the figure of the words themselves or in the occasion and in the nature of the things The Bishop of Condom had before alledged the same reason and almost in the same terms upon the point of the reality and in effect suppose that these words this is my body may be taken in a literal sense they could not be at all alledged for more than the real presence but that nothing advantageth the particular Doctrine of Transubstantiation For these words do not give the least intimation that the substance of bread and wine vanish or that they be changed into the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but onely that the bread and wine of which our Saviour spoke were his body and bloud in the sense which our Saviour himself intended Those of the Confession of Ausburg have this common with the Roman Church that they also understand our Saviours words in a literal sense for a real presence but in regard of the manner of this presence which according to them is the impanation or consubstantiation as they speak that is to say that the two several substances that of bread and that of the body of Jesus Christ are in the Sacrament they take their argument as well from the name of bread and wine which the Scripture gives unto the sign after the consecration as from the other Topicks whether of Scripture or of the senses and right reason Further Transubstantiation being a Doctrine different from the real Presence which adds something unto it and which regards properly the manner of this Presence which thing is the reason also that the Bishop of Condom makes it an Article distinct it is necessary that the Bishop of Condom should seek other reasons for this Doctrine than these words This is my body or that he should say that he finds Transubstantiation in these very words by this consequence which he draws thence that the bread cannot be made the body of Jesus Christ but by this onely way of changing one substance into another in which cases he abandons his principle acknowledging that his Faith is not any longer so attentive to the words of our Saviour as not to call his reason to its assistance to help him to comprehend not the power nor the authority of him that speaks but the import and intire sense of his words And in this case things being brought to this point behold here a way open to dispute We have right to examine whether the Bishop of Condom draws his consequence well or ill When it is said the Bishop of Condom we mean the Church of Rome and therefore it may yet be truly said here as well as upon all the other Articles that the Bishop of Condom's Treatise being very far from putting an end unto disputes and objections onely gives us occasion to make new ones upon the most important points of Faith The third Assertion of the Bishop of Condom's upon this Article is that the reality of the Eucharist doth not hinder the Eucharist's being a sign But this is again to change the terms of the Question The Question is properly Whether if the Sacrament being the sign of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ that doth not hinder its being together the sign and the thing signified This is the reason also that the Bishop of Condom perceiving that he did not proceed directly to the purpose afterwards changes the proposition and changes it so Strongly on the other side that he resolves the sign to be a sign of such nature as to be so far from excluding the reality that it necessarily carries it with it the reason is this saith he that Jesus Christ having said this is my body this is a sign that he is present We confess we find it difficult to understand this arguing of the Bishop of Condom's How can he say that the bread and the wine which are the signs here in question are signs of such nature that they are so far from excluding the presence of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as necessarily to carry it with them for this proposition hath no foundation in the nature of bread and wine And for the reason which the Bishop of Condom adds that Jesus Christ having said this is my body is a sign that he is present is it not onely to play with words and to make therewith but an empty sound and vain amusement This here again is called giving the change and to prove the Question by the thing it self in question The Question is Whether the bread and wine are together the signs of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ and the body and bloud of Jesus Christ themselves We say that signs Symbols Seals and Pledges are not the things themselves whereof they are the signs Symbols Seals and Pledges and nothing is more conformable unto nature and unto reason The Bishop of Condom saith that the bread and the wine being the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as to what they have inward this hinders not but that they may be signs as to what they have outward and sensible but this is onely to say what is in question and how doth he prove it This speech this is my body is a sign that he is present but here we treat of the signs of bread and wine and this speech it self is not the sign that you would have it to be but onely by giving it the literal sense which you give it and this literal sense alone makes our first and principal question The fourth and last Assertion of the Bishop of Condom upon the Article of Transubstantiation is touching the adoration of the Host This Assertion is without doubt the most fundamenâ—al and most important point that separates us from the Church of Rome because it is not onely a doctrine but 〈◊〉 worship and a practice wherein â—he question is Whether we are to â—dore or not to adore In which behalf we cannot mistake without falâ—ing into impiety or into Idolatry Nevertheless the Bishop of Condom â—â—sseth swifter than lightning over â—his point without giving himself the â—ouble to confirm it by any proof All that he saith is pa. 126. that the presence of 〈◊〉 adorable an object being certified by the 〈◊〉 we scruple not at all saith he to pay 〈◊〉 ouâ— adorations This proposition is conceived in so equivocal a manner â—hat the adoration may refer to the â—â—esence to the object or to the sign 〈◊〉 self He intends without doubt the â—bject believed present under the sign But why not scruple at all for these â—igns do not now certifie any thing â—ut what they certified in the times of the Apostles themselves and in all â—he following times of the purest Christianity Yet it is certain that there is not one word of it in the relation of the institution of the Sacrament which shews that the Apostles did prostrate themselves in receiving of it nor that they shewed any mark of adoration Neither
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
We do not Pray unto Saints sâ— they but in a Spirit of charity aâ— Communion as we do pray our Brethrâ—â— that are living to pray for us and thâ— one doth not more derogate from thâ— Glory of God than the other But the Scripture is full of examples and precepts which oblige us tâ— pray one for another we are assure that our brethren who are Living dâ— understand us and there is so greaâ— a difference betwixt what we thinâ— of them and of God that these sort of charitable Offices which we render to another were never Lookeâ— upon but as actions purely human and never making up any part of Religious Worship Whereas on thâ— one hand we have no Command foâ— Praying unto Saints nor certaiâ— knowledge that the Saints understanâ— our vows and our Prayers and oâ— the other hand the Idea which wâ— form of the Saints Reigning in Glory with Jesus Christ the honours much more than human rendred unto them the benefits and succours demanded of them however any endeavour to sweeten the matter in dispute make them approach so near unto God that it is too apparent the people regard the Saints as Divi or Gods which also is the name that several Catholick Authors give them The Prayers which we make to our Brethren alive consist but in a Word and do not any wise divert our hearts from the Religious Worship of God but the Worship of Saints doth alone make a Long exercise of Religion Bellar. lib 3 Sanct. beat cap 9 Lips in virg Bonav in Psalt Beat virg and while it shall do nothing else but imploy and often fix heart and thoughts on men is not this to divert them for that time from their true object which is God The Church of Rome thinks to excuse this Worship by the difference which she pretends to put betwixt the Prayer she makes unto God and that she makes unto Saints but it is all along Prayer and according to us Religious Prayer what ever the matter or end may be is always a part of that Worship and honour which we owe God onely Anâ— moreover it is not true that they only Pray unto the Saints to pray foâ— them They of the Roman Churcâ— beseech of them redress of their evils deliverance from dangers in a worâ— all things temporal and spiritual of St. Paul or St. Nicholas to saâ—â— them from Shipwrack of St. Roc 〈◊〉 preserve them from the Plague of Sâ— Peter to open unto them the Gates oâ— Heaven of the Virgin that she would defend them from the enemy which is the Devil that she would receive them at the hour of death that she would have mercy upon them which is precisely what we beseech of God himself In the Litany's of the Virg. Parce nobis Domina c. Domina mundi cum filio tuo sanctissimo miserere nobis and that which they would have to make the difference betwixâ— God and the Saints And what is very remarkable it is not particulaâ— persons that make these sorts of requests by a missled Devotion theâ— are publick and solemn Prayers inserted in the Offices and rituals 〈◊〉 they speak authorised by the Roman Church and generally practiseâ— by all those of its Communion Yes Say they farther But in what terms soever it is that these Prayers are conceived the intention of the Church is to reduce the sense to Pray the saints onely to intercede for us