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
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
unto whatsoever he shall oppose that is most considerable Our Doctrine is simple as the Bishop of Condom saith that it ought to be incomparably more simple than that of the Church of Rome Here as well as elsewhere we have this advantage that the Church of Rome believes all that we do believe the difference is onely in the things which she adds and which we cannot believe We believe that Jesus Christ having taken our humane nature to suffer the death which we had deserved it was necessary that we should be united unto him as the members are united unto the head to the end that his obedience and his righteousness should be imputed unto us that we might partake of all his merits We say that this union is made on our part by the faith which we have in him that it is God himself who gives us this Faith and that to give it unto us and to confirm it in our hearts he maketh use of two sundry sorts of means the one interiour which is the secret operation of his Holy Spirit without which those others were in vain the others exteriour which are the Word and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper the Word to declare unto us the promises of Salvation Baptism more particularly to shew forth our Entrance into the Church and the washing away of our sins and the Lords Supper to shew forth yet more perfectly the death of Jesus Christ and our communion with him Hitherto we go along with the Gentlemen of the Roman Church They believe as we doe that it is necessary we be spiritually united unto Jesus Christ that this Union is made by Faith that it is the Holy Spirit which produces this Faith in our hearts and that the Word Baptism and the Eucharist are the outward means which the Holy Spirit makes use of whether to produce or to increase and strengthen Faith in our hearts If there be any difference about this betwixt the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and us it is not about what we have now said but upon those several other Doctrines which she hath added As to the Eucharist in particular whereof here the Question is betwixt them and us we also say very plainly that the Bread and Wine are outward signs which Jesus Christ hath added unto the Word to set forth his death before our eyes more livelily more sensibly than by Baptism or by the Gospel and that when we receive these signs by Faith Jesus Christ gives himself unto us or that he confirmes the gift which he hath already made unto us of himself in Baptism or in the preaching of the Gospel for the communicating to us all his benefits Not that his body is in the bread and his blood in the Wine or under the forms of bread and wine but by lifting our hearts up unto heaven where he is and uniting us unto himselfe by his holy spirit This is truly the abridgment of our Doctrin drawne from our confession of Faith and our catechisme conformable unto what the scriptures teach us throughout of the spirituall union of the faithful with our Lord Jesus Christ There is nothing in all this which is not plain and easie to be conceived excepting onely the ineffable incomprehensible manner in which this holy Spirit worketh in us and whereby he effects this union of the faithful with Jesus Christ our Divine Head Yet we have some resemblances though very imperfect Eph. 5.30 31 32. 1 Cor. 6.16 17. as well of this operation of the holy Spirit in our hearts as of the union of the faithful with Jesus Christ in the conjugal love which unites husband and wife and which is the reason that the Scripture saith that they are but one body and one soul However the matter stands it is very observable in this case that this difficulty such as it is is common with us and them of the Church of Rome and that it proceeds not more or less from hence that our Doctrine is different from theirs They believe the same as we do the spiritual union of the Faithful with Jesus Christ by the operation of the holy Spirit as we have just now said as well in the preaching of the Gospel as in Baptism and the Eucharist They conceive not at all this spiritual union any better than we nor explain themselves otherwise therein than we do and what they believe more than we in the Sacrament to wit that they receive the proper body of Jesus Christ by the mouth of the body into their stomach doth not add any thing at all according to their own principles either to effect or make understood this spiritual union which we have with Jesus Christ which is the onely and true cause of our Salvation For they do not deny that those who receive Baptism without the Word and without the Eucharist or Baptism and the Word without the same Eucharist may be saved and united perpetually unto Jesus Christ as well as they who receive also the Eucharist Neither do they say that the body of Jesus Christ which they do believe they receive into their stomach is united unto their soul or unto their body by his presence nor even that the substance of their body or of their soul doth touch the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ They say onely that their substance doth touch the sensible Forms of Bread and Wine and that the real presence of the body of Jesus Christ under these Formes is an earnest unto them of their spiritual union with Jesus Christ Some also add that it is unto them a blossoming of life and immortality by its virtue without pretending for all that that the substance of their soul or body doth join or unite it self unto the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ Let us now see wherein the Bishop of Condom doth pretend that we use Equivocations or that we come near unto the Church of Rome To render his accusation the more plausible he begins with the reason which he pretends hath as it were forced us to come nearer unto the Church of Rome in the point of the reality and afterwards he passeth unto the objections which he makes to prove that in effect we are come nearer unto them It is sufficient saith he to have learned by the Scriptures that the Son of God would testifie his love unto us by incomprehensible effects This love saith he was the cause of this so real union by which he became man this love induced him to offer up for us that his body as really as he had taken it and all these designs are followed and this love is maintained throughout by the same fervour So whensoever it shall please him to make any of his children sensible of the goodness which he hath expressed unto all in general by giving himself to them in particular he will find a means to satisfie himself by things that are as effectual as
