general that they cannot without temerity be restrained unto publick sins c. This is a little obscure the Bishop of Condom seems to intimate that amongst us we do believe that the Ministers of the Church cannot give absolution but onely of publick sins because that amongst us there is none but sinners who have committed notorious sins that make a publick acknowledgment in the presence of the Assembly unto whom in this case the Ministers announce the pardon of their sins with the circumstances and coâ—tidions which according to custome relate thereto But yet for all that it is not true that we limit the power of announcing pardon of sins unto publick sins and because we have no better mean whether it be to refute the Doctrines of those of the Roman Church or to make them in love with our Doctrine than to make them rightly understand it it shall be explained here in a few words what is the practice of our Churches touching confession and remission of sins There are several occasions upon which we do confess our sins whether it be in publick or private and wherein our Pastours doe announce unto us forgiveness First in the publick Assemblies in our entrance upon our ordinary exercises we make unto God a general confession of our sins Every one makes a particular reflexion upon his own sins and upon them whereunto he finds himself most subject 2. In the Sermon we are again exhorted to confess our sins heartily to repent of them to be a better people on which condition God pardons us it is the main subject and perpetual conclusion of all our Sermons 3. In our Houses in our Closets we do again more particularly confess our sins in the presence of God and both on the one and the other of these occasions we believe that if we are truly penitent with a true and lively confidence in the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ and a stedfast resolution to live better for the time to come God vouchsafes us the grace of pardon and regeneration 4. Upon the particular occasions of communion in the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist in afflictions and upon the solemn occasions of Fasting we do make a more express and as we may so speak aggravated confession of our sins whether it be in publick prayers or in our own private reflexions and on these occasions again the Ministers in the name and in the authority of Jesus Christ in the very Quality of Ministers declare on the one hand the Judgments of God upon the impenitent and on the other supposing the Faith and repentance of the Sinners they announce unto us the remission of our sins 5. In our sicknesses and especially in those that are most dangerous we likewise more particularly confess our sins whether it be before our Pastours and Guides or before our Friends making also acknowledgment sometimes more particularly and freely of the infirmities and sins whereunto we are most subject Our Friends and our Pastours exhort us unto a lively sorrow for our faults and unto an intire trust in our Saviour and our Pastours in particular do exhort and comfort us If they see us in too great security or too little touched with the sense of our sins they declare unto us the severity of Gods Judgments against impenitent Sinners as on the contrary if they behold in us true motions of sorrow and repentance and a lively hope in the death of our Saviour they assure us that God will shew grace and mercy to us If we have any quarrel or animosities whether it be in sickness or health they say to us as St. James Confess your faults one to another for this is the true meaning of that passage and not the Sacramental confession as the sincere * Cardinal Aureolus in Compen elucid 5. upon this passage of Saint James
of his love and the price of our Redemption The Bishop of Condom very far from acknowledging that to call to remembrance as our Lord requires supposes his absence turns the thing to the clear contrary so as to infer that this very remembrance should be grounded upon the real presence To this purpose he here brings in again the comparison of the sacrifices As saith he the Jewes in eating the Peace-offerings did call to remembrance that they were offered for them so in eating the flesh of Jesus Christ our sacrifice we ought to call to remembrance that he dyed for us and from thence he passeth unto a kind of Rhetorical rapture upon the tender remembrance which the Tombs of the Fathers excite in the childrens hearts First as to what concerns the comparison we have already said that it is not a proof and that upon the whole case the relation there is of the Law to the Gospel is no reason that we should take all according to the letter in the Gospel as we do for the most part matters in the Law that on the contrary it is sufficient that our spiritual eating of the body of Jesus Christ answers unto the Oral eating of the sacrifices which were the Figure of his sacrifice But there is yet more in it the Bishop of Condom onely speaks of Peace-offerings and remembers not himself of what he himself had said of the sacrifice offered for sins which is the true Figure of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross May not his argument be returned back against himself that as the Jewes did not eat of this expiatory sacrifice and yet for all that failed not to remember that it was offered for their sins in like manner it is not necessary that we should eat the proper flesh of Jesus Christ our sacrifice to put us in remembrance of his death We have this advantage of the Jewes that they ate nothing instead of this sacrifice whereas we eat the holy Symbols which livelily represent unto us the body and bloud of Jesus Christ his body broken for us and his bloud poured out for the expiation of our sins Further what are our manners and our education that to put us in a tender remembrance of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ we must needs eat his proper flesh with our bodily mouth Or rather if it be true that the remembrance which is the thing in question be nothing else but an apprehension excited by the objects which affect the sense has