misconstruction for which the * Pandectae Canonum c. publish'd at Oxford by Dr. Beverege Council in Trullo Can. 81. condemn'd the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that hymn 4. The omission of these words in these holy mysteries might be purely accidental and pass undiscover'd because as they signifie no more then in this celebration of the Eucharist they have no material influence upon the sense But if we understand as perhaps a perverse man may that these mysteries signifie the same with these elements that is cause enough to omit them because they would assert an opinion which is contrary to sound Doctrine and the declar'd judgment of the Church Disc I. §. 3. n. 1. pag 3. What is farther observable in the two first Sections is repeated and back'd in the third and might be safely pass'd over as containing nothing material but what we again meet with there For concerning the Form prescrib'd in delivering the consecrated Elements he tell 's us that in K. Edwards first book the Form was The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. in his second Take and eat this in remembrance c. in Qu. Elizabeths both these put together as they still continue in the English Liturgy But withal he tells us the first of these Forms descends to us from Antiquity and he finds no fault with the second which is entirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution So that we are yet to seek where the harme lies of using either Form single or both of them together and yet farther to seek to what purpose this observation is made since 't is manifest that neither Form single nor both of them together either owns a Corporal or denyes a Real Presence He addds that the Scotch Rubrick keeping the first Form requires the Communicant to answer to it Amen which without a Rubrick ever was and is still the Practice of the Church of England for what more natural then to answer Amen to a prayer and so were divers other things as for instance standing up at the Gospel and saying Glory be to thee O Lord which the Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy having good reason to approve thought fit to injoyn by a Rubrick that the Puritans might have no pretence for Nonconformity But to return to the Communicants answering Amen the Pamphlet truly observes it to be according to custome of Antiquity but I doubt the proofs it quotes are not very judiciously chosen The place in Eusebius belongs plainly to another thing The words are Hist VII 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Which evidently shews that That Amen was answer'd to the Doxology before the distribution of the Elements as not only Justin Martyr could have taught him but even Valesius himself in his Notes upon that passage of Eusebius I leave the examen of the other two Quotations to them that have leisure and the Books by them 't is probable they may prove as pertinent as this For I find it a common practice in this man 's other Works to quote those passages at length which he thinks will bear the stress of an Argument and barely refer to such places as contain only a hint which perhaps an unwary Reader may go near to swallow This Amen was spoken says the Pamphlet as the Communicants confession that what he receiv'd was Corpus Domini But I shall rather learn the meaning of it from Justin Martyr * Just Mart. Edit Steph Apol. 2. pag. 162. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who observes that Amen in Hebrew signifies so be it wherefore according to His notion the Communicant answering Amen only joyns with the Priest in praying that the Body and Blood of Christ may preserve his Body and Soul to everlasting life The Pamphlet farther observes that in K. Edwards first book there was this passage in the prayer of Consecration And with thy holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ which was afterwards left out of the English Liturgy and restor'd in the Scotch This omission by the way is something injudiciously observ'd because it shews us that the Clergy of Q. Elizabeth had no such thoughts of the Real Presence as the Pamphlet would suggest they had But I refer him for answer to his own quotation out of Laudensium Autocatacrisis From these words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation wherefore the English Reformers scrap'd them out of their Books tho' his Gloss upon Restoring them in the Scocth Liturgie is a manifest cavil for no man of sence can interpret them as they lie there in favor of Transubstantiation see Arch-Bishop Cranmers answer to Gardiner p. 70. p. 289. * The Archbishop the most competent Judge in this case thus interprets this passage p 79. of his answer to Gardiner And therefore in the Book of the Holy Communion we do not pray absolutely that the Bread and Wine may be made the Body and Blood of Christ but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthily receive the same that we may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood and that therewith in Spirit and Truth we may be Spiritually nourished And again p. 289. We do not pray c but that they may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ that is to say that we may so eat them and drink them that we may be partakers of his Body Crucified and his Blood shed for our redemption Wherefore this was the sense of our Reformers that compil'd the Communion-office and thus they understood it that restored it in the Scotch Liturgy and so must any man understand it that is not too partially addicted to Popery I must beg the Readers pardon if out of a desire to leave nothing unreply'd to I have particularly spoken to these inconsiderable observations which the Author himself does but skirmish with But we are now come to the Rubrick before which he intends to sit down viz. that for explaining why we Kneel at the Sacrament This he tells us in K. Edward's book deny'd a Real and Essential but now denyes only a Corporal Presence To which I answer that K. Edward's Rubrick by Real and Essential means as the Papists then us'd to do a Real and Bodily Presence as is plain by the Articles set forth about the same time and quoted by the Pamphlet it self pag. 2. He observes farther that both this Rubrick and the explanatory Paragraph in the 28 th Article were expung'd in the first of Q. Elizabeth To which we have already answer'd that this at the utmost implyes but a change in the terms of our Communion and if he think fit to challenge the Church upon that score we are ready to