and to obtain of God all those good things which they beseech But what then is it that the Bishop of Condom doth here understand by the Church if it be not the body of all those who make it up which are the same persons who make these Prayers of whom it was said that they reduce the sense of Prayer to the Saints to Pray the Saints to intercede for us Is not this to apply the name of Church unto all things as if it were a remedy for all diseases The people demand of the Saints all good things Temporal and Spiritual these people do make up the Church and they tell us that the intention of the Church doth reduce their demands unto a simple request of Prayer that is that the people do say in Prayer another thing than they would and that the intention doth here explain the words whereas otherwise it is the words that are the Interpreters of the intentions Besides wherefore are they noâ— willing that God should be jealouâ— of our words as he is of our thoughts For our tongue is Gods as well 〈◊〉 our heart and it is the words whicâ— do declare the honour outwardly 〈◊〉 it is the intention which doth rule thâ— inward thoughts and God will nâ— give his Glory to another But when we shall understand 〈◊〉 the Church whose intention it 〈◊〉 said is to reduce the invocation 〈◊〉 Saints unto a simple request to Prâ— for us when I say we shall therebâ— understand the Council of Trent oâ— the sense of the Roman Church in Gâ—neral as it doth seem he would haâ— us to understand by it it is wâ— known that the intention of those wiâ— Pray doth follow the natural sense the expressions they use and that thâ— do not go to seek after any other iâ—tention of the Council or of tâ— Church in General and the intâ—â—tion of those who Pray doth 〈◊〉 onely not go beyond what is here supposed but it is impossible it should be otherwise The nature of man is such that not onely it inclines but also doth evermore fix it self unto some Religious object proposed to it which hath some resemblance unto the sense and Nature of man what care soever is taken to direct the intention and the more grosse and proportioned to its weakness this object shall be the better will humane Nature accommodate it self thereto It is the constant default of the Roman Communion that they make not sufficient reflexion on the one hand upon the Nature of God and the true Worship which he requires of us and on the other upon the Nature of man himself God Great infinite Jealous of his Glory a pure Spirit did not seem heretofore to be otherwise pleased with sacrifices and ceremonies in the infancy of the world or under the rudiments of the Law than that he onely might temperate himself unto the dulness of people and of the Jews in particular These poor people had nothing dearer unto them than their flocks the fruits 〈◊〉 their lands and the commodities oâ— this Life God required of them sâ—crifices of their flocks and offerings oâ— their fruits as the most assured pledgâ— which they could give of their Lovâ— and obedience But since it hatâ— pleased God to increase the Lights oâ—â—eason by a Longer use of reason iâ— self and to joyn unto these Lights thâ— Light of the Gospel which hath raised and purified our thoughts and ouâ— affections God would no Longer have any offering nor Sacrifice but thâ— hearts of men their Love their feaâ— and their Religious
our Kings had not set some bounds to the enterprises of the Court of Rome As for Order or Orders for the Council sets down Seven under this name to wit the Priest the Deacon Order the Subdeacon the Acolyte the Exorcist the Reader and the Porter The Bishop of Condom speaks onely a word of Order in general as he hath done of Marriage to put it into the number of Sacraments It is true as he saith that we hold the ministry of the Word of God for a sacred thing taking the term in a general sense We practise the ceremony of Imposition of Hands as it was practised in the Apostles time but we cannot agree that Order or Orders are a true Sacrament as Baptism and the Eucharist as well for that in Orders there is no Element or Visible sign no more than in Marriage and in confession as also because it is in truth the nature of the Sacraments of the Gospel that the Sacraments ought to be common to all the Church and Orders are not It is in this point also the interest of Rome that made Orders a true Sacrament to the end she might withdraw all the great Body of the Roman Clergy from the Jurisdiction of the civil Magistrate and thereby make unto her self proper subjects of other Princes people in the midst of their States and Kingdoms as a particular Kingdom or Hierarchy apart not only distinct from the Temporal Monarchy but superiour and over-ruling Kings themselves Many things might be said upon this Article to shew principally that the Priesthood and the sacrificing of the Roman Church is an invention purely humane and that it hath no example nor any foundation in the Gospel for there can be no true Priesthood where there is not a true Sacrifice and in the following Discourse it shall be made appear that there is none such in the Mass But in this place we will be content to follow the Bishop of Condom who had no mind to engage in all these Questions whether it be that he deserts them tacitely by his silence or that he thought them to be fitter for the Schools than for publick edification or Lastly that he hastened to pass unto the matter of the Eucharist where he believed he might inlarge himself with less disadvantage THE FIFTH PART We are saith he now at last X. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real presence of the Body Bloud of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament the manner how she understands these words This is my Body arrived at the Question of the Eucharist c. as if one should say after a great deal of bad way now we are gotten a little more at large On the whole there is this difference betwixt all these Questions of the worshipping of Saints of Images and Relicks of Satisfactions of Purgatory of Indulgences of the number and efficacy of the Sacraments whereof we have hitherto treated and this of the Eucharist whereon at present we enter that in all the others there is not to be found any Footstep of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament nor in the very First ages of Christianity whereas upon the question of the Eucharist the Roman Church pretends that she hath the Scripture it self on her side Therefore also it is that whereas the Bishop of Condom did but lightly pass over all the rest here saith he it will be necessary more amply to explain our Doctrine And here the better to accommodate our selves to the Bishop of Condom's method as we have done upon the other articles we will distinctly examine all the several Heads of which he makes so many Sections 1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and how she understands these words THIS IS MY BODY 2. How she unâ—erstands these other words DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. 3. The Exposition which she makes of our belief as to the reality 4. Transubstantiation and Adoration and in what sense the Eucharist is a sign 5. The sacrifice of the Mass 6. What the Apostle teacheth in the Epistle to the Hebrews when he saith That Jesus Christ offered himself once 7. The reflexion which the Bishop of Condom makes upon this Doctrine 8. and Lastly The point of Communion under both kinds which the Bishop of Condom doth onely consider as a sequel or consequent of all the rest We will touch each of these Heads with as much brevity as shall be possible The Bishop of Condom begins with this proposition that the Real Presence is firmly established by these words of the institution of the Eucharist THIS IS MY BODY The reason which he gives thereof is because the Church of Rome doth understand them according to the letter and here it is that he saith what hath been alledged elsewhere upon another subject that you must no more ask them wherefore they apply themselves to the literal sense than of a Traveller why he follows the High way Let any one judge of the sequel by the beginning The Question betwixt us is Whether the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament are truly and really the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ or whether they are so onely in the mystery That is to say whether the words of the institution This is my Body ought to be understood literally or figuratively whether they truly signifie a real presence as they speak or a presence mystical and of virtue for it is all one and the same thing The Bishop of Condom saith without any other pretext that the belief of the real presence is firmly established upon these words because the Church of Rome doth understand them according to the letter that is it is so because I understand it so that is to say that he decides the question by the thing it self which is in question or that he doth give us his sense his will for a reason To have the liberty to speak as the Bishop of Condom doth we must lay it as a principle that there is nothing in the Scripture that one should not or at least that may not be taken literally Then might she take literally what our Saviour saith elsewhere John 6.35 19.5 that he is the bread of Heaven or that he is a vine and his Disciples are the branches and that none should be allowed to inquire how it might be The Bishop of Condom judging truly enough that this was not a proposition maintainable enters upon two other conceipts more reasonable On the one side he ingageth us to prove that the words of institution of the Eucharist ought to be taken in a Figurative sense On the other he engages to prove himself Pa. 80 that they ought to be taken according to the letter It is their part saith he who have recourse to Figurative senses to give a reason of what they do We
