of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of Sins But I say unto you that I drink not henceforth of the Fruit of the Vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of my Father When St. Matthew here tells us that our Lord took Bread and having blessed brake and gave it to his Disciples saying This is my Body and having took the Cup and blessed likewise gave it to them saying This is my Blood Is it not manifest that he says this Bread is my Body Can this demonstrate any thing but what he gave to them broke blest and took in order to it when there is no mark given to know that he intended to speak of somewhat else Nor will it avail to say This does not demonstrate that he took at first because he blessed after he had taken it before he said This is my Body for at least it must be that which he broke after he had given Thanks and that of necessity is the same Bread that he took Again his words This is my Body will never bear such a forced Construction as This Bread is now abolished to make room for my Body for his Affirmative Is does not in the least alter it but requires and supposes the thing true at the time he speaks it This must be This i. e. Bread and Wine which God's Word demonstrateth at the time that it is his Body and Blood But whatever This may demonstrate it will be impossible to prove the Disciples understood it to demonstrate any thing which the Scriptures express not Now when St. Matthew brings in our Lord speaking after the delivery of the Cup that he would not drink any more of the Vine does he not apparently suppose it to be Wine after his delivery of it to his Disciples or at least when he delivered it Nor will it at all advantage them to say that St. Luke makes him speak it before the Consecration or Blessing of the Elements for whether he spoke it before or after or both it is certain that if St. Matthew had understood the Wine to be no more Wine he could not have placed these words of our Lord after the delivery of the Cup. So when St. Paul says 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Does not he say that it is Bread still though it be the Communion of the Body of Christ Nor shall any thing hinder but that the substance of Bread remaining we may spiritually communicate of his Body If our Communion were carnal possibly it might be difficult to understand but that being not proved nor to be proved for the Reasons given from the difference between the New and Old Testament no man can find any difficulty in apprehending it So then M. Condom's great Bluster about our Saviour's explicating usually to his Disciples what he taught in Parables and Figures which is not done here and his Omnipotence to work whatever he said falls to nothing For our Lord's Discourse being easily intelligible according to our Sense of his presenting his Body and Blood under these Elements to be spiritually received but not to be understood so easily in theirs they have the most need to seek for an explication that shall determine them to their Sense especially since it is thus evident that the Apostles understood it to be Bread and Wine as we do so that 't is they have made the forced Construction by denying it Nor can our Lord's Omnipotence take place here till it be proved what he intended to bring to pass thereby Whereas he says The Laws of Discourse that teach us a Sign receives often the Name of the thing represented yet will not allow it in a Sign that has no relation to the thing as in this instance of a morsel of Bread to signifie the Body of man what if we should say the less relation it has to the thing the further it is from being it and the more probable to be only a Sign how would he disprove us by the Laws of Discourse which being used only to express our Conceptions can receive no more bounds than they Yet had he considered but the purpose for which our blessed Saviour gives us his Body to be the Nourishment of our Souls he would not have determined so positively that Bread which is the Food of our Bodies has no analogy with that which is to feed our Souls He might have found Examples even in holy Writ where Christ calls himself a Door the Way and a Vine which things have yet not the least analogy with the Body of a man but yet sufficiently represent the purposes for which he calls himself so and are easily understood without conceiving him to be changed into a Door c. or any of these to be changed into him SECT XI Of the Words Do this in remembrance of Me. NOT having at all insisted on these Words Do this in remembrance of me I am not at all concerned to answer what he says to prove That a Remembrance may be consistent with a real partaking of a thing remembred being sure that let him make the best of it it can never make any thing against me or conclude that we must partake of Christ in any other manner than what I have set sorth But whereas he pretends to take an advantage from an Answer generally used by us That this Remembrance does not exclude all kind of Presence but that which strikes the Senses so as to make this his own for that they though they affirm Jesus Christ to be present yet acknowledg at the same time that he is not present after a sensible manner He must give me leave to say that not determining as yet any thing concerning our Doctrine till after it be explained and considered his Answer is perfectly an Illusion in that though they pretend him not present in a sensible manner i. e. visibly appearing to their Senses yet they own him present in a bodily and carnal manner and to be eaten carnally as if a man should swallow a Pill in a Conserve the Pill is not taken in a sensible manner but yet the very substance of it is taken into the Stomach I shall not therefore demand by that Query which he is pleased to call Equivocal why they think it not enough to say The Son of God is present to us by Faith but by that he confesses to be without equivocation how they come to know by Faith that he is present after a bodily or carnal manner And whether his Real Presence though spiritual known by Faith is not sufficient to work all the necessary Effects in the just man who lives by Faith SECT XII Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Real Presence WHereas M. Condom thinks himself to have gotten