whom the Author therefore traduces for slandering the Catholics to which I can only say that he certainly slanders Dr Stillingfleet and I know not how to count him a Papist who will not allow Bellarmin to be one of his Catholics * See Dr. Stillingfleet of the Idolatry of the Ch of Rome cap. 2. § 4. pag. â—25 He adds that his Catholicks affirm this Sign we are speaking of to be all that of the Bread and Wine which is perceptible by any sense and therefore when they tell us that the Substance is done away Disc II. pag. 14. §. 10. they take Substance in such a sense as is non-sense For so he says though in more and other words but 't is good to be as brief as may be when we talk unintelligibly And non-sense is a sort of sense very proper for this subject being the remaining species and accidents of sense when the substance of it is done away Wherefore our Author proceeds in the same strain and tells us that his Catholics allow Local positions to be predicated of Christ's Body indivisibly present but to taste to be digested to nourish to be press'd with the Teeth to be burnt or gnaw'd by brutes these belong only to the Species and not to Christ's Body which is impassible All this is to be understood in the Sense last mention'd wherefore he wisely forbears to give a reason and only quotes Bellarmin who is now become one of his Catholics But Bellarmin at best was but a fallible Cardinal and infallible Pope * See the Preface to Determinatio Jo. Parisiensis lately Printed at London p 5 6. Nicholas II. with his Cardinals made Berengarius tell another tale And though Hildebrand differ'd from Nicholas and Innocent III. from them both yet we must not inquire how all these Popes were Infallible and their several Adherents Orthodox and yet our Authors Doctrine good Catholic Doctrine still For the Book of Education tells us that * Part. I. cap. 9. p 92. Acuteness Sagacity are apt to dispose men to Heresy and 't is certain that no man can become a Thorough Convert of this Authors till his Brains be Case-hardned to be proof against all manner of contradictions In the eleventh Section he says that the word Sacrament is not allways taken in the same sense Disc 2. pag. 14. §. 11. We allow him to take it in any sense provided it be sense that he takes it in Wherefore we except not to his taking Sacramentum for Res Sacramenti when he explains how his Catholics adore the Sacrament It seems that they to the Sacramentum give an inferior cult but Divine adoration which I wonder why he would not call latry to the Res Sacramenti only Ibid viz. only to our Lord's Body and Blood and so to our Lord himself as present in the Sacrament for so he says and to him precisely as Really present abstracting both from Transubstantiation and the belief of a Corporal presense for so he explains himselfe afterwards Now if there be no Popery Lurking under that sly word cult I am afraid this Catholic Defender will go for as rank a Heretick as any Calvinist that now rows in the Gallies For to give the Papists sense in the words of * Theol. quaest 79. disp Suarez Non solum Christus sed totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adoratur 'T is not an inferior cult to the Species that will serve the turn nor Duly nor Hyperduly neither but * Moral l. 8 cap. 32. Henriquez says it must be Latry speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent In short * Disc concerning the Adoration of the Host lately reprinted at London the remaining Species of Bread and Wine together with the Natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them make one intire object of the Papists adoration which they call Sacramentum And this they tell us the Councell of Trent means when it requires * Sess 13. cap. 5. Omnes Christi fideles Latriae cultum huic Sanctissimo Sacramento adhibere * Dr. Stillingfleet Idolatry of the Church of Rome cap. 2 pag. 116. Nor is this Deny'd that I know of by any that understand either the Doctrine or the Practice of the Church of Rome So says the Great Learned Dr Stillingfleet in the place here quoted by our Author who should have confuted this passage instead of nibling at an unanswerable argument else the meaning of the Council will allways be judg'd by the Doctrine and Practice of the Church and the most artificial disguise the Defender has in his Wardrobe will never make his Catholics pass currently for true Papists I am not sollicitous what the words of the Council of Trent are nor I think ever shall be till I forget the two famous controversies that * See F. Paul's History lib 2. pag. 216.228 Soto had with Vega and Catharinus Disc 2. pag 15. § 12. For if they who were members of the Council and so eminently concern'd in wording the Decrees were for all this ignorant of the true sense of those Decrees 't is now I doubt too late for a Protestant to give 'em a determinate meaning nor need any man regard 'em any more then those other Oracles that were dictated with the like ambiguity But to guide us in this Labyrinth the Defender gives us a Judicious Observation as he calls it out of Sancta Clara which is this Disc 2. §. 13. p. 17. The substance of the Catholic Faith is declar'd both in the Chapters and Canons but yet the Canons we must stick to where the form is exceeding exact though the manner of expression sometimes different from that in the Chapters How Judicious this remark is and how much for the Council's honor may perhaps be question'd but how well 't is apply'd to the present case where the Canon is more ambiguous and therefore less exact then the Chapter is a thing will admit of no dispute nor will any man contest this Author's title to so Judicious an application After a leafe's insignificant pother he comes to this final Resolution Disc 2. §. 14. p. 18. That to adore the Sacrament is at most but an improper expression And says as magisterially as ever Soave did that dutifull Children ought to learn of their Mother how to speak Disc 2. p. 17. provided always say I that their Mother do not teach them to abuse their Father and if they cannot come at their Mother or cannot understand her language I hope 't is no offence to ask her meaning of their Brethren that know her mind But after all it is not the expression but the practice that we complain of 't is not talking improperly but committing Idolatry that we fear 't is not his inferior cult but Suarez's unico cultu that we cannot digest And if the Defender would not urge us by pardoning an expression