will therefore here set down some of the reasons which we have for the Figurative sense seeing that the Bishop of Condom doth require it of us and afterwards we will examine those which the Bishop of Condom doth alledge for the proper and literal sense In the First place whensoever any great of a Mystery and of a Sacrament 〈…〉 and the common use to take the â—â—pressions and the things themselves mystically and figuratively The very word it self Mystery doth lead us thereto otherwise it were no more a Mystery Let any examine generally all the Sacraments as well of the Old as the New Testament not one excepted no not the very ceremonies of the Roman Church it self where there is any visible sign as the Passover and Circumcision under the Law Baptism under the Gospel that which the Church of Rome doth call Confirmation and Extreme Unction through all will be found things and words which must be understood in a mystical and a Figurative sense But if it be demanded more particularly wherefore the Bread and the Wine are said to be the Body Bloud of Jesus Christ St. Austin and Theodoret Aug. Epist 23. ad Bonif. answer for us The First saith that it is because of the relation which the Sacraments have to the things whereof they are Sacraments and the latter to keep us from resting in the nature of the things that are seen Theodoret Dial 1. and that as Jesus Christ said that he was bread and a stock or vine so be honours the Symbols of bread and wine with the name of his Body and of his Bloud The force of these Testimonies is not here urged as to the maine Question they are onely alledged to give a reason of the use wherefore it is that the sign doth bear the name of the thing signified by a kind of mystical and Figurative way of speaking to elevate our spirits and our heartes above the Visible signs 2. We know in general that all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament is full of these sorts of Figurative expressions whether it was the Style of the Eastern Nations in those times as indeed it was or that God judged this Style the fittest to exercise our Faith We see that the First preaching of Jesus Christ is nothing else but a continued succession of Figures John 6.35 Joh. 15.3 every one knows those just now mentioned I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the vine The rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 Mat. 5.29 De Doctrin Christ lib. 3. cap. 6. If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and an infinite number of others Now if it be demanded of us how we can distinguish betwixt Figurative expressions and those which are proper and literal St. Austin here again answers for us that what seemes to offend good manners or the truth of Faith ought to be taken in a Figurative sense and yet more expresly that this which Jesus Christ saith that we must eat his body and drink his bloud appearing a wicked thing is therefore a Figure We press not still this passage as to the main Question we onely alledge it to make the reason which we have for the Figurative sense better apprehended 3. Finally what can there be more natural and more reasonable than to understand the Scripture by the Scripture it self the obscure places by them which are more plain those which have a double meaning by them which have but a single The Authour of the Book intituled Lawful Prejudices layes down this Maxim for the understanding of Books that when there is any passage which may admit of a double sense that must be taken which agrees best with the whole and which is the most reasonable There is but one passage onely in the Scripture which seems to favour the literal sense that the Church of Rome gives to these words This is my Body to wit that which we now spoke of If you eat not the flesh and drink the bloud of the Son of man you have no life in you and this very expression St. Austin notes ought to be understood Figuratively whereas there are a great number of others which say that Jesus Christ is no more with us but by the operation of the Holy Spirit The poor you shall have always with you Mat. 26.11 but me ye shall not have always And if I depart I will send the Comforter unto you and so many more Joh. 16. that make us daily say in the Creed he ascended into Heaven and from thence he shall come c. the very words of the Eucharist require that we do this in remembrance of him and to shew forth his Death till he come To be in Heaven corporally and upon Earth by representation are not two senses repugnant but not to be any more with us or to be corporally in Heaven and yet to be every day upon Earth in mens hands in his proper Body are two terms contradictory and incompatible It is therefore natural to take these words This is my body in a mystical and Figurative sense which alone doth perfectly agree with all the other passages of the Scripture It is well known that the Church of Rome doth suppose that there be two divers ways according unto which she pretends that the Body of Jesus Christ may be present in Heaven and upon Earth the one with his dimensions and his exteriour qualities such as he was seen upon Earth and it is after this manner that she will have it to be said that Jesus Christ is no more with us or that he is onely in Heaven the other without his dimensions and exteriour qualities as she pretends that he is under the covert of Bread and Wine But this is to answer here punctually the thing in question We formally deny this second manner of being bodily in a place it is not contested but that nature the senses reason far from teaching any such thing cry loudly against it It would therefore highly concern the Church of Rome upon the whole case to establish this second manner of being in a place by some passage the sense whereof were not at all in question and till that is done it may be truly said that the figurative sense of these words This is my Body is the true and genuine sense the first and the onely that presents it self unto the mind We might here add many other reasons as to the main to make appear that the Doctrine of the real presence is not onely above reason as the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but directly against reason and which in fine destroyes the testimony of the senses which nevertheless is it that our Lord made use of John 20.27 Theodoret Dial. 2. to prove unto Thâ—mas the truth of his presence as the Church also hath since done to prove that the Body of Jesus Christ was a true Humane body against the Eutychians but this would be
to proceed too far in the question What hath been here said which is onely taken from the nature of Sacraments the style of the Scripture may suffice to shew the Bishop of Condom that it is not without reason that we do understand these words This is my Body in a mystical and figurative sense let us now see what he will produce on his part for the proper and literal sense His discourse doth reduce it self unto two propositions the first is That it is the intention of Jesus Christ that we should effectively eat his flesh and the other that there is no natural relation betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ and that our Saviour having onely said these words This is my Body without explaining them as he did ordinarily other figurative expressions the law of discourse as the Bishop of Condom speaks doth not permit that they should be taken otherwise than in a proper and literal sense As to the first touching our Saviours intention it is a good principle provided it be well established for Jesus Christ can do what he will what he wills is done as he wills and the Bishop of Condom hath no need to inlarge upon the power of God as he doth in what follows nor to seek for reasons why Jesus Christ would not give us his flesh in its very Form but under the covert of Bread that so we might not conceive an horrour at the eating it These are the common places of the first inventors of this Opinion and of all those who have followed them and yet nevertheless all this hath nothing of solidity because on the one hand we concern not our selves to examine whether God is able to do the thing but whether this thing is possible in it self or if it doth not imply a contradiction and on the other if it be matter of horrour to eat true humane flesh the covert may diminish this horrour but it cannot quite take it away especially if a man were certainly perswaded that he did truly eat humane flesh and besides that such flesh for the which he should have a tender veneration But to conclude how is it that the Bishop of Condom proves that this is the intention of Jesus Christ that we should effectively eat his flesh As the Jewes did eat the victims which were offered for them Pag. 81 82 83 c. so saith he Jesus Christ our true sacrifice would that we should effectively eat his flesh c. The Jewes were forbidden to eat the sacrifice offered for sins to shew them that the true expiation was not made under the Law and for the same reason they were forbidden to eat bloud because the bloud was given for the atonement of souls but by a contrary reason Jesus Christ wills that we should eat his flesh to shew that the remission of sins is accomplished in the New Testament and that we should drink his bloud because it is poured out for our sins Thus it is that instead of giving us reasons the Bishop of Condom gives us onely comparisons relations agreeances as if it were not a known rule that comparisons and examples may serve well to illustrate things already proved but can never prove the things which are in question It is true that the sacrifices of the old Law were the figure of the sacrifice which our Lord Jesus Christ offered upon the Cross that is to say that as they offered up sacrifices which were types of Jesus Christ our true sacrifice to appease the wrath of God Jesus Christ offered up himself to reconcile us unto his Father This is the true accomplishment of the