But how could our Councils be Parties when they Defined no otherwise than they had receiv'd from Fathers both Greek and Latin that had written the same both Synodically and as particular Doctors How could they be Parties when they Defin'd just as all Christians One single Berengarius and some perverted by him excepted then believ'd and profest Who refused their Determinations If they had not an universal Presence of Prelates yet the general acceptation of their Decrees is equivalent to it and demonstrates their Doctrine without peradventure true unless every Christian may in so great a point of Faith fail and the Gates of Hell prevail over the Promise of our Saviour and be more powerful than the conduct of the Holy Spirit which leads if not the chiefest and most yet some Christians into all truth even to the end of the world There is neither error nor opposition in the Formulary profest by Berengarius the difference between them is no disagreement in Doctrine but only a condemning the different errors of that unhappy Man. That of Nicholas II. establisht a Real presence against the first error of Berengarius which was what the Sacramentaries now hold The Sence wherein the Council intended and St. Lanfrank explains it is Orthodox and own'd at this day That under Greg. VII defined Transubstantiation against the second error of Berengarius which was Consubstantiation This is told our Adversaries by our Divines particularly by the Cardinal de Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 21. as the Form it self cited by the Answerer in 's Margent p. 111. had done his Reader if he had not shamefully fallify'd it by omitting both the word substantialiter and others of singular moment We shall convict him of his wilful Fraud if in two Columns we annex what Berengarius profest and what this Man says he did BERENGARIUS his Profession in the 6th Council at Rome under Greg. 7. 1079. Lup. pars quinta p. 312. The Form entire Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor panem vinum quae ponuntur in Altari per mysterium sacrae Orationis verba nostri Redemptoris substantialialiter converti in veram propriam ac vivificatricem carnem sanguinem Jesu Christi Domini nostri post consecrationem esse verum Christi corpus quod natum est de Virgine quod pro salute Mund. oblatum in cruce pependit quod sedet ad dextram Patris verum sanguinem Christi qui de ejus latere effusus est non tantum per signum virtutem Sacramenti sed in proprietate Naturae veritate substantiae Thus Berengarius profess'd The Form as mutilated by this Minister Confiteor panem vinum converti in veram ac propriam carnem sanguinem I. C. D. N. post consecrationem esse verum corpus Christi non tantum per signum virtutem sacramenti sed in proprietate Naturae veritate substantiae This speaks of a conversion but of what kind it says not Thus the Minister castrates the Profession made by Berengarius Does the true Form mention nothing of the manner of the conversion in the Eucharist Does it not say as clearly as if written with a Sun-beam that t is a substantial conversion of bread and wine into that body and blood which were born of the Virgin c If this be not not only a corporal presence which serves our purpose but also transubstantiation which this man would suppress we must despair of producing expressions intelligible and satisfactory to our Adversaries in any matter But how can we wonder at this corruption and palpable untruth when we consider it was necessary to sustain many others industriously written by this Answerer in this very Pamphlet Such is the Hyperbole in his Praef. p. 6. That Transubstantiation was unknown to the Church for above one thousand years when not only Paulus Diaconus about 774. relates these words of St. Greg. 1. Praescius conditor nostrae infirmitatis ea potestate qua cuncta fecit ex nihilo panem vinum aqua mistum manente propria specie in carnem sanguinem suum Spiritus sui sanctificatione convertit Strabus Auctor Glossae ord in Gloss cap. 11. prioris ad Cor. Nos incerta relinquentes quod ex authoritatibus certum est profitemur sc substantiam panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Dominici converti modum vero conversionis nos ignorare non erubescimus fateri Quae autem remanent de priori substantia accidentia sc color sapor forma pondus nec ipsum corpus Christi afficiunt nec in eo fundantur This Divine lived about 840. and asserts Transubstantiation and the separate existence of the Accidents separate I say not only from the former substance but from the Body of Christ so as not to affect it or be supported by it And Stephanus Eduensis also about 950 writes Oramus ut oblatio panis vini transubstantietur in corpus sanguinem Christi I say not only these Writers prove that Transubstantiation was known to the Church before a thousand years after our Lord's birth but many more in Centuries precedent to these might be produced As St. Ambrose himself in the 4th Age l. De iis qui initiantur mysteriis c. 9. says etiam benedictione natura ipsa mutatur His co-temporary St. Greg. Nyss uses the same expression as does too the Ancient Sermon de coena Dom. amongst St. Cyprian's Works cited and much relied-on in the 9th Age as both very ancient and very orthodox It says the Bread given by our Lord to his Disciples changed not in effigie but natura was by the omnipotence of the Word made Flesh Nay our Answerer that he may consist with himself within a few lines confesses that a Monk was laying the foundation of it in the 7th Age which Monk did not speak so highly of the Eucharist as St. Cyril of Jerusalem St. Ambrose or St. Chrysostom had done long before him as may easily be discerned by such as please to compare their expressions and besides t is ridiculous to fancy such did not believe a substantial presence the point in hand who are taxed to be founding or erecting the superstructure of Transubstantiation He goes on confessing against himself that a General Council carried on Transubstantiation in the 8th and another Monk the great Protestant eye-sore Paschasius formed it into a better shape in the 9th century yet all this while the Founders the carriers-on those that furnished features and drapery never heard of what they were designedly at work about Nay tho some of the Agents were General Counsellors and even General Councils themselves i.e. the whole Church was in a plot against truth and piety and was ignorant of the conspiracy This Minister was resolved to be absurd beyond imitation Again such another Hyperbole is what he says of Peter Lombard in the Margen of this 111th p. for the Master often professes that the
indeed our Replier's Opinion seems to dislike the word this and thinks it should rather be these Benefits which neither can be eaten nor consecrated nor require any symbols But he saith these Ceremonies were practis'd by divers but he instanceth only in Bishop Jewel Mr. Rastal's testimony he groundlesly denies For we know that in the late times till it was re-commanded by the Rubric few practis'd it or indeed regarded it as a thing of Consequence Which doubtless was the reason of that Command in the Margin it was recall'd into use because disused and the Replier's Reason insufficient P. 6. Gloria in Excelsis Deo and Benedictus qui venit are two Hymns the first plac'd in this part of the Mass as is commonly said by St. Telesphorus the Ninth Bishop of Rome from St. Peter and was the Congratulation of the Angels for the Lord 's coming into the world as the Benedictus was for his Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem both most properly applied to the beginning of this Office as rejoicing for his coming to be present upon the Altar Such universal ancient solemn parts of God's Service were not omitted by chance nor would they have been so had they not contain'd an Argument against the new-devised Absence of the Lord from his people The Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus was not anciently call'd the Trisagium but Hymnus Angelicus Victorialis The Trisagium was Sanctus Deus Sanctus fortis Sanctus immortalis not so much used in the Western as in the Eastern Church which was sung when the Priest approached the Quire v. Menardum To which some add after fortis some after immortalis Qui Crucifixus es pro nobis And they as most of the Asiaticks who apply'd the Hymn to our Saviour meant no harm but they who attributed it to the Trinity as the Constantinopolitans and the West generally condemned it But this only obiter as also that concerning the Receiver's answering Amen which as our Author proves by irrefragable testimonies were it worth the pains to vindicate them not to have been an answer to a Prayer but an acknowledgment of our Lord's Presence there We will add notwithstanding what we find in St. Ambrose's Works l. 4. c. 5. de Sacramentis Non otiose cum accipis dicis Amen Jam in Spiritu confiteris quod accipias corpus Christi Dicit Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis Amen i. e. verum est Quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The omission of these words these Holy Mysteries might be purely accidental And might not be so For they have a signification contrary to the Opinion of the Reformers and all other deniers of the real presence of our Lord nor can they find any mystery in taking eating a Morsel of Bread and a Sup of Wine and remembring our Lord's death and sufferings and then by faith feeding upon him not receiv'd This perhaps is a mystery for I do not understand it P. 7. No fault with the second Form Faulty enough certainly because contrary to the former Book which to prove was the Author's chief intention and consequently from that of the Church of Christ 2. Because either non-sense or to most unintelligible either what is meant by this or by feeding on our Saviour's benefits by Faith. P. 8. These words that these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine may be to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son in the Reformation of the Liturgy were left out because manifestly owning a real change and were not restor'd in Qu. Elizabeth's Liturgy For She probably could not examine all the Alterations by her own self and her Bishops being inclin'd to Zuinglianism did not willingly restore any thing against their own Opinion Afterward Archbishop Laud restor'd it in the Scottish Liturgy For which he was severely censur'd by Baily's Laudensium Autocatacrisis This being as he saith a notable Argument for Transubstantiation at least for the real presence to the Receiver it was Tho it is most certain the Archbishop did not incline to defend Transubstantiation but only the real presence to the Receiver according to the Doctrine of the Church of England mis-understood by that Puritan Pag. 10. Dishonestly or ignorantly worded False They are natural Deductions or rather Propositions almost verbatim taken out of the Declaration whereas those the Replier after his new way of answering would rather have them modell'd into are Nonsense Pag. 11. Calvin and Beza are mentioned because by them were the English Reformers much directed tho our Author doth not ty himself up to speak only of the Church of England-men The Author makes use of Conciliators as being less biassed and therefore better disposed to understand the truth and obliged by their design to a more accurate examination of the Doctrines of both parties and a more strict declaration of them as being assur'd to be opposed by both parties Mr. Thorndike he saith had in this matter opinions of his own agreeable neither to the Catholick nor Church of England The like he saith of our Author p. 1. I am afraid the fault is not in the object but the organ his endeavour to blast so learned a person shews him to have bin rightly quoted by our Author But why should I spend more pains to vindicate the opinions of the Doctors of the English Church which is sufficiently performed in the discourse in the History of the English Reformation from § 148 and by the Discourse here newly printed and the first Appendix to it Pag. 12. The quotations out of Dr. Taylor are most true but if that Doctor was not constant to himself or his own opinion or if by forget fulness he speaks one thing in one place and otherwise â—n another or if he did not throughly understand the difference and therefore vented many undigested and incoherent notions as he seems to most men to have done what is that to us May not we make use of the good wheat because tares are mingled with it Yet I do not remember that he any where sustains as our Replier doth that the Protestants may use the same terms as the Catholicks and yet in a quite different sense But are we come in this great question to may use the terms of the Church in a quite different notion than Antiquity and the Church hath and doth still use them but let them use them as they please only they should give notice of their meaning and tell the world that their words are like Jacob's but their intention like Esau and so plainly confess their heresy and not seek to coyer it with such sorry fig-leaves Pag. 13. Of those to say no worse irreverent expressions of our receiving the dead body and dead blood of our Lord let the Replier and his Capernaits enjoy the honour we content our selves to believe and know that our Lord in this Sacrament is become to us a quickning Spirit How our Lord's body now glorified is received by us as representing his death and sufferings
in coena retinere defendere si quid nobis cum vere pits doctis fratribus controversiae est non de re ipsa sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat qui soli Deo cognitus est a nobis creditur disceptare c. Hold they not here the presence of Christ's body cum symbolis Lastly Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. sect affirms even of the Sacramentaries and the first opinion that those who read their books shall find that they grant the holy mysteries instrumentally both to make us partakers of that grace of that body and blood which was given for the life of the world and besides also to impart unto us in true and real tho mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Thus much now of the second opinion to which I shall return by and by § III The 3d. opinion goes yet farther than the second and moved by the expressions partly of Scriptures 3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation 't is said that Luther Epist ad Argentinenses acknowledges se valde propensum fuisse in eam sententiam quae in Eucharistia nihil praeter panem agnoscit conatum totis viribus hoc asserere sed non potuisse satisfacere Scripturis quae contra objiciebantur comparing Matt. 26.26 and 1 Cor. 11.24 c with 1 Cor. 11.26 27. eateth this bread partly also of the Fathers who many times also call it bread after consecration affirms a real presence of Christ's body with or under the signs meaning by them the substances of the bread and wine still remaining after consecration Making if we take the moderatest stating thereof for see what Cassander consult art 10 p. 81. quotes Melancthon and some others at some time before the reformed opinion to have held Asserimus cum Christo Domino corpus Christi non modo esse in cum sub pane sed quod panis sit corpus Christi ipsum itaque unum cum ipso praedicatione identica the meaning of hoc est corpus meum to be not hic panis manens adhuc panis ipse etiam est corpus meum but hoc quod continetur sub pane consecrato est corpus meum making the article hoc supponere confuse to use Bellarmin's termes pro eo quod continetur sub pane as the 4th opinion makes it supponere confuse pro eo quod continetur sub speciebus and to shew the understanding of those words Hoc est corpus meum after this manner to be very proper they exemplify in some like ordinary phrases So de dolio vini recte dicimus hoc est vinum speaking only of the thing contained so de marsupio pleno pecuniis recte dicitur hae sunt pecuniae so demonstrando vestes sub quibus est Petrus we say hoc or hic est Petrus Nam abstrahentium non est mendacium Now some hold this conjunction of Christ's body with the elements ante usum in mensa presently after consecration others perhaps the better to avoid pretences of adoration or of reservation of the Sacrament only in the use and act of receiving in ore fidelium Again some to make this presence seem more certain and more conceivable holding an ubiquity of Christ's body not only a presence then and there but always every where by reason of its hypostatical union to the ubiquitary Deity only lest we may say we receive it as well then in all other bread stating that tho it is ubique yet non posse ubique capi sed solum in ea re quam Christus ad hoc instituit § IV The fourth opinion yet transcends this except in the point of ubiquity and affirms the real presence of Christ's body with 4. Real presence with the symbols by Transubstantiation or under the signs meaning by them only the accidents or properties or all that is any way to be perceived by sight or any other sense of the bread and the wine which accidents they affirm still to remain but holding from the most proper sense as to them seems of the solemn words of the Institution Hoc est corpus meum c a Conversion of the substance of them into the body and blood of our Saviour conversio totius substantiae Conc. Trid. sess 13.4 c. Which seems to be so punctually expressed because of those who all held Christ's corporal presence some there were that held the substantial form of bread changed but not the matter others the matter but not the form others again that held no total substantial conversion of the bread at all but an impanation or hypostatical union of Christ with the bread whereby it became his body corpus Christi non carneum but panaceum such as there was with the humane nature in his incarnation saying panem a Christo fieri corpus suum non mutando vel destruendo panem sed assumendo ad personam suam Now this conversion of the substance was thought fit in latter times to be expressed by the word Transubstantiation as a diminutive to conversion For whereas conversion of the bread might be understood either of it with all its properties and accidents or only of the substance thereof and not of the rest therefore to express this distinctively the word Transubstantiation was used Primi authores hujus sententiae finxerunt conversionem physicam simplicem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi quam posteriores Romani Scholastici defendere ut possint manentibus accidentibus panis vini commenti sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Transubstantiationem Casp Peucerus hist pag. 527. Compare with Transubstantiation that expression of the Greeks in their answer to Claudius Cardinal of Guise Credimus panem in Christi corpus c ita mutari ut neque panis neque substantiae ipsius accidentia maneant sed in divinam substantiam transelemententur and Transubstantiation saith the least of the two But here note that tho Councils have defined a conversion of the whole substance yet since such a conversion there may be many several ways see those reckon'd up in Field Append. to 3. lib. 17. cap. the particular manner they have no way determined and the Roman Doctors remain in their opinions divided Fatemur saith Dr. Holden de resol fid 2. l. 4 c. hujusmodi supernaturalis conversionis substantialis modum nos penitus latere c. and Bellar. in his recognit lib. Euchar. after his discoursing of conversion adductive and productive c concludes Quicquid sit de modis loquendi illud tenendum est conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Domini esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem nullis naturalibus conversionibus per omnia similem c. Whilst the third opinion therefore interprets our Saviour's words of the Institution thus Hic panis continet sub se corpus meum or hoc quod continetur sub pane est corpus meum the
4th saith Hic panis per conversionem est or fit corpus meum or hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus meum the one holding the substance of the bread to be transient the other permanent § V But first here note 1. That both this third and fourth opinion hold an oral reception Observations touching These opinions by all communicants even the unworthy according to 1 Cor. 11.27 29. of the very body and blood of Christ tho by the last not at all to their benefit but greater condemnation Which I note here to shew that no complaint upon this account can be raised against the fourth opinion Obs 1 which may not be as justly against the third § VI 2. Note 2ly concerning the 4th opinion that tho it makes the whole compositum ex materia forma to be changed Obs 2 yet not so the whole aggregatum ex subjecto accidente 1 and tho it makes the thing signified really present yet it as well as the other opinions allows a sign not only of the inward grace and spiritual nourishment of the soul obtained thereby but also of Christ's body remaining after consecration distinct from the thing signified namely all that of the bread and wine which is perceived by sense But so that under this sign is contained the thing signified it being figura non nuda sed veritati suae substantiae conjuncta signum rei praesentis sed rei invisibilis lest any should think the sign needless Hence the Church-hymn allow'd and recommended by Dr. Taylor p. 331. Sub duabus speciebus signis tantum non rebus latent res eximiae Conc. Trid. 13. sess 3. c. saith Hoc esse commune Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis ut sit symbolum rei sacrae visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae by which forma visibilis as Bell. expounds it 4. l. 6. c. is meant the species of the elements not the body of Christ So Bell. Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrationem species panis vini sunt signa corporis sanguinis Christi ibi revera existentium and 3. l. 22. c. Accidentia remanent quia si etiam accidentia abessent nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile proinde nullum esset Sacramentum So Estius Eucharistia constat ex pane tanquam materia quadam partim transeunte partim remanente transeunte quidem secundum substantiam remanente vero secundum accidentia in quibus tota substantiae vis operatio nihilominus perseverat Hence they allow of that expression of Irenaeus where he saith Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus terrena coelesti compositam esse and S. Gregory's In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari terrena coelestibus jungi unum ex visibilibus invisibilibus fieri 2 Nay further they allow that these appurtenances of bread may have in some sense in reference to former matter contained under them and in as much as still substantiae ipsius omnem operationem retinent and have often had the name of the substance granting them to be called so after consecration by the Fathers hence they reject not that expression of St. Austin Panem consumi comedendo by the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.26 27 nay by our Saviour Mat. 26.29 Mar. 14.25 Of these signs they predicate many things which they allow by no means to be said of Christ's body and ordinarily the same things of these accidents of bread which the 3d. opinion saith of the substance See Blondel acknowledging this p. 215. so sapere digeri nutrire comfortare corporaliter c they apply to these accidents affirming singulari miraculo tam operationes panis c quam proprietates subsistere conservari absque natura And to Theodoret and some other Fathers that say after consecration the nature of Bread remains they grant thus far naturales vires proprietates remanere and think this sufficiently clears the Fathers meaning Now what is this but tantum non to affirm consubstantiation and close in with the 3d. opinion which methinks much reflects upon those who very charitable to the one maintain so great a feud against the other So frangi dentibus digeri comburi rodi a brutis animalibus and whatever other things may be nam'd excepting only those attributes which indicate the presence of Christ's Body to or with the species whilst integrae all or at least the more modest of them no Council having decided any thing in this matter apply only to the accidents not to Christ's Body Bellarmin who bolder than some others useth some expressions of Christ's Body being capable of such things per accidens improprie in specie aliena saith Christus vere in Sacramento existit sed nullo modo laedi potest non cadit in terram non teritur non roditur non putrescit non crematur illa enim in speciebus istis recipiuntur sed Christum non afficiunt licet species ipsae sint conjunctae cum Christo Euch. l. 3. c. 10. and the conclusion of that Chapter is in propria specie Christus haec pati non potest And good reason to say this because these accidents are held ad suppositum Christi non pertinere neque in illo inhaerere see Estius Sent. 4. Dist. 9. Sect. 3. Ob. 4. and Bishop Forbes de Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s 9. Now in affirming of Christ's Presence to them in some abuses of these Signs tho since his Body is voluntarily present sine ulla sui laesione desinit esse sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat whether it may not in such cases be withdrawn I think none can say and the Roman Doctors are divided about it See Forb Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s 9. Blon p. 212. yet I see no great cause of offence since as the Cardinal well saith in the same Chapter ipsa divinitas nonne ubique est praesens tamen non sordescit in sordibus non crematur in flammis nec putrescit in putrescentibus rebus 3 Again 3 as these species are acknowledged by them Signs of the Body in one sense present so of the Body in another acception or mode not present namely a Memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ as it was broken and shed upon the Cross Signa corporis Christi ut sacramentaliter praesentis signa Corporis Christi ut in cruce immolati Thus they are called a Memorial or a Representation of the Passion in the Scripture-phrase see 1 Cor. 11.25 26. and therefore may be also in the Church's In which respect also the Fourth Opinion allows the name of type antitype similitude figure c. not only before but after Consecration proper to them Veteres quando hoc sacramentum dicunt signum esse figuram non negant ibi esse verum Christi corpus sed intelligunt non ibi esse in propria specie sc ut conversans in mundo patiens in cruce Nay yet farther they
sententiam a Christi verbis recedere i. e. I conceive as they take the Third Opinion to affirm ipsum panem esse corpus Domini for this seems much more unreasonable than Hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus Domini sive litera spectetur sive sensus affirmat R. Hospin hist Sacr. parte altera p. 7. c. Calviniani communiter See Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 20. where speaking of some of the Lutherans affirming proprie loquendo panem esse corpus Christi he argues that consequently they must say panem esse Christum because totus Christus offertur in coena and then concludes intolerabilis autem Blasphemia est sine figura Praedicari de elemento corruptibili quod sit corpus Again s 30. inveighing against Lutherans Ubiquity he saith Papistarum tolerabilior vel saltem magis verecunda est doctrina And see Judicious Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. s 67. how indifferently he behaves himself between the two Tenents of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation censuring them both only as Opinions unnecessary and superfluous and p. 361. saying of the later the Transubstantialists that they justly shun some Labyrinths of the former the Consubstantialists but yet that the way which they take to the same Inn is somewhat more short but no whit more certain See likewise Spalat Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. n. 6. Fateor neque Transubstantiationem neque Ubiquitatem haeresin ullam directe continere c. § XI 7. Yet even those Reformed who cry out of the Fourth Opinion as Heretical Obs 7 Diabolical Blasphemous c. for such also there are Seventhly Observe That for the most part those of the Second Opinion hold the Third notwithstanding the near alliance it appears to have with the Fourth no ways Heretical or tho erroneous destructive of any fundamental or prinpal Article of Faith unless by some Consequences renounced by those who hold the Third Opinion and therefore giving no just cause of any separation of Communion from any such Credere quod caro Christi ubique est quod in pane est oraliter manducetur idque etiam ab impiis stipula palea est Par. in 1 Cor. 3. See many quotations in Bishop Forb Euch. l. 1. c. 4. See likewise Daille's Charity in the place quoted before in the end of the Fourth Observation p. 16. notwithstanding those dangerous Consequences of the Third Opinion of destroying Christ's Humanity by Ubiquity and of Adoration by presence with the Elements See Bishop Hall's Davenant's Morton's Discourses De Pace Ecclesiastica How far can men bend when they have a good mind to it See particularly Bish Hall p. 73. Res apud utrosque eadem c. At last he brings in the Decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton in which the Lutherans are receiv'd to their Communion as agreeing with them in omnibus verae Religionis principiis Articulisque fundamentalibus See Disc conc Rub. of Eng. §. 12. How well therefore the same men can refuse Communion with those of the Fourth Opinion supposing the falsity thereof or asperse it with the name of Heresie c. I see not and perhaps the more moderate do not refuse nor quarrel with it for this But the thing they blame is Adoration or the imposing their Transubstantiation on others as an Article of Faith of which anon to which purpose Daille in his Answer to the Remarks made by Chaumont on his Apology p. 20. hath these words after vindicating Beza and Calvin from holding any real Presence of Christ's Body in the Signs Mais bienque nous ne croyons pas c. Altho we believe no such Presence in the Signs yet we esteem not that Belief so criminal as that it obligeth us to break off Communion with those who hold it as it appears by our tolerating it in the Lutherans So that had the Church of Rome no other Error than this we voluntarily accord her to have given us no sufficient cause of Separation from her What is that Faith of Rome then which I alledg'd as a sufficient cause of Separation then he names this l' Adoration de l'Ostie Thus he § XII Having thus made a Cursory over the Four Opinions about the Eucharist give me leave now to reflect a little upon and search more strictly into the Second Opinion which I think is the Tenent of many of the Church of England Concerning which I do not well understand How it must not either fall into many of the difficulties and seeming contradictions of the Third and Fourth Opinions or slide back into the sense of the First the most intelligible and perspicuous indeed but thought by the rest too much diminutive of this tremendum Mysterium this ineffable Mystery § XIII Concerning the Second Opinion Now let us consider this Second Opinion first concerning its affirming or denying the real or substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Celebration of the Eucharist Next concerning its affirming or denying such Presence in or with the Signs As to the former the phrase of real Presence if we mean by it only presence in something real may be used by those who deny substantial presence For if Christ be present to us in the Eucharist in the benefits of his Passion in his Grace in his Spirit he is present to us in something real tho not in the reality of his Person But they going beyond all these even the last of them also the presence by his Spirit see before p. 2. neque enim mortis tantum c neque enim mihi satisfaciunt c. affirm a real and substantial presence for indeed what can real presence of a substance such as body and blood is be but substantial presence even of that body which suffered upon the Cross for us which presence they clearly contradistinguish to presence by effect influence virtue grace or an uniting of our bodies with Christ's body by the same Spirit abiding in both by which way things furthest distant if we call this presence may be said to be present to one another as long as there is any thing between them that immediately toucheth or informeth both so the head may be said to be present to the foot the Saints in heaven to those on earth the West to the East-Indies so the substantial presence of Christ's body and blood may be affirmed as well as here when ever there is any communication of his Spirit as in Baptism and as properly as the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless here so the Water that is then poured on us may be said to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ these manners of Presence therefore they count not enough to satisfy the Scripures and Tradition Therefore they speak of Eucharistical-presence as a great mystery Eph. 5. wrought by God's omnipotence after a manner ineffable or incomprehensible to man's reason Lastly as far in substantial