a Real participation of the body by consequence of the effects and benefits But the great and killing objection against all explications he dislikes is their not advancing us beyond Zuinglianism Whether the opinion which he brands by that name be truly ascribed to Zuinglius and really so great a bugbear as this Author seems to apprehend I need not now stay to inquire 't is sufficient to my purpose that the Church of England does advance beyond it Yet the words of the Judicious and Venerable Mr. Hooker are very well worth our observation It seemeth saith he lib. 5. Sect. 67. pag. 308. much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramentaries so many invective Discourses are made all running upon two points that the Eucharist is not a bare Sign and Figure only and that the efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all we Receive in this Sacrament For no man having read their Books and Writings which are thus traduced can be ignorant that both these Assertions they plainly confess to be most true they do not so interpret the words of Christ as if the Name of his Body did import but the Figure of his Body and to be were only to Signifie his Blood They grant that these Holy mysteries Receiv'd in a due manner do instrumentally both make us Partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in True and Reall though Mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and intire as hath been shew'd These words may receive farther light from Bishop Cosins's History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. Sect. 13.17 18. Now they that acknowledge thus much hold a Real Participation and Vnion which is all that is requisite to affirming a Real Presence And if they deny a Real Presence they only reject a Term which may well enough be us'd but perhaps be better let alone The truth is what the Pamphlet attributes to Zuinglius was as Bucer reports the tenent of the Anabaptists and as Mr Thorndike says of some Puritans in the beginning of the late Rebellion And by them 't is most probable this notion was imparted to a friend of ours who at that time was observ'd to be their great associate and favourer Disc I. §. 37 p. 25. What the Remonstrants and Socinians say does no way concern us much good may they do the Author they who set up for so great masters of reason will but ill resent it that a man of his head should pretend to them Ibid. §. 38. Who W.H. is and who his Answerer I know not having never seen either of their Books And being so well acquainted with this Author's sincerity I cannot depend upon his Credit I meet with nothing quoted but what 't is easy to give an account of but to do it as it should be one ought to have the Books by him for I vehemently suspect this Answerer has far'd no better then his Brethren CHAP. V. A Reply to the Fourth Chapter of the first Discourse TO the third Observable lay'd down in the first Chapter which now comes to be consider'd the Author has three things to say 1. That if Christ's Natural Body were Corporally Present in the Eucharist Disc I p. 27. §. 39. it ought to be then ador'd which we grant him and had he design'd to dispute for the Papists he ought to have insisted that it is Corporally Present 2. Ibid §. 40. That if we reject a Corporal Presence yet if any other Presence be reveal'd which is as Real and Essential as if it were Corporal adoration will be no less due to it thus then so Present That is if he mean to oppose us and not barely fight with his own shadow that since the Church of England holds the natural body of Christ to be Corporally and Locally absent yet as Truly and Really Present as if it were Locally Present she is as much bound to adore the Elements for the sake of the Real Presence which she owns as she would be if she likewise own'd that Corporal and Local Presence which she deny's I say to adore the Elements for otherwise there is no dispute whether Christ's body abstracting from the hypostatical Union be more then a creature which is not adorable with Divine worship For all understanding men are agreed it is not Or whether Christs person i. e. his body hypostatically united to his Deity wheresoever or howsoever present is to be ador'd both in and out of the Sacrament viz. in the performance of all religious offices still addressing our adoration to him in heaven where his body is Locally Present for this is allow'd by all true Christians whatsoever This his second position we are to debate when he speaks to it in the mean time we deny it 3 He undertakes to shew that the Church of England i. e. five writers of her Communion Disc I. pag. 28. §. 41 42 43 44 45. whereof one is Mr Thorndike as he delivers himself in his Epilogue have heretofore believ'd and affirm'd such a Presence to which they thought adoration due To adore a presence is an odd kind of expression for 't is to adore an extrinsic denomination To adore Christ present in the mysteries is a phrase we better understand though that too be lyable to misconstruction If the author dare to speak plain the point that pinches and the true thing to be prov'd is that Christ according to the quotations is so Really Present in the Eucharist that the Elements ought to be Divinely worshiped upon that account And if this be so as I think I have plainly shewn I leave the Reader to consider with what confidence the Author quotes either Bishop Andrews for his purpose who expressly in the very quotation declares himself against him saying Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus or Bishop Taylor saying likewise We give no divine honour to the Signs or Bishop Forbes saying Haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni debetur or the Arch-Bishop of Spalato since this passage in Bishop Forbes is a quotation out of the Arch-Bishop I can only say that to me these passages seem to argue that the Author is very Singular in something besides his Religion Disc I. pag 29. §. 47. Having given us this taste of his other good qualities he concludes with a spice of his Logic and infers 1. That notwithstanding what he has said the Church in her Declaration seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's body as any way Present in the Eucharist contrary to the forecited Doctrine and K. James's and Bishop Andrews's Religion I will not take advantage of his ambiguous expressions but tell him that the King 's the Bishop's and the Churches meaning is very plain viz. that since Christs Natural Body is not to be ador'd but where it is Corporally Locally Present it is not so