figures of the Law and the principal and true relation which there is betwixt the sacrifices of the Old New Testaments therefore also it is that our Saviour giving up the Ghost said these last and great words Joh. 19.30 It is finished The Apostle St. Paul which makes a parallel between the sacrifices of the Law and of Jesus Christ insists onely on this point that under the Law the sacrifices were to be reiterated every day whereas Jesus Christ offered himself onely once and we see not that the Holy Scriptures pursue any farther mystery in it To press further these sorts of relations and differences to make new doctrines and to bring all that is said of the sacrifices of the Old Testament to be said or denied of the sacrifice of the New this would be to make Articles of Faith Worships upon consequences wherein humane reason would have too much share But nevertheless if they will have it so that our Lord Jesus Christ intended there should be a relation betwixt all the circumstances of the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Eucharist which is the representation of the sacrifice that he himself offered upon the Cross we are so far from thinking that all the relations and all the differences which are to be found betwixt the one and the other should be understood according to the letter that we know the intention of the Gospel is opposed to the letter of the Law of Moses that whereas the Jewes under the Law did servilely and carnally ty themselves to outward and material actions it concerns Christians under the Gospel to take all spiritually and lift up their souls hearts unto Heaven Jo. 6.63 The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth The Jewes laid their hands upon the heads of their sacrifices and did eat of them to signifie the union which they had with them This is true we lay hold on Jesus Christ by Faith we eat him by Faith according to the speech of St. Austin Believe and thou hast eaten The Jewes did not eat the sin-offering nor did they ever eat of the bloud we eat the mystical body of our sacrifice and we drink his mystical bloud and as the expiation of our sins is actually made by his death upon the Cross so our Saviour sets before our eyes the sacred Symbols of his dead body as seals of his grace and of the remission of our sins See here how we might enlarge for our edification the relations and differences which we may find in this case betwixt the Old and New Testament betwixt the sacrifices of the Law and the divine sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ These considerations are right pious and conform to the spirit of the Gospel but as to the main that which is called a Doctrine and a Worship and an Article of Faith as is the eating of the proper flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ should not be founded upon relations and agreeances but upon a clear and positive revelation Pag. 84. But this eating saith the Bishop of Condom here ought to be as real as the expiation of sins is actual and effective under the new Covenant In the first place it must be observed here that the Bishop of Condom doth perpetually mistake himself upon the term of Real in the question of
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
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
the Prayer being ended the Minister doth read unto us publickly with a loud voice the Liturgy of the Lords Supper which contains principally the manner wherein St. Paul relates that our Saviour did institute it with another exhortation well to prepare our hearts Lastly the Minister taking the bread and the wine saith with a loud voice The bread which we break is the body of Jesus Christ or the communion of the body of Jesus Christ The Cup which we bless is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was poured out for your sins Or the Cup which we bless is the communion of the bloud of Jesus Christ for either one or the other of these expressions are indifferently used the grace of God according to us not being tyed unto the words After which in distributing the Bread to the communicants the Minister saith again unto them to raise and awaken their zeal and their faith This is the body of Jesus Christ which was broken for you and in giving the Cup This is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was shed for your sins or some words to this sense And last of all when every one hath done communicating we conclude with thanksgiving in singing the song of Simeon and with the Blessing wherewith the Minister dismisseth the Assembly This particular account is onely for them who are misinformed of our practice We appeal here to the conscience of all sincere persons in the first place if it be not true that this manner of celebrating and of giving and receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not most conform unto what we see in the institution of our Lord and unto the practice of the Apostles and of the first and purest Ages of Christianity and without comparison more conform than that of the Church of Rome And in the second place which of these two manners of communicating is the most proper to excite and nourish true piety according to knowledge and a sincere remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ There remaines no more as to this point but to touch the Bishop of Condom's last consideration in which he saith That we do not deny the real communication of the substance of the Son of God in the Lords Supper so that there is a necessity that we should agree that the remembrance doth not exclude all manner of presence but only that which doth strike our senses We do not indeed say that remembrance excludes all manner of presence for on the contrary it is said of remembrance as it is of Faith that it makes things to be present that are at the greatest distance There is a moral presence and a mystical presence a presence of object of virtue as they speak which are not incompatible with remembrance For example the Heavens the Stars though almost at an infinite distance are in some sort present with us not onely because we see them but by the influences which they cast upon us We onely say that remembrance excludes a presence real personal and as it were physical local and immediate under the colours and exteriour appearances of Bread and Wine such as the Church of Rome teacheth of the Body of Jesus Christ in the hands of a Priest or in the mouth or stomach of the Communicants But because both here and elsewhere the Bishop of Condom grounds himself upon what he saith that at the same time that we deny this real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament we teach a real participation of his Body and that upon this occasion the Bishop of Condom here makes an express Article of the Exposition of our Belief upon the reality what we will say of our Doctrine upon this point shall serve for an answer unto all the consequences which he draws both here or elsewhere To remove at once XII An examination of the exposition which the Bishop of Condom makes of our Doctrine of the Reality saith the Bishop of Condom the equivocations which the Calvinists use upon this matter and to make appear at the same time how near they are come unto us though I have undertaken onely to explain the Doctrine of the Church It will be expedient here to add the exposition of their Judgement Let us be permitted before we enter upon this Article to complain that the Bishop of Condom doth at the very first here begin to treat us in termes prohibited by the Edicts of our Kings at the same time also charging us with affected equivocations which in no wise agree with the simplicity of our Doctrine we are apt to think that it is the heat of dispute which hath here insensibly transported him beyond his natural equity and we would not at all concern our selves to take notice of these sorts of expressions especially in a time wherein we are accustomed unto more strict dealings if the least thing of this nature proceeding from a person of his dignity and for whom we have a great esteem were not more remarkable and of worse example than all the bitterest things that might be said by other persons This Article of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise though more copious is for all that obscure and intangled full of repetitions of digressions and of comparisons odious and besides his business which he makes of us to Socinians Arrians Nestorians Pelagians insulting over us upon words contrary to what appears manifestly to be our sense But we will leave the words and apply our selves to the things In the first place instead of giving a plain and intire Exposition of our Belief and afterwards drawing the consequences which he had a mind of he onely gives it by shreds and so perplext that it cannot be understood He onely reports here and there some of our Expressions separate from each other endeavouring therein to find some obscurity and afterwards he grounds upon this obscurity which himself hath made the equivocations and contradictions which he imputes unto us We need onely take notice what course he takes in the very entrance to make a judgment that he speaks after his own manner and not after ours Their Doctrine saith he hath two parts the one speaks onely of the figure of the body and bloud the other speaks onely of the reality of the body and bloud Divisions are wont to give order and to give light unto discourses but this on the contrary doth at first sight so little set forth our Doctrine that our people would not understand it The explication which follows is neither juster nor more natural Instead of laying down what we believe affirmatively he layes down indeed but onely the negative part of our Belief Wherefore we shall do better to explain our own Doctrine our selves in a few words with relation unto what the Bishop of Condom sayes hereof This shall be that plain Form of Doctrine which he saith we have not and shall serve for a general refutation of all that he hath produced We will not forbear answering afterwards
