of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of Sins But I say unto you that I drink not henceforth of the Fruit of the Vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of my Father When St. Matthew here tells us that our Lord took Bread and having blessed brake and gave it to his Disciples saying This is my Body and having took the Cup and blessed likewise gave it to them saying This is my Blood Is it not manifest that he says this Bread is my Body Can this demonstrate any thing but what he gave to them broke blest and took in order to it when there is no mark given to know that he intended to speak of somewhat else Nor will it avail to say This does not demonstrate that he took at first because he blessed after he had taken it before he said This is my Body for at least it must be that which he broke after he had given Thanks and that of necessity is the same Bread that he took Again his words This is my Body will never bear such a forced Construction as This Bread is now abolished to make room for my Body for his Affirmative Is does not in the least alter it but requires and supposes the thing true at the time he speaks it This must be This i. e. Bread and Wine which God's Word demonstrateth at the time that it is his Body and Blood But whatever This may demonstrate it will be impossible to prove the Disciples understood it to demonstrate any thing which the Scriptures express not Now when St. Matthew brings in our Lord speaking after the delivery of the Cup that he would not drink any more of the Vine does he not apparently suppose it to be Wine after his delivery of it to his Disciples or at least when he delivered it Nor will it at all advantage them to say that St. Luke makes him speak it before the Consecration or Blessing of the Elements for whether he spoke it before or after or both it is certain that if St. Matthew had understood the Wine to be no more Wine he could not have placed these words of our Lord after the delivery of the Cup. So when St. Paul says 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Does not he say that it is Bread still though it be the Communion of the Body of Christ Nor shall any thing hinder but that the substance of Bread remaining we may spiritually communicate of his Body If our Communion were carnal possibly it might be difficult to understand but that being not proved nor to be proved for the Reasons given from the difference between the New and Old Testament no man can find any difficulty in apprehending it So then M. Condom's great Bluster about our Saviour's explicating usually to his Disciples what he taught in Parables and Figures which is not done here and his Omnipotence to work whatever he said falls to nothing For our Lord's Discourse being easily intelligible according to our Sense of his presenting his Body and Blood under these Elements to be spiritually received but not to be understood so easily in theirs they have the most need to seek for an explication that shall determine them to their Sense especially since it is thus evident that the Apostles understood it to be Bread and Wine as we do so that 't is they have made the forced Construction by denying it Nor can our Lord's Omnipotence take place here till it be proved what he intended to bring to pass thereby Whereas he says The Laws of Discourse that teach us a Sign receives often the Name of the thing represented yet will not allow it in a Sign that has no relation to the thing as in this instance of a morsel of Bread to signifie the Body of man what if we should say the less relation it has to the thing the further it is from being it and the more probable to be only a Sign how would he disprove us by the Laws of Discourse which being used only to express our Conceptions can receive no more bounds than they Yet had he considered but the purpose for which our blessed Saviour gives us his Body to be the Nourishment of our Souls he would not have determined so positively that Bread which is the Food of our Bodies has no analogy with that which is to feed our Souls He might have found Examples even in holy Writ where Christ calls himself a Door the Way and a Vine which things have yet not the least analogy with the Body of a man but yet sufficiently represent the purposes for which he calls himself so and are easily understood without conceiving him to be changed into a Door c. or any of these to be changed into him SECT XI Of the Words Do this in remembrance of Me. NOT having at all insisted on these Words Do this in remembrance of me I am not at all concerned to answer what he says to prove That a Remembrance may be consistent with a real partaking of a thing remembred being sure that let him make the best of it it can never make any thing against me or conclude that we must partake of Christ in any other manner than what I have set sorth But whereas he pretends to take an advantage from an Answer generally used by us That this Remembrance does not exclude all kind of Presence but that which strikes the Senses so as to make this his own for that they though they affirm Jesus Christ to be present yet acknowledg at the same time that he is not present after a sensible manner He must give me leave to say that not determining as yet any thing concerning our Doctrine till after it be explained and considered his Answer is perfectly an Illusion in that though they pretend him not present in a sensible manner i. e. visibly appearing to their Senses yet they own him present in a bodily and carnal manner and to be eaten carnally as if a man should swallow a Pill in a Conserve the Pill is not taken in a sensible manner but yet the very substance of it is taken into the Stomach I shall not therefore demand by that Query which he is pleased to call Equivocal why they think it not enough to say The Son of God is present to us by Faith but by that he confesses to be without equivocation how they come to know by Faith that he is present after a bodily or carnal manner And whether his Real Presence though spiritual known by Faith is not sufficient to work all the necessary Effects in the just man who lives by Faith SECT XII Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Real Presence WHereas M. Condom thinks himself to have gotten