or real presence they seem to go as any either the third or fourth opinion in that they question not the matter of that presence the which the other affirm but the manner which whilst the others guess some after this some after that manner they will guess nothing at all of it by which they are free from any objections and well modestly prudently this only if such would not so peremptorily condemn the conjectures of others as perhaps some of them do not See for what I have now said besides the quotations before p. 2. in the relation of this second opinion many places in Dr. Tailor the very Title of his book wherein Spiritual must be took in such a sense as not to deny real and of Christ must be understood of the Body and Blood of Christ For this he saith often in the Book namely p. 7. see p. 20. where in answering some hard sayings of the Fathers c. as if the same Body that was crucified was not eaten in the Sacrament he saith That Proposition is true if we speak of the eating of Christ's Body in the same manner of being for it had one manner of being on the Cross and another in the Sacrament But that Body which was crucified the same Body we do eat if we speak of the same thing in a several manner of being c Christ's Body therefore is in the Sacrament not only in its operation but being tho after another manner of being than it was on the Cross And what Dr. Taylor saith methinks answers several arguments brought afterward by himself out of the Fathers against real presence under or with the symbols see p. 311. Non hoc quod videtis c. see p. 288. They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour c. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence to be particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner c. See Arch B. Laud See Disc concerning the Rub. of the En. Lyt §. 14 15. p. 286. where he saith The worthy Receiver is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ c. And Arch B. Cranmer as the Arch B. quotes out of Fox p. 1703. confesseth That tho he was indeed of another opinion and inclining to that of Zuinglius yet B. Ridly convinc'd his judgment and settled him in the point 2. Add to these Bishop Hall quoted before Res apud utrosque eadem rei tamen ratio diversa c. utrosque he means Lutheran but the Consequence is as good for the Romanist See the same opinion of A. Spalat and Bishop Forbes quoted hereafter Lastly in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland in the Administring the Sacrament the former words or comment Feed on him in thy heart by Faith are left out according to the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. and also the Form in the Missals perhaps as being a Diminutive of this great Mystery in which is maintain'd another a more real eating and participation of Christ's Body than that by Faith alone As likewise there are added in the Prayer of Consecration these words agreeable to the first Book of Edw. VI. and the Forms of all Antiquity only those run not ut nobis sint but ut nobis fiant corpus c. So bless and sanctifie with thy Word and Holy Spirit 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 which seem to tend to the same purpose and upon Bucer's exceptions at them in his Censura in ordine Eccl. c. 9. were by the Second Reformers of the Common-Prayer-Book cast out Now in these passages above recited if I well understand them the Presence of Christ's Body is as fully and properly affirm'd by these as by the Lutheran or Romanist only all the difference is not about the Presence whether carnally or spiritually substantially or locally after the manner of other Bodies or not locally or substantially but about the subject only to which present as Mr. Hooker well observes whether to the worthy Receiver only or also to the elements or signs or if present to the signs whether not some other way present to them than either Cousubor Transubstantially Whereas therefore the Lutheran and Romanist dispute the manner whether our Saviour's Body be Consubstantially or Transubstantially with the signs the other Reform'd and these dispute the manner whether with the signs or only with the Receiver or also whether with the signs not by the forenam'd but some other unknown way but in its presence with the worthy Receiver all agree and one affirm it as much as another 3. But now if one should affirm Christ personlly or substantially present to the Receiver another only virtually present in his Grace Spirit c. 't is plain that here a difference between them is not in the manner of the presence but in the presence it self So the first Opinion tho affirming a virtual presence is said to deny the real presence or any mystery in the Sacrament § XIV Thus much of their affirming the substantial or personal presence of Christ in the Sacrament as to the third and fourth Opinion But now I confess I do not see how this doth consist with many other things which they say See Dr. Taylor p. 15. But we by the spiritual real presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful by blessing and grace p. 107. by saith and blessing and this is all which we mean beside the Tropical and Figurative presence p. 21. They the Romanists say that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in vertue or effect is not sufficient tho this is done also in the Sacrament See p. 218. where after shewing that Christ's Body is in the Eucharist neither circumscriptive definitive nor repletive the only three ways that are conceivable of being in a place he saith his Body is there figuratively tropically representatively in Being might not he say or in reallity now representatively only in respect of reallity is the same with not really and really in effect and blessing but this is not a natural real being in a place but a relation to a person I suppose he means but Christ's Body in Heaven having a relation to a Communicant on Earth in some effect and blessing Add to these what he saith p. 120 121 That we under the Sacrament of Bread and Wine receive Christ's Body no more really than the Israelites did in the Manna Rock Cloud c. both in a divers Sacrament saith he but in all the same reallity whatsoever we the same they did eat Surely this then argues only a virtual presence thereof not a substantial because Christ's Body or Flesh was not then as yet assum'd See likewise p. 276 277. See p. 7. where he quotes the
necessaria quae a Calvino illius â—â—quacibuâ— dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam c. _____ The same say the Socinians See Volkelius And I think Riveâ— in his controversies with Grotius is of the same opinion with the Remonstrants at least much differing from Dr. Tailor's for that saying of the Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest allowed in some sense by the Doctor he maintains to contradict Quia quod sacramentaliter praesens est saith he non est substantia sua praesens nec contra Animad p. 85. And again Examen p. 45. Si corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitative i. e. corporally or secundum modum corporis non est omnino quia corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est aut non est corpus Indeed I have often wondred seeing that something more than they willingly grant seems necessarily to follow upon it why so many of the reformed writers remain not content with a virtual presence which is maintained by them to be sufficient for salvation but concur so much in asserting a real and substantial I guess not only the punctual and fixed expressions of the Scriptures as the words of Institution in so many relations thereof not only in the Gospels but in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians being so unvariably observed besides the expressions 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and the authority of the Fathers who so often call it tremendum mysterium and the stream of Tradition to have as it were necessitated them to it but also the authority of Calvin not a little to have moved them who was a great Leader to our reforming Fore-fathers Again him I suppose to be induced to it as from the former reasons so from a desire to reconcile several parties of the then early begun Reformation and to moderate and temper the former Lutheran and Zuinglian quarrel Of whom therefore Bishop Forbes observes Quod sua doctrina super hac re as it seems here also of the doctrine of others of this second opinion erat maxime incerta dubia atque lubrica Et dum nunc his nunc illis gratificari studuit haud pauca male sibi cohaerentia scripsit de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 6. sect § XVI Now to come to the second thing it s affirming or denying the real or substantial presence of Christ's body with the signs and that ante usum And this I think to be generally denied by the 2d opinion tho I see not with what reason they can deny a possibility thereof since they grant such a presence with the worthy receiver See Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. s. p. 359 The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament The Bread and the Cup are his Body and Blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and blood ensueth For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly or improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth This he speaks in behalf of the Scripture-expression saying of the elements This is my body and my blood because we receive by these instruments that which they are termed See Dr. Tailor p. 14. By spiritual we mean present to our Spirits only that is saith he so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith or Spiritual susception Where to digress a little I wonder why he and some others so Dr. Hammond saith for our souls to be strengthened c quoted before do not say that Christ's body is substantially present to the bodies of worthy receivers as well as to the souls yet perhaps they deny it not for tho the body of Christ be only spiritually there yet may a spirit be present to a body for our souls spirits are so And we say in the Liturgy The Body of Christ preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life And Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls washed thro his most precious blood c. And the Fathers therefore called the consecrated elements from their vivifical influence on the body according to Jo. 6. symbola resurrectionis See Grot. Annot. ad Cassand p. 21. Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia sed spem resurrectionis habentia Irenaeus Neither see I any reason for Rivet's expression Corpus Christi affiâ—it corpus per animam Nor for that of Dr. Tailor p. 131. if he means that the Soul receives Christ's body more immediately than the Body doth For tho without faith which is an act of the soul Christ's body is not received at least received profiteth not yet where faith is Christ's body is received as well and as immediately by our body as by our soul and nourisheth and vivifieth equally but spiritually both See what Bishop Forbes saith Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 27. s. Verum Christi corpus non tantum animae sed etiam corpori nostrâ— spiritualiter tamen hoc est non corporaliter exhibetur sane alâ—o ac diverso nobis propinquiori modo licet occulto quam per solam fidem Fides qua proprie Christi caro in Eucharistia spiritualiter hoc est incorporaliter manducatur non est ea sola qua Christus creditur mortuus pro peccatis nostris c ea enim fides praesupponitur c. sed ea fides est qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis Hoc est corpus meum Credere enim Christum ibi esse praesentem etiam carne vivificatrice desiderare eam sumere nimirum hoc est spiritualiter recte eam manducare in Eucharistia Sect. 25. Proinde male docetur a multis Protestantibus hanc praesentiam communicationem per fidem effici Fides magis proprie dicitur accipere apprehendere quam praestare Verbum Dei promissio cui fides nostra nititur praesentia reddit quae promittit non nostra fides T is not faith that confers Christ's body tho by the faithful it is only worthily or as they say only received but received equally and immediately both by the soul and body whether this body of Christ be disjoined from as they think or conjoined with the elements yet whilst this second opinion seems to hold no presence at all to or with the signs but to the receiver they only making the signs to be as well as I can understand them after consecration sanctified instruments upon receit of which by those who believe God gives the other the body and blood of his Son as also in Baptism upon receiving the water God gives the Spirit yet I say some other expressions of
theirs seem not so suitable to such a meaning and may easily cause a mistake in the unwary reader and why they use them I cannot tell unless it be to imitate the phrase of the words of Institution and also of the Fathers See Dr. Tailor p. 7. After the Minister hath consecrated the bread and the wine the Symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ in a Spiritual real manner May we then say that the Baptismal water after prayers c is changed into the Spirit in a spiritual real manner because that is an instrument upon using of which the Holy Spirit is conferred So p. 21. The question is not whether the symbols be changed into Christ's body and blood or no for it is granted but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or natural and bodily c. So p. 265.266 Before consecration it is meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh and truly his blood Yet if we enquire how he means that the bread is so surely he means only this that upon receiving or at the same time that we receive the bread suffering only an accidental mutation as he calls it of condition of sanctification and usage at the same time Christ's real body is received but not in or joyned with the bread at all by the faithful The expression is strangely differing methinks from the meaning thereof But especially see such full expressions in his Great Exemplar 3d. part disc 18. p. 109. in the former Edition sect 3. where amongst other things he saith It is hard to do so much violence to our sense as not to think it bread but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith as not to believe it to be Christ's body Again He that believes it to be bread and yet verily to be Christ's body is only tied also by implication to believe God's omnipotence that he who affirmed it can also verify it And if we profess we understand not the manner of this Mystery we say no more but that it is a mystery c. See the place Strange expressions when the thing required to be believed is this That Christ's body is no way present to the bread neither by the bread being any way changed into it nor joyned with it but only it given and present to the faithful upon the receit of this sanctified bread Now would any discourse of the waters of Baptism by which the Spirit is received on this manner It is hard to do so much violence to the sense as not to think it water but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith as not to believe it to be the Spirit c. Would not he rather explain himself that the one is not the other but the one received by God's free gift upon the receiving of the other § XVII After the real or substantial presence of Christ's body thus granted if I well understand them by the second opinion to the worthy receiver but denied to the symbols or signs Whether Antiquity affirmed Corporeal Presence and whether this to the worthy Receiver only or also to the Symbols upon consecration let our next Quaere be what may be the opinion of Antiquity which is of great moment with all obedient Sons of the Church in this matter Where supposing it granted by all that the Fathers also held the real presence as much as those of the second opinion do it remains only to be examined whether they held this real presence not only to the worthy receiver but also to the Symbols and that ante usum which if they did if their judgment is not to be submitted to at least their followers are to be excused § XVIII 1. And note here first before I proceed further That the aâ—guments usually urged out of the Fathers for their not holding Tâ—ansubstaâ—tiation disprove not theâ—â— hoâ—ding of a Corporal Presence at least after some other manner with the Symbols that I enquire here only after the tenent of the Ancients concerning a real or substantial Presence of Christ's body with the outward signs but whether they maintain it cum pane remanente or transeunte whether by Con or Tran-substantiation or whether some of them affirmed the one some the other for t is not necessary that either in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation they must all go one way or some also a several way from both I meddle not And indeed I am apt to believe in so high and difficult a mystery before such particular manners so punctually discussed and before the determination of any Council concerning them a likelihood of some variance in their opinions 2. And therefore when as some of their Testimonies affirm the nature of the Bread after Consecration to be chang'd Ambr. de Myst init c. 9. speaking of this Sacrament Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur i. e. miraculously Others the nature of the Bread after Consecration to remain still I can neither altogether embrace the Answer for making Antiquity unanimous of some Protestants to the first That by the change of Nature c. is meant only an accidental change of its now sanctified condition and usage for so we say urges Dr. Taylor p. 271. a man of a good nature i. e. disposition and that it is against our nature i. e. our custom and affection c. See the like concerning the word substance in Blondel in answer to a Latin Father p. 179. notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 324. nor the answers of some Romanists to the second that by the nature of Bread remaining is meant only the remaining of the natural accidents or the properties of Nature or species or natura exterior not interior substantia tho 't is always to be remember'd that the fourth Opinion in holding not only the outward appearance colour and figure of the Bread to remain but all other properties and sensibles thereof and besides these all the operations whatsoever which agree to the substance as corporally nourishing c. by miracle to remain to these accidents and that without any communication unto or dependance upon the Body of Christ but existent by themselves do indeed tantum non hold also the substance it self to remain see Obs 3. p. 24. and methinks differ too little from the third Opinion to make such an abhorrence as some Protestants entertain of the one in comparison of the other Neither will I justifie that Apology made by Bellarmin for such a forc'd interpretation see de Euch. l. 3. c. 24. concerning St. Austin and c. 27. concerning Theodoret namely because otherwise such a Father will be made repugnare apertissime Cyrillo Ambrosio Nysseno Epiphanio Chrysostomo c. his Cotemporaries or also his Masters For why may not some of them differ in something concerning the manner of so high a Mystery of which some of the acutest of the Roman Writers confess there was no manifest
33. I proceed to confirm it And this 1. Their firming change of elements to Christ body First from that usual prayer in the consecration of these elements in all Liturgies and Missals of the antiquity of which anon ut Deus Spiritu suo dona sanctificet faciatque ea corpus sanguinem Filii sui Blondel p. 469 confesseth this phrase not only in the modern forms but in all the other ancient Liturgies c. 21. yet is this phrase laid aside in the forms of the Reformation Instead of which our English hath these words Hear us O Merciful Father and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine according to thy Son our Saviour's holy Institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood c. but no prayer that those elements may be made his body and blood And from those ordinary expressions in the Fathers whereby is signified not only the real body and blood of Christ to be received in the action or communication of the Sacrament but the bread and wine to be to be made to be changed into of them to be made Christ's body and blood not by the virtue of worthy receiving but by the virtue of the consecration preceding the receiving quae fit Dominicis verbis therefore these in no Liturgy omitted invocatione Divini nominis See many of these expressions in Blondel 4. c. 4 5 6 7 propos and Cassand consult art 10. The Fathers calling the Eucharist Christ's body when in altari when in manibus Sacerdotis hoc ipsum corpus Magi habuerunt in praesepi nos in altari illi in ulnis Mulieris nos in manibus Sacerdotis c. Chrysost which shews that what presence they held of Christ's body in the Sacrament they held it ante usum with the consecrated elements and not only with the worthy receiver These two expressions to be reverenced for antiquity I find in S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch An. Dom. 71. his Epistles I mean those Epistles free from the paraphrase allowed by Archbishop Usher and Dr. Hammond one in Ep. ad Philadelphicos Si quis schisma facientem sequitur regnum Dei non haereditat Stude igitur una Eucharistia uti una enim curo Domini nostri Jesu Christi unus calix in unionem sanguinis ipsius unum altare unus Episcopus cum Presbyteris c. the other in Ep. ad Smyrnaeos Quid enim juvat me quis si me laudat Dominum antem meum blasphemat non confitens ipsum carniferum who said also secundum videri ipsum passum esse before this afterward it follows ab Eucharistia oratione recedunt Theodoret dial 3. quotes it oblatione recedunt propter non confiteri Eucharistiam carnem esse Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi pro peccatis nostris passam quam benignitate Pater resuscitavit Contradicentes ergo huic dono Dei perscrutantes moriuntur conferens autem esset ipsis diligere ut resurgant Secondly From their affirming such a change of the elements as was miraculous miraculous in such a manner as that after the words of Consecration with made of or instead of the substance of the Bread c. is the substance of the Body of Christ that Body which was born of the B. Virgin Some of them at least affirming it such a change as that the substance or nature of Bread ceaseth to be and saying that our senses for this matter were not to be trusted in whom are found also some of the modern phrases of the Catholicks and Schoolmen I will set you down some of them Aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum c. non erit dignus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutavit Quare cum omni certitudine corpus sanguinem Christi sumamus Nam sub specie panis datur ibi corpus sub specie vini datur sanguis Cyril Hieros Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur natura i.e. of the Bread and Wine sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest is quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas Ambr. Sermo Christi immutat quando vult instituta naturae applied to the Eucharist as if something in Nature is there chang'd Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. Haec tribuit virtute benedictionis in corpus suum rerum quae videntur i.e. panis vini naturam mutans Greg. Nyss Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis verbo suo secreta potestate immutat Ante quam invocatione sui nominis consecretur substantia illic est panis vini post verbum autem Christi corpus sanguis est Christi Quid mirum autem si ea quae verbo creare potuit possit creata convertere c. Caesarius Arelat quoted by Blondel p. 69. Ne ergo consideres tanquam nudum panem nudum vinum est enim corpus sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba quamvis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gustu rem judices Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur a nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi c. Cyr. Hier. Carech 4. Mystag Here observe that the presence of Christ's Body is applied not only to the Receiver but to the Elements else why should the Fathers press the mistakes and errors of sense about the Elements For what Protestant warns his Scholars of a fallacy of their senses in the Eucharist Chrysost in Mat. Hom. 83. Credamus ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit quoniam ergo ille dixit Hoc est corpus meum c. Num vides panem num vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit ne cogites quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia Chrys Hom. de Euch. in Encoeniis Forte dicas aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam quantis probamus exemplis c. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Ambr. Besides these methinks two passages in Dr. Taylors Book tho not urg'd by him to such a purpose one p. 320. of the Eutychians using this principle or argument now all proof proceeds a notiori ad minus notum that in the Sacrament the Bread was changed into Christ's Body to prove that so the Human Nature might be into the Divine And another p. 343. of Averroes his saying That the Christians Eat their God Do shew that a
Fathers to have held a substantial presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols Answers of the Reformed to these Arguments 1. Concerning the change of the Elements into Christs Body something is said both by Mr. Blondel and Dr. Taylor and others but what seems to me no ways satisfactory To the first second and third they say but I would wish you to peruse their own Books lest their Answers may receive some wrong by my relation or something in them more considerable be omitted by me they say then that where the Fathers say 1. That the Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ 2. That of the Bread by Consecration it made the Body of Christ 3. That after Consecration it ceaseth to be Bread. 4. Or That it is not only Bread. 5. That the Nature and Substance of Bread by Consecration is chang'd into Christs Body c. they mean α only 1. Is a sign or Sacrament of Christ's Body or his Body in Sacrament or as Dr. Taylor p. 266 the Bread is verily the Body of Christ truly his Flesh and the Wine truly his Blood How by a change of condition of sanctification and usage 2. That of Bread is made the Sacrament of his Body 3. That it ceaseth to be Bread i. e. common Bread. 4. That it is not only Bread by reason of the Grace of Consecration added to its nature 5. That the nature of it is chang'd from simple Bread to pain benit or Sacramental Bread and that it acquires a new essence i.e. the essence of a Sacrament See such solutions in Blondel p. 64. c. in his Margin and p. 222 224. So in his Explication of the Canon of the Mass p. 452. See likewise p. 470. where it petitions ut oblatio fiat nobis corpus sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi he expoundeth Corps c. en Sacrement Again where it ut quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus c. he interprets prendrons le Sacrament du sacro-sainct corps de ton fils qui est ce mesme sacro-sainct corps en representation signification where note also that he holds not any substantial presence of Christ's Body to the worthy Receiver in which thing those of the second Opinion I think will not consent to him Lastly they say That by change of the Elements the Fathers mean no more than an accidental Sacramental conversion a change of condition of sanctification and usage and efficacy as a Table by consecration is chang'd into an Altar a House into a Church a Man into a Priest as the Water of the River into the Laver of Regeneration See this in Dr. Taylor p. 270. and the like in Blondel p. 472. Bref par tout ce pain est apellê sainct de mesme que le calice la table la palatine sont apeller saincts Ascavoir entant qu'ils servent a une usage sainct c. without any presence of Christs Body either to them or instead of them See Blond p. 156 157 174 c. Taylor p. 266. Now tho as it appears I think above the expressions of the Fathers for such a change of the symbols as that after Consecration the substance of Christs Body is there with them are so full as 't is hard to say such a thing more plainly than they do Yet that they are not in such a sense to be understood they urge many things B First That we must not interpret them so as to make them contradict themselves or one another See Blond p. 158 232. Then they shew that the same Fathers that use these high expressions yet cease not to call the Elements even after Consecration images figures types similitudes signs sacraments of the Body c. representations memorials exemplars symbols Corpustypicum symbolicum mysticum See many more Blond c. 4. prop. 8. and Taylor p. 313. p. 290. where that expression of Tertullian is much stood upon adv Marcion l. 4. c. 40. Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere pascha ut suum indignum enim fuit ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma as Marcion contended Christs Body was figuram capere non posset and say that they are Christs Body not proprie but aliquo modo c. γ Now idem non est simile the sign can't be the very thing signified by the sign nor the type figure the prototype or the truth See Tayl. p. 318. Blond 207.210 δ Especially these places of S. Austin are much insisted on by them 23. Ep. ad Bonifacium Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita Sacramentum fidei i. e. Baptism fides est Sicut de ipso Baptismo Apostolus Consepulti inquit sumus Christo per Baptismum in mortem non ait sepulturam significamus sed prorsus ait consepalti sumus Sacramentum ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupatur So in Psal 33. Concio 2. Ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret Hoc est corpus meum ζ. In Psal 98. upon those words in St. John Verba quae locutus sum vobis spiritus est vita Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc corpus quod videtis manducatisri estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi De doctrina Christiana 3. l. 16. c. Si praeceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata si autem slagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit carnem filii hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Flagitium vel facinus videtur jubere figura est ergo praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata sit η To these they add some other places of St. Austin wherein he saith the unworthy Communicants receive the Sacrament of Christ's body but not his Body which argues the body at least not present with the Symbols Such that tract 26. in Johan Qui non
partake more the virtue thereof than the only Spiritual receivers but of this more anon as also the wicked incur more judgment by their unworthy reception of it than were it only of the bare representative thereof they thus being in a higher manner rei corporis Christi in the Apostle's expression 1 Cor. 9. Now S. Austin means non manducant corpus Domini Spiritualiter But if it seem still to some S. Austin's opinion that the wicked do no way at all receive the very body but only the sacrament thereof as understood only as representing it Yet I see not with submission to better judgments that it must necessarily infer that he held not Christ's true body's being before present with the symbols and offered to the wicked but only it by ceasing to be there for his body is only voluntarily present and perhaps only in such cases as this may desinere ibi esse sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat not to be received at all by the wicked as many hold it not to be devoured together with the consecrated elements by beasts c neither in specie propria nor aliena See before And Estius gives it the place of an argument 4. sent 9. distinct 3. sect Peccator magis est Deo abominabilis quam animal brutum multo minus igitur peccator sumit Christi corpus To answer which he holds the opinion contrary to the others namely that a brutis animalibus etiam sumitur non secundum propriam speciem sed secundum species Sacramentales And see Dr. Field Append. to the 3d. book 17 18. c. quoting out of Waldensis Tom. 2. de Euchar. 19. c. That many who affirmed the bread to be changed into Christ's body yet held when unworthy men came to communicate the body and blood of Christ to cease to be present and when a wicked man is to receive it the substances of bread and wine to return c why might not S. Austin's conceit be the same To ϑ besides that two Councils not long after one in the East another in the West opposed that of Constantinople in this matter of the Sacrament see hereafter I can say only this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be taken in such a sense as that upon consecration the elements are not made divinum corpus or adoration not due to it For these two things that Council affirms as well as image and corpus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for this the Council of Nice that followed said of those Fathers of Constantinople that huc illucque se jactantes inconstantia minime firma omnia sua dogmata asserunt But why may not Image here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be opposed not to the verity of Christ's body in the Eucharist after some manner but only to its being there as formerly on earth that is after a natural manner for it is not in the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Eucharist so by other Fathers is called only an Image of it And why might not the Council of Nice mistake the sense of this Council in one point as well as Mr. Blond p. 411 grants that of Franckfort did misunderstand it in another To μ see what is said to γ To λ which seems more material than the rest with which I shall consider also χ their Reply to the 3d Consideration about Sacrifice First I say if there be found so much not only in the ancient Missals but those now used Concerning the Sacrifice of the Eucharist that makes against any substantial conversion of the elements into Christ's body and if the offering the Eucharist therein as a Sacrifice is only commemorative of that upon the Cross in which sense the Reformed also allow a Sacrifice without involving any special presence of Christ's body with the elements how comes it to pass that only the fourth opinion retains still the same forms for the things which are here objected that were used in St. Ambrose's days or if only used in the time of Gregory the Great yet then they grant there was yet no corruption in the doctrine concerning the Sacrament against whose modern tenents these formes make so much and that all the other three opinions have made new formes to themselves and rejected the old which they plead are so favourable unto them In doing which things Luther is said in the beginning of his book de abroganda Missa to object to himself Magnum est certe tot saeculorum consuetudini tantae multitudinis sensui tantorumque Authoritati reluctari Tu solus sapis totne errant universi tanta saecula erraverunt Again how can we more justifie their reverence to Antiquity than in this thing that they have not taken the boldness to correct or change or note in the daily and Publick Service what makes so much against their present opinions Now to come closer to the matter and to speak a little more fully 1. in answer to χ in what sense the Eucharist is now or was anciently used as a Sacrifice that that which follows may be more cleared by it and that you may see whether there may be so just cause for that clamor that is made against it as injurious and derogating from the Sacrifice upon the Cross § XXVI 1 First 'T is confess'd as by the Fathers The opinion of the Fathers concerning it so by those of the fourth Opinion That the Sacrifice made on the Cross is the only Sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away Sins and that there is no need of any more Sacrifice for Sin i. e. for making full satisfaction and paying the due debt for Sin that therefore the Sacrifice cannot nor need not to be iterated in this respect for then must Christ often have suffer'd c. see Heb. 9.25 26 28. see Heb. 10.10 12 14 18. That therefore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is no new or divers Sacrifice from that of the Cross no suplement or completement of it but only representative or commemorative of it applying see the manner more explain'd hereafter unto particular men the remission purchas'd thereby as also all other fruits and benefits thereof Which application as it is said to be obtain'd by Christ's present intercession now in Heaven by Faith by Prayer by the Sacraments c. in a several way without any suspition of a diminution or injury done thereby to the merits of the Passion so may it as safely be attributed to this continual Sacrifice of Christians the Eucharist For this see Conc. Trid. s. 22. c. 1. Dominum nostrum in coena novissima Dilectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibili sicut hominum natura exigit reliquisse sacrificium quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur ejusque memoria in finem usque saeculi permaneret atque illius i. e. of the Sacrifice of the Cross salutaris virtus in remissionem
4.14 and 7.38 39. where the Spirit signified in both places by water is declar'd to be the fountain of life eternal And now it is high time to leave of to tire you with a Discourse the more tedious because entangling it self with the Writings of so many others Now to conclude I pray the good Lord To preserve you or any other that reads it from being moved or perswaded by any thing erroneous therein And may he make the shame of any thing that is said amiss here by me tho he knows unwittingly yet I may not say innocently to fall upon me and open your Understanding to see all my Defects that so if this my Endeavour in this History of the Eucharist intended chiefly to make men tho of another perswasion yet more charitable at least to the Doctrine of our Forefathers which they have left can do no good it may do no hurt but that Truth may ever prosper prevail triumph Blessed be his holy Name for ever Amen FINIS Appendix I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the substantial Presence and Adoration of Our B. Saviour in the Eucharist asserted With a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject Publish'd at Oxford from the Exceptions of a Sacramentary Answer Printed at London I. THE former Part of the Answer Combating Transubstantiation is foreign to the Oxford Discourses treating of the Real Presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist Therefore tho liable to material exceptions such are false and perverted quotations long since detected and expos'd Romantick Stories impertinent if true fallacious Arguings and wretched Calumnies industriously contriv'd to deceive and incense the Populace yet It shall be neglected and our Animadversions commence at Part 2. c. 2. where the Minister's Reflections are professedly applied to the Treatises II. Pag. 44. l. 14. All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's invisible Power and Grace c. A Presence of Grace and Power only i. e a real absence of our Lord's body and blood from both the Eucharist and worthy Communicant was indeed profest by the Puritan Party which exclaimed against Archbishop Laud Bishop Mountague and others for maintaining a substantial Presence From whose Clamour and Impeachment these Learned Prelates vindicated themselves not by that easie and complete way of disowning the Doctrine and interpreting their Expressions and Sentiments to intend a presence of Grace and Power only which obvious Reply would have silenc'd if not appeased the Faction but by justifying their Tenet to be what the Church of England held and prescrib'd A presence of Grace only can import no more than a bestowing of Grace or benefits without the thing beneficial or gracious But that the Church of England by her Heads or eminentest Members from Q. Elizabeth's time to the Return of Char. II. own'd this Zuinglianism for her Faith is from no authentick act that I have perus'd yet evident 1. Not evident from the XXVIII Article tho the Answerer affirms so much For that Article neither does nor was intended to contain any thing inconsistent with a substantial Presence tho it condemns Transubstantiation To ratifie this I need alledge against this Minister a Witness no better qualified then Dr. Burnet because produc'd as very credible in this case by this Man in p. 58. who says it was thought to be enough to condemn in this Article Transubstantiation c. 2. Not evident from the Communion-Office as the same Historian relates Hist Ref. Part 2. p. 390. It was proposed to have the Communion-Book so contriv'd that it might not exclude the Belief of the Corporal Presence For the chief Design of the Queen's Council was to Unite the Nation in One Faith and the greater part of the Nation continued to believe such a Presence thereupon the Rubrick is left out And indeed had we not this uncontrolable testimony out of that very Author who would fain have been set up in Churches as the Old Fox's Monuments yet as much might be collected from the Office it self that no-where excludes the substance or limits the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ to Grace and Power which it must do before it can countenance the Answerer's tenet Surely any Person not extreamly prepossest will sooner interpret these Passages The Communion of the Body c. We Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ c. When the Minister delivers the Communion The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. omitted in the Answer Take eat c. We thank God that he doth vouchsafe to feed us with the Food of the most precious Body c. The Bread that we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. I say an unprejudic'd Man will sooner understand these expressions as including a substantial presence than a signifying only the power and grace of Christ's Body and Blood. How could they then take them otherwise who believ'd a corporal presence and till the last years of Edw. VI. scarce ever heard that the words were capable of any other sense 3. Not evident from the Catechism In which the Church of England is so far from teaching her Children a Presence of Grace only that she plainly instructs them to believe a substantial Presence Does she not as it were dissect the Eucharist into its parts acquainting them that it consists of an Outward part or sign Bread and Wine of an Inward part or thing signified the Body and Blood of Christ c. and then demands What are the Benefits or effects of these Parts whereof we are partakers thereby i. e. by the Body and Blood of Christ Now if she design by body and blood of Christ the benefits only of them then her Question runs thus What are the Benefits whereof we are partakers by the Benefits which are the inward Part of the Lord's Supper A Question too ridiculous to be proposed by any person of sobriety much less fit for a Church to put in her institution of Christians If then the Catechism may be explicated literally as one would imagin a Catechism ought the Church of England both believes and teaches a substantial Presence Agreeable hereto is Bishop Ken's Exposition licensed 1685 by Jo. Battely Chaplin to the Archbishop of Canterbury O God incarnate says the Bishop how thou canst give us thy flesh to eat and thy blood to drink how thy flesh is meat indeed c. How thou who art in Heaven art present on the Altar I can by no means explain but I firmly believe it all because thou hast said it and I firmly rely on thy love and on thy Omnipotence to make good thy word tho the manner of doing it I cannot comprehend Here in expressions very fervent and becoming a Christian Pastor he instructs the people of his Diocese to believe that God incarnate gives them his flesh to eat c. Next that tho in Heaven yet the same God incarnate is present on the Altar 3ly
substance of the Bread and Wine is turn'd into that of Christ's Body and Blood and only the manner of that substantial conversion is in question with him as also with his commentators Scotus Durand and many others mis-quoted Pref. p. 7. of which falsities ignorance if it were in fault cannot excuse him since either the Authors themselves or the Letter printed 1665 discovering these amongst 150 false or wrested quotations in Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive might so easily have informed him As to the irreverent Descants on the Great Council celebrated at Lateran by the most learned and prudent Innocent 3. it is observed That when the deposing Power must be imputed to us as an Article of our Creed then that Council is obligatory and Mr. Dodwel has proved it so but when it defines Transubstantiation then the Canons are surreptitious and a Papal contrivance and Du Pin may be found in the Margen One while that Council enters the Stage conferring power on the Pope to dethrone Kings and on Priests as if there had bin no Priesthood before that Council to make God. Another while all this was forced upon the Fathers of that Synod or publisht as their Act without their privity by a pragmatical and intriguing Pope What would the man be at Is his Arrogance content with no less than confirming and rescinding General Councils arbitrarily Pag. 113. l. 23. As to the point of Antiquity I have already fully discuss'd it above c. I suppose he means from p. 24. to 32 where we may find indeed much passion against Transubstantiation but we are not so short-sighted as to confound it with corporal presence the thing here in discussing And for the Fathers referr'd to by the Discourser where shall we find the Protestant Answers to St. Ambrose de iis qui init Myst c. 9. to St. Hilary St. Cyril Alex Are these spurious too Are not those ascribed to St. Ambrose Eusebius Emisenus sermo de coena Domini the Epist of the Presbyt of Achaia concerning St. Andrew's passion much more ancient than either Paschasius in the West or Anastasius Sinaita in the East Were they ever excepted against as containing Doctrine disagreeable to that of the Church tho thro the negligence of Transcribers the true Authors of them be not very certain It is not a Book 's being attributed by a mistake to a wrong Author but its containing suspicious Doctrine or false Relations and being fathered on eminent Names to pass it with authority in the world that chiefly subjects it to the censure of Apocryphal But why should a doubt concerning the Author of such Books elude the testimony fetcht from them when St. Ambrose in a Book unquestioned and others more ancient coeval or not much juniors to the questioned pieces as St. Gandentius St. Remigius c write as fully for not only a corporal presence but also Transubstantiation Pag. 114 l. 9. This Ground the universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time is not certainly true and if it were yet certainly it is nothing to the purpose T is certainly true if the whole may be determined to be on that side where all the members of the Church are for whosoever denied this Faith of a corporal presence was ipso facto an Heretick in opposing an Article so weighty and so solemnly declared and required of all the faithful in at least ten Councils before Zuinglius dreamed But the Apostates from a corporal presence were indeed very few before and of those few scarce one was in being at Luther's revolt he also continuing a bitter enemy to the Sect that soon grew upon him If true t is certainly to the purpose whilst this is true That all Christians to a man cannot miscarry in such a considerable part of Religion as the Eucharist is which they daily frequented and the belief of which real Presence in it was by many ways continually inculcated and confirmed to them Such an unanimous and comprehensive Tradition does at least demonstrate the novelty and falshood of Zuinglianism What Article in our Creed can have a stronger external motive than universal consent And as to the perpetuity of it other Articles have bin sooner and longer and by more numerous Factions opposed than it For of those who have raised debates about the Eucharist the least part are they who denied a substantial Presence the other quarrelling either about Transubstantiation or Communion in both kinds or some other matter yet all the while confessing a real Presence Well to let the Reader understand more fully the seriousness and judgment of this Minister the Argument esteemed impertinent and ridiculed by him here is this The Authority equi-valent to that of any General Council is a solid Ground of Faith but the unanimous profession of all Christians in the last Ages is an Authority equivalent to that of a General Council therefore that unanimous profession is a solid Ground of Faith. The Major is own'd by all such Protestants as submit their judgments to the Authority of such Councils as condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutyches Origen and the Monothelites assenting to their Definitions as the true sense of Divine Revelations and reciting some of them even in their Creeds The Minor is founded on not only Protestant concessions but also their Definition of a true Church that it has the Word of God rightly preacht and the Sacraments duly administred according to this character then if all preach'd corporal presence it could not be an error in all and so not in any unless there were no true preachers and consequently no Church in some times extant Now if an unanimous profession cannot be erroneous t is doubtless equal to the Authority of any General Council and also very pertinently pleaded as a solid ground of Faith for whatever can declare a Divine Revelation infallibly is so Pag. 115. l. 30. If we did acknowledge this 5th Ground That since Luther's time no small number of Protestants c acknowledge a real and adorable Presence c yet it seems we are mistaken c. It seems rather that you are extremely conceited who contend against as well the first chiefest and best Protestants and the genuine Sons and eminentest Superiors in your own Church as the Catholick Church and all thro that proud pretence that your Sense Reason and expositions of Scripture and Antiquity how wild and unsound soever are absolutely certain and not as we know them to be meer presumptions Is not this an advancing of your self as a standard of truth and science and a requiring what you so vehemently decry in the Catholick Church and shun in your self submission of all judgments to your Fancies The Protestant owning of a substantial Presence is not said to be a ground for our believing Transubstantiation but yet it is an argument against other Protestants for that Faith of a corporal presence which is common to some of their party with us
A COMPENDIOUS DISCOURSE ON THE EUCHARIST WITH TVVO APPENDIXES OXFORD Printed in the Year M. DC.LXXX.IIX The CONTENTS A Brief Account of the Modern Doctrines concerning the Eucharist Four principal modern Opinions concerning the Eucharist 1. Virtual presence § 1. 2. Real presence aliquo modo § 2. 3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation § 3. 4. Real presence with the symbols by Transubstantiation Observations touching these Opinions § 4. 1. Observation That both the third and fourth Opinion hold an Oral reception of Christ's Body by all Communicants § 5. 2. Observation That the fourth Opinion affirms § 6. 1. A Symbol of Christ's Body remaining after consecration viz. all the sensibles of the Bread. n. 1. 2. These Symbols in the Church'es language not unusually to have had the denomination of Bread. n. 2. 3. These Symbols to have several things predicated of them not agreeable to Christ's Body 3. 4. These Symbols to be as signs of Christ's Body sacramentally present so of it as formerly broken on the Cross n. 4. 5. Christ's Body also as sacramentally present to be a 〈…〉 or memorial of the same Body as formerly on the Cross n. 5. 3. Obs That the difference between the third and fourth Opinion is not great § 7. 4. Obs That the third and fourth Opinion affirm not Christ's Bodily presence in the Sacrament after so gross a manner as is objected to them § 8. 5. Obs That no Argument drawn from sense or seeming contradiction can be valid against the third and fourth Opinion § 9. 6. Obs That those of the third Opinion and some also of the second condemn not the fourth as holding a thing impossible or unfeasible § 10. 7. Obs That Communion with the fourth Opinion is unjustly rejected whilst retained with the third § 11 8 Obs That the Doctrine of the second Opinion is very varying dubious and obscure § 12. Where is discussed § 13. 1. Whether they hold any real substantial presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist Several quotations out of them wherein they seem to maintain it Other quotations wherein they seem to retract it § 14 And divers Arguings of theirs against the third and fourth opinion which seem to overthrow it 2. Whether they hold such presence to the Symbols or only to the Communicant § 16. Several quotations wherein they seem to deny such presence to the Symbols Where Whether they hold Christ's Body present to the soul only or also to the body of the worthy receiver Some other sayings wherein they seem to imply such presence to the Symbols And the testimony of Mr. Thorndike expresly declaring for it An Aâ—count of the Doctrine of Antiquity touching Christ's presence in the Eucharist § 17. That the Arguments equally urged out of the Fathers for their not holding Transubstantiation disprove not their holding of a Corporal presence at least after some other manner with the Symbols § 18. As Theodoret. § 19. 1. Gelasius 2. Ambrose 3. St. Austin 4. Other quotations out of Blondel 5. And others 6. Arguments that they hold corporal presence § 20. Because they affirm a change of the Elements into Christs Body n. 1. A miraculous change n. 2. Offering the Body of Christ as a Sacrifice before communicating n. 3. Using Adoration before communicating n. 4. Holding an Oral manducation of Christ's body n. 5. Answers of the Reformed to these Arguments § 21. Concerning the change of the Elements n. 1. Concerning the miraculousness of the change § 22 Concerning its being a Sacrifice § 23. Concerning Adoration § 24. Replies to these § 25. The doctrine of the Fathers concerning it as a Sacrifice § 26. That the sacrifice on the Cross is the only sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away sins n. 1. Yet is the Eucharist a true and real sacrifice n. 2. Testimonies out of Card. Bellarmin C. Trent and Mr. Mede n. 3. 4. Of the Fathers that it is a sacrifice expiatory n. 5. Of Dr. Tailor n. 6. Digr The omission of the daâ—â—y Oblation in the Reformed Churches § 27. The Fathers say that it is an Oblation of the same Body which was crucified § 28. Reply concerning Sacrifice § 29. Reply concerning Adoration § 30. The Roman qualifications concerning Adoration § 31. Suppose Transubstantiation an error yet Adoration lawful if a corporal presence and if no corporal presence yet their Adoration no idolatry § 32. An account of the variance in the doctrine of the Eucharist in later times § 36. In the Eastern Church § 37. In the Western Church § 41. Reflections upon the former narration § 43. 1. Corporal presence then the common opinion 2. All Councils since the 2d of Nice unanimously deciding corporal presence with the symbols § 44. And that not by way of Impanation § 45. Councils excusable in so strictly determining the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament § 48. In what sense they impose it as an Article of faith § 49. Obedience due to such decisions § 51. The objection of a contrary perswasion of conscience considered § 52. Objection of non-certainty considered § 53. The objection of the fruitlesness of supposed corporal presence considered § 54. App. I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Substantial presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament with a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject printed at OXFORD App. II. Animadversions upon the Reply to the Two former Discourses A DISCOVRSE on the EVCHARIST Four principal Opinions concerning the Eucharist COncerning the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist there are Four chief Opinions among Christians The First That it is Present to the Worthy or Faithful Reeciver in all the Efficacy and Benefits thereof either as it suffer'd § 1 or was rais'd again by a communication to us of Christ's Spirit whereby we are vivificated united 1. Virtual Presence and incorporated into him Et nullus hic miraculo dandus locus est cum sciamus qua ratione Christus Caenae suae adsit nimirum Spiritu vivificante spiritualiter efficaciter ut ipsius divinitas possit nos vivificare in nobis habitare oportuit corpus ipsius pro nobis frangi in Cruce c. atque hanc fractionem effusionem fide a nobis apprehendi ut hac fide insiti corpori ipsius caro ipsius sanguis ipsius effecti possimus fieri participes justitiae vitae ipsius atque ita aeternum domicilium divinitatis Spiritus sanctus nos cum Christo conjungens etiam longissime distantia secundum locum copulat multo arctius propius quam in uno loco posita conjunguntur This opinion seems not to put any real or substantial Presence of Christ's very Body and Blood in the Eucharist or worthy Receiver but a real participation of all the benefits thereof by his Spirit communicated to the faithful Receiver of the consecrated