pretends that these expressions do suppose the real presence and that they cannot concord but by admitting the Doctrine of the real presence which comes all to one thing and that it is by these expressions that our Reformers themselves approached unto the Church of Rome It is in this part of his Treatise that he hath laboured most and conceived with greatest care as being the place where there seemed to be most advantage but which at the bottom is nothing else but an heap of plausible pretexts and unjust consequences and almost throughout playing upon words The first of his Objections is upon this expression of our Catechism where we say that we do make no doubt â—t that Jesus Christ makes us partaâ—s of his proper substance by uniting us 〈◊〉 himself in the same life and upon this other passage of our Confession of Faith where it is said to the same effect that Jesus Christ doth nourish and â—ivifie us with the proper substance of his body and of his bloud It is a certain truth that the Scripture never makes use of this term of Substance upon the subject of the Eucharist The first Fathers of the Church did not use it neither There are onely some ancient Doctours which have used it in divers senses sometimes to express the matter or the essence it self of the things and oftentimes also to signifie the virtue Sunday 50. and in the form of administring of Baptism Our Catechism it self speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism saith indifferently in two places the substance and the virtue of Baptism to signifie the efficacy of it Not any of the first Ages have said that Jesus Christ did give us the substance of his body and bloud but some less ancient have said that he nourished and vivified us by his substance or that he gave us a living substance meaning a quickning virtue alluding unto that mystical expression I am the living bread Joh. 6. this bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World When the Authours of our Confession of Faith and of our Catechism used these sorts of expressions amongst many others it plainly appears that they were not constrained so to do to conform themselves unto the Scripture nor to the ancient Fathers of the Church who used them not at all but they did it doubtless to accommodate themselves therein to the use which the latter times had brought in and to shew in different terms the truth of this spiritual Communion which we believe we have with Jesus Christ so as they explain it in the same place And we will make no scruple here to add that it is not simply the words of institution of the Lords Supper which oblige us to speak in such effectual terms because it is evident that the first aim of the words of institution is to recommend the commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ And it is also on one hand the Tenour of the Gospel in general which doth throughout inculcate a most intimate communion of the faithful with Jesus Christ saying that we are flesh of his flesh Ephâ— and bone of his bone and on the other hand it is the nature of this Sacrament which joyned to this divine Word not onely sets forth this union in a most express manner but also gives us a lively feeling of it strengthens and confirms it by the grace with which God is pleased to accompany an action so holy But that which is communicated according to its proper substance saith the Bishop of Condom Pa. 104. ought to be really present and it is not possible to make understood that a body which is onely spiritually communicated unto us and by Faith can be really communicated unto us and in its proper substance But the reason why we cannot make you understand it is the prejudice which you will not lay aside upon this subject of the Eucharist to wit that there is no real union nor participation if it be not Physical that is to say if two bodies or two substances be not joyned or be not both together in one place which yet is a manifest errour As if for example when we acquire an inheritance though we are distant from it it might not be said that not onely the fruits and the Revenue belong unto us but that the propriety the body the substance of the Land in fine all that belongs to it is ours Besides our Catechism had already answered unto the Bishop of Condom's Objection in the Article which immediately follows that which he objects to us The Minister demands Sunday 53. How can it he that Jesus Christ makes us partakers of his proper substance to unite us unto himself seeing his body is in Heaven and we upon Earth It is saith the Child by the incomprehensible power of the Holy Ghost which joyneth things that are asunder by the distance of place And * Art 36. our Confession of Faith saith the same thing and in the same terms Would the Bishop of Condom dispute that the Holy Ghost cannot effect a real and true union of us with Jesus Christ when we partake of the Lords Supper notwithstanding the distance that there is betwixt him and us And who saith a true and real union with Jesus Christ saith he any thing less than to be made partaker of or to be nourished and vivified with his substance Doth either the Bishop of Condom himself better understand or is it possible that he should make better understood the manner wherein he doth believe that the bread and the wine are transubstantiated into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ by the operation of the same spirit of God insomuch that the bread doth cease to be bread and that the body of our Divine Saviour his proper body which is sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father is nevertheless upon Earth in a thousand places at once after the manner of a spirit in less room than a point doth take up In fine is it possible to make better understood this other manner which he believes that this holy body which onely passeth through his stomach doth unite or rather is not united with his proper body and soul The second Objection which the Bishop of Condom here makes against us is upon another expression of our Catechism Sunday 52. where it is said that though Jesus Christ be truly communicated unto us by Baptism and by the Gospel it is onely in part and not fully whence the Bishop of Condom infers that Jesus Christ is fully given unto us in the Lords Supper and that there is an exceeding difference betwixt receiving in part and receiving fully Granting this see whereunto his Argumentation amounts If in the Lords Supper Pa. 106. Jesus Christ is fully received and in Baptism and in the Gospel but in part then the manner in which he is received in the Lords Supper is different from that in which he is
the Eucharist communicates the same Jesus Christ unto us by form of nourishment that vivifies us unto that of the Suns communicating also the same objects at full Noonday especially if the Eucharist be considered as being added unto the Word and unto Baptism as the Catechism doth consider it These three manners of communicating Jesus Christ are different betwixt themselves because that these three exteriour means have each their proper way of working upon us to produce or to strengthen Faith in our hearts and to confirm our communion with Jesus Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit But it is alwayes Jesus Christ whole and intire which is communicated unto us by each of these three means and it is alway by Faith and by the operation of the Holy Spirit which is the manner common to all those three as it is the sight of the same objects which is communicated by Torches in the night and by the Sun at his rising or at full Noonday always by the light which is the common mean to Torches and to the Sun to illuminate the objects But it is remarkable saith the Bishop of Condom here that how great a desire soever the Reformers had to equal Baptism and preaching to the Lords Supper in that Jesus Christ is therein truly communicated unto us they did not dare to say in their Catechism that Jesus Christ was given unto us in his proper substance in Baptism and in preaching as they have said in the Lords Supper But the reason of this difference may easily be gathered from what hath been said hitherto it is that when an Exposition is made of the meanes whereof God makes use to unite us unto him every one ought to be spoken of according to the proper use for the which it is known they are established Our Catechism doth not say that Jesus Christ spiritually regenerates us in the Lords Supper or that he washeth us from our sins as it doth speak of Baptism nor that Faith comes by the Lords Supper to use that manner of speaking that is to say that the Lords Supper produces in our hearts Faith as it is said that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God for that the Lords Supper is not instituted to represent unto us our union with Jesus Christ under this notion but to represent it unto us under the notion of a substantial union such as is that of nourishment In like manner if the Catechism saith not that we are made partakers of the substance of Jesus Christ in Baptism or in the preaching of the Gospel as it saith of the Lords Supper it is not but that in these very actions we are really united unto Jesus Christ or that Jesus Christ doth not there spiritually nourish our souls with his substance as really as he doth in the Sacrament and the Bishop of Condom dares not say the contrary but so it is that although these divers means produce for the main the same effect yet the same expressions do not equally agree to the one and the other because the water of Baptism and the sound of the Word are not at all proper as the Symbols of bread and of wine to represent unto us as well the spiritual nourishment of our souls as the intimate union which