to God himself The Lutherans on the contrary knowing the Sacrament to consist of two things the one earthly the other heavenly direct their Adoration not to the Elements that remain lest worshiping them they should be found Worshippers of a Creature but to Christ alone God and Man who in that Action gives them his Body and Blood Secondly That the Romanists when they plead for the Adoration and worship of the Sacrament do not principally intend that Christ God and Man should be adored in the Action or Vse of his divine Institutions but labour to establish an Adoration of the bread at other times than in the use commanded by Christ namely when they carry it about in Processions which the Council of Trent does in the very Chapter wherein it commands the Adoration of the Sacrament And then afterwards he fully informs us of the manner of the Lutheran's worship viz. That they look not upon Christ as locally present in the bread or that there is any personal union between the bread and the body of Christ but that Christ hath promised in that action his presence by his grace after a peculiar manner Therefore as the Israelites worshipp'd not the Wood nor Gold nor the Cherubims that were upon the Ark of the Testimony but God alone who promised his presence there so the Adoration which they give to Christ in the Sacrament is to be understood to be directed to him only not at all to the outward Elements And the reason why they did not worship him out of the Sacramental exercise he says was because the promise of Christ's presence cannot be extended beyond the intent and action which he instituted So that there appears a visible and most considerable difference between these two the one cannot be Idolatrous because it directs not any worship to a creature the other certainly is if the creatures remain because their worship is terminated in the Sacrament as its object Again whereas M. Condom further endeavours to persuade us That their Sacrifice is a consequent Doctrine upon the real Presence and that the Lutherans understand not themselves so well as they in that they have not admitted it The Reader may judge which have the better understanding if he does but consider that the reason upon which the Lutherans reject the Sacrifice is the same upon which they reject Adoration out of the Sacramental Action namely because we have no warrant to promise our selves Christ's Presence in the Eucharist but only in that Action which he commands and for those ends for which he instituted it This I remember is that which Chemnitius pleads at large in his Book de Sacrificio Missae SECT XVI Of Communion in both kinds UPon this point the Church of England declares The Cup Art 30. of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-People for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be administred to all Christian men alike And certainly nothing can be more plain from our Lord's institution of this Sacrament when he blessed both bread and wine and said Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me that all that are obliged to any part of it are obliged to the whole There being not the least limitation of the Lawgiver's intent in the precept itself nor in any other part of Scripture nor which is more in the practice of the Church originally under the Apostles or generally throughout Christendom Now because we are so frequently desired by these Gentlemen to take special notice of the first grounds of the separation I am obliged to take notice here that this was one of the principal causes of it their with-holding the Cup being that which was universally complained of that which was most expresly desired and Petitioned for both to Pope and Council but in vain We therefore may reasonably expect something satisfactory in this Point To answer our expectation M. Condom lets us know That under one Species all that is essential to the Sacrament is received in that there being now no real separation betwixt the Body and the Blood we receive entirely him who is solely capable to satiate us And this he tells us is the solid foundation upon which his Church interpreting the precept of Communion has declared we may receive the satisfaction which this Sacrament carries with it under one sole Species and has reduced her Children to it But now if this be the foundation she builds upon and it be solid too we may well seek for it in the Apostles or in Christ himself but certainly neither of these support the building nay the foundation which Christ has laid is rejected and laid aside hereby For to what purpose does this Doctrine serve but to make it appear that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in both kinds to no end since as much must needs be received in one as in both But whereas he endeavours to ground this Doctrine upon the real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament it 's certain that if he be really present by virtue of the Consecration he can be present only according to it if therefore his words This is my body make his body present in the bread and the other This is my blood render his blood present instead of the wine then his blood can be no more present in the bread than his body in the wine neither can any thing more be present under bread than his body nor under wine than his blood according to their Principles which found the necessity of his presence upon the literal sense of the words And to how little purpose has M. Condom laboured to persuade us that it is a Sacrifice because the word of God is the spiritual Sword which makes a mystical Separation betwixt the body and blood of Christ if now at last there be no sacramental Separation of his blood from his body but they are both together under one species But the Church says he has not thus reduced her Children to one Species out of dis-esteem of the other but on the contrary to hinder those irreverences which the confusion and negligence of the People had occasioned in these later Ages Had he told us what Irreverencies had been occasioned that could not have been prevented but by this means he had said something that possibly might have shewn the care of his Church but because he has not been so kind I shall transcribe the many and those said to be great and important Reasons which she gives as the account of her so doing to her Children in her Catechism First Because special care ought to be taken that the blood of Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Euch. Sac. quando sumend the Lord be not spilt on the ground which cannot easily be avoided in administring to a great multitude Secondly Because the Eucharist being to be kept for the sick it was greatly to be feared that the Species of the wine would not keep but might sour