Christus de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae accepit carnem quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit ipsam carnem jam manducandam nobis ad salutem dedit nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit inventum est quem-admodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domim ut non solum non peccemus adorando sed non adorando peccemus Which matter some think he borrowed from S. Ambrose upon the same Psalm and text de Spiritu Sancto 3. l. 12. c. Adorate scabellum pedum ejus Itaque per scabellum terra intelligitur per terram autem caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt Like to this are many other sayings of S. Austin Psal 48.33 21. And Ep. 120. ad Honorat 27. c. expounding that in 21. Psal 29. v. Manducaverunt adoraverunt omnes divites terrae he saith ipsi divites per divites terrae saith he before hoc loco superbi intelligendi sunt adducti sunt ad mensam Domini accipiunt de corpore sanguine ejus sed adorant tantum non etiam saturantur alluding to 26. v. edent pauperes i. e. humiles saith he saturabuntur quia non imitantur Here he saith the wicked do adorare that which they receive de mensa Domini but t is certain they may not adore any thing else however consecrated or sanctified or whatever it represent but only the real body and blood of Christ But of Aderation more fully afterward In which sayings of his we find the real body of Christ in mensa in altari in ore manducantium not only in corde in the oblation which was before communicating adored before manducation and therefore I think t is plain as S. Austin held with the second opinion the real presence of Christ so with the 3d and 4th opinion the real presence in mensa or Altari with the elements or the signs Now I say if these two things be granted once I do not see what thing that Father can say in any place of the bread and wine being symbols figures c of Christ's passion or of Christ's body that was crucified c which thing the 4th opinion may not say of the species of the bread or wine being so Thus much of the 2d note that the 4th opinion as well as the other after consecration makes a sign remaining and distinct from the thing signified of which signs many things are predicated which cannot be so of Christ's body § VII 3. Note 3ly in comparng the two last opinions together That some at least of the defenders of the 4th opinion reject the third as contrary to the Scripture and reason Obs 3 1. by supposing a sense in it which the third I mean the moderater party thereof doth not own whereas their sense well understood their difference seems not so great For thus Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 19. c. argues against it Hic panis triticeus non est corpus Domini but who is there saith it is fieri enim non potest ut una res non mutetur tamen fiat alia esset enim ipsa non esset ipsa but at last when he takes into consideration the instance whereby the third opinion explains it self that as of a barrel of wine we say Hoc est vinum so we say not of the bread but that contained under it Hoc est corpus Domini even as the fourth opinion saith Hoc est corpus Domini of that which is contained under the species of bread He hath little to say against their tenent in respect of the expression of Scripture or evidence of reason his arguments from which 3. l. 22. c. seem of little moment but see the end of 19. c. flies to this ward licet in verbis Domini esset aliqua ambiguitas tamen sublata est per multa Concilia Ecclesiae consensum Patrum And so do many of the Schoolmen see the quotations in Blondel de Euchar. 12. cap. and cocerning this proposition Potuisse Deum efficere ut in Sacramento vere adesset corpus Christi cum pane si hoc fecisset mysterium futurum fuisse facilius minus miraculorum in se continens Bellarmin saith Aliqui negant alii concedunt res ad fidem non pertinet i. e. of the possibility of this neque de eo est nobis cum haereticis controversia de Euchar. 3. l. 23. c. 2. Indeed the difference is not much when as one saith hoc est corpus meum quod continetur sub accidentibus panis the other hoc quod continetur sub substantia panis of which the former men grant a possibility and when as the fourth opinion denies panis to remain after consecration not because corpus Domini cannot possibly be sub pane which the third opinion affirms but because panis cannot be corpus Domini in which the third opinion agrees with them yet corpus Domini sub pane the fourth opinion admits not the better to accord with Antiquity who affirm the bread consecrated to be to be made to be changed into Christ's body which mutation of it into another they think cannot consist with its being the same as it was before but the bread remaining as formerly only Christ's body now with or under it tho it may be thought to suit well with the words of Institution yet they canceive agrees not so well with those expressions of the Fathers this interpretation arguing a change indeed about the bread but not a change indeed of the bread and perhaps I may say to follow the closer the words of Institution of which tho the Lutheran sense be not improper as is shewed in the former instances yet the sense that the fourth opinion gives of them tho perhaps encountring more difficulties seems more proper whilst in it the article Hoc no way includes or involves any other substance besides corpus meum As we may say it would also be yet more proper if the article Hoc no way involved any foreign accidents as in the sense of the fourth opinion it doth but those belonging to our Saviour's body So to say hoc est vinum is more proper when t is covered with no other substance or accidents but its own than when t is said so of it hid within a barrel or other vessel 3. Thus much of the distance between the third and fourth opinion As for some incommodious explications and expressions used by some of the third opinion as that of the ubiquity of the Manhood by reason of its union with the Deity with which the Lutheran opinion hath no need to defend its self against the Transubstantialist who grants a possibility of Christ's bodily presence and that of the bread's being properly called Christ's body in the words of Institution from the bread's being united with it because the
Fathers that whatsoever they speak of the Eucharist they affirm also the same of the other Sacrament Baptism c. quoting out of St. Austin that we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptism we are made Members of Christ c. therefore whatever may be answer'd to the Fathers of which more anon yet his opinion is that Christ's Body is no more really present in the Lord's Supper than in Baptism c. 2. I find B. Forbes tho holding neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation yet much censuring out of Spalat and others these two diminutive comparisons of the Lord's Supper de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 26 27. Falso etiam asseritur haud aliter nos Corpus Christi in Eucharistia comedere quam Patres veteris Testamenti c. and s 27. Perperam etiam asseritur res easdem esse Christum in Baptismo induere ipsius carnem ac sanguinem in Caena sumere c. 3. I will add to these of Dr. Taylors an expression of Dr. Hammond's Pract. Cat. where he speaks of the Eucharist God bestows the Body and Blood of Christ upon us not by sending it down locally for our Bodies to feed on but really for our Souls to be strengthened by it As when the Sun is communicated to us the whole Bulk and Body of the Sun is not removed out of its Sphere but the Rays and Beams of it and with them the Light and Instuences are really and verily bestow'd and darted out upon us Thus he As therefore not the Body of the Sun but only the Beams thereof can be said to be really and locally here below so I conceive the Doctor means that not the very Body of Christ but the vertue and efficacy thereof only are really here present to the worthy receiver If so you may see how Mr. Hooker differs from him in the same simile in the quotation set down above p. 50. where he saith not only by effect and operation as the influence of the heavens is in plants beasts men c which they quicken c. 4. Lastly I do not see how this their opinion of substantial Presence consists with many of those objections made by them against the third and fourth opinion as that in particular of the impossibility of the same body to be in many places at once which objection opposeth not the modus but any presence substantial whatsoever But if on the other side in good earnest a real substantial Presence be affirmed by them tho in wisely not expressing any particular manner as others do they both avoid the arguments which perhaps might be made against it and have advantage to make some against others yet I see not but that from their affirming in general such a Presence they must incur many of the same difficulties with the third and fourth opinion If they say substantially present but they mean not to the elements but to the receiver and that to his soul not to his body yet if they affirm it as much or as far present to the soul as the other doth to the signs as Mr. Hooker saith they differ only about the subject not the presence do not the same objections absurdities c concerning Christ's Body being both substantially in Heaven and in the place where the Communion is celebrated with which they afflict the others for making it present with the signs return upon themselves for making it present with the receivers For if it be possible that the body of Christ now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven can notwithstanding this be present in our soul or in our heart so may it under or with the bread unless we say that we affirm not that real presence to the soul which they do to the bread But then our writers must not say that we differ only about the manner or the subject of his Presence but the Presence it self also 5. If they say substantially present but they mean spiritually not naturally or not corporally so saith the Romanist i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities always accompanying where no supernatural effect the nature or essence of a Body but if they will extend spiritually so far as that it shall imply Christ's body to be there substantially or really yet not quoad naturam or essentiam suam or not quoad corpus this is by a distinction to destroy their thesis 6. Again if they say substantially there present but not locally so saith the Lutheran and Romanist i. e. circumscriptive or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have but if they will extend locally so far as that they understand Christ's body to be there by no manner of ubi at all see Dr. Tailor p. 218. not so much as ubi definitive so that we may truly say t is hic so as not ubique or alibi where no communion what is this but to affirm t is there so as that it is not there 7. If they say substantially present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven besides that thus Christ's body is no more present in the Eucharist than in any other ordinance or sacrament wherein the Spirit is conferr'd such presence is properly of the Spirit not of the body unless that which being finite is only in heaven as they affirm may not rightly be said to be really and substantially absent from what is on earth Now if these seeming-impossibilities and contradictions we acknowledge and fly to the incomprehensibility and inexplicableness of the mystery all that I reply is that we must indulge the same priviledge to others allowing that a thousand contradictions of theirs may be as soon true as only one of ours 8. But if at last we plainly interpret our real and substantial presence by Christ's being present in corporal absence to the worthy receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof we slide back into the first opinion differing only from them in expression and then what need we speak any more of omnipotency for such presence or make any thing miraculous in the Sacrament what incomprehensibleness in this when as Bellarmin expresseth it all that we say is That per fidem apprehendentem Christum in coelo manducantem sacramentum or signum corporis sui participamus omnia bona Christi What mean then those gradations of reception not only of bare signs nor of the signs and the benefits applied by faith but also of the very body and blood of Christ In tanta locorum distantia penetrat ad nos Christi caro saith Calvin ut nobis sit in cibum Instit 4. l. 17. c. 10. s. § XV Therefore the Remonstrants discerning the difficulties as are above named into which the affirming of real Presence cast some of the Reformed Apol. pro confessione sua p. 256. said the Zuinglian opinion was simplicissima ad idololatriam omnemevitandam in hac materia inprimis
Blondel p. 70. reckon'd amongst the Authors that hold the Elements to be chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ in his sixth Proposition This therefore at the least will amount to Consubstantiation like Theodoret's 3. Concerning that noted place of St. Ambrose De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. quoted by Dr. Taylor p. 306. the words are these Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini ut ea incipiant esse quae non erant he refers to Ipse dixit facta sunt quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Here the true natural meaning seems to be as Bellarmin observes ut quae erant sint answering to the former quae non erant incipiant esse i. e. ut quae erant maneant quamvis mutata As in another Treatise De Myster init c. 9. he saith non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas And in the same Chapter out of which the former Testimony is taken are also these words Panis iste panis est ante verba consecrationis ubi accesserit consecratio de pane sit caro Christi But suppose him to hold no change here of the substance of the Bread yet must he mean some real change effected by God's Omnipotence beyond the Bread's being chang'd from common to a sacred use and this such as puts the substantial presence of Christ's Body at least with the Bread since he supposeth a miraculous operation some-way upon Nature But this shall be clear'd more anon 4 That Saying of St. Austin's Sermon to the New-Baptiz'd recited by Fulgentius Baptism Aethiop lat cap. and Bede in 1 Cor. 10. Quod vidistis panis est calix quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi calix est sanguis In this later clause that at least the Body of Christ is affirm'd substantially present with the Bread see what I have said Observ 2. And consider also his moving the doubt in the same place since Christ was now ascended in Body into Heaven quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis ejus where he answers ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in illis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem By which aliud intelligitur if he meant only the benefits of Christ's Body and Blood shed upon the Cross which are receiv'd in the Sacrament surely he would have said est fructus spiritualis and not habet fructum c. but this word intelligitur non videtur is frequently used by him concerning Christ's Body tho present with the Sacrament because the symbols only and not It are present there to the sight or senses Tho we are to understand It to be there also as appears out of many other places of St. Austin quoted before 5 Let there be added to these those many quotations in Blondel c. 4. prop. 1 2 3. out of the Fathers and c. 21. out of the ancient Lyturgies and Missals of the Eucharist after Consecration call'd Bread and of something said of the signs or symbols not agreeable to Christ's Body As for this later since the Transubstantialists as well as the rest affirm symbols after Consecration distinct from the Body see Obs 2. I see not how it makes against any Opinion As for the former as long as it can be shew'd that the Fathers with that they call'd Bread hold a substantial presence some way or other of our Saviour's Body if the Answer of the Transubstantialists set down before misinterpret their meaning yet at the most such a term will but prove Consubstantiation which opposeth not our Position 6 As for that Proposition so usual in the Fathers that the Bread is Christs Body press'd by some Protestants as inconsistent not only with Trans but Con-substantiation and the words of Bellarmin quoted in this behalf by them Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Si Dominus ait hic panis est corpus meum necessario sequitur ut aut falsa sit Domini sententia si nimirum proprte panis materialis dicatur esse corpus Domini quod aperte implicat contradictionem aut panis sit corpus non proprie sed figurate quod volunt Calvinistae aut denique panis non manens panis sed benedictione mutatus sit corpus Domini quae est sententia Ecclesiae Catholicae Whereby it seems to follow That if the Fathers accord not in the sense of it with the Transubstantialist they must with the Calvinist and the Schoolmen also brought in to oppose it see Blondel p. 155. I answer this Proposition Hic panis est corpus meum as it is diversly explain'd seems proper enough to be used by any of the Three Opinions First by those who hold a substantial conversion for indeed at least some of those Fathers who use this phrase yet seem clearly to hold a substantial conversion as I shall shew anon and the same Fathers who say that the Bread is the Body of Christ say the Bread is so by a change for it may be interpreted thus Hic panis consecratus i. e. mutatus per consecrationem est Corpus Domini Panis denoting the former matter or the terminus a quo Such a Speech is not unordinary upon a sudden change see Exod. 7.12 where Aaron's Rod is said to devour the Magicians Rods Aaron's Rod i. e. turn'd into a Serpent devour'd c. See somewhat like this ver 19 20 21. where the Water already turn'd into Blood ver 20. notwithstanding is call'd Water afterward ver 21. And they could not drink of the Water of the River the Water i. e. now turn'd into Blood. See the like Joh. 2.9 And when the Ruler of the Feast-had tasted the Water that was made Wine i. e. had tasted the Wine made of the Water But more especially here may such a denomination be made than after other changes because there remains even in the Transubstantialists opinion still something namely all that which is any way sensible of the former substance But 2ly the same proposition may as well be used by those who hold a Consubstantiation of Christ's body with the bread still remaining not taken in such a sense whereof Bellarmin and the Schoolmen say that it plainly contradicts but in the more qualified and moderate sense set down § 3. As pointing at vessels filled with several liquors we ordinarily say This vessel is wine that beer c. or hic purpuratus est Rex So the proposition Sub hoc pane est corpus Christi into which the Lutheran resolves it is as remote from contradiction as the proposition sub specie hujus panis est c the resolution of the Transubstantialist 3ly The same proposition may bear only a figurative sense like that I am the vine or I am the door and
pudore suffundantur atque aversentur seipsos talia facere i. e. depingere Christum desinant Neque hi solum qui faciunt verum etiam qui falso nomine factam dictam ab ipsis Christi imaginem veneratur See for what follows Blond p. 378. Exultent laetentur Et libertate linguae fruentur quicunque veram Christi imaginem sincerissima mente sacientes desiderant venerantur ad salutem animi corporisque adferunt quam imaginem ipse Dominus noster Deus summus sacerdos tradidit suis sacerdotibus c. 'T is probable that the used â—enâ—ration of the consecrated symbols was urg'd before this Council to countenance that given to Images And the Council saith something afterwards that the Eucharist had no humane shape lest Idolatry to other humane shapes of Christ might have been countenanc'd by it But the Assembly in the West at Franckfort opposing the worship of Images and practising that to the Eucharist together with the Conc. Nic. 2 dum affirmed the Eucharist to be not an Image of Christ's body but his true body See Dr. Tailor p. 316 The words of type and image in the question of the Holy Sacrament were disliked by the Assembly at Franckfort because if the Sacrament were an image as they of Constantinople said then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images Thus he Whence it follows that all the three Councils agreed in this the veneration of the Eucharist Add to this what is said by the Doctor p. 343. that in Averroes's time who lived about A. Christi 1000. Christiani adorabant quod comedebant tho not in such a gross sense as the Philosopher understood those words which Adoration what reason the Doctor hath to restrain to some mistaken souls of Averroes's acquaintance only I know not See likewise Tail. p. 279. where that of St. Austin contra Faustum 20. l. 13. c. Propter Panem Calicem nonnulli nos Cererem Liberum colere existimabant argues the Christians worshipping of the Eucharist Neither doth St. Austin's ritu nostro amplectimur say any thing contradictory to it only if not to the Catechumeni much less to the Heathen did the Fathers use full explanations of this ineffable mystery August in Psalm 33. concione 1. Nondum enim erat sacrificium corporis sanguinis Domini quod norunt fideles quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum Conc. 2. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus ejus quia cum commendarit ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum i.e. in his last Supper accepit in manus suas quod norunt fideles c. See the quotation out of Epiphanius p. 93. Where he saith Hoc meum est but names not corpus This frequent in St. Austin and others But what need of such disguising the business if all the catechumeni fideles or unbelievers were to know was only in plain language that the consecrated Bread was signum corporis sui to the worthy receivers of which sign God communicated all the benefits of his Passion Thus much of their adoration of Christ in the Symbols of which Mr. Bloudel in his fourth chap. which gives a history of the Fathers doctrine takes no notice 5. From their holding not only a Spiritual 5. Holding an oral manducation of Christ's body c. but an oral manducation of the body and blood of Christ and it to be received not only by the good but wicked which necessarily infers its presence with the Symbols Austin mentioned before p. 123. Cum dantem carnem suam manducandam sanguinemque bibendum fideli corde atque ore suscipimus Cyprian 5. serm de lapsis speaking of those who after having denied Christ come to the Sacrament saith Vis infertur corpori ejus sanguini plus modo in Domini manibus atque ore delinquunt i. e. in receiving quam cum Dommum negaverunt Chrysostom Hom. 83. in Matt. Quare non oportet esse puriorem tali fruentem sacrificio Quo Solari radio non splendidiorem manum carnem hanc dividentem os quod igni Spirituali repletur linguam quae tremendo nimis sanguine rubescit And in 1 Cor. 11.17 Reus erit corporis he saith Risus intempestivus urbanitas facetiae exitio plenae feastings c haec facis Christi mensa exceptus illo die quo dignus es habitus qui ejus carnes lingua tangeres Manum tuam expurga castiga linguam labra quae ingressus Christi fuere vestibula c. S. Gregory in 4. lib. Dialog in whose time Mr. Blondel cap. 17. grants there was yet no alteration concerning the doctrine of this Sacrament Est quidem in peccatoribus indigne sumentibus vera Christi caro verus sanguis sed essentia non salubri efficientia See concerning S. Austin's opinion p. 132. From Christ's body and blood being held in the hands of the Priest of the communicants for the use of putting into their mouths is tho ancient yet somewhat later than the times of those Fathers we mention from their exceeding care that no part thereof should fall to the ground c. that it should not be seen by the heathen or the catechumeni I suppose lest their weakness should have some disesteem thereof Basil de Spiritu Sancto 27. c. speaking of many Traditions not published in writing from the founders of Christianity but secretly conveyed saith Pulchre quidem illi nimirum docti arcanorum venerationem silentio conservari Num quae nee intueri fas est non initiatis Qui conveniâ—bat horum doctrinam publicitus circumserri scripto Horum doctrinam i. e. the Consecration Prayers c. in the celebration of the Eucharist Add to these the same honour and reverence continued to the Eucharist as to the body of Christ in their reposition and reservation of some part thereof after the communion ended to be distributed when need was to the sick c or also to be communicated another day as in some time of Lent even in the Church See Conc. Const 6. in Trullo Can. 52. See for this reservation the Testimonies of Antiquity gather'd in the Controvertists as in Bell. de Eucharistia l. 4. c. 3. See S. Austin's Sermon to the new-Baptiz'd In Fulgent Bapt. Aethiop ult cap. and Daille on it Answ to Chaumont p. 42. and the confession of Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 39. Sed enim qui sic faciunt i. e. Sacramentum repnunt habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor verum in re tanta in qua non sine magno periculo erratur nihil tutius quam ipsam veritatem sequi True if we certainly knew it But when every Writer pretends his Doctrine to be the Truth For who tells us that himself lies nihil tutius quam Ecclesiae consuetudinem sequi that so we may not forsake the Truth § XXI To some of these five Considerations from which we gather the
Junius thinks it is an interrogation rather referring to Infanticidium Apol. c. 7. And that de Idol c. 7. Semel Judaei Christo manus intulerunt isti quotidie corpus ejus lacessunt speaking of the Eucharist And that adv Marcion l. 1. c. 14. At ille quidem i. e. Christus nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris c. nec panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat i. e. praesentem reddit if we may interpret it by the same sense of the word in l. 4. c. 22. Itaque jam repraesentans eum i. e. Deus Christum Hic est Filius meus utique subauditur quem repromisi repraesentans i. e. praesentans To γ How the same in some sense may be said to be like or unlike it self see before But there being two things in the Sacrament and something remaining after Consecration which is not the Body of Christ but the Symbol thereof c. None say that Christ's Body in the Eucharist is the Image or sign figure or similitude of it self as in the Eucharist But either that the Symbols are signs figures c. of the Body or the Body as in the Eucharist a figure c. of the same Body as Crucified To δ that S. Austin held a real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist those of the second opinion I think will not deny That he held this its presence in the Eucharist to be with the symbols also before communicating I think is clear from his other sayings quoted p. 38 c. The words immediately before those here quoted are Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur nec ubique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari Si enim Sacramenta c. From this it seems plain that St. Austin speaks of the Eucharist as signifying Christ's immolation on the Cross and so t is rightly said not properly but secundum quendam modum or quodammodo the Body of Christ as the Body was in that manner existent And thus Paschasius answered this place above 800 years ago But it is capable also of another answer and so some other places like it That by Sacramentum S. Austin there means the symbols That corpus Christi may be predicated quodammodo of the sign thereof whether it be the substance or only the species of the bread namely after such a manner as the Consubstantialists say Hic panis est corpus meum And thus Algerus answered this place against Berengarius before any Council had decreed Transubstantiation Lastly S. Austin instanceth in Baptism that the Apostle saith in it consepulti sumus because Baptismus sepulturam significabat but none may lawfully conclude from hence that S. Austin held Baptism only to signifie grace and not to confer it neither therefore may he that the Sacrament of the Eucharist only signified Christ's Body To ζ 1. The place in Psalm 98. Since S. Austin speaks here of eating it all those who hold the worthy receiver to partake and eat that very substantial body which suffered for them upon the cross can make no use of this place Now for this I must remember you again of Calvin's expression Neque enim mortis suae tantum beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est And see what Dr. Tailor saith p. 20. 2. Note that S. Austin elsewhere as in Psalm 33. upon those words Accedite ad eum illuminemmi and contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. saith as plainly the seeming-contrary to this Judaei de crucifixo tenebrati sunt nos manducando bibendo crucifixum illuminamur Et nunc bibimus quod de Christi latere manavit 3. In the very same 98. Psal are those words quoted before Nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit which shews either Christ's very flesh in the Eucharist or adoration of another creature for the flesh of Christ 4. I see no reason why that old answer may not pass given long since against Berengarius quoting this place Non idem corpus i.e. in propria sua specie accompanied with the natural qualities of flesh and blood Non in specie mortali visibili ut aderat tunc praesens discipulis suis sed alio modo impassibiliter invisibiliter se habens Neither doth Daille's Reply in his 2d answer to Chaumont p. 45. move me that when corn is first sown and cared and threshed and so ground and moulded into bread we may with the same reason maintain that the eater of this bread eats not the same corn that was threshed c because it s now changed in its qualities because this alteration about our Saviour's body as it is invisible impassible c in the Eucharist is much more strange than that he instanceth in But that all such expressions as we make this to be are not improper see the Apostles 1 Cor. 15.37 Thou sowest not that body that shall be i. e. with such and such qualities and ornaments as it shall come up tho it shall be idem numero corpus in the resurrection and so flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven tho flesh otherwise qualified shall inherit it for our Saviour's glorified body had flesh and bone Luk-24 39 And see St. Austin's discourse upon these places Ep. 146. where to reconcile caro possidebit and caro non possidebit c he saith caro secundum substantiam possidebit caro autem cum secundum corruptionem intelligitur non possidebit And so for the wheat sown Non quod triticum saith he non erit ex tritico sed quod nemo seminat herbam stipulam c cum quibus ista semina exurgunt 5. Lastly the same phrases are found in other Fathers whose opinion perhaps is more clear than S. Austins that the same body that was crucified is in the Sacrament received as in S. Ambrose comment in Luc. l. 8. urged by Daille 2d Rep. to Chaum p. 331. and in S. Hierom. in Ephes 1. cap. where he thus on 7. verse Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi caro intelligitur Spiritualis illa atque divina de qua ipse dixit Caro mea vere est cibus sanguis meus vere est potus nisi manducaveritis carnem meam sanguinem biberitis non babebitis vitam aeternam vel caro sanguis quae crucifixa est qui militis effusus est lancea Juxta hanc divisionem in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis carnis accipitur ut alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei alia caro sanguis quae regnum Dei non queant possidere But here he means alia in quality only as is shewed before This distinction of Christ's flesh in S. Hierom Dr. Tailor qualifies thus p. 10. That Body which was crucified is not that Body which is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of