is made betwixt us and Jesus Christ The third and last of our expressions upon which the Bishop of Condom strains himself more than upon the former is taken from an Article of our Catechism which follows that which we have now examined In the first Article it is said that in the Lords Supper we have a new and more ample confirmation of the communion which we have with Jesus Christ by the preaching of the Gospel here the Minister proceeds to demand VVhat is it then in summe Sunday 52. which we have by the sign of bread As if he should say On what in fine doth the use which we should make of this Sacrament terminate it self or what is the fruit of this confirmation which you say that we therein have of our communion with Jesus Christ The Child answers It is this that the body of Jesus Christ inasmuch as it was once offered a sacrifice to reconcile us unto God is given unto us to certifie us that we have part in this reconciliation This word certifie is a word of those very times which signifies to assure us fully or to make us certain or assured of our reconciliation with God and every one sees that the clear and intire sense of this Answer is that the union or communion which we have with Jesus Christ doth fully assure us that we have part in the fruit of his death pa 112. In the mean time what is the use that the Bishop of Condom would make of these words It is that by a long deduction of consequences he would conclude one way or other that besides the communion by which we doe partake spiritually of the body of our Saviour and of his spirit both together in receiving the fruit of his death there is yet another real communion as he speaks of the body of the same Saviour which is an assured pledge unto us that the other is secured for us Here again we may observe as we pass the effect of the errour of the Gentlemen of the Roman Church which makes them perpetually to oppose communion real to spiritual as if that which is spiritual or which is spiritually effected were not real But to return to what the Bishop of Condom proposes to himself upon this Article it may be said that this is one of those forc'd arguments the strainedness of which shews that there is in it no more truth than there is nature To answer unto it in such a manner as that we may understand something we must necessarily repeat his Propositions one after another in the same terms that he conceived them for putting them altogether and all in consequence they make such an entangled piece as will create no small difficulty to unravel If these words saith he pa. 1◠have any sense to wit those of the Catechism if they be not an unprofitable sound and vain amusement they should give us to understand that Jesus Christ doth not give us a Symbol onely but his true body to assure us that we have an interest in his sacrifice This is the first consequence which the Bishop of Condom 〈…〉 the words of the Catechism and it is true that thus far he keeps the sense and the expressions very exactly But on the other side this consequence is useless enough though made with such an ample and specious preface For we never brought into dispute in the least whether without the Symbols or with the Symbols Jesus Christ gives us not what is represented by the Symbols that is to say his body and bloud the sign and the thing signified both together and whether he gives us not both one and the other to assure us
that we have part in the fruit of his death Sunday 46 47. This is that which our Catechism says elsewhere in other terms to wit that the Sacraments are seales of the Promises of God in our hearts according to the doctrine of the Apostle that Jesus Christ gives himself unto us to the end we might enjoy him and that all that he hath may be ours and here the same Catechism saith that his body is given unto us to assure us that we have part in the fruit of his death so that this first consequence of the Bishop of Condom's is not a consequence at all for it adds nothing almost unto our sense nor unto our words He forgets even under this head to comprehend what we but now touched which is not in question neither but yet is thus far of this place as that it conduces to form a compleat sense of these words namely that not onely the body of Jesus Christ or the union which we have with him doth assure us of the part which we have in the fruit of his death but that the Symbols themselves also assure us after their manner or according to the use for which God hath appointed them For God makes use of these exteriour signs to affect our senses and to confirm our faith and our confidence The dispute is onely of the manner whereby Jesus Christ gives unto us his body with the signs and here the Bishop of Condom doth not at all engage in this first proposition In exchange he goes too far or strays too much in the second Now saith he if the reception of the body of our Lord pa. 110. assure us of participating of the fruit of his death it must necessarily be that this participation of the fruit be distinguished from the reception of the body because one is the earnest of the other Here is it that the intricacy and obscurity begins To reason right and more intelligibly it had been needful to have resumed as was begun If Jesus Christ not onely gives us the Symbol of his body but his body also or his proper body to assure us that we have part in his sacrifice and in the reconciliation of mankind we must then here distinguish the communion which we have of the body of Jesus Christ from the part which we have in the fruit of his death seeing that the one doth assure us of the other These are the terms of the Bishop of Condom's first proposition which agree with them of the Catechism now the Bishop of Condom changes them against the rule of disputation and this is it which creates not onely the intricacy but also the Sophisms for that when we pass from consequence to consequence how little soever one term imports more or less than another or expresses it with any difference in the sense or in the force of the word we divert or astray and this is called to take or give the change When the Bishop of Condom saith that the reception of the body is an earnest to us of the participation of the fruit of the death of Jesus Christ these three terms of Reception of Participation and of Earnest which were not in the first proposition though they seem to answer to them which are there being so imployed by opposition one to the other as they are here do not so little alter the sense but that this change alone is the sole foundation of this Argument and of all that there is captions in it If the Bishop of Condom resuming his first terms had onely said that the communion of the body of our Lord assured us of the part which we have unto the fruit of his death he had not had a word to say because that evidently imports but one and the same action which causes that we are united unto Jesus Christ in the Lords Supper and that being united unto him we hold our selves assured of having share in the fruit of his death Nothing is more simple and easie to be understood than this to have part in the fruit of the death of our Lord is not here properly an action it is properly but a right acquired But in substituting to these words those other terms of Reeeption of the body and of participation of the fruit as the Bishop of Condom doth it is a little colour by the sound of words for supposing two different actions in this communion and afterwards adding this expression that one is the earnest of the other this seems yet to make a greater diversity This foundation being once laid in a nimble manner and almost imperceptible to those who only read cursorily there is a long continuance of consequences to attain unto two different communions of the body of Jesus Christ The mind of him that reads perceives confusedly that he is led he knows not where nor how he onely findes that he is not led on evenly if it may be so said or that he is led amiss But let us not forget to resume the Bishop of Condom's consequences in the same terms that he hath conceived them for the better making known the defects If the reception saith he of the body of our Lord doth assure us of the participation of the fruit of his death then this participation of the fruit must necessarily be distinguished from the reception of the body In good time let the mind distinguish the communion which we have with the body from the part which we have in the fruit because it is true that the body of the Lord and the fruit of his death are two different things and may be conceived distinctly as an inheritance which is given unto us is different from the revenue which it brings us But it is not necessary for all that to distinguish the communion of the body from the part which we have in the fruit as if we had not both one and the other of these two things but by two different actions even as to make an inheritance and the fruits of the inheritance to be ours it is not at all necessary to have two Titles or two different contracts the one for the inheritance it self and the other for the fruits because that the same Title serves for one and the other He proceeds If we must distinguish the participation of the body of our Lord from the participation of the fruit of his death we must also distinguish the participation of this Divine body from all that participation which is made spiritually and by Faith for that the participation by Faith cannot accommodate two different actions by one of which we should receive the body of our Saviour and by the other the fruit of his sacrifice We have already seen that we must not separate the communion of the body of the Lord from the part which we have in the fruit of his death as if there were two different actions although there be two several objects which may be distinguished to wit the