the manner in which it is believed they eat this flesh in the Church of Rome any thing which doth more affect the senses than ours seeing that we eat it both one and the other under the same kindes or forms of bread and wine We will not here enquire whether it excite a real tenderness to conceive that we effectively eat the flesh which we love and adore or if on the contrary it be not by degrees that the Church of Rome it self is become accustomed unto this conceipt which of it self doth stir up contrary affections It will be onely needful to compare the manner how they administer the Sacraments in the Church of Rome with that wherein they administer them in our Churches to judge which of the two is most capable to entertain a true remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ The Church of Rome believes she holds the proper flesh of Jesus Christ under the sacred coverts of bread and wine as it were under a mystical Tomb or under dead signs but a living and vivifying flesh c. These be the terms of the Bishop of Condom which form a notion or Idea very perplext and contradictory as if we should say a dead body full of life and the fountain of life under the coverts of death Which is the very cause that this Idea being so confused is not without much difficulty received into the mind and that it there makes the less impression or at least doth not make so lively an impression onely of the death of Jesus Christ of which the main question here is whereas amongst us where we onely regard the bread broken and the wine poured out but as an image and representation of the body of Jesus Christ broken for us and his bloud shed for us This image doth give unto us a clear and distinct Idea of the death which Jesus Christ hath suffered for us which is properly the effect which our Lord would produce in the Sacrament In the Church of Rome the Priest that saith Mass or that consecrates often saith it alone most commonly very low and alwayes in Latine which is not at all the Language of the people The Consecration being done if he gives the Host for every one knows that there are infinite Masses without communicants he saith not unto them who do receive it that the body of Jesus Christ was broken for them which is properly what he ought to say unto them according to the words of our Saviour to imprint well in their minds the Idea of his death and to excite in their hearts a pure sense and such which becomes hearts engaged in love and acknowledgment of this Divine Saviour but it is onely said unto them by form of a Petition which is made for them the body of Jesus Christ keep or preserve their souls unto eternal life and though we do not here repeat this form of Petition to condemn it because it is good and of ancient use yet it may be said that it is a more self-interessed consideration which makes them not to reflect but onely upon their own profit and advantage and which is more the Priest sayes this it self in the same Latine Tongue which the greatest part doe not understand In very truth what sound remembrance or what true sense of love and thankfulness can this kind of setting forth the death of the Lord all in a low mumbling tone in general terms in a Language ill understood excite We speak of a sound remembrance of a love with understanding for as for an outward devotion or confused resentments of Holiness it is not denied but that the way of the Roman Church being full of pomp may excite as much as or more than ours which is more simple Amongst us to the end there may be no mistake in this matter behold in a few words what is our practice In the first place some dayes before the time appointed for administring the Sacrament there is an exhortation made to us to prepare our selves by acts of Repentance of Faith and of charity and by an holy life the day beâ—ing come after the usual exercises of devotion which consist in Prayers singing of Psalms and reading portions of the holy Scriptures most proper unto the subject there is ordinarily a Sermon made to us expresly upon the death of our Lord Jesus Christ or upon the Sacraments themselves The Sermon is followed with an excellent Prayer also upon the same subject
unto whatsoever he shall oppose that is most considerable Our Doctrine is simple as the Bishop of Condom saith that it ought to be incomparably more simple than that of the Church of Rome Here as well as elsewhere we have this advantage that the Church of Rome believes all that we do believe the difference is onely in the things which she adds and which we cannot believe We believe that Jesus Christ having taken our humane nature to suffer the death which we had deserved it was necessary that we should be united unto him as the members are united unto the head to the end that his obedience and his righteousness should be imputed unto us that we might partake of all his merits We say that this union is made on our part by the faith which we have in him that it is God himself who gives us this Faith and that to give it unto us and to confirm it in our hearts he maketh use of two sundry sorts of means the one interiour which is the secret operation of his Holy Spirit without which those others were in vain the others exteriour which are the Word and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper the Word to declare unto us the promises of Salvation Baptism more particularly to shew forth our Entrance into the Church and the washing away of our sins and the Lords Supper to shew forth yet more perfectly the death of Jesus Christ and our communion with him Hitherto we go along with the Gentlemen of the Roman Church They believe as we doe that it is necessary we be spiritually united unto Jesus Christ that this Union is made by Faith that it is the Holy Spirit which produces this Faith in our hearts and that the Word Baptism and the Eucharist are the outward means which the Holy Spirit makes use of whether to produce or to increase and strengthen Faith in our hearts If there be any difference about this betwixt the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and us it is not about