eorum quae a nobis quotidie committuntur peccatorum applicaretur And so ch 2. Cujus oblationis cruentae fructus per hanc uberrime percipiuntur See Estius sent 4. d. 12. s. 12 13. Dum patres sacrificium crucis unicum singulare sacrificium Christianorune esse dicunt intelligunt quod propria virtute Deum placat quale non est sacrificium missae utpote habens vim suam omnem ex sacrificio in cruce peracto Nam incruenta seu mystica oblatione corporis sanguinis Christi ex doctrina Ecclesiae non hoc agitur ut per eam paretur precium quo redimantur peccata sed ut applicetur pretium unico illo crucis sacrificio comparatum nobis ad remissionem peccatorum ad caetera salutaria dona consequenda Quare sicut unicum illud sacrificium crucis non tollit vim baptismi altorum sacramentorum quibus renovamur sanctificamur a peccatis purgamur imo siâ—ut non derogat efficaciae illius oblationis orationis qua adhuc Christus in coeâ—is continuo semetipsum pro nobis sistit offert patri continuo pro nobis interpellat ita nec tollit incruentam oblationem sacrificii missae aut quicquid derogat ejus virtuti See the like said in Bellarm de Missa l. primo c. 25. Fatemur sacrificium crucis vim sempiternam habere ad sanctificandum c. atque inde non esse opus alio sacrificio crucis aut ejusdem sacrificii crucis repetitione Negamus autem inde sequi non posse sine crucis Christi injuria multiplicari sacrificia repraesentantia sacrificium crucis ejus fructum nobis applicantia Nam si ita esset Efficeremus omnia sacrificia testamenti veteris fuisse peracta in injuriam crucis Christi In hoc est totus error adversariorum quod sibi falso persuaserint nos tribuere missae vim remittendi peccata sine ullo ordine ad sacrificium crucis Or quod Missa vim habeat expiandi peccata sine crucis sacrificio sed sacrificium missae applicat fructum sacrificii crucis See Dr. Holden de Resol Fid. l. 2. c. 4. Propitiatorium quidem est hoc sacrificium sed non eo modo quo sacrificium crucis puta in redemptionem generis humani sacrificium enim crucis adeo sufficiens est abundans ut nec altero nec hujus iteratione nobis ullatenus opus sit in ratione redemptionis Quapropter vi solius missae sacrifien nihil meretur nobis Christus sed per illud nobis applicantur sicut per sacramenta fructus meritorum Christi per immolationem suam sanguineam acquisiti Haud igitur docet nos divina catholica fides sanctum hoc sacrificium missae ut distinctum si tamen absolute distinctum a sacrificio cru is de se peccata remittere gratiam augere justificationem afferre c. An autem sit hoc sacrificium absolutum an relativum solummodo nempe commemorativum representativum significativum est Theologicarum litigationum materia See Cassand Consult de Sac. Corp. Sang. Chr. de iteratione per totum Some places of which you may find quoted by Bishop Forb l. 3. c. 1. s 21. and many of the like out of other Authors set down in that Chapter to which I refer you for them Non igitur hic novum est sacrificium nam eadem hic est hostia quae in cruce oblata fuit i. e. the Body and Blood of Christ commemoratio in mysterio sacrificii illius in cruce peracti continuati in coelis sacerdotii sacrificii Christi in imagine representatio quo sacrificio non efficitur nova propitiatio remissio peccatorum sed ea quae semel sufficienter in cruce facta est nobis quoque efficax esse postulatur Christ making such an Offering unto the same purposes of his Body here on the Altar by his Substitutes as is by Himself now in Heaven made of the same Body It being victima perennis perpetua quae semel oblata consumi non potest So de iterat in sacra hac actione pro vivis mortuis c. offerri dicitur quando non solum pro iis oblata commemoratur verum etiam solenni prece pro iis omnibus efficax salutaris esse postulatur And after sacrificium non modo Eucharisticum sed etiam propitiatorium dici posset non quidem ut efficiens propitiationem quod sacrificio crucis proprium est sed ut eam jam factam impetrans quomodo Oratio propitiatoria dici potest See Fr. a Sanctae Clara on the XXXI Article of the Church of England sacrificium Missae non est propitiatorium primo quia hoc competit sacrificio in cruce licet bene per se quasi secundo per applicationem sacrificii cruenti per commemorationem ejus adeo ut ratio propitiationis originaliter sacrificio in cruce competat illinc seu illius virtute huic Ut etiam recte notavit Canus in locis l. 12. c. 12. ubi dicit Satis esse ut vere proprie sit sacrificium quod mors ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur ac si Christus nunc moreretur ubi rationem propitiationis applicationi mortis Christi tribuit Et ad eundem sensum citat Gregorium in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc mysterio moritur mors igitur incruenta in altari virtutem suam derivat a morte cruâ—nta in cruce in hoc sensu hoe sacrificium est imago exemplar alterius in cruce unde omnis salus radicaliter emanavit Nulla prorsus hic erit difficultas cum doctioribus Protestantibus c. Thus he where also he saith that in the later words of the Article sufficiently vehement sâ—sobrie intelligantur nihil agitur contra sacrificia missae in se sed contra vulgarem vel vulgatam opinionem de ipsis scilicet quod sacerdotes in sacrificiis offerient Christum pro vivis defunctis in remissionem paenae culpae adeo i. e. in such a manner ut virtute hujus sacrificii ab iis oblati independenter a crucis sacrificio mererentur populo remissionem c. But this vulgata opinio as no Church maintains so neither can it without a high breach of Christian charity on any Church be charg'd See Champney de Vocat Minist against Mason cap. 17. pag. 704 c. of whom only delivering the common Doctrine of the Roman Church Dr. Fern acknowledgeth That he makes wide difference between the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and that of the Cross and indeed comes to that which we allow in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament see his Exam. of Champney p. 324. but yet p. 346. he grants the Fathers to have Offer'd the Sacrifice of the Altar as they call'd it which was the representation of Christ's Sacrifice for the Dead for an Impetration of all that Mercy Redemption and Glory for them
which was yet behind And p. 354. he saith we have Christ's warrant and appointment sacramentally here below to represent his own Oblation upon the Cross and by it to beg and impetrate what we or the Church stand in need of Where in the Celebration of the Eucharist he plainly involves not only a communication of Christ's Body and Blood but also a Representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross and this Impetratory of Blessings for our Brethren absent and not only for our selves Communicants See Bishop Forbes l. 3. de Eucharistia c. 2. s 2 3 4 5. Missam Sacrificium propitiatorium sano sensu dici posse recte affirmant Romanenses moderatiores Non quidem ut efficiens propitiationem remissionem peccatorum quod sacrificio crucis proprium est sed ut eam jam factam impetrans And s 5. omnes saniores Romanenses quicunque tueantur sententiam de modo verae realis praesentiae corporis Christi in Eucharistia agnoscunt oblationem sacrificii missae incruentam ab illa una cruenta quae facta est in cruce omnem suam vim efficaciam haurire proinde ut Sacramenta novi Testamenti Which may also I conceive in some manner be said of the Oblation of Himself by our High-Priest now in Heaven Heb. 8.3 4 he not paying the price of our Redemption there now but formerly upon the Cross See in Blondel c. 4. prop. 9. the Testimonies of Eulogius Alex. and of Chrysostom in Heb. Hom. 17. The later not fully set down by him I will transcribe you upon Heb. 9.25 Quid veâ—o nos enim quotidie offerimus offerimus quidem sed ejus morâ—em revocamus in memoriam ipsa una est non multae Quomodo una est non multae quoniam semel fuit oblata illa illata fuit in Sancta Sanctorum Hoc est figura illius ipsa illius eundem enim semper offerimus non nunc quidem alium sed semper eundem quamobrem unum est sacrificium Propter hanc rationem quoniam multis in locis offertur multine sunt Christi nequaquam Sed unus ubique Christus qui hic est plenus illic plenus unum corpus Quomodo ergo multis in locis oblatus unum est corpus non multa corpora ita etiam unum est sacrificium Pontifex noster ille est qur illam Obtulit hostiam quae nos mundat Illam nunc quoque offerimus quae tunc fuit oblata quae non potest consumi hoc fit in recordationem ejus quod tunc factum est hoc enim facite inquit in mei recordationem non aliam hostiam sicut Pontifex i. e. the Levitical High-Priest sed eandem semper facimus vel potius hostiae sen sacrificii facimus recordationem 2. Yet do they both affirm the Eucharist to be a true and proper Sacrifice see quotations hereafter In ipso verissimo singulari sacrificio spoken of the Eucharist by St. Austin True and proper not as it denies or is oppos'd to Sacrifice relative to or commemorative or representative of another Sacrifice namely the Sacrifice of the Cross For the same Sacrifice may be truly such and yet commemorative For saith Bellarmin Sacrificia veteris Testamenti fuere commemorationes postea futuri tamen fuerunt illa vetera in severe proprie dicta Sacrificia de Missa l. 1. c. 15. sec quod autem and so St. Austin in the saying quoted hereafter Christiani jam c. joins oblatio corporis Christi with celebratio memoriae sacrificii peracti And those among the Romanists who hold it not sacrificium aliquod absolutum but relativum or commemorativum yet affirmed to be verum proprium See Forbes l. 3. c. 1. s 12 13 c. See Mede Diatr on Mal. It s one thing to say that the Lords Supper is a Sacrifice i. e. a proper one and another to say Christ is properly sacrificed therein For there may be a Sacrifice which is the representation of another and yet a Sacrifice too And that not in a metaphorical but a proper sense sect 5. Again true and proper not as if there were exactly found in it all the properties of other Sacrifices as the word Sacrifice is taken more strictly for a Slaughter-Offering for the mactation or occision of some thing that hath life whereby it is put to some pain and suffering To this saith Estius sent 4. d. 12. s 12. Non sequitur Christum non immolari in altari quia nihil patitur Est enim haec immolatio mystica talis qualis Christo nunc Competere potest And again s 13. hoc sensu i. e. as immolatio was taken by the Fathers for mactatio offerendi causa facta non vera sed mystica tantum ab iis agnoscitur immolatio in altari quam vocant immolationem incruentam Or for the destruction and consumption of any thing at all tho inanimate about which are many curious disputes touching the consumption of the elements or of Christ's Sacramental being c to make this of the Eucharist bear the more resemblance to other Sacrifices methinks to little purpose since in some thing i. e. in some mactation they grant a difference in it from them all therefore why not here also say est immolatio mystica talis qualis Christo nunc competere potest See Bishop Forbes his censure of such contests 3. l. 1. c. 12. s. Nor yet true and proper as if it had all other properties of that of the Cross besides mactation or were propitiatory even in the same manner as it as is shewn before for that only not this propria virtute Deum placat But true and proper in as much as it by commemorating and representing again to God that bloody Sacrifice on the Cross and offering to God the very same Sacrifice taken passive i.e. the same body of Christ that was once sacrificed and slain on the Cross procureth by way of impetration as other Sacrifices also anciently did not by any new merit or satisfaction from God grace and repentance and remission of sin by the merits of the passion which are then applied to us and other blessings Spiritual or temporal to those who come to God cum vero corde recta fide cum metu reverentia c coming short therefore in nothing of the true and proper Sacrifices of the Old Testament but that as to the visible Symbols it is an oblation of things inanimate but in this also it resembled of old by the Sacrifice of a perfecter Priesthood i.e. of Melchisedech offered unto God. See Bishop For bes 3. l. 1. c. 4. sect Patres magno consensu qui non est spernendus affirmant Melchisedech panem vinum non tantum protulisse exbibuisse Abrahamo ad alendum exercitum sed Deo primum quem praeclarissimae victoriae authorem agnoscebat usitato modo obtulisse libasse ac proinde Christum eujus ille
Ver. 44 45 46. p. 493 494. Yet more plainly from 1 Cor. 10.21 You cannot be partakers c. where these two Tables imply contrary Covenants now here the Table of Devils is so call'd because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to Devils see ver 20. whereby those that Eat thereof Eat of the Devil's Meat Therefore the Table of the Lord is likewise call'd his Table not because the Lord ordain'd it but because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to him in the same manner as the other of those Offer'd to the Devil p. 519. And therefore that he knows not why St. Paul Heb. 13.15 and St. Peter 1 Epist. 2.5 in the Sacrifices mention'd there may not be understood to speak of the solemn and publick Service of Christians wherein the Passion of Christ was Commemorated p. 487. 4. Lastly He allows all the benefits and effects whether propitiatory or impetratory by the Ancients attributed to this Sacrifice granting the Prayers of the Church to have been Offer'd to the Divine Majesty through Christ Commemorated in the Symbols of Bread and Wine as by a medium whereby to find acceptance and the representation of the Body of Christ in this Christian Service to have been rightly us'd as a Rite whereby to find Grace and Favour with God. Only the presence of Christ's real Body with the symbols in it he acknowledges not See p. 499 500 501. 5 The Fathers also affirm'd it to be and Offer'd it as a Saâ—rifice not only Eucharistical or Latrentical but also Expiatory or Propitiatory in the sense abovesaid for the Remission of Sins and Impetratory of all sorts of Benefits not only Spiritual but Temporal and both these for all persons according to their several capacities not only for those present receiving the Sacrament but for all those for whom this Oblation is made tho absent tho deceas'd In Euchristia sacramenti susceptio soli sumenti prodest ut autem est sacrificii consummatio prodest illis omnibus pro quibus oblatum est sacrificium For wherever they held Prayers beneficial they held this Oblation or Presentation to the Father of the Body and Blood and this solemn commemoration and repetition as it were of the precious Death of his dear Son for such persons much more as being the most effectual and moving kind of Petition that can be made to him And therefore remembrance of the absent or deceas'd at the Altar namely when this Sacrifice was Offer'd was more especially desir'd than in other ordinary Devotions Non ista mandavit nobis saith St. Austin of his Mother sed tantunmodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit Confess l. 9. c. 13. For this see if you please the Collections of Places in the Fathers in the Controvertists See Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c. 2 3. See the quotations set down before See all the Liturgies unanimously according in this Form Offerimus tibi pro peccatis pro omnibus Fidelibus vivis atque defunctis pro Ecclesia Catholica c. pro pace pro copia fructuum c. See Bishop Forb de Euch. l. 3. c. 2. s 12. Sacrificium autem hoc coenae non solum propitiatorium esse pro peccatorum quae nobis quotidie committuntur remissione c. sed etiam impetratorium omnis generis beneficiorum c. licet scripturae diserte expresse non dicant Patres tamen unanimi consensu scripturas sic intellexerunt c. Liturgiae omnes veteres c. s 15. Nos inre certa clara diutius immorari nolumus 6 Lastly See Dr. Taylor in his Great Exemplar p. 3. dise 18. on the Sacrament sect 7. There he says The Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice as well as a Sacrament in both capacities the benefit next to infinite Whatsoever Christ did at the Institution the same he commanded the Church to do c. and Himself also doth the same things in Heaven for us c. There he sits an High-Priest continually and Offers still the same One perfect Sacrifice i. e. still represents it as having been once finish'd and consummate in order to perpetual and never-failing events And this also his Ministers do on Earth as all the effects of Grace were purchas'd for us on the Cross but are apply'd to us by Christ's intercession in Heaven so also they are promoted by acts of Duty c. that we by representing that Sacrifice may send up together with our Prayers an instrument of their graciousness and acceptation As Christ is a Priest in Heaven for ever and yet doth not Sacrifice himself afresh nor yet without a Sacrifice could he be a Priest but by a daily ministration and intercession represents his Sacrifice to God and offers himself as Sacrificed so he doth upon Earth by the Ministery of his Servants He is Offer'd to God i. e. he is by Prayers and the Sacrament represented or offer'd up to God as Sacrificed which in effect is applying of his Death to the present and future necessities of the Church c. It follows then that the Celebration of this Sacrifice be in its proportion an Instrument of applying of the proper Sacrifice to all the purposes which it first design'd It is ministerially and by application an instrument propitiatory it is Eucharistical it is an act of Homage and Adoration it is impetratory obtaining for the whole Church all the benefits of the Sacrifice which is now apply'd c. And its profit is enlarg'd not only to the persons Celebrating but to all to whom they design it according to the nature of Sacrifices and Prayers and all such solemn Actions of Religion Thus much Dr. Taylor conformably to the judgment of the Church in all Ages and practice in her publick Liturgies See the same in Medes Diatrib upon Mal. 1.11 And 't is worth your labour to see the Alterations concerning this matter which have been lately made I suppose by some of the most prudent and learned Fathers of the English Church in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland tending much to the vindication of the use of the Eucharist by way of Sacrifice In the Prayer for the whole State of Christ's Church are put in these words We commend especially unto thy merciful Goodness the Congregation which is here Assembled in thy Name to Celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious Death and Sacrifice of thy Son c. Where and Sacrifice is added de novo But the rest of the words are found in the former Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. Again in the Prayer of Consecration whereas 't is said in all the former Liturgies to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious Death until his coming again 't is added here Death and Sacrifice until c. But chiefly after the Prayer of Consecration and before the administring of the Sacrament to the Communicants you may find interpos'd after the manner of the first Books of Edw. VI. a Prayer as it is there call'd of Oblation in which
Prayer of the Missal which follows the Consecration the beginning of which Prayer is left out by our later Liturgies and the rest transported to after the Sacrament receiv'd beginning thus O Lord our Heavenly Father We thy humble Servants c. perhaps on purpose lest it might bear any shew of the former solemn offerings of the Eucharist before communicating it to God as a Sacrifice in those words which are not found in the common Liturgies in the beginning of the Prayer We thy humble Servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty with these thy holy Gifts the Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make having in remembrance his blessed Passion mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension c. And we entirely desire thy Fatherly Goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of Praise c. Beseeching c. that we and all thy whole Church may obtain Remission of our Sins and all other benefits of his Passion The Rom. Miss hath it Unde memores Domine nos servi tui ejusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tum beatae Passionis nec non ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelos gloriosae ascensionis offerimus praeclarae majestati tuâ—e de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam c. See if you please these prudent reformations or perfectings of the former English Liturgy i.e. that prepar'd for Scotland and many more which I omit noted in a Scotch Book call'd Laudensium autocatacrisis from p. 100 to 114 and censur'd for their agreement with Popery i. e. Indeed for their conformity with the former practice of the Church Catholick § XXVII And here I cannot but with grief complain That the Oblation of this Christian Sacrifice is confess'd to have always been part of the publick Service of the Church contain'd in the Second Service thereof The Onassion of the Daily Oblation in the Reformed Churches and to have been daily or at least at all times of solemn Prayers and on the days of God's publick Worship every-where made and celebrated tho there were few or no Communicants except him who Officiated for those many beneficial ends above-mention'd which the Church conceiv'd non-communicants also to receive from this precious Offering See the proofs in Medes Diatrib upon Mal. 1.11 p. 484 493. That the publick Prayers of the Church were always join'd with the mystical Commemoration of Christ in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood And that this was no after-invention of the Fathers but took its original from the Apostles times and the very beginning of Christianity See the like Testimonies in Mr. Thorndyke of Christian Assemblies See Calvin's expression to the same purpose Instit lib. 4. c. 17. s 44. Quae de Sacramento hoc hactenus disseruimus abunde ostendunt non institutum ideo fuisse ut semel quotannis acciperetur idque persunctorie ut nune communiter moris est verum quo fiequenti in usu Christianis omnibus esset ut frequenti memoria passionem Christi repeterent c. Talem fuisse Ecclesiae Apostolicae usum Lucas in Actis commemorat quum fideles ait perseverantes fuisse in doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractione panis orationibus sic agendum omnino erat ut nullus Ecclesiae conventus fieret sine verbo orationibus participatione coenae eleemosynis Hunc apud Corinthios fuisse institutum ordinem satis ex Paulo conspicere licet multis postea saeculis in usu fuisse constat c. This he speaks indeed with reference to the peoples daily or frequent communicating but if this will not be had what excuse is there in the meanwhile of the Priests omitting the daily or frequent oblation thereof useful for so many purposes besides that of the communion used in all former times even where the people were negligent to receive See S. Chrysostom's saying p. 78. Quid vero nos non quotidie offerimus and Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio cum nemo sit qui simul participet Frustra i.e. comparatively non tam fructuose Hieronym in Tit. 1. c. saith Sacerdotes quotidie pro peccatis populi ac suis sacrificare August contra adversar leg 1. l. 20. c. Ecclesia immolat in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis ex quo Deus Deorum locutus vocavit terram a Solis ortu usque ad occasum Ep. 86. Sacrificium laudis meaning the Eucharist ab Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa diebus omnibus immolatur Ep. 23. Christus semel in cruce immolatus omni die in Sacramento populis immolatur See the quotation p. Quotidianum esse voluit sacrificium Ep. ad Januar. quoted by Calvin ib. alibi Nullus dies intermittitur quo non offeratur alibi Sabbato tantum Dominico where it appears this oblation at least tho people more seldom communicated it was made once a week every Lord's day used still to this day by all other modern Churches Eastern and Western How cometh it to pass then I say it with grief that such a sacrifice for such precious ends is ceased only to be continually offered in the Churches Reformed If they agree also in the same notion of sacrifice with antiquity why have not their publick prayers and intercessions after the confess'd manner of all the ancient and modern Churches of God the efficacious assistance of this sacrifice I desire it may be seriously considered whether this be not a defect in their publick Service much to be laid to heart in the daily loss of such an allowed-most-effectual means of Address to God Almighty by all the followers of the Reformation You will pardon me this digression § XXVIII 4. The Fathers held That in this Sacrifice the representation of that of the Cross The Fathers say that it is an oblation of the same body which was crucified and beneficial to us only by its vertue is an oblation made of the very same Body and Blood of Christ which our High Priest also himself now offers in Heaven which is prevalent with his Father also in reference to his former sufferings neither that oblation in heaven nor this upon the Altar paying the price of our Redemption but used for an application of the price payed for several sinners for the actual remission of sins daily committed Again the same body now offered that was offered upon the Cross tho not in the same manner i.e. by mactation and therefore being in such respect more properly Sacrificium as one expresseth it passive sumptum pro sacrificato noviter nobis applicato quia in illo continetur Corpus Christi quod fuit vere sacrificatum in unico illo sacrificio crucis yet with a representation also of that sacrificing of it in the blood being here severed and offered apart from the body So that I may say a little altering Cassander's words Consult de sacrificio corp p. 196. Veteres in
hoc mystico sacrificio Cassand non tam tum peractae semel in cruce oblationis cujus hic memoria celebratur quam tum perpetui sacerdotii jugis sacrificii quod quotidie in coelis sempiternus Sacerdos offert rationem habuerant cujus hic imago per solennes ministrorum preces exprimitur Neither is there any more incongruity that Christ's true body and blood be here offered and yet this be done also in commemoration of his body offered upon the cross than that his real body which those of the second opinion maintain be here partaken of by the worthy receiver and yet this also done in commemoration of the same body given for us upon the cross See for the Fathers holding an oblation in the Eucharist of the true and real body of Christ the places quoted out of them before See likewise Bishop Forbes 3. l. 1. c. 10. s. Dicunt etiam saepissime Sancti Patres in Eucharistia offerri sacrificarripsum Christi corpus ut ex innumeris pene locis constat sed non proprie realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietatibus servatis sed per commemorationem sacrificii crucis Et per piam supplicationem qua Ecclesiae ministri propter unius illius sacrificii perpetuam victimam so they call Christ's body remaining still after sacrificed in coelis ad dextram Patris assistentem in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem Deum Patrem humillime rogant ut virtutem gratiam hujus perennis victimae Ecclesiae suae ad omnes corporis animi necessitates efficacem salutarem esse velit Where note also that either Bishop Forbes his opinion tho he opposeth Transubstantiation is That Christ's body is present with the symbols before communicating tho this is not so clearly professed by him in 1. l. 1. c. see the 7. sect there and rather the contrary intimated in 2. l. 2. c. 8 9. sect or else here he seems to contradict himself in these words especially in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem for this ceremony of oblation upon the table is before communicating To which add those words of his 3d. Book 2. c. 13. sect where Bishop White shewing how the Eucharist might be said to be a sacrifice here non solum ratione precum actionis gratiarum which is the common solution sed ratione Eucharistiae ipsius both quia elementa externa panis vini consecrantur ad Dommi cultum deputantur c and also quia corpus sanguis Christi praesentia animae fide pietate pastoris populi qui haec mysteria percipiunt Deo offeruntur sistuntur Bishop Forbes censures that expression with a nimis jejune hoc dictum but who will say more must affirm a presence of it with the symbols See likewise his quotation out of Nazianzen 2. l. 2. c. 8. s. See 1 book 1. c. 26. s. Christi corpus reale nobis cum pane exhibetur Fifthly tho the oblation of the body and blood of this Son of God in the Eucharist was always presumed to be in its self most acceptable unto the Father yet in respect of those who or for whom it is offered the same thing by the Ancients was conceived of it as of all other prayers that it is sometimes accepted by God for them sometimes again not namely if they be such as are otherwise unreformed in their lives and unworthy of God's favours Again that sometimes more sometimes less benefit is received by it according to the several preparation or indigence of the Suppliants or also the good pleasure of the divine dispensation as also that of the cross tho infinite in its value and offered for all is beneficial for some not others and as Christ's intercession in heaven is still continued for our several necessities though one single act thereof had it so seem'd good to the divine ordination had bin supersufficient for the obtaining for all for ever all benefits whatsoever Hence are those Prayers in the Liturgies concerning this oblation after the words of Institution pronounced supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel c. jube haec perferri per manus S. Angeli tui in sublime Altare tuum and in some Liturgies after the words of Institution pronounced Fac Domine panem istum corpus Filii tui or something to this purpose All which Petitions if they are not to be thought part of the Consecration of these Elements are to be understood to be made with reference not so much to the thing Offer'd as to the Offerers That God would accept it from them for them them for it and confer on them the benefits and fruits thereof As if I said Respice pro nobis fac nobis Jube proferri pro nobis c. Cassan in Consult art 24. p. 208. Haec non ad ipsam hostiam corporis Christi in se sed ad offerendi modum qui prece fide devotione constat referenda sunt videlicet quia sacrificio omnia non dignitate rei oblatae sed offerentis animo aestimantur These five things well consider'd I think first an Answer to χ is sufficiently made it appearing that as the Fathers in this Sacrament held a Commemoration in this Sacrifice of that upon the Cross so an Oblation nevertheless of the real Body and Blood of Christ which two are shew'd before well to coexist To Μ To Μ Concerning the Form of the Mass First This Objection methinks presseth also the Objectors and therefore they must help to answer it for they do not allow it a commemorative Sacrifice before but only after Consecration and Sanctification of the Elements Which Consecration therefore they neglect not neither I think will they grant those Epithets that in this first Oblation are given any way to belong to simple and common Bread. Secondly That the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist is Offer'd to God none deny even none of those who hold a real presence of Christ's Body nor that the Symbols after Consecration remain with and are Offer'd with the Body of Christ else there could be no visible Sacrifice at all there nor that many things are and may be said in Liturgies after Consecration of the Symbols as well as of the Body and that also they are call'd by the name of Bread Gods Creatures c. See what is said of this before Thirdly That in the primitive times at least when at this Solemnity by much people much provision was brought in for the relief of the Poor an Oblation in the first place might be made to God of them as of the People's Alms and Thanksgivings for his Blessings it is very probable which Offertory before the Communion is retain'd also in the English Liturgy and in that prepar'd for Scotland also many new Texts added to those formerly read in the time of