body of the Lord and the fruit of his death So all this consequence hath no foundation In summe wherefore will the Bishop of Condom have two different acts of Faith for uniting us to the body of Jesus Christ and having part in the fruit of his death when it is evident that all is done or might be done by one and the same act of Faith Or wherefore may we not even assert two divers acts of Faith if they be conceived severally by one of which we unite our selves to Jesus Christ himself and by the other unto the fruit of his death without any need to imagine for all this two different communions one spiritual by Faith and the other with the mouth of the body or real as the Bishop of Condom speaks Lord draw us after thee lift up our hearts unto thee come dwell in our hearts by the operation of thy Spirit Behold here an act of Faith which unites us to Jesus Christ if the Faith be such as it ought to be and this union of its self suffices to effect that we should also have part in the fruit of his death by this one act of Faith Lord impute to us thy righteousness and grant that being united unto thee by a true and lively Faith we may have a share in all thy benefits and in particular in the fruit of thy death Behold here nevertheless a second act of Faith which regards directly the part that we have in the fruit of his death The difference of these two acts of Faith properly will be onely in the distinction of the objects which Faith doth propose unto it self in the one it proposes the body of the Lord and in the other the fruit of his death and in one and the other there is a real communion with our Saviour but spiritually and by Faith But no man adds the Bishop of Condom 〈◊〉 112. can conceive what difference there is betwixt participating by Faith of the body of our Saviour and to participate by Faith of the fruit of his death This is now the second or third time that the Bishop of Condom will conceive all Let us see if he will be of the same mind upon the Article of Transubstantiation which follows immediately after this But after all how can he say that no man can conceive any difference betwixt participating by Faith of the body of the Lord and participating by Faith of the fruit of his death for the body of the Lord and the fruit of his death are evidently two different things and there is no one who cannot easily conceive that there is great difference betwixt partaking of the one and partaking of the other whether it be that it is done by one act of Faith or by two though besides the manner of partaking of one and the other be always the same to wit spiritually and by Faith Nevertheless it is here that the Bishop of Condom cryes out again in finishing this Article Who can but admire the force of truth c. And afterwards How ingenuously do the Calvinists confess unto us the truth they would have been strongly disposed to acknowledge the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament in figure onely and the participation of his Spirit onely in effect laying aside these great words of Participation of proper substance and many others which express a real presence and which onely cause perplexities c. Let the Bishop of Condom also in his turn ingenuously confess the truth he has been very strongly disposed and many other intelligent persons in the Church of Rome it may be will be so with him to confess that there is onely in the Eucharist a true and real communion of the body of Jesus Christ as we do acknowledge that that which we there have spiritual is very real laying aside that great word of Transubstantiation as he had laid it aside in the first Edition of his Treatise that of concomitance by virtue whereof the Cup was cut off from the communion and many others which imply manifest contradiction and which cause much more perplexity That which is truly admirable in this place is that the Church of Rome teacheth as we do a spiritual communion of the body of Jesus Christ and the Bishop of Condom himself said the very same but now in express terms that in the Lords Supper there is a communion pa. 112. by the which we partake spiritually of the body of our Saviour and of his spirit altogether in receiving the fruit of his death which is properly the result of our Doctrine and these words of participation and of substance with which the Bishop of Condom pleaseth himself and which he useth for all that himself signifie nothing more The onely difference that there is betwixt him and us is that we stop here and that he besides this spiritual communion of the body of our Lord supposes another real communion as he speaks that is with the mouth of the body which we cannot allow of Here in another prospect he insults over us as if there could not be any other communion of the body of our Lord but that onely which is had by the mouth of the body and that without admitting of that there can nothing be acknowledged in the Lords Supper but the figure of his body and a participation of the Spirit excluding thus this other spiritual communion of the very body of Jesus Christ which he but now confessed Let it be judged by this and by all the rest which hath been said as well of our opinions as of his way of arguing who it is that creates perplexities or that contradicts themselves whether it is the Bishop of Condom or us that use equivocations about words And Lastly if he hath so much subject of Triumph upon this Article as he seemed to imagine to himself XIII Of Tran. substantiation of Adoration and in what sense the Bishop of Condom saith that the Sacrament is a sign The Bishop of Condom will slide along more sweetly upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and upon the Adoration of the Host than he did in opposing our Doctrine There he attacqued and attacqued Adversaries as he calls them to whom they hardly give the liberty to defend themselves We may say any thing against them they will answer but by halfs Here he must defend himself and he hath against him Scripture reason evidence of the senses and the common notions of Christianity imprinted in conscience which are other kind of Adversaries more terrible speaking malgre opposition each in his order and speaking so loud as they put the ablest to silence The Bishop of Condom when he speaks of our Belief though all things be very simple in it is not satisfied if he cannot conceive even the very manner whereby the Holy Ghost doth really unite us unto Jesus Christ notwithstanding the great distance which there is betwixt us and him which nevertheless the Roman Church doth perpetually teach
as well as we and yet it is the onely thing in our Doctrine which humane understanding cannot well comprehend Here where there are depths of difficulties the Bishop of Condom will not perceive any at all his reason shall not at all molest him and though there is no dispute of what God can do for God can do what he pleaseth but of the meaning of his words onely without looking unto his will which are the onely rule of our Faith as well as of our actions the Bishop of Condom will tell us mysteriously that his Faith is attentive unto this infinite power which is onely properly the object of our Admiration and of our Adoration What the Bishop of Condom speaks touching Transubstantiation may be reduced unto four distinct assertions which yet shall onely be touched as we pass because this is a pure controversie which is throughly treated of in all our Books The first is pa. 123. that the appearance of bread and wine ought to continue in the Sacrament the second that the Church of Rome doth not therein acknowledge any other substance but that of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ into which the bread and the wine are changed and this is it saith he Ibid. pa. 124. which is called Transubstantiation The Bishop of Condom had abstained from this term of Transubstantiation in the first Impression of his Treatise having onely put it as a title in the Margin to note the Article or the matter of Controversie which he treats of in that place neither did he formally say upon this Article that the bread and the wine were changed into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but he adds both the one and the other in the latter The third Doctrine is That the reality doth not hinder but that the Eucharist may be a sign as to what it hath exteriour and sensible that in the contrary the sign doth necessarily carry the reality with it The fourth and last that the presence of the body being certified by this sign they of the Roman Church make no scruple to pay it their adorations As to the first of these Assertions because it was agreeable Pa. 12. saith the Bishop of Condom that the senses should perceive nothing in this mystery of Faith it was not necessary that any thing should be changed relating to them in the bread and wine in the Eucharist The Bishop of Condom onely says that it was agreeable and yet he doth but say so without proving it He looks upon it as a thing established and that onely because elsewhere he hath glanced on this in passage that it was agreeable that God should give us his flesh and bloud wrapped up under a strange form to exercise saith he pag. 84. our Faith in this Mystery and to take away the horrour of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud in their proper form But what a reason is this to establish such a Doctrine as this To exercise our Faith in this Mystery There is nothing so strange which might not be made pass under such indefinite pretexts of conveniency or agreeableness as if the Mystery of the Sacrament had not sufficient matter besides to exercise our Faith without supposing the change of the bread and wine into the proper flesh and proper bloud of our Saviour against the formal testimony of all our senses The flesh and bloud say they would induce horrour if we were to eat them in kind and it is certain that the very thought onely of eating humane flesh doth