give him satisfaction In the fourth Section he falls on in earnest upon the declaration about adoration as he calls it 〈◊〉 I. §. IV. pag. 4. and from it as it now lyes draws three Observables which are either very dishonestly or else very ignorantly worded They need no other answer then a bare amendment of the expressions which if they were intended to give the sense of the Church of England should have been to this effect 1. Observable That the Clergy do profess and teach that the natural body and blood of Christ are not corporally i. e. locally present in the Eucharist 2. Observable That they have diverse reasons for this assertion one especially wherein Scripture Philosophy and common sense are agreed viz. that a true humane body cannot locally be in two places at once 3. Observable That in consequence hereof they declare that the Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is indeed reall but spirituall and therefore the Elements are not to be ador'd because adoration ought not to be directed to the natural body of Christ but where it is locally present Had our Author had the ingenuity to express himself after this manner he had been no less kind to himself then just to the Church of England for he might have avoided divers errors he commits in the three next Chapters by avoyding the grand impertinence of having written them at all CHAP. III. A Reply to the second chapter of the first Discourse Disc I. §. VII pag. 5. THe design of the second Chapter is to prove by abundance of quotations that Learned Protestants heretofore have held that the same body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is present as in Heaven so here in the Holy Sacrament either to the worthy receiver or the Symbols By learned Protestants I presume he means those of the Church of England for so he should mean since he draws his Observables from a Rubric in their Liturgie Now he would have told us some news had he mentioned but one of these learned Protestants who pretending to give the sense of the Church of England does not hold that the same numerical body which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is locally present in Heaven and virtually present in the Eucharist not to the Symbols but the Faith of the worthy receiver or if by those words as in heaven so here he means locally in both as indeed he must mean if his next Chapter be at all pertinent he would have told us no less news had he brought but one quotation that could be honestly taken in that sense But if he have any third meaning it would have been a favour to explain himself for we pretend not to any talent in divination Now supposing he designs to combat the Church of England I would gladly know to what purpose he alleges Calvin and Beza Disc I. §. VIII IX for let their doctrine be what it will to quote it to us who are not to be concluded by their authority is very trifling and impertinent When the sense of the Church of England was the question one would have expected to heare what the Church-Catechism says What the Homilies What Nowells Catechism Books allow'd and publish'd by the Churches authority and authentick witnesses of her judgment or if private Doctors were the game what Archbishop Cranmer's book of the Sacraments what Bradford Philpot and the rest of Q. Mary's Martyrs what Bishop Jewell in his Apology and the Defence of it what Bishop Vsher in his Sermon before the House of Commons But instead of these we have only the testimonies of some other eminent but private men all miserably mangled and disjoynted some of them Conciliators too whose very design obliges them to a looser kind of expression then a true and adequate standard of the Churches judgment will allow Now should any of our private writers either in heat of disputation or out of zeal to peace or desire to explain a great mystery a little deviate in their expressions we can easily forgive an error that proceeds from so allowable a cause but still the Church is not bound to justify that error But the quotations in the Pamphlet will not put us upon this Apology Not an author he quotes except only Mr. Thorndike of whom we shall say more by and by but speaks the sense of the Church and industriously drives at a point quite contrary to the Pamphlets design which discovers a great flaw either in the Authors judgment or honesty I grant the authors as he has mangled 'em looke as unlike those worthy champions of our Church as the shape that appear'd to Aenaeas did to the true and whole person of Hector But I desire the Reader neither to trust the Pamphlet nor me but his own eys to consult the quotations as they lye intire in the authors themselves and consider 'em with their several contexts For my own part having taken that pains I profess to find such dealing as I do not care to report because I cannot expect to be believ'd 'T is somewhat unaccountable that a man of sense having read the book of Bishop Taylor 's which the Pamphlet quotes should split upon the very Fallacy which that Bishop spends allmost the whole first Chapter in detecting He makes it his business there to shew that Protestants in explaining the Real Presence may lawfully use the same terms that Papists doe But they neither can nor doe use them in the Papists sense and he that will urge the Protestants with those words must take the Protestants meaning along with him This seems to be a very equitable proposal How far the Pamphlet complyes with it I dare leave to the meanest Reader when he has perus'd this short and plain account of our Churches doctrine in this point The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a twofold consideration in the Eucharist 1. As a body dead under which notion we are said to eat it in the Sacrament and to drink the blood as shed as appears by the words of the Institution Take and eat this is my body which is given or broken for you Drink ye all of this for this is my blood which is shed for you in which words * Acts and Monuments pag. 1611. as Mr. Bradford long agoe observ'd what God has joyn'd we are not to put asunder 2. As a glorify'd body in which condition it now sits at the right hand of God and shall there continue till the restitution of all things imparting Grace Influence and all the benefits purchased by the Sacrifice of the dead body to those that in the holy Eucharist most especially are through Faith and by the marvellous operation of the holy Ghost incorporated into Christ and so united to him that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them they are one with Christ and Christ with them they are made members of his body of his flesh and