the Offering that are very expressive to this purpose Which addition is taken notice of and censur'd in the Book call'd Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 101. as directly saith it in a literal sense carrying to a Jewish Oblation Likewise whereas the Rubrick of the former Common-Prayer-Book ordereth only that such Alms be put in the Poor Man's-Box this new one enjoineth that the Deacon shall reverently bring the said Bason with the Oblations therein and deliver it to the Presbyter who shall humbly present it before the Lord and set it Upon the Holy Table See Cassand Consult art 24. p. 194. who ranks the several Offices in the Canon thus Symbolorum consecrandorum oblatio oblatorum consecratio mortis Domini commemoratio gratiarum actio pro communi omnium salute supplicatio which last St. Ambrose and St. Austin were of opinion was a prescribed Form left by St. Paul to all Churches in the Celebration of this Sacrament according to what is said in 1 Tim. 2.1 Sacramentorum distributio participatio And p. 202. Primum populi oblationes Deo commendantur Der nomen invocatur symbola oblata verbis Domini consecrantur mors Domini commendatur vivorum mortuorum memoria agitur pro tota Ecclesia totius orbis incolumitate Deo preces offeruntur This is the Order he saith of the present Roman Service Again p. 207 of the same Service he saith Primum sacrificii doni nomine intelligitur sacrificium populi quod consistit in pane vino deinde est sacrificium corporis Christi c. And see Bishop Forbes l. 3. c. 1. s 9. Panis Eucharisticus Deo consecratur quia de profano seu non sacro sacer fit Deo specialiter dedicatur ut constat ex rebus factis verbis dictis circa ipsum ideo negari non potest quin Deo specialiter offeratur fit igitur ibi quodammodo sacrificium panis c. This Offering up of the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament is also expresly appointed in the new English Liturgy where after the Oblation made of the Alms the Rubrick saith and the Presbyter shall then i. e. together with the Alms Offer up c. the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table c. Thus the Bread may be said to be Offer'd as a Sacrifice of Alms and Praise and Thanksgiving for God's good Creatures c. or as some portion of it is then Dedicated Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. In omnibus Liturgiis seu Graecis seu Latinis quantumvis antiquis pars actionis est oblatio rerum consecrandarum This being as I conceive for the intentions but now mention'd But Fourthly To go a little further since it must be granted from what is said above That the Fathers in some part or other of this Service make an Oblation of the real Body of our Lord and since again its manifest that the same expressions are used in the Oblations made before as in those after the words of Institution pronounc'd and the Offering mention'd in these there is tending to all the same ends and purposes whether Propitiatory Impetratory or Eucharistical as you may see by comparing the Prayers before Suscipe Sancte Pater c. and Te igitur Clementissime Pater c. with the Prayer after the words of Institution unde memores Domine c. From these two things therefore I think it follows That all these Prayers and Service before as well as after refer to the same Sacrifice and Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord It being most improbable that the same or the like expressions would be used of that which they conceiv'd only Bread and afterward of that which they conceiv'd to be Christ's real Body if the former was us'd as a distinct Oblation without relation to the later The action therefore of this Oblation is only preparatory in the precedent Prayers according to that expression in one of them Benedic hoc sacrificium tuo sancto nomine praeparatum consummate in that following unde memores c. offerimus c. Offertur panis non ut sacrificium perfectum sed ut inchoatum perficiendum saith Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. Therefore the chief purpose of the Prayers before seems to be Consecratory and Benedictive of the Symbols rather than Oblatory tho in them the Oblation is mention'd So they begin with Petition Suscipe hanc hostiam c. quam offero i. e. quam oblaturus sum pro c. or cujus oblationem praepare according to which is that following offerimus deprecantes c. after which is said Veni sanctificator benedic hoc sacrificium praeparatum c. and Te igitur clementissime Pater rogamus uti accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec sancta sacrificia illibata Sancta illibala i. e. post benedictionem and after this quam oblationem tu Deus benedictam facere digneris c. But after the Institution follows a consummated Oblation And indeed in some Liturgies we find no Oblation at all made I mean in this kind pro peccatis pro Ecclesia c. till after the words of Institution and Consecration compleated see Const Apost l. 8. c. 17 18. See Chrysost Liturg offerimus tibi c. pro requiescentibus in fide c. super oblatis sanctificatis pretiosis donis Dominum rogemus ut benignus Deus noster dimittat nobis divinam gratiam c. after the Consecration finish'd And there being no controuersie amongst them about the matter of the Sacrament we cannot doubt the intentions in all the Liturgies are the same Then therefore follows a consummated Oblation in a more singular manner unde memores Domine nos servi offerimus Majestati tuae de tuis donis hostiam puram c. and the prayers following are for God's acceptation of their Oblation not for benediction not benedicta facere but accepta habere jube perferri per manus c. And then lastly follow other prayers with reference to the worthy communicating of his Body For note that as some petitions first for benediction and then for acceptation there are with respect to the Eucharist as an oblation which oblation is joyned also with those prayers so other prayers there are with respect to it as a sacrament and the communication to us of Christs Body to be performed afterwards And to this may aptly be applied that Prayer made in some Liturgies after the words of Institution Fiat nobis corpus Christi tui i. e. to us communicating thereof to all the spiritual effects and benefits thereof 5. But fifthly one thing ordinarily taken for granted That our Saviour's words of Institution are I do not say the chiefest part of but the whole and only consecration so that this is neither begun by any Prayers before these nor continued by any after them is a thing very disputable Whether in the opinion of the
than that in the Waters of Baptism To υ. tho both some way miraculous seems plain in that tho in Baptism Grace and the Spirit is bestow'd and then we are also incorporated into Christ c. yet say they not of the Water of Baptism from this effect thereof that it is the Spirit or is turn'd into the Spirit neither saith the Apostle that in unworthy receiving it we are guilty of the Spirit as in the other he saith guilty of the Body Neither was there ever such a veneration or reservation of it such a care that none should be spilt or fall to the ground as of the consecrated Elements which shews that tho they imagine some miracle in both yet a much different and transcendent one in the second § XXIX The same Answer may serve to φ where To φ. Reply to their Answ to the 3d Arg. out of the Fathers concerning Sacrifice since the real presence of Christ's Body that now is in Heaven with the worthy Receiver is as great a Miracle as that other with the Symbols 't is strange why those allowing the one so strongly oppose the other unless perhaps this be to avoid Adoration Concerning the Reply which may be made to their Answer to the third Argument out of the Fathers see before the Reply to λ § XXX Lastly Concerning the fourth Argument out of the Fathers Adoration Reply to their Answ to the 4th Arg. out of the Fathers concerning Adoration The heads of what they say see before as well as I can understand them are these α That the Symbols are to be used with a due reverence and respect as things consecrated to a sacred use β That Christ may be worshipped also in receiving of the Eucharist as he is now in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God. γ But not as present in the Eucharist because no Divine command for any such thing and because he is there ut manducetur non ut adoretur he saying there Take eat not take worship α. Or yet further That he may be worshipped as present or who is present by Faith in the hearts of the Communicants β. or also really present γ. as others say to the worthy Receiver and who is present also in the Symbols after that manner as the thing signified or represented may be said to be present in that thing which signifies it δ. δ That the Fathers in the places quoted out of them speak either of a reverence due to the consecrated Symbols of our Saviour's Body or also of Adoration of our Saviour or of his Body in some of the foresaid manners or intentions but not as really present with the Symbols ζ That these may not be worshipped for Christ's Body ζ c. That if they be 't is flat Idolatry η η. That those of the fourth Opinion do worship them for Christ or for his Body Of these α and β are granted To γ First Reply to α. β. To γ. I suppose a Precept in general to worship Christ and the whole Christ to be there wherever his Body is it being never sever'd not when it lay in the Grave from the Divinity And therefore as Daille grants out of St. Austin's Apology c. 10. l'humanite de Jesus Christ est vrayement proprement adorable I find Calvin indeed somewhat boggle at it Inst l. 4. c. 17. s 35. where bringing in this arguing Si corpus est anima divinitas sint una cum corpore quae jam divelli non possunt igitur illic adorandus Christus he saith Primum si sua illa quam obtendunt concomitantia ipsis negetur quid facient Quis sanus sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat But there is no Body that saith that Christ's Body is Christ but that it being no more since his Passion for Christ dyeth no more Rom. 6. a dead Body but having the Soul join'd with it as likewise ever since the Incarnation having its Hypostasie or subsistence from the Deity joined with it therefore where the Body is there is totus Christus But yet suppose Christ's true Body in the Sacrament apart I hope Calvin will allow a superior worship to be given to it properly due to no other Creature Let then such be the worship we here speak off 2. Next Affirmative precepts such as this is of worshipping Christ do not oblige to every time and place but if they are unlimited and general they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place Nor is there need of any partiticular command in respect of these i. e. places or times without which we may not obey them See Discourse concerning Adoration c. p. 1. 3. But then again This is seriously to be consider'd concerning affirmative precepts That they do oblige for some time and places positis debitis circumstantiis else they would not oblige at all Now Suppose Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist and that with the Symbols as the Lutheran believes what fitter time to Adore than when we receive from him the greatest Love and Mercy that can be shew'd to Mankind the Communion of his own Flesh and Blood to us And what fitter place than in a Church wherein usually we receive it and when and where no impediant circumstances can be alledged Let therefore the omission of such worship be lawful with Daille's qualifications Reply to Chaumont p. 66. Purveuque cette omission ne procede ni de haine ni de mespris ni de non chalance ni d'aucune autre mau-vaise disposition de esprit Yet how the Lutheran considering his perswasion is acquitted from some of these in his omission at such time of Adoration I see not And Daille himself in his Apology c. 9. p. 66. seems to maintain the necessity in such time of this Duty supposing a real presence Si le Sacrament est en sa substance le corps de Christ c. il est evident qu' on le peut qu' on le doit adorer attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable Now if the Body of Christ be a subject adorable to the Romanists so it is to the Lutherans And see St. Austin's saying to this purpose before Non solum non peccamus adorando sed non adorando peccamus And what man is excus'd from blame who appearing in the presence of his Prince to receive from him the Donation of his Lise or Liberty c doth not at such time give unto him his due Honour tho by no Law oblig'd at all times to do it To δ First its plain from the places quoted That by the Fathers in the Eucharist not only an inferior reverence was given to the Symbols but also a divine worship to Christ Else St. Austin if speaking of an inferior reverence would not have ask'd the question To δ. Quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra since the Creature is
well capable of some inferior veneration Nor would S. Ambrose say adoramus illam carnem quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt nor S. Chrysostom quam in praesepi adorarunt Magi c. hence is that answer excluded that they speak of A reverent usage of the Symbols 2ly T is plain that they worshipped not only the omnipotent Deity of Christ but his Humane nature or substance as there present 3ly Present not only to the worthy receiver but on the Table on the Altar which they worshipped as there before their receiving it As appears by Illum quisuper Altare colitur Adducti sunt ad mensam Domini accipiunt de corpore sanguine sed adorant tantum c. Imitemur vel barbaros c. Tu non in praesepi vides sed in altari Non Angelos sed Dominum ostendo Si pura sunt vestimenta adora manduca Rogantes Agnum propositum i. e. on the Altar c. see the former quotations Therefore those answers serve not of worshipping him as really present to the receiver or present in mens hearts by faith Neither doth that help any thing which I do not well understand of worshiping Christ which must be with divine worship and that before receiving as representatively present in the symbols he in reality not being there Which thing first whether it may or may not be done is unappliable to the Fathers who express themselves to adore the very flesh not its figure or representation as present on the Altar that flesh as now on the Altar which the Apostles adored in Domino Jesu and the wise men in the Babe in praesepi and non Angelos saith Chrysostom neque Archangelos neque Coelos sed ipsum eorum ostendo Dominum Is signum corporis Domini which thing only they say he shewed above Angels Now to examin the answer it self a little whether such a thing may lawfully be done And here I will first set you down Bellarmin's reply to such an answer given by Pet. Martyr to that place of Nazianzen eumque qui super altare colitur magno cum clamore obtestans who said Coli quidem Christum super altare sed coli in symbolo sicut in symbolo significatur To which the Cardinal vel est ipse revera in symbolo illo vel non est si est c. si non est ergo licet saltem coram symbolis procumbere ibi Christum licet absentem adorare ergo licet imagines Christi venerari c. or rather Christum in imagine ipsius adorare And doth not this warrant divine adoration of Christ's Body and Blood as some way present there and that before communicating to be lawful and that to all opinions whatsoever if only they hold the Sacrament a sign of Christ's Body And then why saith Daille who gives this answer for the Fathers adoration that the Lutherans worship of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist if there it be not is vain inutile tombe par maniere de dire dans le neant Reply to Chaumont p. 63. Would it be in vain in a Lutheran and was it not so in the Fathers And is it without reason then that which Calvin saith de Christiana pacificatione 11. c. Cum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa ab ipso discedit which is most true if Christ be only in heaven he that worships Christ or his Body there where he confesseth it is not nor any thing else relating to it that is capable of such a worship as he gives seems to me to have no object at all of his worship For divine worship sutes not to the sign and there is nothing else there in his opinion to give it to To worship Christ as there must be to worship something there as him we worship Christ upon the Altar i. e. we worship Christ in Heaven upon the motive of something representing him upon the Altar is too sorc'd a paraphrase of the Fathers expressions To ζ it is granted To ζ. To η namely that those of the fourth opinion To η. Concerning idolatry imputed to the Roman Church Whether the Roman Church worship not Christ as corporally present in the Sacrament but by holding Transubstantiation the Sacrament instead of Christ and whether all such worship however qualified be idolatry contrary to the practice of the Fathers worship not only Christ that is present corporally present with the symbols but by holding Transubstantiation the very substance of bread in stead of Christ and that all such worship however qualified is idolatry much is to be said and rather because Monsieur Daille an eminent man in his Apology for the Reformed Churches lately published in English hath singled out this point from all the rest upon which chiefly to ground a necessity of separation from former Church and of excusing the separaters from Schism Now to make way for what I have to say first I will premise some concessions of Monsieur Daille's who hath very diligently argued this point and then some concessions on the other side or qualifications in their adoration of the Transubstantialists by both which I conceive the heavy imputation of committing idolatry that is laid upon them may be much lightned 1. First therefore Daille grants which yet I do not press so much because he saith such things Mr. Daille's Concessions as because in reason no man can say otherwise an enorme difference as he calls it between worshiping Christ or the body of Christ in the Sacrament and worshipping the Sacrament see 2d Reply to Chaumont p. 29. and this tho we mean the first of worshiping his Body as really present in or with the Symbols 2. Of which worship of Christ as present he holds that it is not idolatrous at all because it hath no direction to any object now-adorable but to use his own words seulement vaine iuutile tombant par maniere de dire dans le neant s'abusant en ceci seulement que par erreur elle cherche cet objet pense l'embrasser la ou il n' est point 1. Reply to Chaumont p. 63. See likewise 12. c. of his Apology where he saith Had the Church of Rome obliged us only to adore Christ in the Sacrament they had not by this tied us to worship any creature So he saith 1. Reply p. 20. Bienque nous ne croions pas cette presence du corps de Christ dans les signes neant-moins nous n' estimons pas que la creance en soit si criminelle qu' elle nous oblige a rompre avec tous iceux qui la tiennent de façon que si l'eglise Romain n' eust en aucune autre erreurque celle la nous accordons volontiers qu' elle ne nous eust pas donné un suffisant suiet de nous separer d'auec elle come il paroist de ce que nous la supportons
conc tho speaking somewhat more diminutively of the Eucharist than the other yet seems to say more than any Protestant will allow as is shewed before 2ly That it was an Assembly of Bishops called together by that Emperour that caused the Patriarch of Constantinople to be scourged assented to by no Patriarch which thing is objected against it by the Conc. Nice Act. 6. tom 1. in these words Quomodo autem magna universalis in quam neque omnes consenserunt reliquarum Ecclesiarum praefecti non admiserunt sed anathemate eam devoverunt Non habuit cooperarium ut haec quae nunc celebratur Romanum Papam neque illius Sacerdotes neque per Vicarios neque per provinciales literas quemadmodum fieri in Synodis debet Quinetiam neque concordantes habuit Orientis Patriarchas Alexandrinum inquam Antiochenum urbis sanctae suminos Pontifices neque cum illis etiam inystas sacerdotes Thus Conc. Nice But the same things are affirmed by the historians of those times as also that this Copronymus was opposed for demolishing images in Churches by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch whom he shamefully abused and his Father Leo Isaurus excommunicated for the same cause by Gregory the 3d Bishop of Rome Besides this to lessen the esteem which may be had of it by the reformed I might name the 15. and 17. Canons thereof Whereof the 15th runs thus Si quis non confitetur sanctam semper Virginem Mariam quavis visibili invisibili creatura superiorem cum sincera fide ejus intercessiones tanquam quae libertatem apud eum qui ex se genitus est Deum habeat non postulaverit Anathema And the 17th Canon not unlike Si quis sanctorum c. intercessiones non petierit utpote qui libertatem apud Deum habeant secundum Ecclesiasticam Traditionem pro mundo intervenire Anathema Which Canon tho 't is noted by the Second Nicene Council Act. 6. Tom. 6. post hanc editionem suam c. to have been left out in some later Copies of the Acts of this Council those times growing on after this Synod from opposing of Images to destroying of Reliques and denying of Saints Intercessions a thing not disallow'd by the Reform'd and of calling them also by the name of Saints See the Authors quoted by Mr. Mede Apostasie of later times p. 131 135 c. tho the Council is clear'd from any such Decrees both by Mr. Mede p. 137 and by the whole Body of their Acts examined by the Second Nicene Council their severe Antagonists Yet it is clear that it was one of the ultimate Definitions of that Council since it is found not in the first framing only as Mr. Mede would have it p. 135. but in that first Edition of their Acts which was subscribed by all the Council as appears in the Conclusion of Act. 6. Tom. 6. of the Second Conc. Nic. and which accordingly the Nicene Council undertook to refute as not the first Draughts but the Ratified Acts of that Synod 3. That the Council which revers'd its Doctrine of the Eucharist was General and Confirm'd by all the Patriarchs 4. And lastly That the Council of Francfort also tho it might in something mistake the meaning of the Council of Constantinople for which I will not contend with Mr. Blondel for so perhaps did they of Nice too misunderstand it yet perusing the Doctrine of Nice Censures not it at all a far greater if an error but almost in the same phrase with it Blameth the other of Constantinople saying The mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord was not now to be call'd Imago but Veritas not Umbra but Corpus Which word and other expressions that they imported not less than those of Nice may be shrewdly presum'd from Mr Blondel's Concession c. 18. p. 415. That within a few years after this Council follow'd a Change in the Eucharist-Doctrine in the West a change i. e. to this Tenent of Corporal presence Now all those things well weigh'd let any one judg between the Constantinopolitan Council and those two that follow'd who are more likely to be the Innovators or whose Determination a good Subject of the Church not so able in such high Mysteries to guide himself ought rather to adhere and submit to § XL Now to go on This opinion of Damascen and the Council of Nice The state of the Greek Church since these Councils hath been owned and embraced ever since even to this day by the Greek Church without any opposition to it and that not only as being theirs but the Tenent also of all the Greek Fathers before this Councll which also are frequently by them quoted for it See this confess'd by Mr. Blondel c. 16. p. 399 400. Le Concile de Nice 2. a imposê une tacite loy aux Grecs posterieurs Their adherence ever since to the Doctrine of Nic. Conc. 2 qui ont jusques a nos jours reverê ses decrets de parler a sa mode de renoucer so he is pleased to say but they pretend the contrary en imitant ses fautes au style de la plus venerable antiquité And then he reckons up their Writers since both ancienter and more modern concurring in this opinion naming amongst the ancienter Theophylact and Euthymius See Sandys West Relig. p. 233 234. who confesseth the Greeks to agree with the Romanists in Transubstantiation Sacrifice and the whole Body of the Mass See Dr. Potter Char. Mist sect 7. p. 225. where he saith In the opinion of Transubstantiation the later Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists and justifieth what he saith by many quotations in the Margent See Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s 2. who himself opposing Transubstantiation yet after many Authorities given concludes that Section Certum est recentiores Graecos a Transubstantiationis opinione non fuisse neque etiamnum esse omnino alienos hosce autem omnes Christianae pietatis cultores haereseos aut erroris exitialis damnare magnae profecto audaciae temeritatis esset So l. 2. c. 2. s 14. Graeci Venetiis viventes reliqui omnes Graeci etiam adorant Christum in Eucharistia quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere damnare To give you some of the Graecian expressions since this Council See Theophylact who liv'd in the Ninth Age in Mat. 26. Non enim dixit Hoc est Figura sed hoc est Corpus ineffabili enim operatione transformatur etiamsi nobis videatur panis And in 1 Cor. 11. expounding those words non dijudicans Corpus Domini he saith Si certiores essemus quisnam quantus sit ille qui nobis in conspectu adjacet i. e. in Altari nulla ferme rei alterius ope indigeremus c. So speaks Oecumenius on the same place Euthymius in Mat. 26. Quemadmodum supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit si ita loqui liceat ita haec ineffabiliter transmutat
serves the turn 3. Because from a thing prov'd useless sometimes or to some persons from some incapability of the subject c. it follows not that it is so altogether and to others As it follows not that such a Diet not nourishing or also hurting a languishing stomach therefore doth not profit to a sound To illustrate it a little in our present subject By Baptism or also by Faith and Repentance before Baptism or the fervent desire of Baptism when it cannot be had we are regenerated and united to Christ and made members of his body yet will any therefore say that in Baptism we enjoy as much a communion of the body and blood of Christ as in the Eucharist Or that the Eucharist is inutile Therefore hath Christ given us also the symbols of his body in vain Therefore do we possess no more of his grace and goodness by believing and receiving also the Sacrament of his body and blood than only by believing on him But the if receiving him spiritualiter by Faith and sacramentaliter be better than spiritualiter only why may not sacramentaliter and coporaliter be also better than sacramentaliter only Who can demonstrate it That the faithful receive no more benefit from the Divine good pleasure by faith and the body of our Lord substantially present than he should by faith and the body only typically present since all depends on God's good pleasure Why may it not be his will to confer the complement of our union with him and the perfection of grace and charity in us and the last seal of our immortality and incorruptibility in us not by the receipt of the symbols of his body but by his very body united and join'd to our souls and bodies and yet not these to all that receive it neither because it acts not physically or irresistibly but to the worthy Calvin as he is very inconstant in his expressions concerning this Sacrament seems to hint something to this purpose Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 9. s 11. Quae omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin Christus totus spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat that we may be membra corporis ejus ex ossibus ejus carne ejus magnum istud arcanum Eph. 5. and s 11. Quo i. e. exhibitione sanguinis corporis ejus primum in unum corpus cum ipso coalescimus deinde participes substantiae ejus facti in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentimus See B. Forbes l. 1. c. 1 s 26 27. much to this purpose Prisci fideles ante Christi incarnationem carnem Christi spiritualiter edebant in manna rebus aliis figuratam sufficienter pro statu Oeconomiae illius ad salutem 1 Cor. 10. Sed nihilominus per communicationem carnis Christi in Eucharistia multo altius solidius nos Christianos incorporari Christo quam priscos fideles qui spiritualiter tantum seu per solam fidem carnem Christi manducabant credidit semper Ecclesia Catholica nos cum edimus eundem Christum fide quidem utili sed fide rei praesentis quae actu ipso non sola spe nobis cum pane exhibetur modo tamen ineffabili c. câ—rtum est per manducationem mysticam corporis Domini nos multo efficacius plenius sublimius augustius strictius arctius corpori sanguini Christi uniri quam perilla i. e. verbum fidem baptismum c. Quam ob causam Hoc sacramentum dicitur per excellentiam communio quia scil hunc modum per manducationem mysticam Christus instituit longe efficacissimum perficiendae unionis conjunctionis quam arctissimae inter sese membra sua c. I conclude therefore that very transcendent may the effect of this corporal presence of our Saviour be beyond a spiritual and symbolical only as the effect of a spiritual and also symbolical in the. Sacrament is granted to be more than of a spiritual only tho the virtue thereof by God's good pleasure be obstructed and denyed to the unworthy even as his blood shed on the Cross and given for all yet is not effectual or beneficial to many To the 6th Chapter of St. John's Gospel Supposing for the present § LV what Dr. Taylor and others contend for That our Saviour speaks only of a spiritual feeding on him by faith and not of the sacramental at all Yet as the Doctor will grant that this Chapter contains in it nothing prejudicial to our attaining some benefit by receiving the sacrament and the symbols of Christ's body therein tho it is most true of these symbols that they of themselves profit nothing as to confer on us an eternal life without the participation also of the spirit of Christ communicated only to believers So I return that it contains nothing in it prejudicial to our obtaining some benefit from the sacramental receiving of our Saviour's very flesh Tho it is most true also of this very flesh that receiv'd alone without the spirit as it is by all the unworthy communicants it doth help nothing at all to make a man live for ever The whole passage in Joh. 6. seems to be thus When our Saviour had told the Capernaites upon occasion of their boasting how Moses gave them Manna to eat that much beyond those Manna-eaters that were dead he whosoever should eat the flesh of the Son of man should live for ever they conceiv'd his meaning to be that whoso could get a piece of his flesh and eat it should by virtue thereof for ever be preserv'd in life And this seem'd to them so unreasonable and so barbarous a thing either that he should any way feed them with his flesh or that they that fed with it should by the strength and force thereof live for ever that they forsook him and his doctrine Upon which he instructs them further in this mystery as it seems to me to this effect 1. That they should not eat his flesh at all in such a manner as they imagin'd i. e. in its natural condition but that he should ascend up to Heaven where he was before and so that his flesh with him see ver 62. upon which ascent the Spirit should come upon all true believers which Spirit should give them this life see Joh. 7.38 39. 2. That his flesh if eaten then or whenever it should be eaten in such manner as he should communicate it to them could give them no life alone or by its own virtue but only by his Spirit which is the fountain of life eternal join'd with and accompanying his flesh and that not to all receiving his flesh but to the believer of his words which words therefore in the close of ver 63 when believ'd in he calls spirit and life i. e. conferring the Spirit from which is receiv'd that life See ver 63. wherein that you may the better understand the usual expression of this Evangelist see Joh.