great advantages by his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Calvinists in this point I thought my self unconcerned with his Objections the Church of England not having tyed her Faith to Calvin or any other but grounded it on the Scriptures Only that no man may suspect them to be of any force against the Doctrine held by the Church of England I saw it necessary to set down and explain her Doctrine and see whether any thing here urged can conclude it to be in the least absurd or inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures or with itself The Church of England then teaches 1 Catech. That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Prayer 2 Exhortation at the Communion That we therein spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and he with us 3 Art 28. The Bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ 4 Homily of the Sacrament That we must be sure to hold that there is no vain Ceremony no bare sign no untrue figure of a thing absent But as the Scripture saith the table of the Lord the bread and cup of the Lord the memory of Christ the annunciation of his death yea the Communion of the body and blood of the Lord in a marvellous Incorporation which by the operation of the Holy Ghost the very bond of our conjunction with Christ is through Faith wrought in the souls of the faithful whereby not only their souls live to eternal life but they trust also to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality Therefore 5 Prayer of Consecration she prays that in partaking of these his Creatures of bread and wine we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood 6 Catech. That the benefits that we receive by thus partaking of the body and blood of Christ are the strengthning and refreshing of our souls by these as our bodies are by the bread and wine 7 Homily of the Sacrament Ibid. That thus much the faithful see hear and know herein the favourable mercies of God sealed the satisfaction of Christ confirmed and the remission of sins established 8 Art 28. That nevertheless there is no Transubstantiation or Change of the substance of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper 9 Hom. Ib. Wherefore we are not to regard specially the earthly Creatures which remain but always to hold fast and cleave by Faith to Christ the Rock 10 Art 28. Whose body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner 11 Hom. Ib. Wherefore it is well known the meat we seek is spiritual heavenly and not earthly invisible and not bodily a ghostly substance and not carnal 12 Art Ib. The means therefore whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith 13 Hom. Ib. So that to think that without Faith we may enjoy the eating his body or drinking his blood is but to dream a gross and carnal feeding basely binding our selves to the Elements and Creatures As for those then that hold it no more than a bare sign and the Celebration and Communion thereof barely the renewing our Profession or a remembrance only of Christ Crucified whom it representeth they are wide from the Church of England on the one side as the Church of Rome on the other Nor do those who only hold it a sign effective to apply the benefits of the death of Christ not supposing it to tender Christ as present to us and to be received by us before we partake in the benefits of his death express exactly in my judgment the sense of our Church Although there is so near a conjunction of Christ with his benefits that one cannot well be apprehended without the other I conceive therefore that in the sense of our Church not only the benefits of Christ but Christ himself is tendred to us in this Holy Sacrament and is to be eaten by us before we partake of his benefits not that we are bodily to partake of him for this end but in that it seems to be the intention of our blessed Savour under these Elements to give us himself and to put us in the actual possession of himself so that in the use of this ordinance as verily as a man does bodily receive the earthly Creatures so verily does he spiritually receive the body and blood of Christ For our better apprehension of which Mystery it will be necessary more particularly to consider what it is which we do hereby receive and in what manner we are made partakers of it Concerning the first the truth which we hold you see is this that we do not here receive only the benefits that flow from Christ but the very body and blood of Christ i. e. Christ himself Crucified for as the bread and wine avails not to our bodily sustenance unless the substance of those Creatures be first received so neither do we partake of the benefits of Christ to our spiritual relief except we have first a Communion with Christ himself This the words of our blessed Saviour Joh 6. 