the Eucharist he alwayes supposes that real and corporal are but one and the same thing and that a thing is not real if it be not corporal The eating or partaking of the body of Jesus Christ is very real according to us as real and effective as the expiation of our sins but it doth not follow for all that that there is a necessity that this participation be corporal that is to say that we must receive the proper flesh and the proper bloud of Jesus Christ with the mouth of the body according as in Baptism we doe agree both the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we that we do partake of or that we are truly and really united unto Jesus Christ and unto his sacrifice and yet for all that this union is not corporal In fine there is a kind of incompatibility or of contradiction in the Bishop of Condom's arguing He would have it that as the Jewes did effectively eat of the sacrifice offered for their sins we also should effectively eat the body of Jesus Christ our sacrifice and he doth not consider that as the sacrifices which the Jewes did eat were dead so it would be necessary that the body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament were in a state of death that it might be eaten as a sacrifice whereas the Church of Rome teacheth that he is there in a state of life that is to say living and not dead As to what is the Bishop of Condom's other proposition that there is no relation betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ is it not openly to gainsay what hath been already alledged out of St. Austin and Theodoret that the Sacraments doe not take the name of the things whereof they are Sacraments but because of the relation which there is betwixt the Sacraments and the things themselves that without this relation they could not be Sacraments that it is formally because of this relation that the bread and the wine are called the body the bloud of Jesus Christ for these are St. Austin's own words and that to conclude Epist 23 ad Bonif. As Jesus Christ had said that he was bread and a vine he said afterward that the bread was his body and the wine his bloud giving as it were reciprocally the names of the one unto the other Dial. 1. as Theodoret speaks In summe our Saviour seeing his Disciples bent upon the things of this life taking an occasion by the miracle of the Loaves did himself strongly establish the resemblance which there is betwixt him and bread saying that he is the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.41.51 55. that this bread is his flesh that his flesh is meat indeed and his bloud is drink indeed shewing plainly that as the bread doth nourish our bodies Jo. 6.68 so his flesh and his bloud is the life and nourishment of our souls This word seemed hard to many who forsook him but the Apostles understood very well from that time the relation or similitude which made Jesus Christ say he was bread and that his flesh was this bread unto whom shall we go Lib. 1. de Offic. Eccl. cap. 18. Com. en Marc. 14 saith St. Peter thou hast the words of eternal life St. Isidore Bede and many others very far from saying that there is no relation betwixt the Sacraments and the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as doth the Bishop of Condom say on the contrary that the bread is called his body because bread nourisheth and fortifieth the body and that the wine is called his bloud because wine breedeth bloud in our flesh and rejoyceth the heart There is another resemblance also well known which the Fathers have explained not onely betwixt the bread and wine and the flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ Theoph. Antioc 1 Comment in 4 Evan. pa. 359. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. but betwixt the Sacraments and that other mystical body of Jesus Christ whereof he himself is head to wit the Church that as the bread is made of many grains and the wine of many clusters of grapes so the mystical body of Christ is composed of many Believers which are his living members So that we may plainly see so far is it from there being no relation betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ as the Bishop of Condom supposeth that we find on the contrary the two relations which he calls natural relation and relation of institution and of which he demands but one or the other that the sign may take the name of the thing and that it might be proper to bring down the Idea into the mind to wit a relation of the natural virtue of bread unto that of the body of Jesus Christ the body of Jesus Christ being the nourishment of our souls as bread is the nourishment of our bodies and the relation which Jesus Christ had established before in the minds of his Apostles Jo. 6.52 by the use which he had made of this likeness having accustomed them unto this manner of speaking even before the institution of the Sacraments and confirming or establishing anew this relation by the very words of the institution it self But there is here yet something else to be understood The Bishop of Condom doth curteil if I may so say the words of institution or rather the sense and secretly makes a kind of Sophisme in dividing the words and examining them in a sense separate the one from another instead of taking them altogether Here it concerned not to enquire the relation there is betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ barely this relation consists as it was said in that the one doth nourish our bodies and the other doth nourish our souls The likeness betwixt the bread broken and the body broken should have been searched into for Jesus Christ gives us not his body properly but in this regard and Jesus Christ sayes not onely this is my body he saith in the same breath my body which is broken for you And suppose that these first words had not clearly enough intimated the relation which there is betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ these others which our Saviour adds are as a second touch of a pencil or a new colour which heighthens the draught and better expresses the resemblance betwixt the Image and the Divine Original that is to say that as the bread is broken in pieces to serve us for nourishment and as the wine is poured out to serve us for drink so the body of Jesus Christ was broken and his bloud was shed upon the Cross to be the spiritual nourishment of our souls Here we must observe the perpetual errour or the continual source of the errour of the Roman Church upon this point The Roman Church makes the Essential the Principal the force and virtue of the institution of the Sacrament to consist in these first words This is my body which are the onely ones she