what we have now said but upon those several other Doctrines which she hath added As to the Eucharist in particular whereof here the Question is betwixt them and us we also say very plainly that the Bread and Wine are outward signs which Jesus Christ hath added unto the Word to set forth his death before our eyes more livelily more sensibly than by Baptism or by the Gospel and that when we receive these signs by Faith Jesus Christ gives himself unto us or that he confirmes the gift which he hath already made unto us of himself in Baptism or in the preaching of the Gospel for the communicating to us all his benefits Not that his body is in the bread and his blood in the Wine or under the forms of bread and wine but by lifting our hearts up unto heaven where he is and uniting us unto himselfe by his holy spirit This is truly the abridgment of our Doctrin drawne from our confession of Faith and our catechisme conformable unto what the scriptures teach us throughout of the spirituall union of the faithful with our Lord Jesus Christ There is nothing in all this which is not plain and easie to be conceived excepting onely the ineffable incomprehensible manner in which this holy Spirit worketh in us and whereby he effects this union of the faithful with Jesus Christ our Divine Head Yet we have some resemblances though very imperfect Eph. 5.30 31 32. 1 Cor. 6.16 17. as well of this operation of the holy Spirit in our hearts as of the union of the faithful with Jesus Christ in the conjugal love which unites husband and wife and which is the reason that the Scripture saith that they are but one body and one soul However the matter stands it is very observable in this case that this difficulty such as it is is common with us and them of the Church of Rome and that it proceeds not more or less from hence that our Doctrine is different from theirs They believe the same as we do the spiritual union of the Faithful with Jesus Christ by the operation of the holy Spirit as we have just now said as well in the preaching of the Gospel as in Baptism and the Eucharist They conceive not at all this spiritual union any better than we nor explain themselves otherwise therein than we do and what they believe more than we in the Sacrament to wit that they receive the proper body of Jesus Christ by the mouth of the body into their stomach doth not add any thing at all according to their own principles either to effect or make understood this spiritual union which we have with Jesus Christ which is the onely and true cause of our Salvation For they do not deny that those who receive Baptism without the Word and without the Eucharist or Baptism and the Word without the same Eucharist may be saved and united perpetually unto Jesus Christ as well as they who receive also the Eucharist Neither do they say that the body of Jesus Christ which they do believe they receive into their stomach is united unto their soul or unto their body by his presence nor even that the substance of their body or of their soul doth touch the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ They say onely that their substance doth touch the sensible Forms of Bread and Wine and that the real presence of the body of Jesus Christ under these Formes is an earnest unto them of their spiritual union with Jesus Christ Some also add that it is unto them a blossoming of life and immortality by its virtue without pretending for all that that the substance of their soul or body doth join or unite it self unto the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ Let us now see wherein the Bishop of Condom doth pretend that we use Equivocations or that we come near unto the Church of Rome To render his accusation the more plausible he begins with the reason which he pretends hath as it were forced us to come nearer unto the Church of Rome in the point of the reality and afterwards he passeth unto the objections which he makes to prove that in effect we are come nearer unto them It is sufficient saith he to have learned by the Scriptures that the Son of God would testifie his love unto us by incomprehensible effects This love saith he was the cause of this so real union by which he became man this love induced him to offer up for us that his body as really as he had taken it and all these designs are followed and this love is maintained throughout by the same fervour So whensoever it shall please him to make any of his children sensible of the goodness which he hath expressed unto all in general by giving himself to them in particular he will find a means to satisfie himself by things that are as effectual as
those which he hath already accomplished for our Salvation Wherefore it is not to be wondred at if he gives unto every one of us the proper substance of his Flesh and of his Bloud he doth it to imprint in our hearts that it is for us that he took them and that it is for us that he offered them as a sacrifice And a little afterwards he adds Our adversaries have very well seen that simple figures and simple signs of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ would not satisfie Christistians accustomed to the bounty of a God which gives himself so really unto us therefore it is that they would not be accused to deny this real participation of Jesus Christ in their Sacrament Behold here the reason that he saith hath forced us to approach unto the Church of Rome but Christians are then either very ingrateful or very difficult to be contented if they are not satisfied that Jesus Christ died for them that these sacred signs assure them of it and that they serve them as an effectual and saving means to raise their hearts and their Faith unto Jesus Christ They have then the ears of their understanding close stopped if it be true that these sacred signes joyned unto the Word do not yet tell them plainly and loud enough that Jesus Christ became man for them that his body was broken for them and that lastly his bloud was poured out for the remission of their sins The Opinion which the Church of Rome adds that Jesus Christ is present being very far from better