of his bones and by partaking of the Spirit of him their head receive all the graces and benefits purchased for them by his bitter death and passion Wherefore it is evident that since the body broken and the blood shed neither do nor can now really exist they neither can be really present nor literally eaten or drank nor can we really receive them but only the benefits purchased by them But the body which now exists whereof we partake and to which we are united is the glorify'd body which is therefore verily and indeed received as we shall see anon and by consequence said to be Really present notwithstanding its Local Absence because a real participation and union must needs imply a Real presence though they do not necessarily require a Local one For 't is easy to conceive how a thing that is Locally Absent may yet be Really Receiv'd as he that receives a Disciple is said to receive Christ as the Disciples themselves receiv'd the Holy Ghost as the King in the Gospel receiv'd a Kingdom or as we commonly say a man receives an Estate or Inheritance when he receives the Deeds or Conveiances of it In all which cases the reception is confessedly real tho' the thing it self is not locally or circumscriptively present or literally grasp'd in the arms of the receiver This by the way may serve to shew the vanity as well as falshood of Transubstantiation which was first devis'd to solve the literall eating of the glorify'd body of our Saviour whereas though the body that is glorify'd be numerically the same that was broken yet the body which is eaten as dead and the body which is present as glorify'd are two as different things as can well be imagin'd This may likewise serve to shew that there is no great disagreement among those Protestants whom the Papists too hastily charge with it For they all agree that we spiritually eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood that we neither eat nor drink nor receive the dead body nor the blood shed but only the benefits purchased by them that these benefits are deriv'd to us by virtue of our Union and Communion with the glorify'd body and that our partaking of it and union with it is effected by the mysterious and ineffable operation of the holy Spirit The only difference is that one part from the premisses infer that Christ may be truly said to be Really Present in the Eucharist whereas the other scruple at the use of that expression because the local absence of his body is confessed on both sides notwithstanding they agree in all the points which the other party think requisite to defend it Now tho' it be easy as I said before to conceive how a natural substance may be said to be Really Receiv'd though not Locally Present it is not so easy to conceive it Really Present when at the same time it is Locally Absent Therefore the Church of England has wisely forborn to use the term of Reall Presence in all the Books that are set forth by her authority We neither find it recommended in the Litugy nor the Articles nor the Homilyes nor the Churches nor Nowell's Catechism For although it be once in the Liturgy and once more in the Articles it is mention'd in both places as a phrase of the Papists and rejected for their abuse of it So that if any Church of England-man use it he does more then the Church directs him if any reject it he has the Churches example to warrant him and it would very much contribute to the peace of Christendom if all men would write after so good a Copy Yet it must not be deny'd but the term may be safely us'd amongst Scholars and seems to be grounded upon the language of Scripture it self For when our Saviour promises to be in the midst of them that call upon him and to be with his Church always to the end of the World no doubt he promises to be really present with them though he does not mean that his Naturall Body shall be locally present amongst them So S t. Paul speaks of his own being absent in Body but present in Spirit 1. Cor. V. 3 The Romans us'd to call their Gods Praesentes Deos not as locally present but always ready to assist them and whatever is in readiness when we want it to answer our occasions may be properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be at hand to be present A man does truly repraesentare pecuniam when he gives a good bill for it though he does not pay it down in specie The Holy Ghost is said to abide and dwell in us which words imply a continual presence no doubt Reall though not Physicall and Locall but only by his grace and influence In short whatever we enjoy use and reap the benefit of as truly as if it were prae sensibus is as Really present as if it were Physically so nay no doubt when virtue went out of our Saviour's body to heal the woman in the Gospel though the Jews throng'd him and she did but touch his garment yet his body was more really present to her whom the virtue of it heal'd then to them whom the substance of it touch'd So much for the use of the word which when we of the Church of England use we mean thus A thing may be said to be really receiv'd which is so consign'd to us that we can readily imploy it to all those purposes for which it is usefull in itself and we have occasion to use it And a thing thus really receiv'd may be said to be really present two ways viz. either Physically or Morally to which we reduce Sacramentally A Physicall presence now we speak of a natural Body is locall antecedent to the reception and independent upon it the thing is first really present and then really receiv'd and though it were not receiv'd would be still really present A morall presence is only virtuall consequent to the reception and dependent upon it the thing is first really receiv'd and by consequence said to be really present but it is not at all present to them that do not really receive it Thus in the holy Eucharist the Sacrament is Physically the res Sacramenti Morally present the elements Antecedently and Locally the very body Consequentially Virtually but both Really present From hence it is evident that if we rightly understand the Presence it is not material with what adverbs we affirm it We may say it is Really Essentially nay Corporally present that is it is present in as much as it is Really receiv'd to all intents and purposes for which the Res ipsa the Essence the Substance the very Body would be useful to us if it were Physically and Locally present And the difference between us and the Papists is plain They however they express themselves understand a Local presence which we deny and therefore reject their expression We whatever term we use mean only a