57 Encline me to believe where he says that he that eateth him shall live by him intimating that we must be partakers of him before we can have life from him So the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16 The bread which we break Is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ evidently imply that we are therein to partake of Christ himself This I take to be that great mystery of our union with Christ whereby we are made members of his body of his flesh and of his bones And this I look upon to be that 〈◊〉 the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God in the 6th of St. John But now if it be demanded how we can eat the flesh of Christ and partake of his body and blood to conceive this eating in a carnal sense is as gross an imagination as that of those Joh. 6 who asked within themselves How can this man give us his flesh to eat we must not think then that we cannot truly feed on Christ unless we receive his substance into our bellies but must consider that the eating and drinking our Saviour speaks of must be spiritual according to the nature of his Gospel and therefore we must enquire therein what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now then if we consider what appetites are in our souls and what those appetites crave or ought at least to long after we shall easily discern what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now we know that in the 5th of St. Matthew our Saviour intimates to us that we ought to have a spiritual hunger and thirst after righteousness which
us And I conceive my supposition is not groundless for if God out of the abundance of his love sent his Son into the World that through him we might have everlasting life and that the World through him might be saved as the Apostle tells us John 3. 16. and his flesh in the Sacrament be given us only that we may live thereby John 6. 51. who shall deny but that when Christ is tendred to the same effect of giving us life these several tenders are only different as a general tender from a particular application especially when we consider again that both take effect only in them that believe as is plain by comparing Joh. 3. 16. with Chapter 6. 35. and shall it not then from hence follow that our receiving him as first tendred by God to the whole World and our eating him in the holy Sacrament are of the same nature preserving only that difference I have premised if believing be that which makes him ours in both offers undoubtedly receiving in one respect and eating in the other are no more than believing in both still maintaining the difference between Faith grounded upon a general Promise and a particular Application He that shall consider what belief of him was then required viz. 1 Joh. 17. 3. To know the only true God and his Son Jesus Christ whom he has sent 2 Joh. 5. 24. To hear the Word of Christ and believe on him that sent him 3 Rom. 10. 9. To confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in the heart that God hath raised him from the dead 4 Rom. 3. 25. To rely on him whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through faith in his blood may easily resolve what it is to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament namely that a man does then partake of Christ when he considers the death of Christ i. e. the crucifying of his flesh and the pouring out of his blood with that faith that supposes all this to be true and the ends of it to be such as God has declared him to be given for and by a further consideration of the particular tender of Christ that is in this Sacrament made to him for all those ends and effects if Christ who is thus particularly tendred be received by him as he ought to be is induced to resolve and undertake all which that belief does oblige him to and with faith grounded upon that resolution lays hold on and firmly relies on Christ for those effects for which he was first given to the World and is now peculiarly tendred unto him Then I say it is that a man truly eats the flesh and drinks the blood of Christ and certainly there cannot be found a more exact analogy than is between that nourishment of the body in the strength whereof it moves and those reasons whereupon the mind frames its resolutions to direct our conversation and then God having further promised to communicate his holy spirit to all that out of a true faith resolve upon the doing his will and as many as have the holy Ghost having thereby an union with Christ from whom this spirit is derived have also an assurance that by the holy Ghost that dwelleth in them their bodies shall be raised to life everlasting Rom. 8. 11. whereby they that eat the body and blood of Christ are united and incorporated into one body with him and shall not die but have everlasting life What then have I fully express'd hereby all that the spiritual eating of Christ by faith implies no certainly it is not possible to express by words that infinite love of God wherewith he tenders his Son unto us in this holy Mystery nor the mysterious supernatural but efficacious application of him unto us nor on the other side the strength the vigor the resolution the confidence of that faith wherewith the pious soul transported with that abundant love of God that infinite and peculiar mercy which it sensiblâ— feels in this Sacred Action receives embraces and lays hoâ—… in Christ nor is it possible to express the eagerness and impatience of those appetites wherewith it hungers and thirsts after him panting as the Hart after the water-brooks till it be satisfied with him or those transcendent gusts which are tasted in receiving this divine immortal Food But by what I have been able to express I cannot but think any man may apprehend my conceptions and how I clearly distinguish the participation of Christ from the partaking of his benefits the latter not being to be obtained but by first partaking of the former although all these benefits are indeed obtained so soon as we can conceive a man to have partaken of Christ And that the Church of England does fully preserve this distinction appears more evidently by her Thanksgiving after the Communion which begins thus Almighty and everliving God we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy Son and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness toward us and that we are very members incorporate into his mystical body c. And hereupon I conceive I am enabled to determinate upon what ground he that eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and eats and drinks his own damnation although he does not therein eat or drink the body and blood of Christ for he discerns not the Lords body For if this was the condemnation when God first sent his Son into the World that men believed not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God John 3. 18. who can deny but that this shall be the greater condemnation to all that come to this Sacrament wherein Christ is pleased to make a peculiar tender of himself requiring every one to receive him that they have not believed on nor received the blessed Son of God who is herein so peculiarly and particularly so graciously and so mercifully tendred to their reception I foresee an Objection levelled against the Doctrine that I have thus explained which must be here answered it is this That if Christ be only here eaten spiritually by faith we have many times faith and the spirit of God before and so might eat him without coming to this Sacrament To which I answer The spirit is received in divers measures and faith bestowed upon us in different degrees upon which account our conjunction with Christ may every day be made straiter and our hold firmer To receive the spirit not by measure is the priviledge of our Head we that receive it out of his fulness must daily look for it to be 1 Phil. 1. 19. supplied unto us 2 Rom. 1. 17. So also the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith i. e. from one degree and
introduce the Sense he intends The ground he proceeds on I confess is such as must not be rejected as vain in this Dispute neither must it on the other side be allowed to conclude necessarily for though the correspondence between the Old and New Testament ought to be greatly regarded yet of itself it is not sufficient ground to build matter of Faith upon Again in whatever it be allowed to conclude it must be according to the difference between the Old and New Testament which must still be maintained and which is undeniably this That as Israel under the Old Testament were the Israel according to the Flesh and those under the New are the Israel according to the Spirit so the correspondence between the Law and Gospel may conclude from things that were carnally under the Law that the same are spiritually fulfilled under the Gospel but never that they are now to be fulfilled carnally because they were then For instance when the Apostle argues from Abraham's leaving his own Country to go into a strange Land that thereby also he sought an heavenly Country it may with the like force be argued that we who travel after God's Promises shall certainly arrive to the possession of that heavenly Country but not that we shall as certainly possess an earthly Canaan by the way So when he argues from Adam's being made a living Soul that the second Adam is a quickning Spirit we cannot certainly think him to be a quickning Spirit in that sense that the first Adam was a living Soul but in a much more spiritual manner This being premised I shall consider his Arguments First then he says That as the Jews did not in Spirit only partake of the Victim that was sacrificed for them but did in reality eat of the sacrificed Flesh which was to them a Mark of their partaking of that Oblation so Christ becoming our Victim would have us really eat his Flesh to assure us in particular that it was for us he gave it Thus much I allow the correspondence between the Old and New Testament may prove that whereas Christ has given us Bread as a representation of his sacrificed Body to partake of that he thereby intended to make us partakers of his Flesh to assure us that for us it was sacrificed but not that it shall hence follow that because the Jews eat carnally of the Flesh of their Sacrifices we must also eat of his after the like manner Who sees not upon the difference between the Law and the Gospel premised that the contrary does necessarily follow that they being the Israel after the Flesh did necessarily partake of the Flesh of their Sacrifices after a carnal manner those therefore that are the Israel after the Spirit must partake of their Sacrifices not as the others but spiritually Let then God's prohibiting the Jews to eat of the Sin-Offering because of their Sins not being expiated by those Sacrifices conclude that now our blessed Saviour having made himself an Offering for Sin we ought to partake of this Sacrifice to assure us that the Remission of sins is accomplished for us yet this shall not conclude against our partaking of this Victim after a spiritual manner As for God's prohibiting the Children of Israel to eat Blood because it was given for the expiation of Souls it being a prohibition of eating Blood in general as well as the particular blood of their Sacrifices if it conclude any thing it is chiefly for the eating Blood in general the reason of its being forbidden being ceased but yet neither for this doth it conclude