setting forth his death incumbers as I may so say the conception of it as hath been shewed before because it represents the body of Jesus Christ in a living state under dead signs and moreover the way of giving these signes in a language not understood or ill understood makes much less impression in the hearts than the way wherein it hath been shewed they are given amongst us But in fine where is the reason of this consequence The Love which Jesus Christ hath for us induced him to dye really for us therefore it is the part of this Love to give really unto us the proper substance of his flesh and of his bloud What bond or what necessary consequence is there of one and the other of these things From what time and in what place hath it been known or usual that it is a sign of love in any to give his proper flesh to eat to them whom he loves I do not say onely by morsels as some possibly may say the Capernaites understood the words of our Saviour but in any manner or under any coverts under which it may be put For although God doth testifie his Love unto us by incomprehensible effects though his ways are not our ways grace doth not for all that destroy nature his ways are above our ways and even contrary to what ours have of evil and irregularity but not at all to what they have that is good and right which proceeds from God himself What there is incomprehensible in the effects of his Love is nothing as to the manner as we may say but to the degree or rather the infinity of this Love it self For as to the other point we in some sort conceive all that this infinite Love makes him do for us by a comparison though very imperfect of what an intire Love doth make us doe one for another To pay for another is the true office of a Friend and to dye for another hath always passed for a true test of Love Joh. 15.13 Greater Love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his Friends To dye for an Enemy is a generosity that hath had no example amongst men before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Christ dyed for us who were originally his creatures but were become his enemies This is that which this Love hath in it incomprehensible and nevertheless this Love which was foretold by the prophets was accomplished in the time that was foretold But neither prophesie nor reason nor humane manners ever yet taught us that Jesus Christ should give us his real flesh to eat with the mouth of our body as a token of the Love that he hath for us and when Jesus Christ said unto his Disciples John 6. That he would give his flesh for the life of the world and that whosoever did not eat his flesh had no life in him seeing that this word offended many it doth not appear unto us that our Saviour condemned their surprise but onely that he presently explained this speech unto them and that he made them understand that they should receive it spiritually The Gentlemen of the Roman Church do always fall into this error that although they do not directly deny that the communion which we have with Jesus Christ by Faith is very real of its self sufficing to salvation as they do confess in particular of the communion which we have with him either by the Word or by Baptism nevertheless always when there is any mention of the Mystery of the Eucharist they have this impression reigning in their minds which overbears all others that Jesus Christ cannot give himself really unto them but when they believe that he gives his proper flesh to be eaten with the mouth of their body It is from this apprehension that the Bishop of Condom faith here again that Jesus Christ makes as tast his bounty by things as effectual as those which he accomplished for our salvation as if the Faith which he gives as and the communion which we have with him by his Spirit even out of the Eucharist were not all of these effectual things and as effectual as it is true that he dyed for us Let us now come unto the Objections which the Bishop of Condom makes against some of our expressions to prove that we are approached nearer unto the Church of Rome pa. 146. In the first place he seems to contradict himself for he says afterwards that the more we explain our selves the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we upon this Article the more contrary we find our selves one to another he gives also the reason for it which is that the more we consider the consequences of Transubstantiation the more we are discouraged with the difficulties which sense and reason discover in it This doth not import that we are approached nearer Besides there are very few persons who should hear him say that we are approached unto the Church of Rome but would believe that the reason is because some of our late Synods or some of our more famous modern Doctours had relaxed somewhat of our Doctrine either in the sense or in the expressions In the mean while there is nothing less than this All this accusation bears onely upon three diverse Expressions drawn from our Catechism which is as it is known the ancient explanation of our Doctrine The Bishop of Condom
face of God The Bishop of Condom thinks to take away the opposition in supposing that Jesus Christ is present in Heaven such as he was seen to ascend vested in his ordinary qualities and that he is upon the altars in another state which they call Sacramâ—ntal or â—n the manner of a spirit whereas St. Paul speaks oneâ—y of this first manner of presence in Heaven and that excludes this other sort of presence upon Earth But in the first place this is to answer by the thing it self which is in question To be able to speak thus it were necessary to shew us clearly that the Apostle knew and believed this last sort of presence of Jesus Christ upon Earth and in the second place if the Apostle had believed that Jesus Christ had been present in the Sacrament at all times when his Supper was celebrated presenting himself for us before the face of God how could the Apostle have said so absolutely as he doth that Jesus Christ enters not into holy places made with hands but that he is in Heaven where he appears for us without