Spiritual and Virtual Presence and explain the term we make use of to that effect Thus the Protestants in K. Henry the Eighth's time that sufferd upon the six Articles deny'd the Real Presence i. e. the Popish sense of it but meant the same thing with us who think we may lawfully use that term On the other side that excellent Person and glorious Martyr Mr. Bradford * Acts and Monuments p. 1608. I do believe says he that Christ is Corporally present at and in the due Administration of the Sacrament But he adds this explication By this word Corporally I mean that Christ is present Corporally unto Faith It is likewise evident that when we say Christ is Present or Adorable in the Sacrament we do not mean in the Elements but in the Celebration We affirm his naturall Body to be Locally in Heaven and not here and that we who are here and not in Heaven ought to Worship it as Locally present in Heaven while we celebrate the Holy Sacrament upon Earth Lastly it is evident that this Doctrine is sufficiently remov'd from what the Pamphlet calls Zuinglianism how truly I will not now inquire For we do not hold that we barely receive the Effects and Benefits of Christ's Body but we hold it Really Present in as much as it is Really receiv'd and we actually put in possession of it though Locally absent from us So that while we Spiritually eat Christ's Flesh and drink his Blood we through Faith in a mysterious and ineffable manner dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and Christ with us and by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet Real participation we receive the Benefits consequent to it even the remission of our Sins and all other benefits of Christs Passion This in short is our meaning and to this effect all true Church-of-England-men declare it Whether we express our selves in proper and accurate terms is another question wherein if the Editor think fit to ingage we are ready to answer him In the mean time we desire him and the rest of his Communion not to catch up our words and bait them in their own sense which is too like the dealing of the Old Romans with the Primitive Christians It remains that we say a word or two concerning Mr. Thorndike's Testimony and so dismiss this Chapter The reader may please to take notice that the whole design of this Pamphlet is to furbish and rig out a notion of Mr. Thorndike's in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England The notion is neither the Church of Englands nor as I believe any other Churches nor does he so much as pretend that any other man much less any Church ever taught it He only thinks it is * consistent with the analogy of Faith not trenching as he says upon any ground of Christianity and seems to propose it as a peaceable expedient for complying outwardly with the Popish adoration of the Euchâ—â—â—â—â— a practice which when he wrote his 〈…〉 thought adviseable if it could be warranted for he was then upon a project of Uniting all Christians in one Communion and wrote his Epilogue on purpose to serve that design not pretending to give the true sense of any party but so to blanch the opinions of them all that the difference of their Judgment might not hinder their Uniting Wherefore he professes to expect * Preface to the Epilogue p. 45 c. the Lot of Reconcilers to be contradicted by all parties and owns that he sayes those things which he should have dissembled had the Church of England continu'd But it seemes he thought as some others did when the King was Murther'd that the Church of England was utterly and irrecoverably dissolv'd and that it was necessary to hold Communion with some Church and if it were honestly practicable with the Church of Rome rather then another 'T is probable the Editor was of the same mind for I remember to have heard this very plea made in his defence by a friend of his about some Eighteen years since But whatever Mr. Thorndike's opinion was when he wrote his Epilogue 't is certain when the King return'd he was a member of that Convocation that revis'd the Liturgy that he constantly attended there and had a hand more then ordinary in the Edition of sixty one That he declar'd his unfeign'd assent and consent to all things in the Liturgy as it was then alter'd that he conform'd to it all the rest of his Life and at last dy'd in Communion with the Church that impos'd the use of it So then we have here quoted out of the Epilogue a private opinion of a private man and what 's that to the Church especially since for ought then appear'd he was singular in it while he held it when occasion offer'd he forsook it professing his unfeign'd assent to that Rubrick which the Pamphlet would confront with his Authority CHAP. IV. A Reply to the third Chapter of the first Discourse Disc 1. §. 19 p. 13. The Author's purpose in the third Chapter is to combat this assertion in the Rubric that it is against the truth of a natural body to be i. e. as he explains it that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once Here is a kind of inauspicious stumble at the very entrance For 't is one thing to say as the Rubric does that a true natural body cannot be and another as he does that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once For should we suppose as he would have us that God should make one of our bodys be in two places at once when God had done this it would truly be in those places but before he did it he must change the nature of the body and make it cease to be a true natural body This is but a slip but in the next Paragraph 't is neck or nothing Ibid §. 20. n. 1. He finds there that Protestants confess Christs presence in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery they own indeed our Vnion and Communion with him to be so but supposing that the Reall Presence is easily explain'd But admit the Reall Presence be ineffable what then Ibid. He conceives it is so because of something in it opposite and contradictory to reason Now any Protestant Child could have told him tho' perhaps he will take it more kindly from the Catholic * Part 2. Cap. 6. pag. 41. Representer that the mysteryes of Faith are above reason not contrary to it A little farther nihil magis incredibile says Calvin therefore says the Author not this more incredible that Idem Corpus c. Away you Wagg what thrice in one Paragraph § 20. n. 3. Dr. Disc 1. § 20. n. 3 p â—4 Taylor is Quoted saying that if Transubstantiation were plainly reveal'd he would burn all his arguments against it and believe it without more adoe And so say I too