great advantages by his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Calvinists in this point I thought my self unconcerned with his Objections the Church of England not having tyed her Faith to Calvin or any other but grounded it on the Scriptures Only that no man may suspect them to be of any force against the Doctrine held by the Church of England I saw it necessary to set down and explain her Doctrine and see whether any thing here urged can conclude it to be in the least absurd or inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures or with itself The Church of England then teaches 1 Catech. That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Prayer 2 Exhortation at the Communion That we therein spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and he with us 3 Art 28. The Bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ 4 Homily of the Sacrament That we must be sure to hold that there is no vain Ceremony no bare sign no untrue figure of a thing absent But as the Scripture saith the table of the Lord the bread and cup of the Lord the memory of Christ the annunciation of his death yea the Communion of the body and blood of the Lord in a marvellous Incorporation which by the operation of the Holy Ghost the very bond of our conjunction with Christ is through Faith wrought in the souls of the faithful whereby not only their souls live to eternal life but they trust also to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality Therefore 5 Prayer of Consecration she prays that in partaking of these his Creatures of bread and wine we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood 6 Catech. That the benefits that we receive by thus partaking of the body and blood of Christ are the strengthning and refreshing of our souls by these as our bodies are by the bread and wine 7 Homily of the Sacrament Ibid. That thus much the faithful see hear and know herein the favourable mercies of God sealed the satisfaction of Christ confirmed and the remission of sins established 8 Art 28. That nevertheless there is no Transubstantiation or Change of the substance of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper 9 Hom. Ib. Wherefore we are not to regard specially the earthly Creatures which remain but always to hold fast and cleave by Faith to Christ the Rock 10 Art 28. Whose body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner 11 Hom. Ib. Wherefore it is well known the meat we seek is spiritual heavenly and not earthly invisible and not bodily a ghostly substance and not carnal 12 Art Ib. The means therefore whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith 13 Hom. Ib. So that to think that without Faith we may enjoy the eating his body or drinking his blood is but to dream a gross and carnal feeding basely binding our selves to the Elements and Creatures As for those then that hold it no more than a bare sign and the Celebration and Communion thereof barely the renewing our Profession or a remembrance only of Christ Crucified whom it representeth they are wide from the Church of England on the one side as the Church of Rome on the other Nor do those who only hold it a sign effective to apply the benefits of the death of Christ not supposing it to tender Christ as present to us and to be received by us before we partake in the benefits of his death express exactly in my judgment the sense of our Church Although there is so near a conjunction of Christ with his benefits that one cannot well be apprehended without the other I conceive therefore that in the sense of our Church not only the benefits of Christ but Christ himself is tendred to us in this Holy Sacrament and is to be eaten by us before we partake of his benefits not that we are bodily to partake of him for this end but in that it seems to be the intention of our blessed Savour under these Elements to give us himself and to put us in the actual possession of himself so that in the use of this ordinance as verily as a man does bodily receive the earthly Creatures so verily does he spiritually receive the body and blood of Christ For our better apprehension of which Mystery it will be necessary more particularly to consider what it is which we do hereby receive and in what manner we are made partakers of it Concerning the first the truth which we hold you see is this that we do not here receive only the benefits that flow from Christ but the very body and blood of Christ i. e. Christ himself Crucified for as the bread and wine avails not to our bodily sustenance unless the substance of those Creatures be first received so neither do we partake of the benefits of Christ to our spiritual relief except we have first a Communion with Christ himself This the words of our blessed Saviour Joh 6. 57 Encline me to believe where he says that he that eateth him shall live by him intimating that we must be partakers of him before we can have life from him So the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16 The bread which we break Is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ evidently imply that we are therein to partake of Christ himself This I take to be that great mystery of our union with Christ whereby we are made members of his body of his flesh and of his bones And this I look upon to be that 〈◊〉 the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God in the 6th of St. John But now if it be demanded how we can eat the flesh of Christ and partake of his body and blood to conceive this eating in a carnal sense is as gross an imagination as that of those Joh. 6 who asked within themselves How can this man give us his flesh to eat we must not think then that we cannot truly feed on Christ unless we receive his substance into our bellies but must consider that the eating and drinking our Saviour speaks of must be spiritual according to the nature of his Gospel and therefore we must enquire therein what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now then if we consider what appetites are in our souls and what those appetites crave or ought at least to long after we shall easily discern what it is to eat and drink spiritually Now we know that in the 5th of St. Matthew our Saviour intimates to us that we ought to have a spiritual hunger and thirst after righteousness which