saying at least somthing that might have distinguished the two different manners of appearing at the same time in Heaven and upon the altars and that the one doth not at all exclude the other This cannot be conceived The other proposition of the Apostles is Heb. 9.25 that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often for then must he often have suffered The Bishop of Condom on the contrary saith that Jesus Christ offers himself every day because that to offer himself there is no need that he should dye any more There is nothing more opposite than these two propositions and the reasons upon which they are grounded both one and the other not to offer himself often because it would be necessary he should dye to offer himself every day because it is not necessary he dye It is in vain for the Bishop of Condom here again to hope to remove this contrariety by asserting two manners of offering himself unto God the one in suffering death and the other in putting himself onely under the signs of death and supposing that the Apostle onely speaks of the former and that he means Jesus Christ doth not offer himself to dye often For in the first place this is again to answer the very thing that is in question It were necessary I say to have shewn that the Apostle had acknowledged these two different wayes of offering himself the one in suffering death and the other without dying but on the contrary the Apostle speaks absolutely and without restriction that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often And what he adds that otherwise it had been necessary that Jesus Christ should often have dyed doth not make a part of the Apostles proposition but onely the reason of his proposition otherwise the Apostles proposition would amount unto this that Jesus Christ doth not dye often because he doth not dye often If the Apostle had believed that Jesus Christ doth yet offer himself every day for us it is evident that he would not have said in such absolute terms that he doth not offer himself often or that he would have said something that would have shewed these two different manners of offering himself the one in dying and the other in putting himself onely under the sign or under the coverts of death as the Bishop of Condom speaks It appears that we must wilfully shut our Eyes to be able not to see that all the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass is directly opposite unto that of St. Paul Nevertheless the weakness or the variety of the mind of man is such that even from this it self the Bishop of Condom takes occasion yet to triumph upon this point desiring us to make serious reflexion upon his Doctrine and upon the order which he saith providence holds in drawing us insensibly nearer unto the Roman Church XVI Reflections of the Bishop of Condom upon the foregoing Doctrine pa. 145 146 c. This reflexion reduceth it self unto this that the Real presence is the foundation of the sacrifice of the Mass of the adoration of the Host and of all the other consequences of this Doctrine that providence hath permitted that the Lutherans have retained the reality and that in the last place the Calvinists have declared that this belief of the Lutherans hath no poyson in it neither doth overthrow the foundations of Faith and that it ought not to break communion betwixt Brethren so that if the Lutherans do reject the sacrifice and the adoration and do not believe Jesus Christ to be present but onely in the very moment that they do receive the Sacrament it is because they do not so throughly consider the consequences of the Reality as the Roman-Catholicks do that our Doctours themselves agree that the Doctrine of the Roman Church is more consequent in this point than that of the Lutherans and that in fine no subtilty of the Ministers can ever perswade people of right judgement that maintaining the Reality which is the most important and the most difficult point we ought not to maintain the rest In the first Edition it was that the Ministers could never perswade that he who should maintain the Reality might not easily digest the rest The Bishop of Condom hath already in the Entrance on his Treatise objected against us what he here again saith of the Lutherans though in another regard we have there also shewn the difference betwixt their Errour and that of the Church of Rome which is in a word that that of the Lutherans is but an errour of belief upon one point and is not followed by any evil practice whereas that of the Roman Church draws after it the Sacrifice of the Mass the adoration of the Host which are worships and practices whereof the consequence hath been already set forth We will onely add in this case that besides that the Bishop of Condom's argument here is not good and that there is on the contrary an equivocation or change of sense upon the word Reality which makes a kind of Sophisme the Reality or the Real presence such as the Church of Rome believes it by a change of the substance of bread into that of the body of Jesus Christ immediately after these words this is my body are pronounced is the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the adoration of the Host This is the sense of the Bishop of Condom's first proposition upon which we have nothing to say God saith he hath permitted that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality This is his second proposition and here the equivocation begins because it is not true that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality such as the Roman Church supposeth it They believe not the presence of the body of Jesus Christ but onely in the use of the Sacrament as the Bishop of Condom