That the manner of this Presence whether in or with the elements is inexplicable Lastly that the love and omnipotence of the same God are relied on to make good that Presence whereof the manner is incomprehensible Now if God incarnate were present on the Altar at the same time he is in Heaven by grace and influence only his flesh would be neither present on the Altar nor given us to eat No more mystery nor incomprehensibilitty could be discerned in his Eucharistical than in his Baptismal presence neither would there be such need of extraordinary love and omnipotence to perform his promised presence in this more than in any other Religious ceremony wherein all grant his presence to be only gracious Nay the whole paragraph were no better than a devout and solemn delusion Nor am I prevailed-on to alter my thoughts concerning this Bishop's present faith would he do himself his Order and Christianity that right as to profess it frankly and clearly by any retractation or correction published in the Edition of his Book 1â—86 That amounting to no more than a denyal of Transubstantiation not of a substantial Presence whereby I am perfectly confirmed that by inexplicable incomprehensible manner was intended the manner of the Flesh's being present not whether it were present or no and that it was this he could neither explain nor comprehend To proceed further in evincing affirmatively that the sense of the aforesaid Article Office and Catechism was a substantial presence the supremest and most authentic Interpreters that have appeared since the creation of the present Church of England may be produced 1. We begin with Queen Elizabeth the Parent of modern Prelatick Protestancy This Lady profess'd the Catholick Religion in her Sister's Reign and when she obtein'd the Crown was with difficulty perswaded to alterations in Religion as was long ago told the world from other intelligence and lately from Jewel's c Letters perused by Dr. Burnet in his Ramble In particular She own'd the Real presence to the Count of Feria and others and commended a Preacher for asserting it on Goodfriday 1565. A Real presence I say She patronized and such a one as was own'd by the ancient Fathers and had bin believed in the Church of England since the conversion of that Nation believed without either check or interruption till towards the setting of Edward the 6. when Zuinglianism seems to have bin introduced Now if She profess'd a substantial presence and if She that authorized the Liturgy and Articles did not do it till after she had fluxt them of whatever was malignant to a substantial presence to accommodate them to the majority of the Nation that with her self were so perswaded sure She intended they should be interpreted as her Self and the Most both thought and profess'd Can the genuine sense of the words be both a Substantial presence and a presence of Grace only Could a Nation in a moment believe by the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ spoke at the delivery of the Sacrament to them was meant on the one day that his Body was verily and indeed and in substance if this be more given to them and the next day understand by the same words that the Body of our Lord was not verily and indeed nor in substance but only in figure and benefit exhibited especially when they heard the imposer of such passages declare for the former sense saw her delete what opposed it and retain the self same language the Catholick Church their true Mother used in all times to convey her faith to their Minds Whereupon considering these things together with the miniated copy of Articles c seen by Dr. Burnet considering I say that the chief Pastoress had authority according to the Doctrine of Lay-Supremacy to impose and according to Dr. Burnet's deleted copy did impose her Judgment to be assented to and subscribed by the whole Clergy c. we may truly conclude not only as some have done that the chief Pastors of the Church but that the whole Church Head and Body Queen Clergy and People did then disapprove of or dissemble about the Definition made in King Edward's time and that they were for Real presence 2. Her Successor King James I. either understood the Article and Liturgy in the same sense according to the attestations of Bishop Andrews and Casaubon or where has the Church of England publish'd that she holds a substantial presence as those Learned Persons say she often has either no where if not here or with contradiction to what is here if elsewhere because the proper sense of the Article and Liturgy can't be both a substantial and but only a gracious presence But that Part of the Catechism which concerns the Sacraments and which was composed by Dr. Overal in this King's Reign determins the dispute as to this Prince's faith for tho the Catechism as almost any sentence may be wrested yet it cannot be rendred without absurdity and passing for a meer cheat in favour of any other than a substantial presence And Bishop Cosin's doctrine is some argument that Dr. Overal his Patron and Master did mean no other 3. As to King Charles the First if we may gather his judgment from either Books published by his command or Sermons preach'd before him He adhered to that Faith in this point which all his Christian Ancestors had profess'd Out of such Books and Sermons we present the Reader with two Instances so full to our design that if they can be eluded so may a Demonstration The former is in Archbishop Lawd's Conference with Father Fisher a Book highly esteemed by that Excellent tho calamitous King. And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Blood no Blood but unless Grace be a Body and Benefit be Blood Dr. St. and the Answerer can make a Body no Body c. c. The other is in Dr. Laurence's Sermon before the King Charles I. p. 17 18. As I like not those that say He is bodily there so I like not those that say His Body is not there because Christ saith it is there and St. Paul saith t is there and the Church of England saith t is there and the Church of God ever said t is there and that truly and substantially and essentially c. For the Opinion of the Sons and Successors to this Prince concerning a substantial presence c t is out of question I presume What then we add is That either all these Heads and the Church of England believed the same or she has a miserable Faith wherein no Head since Queen Elizabeth produced Her durst either live or die It were a diffidence in this Proof or an affront to an intelligent Reader to offer him a Protestant nubes Testium as a further confirmation in this matter for then we must recount to
him almost all their Fathers from their Primitive times throughout a Century at least that this Religion has endured even the celebrated names of Bishop Pomel Bishop Bilson Bishop Andrews Bishop Overal Archbishop Lawd Bishop Buckeridge Bishop Hall Bishop Forbes Bishop Field Bishop Montague Archbishop Bramhal Bishop Cosins Bishop Gunning c. Dr. Cowel Dr. Pocklinton Dr. Heylin Mr. Sutton c. omitting many now alive or dead since 1660. several of which have bin already alledged in the Treatises we defend and have received either no answers or such as be insufficient as the following Examination of them will manifest Pag. 61. l. 1. Here I must observe that this Learned Person Mr. Hooker is drawn in only by a consequence and that no very clear one c. Mr. Hooker says that besides partaking of the grace of that Body and Blood c the holy mysteries impart unto us even in true and real tho mystical manner the very Person of our Lord whole perfect and entire His Body and Blood are in that very subject whereunto they give life not only by effect or operation even as the influence of the Heavens is in plants c but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union c. Now the Inference the Oxford Discourses make is That Mr. Hooker believed by Real Presence more than a presence of Grace only even a substantial presence for a presence of Christ's person whole perfect and entire with either the worthy receiver or the elements too cannot possibly be resolved into grace only because where the Person of Christ is there his Natures are substantially present they since the incarnation being inseparable from it Is it not easy then to deduce what the Discourser did from the passage cited Can any other be drawn from that judicious Man's words This Answerer says the real Presence imports no more than a real presence of Power and Grace Mr. Hooker says the contrary and tells us what that more is which it imports the Person of Christ and that all the question is Whether the subject wherein Christ resides be the Receiver only or the consecrated Elements also To reconcile Mr. Hooker and the Answerer it will be necessary then for us to understand by Mr. Hooker's more than Grace Grace only and by the Person of Christ a Person without any Nature or Substance Humane or Divine But how does our Answerer scape this pinch truly with due respect to Mr. Hooker and some tolerable satisfaction to the Objection for he prudently collects other passages whereof some say as much as the quotation and none of them are contradictory thereto nor affirm the Real presence to signify no more than a presence of Grace Nothing but this will clear the difficulty and so much as this demonstrates the most judicious Protestant so weak as to contradict himself Pag. 62. l. 8. He Bishop Andrews utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the Manner of Christ's Presence c. Bishop Andrews does not decline defining that our Lord's Body is substantially present but the manner how this substance is present he waves defining Again unless that Bishop believ'd a substantial presence he believ'd one by so much less true than ours as the substance or person of a thing is nearer to it or a more proper predicate of it than its qualities and effects are Thirdly unless this Prelate makes the Eucharistical Presence no more real than the Baptismal which neither he nor any Father ever did the Allusion to Baptism is short of the Minister's purpose Lastly The Bishop's saying Christ's Body as Glorified is not present in the Eucharist does not in the least oppose a substantial presence Who that believes a substantial Presence thinks Christ to be in the Eucharist as in his glory This however they all say That the very same substance which is Glorified which was Born and Crucified is present in that Sacrament and that its Eucharistical manner of existence is different from what it either had or hath elsewhere If then Bishop Andrews testimony stand good for a substantial presence Casaubon's and King James's I. and consequently the Church of England's are assur'd on the same side and we may renew and augment that King's wonder That not only a Stranger to but a Minister of the same Church should be so inadvertant as not to remember or so presumptuous if he do as to deny what his Own Church of England has so often and so evidently asserted Pag. 64. l. 4. Nor can we make any other judgment of the Arch-Bishop of Spalato c. The Answer to Spalato's testimony is grosly extravagant If this Bishop be earnest against unworthy Receivers of the Sacrament Is then our Lord substantially absent according to him One would think that has perus'd St. Paul's words 1 Cor. 11.29 and heard of Mr. Thorndyke's Comment on them that from the Bishop's earnestness against unworthy receiving he should rather believe a substantial presence reprehending the impiety the more zealously because he discerned our Lord's Body to be where it is not where it is not If this Bishop own a spiritual imperceptible and miraculous presence does he thereby disown a substantial presence Sir These stupid Consequences will not pass now adays at least not amongst Adversaries whatever they do with your Party Ibid. l. 26. But he does not say that Christ's natural Body c. Here Archbishop Laud's testimony is rejected by a flat denial of what that great Man hath if not in terminis in effect said for to quote with approbation is as much as to say Does he not cite Calvin that Christ does not offer us only the Benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the Body it self in which he suffered and rose Is not Bishop Ridly also produc'd by him saying That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits at the right hand of God the Father c. Ibid. l. 30. The same must be said of Bishop Hall c. The quotations out of Bishop Hall Bishop Mountague and Bishop Bilson are plain for a substantial presence and if undiscern'd by the Answerer to be so surely not his faculties but prejudices and the Post he has undertaken to defend are blamable If any such matter as a substantial presence were observable in Bishop Andrews's words Why not in these Authors Why not in Bishop Hall's and Bishop Mountague's expressions whereof the one uses the same and the other terms equivalent Res apud utrosque cadem with Calvinists and Lutherans The thing is yeilded-to on either side On the Catholick and Church of England side But the Lutheran and Catholick side yeilds to no other thing than a substantial Presence The thing the object is not the same with them and us if Calvinists and the Church of England by the Body of Christ mean Grace only Pag. 65. l. 13. I ought not
somewhat may not be spoken there have bin opposed to these two Discourses an Answer printed at London and a Reply at Oxford neither of them taking much notice of the Author's intention but spending their learning chiefly about Transubstantiation I cannot say altogether from but not much to the purpose Both of them also declare their own opinions to be against the Real presence of our Saviour's body and blood in that holy Sacrament and thereby acknowledge themselves members of the modern or present Church of England and consequently minister another argument of the inconstancy and weakness of that Church And so let them do But that they should perswade us that the ancient Church of England and her best writers were of the same judgment cannot be performed it being both against their express writings and the judgment generally of their new Church as of Baily Prin Hen Hickman and as many as have written to justify the Puritans against the Church of England who all accused the Antipuritans as Heylin Laurence Pocklinton and the rest to have bin Popishly affected as also did the pretended Reformers in their Doctrine forsaking Calvin and embracing Zuinglius who upon this ground amongst some others refused to communicate with those of the Church of England tho of late they denied not to admit the Lutherans To these Reformers the new Church of England-men have bin pleased for reasons well enough perceived to joyn themselves Neither is there any thing considerable in the one which is not in the other of these writers The Answerer seems to have more learning the Replier is better at cavilling and mockery and had it not bin to shew this talent he needed not to have troubled the world with a new Book He saith indeed it is in defence of their quarters but for this who is bonae who malae fidei possessor we appeal to the judgment of our pious and munificent Founders who will one day declare whether they designed their bounties for them who hold it not lawful to pray for them who frustrate their chief intention count them Idolaters and members of a false Church It was long deliberated whether it were worth the labour to take any publick notice of these Pamphlets It was said that they were so crudely negligently and uncandidly written that no man of parts learning or true piety could be misled by them That the Discourses notwithstanding these oppositions remain not only unshaken and unviolated but much confirmed and justified when so many persons both at London and Oxford can find no other besides these weak and insignificant exceptions against them tho they take the liberty to say what they please even to the defamation of their own Church That every thing said against anothers writing as there is nothing more easie than to misrepresent change cavil c even against truth it self however called is not an Answer St. Austin complained of his Adversaries the Pagans who writ against his Books de civit Dei l. 5. c. 27. Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse cum qui tacere noluerit Quid est loquacius vanitate quia ideo non potest quod veritas quia si voluerit etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas c. The Vulgar for whose palats these discourses seem cooked who make themselves Judges of the most difficult controversies whereof they are least capable pronounce against him who replieth not speedily and is of his side who is not silent That our Author's writings carry with them such evidence and satisfactoriness by the perfection of their d sposition stile learning arguing c which every ingenious Reader sees by experience that we need not fear to suffer those already printed to pass without a vindication or to publish those which as yet remain with us without alteration But because care is also to be taken for young men for such as are doubting or weak in the faith and especially for such as in sincerity seek after the truth and may be deturned from it either by the craftiness or confidence of its Adversaries and because we would not be altogether wanting to our duty or leave the defence of the Truth to her self we have taken this course to print 1. A short Treatise many years ago written of the great controversy concerning the Eucharist wherein in a manner the whole opposition of the Answer and Reply is prevented and both the truth and diversity of Opinions concerning the presence of our Lord in the Sacrament plainly laid open to such as are desirous to know it 2. Two Appendixes the first against the Answerer proving copiously and manifestly That the Ancient and Learned Divines of the Church of England did acknowledge as their writings every where set forth some real and substantial presence of our Lord such as is ascribed to them by the two Treatises The second chiefly aims at as plain and easy an Explication of the Doctrine of the Church in this great mystery as we can and to remove the prejudices and offences which the Replier with others of the new Zuinglian Church of England pretend against it And tho the Doctrine of the Catholick Church hath bin so often manifestly proved against their exceptions yet do they continually repeat the old Objections insomuch that we have no hopes to do good to them nor to any such as take delight in insolence and scoffery the most obvious and trivial sort of wit the daughter of uncharitableness and mother of libels and all sort of scurrility against those who endeavour themselves to follow and manifest to others the true and undoubted Church of God and way of salvation And they who for this pious endeavour are mocked and scorned ought not to make returns in the same nature than which nothing is more easy to him that takes liberty of saying what he pleaseth but possess themselves in patience considering that their condition were very much to he suspected if they were not thus treated for these are Indices of a righteous cause and tracks of their Predecessors And indeed what less can they expect who according to their duty to the holy Catholick Church their Prince and Nation spend themselves and their time to reduce their countrymen for whose sake as S. Paul for the Jews they are ready to sacrifice their lives and all they have out of the most horrible and fatal sin of Schism to the Unity of the Church out of the dangerous principles of disobedience and sedition to a just and due submission unto their own Prince and out of popular and rebellious Perswasions and suggestions to an establishment of a firm and grounded peace a and unity of the Church and Nation § 1 1. Note that there is a Natural body and there is a Spiritual body Concerning the Real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist the same body under several proprieties and conditions The Natural we call that which enjoys the same qualities wherewith it was created and as the
Natural Philosophers treat of it such are dimensions figure weight impenetrability circumscription by place motion sensibility and the like But the same body quit of those conditions and now spiritualized is under far different proprieties even those which belong to Angels and Spirits to whom they become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pares or aequales as becoming one Church and oeconomy with them Those we may best conceive by the histories in the Scripture of the apparitions of Angels or if you please by our own Souls which tho penetrating every atome of the Body and communicating to it all its powers yet is but one in the whole and yet in every part is it wholly whether the body be bigger or lesser mutilated or entire neither parted diminished or doubled nor yet many but the same soul wholly in every part For it is not in the body as in a place except we as this Replier seems bring in Cartesianism and confine the soul to the glandula pinealis or if as is most consonant to his principles to some one atome of it contrary to the doctrine of all Christian Philosophers and the virtue and efficacy of it only communicated to the other parts of the body So a Spiritual body however this be hard to conceive by imagination in this state accustomed to sensation and materiality hath no certain dimensions figure weight sensibility or alteration nor circumscription by place but as it self pleaseth to discover it self So besides the examples of the Angels our Lord appeared and disappeared continued and vanished passed thro gross bodies and the like as himself pleased Now from circumscription by place or an ambient body ariseth naturally an impossibility to be in several places at once Naturally I say because by the power of God even this quality as well as the rest may be separated from the natural body as it was by his all-powerful wisdom freely given unto it It seems to me little less than blasphemy to say That the Allmighty power which at first created a natural body with such properties cannot also suspend the actions of those Properties or conserve the subject without them it being the same as saying that He cannot work a Miracle all Miracles being a superseding his own rules which he established against all other Natural but not against his own Divine Power And why not suspend locality a relative property belonging to the Body as a Member of the Universe as well as weight or motion which seem more absolute and intrinsecal to the nature of the body Why cannot he contravene to one Rule as well as to another especially when there is no contradiction As there is none in this case of our Lord's presence in the Eucharist as both our Author and all Catholicks affirm notwithstanding the Repliers shuffling to fasten such an Opinion upon him To be here and not here may be a contradiction but to be here and there is none But what more contradiction is it than that five Loaves carried by a little Boy should feed five thousand men and much more remain than was at first a Miracle preparatory to this of the Blessed Sacrament And without penetration of Bodies which granted introduceth the possibility of a Body's being in several places how can a Camel pass thro the Eye of a Needle which yet is possible with God as is what our Lord saith of himself when upon Earth that he was also in Heaven Jo. 1.18.3.13.7.34 But as a Spirit is not at all confin'd to place so nothing hinders why it may not coexist with Bodies in distinct places by which alone we know its being in several locations tho indeed it is in no location at all in proper speaking contrary to what our Replier affixeth to Catholicks as Elisha's Spirit went along with his Servant and St. Paul's joy'd in beholding the orderly carriage of the Colossians and the Evil Spirits also a whole Legion possessing one one Spirit inhabiting almost every atom of his Body and the blessed tutelar Angels continually behold the face of God in Heaven as well as attend their charge upon Earth Whereby it seems exempt from the conditions of Bodies So then Catholicks say That the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not now under the properties of a natural body nor is it necessary that it should be locally any-where nor heavy nor subject to motion passibility or the like And when Catholicks say that our Lord 's natural body or that he is corporally present they mean That his body even that natural body receiv'd of the B. Virgin for he hath no other is really truly and indeâ—d present and given to us in the Eucharist but not so corporally i. e. with those properties of or as a natural body for corporally and locally are not the same as our Replier everywhere stumbles but as spiritual and being now glorified yet therefore not as dead an irreverent expression to say no worse of the Replier but yet as given and having suffer'd for us even in the same manner as himself our blessed High-Priest continually Offereth it up to the Father for us Again Note That the bestowing and receiving of the benefits of our Lord's Passion is giving somewhat real but that real is not his body and blood nor in proper speaking are those the benefits of his body and blood for then they could not be receiv'd without the body and blood whereas now they are according to our Replier accidents without a subject and effects without a cause but of his passion and sufferings And therefore our Saviour declares the use and benefit of his body and blood by eating and drinking which are not compatible to the benefits of his passion by any metaphor or similitude whatsoever And therefore the Second Edition of the English Common-Prayer-Book leaves out these words The body and blood c. and only says Take and eat this Bit of Bread and Sup of Wine in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thanksgiving And the first Edition of the Catechism saith Fidem esse os animae quo cibum hunc plane divinum salutis juxta immortalitatis plenum Spiritus Sancti gratia communicatum recipimus Faith is improperly said to receive except in the sense of those Protestants who take it for application of Christ's personal righteousness to us but what resembles eating and drinking in or by Faith or what actions of Faith correspond to them I cannot imagine But our Saviour represents his body unto us under the notion of meat and its effects particularly the Manna whereunto he compares it Such are 1. To conserve nourish advance restore in us what by worldly conversation and the like is decay'd and weak'ned and to strengthen us in our Spiritual life and estate as the Food it self was Spiritual 2. By uniting us to the Food Flesh of his Flesh Bone of his Bone contrary to the Manna and natural meat which receive life from
the nourished it makes us partakers of his Life which being immortal and glorious renders ours such also And 3. Other Food being either inanimate or having a Life inferior unto and differing from ours this Body of his is become superior more Divine than ours and is a quickning Spirit And therefore we should receive his Body and Blood after the manner of natural bodies which the Capernaites and our sensual Doctors can apprehend it would profit us nothing as to the great effects promised by our Receiving in the Eucharist And these effects are true and real not notional or imaginary or by Faith only apprehended yea much more than the Manna Faith being an assent in the understanding is quite different from enjoyment in the will and affections And Faith i. e. a believing either that our Lord was the true Messias or Messenger from the Father for else he could not be the true Bread which came down from Heaven or that this which is given us is the real Body of our Saviour for else it would be only common Bread precedes the Receiving yet is not any part of it much less the enjoyment of any of the effects of it Again If eating by Faith whatever it signifies be all that is meant in the Eucharist how comes it to be preferr'd before the Manna which was a continual Miracle and daily exercise of their Faith And why would our Lord suffer so many of his Followers to go away from him when he might in so few words have inform'd them of the Truth without a Metaphor Why should he use such sublime and spiritual expressions repeating it to be his body and blood that it came down from Heaven that he would give it for the life of the world c. and not once explain the meaning of those to them obscure phrases And if the Church Catholick and even the Church of England till the last of King Edward VI. had not conceiv'd some great Mystery why would she keep the words so obscure and really as they suppose improper of the Institution so precisely even till the Church of England made the breach and by the Expressions different from the whole Church profess'd her self not to be a Member of it But of this sufficient is said before and in the Reformation of the Church of England from § 148. Wherefore the Catholicks speaking of the real presence of our Lord mean◠the very essence substance the very thing it self is there present taken and eaten by us and not only the benefits of his Passion believ'd by us And in the Church's sense we use in this Discourse the words really really present c. and yet not naturally locally or any other manner of its being according to the qualities of a natural body § 2 And note secondly That these Writers and others pretending to be of the Church of England by their spiritual by Faith mystical eating which they sometimes also call Sacramental intend a sense contrary and opposite to eating the natural body of our Lord spiritualiz'd and that is all the eating they acknowledg The Catholick Church also useth the same word spiritual in opposition to real or sacramental meaning thereby the reception of some spiritual grace or encrease of it As the Fathers in the Wilderness did eat the same meat Manna and the Rock-water spiritually in as much as these were Types of spiritual things under the Gospel by receiving whereof they also obtain'd the graces of Gods Spirit And this spiritual reception of Grace is not only in the Eucharist but in all the other Sacraments in all actions of Devotion and Piety and all manner of well-using Grace once given But this is not all the Sacramental receiving tho contain'd in it So that there are two manners of receiving Grace and our Saviour 1. Spiritual only which our Replier says is all 2. Spiritual and real or Sacramental because proper to the Eucharist The real without the spiritual profiteth nothing yea it is also damnable For except a man come to the Eucharist well prepar'd i. e. by Mortifications Devotions Acts of Religion i. e. in a state of Grace he eats and drinks condemnation to himself The spiritual receiving without the real profiteth indeed but neither so much nor in such manner as when they are join'd both together For spiritual receiving is of more Grace upon well-using the former is only in general and in the inner man therefore difficultly discern'd and more subject are we to be deceiv'd in it But real receiving as all other Sacraments is instituted to help the weakness and imperfect discernment of our spiritual and internal condition by the visible signs of invisible Grace therein bestow'd The spiritual eating gives us a right and title to Grace but the other is the very instrument of conveying it Also in that Grace is given according to the measure of the Receiver's disposition and that Grace also which is of the same nature with those dispositions But in the Sacraments are given new and peculiar Graces as in Baptism the forgiveness of all sins already committed and admission into the Church of Christ and all the rights and benefits thereof So in the holy Eucharist there is conferr'd also forgiveness of sins and a nearer incorporating us into our Lord himself more intimately and consequently a more certain hope and confidence of eternal life by receiving himself into us who is now become a quickning Spirit unto us working by his body receiv'd the seed of immortality all things necessary or useful to our happy progress thither Be pleased therefore to consider Whether they who acknowledg no other than a spiritual receiving do not either quite evacuate the power and efficacy or at least diminish much and weaken the force of this divine Sacrament And also that whoever they are who endeavour to subject or reduce Religion to the Rule of Reason do not in effect deny and despise the wisdom of God declar'd in the mystery of our holy Religion § 3 Note Thirdly That Catholicks trouble not themselves to reconcile Religion to Philosophy Their endeavour is to understand the true sense of what God hath revealed and to this purpose they make use of all the helps which others do but principally depend upon what the Church Catholick and her Doctors from time to time have receiv'd and declar'd i. e. how they to whom our Lord committed his Mysteries have from the beginning believ'd and deliver'd that charge deliver'd unto them how the practice hath interpreted the Law and how the Holy Spirit by his Instruments the Clergy of the Catholick Church hath continued it down to their time Nor do they regard what either private interpretation or what Philosophy or Principles fram'd by men's understandings out of their experience or frame of Languages suggest They leave these to them who affect to diminish the unfathomable knowledg communicated to us by God in his Revelations to Arians Socinians Latitudinarians and other Doctors of Sensuality But