naturally produce this effect but it hath been already elsewhere touched that the coverings as they speak may lessen his horrour but not intirely take it away And if the Church of Rome be at last accustomed unto this notion it is but onely in tract of time and in favour of that mystical and figurative expression in St. John Cap. 6. who faith to eat the flesh of Christ instead of saying to believe in him unto which mystical expression the Church of Rome hath made the â—â—teral sense to succeed But Lastly the difficulty is not to prove that the appearances of bread and wine do remain or to shew a reason why they remain but to shew that there is nothing else but the appearances that remains for in the first place Jesus Christ and the Apostle St. Paul who is his instrument say that after the benediction it is bread and wine and in the Apostles times and in the first times after the Apostles there was nothing spoken of but only bread and wine And in fine God having given unto us our senses to know all corporal things which are their true object and which depend on their jurisdiction their testimony being the foundation of almost all Notions and the proof which Jesus Christ made use of to establish the truth of his humanity and of his Resurrection can the Bishop of Condom that will understand all conceive that God intended that in an act of Religion which he established to help our weakness and unbelief in presenting figures or outward objects to our senses can he conceive I say that God intended that there should be in this act of Religion a perpetual and manifest contradiction betwixt the testimony of our senses and our Faith that Faith should continually tell us that what we see and touch are onely false appearances of bread and wine and that on the contrary our senses should continually tell us that they be truly bread and wine pa. 123. Faith saith the Bishop of Condom attentive to the word of him who doth what he pleaseth acknowledgeth not here any other substance but that which is designed by the same word This is the Bishop of Condom's second assertion which is as it were the support of the former But it hath been already touched that the matter in hand is not to know whether Jesus Christ be true in what he saith or whether he be able to do what he saith it were the heighth of impiety to doubt of the one or the other The onely point in hand is touching the sense of what he hath spoken This may here again be called giving the change through favour of the profound regard which ought to be had for the great authority and power of our Lord. But is not Faith attentive unto the word of him which saith Joh. 6.41 10.11 15.5 8 12 10.7.4 14. Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11. I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the good Shepherd I am the Vine the Light the Gate a Fountain of living water c. and who in the institution of the Sacrament it self saith bread and the fruit of the vine and who saith Drink ye all of it and do this holy Ceremony in remembrance of him until he come as the Apostle speaks And yet for all that the Faith of the Church of Rome doth not stop at the sound of these words but she taketh the sense either in
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
authority of the Church of Rome which they pretend cannot err Behold therefore the Bishop of Condom's argument overthrown in all its parts seeing that the Maxime which he layes down is not true which is that all the Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the first beginning cannot be shewn proceed from the Apostles and that the application which he doth make is less true which is that all the Traditions of the Church of Rome are Doctrines embrac'd by all the Christian Churches without possibility of shewing their beginning and by consequence this conclusion whether it be of the Bishop of Condom or of the Council of Trent far from being true and orthodox is a very strange principle that we ought to receive the Traditions even those which do separate us from the Church of Rome with the same respect and the same submission as the Holy Scripture XIX The authority of the Church After Tradition follows the authority of the Church The Bishop of Condom doth not clearly explain wherein this authority consists nor what he understands by the Church which should have this authority whether this authority should have any bounds or whether it should have none or whether it be the Pope with the Council or without the Council or the Council alone in which this authority doth reside for we also have our Churches and our Governours and we believe that we should not onely keep order but all that doth conduce for the maintaining of unity and concord and the Question here as elsewhere is oftentimes but of the more or less What the Bishop of Condom sayes in this case is reducible to four principal propositions The first that it cannot be but by the authority of the Church that we receive the whole body of the Holy Scriptures The second that it is of the Church that we learn Tradition and by Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures The third that it is the Church and her Pastours assembled which should determine controversies that divide the Faithful and that when once they have resolved any matter we ought to submit unto their decisions without examining anew that which they have resolved The fourth and last that this authority is so necessary that after having denied it we have been forced to establish it amongst us by our discipline by the Acts of our Synods and by our practice in things pertaining to Faith it self As to the first we agree with the Bishop of Condom that the Christian Church is the Guardian of the Scriptures and that as she hath received the Law and the Prophets from the Jewish Church so it is from the Chirstian Church that the Faithful receive all the Scriptures as well of the Old as of the New Testament We even acknowledge that the authority of the Church is a lawful reason which at first makes us look upon the Scripture as a revelation from Heaven but we do deny not onely that it is meerly by the authority of the Church but that it is principally by her authority that we receive the Scripture as the Divine Word The Scripture is full of Testimonies which it self gives of its Divinity and of the efficacious power which it hath upon hearts by the operation of the Holy Ghost It is indeed somewhat injurious to this the Divinity of the Scripture and to its efficacy and somewhat contradictory when it is contended that a matter Divine should not be received but by dependance upon an humane authority It is as if one would say that it is yet at this day onely by the authority of the Jewish Church that Christians have received the whole body of the Scriptures of the Old Testament because it is by her hand that we have received them though upon the whole the authority of this peopel chosen of God may be a reasonable ground of the Divinity of the Scriptures Truth hath its proper character even in humane matters which makes us acknowledge it for its self when once it is set before our eyes and not for the authority of those who propose it to us By greater reason Heavenly truths like the Sun manifest themselves by their proper splendour 'T is a common speech upon this subject that a man asleep being told the Sun is up presently believes it is day upon what is told him but when once he sees it is day he believes it not any longer because he was told so but because he sees it and he doth not so much as dream any longer that it was told him so The Gentlemen of the Church of Rome will not agree that it is as clear that the Scripture is the Word of God as it is clear that it is day when the Sun is above our Horizon and this is it which the Bishop of Condom gives to understand in terms positive enough when he speaks of us that whatever we say he believes that it is principally the authority of the Church pag. 16. that determines us to reverence as Divine Books the Song of Songs which hath so few sensible marks of prophetical inspiration the Epistle of St. James which Luther rejected and that of St. Jude which might be suspected by reason of some Apocryphal Books which are therein alledged But how dare any man rebate or decry as I may so speak the brightness and force of the Word of God Why sayes he absolutely that the Song of Songs hath so few marks of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit And to what end here again proposes he scruples against this Song and against the two Epistles of St. James and St. Jude which we look upon both in the one and the other communion as sacred Books and that without so much as alledging the reasons which have determined as well the Church of Rome as ours to receive these Writings as Canoniâ—al For will any say that if these Writings had not had any character of Divinity the sole approbation of the Church of Rome could give them 〈◊〉 light which they had not of themselves For our parts 2 Tim. 3.16 we say with the Apostle that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and if all men do not look upon them in the same manner or with the same sentiments it is not the fault of the Scripture but it is the effect of the variety and weakness of the humane spirit and the wise and free dispensation of the Spirit of God which bloweth where it will and as it will An evident proof that it is not the authority of the Church of Rome which determines those of our communion to reverence the Scriptures and these three Books particularly as Canonical but that it is their own proper character and the grace which we believe that God gives us to acknowledge this character is that 't is well known there are some others as Tobie Judith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus and the two first Books of Maccabees c. which the Church of Rome receives as Canonical which