necessarily for then the Apostles could not by their Decree have required the Gentiles to abstain from Blood But suppose it to conclude for our drinking the Blood of our Sacrifice yet it does not in the least prove that we are to drink it in a carnal and not in a spiritual manner but it will prove if it be allowed conclusive what will not at all please the Church of Rome that she cannot now with-hold the Sacramental Blood from us since our Sins are fully expiated by the Blood of Christ for a reason contrary to that upon which it was prohibited the Jews because this Blood being shed has wrought a full Remission of Sins Therefore upon so little that has been yet said to the purpose I admire the Gentleman should tell us That our Saviour to free us from the horror of eating humane Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper species thought fit to cloath them under another species but that the consideration that obliged him to this did not oblige him in the least to deprive us of the reality of his Substance For by what Authority does he presume to tell us what considerations moved our Saviour or how far this or that consideration shall oblige him Or how has he proved that it was ever the intent of our blessed Saviour to give us the Real as that signifies the fleshly Substance of his Body to be by us carnally received To accomplish then the ancient Figures we confess our blessed Saviour does give us his Body and Blood to possess us of the Sacrifice offered for our Sins but to maintain the difference between the Law and the Gospel our eating must be spiritual not carnal It matters not whether it be the plainness of our Saviour's Words alone or as joyned with other things that are said concerning it in Scripture that forceth us to confess and acknowledge what we do we need no forcing for we most readily acknowledge all we conceive the Scripture does oblige us to in it and the Question is whether any thing said therein will oblige us to take their Sense or does not oblige to the contrary I shall not enter into Dispute of what the power of Christ can do or whether his Dominion over universal Nature can make his Body present in several places at once and under several Extents and not destroy the properties of a Body in it his Omnipotence having nothing to do herein any further than it appears his intent to bring something to pass by it We may therefore without questioning what can be wrought by his omnipotent power expect an Evidence that what they pretend him to bring to pass thereby was by him intended to be brought to pass before we are obliged to believe it Whether therefore these Words This is my Body will conclude it to be our Saviours intent to make that Bread to be no longer Bread but to become the very Substance of his Body is the thing in question which cannot be presumed before we have considered the whole Discourse of our Saviour and also what other things are said of it by his Apostles Matth. 26. 26. we find it set down thus Whilst they were eating Jesus took Bread and having blessed broke and gave it to his Disciples and said Take Eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and blessing gave to them saying Drink all of this for this is my Blood
to God himself The Lutherans on the contrary knowing the Sacrament to consist of two things the one earthly the other heavenly direct their Adoration not to the Elements that remain lest worshiping them they should be found Worshippers of a Creature but to Christ alone God and Man who in that Action gives them his Body and Blood Secondly That the Romanists when they plead for the Adoration and worship of the Sacrament do not principally intend that Christ God and Man should be adored in the Action or Vse of his divine Institutions but labour to establish an Adoration of the bread at other times than in the use commanded by Christ namely when they carry it about in Processions which the Council of Trent does in the very Chapter wherein it commands the Adoration of the Sacrament And then afterwards he fully informs us of the manner of the Lutheran's worship viz. That they look not upon Christ as locally present in the bread or that there is any personal union between the bread and the body of Christ but that Christ hath promised in that action his presence by his grace after a peculiar manner Therefore as the Israelites worshipp'd not the Wood nor Gold nor the Cherubims that were upon the Ark of the Testimony but God alone who promised his presence there so the Adoration which they give to Christ in the Sacrament is to be understood to be directed to him only not at all to the outward Elements And the reason why they did not worship him out of the Sacramental exercise he says was because the promise of Christ's presence cannot be extended beyond the intent and action which he instituted So that there appears a visible and most considerable difference between these two the one cannot be Idolatrous because it directs not any worship to a creature the other certainly is if the creatures remain because their worship is terminated in the Sacrament as its object Again whereas M. Condom further endeavours to persuade us That their Sacrifice is a consequent Doctrine upon the real Presence and that the Lutherans understand not themselves so well as they in that they have not admitted it The Reader may judge which have the better understanding if he does but consider that the reason upon which the Lutherans reject the Sacrifice is the same upon which they reject Adoration out of the Sacramental Action namely because we have no warrant to promise our selves Christ's