Author's practice in such cases Nor shall I much insist upon that passage that Christ's humanity abstractively considered is adorable with a Worship not exceeding that due to a Creature Ibid. for wee are not now talking of Inferior Adoration but supreme Divine Worship Wee know that adorare is by some taken for manum ori admovere to kiss the hand or any thing els in token of respect which as some Papists would perswade us is all they do to their Images But 't is certainly foppery if it be no worse to do so to any thing but an intelligent being Besides wee know it was a * Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ceremony of the heathen Idolatry and Job is of opinion Ibid. that if he had us'd it to the sun in which our author newly instanc'd it had been an iniquity to be punish'd by the Judg for he should have deny'd the God that is above Job XXXI 26.27.28 In the fifth Section he tells us that Protestants Disc II. pag. 2. § 5. n. 1. of the Church of England especially grant the body and blood of Christ to be Really Present in the Eucharist not in Vertue only but in Substance and that this body and blood of our Lord which is not sever'd from his person is then to bee worshipped with Supreme Adoration This we likewise grant him as we have already explain'd it according to the mind of those Protestants and so pass over the quotations which take up the two next sections together with abundance of advantage that an adversary might take for we are now in pursuit of an argument that is in some danger to be lost in this mist of quotations These are all the Concessions wherein the Church of England is concern'd and therefore we might pass over the two next which I cannot imagin to what purpose he mentions Disc II. pag 10. § 7. For though the Lutherans grant as some not all of 'em do that during the action of the Eucharist Christs body is to be ador'd as by Consubstantiation present to the Consecrated Symbols I see not what advantage this concession gives to his cause or how it is any way prejudiciall to ours For the Lutherans hold a Local Presence wherefore some of them think they may adore and if we could believe their Presence we should not contest their Adoration Ibid p. 11. To as little purpose does he press us with Monsieur Daille's concessions For if he grant more then the Church of England does she is not bound to defend him tho' in this case I think he does not and so we may safely joyn with him in his concessions For the reason why we cannot Communicate with the Church of Rome is not barely because she holds an Error but because she proposes it under an Anathema and grounds an Idolatrous practice upon it and requires our consent to both these things as a term of Her Communion This the Lutherans do not and therefore tho' their opinion be Erroneous their Communion need not be unlawful Now to see with what judgment the Defender makes use of this concession He 's to prove that Protestants by their own rules ought to joyn in the Popish adoration and his argument is that Mons Daillè says we cannot communicate with the Papists as long as they impose their adoration tho' otherwise we might if they only believ'd erroneously and kept their error to themselves Ibid. p. 12. Once more this Judicious Author appeals to M. Daillè who believing as the Church of England does that to Worship any Host is Idolatry yet grants if the case were otherwise and if a Consecrated Host were truly adorable it were possible to adore one that is not Consecrated without committing formal Idolatry Likewise He and Dr. Stillingfleet grant that when Christ was upon Earth where his person was confessedly adorable a man that by inculpable mistake had ador'd another person for him might have likewise been absolv'd from the guilt of formal Idolatry And both these concessions are as certainly true as certanly alleg'd to no purpose But perhaps the Author means the reason only not the instances to be pertinent and would infer no more but that Papists by our own concessions may be no Idolaters though they Worship a Creature because they may do this by an inculpable mistake This I grant may be something not to his but to the Papists purpose if he prove them inculpably mistaken but that We should suppose them so I cannot see why he should pretend For he knows that we think Transubstantiation to be more then a mistake a flat and manifest defyance of Sense and Reason Scripture and Tradition and in that respect more culpable then the grossest Heathen mistake for they to mention no other disparity wanted the Light of Scripture which the Papists have and shut their eyes against and this in our opinion makes a vast difference between the Popish and Heathen Idolatry CHAP. VIII A Reply to the six next Sections of the second Discourse beginning at §. 9. SO much for the Protestant Concessions The Defender in the six next Sections pretends to lay down Catholic Assertions which I doubt will be no more allow'd by the Church of Rome then his Protestant Concessions are by the Church of England First he tells us tha◠Catholics affirm there is in the Eucharist after consecration a Sign distinct and having a divers existence from the thing signify'd Disc II. pag. 13. §. 9. Whence he concludes that Dr. Stillingfleet does them wrong when he says they grant the Signs to be hypostatically united to the Thing signify'd A Sign there must be says his own quotation out of Bellarmin or there can be no Sacrament Wherefore we presume they hold a Sign But then the Sign as they explain it is neither the Sign instituted by Christ which doubless a Sacramental sign ought to be nor indeed any other Sign but a Sign that signifies nothing Then for the separate Existence of it some Papists do not hold that neither as the Author could not but see in that very place of Dr Taylor which he refers to in this Section which makes it somewhat strange that so liberal a quoter should here be so unseasonably sparing as not to afford us one testimony that expressly owns this separate Existence But all Papists that will talk consistently must deny it not only because an accident cannot exist without inherence but because they hold the Species united to the Body to make one intire object of Adoration which cannot be without a Hypostatical Union Wherefore Bellarmin and Valentia though they do not use the term Hypostatically yet find themselves obliged to say the thing and explain the Vnion of the Species to the Body in the same manner as they do the Hypostatical Vnion Valentia indeed is so much a Jesuit as having sayd the thing to deny the word but Bellarmin is more considering And this is all that excellent Person says