the true sense of things reveal'd being setled they argue and reason thereupon as much as they please according to rules natural to the Understanding and perfected by the Art of Logick The Rules and Artifice of Reasoning I say they use and approve but such principles as are observ'd out of Nature and her operations they subordinate to Faith. So that in strict and proper speaking they do not oppose Faith to Reason but only to Philosophy For if the intellect be rasa Tabula it can argue from nothing tho Arguing and Reasoning be its chiefest work to which it is naturally directed but what it receives from without either by the Senses and information of others or by Revelation except which is very rare that God by himself or a good Angel immediately illuminates the Understanding as in foretelling things future or absent or by means of some representation receiv'd by the Imagination Now tho the expression notification and apprehension of things reveal'd is indeed convey'd to us in words comprehended by sense yet the thing signified is not discover'd by the ordinary notions of sensual knowledg but by the Word and Spirit of God revealing it which doth not only represent more objects to the understanding but also enlightens the faculty and enableth it to discern spiritual things as much clearer than Nature teacheth as a man can better discern by the light of the mid-day Sun than by the glimmering of the Moon or in a clear air than in the thickest mist The outward sensible Word is of men and according to humane speech but the internal Word is known to us only by Jesus Christ who by these ordinary sounds the Holy Spirit concurring with them conveyeth to us the great and otherwise incomprehensible mysteries of our salvation which are therefore trampled on and despised by the worldly wise who reduce all our knowledge to and measure it by sense and reason So then it is not reason which the Catholicks oppose but the principles of reasoning taken from Aristotle experience humane testimonies vain Philosophy and the like To all which we prefer those propositions of that most Sacred Religion first discovered by our Lord Jesus Christ in his personal conversation here on earth and after his departure continued and propagated in and to his Church by his holy Apostles and their Successors to the end of the world Nor can it be said that these propositions or principles of Philosophy are more rational than those de fide any more than the principles of one Science are more rational than those of another As for contradiction of faith upon the account of sense which in effect amounts to the denial of faith it hath bin so often and clearly answered particularly in the preceding short Discourse that it seems needless to repeat it In short sense teacheth us not that this is v. g. bread or a stone for this is an action of assent or judgment whether in the imagination or intellect it mattereth not which affirms or denies most frequently as it is accustomed without consideration and erreth not except where it too hastily assents against a truer Proposition i.e. such a Proposition whose truth is dcelared by or from a more certain Principle As ordinary understandings conceive the Diameter of the Sun to be no more than of 3. foot their sense so informing them or that this is bread which seemeth such Yet are both these errors controlled the one by Demonstration the other by the infallible Word of God in his Church § 4 Those of the present Church of England agreeing with the pretended Reformed and contradicting their own Predecessors accuse the Catholick Church of Idolatry upon three accounts 1. For worshiping God before an Image 2. Using towards God the mediation and intercession of the B. Virgin Angels and Saints And 3. For adoring our B. Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament We here speak of the last 1. Adoration consists partly in internal partly external actions The external are for the most part the same in all Religions Christian or Heathen and are the effects and demonstrations of the internal the sentiments and affections of the Soul either naturally or out of custom thus expressing themselves Onely true Religion hath reserved Sacrifice as appropriated only to the most High God and to no creature whatsoever But the Heathen do not observe this We shall not speak of it here 2. All actions of Adoration must be either to God or a creature and the internal actions or intention are those which determin the external to the one or the other Nor doth nor can any one know by the external actions whether God or the creature be worshiped but by some external and declared interpretation of the intention Therefore no man ought to judge of another man's adoration without such interpretation and he that doth so sinneth 3. Whoever gives the worship due to God unto a creature or whoever in his devotions gives or attributes that to a creature which belongs to God onely is guilty of Idolatry as taken in a large sense The worship due to God consists in acts of faith believing whatever he hath or doth reveal and by that regularing the understanding of hope trusting in Him alone both for the things of this and the other world by this regulating the will and of charity loving God above all things and all other things for His sake by this regulating the affections 4. Almighty God may be worshiped in all places and at all times but it is required to worship him when we come into his presence and where are performed actions more solemn and appropriated unto him 5. The person of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be worshiped with the worship due to God alone because he is God blessed for ever and the rather because he is a person only as the humane nature is assumed into the person of the Son of God. Neither is he to be worshiped as here or there but there is an obligation to worship him in the Eucharist because he hath both by himself and his Church declared him to be there present And tho he were not there present yet is the Adoration being by the intention directed to Him alone and not to any creature present or absent an act of devotion and acceptable to him And they who call this Idolatry commit a very great sin depriving our Lord of his honour condemning his whole Church of Idolatry and consequently acknowledging that he had no Church upon earth making themselves judges of their brethren and imputing to them a sin which they utterly abhor yet which cannot be known but by their own confession But say they The Church in the Council of Trent hath declared that we ought to worship the holy Sacrament Sacramentum To which tho so often answered we say that this word Sacramentum hath three significations 1. It is taken for the thing signified only res Sacramenti the body and blood or person of our Lord and
this is to be worshiped with Divine worship 2. For the signs species or visible accidents to which no other worship is due besides that reverence which belongs to the instruments of holy worship 3. For both the sign and thing signified together and thus understood the Sacrament is not properly said to be worshiped tho improperly it may because part of it the res Sacramenti is to be worshiped and that which belongs to the principal part is ordinarily attributed to the whole as a man understands thinks argues c tho these be only the actions of the Soul. The like distinction serves also for the word Hoast Hostia which these writers seem to lay as a stumbling-block before the ignorant For it is sometimes used for the outward signs species or whatever is visible before consecration and is not to be worshiped sometimes for the Lord himself as in Eph. 5.2 who alone in proper speaking is to be worshiped But having occasion by God's blessing in convenient time to speak more copiously upon this subject we shall here add no more § 5 Thus have we briefly set down what we conceive necessary to explicate the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this great mystery sufficiently also we hope to instruct them who intend their salvation who are not desirous a lye should be the truth nor prefer their own uncertain conjectures against God's Church Whom also we seriously admonish to beware of those teachers who debase and lower the great grace and mercy of God communicated to us by our Lord who is made unto us wisdom as well as justice and sanctification by debasing it to their own fancies which they call reason as did all the ancient Hereticks and Mahomet himself that great false Prophet To take away all mystery out of Christian Religion is to vilify it and to abolish the virtue of faith and advancement of the understanding and thereby also of piety and devotion For it is no wonder that those sublime and holy passions or operations experienced by devout persons are by such people ridiculed to say no worse For if the Heroical acts of Faith are denied and despised it must needs follow that those great favours bestowed by God upon his best servants must neither be enjoyed nor credited But omitting these matters let us proceed to examin some such few particulars in the Replier's Discourse as seem to contain something considerable For it would be too much abusing the Reader 's time and patience to discover or reprehend all the errors of that Pamphlet wherein I know not if there be any one period that is not obnoxious § 6 To omit the first Chap. containing nothing of consequence we will take notice of the second which seems to be to purpose Our Author 's chief design was to shew the Alterations of the Church of England after her departure from the Church Catholick both in Doctrine and Practice taking this one Article as an instance in both In this chapter the Replier takes notice of these alterations and tho he would gladly deny them yet is it a thing so manifest that he rather thinks fitting to diminish them and notwithstanding the alterations to affirm that the Church of England never changed Little alterations he calls them and yet saith they are the terms of her communion Nothing certainly is little in the Church'es forms especially in our most venerable and solemn worship and the very chiefest and most important service of God even the only holy sacrifice of our Religion and admitting us to and feeding us at his own Table not little that Article upon which they chiefly justify their departure from the Church and by which they continually keep their subjects in disobedience unto and alienation from Her not little which contains the terms of the Church'es communion so that he who assents not to these however differing in their several seasons i.e. he that did not believe the Real presence at the first setting forth the Common Prayer-book and he that did believe it at the second was holden as excommunicate Not little to the disobedience whereof such severe Penalties were imposed both by Acts of Parliament and Canons of 1603. Again if so little why would they for them change those of the Ancient Church except it were for an extreme itch of separating from God's Church the formality and essence of Schism Ib. This design is impertinent No it was the very primary intention of the Author as is plain enough But admit the Church of England hath wavered in her Doctrines as our Author proves irrefragably it follows that she disclaims the authoritative conduct of her subjects by whose doctrines except they submit to so many changes they can never be secure and they who do change cannot keep the unity of the faith which themselves alter but are more like to children unconstant uncertain hurried about with every new blast of doctrine as a powerful person of a different perswasion or interest pleaseth to command This is not the end for which our Good Lord ordained the Clergy his Successors In the beginning of King Edward VI. Reign at the framing of a new Common prayer-book was asserted the Real presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist as hath already and by God's assistance shall be more shew'd by and by In his latter end this doctrine was changed to Zuinglianism In Q. Elizabeths time both were joyned in the form of the Liturgy but the declaration against Real presence was omitted which in the Rubric in 1661 was lick'd up again Likewise also the Catechism was changed In King Edward's time the Eucharist was expressed in Zuinglius's notions which in Q. Elizabth's time were omitted and in King James's time those for a Real presence inserted The Articles also were new modell'd the first that I can find were towards the later end of King Edward against the Real presence Q. Elizabeth altered them again leaving out those things seeming to her scandalous and against the Real presence And indeed the Articles were not framed to declare the true doctrine of Religion according to the word of God interpreted by the Catholick Church but for avoiding diversities of opinions amongst themselves establishing some sort of consent and healing the increasing ulcers amongst the teachers of the newly changed Religion Again why doth she punish Dissenters since her self dissents frequently from her self and consequently hath taught that which is false So who can have confidence that in believing her faith or obedience to her commands he endangereth not his salvation Even at this day the Replier and his party teach contrary to the former learned men of their own Church and by their own practice confirm this accusation against their Church Adore the Elements Either the Replier knows that all Catholicks declare which none but God and themselves can disprove that they detest the adoration of any creature and of the Elements in the Eucharist and then he voluntarily calumniates
them or he doth not know it and then why will he undertake to confute them whose Doctrine he doth not understand The same absurd error of local presence of our Lord he every where goes about to confute which the Catholicks disdain as well as the Zuinglians How impertinent to urge out of the Rubricks c. What new kind of answering is this so frequent in the Replier It is very unreasonable yet proper to and frequent with this Replier that he should teach his Adversary what to say It is an easy matter to answer what himself suggests but not so usual to propose what he would confute But to say somewhat to this also the Homilies are not quoted because they are of no authority having bin set on soot even as some of their own Bishops disputing against the Puritans have owned only pro tempore and to serve a turn And what say the Articles of them but that they contain wholsom and pious doctrine necessary for those times But do not they also contain some not pious wholsom or orthodox The authorized Catechism is clear enough for the Catholick Doctrine as is proved Appendix I. but he means Nowel's Puritanical Catechism as also Bradford and Hooper of whom we know nothing but what Fox a man of no authority reports from themselves He also is angry that Cranmer is not consulted a man whose character is truly set out in App. I. as may be shewed in due time For the present let it suffice that we think him of no authority as neither is Burnet But is not the Replier in difficulties when he can find no Patrons but such as these The Church of England hath always held a Real presence so far as a real participation implies one But if there be no real participation of his Body at all as this Replier afterwards every where confesseth but onely of the Benefits of his Sufferings then by his own confession there is no Real presence But this being the main point of the difference upon which this Replier insists let us search a little deeper I say then 1. That in the beginning of the pretended Reformation under Edw. VI. the Doctrine of the Church of England was That our Lord's Body and Blood were really by really I mean essentially substantially present in the Eucharist This is plain by the words of Consecration and delivery of the Sacrament where the very form of the Catholick Church was kept only with the addition of such words as more effectually concluded it The Catholick form is Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam The English was The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life When the Common prayer-book was sent into Scotland this Form was re-introduced and the other addition refused which kindled a mighty flame in Scotland they apprehending it to be Popery as appears by Baily's Ladensium autocatacrisis Now it cannot be imagined that the Liturgy-makers should translate the words of the Mass and yet intend to give them a quite different signification without giving any notice of it to the people That the people who had bin brought up to understand the real body of our Lord by corpus Domini custodiat animam tuam the next day should hearing the same words in English understand only the real benefits of Christ's passion and not understand at all how these benefits could be eaten or given by the Priest or how they were given for rather than to the people as neither how they should preserve the Receiver's body Truly our Author and the Catholicks have too great a kindness for the Church of England than to impose upon her such an abominable prevarication sufficient to drive away all men from her communion But if the words were so to be understood and no alteration intended why should they in the next edition within so few years alter them after another manner and quite different intention But of this by and by 2ly I say that before the death of King Edw. VI. they altered their doctrine from a Real presence of our Lord's body to real effects or benefits of his Passion or somewhat like it if yet they acknowledged any benefits at all for in the first it was preserve thy body and soul c which was a real benefit but in the second is none but Do this in remembrance of Christ's sufferings and feed on him c but what benefit or benediction is received is not expressed for they altered all things in the Liturgy which might any way countenance the benefits of real presence They kept indeed the words of Consecration but gave over the handling the Chalice Patin c so that they left the words without application to any matter that every man might understand them as he pleased Which was also the reason why they omitted the words of delivery substituting Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving This what individuum vagum or perhaps nothing if nothing consecrated as it seems or perhaps something but they know not what as not being resolved of that point but only that it was not the real body of our Saviour This appears also by the Rubrick by the Articles and Declaration all which are set down plainly by our Author ch 1. The 3d Alteration was made by Q. Elizabeth at her coming to the Crown For she being as is noted zealous for the Doctrine of the Real presence and divers of the Clergy then Genevized against it they made another change leaving out many things as the second had done out of the first and some things established in the second particularly the Rubric and the Declaration in the Article but in the words of delivery joyning both forms together So that it was dressed for all palates whether according to the simplicity and sincerity of the Gospel I judge not But those of the Church of England who were less infected with Geneva considering these things broached a new opinion That the Body of our Lord was indeed really in the Eucharist but not with the Symbols but to the Receiver only and hereby indeed they salved the words of the form but whether effectively and according to truth I refer you to the first of these Appendixes In King James's time there seems not to be any considerable alteration save that there was added in the Catechism a few questions concerning the Eucharist entirely conformable to this Doctrine of the Church of England which distinguishing the benefits from the thing received they say that the Body of our Lord is there truly and indeed and translate it vere revera How realiter and revera differ I know not as neither why the Replier should applaud the Church of England for not using the word really which rather seems a confession of her guilt of Schism inasmuch as in those
is sufficiently declared in the precedent Discourse Let it suffice here that we receive it by the hands of his Priests united to him in this office as Himself offereth it to the Father the only true and acceptable sacrifice in the heavenly Temple and whereof we invited to God's own Table are partakers as of the Sacrifice of peace and reconciliation The same body which was immolated whilst upon earth remains tho now glorified till the end of the world when they that pierced or deny or disbelieve his words shall with shame and everlasting remorse look upon him Pag. 14. There is as great a difference especially concerning the real presence of our Lord as the Catholicks charge them with all Those truly called Protestants assert Consubstantiation The Zuinglians or Sacramentaries to whom our Replier joyns himself no real presence of our Lord's Body at all but of the benefits only of his Passion The Church of England and her Doctors say that the body and blood of our Lord are really and not only by the benefits and effects received by us These things are plainly said in the former Discourse What is the meaning of our union and communion with Christ's glorified body and how this is or can be performed or imagined according to our Repliers and the Zuinglian Scheme I confess I cannot understand how according to the Catholick doctrine is explained before Tho I know also the Zuinglians do pretend to such benefits and all others tho they do not expresly own a real presence Pag. 16. So much for the use of the word Really He hath blundred a long time upon the notion of Really how it signifies how used how it may be used by the learned c. as if the word used so many years by the Church should stand or fall to his may-bees and sorry conjectures at length he saith a thing may be really present two ways Physically and Morally Where ranks he a Divine presence a Spirtual presence besides many other sorts of presence A physical presence is a local presence Not if we speak of a spiritual body not if we speak of a miraculous presence effected by the power of Almighty God. A Moral presence is called Sacramental This is a confession of his own novel and therefore of a suspicious interpretation The Church used sacramental for real as opposed to receiving by faith as is said before But what is it to be morally present if not that a moral entity as grace holiness c are present The benefits of our Lord's Passion are present to and enjoyed by us but what is this to the real true presence of his Body But neither are these benefits given us in the Sacrament but only are apprehended of us by faith In summe this Replier seems to flutter as if he were fast limed partly by the constant doctrine of the Church and a desire to seem no Zuinglian Wherefore he heapeth up such a parcel of insignificant words and distinctions that it is lost time to examin them There is a real presence of a body which is always local This is false as is shewed before There is also a spiritual and virtual presence Distinct from real and moral Spiritual we acknowledge as before but this is real and not virtual only and what is virtual if not the effects of our Lord's Passion What are all these to the real presence of our Lord's body the only question Pag. 17. At last he sits down with this conclusion that if rightly understood it is not material what Adverbs we use we may say it is really essentially corporally present I had thought it had bin the custom and necessary to express the Church'es doctrine in her own words and not to have used the known words of the Church in an arbitrary signification This is facere quidlibet ex quolibet or a most horrible equivocation mental reservation or material elocution with which at another time he will raise much dust not remembring his own doctrine that we may put what signification we please upon usual words a salvo which at once takes away all veracity and the use of language I am weary of this confusion as well as himself and therefore he sums up all thus The Papists always acknowledge a local presence The contrary whereof is true For the Papists never acknowledge a local presence of the body of our Lord in the Eucharist And we Protestants whatever term we use mean only a spiritual and virtual presence and explain the term whatever it be we make use of to that effect Is not this making the real presence of our Lord only figurative and Zuinglianisme Answ No. Pag 18. 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 received and we put in actual possession of it Well then the Body of our Lord is really present and received Answ No. Whatever we say we mean only a virtual presence Which is indeed only a figurative presence and is owned by the Zuinglians and Figurativists and which the Replier seeking to avoid really condemns as the Church hath done in those two or three who in the course of so many centuries set abroach such or the like opinion Let the Replier also take notice that Zuinglius doth not deny eating by faith or in a mysterious and ineffable manner by which mist of words the Replier in vain thinks to pass for orthodox Pag. 20. Stumble No it is the Replier's cavil The Rubric saith not as he pretends a true natural body cannot be c but it is against the truth of a natural body to be c which is not very good sense we not knowing what a false natural body is except the meaning of it be that this Proposition A natural body can be in several places is not true which is the very same which our Author saith Ineffable mystery The Replier dare not deny that the Divines of the Church of England as well as those of the Catholick Church acknowledge the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist to be a mystery but saith they acknowledge our union with Christ to be a mystery which is not opposite to the other tho indeed it is too mysterious to know how this Union follows from his Doctrine Opposite and contradâ—ctory To perswade the Reader that our Author alloweth contradictions to he true he leaves out the word seemingly as also § 21. which seemeth to us to include a contradiction Take notice therefore that no Catholick affirms That God can make two contradictories to be true and that there is no contradiction in their doctrine of the Eucharist But they believe it to be plainly revealed by our Saviour's own words and St. Paul's v. foregoing Discourse p. 18. Pag. 21. The doctrine of the Trinity doth as much violence to Philosophy as Transubstantiation But Transubstantiation is a contradiction Pag. 25. Bishop Andrews's famous saying which the
evidence either from Scripture or Reason before things were yet fully discuss'd and determin'd by the Church Therefore neither need I undertake here a Confutation of those Arguments that are brought out of Fathers or ancient Lyturgies against Transubstantiation in which the Bread is affirm'd to remain after Consecration if these also be not against or do establish Consubstantiation or at least a substantial presence some other way of Christ's Body to the symbols either Bread or the species of Bread presently upon Prayer or Consecration of these Elements Which thing were it once granted by the second Opinion the necessary consequents thereof with reference to practice of which more anon are such that the contests between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation would quickly vanish Now I think it will appear that many of those most evident authorities that are urg'd against Transubstantiation yet confirm Consubstantiation and so destroy as well the Tenent as of the fourth so of those of the first and second Opinion who use them against the fourth As for example The comparing of the Incarnation and the Eucharist i.e. the being of the Bread together with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament as of the Humane Nature with the Divine in the Incarnation against Eutyches about the time of Conc. Chalcedon tho the same comparison before Eutyches is made by Justin Martyr and that in confession of this great mystery to a Heathen Emperor as it seems to make against a change of the Bread so to confirm the substantial and real presence of Christ's Body with the Bread. § XIX To name some particulars 1. That noted place of Theodoret in Eranist Dial. 2. p. 87. not fully set down by Dr. Taylor 1 p. 321. runs thus as you fin it also quoted fully in Blondel esclaircissement sur l' Eucharistie p. 59. Eran. the Eutychian Qui appellas donum quod offertur ante sacerdotis invocationem Orthod Cibum ex talibus seminibus Eran. post sanctificationem vero quomodo haec apellas Orthod Corpus Christi sanguinem Christi Eran. Et credis te corpus Christi sanguinem percipere Orthod Ita credo Eran. Sicut ergo symbola Dominici corporis sanguinis alia sunt ante sacerdotis invocationem post invocationem vero mutantur alia funt ita Dominicum corpus post ascensionem in Divinam substantiam mutatum est Orth. Retibus quae ipse texuisti captus es Neque enim signa mystica per sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura manent enim in priori substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur ut quae illa sint quae creduntur Confer igitur imaginem cum archetypo videbis simil tudinem Illud enim corpus i. e. post ascensionem priorem habet formam circumscriptionem ut semel dicam corporis substantiam Immortale autem post resurrectionem immune a corruptione factum est sedemque a dextris adeptum ab omni creatura adoratur quia Domini-naturae corpus appellatur Here the later part which is omitted by Dr. Taylor shews Theodoret to believe the consecrated Elements to contain and someway to be made Christ's Body as well as to remain what they were formerly and to be ador'd as being indeed what they are believ'd to be Which adoration I hope cannot be due to Bread. Theodoret therefore at the least held Consubstantiation But had Theodoret not held Christ's Body present with the Bread instead of the later part intelliguntur c. he might more readily have destroy'd the Supposition of the Eutychians namely the mutation of Bread into the Body of Christ in denying Christ's Body to be there at all either with or instead of the Bread. Besides this the Doctor joins another place out of Dial. 1. p. 18. On which having not quoted the words perfectly he descants thus the words are not capable of an answer if we observe that he saith there is no change made but only Grace superadded in all things else the things are the same Thus he But the passage in the Author is this Orthod Salvator noster nomina permutavit corpori quidem id quod erat symboli nomen imposuit symbolo vero quod erat corporis Eran. Vellem permutationis nominum causam ediscere Orthod Manifestus est scopus iis qui Divinis mysteriis sunt initiati Volebat enim eos qui Divinis mysteriis participant non attendere naturam eorum quae cernuntur sed per nominum mutationem mutationi quae ex gratia facta est fidem adhibere Qui enim corpus naturale frumentum Jo. 12.24 panem Jo. 6. apellavit vitem rursus seipsum nominavit is visibilia symbola corporis sanguinis appellatione honoravit non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam addens Where the Author plainly affirms a change tho not of the nature of the Bread yet in the Sacrament upon Consecration mutationi fidem adhibere namely by Christ's Body then being there and as there Ador'd And for his not speaking more plainly of the manner thereof in the first Dialogue he saith Mystice mystica dicta sunt And in the second Aperte dicendum non est veri simile est enim adesse aliquos mysteriis non initiatos All therefore that Theodoret saith consists well with Consubstantiation and necessarily includes a real presence But neither do I see that which Dr. Taylor much presseth p. 322. That Theodoret's answer suppos'd to speak in the sense of the Transubstantialists of the properties only would have been insufficient since they also affirm naturam symbolorum externorum panis non mutari eo modo in Eucharistia esse duas naturas impermixtas Whereas the Eutychian asserted our Saviour to have Flesh only in Apparition and devoid of all the properties thereof Nasci enim pati mori indignum esse Deo. But suppose the Eutychian still press'd the substance of the Flesh at least to be chang'd as that of Bread in the Eucharist yet if there were a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist I hope it will not follow necessarily that there must be one too in the Incarnation as Dr. Taylor p. 320. would make men afraid unless there be also Revelation of the one as well as of the other for a potentia ad actum is no good arguing And for the potentia too it follows not If that one Creature may be chang'd into another therefore a Creature may be chang'd into the Creator or e contra i. e. Christ's Humanity into his Divinity Thus much for Theodoret. 2. Concerning that of Gelasius quoted by Dr. Taylor p. 324. That the Sacraments of the Body c. are a Divine-thing yet cease not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine In the same place the same Author saith mutari Panem Spiritu Sancto perficiente in substantiam Divinam And see him by