Presence in the Eucharist but only in that Action which he commands and for those ends for which he instituted it This I remember is that which Chemnitius pleads at large in his Book de Sacrificio Missae SECT XVI Of Communion in both kinds UPon this point the Church of England declares The Cup Art 30. of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-People for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be administred to all Christian men alike And certainly nothing can be more plain from our Lord's institution of this Sacrament when he blessed both bread and wine and said Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me that all that are obliged to any part of it are obliged to the whole There being not the least limitation of the Lawgiver's intent in the precept itself nor in any other part of Scripture nor which is more in the practice of the Church originally under the Apostles or generally throughout Christendom Now because we are so frequently desired by these Gentlemen to take special notice of the first grounds of the separation I am obliged to take notice here that this was one of the principal causes of it their with-holding the Cup being that which was universally complained of that which was most expresly desired and Petitioned for both to Pope and Council but in vain We therefore may reasonably expect something satisfactory in this Point To answer our expectation M. Condom lets us know That under one Species all that is essential to the Sacrament is received in that there being now no real separation betwixt the Body and the Blood we receive entirely him who is solely capable to satiate us And this he tells us is the solid foundation upon which his Church interpreting the precept of Communion has declared we may receive the satisfaction which this Sacrament carries with it under one sole Species and has reduced her Children to it But now if this be the foundation she builds upon and it be solid too we may well seek for it in the Apostles or in Christ himself but certainly neither of these support the building nay the foundation which Christ has laid is rejected and laid aside hereby For to what purpose does this Doctrine serve but to make it appear that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in both kinds to no end since as much must needs be received in one as in both But whereas he endeavours to ground this Doctrine upon the real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament it 's certain that if he be really present by virtue of the Consecration he can be present only according to it if therefore his words This is my body make his body present in the bread and the other This is my blood render his blood present instead of the wine then his blood can be no more present in the bread than his body in the wine neither can any thing more be present under bread than his body nor under wine than his blood according to their Principles which found the necessity of his presence upon the literal sense of the words And to how little purpose has M. Condom laboured to persuade us that it is a Sacrifice because the word of God is the spiritual Sword which makes a mystical Separation betwixt the body and blood of Christ if now at last there be no sacramental Separation of his blood from his body but they are both together under one species But the Church says he has not thus reduced her Children to one Species out of dis-esteem of the other but on the contrary to hinder those irreverences which the confusion and negligence of the People had occasioned in these later Ages Had he told us what Irreverencies had been occasioned that could not have been prevented but by this means he had said something that possibly might have shewn the care of his Church but because he has not been so kind I shall transcribe the many and those said to be great and important Reasons which she gives as the account of her so doing to her Children in her Catechism First Because special care ought to be taken that the blood of Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Euch. Sac. quando sumend the Lord be not spilt on the ground which cannot easily be avoided in administring to a great multitude Secondly Because the Eucharist being to be kept for the sick it was greatly to be feared that the Species of the wine would not keep but might sour
or Services performed by their Friends afterwards whereby simple Souls must necessarily be entangled in the Snares of their Sins there being so great likelihood that Pardon being held forth upon such undue grounds the corruption of our Nature will take hold of and presume upon it when we have not wrought in our selves a true Repentance That in those things which they call Sacraments they will not suffer us to distinguish either in that Grace which the Ceremony signifieth or in the Force whereby they concur to the obtaining of it whereas our Christianity requires us to distinguish between Graces given to this or that particular effect and those that are given for the general and perpetual subsistence of Christianity and likewise between those Offices that are effective of Grace by virtue of a peculiar and special promise to those effects and others that are only used by the Church out of a hope that our Prayers shall be heard to those effects That they conceive Christ present in the Eucharist after such a manner as it does no way appear he promised his Presence therein that hereupon it is required that Adoration due to God alone be given to the Sacrament which if the Elements remain is by themselves confessed to be Idolatry and therefore may justisiably