to allow a great Sin we would not only suffer but advise him to talk improperly and singularly that so his language might the better correspond with his notions CHAP. IX A Reply to the nine next Sections of the second Discourse beginning at §. 15. HItherto the Author has been ranging in the fifteenth Section he seems to make a set Disc 2. pag. 19. He deny's that the Protestants give a true state of the question and his instance is in Dr. Stillingfleet whom his evill Genius ever prompts him to attacque notwithstanding his briskest attempts so constantly scandalously miscarry To him he joyns Bishop Andrews and Bishop Taylor whose words if they be pertinently apply'd here are so disingenuously quoted in other parts of this Pamphlet that I doubt the Author's dealing will amount to a very improper expression But if Protestants state the question wrong let us heare how this Author himself states it He reduces the whole controversy to these two questions 1. Ibid. p. 20. Whither the Body and Blood of Christ prescinding from whatever symbol is or may be there is adorable as being present in the Sacrament with the symbols 2 ly Whither the adoration of Christ's Body and so of Christ as present if it should not be so will amount to Idolatry allways supposing as he adds in the 17 th Section that we continue to adore the self same object as the Papists now do in the self same place pag 21. with all the same circumstances wherewith their adoration is now perform'd To this I answer that I cannot take it upon this Author's word that Popes and Councils with the most and best of the Romish writers have so abandon'd all common sense and ingenuity as to say and practice what they have done if they really meant no more then he pretends For this were an improper expression with a witness an insincerity that an honest Heathen would tremble at Nor if one or two School-men were really of his mind should he that in the Guide is so great a stickler for majorities here propose the opinion of a few forlorn members for the standing Judgment of the whole Church The true sons of the Church of Rome are more ingenuous and own that they believe the species together with the Body to make one intire object to which they pay one intire act of adoration For the truth of this together with a full state and decision of this question I refer the Reader to a * Printed at London 1685. for Brab Ailmer and lately reprinted late excellent Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host For it is not my present business to dispute with Honest minded Papists whose errors I heartily lament and beseech God to open their eyes but with this shuffling writer who being indeed of no Church would fain pin himself now upon the Church of Rome This says he is affirm'd by Catholics more then this need not be so and again Disc 2. pag 20. l. 7. Ibid l. 2 Disc 2. pag. 16. The Roman Church owns or imposes no more So likewise § 13. The definition of this Council in the sixth canon more then which is not requir'd to be profess'd by any Son of the Roman Church is this Si quis dixerit c. That is as is declar'd more at large in the fifth discourse of the Guide the stress of all lyes upon si quis dixerit si quis negaverit §. 186. p. 133. So that if a man be but a little complaisant in his practice and keep a good tongue in his head let him be what he will in his heart he may still be one of this Author 's Catholics though I doubt none of the Church of Rome's For though the greatest sins are with him but improper expressions yet all honest men of the Roman or any other communion will call his dealing by a proper expression which I do not now care to name Wherefore the Controversy between us and this Author for the Church of Rome is no way concern'd in his dreams is briefly this Whether prescinding from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence and allowing only a Real Presence as the writers of the Church of England do it is Idolatry to pay the self same adoration with the self same ceremonies to the self same object in the self same place and manner that the Papists now pay it to the Consecrated Elements To this I answer Affirmatively and hope I have already * Chap. 7. par 2. of this Reply given a good and sufficient reason why I do so It remains that I examin what the Author has to say for the Negative First he saies those Protestants who absolve the Lutherans from Idolatry Disc 2. §. 19. may as he has stated the matter as well absolve his Catholics To which I am not concern'd to answer tho' t is false and easily confutable because his own state excludes the consideration both of a Popish and Lutheran Presence as farr as either of them differ from the Church of England's Real Presence Come we therefore 2 ly to the twenty first section where he supposes both Papists and Lutherans in an error both mistaking Christ the true object of supreme Adoration to be in a place where he is not Ibid. p. 25. He should add and the Papists upon that mistake adoring an object that is not at all Adorable Now this he says cannot be term'd any such Idolatry as is the Worship of an object not at all Adorable Such or not such is not properly the question but whether it be Idolatry Wherefore I pass by his impertinent trifling with his Angel and his Serpent for the argument he should answer is this The Israelites and Manichees who directed the outward act of adoration to a Creature were accounted Idolaters by God and the Primitive Church notwithstanding their own supposing or the Author 's supposing for them and we by the same reason say that whoever pays the adoration aforesaid to the Consecrated Elements let him suppose what he will will for all his supposition commit an improper expression which God and the Church will account Idolatry His third assertion must be taken in pieces Disc 2. pag. 26. §. 22. He says Whatever Fault or Idolatry it may be in a Manichee to Worship the Sun or an Israelite the Calf yet c. where I wonder he talks so mincingly whatever fault and may be when St. Paul 1 Cor. X. 7 is peremtory that the Worshipers of the Calf were Idolaters Ibid. He says his Catholics freely grant that a good intention grounded upon culpable ignorance can excuse none from Idolatry We accept this Concession and desire to know if Popish ignorance be not Culpable how 't is possible any Ignorance should 3. He says that Mons Ibid. Daillé and he supposes other Protestants with him allow that a Ground or Motive of adoration which is Reasonable though not absolutely certain but actually