things represent which we look not upon as any derogation from God and therefore should not account their use of Images such To which I answer First That the Cases are very different the one though a solemn Action yet not being any part of God's ordinary worship as the other is That secondly Though an Oath be indeed a calling God to witness the Truth yet we never find that he prescribed any Rules concerning or forbid the use of any Ceremonies in it but has left it to the liberty of men to use it with what Ceremonies they please That therefore this cannot be drawn into consequence where the case is not parallel That again it does not appear that this custom of swearing upon the Gospel did ever occasion that dishonour of God that palpable Idolatry in some and danger of it in others which the use of Images in Religious worship has that if it did appear I should think it unlawful to be used any longer But to the pitiful evasion That an Image is but another manner of writing that therefore this Scripture of Images should be as venerable as that which is made upon Paper Paper and Letters being the work of mens hands as well as Sculpture and Painting I shall only say this That if such honour and worship were given to the Paper and Prints of the Bible as they give to Images I see no reason why it should not be thought highly offensive to God Besides he that shall look upon this as conclusive that we may as well use these in Gods Service as the writings of Scripture might conclude by the same reason that it was as lawful for the Jews to make Images and set them up in their Temples for God's worship as to use the Books of the Law and Prophets therein But why says he should you be more scrupulous of making your Prayers to Christ before an Image than before a Pillar or a Wall He might have forborn this Question unless he had professed the case to be the same that the Church of Rome matters not if we give no more respect to these than to the Wall or Pillar we kneel by but this I believe he dares not affirm in Behalf of his Church He further tell us It is Superstition to fear that our Devotions should terminate in the Image when we direct them to Christ. Now I would willingly know what it would terminate in if Christ should refuse to accept it and whether he can secure us that an intention to do this or that in honour to Christ shall be accepted by him though it be not what he directs us to for his honour but an invention of our own But what I most of all admire is that he should have the Face to call it Superstition for us to fear lest in honouring Images we should have our hearts drawn from honouring Christ and fix them upon these he might as well have called it Folly in God Almighty to suffer Image-worship to be the provocation of his Jealousie for if there be no reason for us to fear its drawing off our hearts from God there can be none for God to be jealous of us upon that score There will be some reason for his limiting the Commandment that forbids to make or bow down to Images only to the doing this in the Spirit of Pagans believing them filled with a divine virtue or that the Divinity is incorporated with them when he shall shew what he says he easily can That the Philosophers that bore above the common Error of Mankind and declared that they did not worship the Image but used them only to put them in mind of God did indeed notwithstanding their Declaration to the contrary put their trust in the Images themselves But till then for the same Reasons that the Scriptures call the Pagans worshippers of Stocks and Stones though they declared otherwise of themselves we can account those of the Church of Rome but little better whilst some of less understanding have been known to place a Trust and Confidence in the Images they use and the more intelligent tho' professing otherwise have relapsed into it in some kind and confirmed the Impiety of the publick Worship in adhering to and commanding of it For it is but a pitiful shift to say that the abuse of this Practice among particular persons if it be tolerated yet it is not approved by the Church since the Church continues to command that which has been the occasion of it Wherefore though I dare not with M. Meaux pass so severe a censure or pronounce any man accursed of God yet I am sure he is more likely to be accursed of him who defends a Practice that has been experienced to be the occasion of Idolatry and labours notwithstanding to seduce men to it than those who refuse submission to a Practice so manifestly destructive of God's true Worship and make it their business to prevent others from the danger of such Snares As to their Ceremonies which he seeks to defend by the use of some such in the Church of England I have before observed that it is the multitude of them that makes them so dangerous because they are hereby apt to take up the greatest part of Religion and draw men off from the spiritual Worship of God and those that spend too great a Zeal upon them will be apt to look upon them as all the Services they need pay to God and thereupon neglect the principal Duties of Religion Whereas he will have it a Calumny on their Church that they conceal the Mysteries of Religion from the People whilst they perform the Service of God in the Latine Tongue that very Decree which he thinks to get off his Church by does indeed make it the more culpable For if it be necessary lest the little ones want Bread that the Pastors explain to them some part of the Mysteries This very Reason proves that the whole Service of God ought to be performed in the vulgar Tongue that they may at all times and in all particulars understand and joyn in the Services of God to his Honour and their own growth and encrease in Grace and Virtue But at length he comes to the Doctrine of the Sacrament and herein compares us to Socinus and the Disciples of Paulus Samosatenus because we follow our humane Sense and Reason and are resolved to believe that Bread and Wine remain because they appear to our Senses But before he had fixt this Charge upon us he should have shewn us as clear a Revelation for the proof of their feigned Transubstantiation as there is for Christ's being God as well as Man and as clear a Command for us to worship the Sacrament as there is for us to worship Christ God and Man The difference betwixt the Lutheran Worship of Christ in the Sarament and that of the Adoration of the Sacrament itself which is the Roman Doctrine has been already stated p. 87. For that the