by us who know them to remain be so accounted That without warrant they make the Eucharist a Sacrifice as distinct from a Sacrament and of a greater virtue as a Sacrifice than when it is received as a Sacrament according to our Saviour's Institution That they warrant it propitiatory for those who use it not according to his Institution whereby they frustrate the End of his blessing Bread and Wine and commanding it to be received and likewise void the necessity of a Christian Life applying the Benefits of Christ's Sacrament to such as come not worthily to partake of it and pretending it efficacious to ease them of punishments which they are to suffer for sins after Death That whilst they with-hold the Cup from the Laity they void Christ's Institution who enjoyned and appointed both they likewise rob Christians of their Birthright and cannot warrant one part of this Sacrament beneficial to all those effects for which Christ was pleased to bless both Bread and Wine That whilst they plead for Traditions they thereby endeavour to obtrude upon us their own Corruptions and by these instead of interpreting pervert the Scriptures and by Traditions of men have indeed in many things made void the Comandments of God That by claiming an Authority for the Church above the Scriptures which they do to justifie what the Church of Rome has decreed against them they do indeed advance an Authority that may destroy our common Christianity That in pleading their Pope universal Bishop not to speak of their Ambition in this Aim they require us to submit to an Authority for the sake of Unity which is not only none of God's Ordinance but such as Experience has shewn to have almost wholly destroyed that Christianity which Unity should preserve Having shewn I say the danger of these Doctrines in particular and their inconsistence with Christianity when I reflect upon them all together and find that our Union with the Church of Rome requires submission to them all must conclude that whatever allowance might be made in some one of them provided that the rest of that Christian Truth which they hold did so prevail over the Error that it did not take effect in their practices to God's Dishonour or the subversion of a Christian Life yet to submit to them all as we must do if we will have peace with the Church of Rome is to redeem the Communion of the Church by transgressing that Christianity which the Church is appointed to maintain and absolutely to prostitute our own and the Souls committed to our Charge The Case is little otherwise in those other things which M. Condom lets alone as things of themselves not sufficient matter of Separation these if taken together though singly they may not be very considerable render the Means of Salvation very difficult since the Substance of Christianity being overwhelmed and choaked with a deal of Rubbish Opinions Customs Observations Ceremonies c. it is a thing very difficult for simple Christians to discern the Substance from the Shadow and almost impossible to pass through such a multitude of Observations Customs and Ceremonies which create so much business in the Practice of Religion and upon which so great Zeal is spent without Superstion and Will-Worship and a fond Opinion of those Services placing their hope of God's Favour upon these carnal Observations and humane Inventions which indeed are nothing to the Reality of Religion So that these at least must be allowed to add to that Mass of Corruption which they seek to obtrude upon us though of themselves they are not of such a poysonous Nature But though we cannot joyn with them without manifest prejudice to our Christianity yet it is most easie for them to come to us and would be for the great advantage of our Christian Religion as even themselves must and do acknowledge For first Those Doctrines which are established by the Church of England at least such as concern the Foundation of Faith have been in all Ages professed by the Church of Rome itself This M. Condom allows as to Fundamentals That the Church of Rome holds all which the Reformers do They further agree with us That we are to pray unto God through Christ That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image That we may have recourse to him in all our Necessities without seeking the Relicks of Saints That Jesus Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification That men may do good Works and shall never fail of Salvation through not confiding in them That there be two Sacraments which have the Promise of Grace That Christ is really and spiritually received by some in the Lord's Supper That Christ made an Oblation of himself upon the Cross for the Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction of the whole World And where they with hold the Cup from the Laity and forbid the Administration of the Sacraments in the vulgar Tongue yet even in these they condescend to us for the Lawfulness of the Practice even in respect to the Law of God and oppose them only in regard of their necessity and conveniency and for that the Church of Rome hath otherwise ordained They acknowledge likewise the Authority of written word of God and the Design of Providence in their being written for our Learning They acknowledge the Church does and ought to act in deciding Controversies of Faith according to the Scripture committed to her and to tell us nothing from herself and invent nothing new in her Doctrine Again secondly The Truths we hold even by the judgment of several of the Learned Writers of the Church of Rome have been in all ages deemed sufficient to salvation so that we reject no