of the Eucharist Jesus Christ did onely speak to his Disciples and that that did not concern the people but they have at last sufficiently seen that it was needful to seek other excuses because that there as well as almost in all other places the Disciples did represent the body of the faithful and that Jesus Christ saying that his bloud was shed for many he intended that all those for whom it was shed should have part in this Sacrament Behold here what the Bishop of Condom puts in the place of it Jesus Christ saith he being really present in the Sacrament the grace and blessing is not tyed unto the sensible forms but unto the proper substance of his flesh which is living and quickning because of the Divinity which is united unto it Therefore it is that all those who believe the Reality ought not to be troubled to communicate under one kind onely because they thereby receive all that is essential to this Sacrament with a fulness so much the more certain in that the separation of the body and bloud not being real as it hath been said there is received intirely and without division him that onely is able to satisfie us We need onely to observe at the first view how these expressions are wrapped up to discern how wide this Doctrine is from the simplicity of the Gospel the Bishop of Condom would say in a word that the body is not without the bloud and that he that believes he receives the body ought to believe that he receives the bloud also under one and the same form by reason of what they call concomitance that is to say that the bloud doth accompany the body But in the first place this is constantly to suppose what is in question to wit that the body of Jesus Christ is really under the form of bread and by consequence the reasons which we have against the Doctrine of the Real presence do directly oppose this particular doctrine of taking away the Cup. 2. Who hath given this right to the Roman Church to seek for reasons to take away so considerable a part of the Institution of our Lord 3. And to conclude what ground hath the Bishop of Condom to conclude as he doth that the separation of the body and bloud is not real for our Lord doth separate them in the Institution he saith of the bread apart that it is his body broken for us and of the wine apart that it is his bloud shed for us and he also commands severally that we eat of the bread and drink of the Cup. The Bishop of Condom saith without any more ado that the separation of the body and bloud is not real and if any would know how he proves it he adds coldly pa. 132. as it was said That is elsewhere upon occasion then also he insinuated by the way that this separation is mystical and figurative without giving the least reason for it any more than he doth here and it is enough according to him to make this separation not to be real that he insinuate it without more ado with an as it hath been said Nevertheless if the bread and wine be really made the body and bloud of our Lord according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome by what reason can one part of the Institution be taken to be real and the other part pretended to be mystical and figurative Or rather if the separation of the body and bloud be onely in the mystery and figure wherefore will they not also grant that the bread and the wine also is but the mystery and the figure of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ for there is no more reason for the one than for the other Our Saviour hath said this is my body which was broken for you if these words this is my body ought to be understood in a proper and real sense there cannot any good reason be given wherefore these other words that follow to wit which is broken for you ought not also be taken in the same sense as those that went before but that the first should be understood in a proper sense and they that follow in a mystical and figurative sense is unreasonable For as our Saviour said that the bread is his body he saith that this body is broken it is the same Lord speaks that is in a word if it must be understood that the bread is really made the body of Jesus Christ it cannot be understood but that it is also made his body really broken I mean his dead body and his body really separated from his bloud So that what way soever we take the Doctrine of the Church of Rome it manifestly contradicts it self for either the bread is not really the body of Jesus Christ or if it be his body it is his body broken and in a state of death which cannot be said without impiety because our Lord is risen from the dead and death hath no more dominion over him And Lastly suppose that his proper body were in the Sacrament in a state of death and separate from his bloud this separation being real it could not be said as saith the Bishop of Condom that the Sacrament is received fully and without division under one kind onely nor by consequence that the Cup ought to be taken away The Bishop of Condom not being able to justifie this retrenchment uses two reasons to endeavour to make it indureable The first is that it is not at all through contempt that the Church reduces the Faithful to one kind onely but on the contrary that it is to hinder the irreverencies that the confusion and negligence of the people had caused in the last Ages reserving unto her self the re-establishment of the Communion under both kinds according as it should be most useful for increasing of peace and unity But is not this in some sort to say that our Saviour did not foresee these Irreverencies when he commanded we should all drink of the Cup or that foreseeing them he was so far from preventing them that he authorised them by this Commandment These Irreverencies were much more to be feared in the Apostles times and in the first Ages of Christianity than in the time when this innovation was made for in the first times the Christians were persecuted they communicated as they could from house to house and communicated at the holding the Feasts which they called Feasts of Charity The Apostle complains of disorders committed in those Feasts saying 1 Cor. 11.20 that was not to eat the Supper of the Lord and yet the Apostle never thought of taking away the Cup because of these Irreverencies They must be very much prejudicate who see not the true reason why neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostle nor the Church during the space of above a thousand years ever thought of taking away the Cup and that yet the Church of Rome at last be thought her self to take it away The