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
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
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
hold the Principle and utterly deny and renounce such a Consequent of their error he saith none ought to impose or impute such a Consequence unto them or for it separate from their Communion Neither may one then impose upon the Fourth Opinion the Consequential Contradictons or Absurdities thereof or for these Desert their Communion But of this Rule of Daille's more anon when we come to Adoration § IX 5. Note in the fifth place for the Third and Fourth Opinion That Obs 5 since they affirm from pretended sense of Scriptures such as Mat. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 11.27 29. Eph. 5.30 32 1 c. whether that which is oppos'd to qualifie these Texts 1 Cor. 11.27 28. be taken only for all the sensibilia of Bread as the Fourth or also for the substance of Bread remaining together with Christ's Body as the Third Opinion will have it the Mystery of the Sacrament to be Miraculous and Supernatural and Incomprehensible which also the Second Opinion pretends to hold no Arguments drawn from Sense or natural Reason or also from any Rules of Contradiction can be of any force to confute them 2 For first for the matter of Sense they affirm it not to be deceiv'd at all but truly to discern its proper object every thing sensible in the Eucharist remaining after Consecration as before it and the Presence of Christ's Body whatever it is there being invisible intangible c. As for that Argument ordinarily made against the Fourth Opinion from the position of the Accidents which are discern'd by sense to the position of the Substance which in the ordinary course of Nature they accompany as It hath the usual colour taste c. of Bread therefore it is Bread 't is granted good where intervenes no supernatural or miraculous effect reveal'd unto us by the Scriptures Good therefore was that Argument of our Saviours Lu. 24.39 Handle one and see c. And that of the Apostle 1 Jo. 1.1 That which we have heard which we have seen c. Good that of the Fathers from these and such-like places against the Marcionites to prove Christ had no phantastical but a true Body and Good still tho the Marcionites had pretended a Miracle because such pretended Miracle was not provable from Scripture but the plain contrary as appears in the forequoted Texts But such Argument were not good if one should argue from the outward appearance touch c. that the Angels that came and talk'd and eat and drank with Abraham and also led Lot out of Sodom were Men because the Scripture hath told us they were Angels In which cases it consists well notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 169. with the Justice and Goodness of God to be angry with us for believing our Senses or our Reason whenever he makes known to us such Mysteries contrary to the ordinary experience of Nature 3 But then you will say the Scripture hath reveal'd unto us no miraculous or supernatural effect in the Eucharist and therefore an Argument from our Senses here stands good The Third and Fourth Opinion contend mainly that it hath You see then till this is decided of which anon no Argument from Senses is to be heard and after this is clear'd it needs not be urg'd The same which is said of Arguments from Sense may be said of Arguments from seeming Contradiction For tho this Proposition be willingly granted That whatever truly contradicts cannot be effected Potentia Divina not naturally nor supernaturally so that there is no place of pleading to make two contradictories good by urging Miracle Yet this general Rule is utterly useless to us in any particular Controversie unless we know first what things truly contradict Now a contradiction is only when the same thing is denied of or removed from it self as this a Man is not a Man or this a Man is white and not white where the formal contradiction being resolv'd is whiteness is not whiteness Now such plain apparent contradictions none having the use of Reason will make or maintain it being one of the primest principles of Reason Impossible est idem esse non esse Therefore where we find Contradictions in terminis a thing not unusual with Orators to make the acuter expression these terms are taken in several senses by those who propose them one term not signifying the formal essence of the thing So those Contradictions in terminis observ'd by Dr. Taylor p. 14 15. to the Roman party as corpus incorporeum cruor incruentus if the terms be took in several acceptations will be no formal Contradictions as if cruor be taken for the substance of Blood incruentus for the colour and other accidents usually accompanying but as the Proponents suppose possibly separable from the substance So if corpus be taken for the substance of a Body and incorporeum for extension in a place c. which the Proponents conceive not essential but accidental to a Body else if corpus incorporeum taken in any sense be a Contradiction so will the Apostle's corpus spirituale be for in the predicament of substance incorporeum and spirituale are made the same 4 But tho not plain and formal Contradictions yet virtual I grant many may and do make whilst they take those things to be diverse which are the same as if quantum or extensum be the same with corpus or rather extensio with corporeitas as Rivet affirms it is but the Romanist denies then corpus non-extensum will be a Contradiction To know then what truly contradicts and so is Potentia Divina unfaisible or unseparable we must know exactly what things are the same what different 1. First we must perfectly discern all the accidents of any thing from the essence of it not only what accidents are ordinarily separated for this will have no place where a supernatural effect is urged but what are potentia divina separable For that all things separable are actually in the course of nature separated or that every thing not essential is sometimes locally disjoyned from the essence or that nothing can be done by miracle which nature never worketh who can justify Now by what means any can know this I much wonder 2. Secondly since the Essence also of all creatures is composit not simple we must discern all the parts of its essence one from another and then know in which of those essentials or constitutives the essence of the thing more chiefly consists so that this removed the name of the thing can be no longer retained For note that a thing may be said to be the same still even tho some part of the essence thereof be changed or removed if that wherein it more formally consists still abides as a man or a ship is still the same tho much of the matter of both of them be altered Now if these things no man can exactly know then to say all things are possible to God except what contradicts is as much as to say Every
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
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
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
which are made by Men and these vel aliquantulum mansura sicut potuit Serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in Eremo vel peracto ministerio transitura sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur Then adds he sed quia haec omnibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt as the brazen Serpent and the Bread used in the Sacrament are things made by Man honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt he goes on itaque illa quae per Angelos fiunt quo ignotiora eo mirabiliora sunt nobis c. All he saith then is That the Bread or brazen Serpent have no wonder in the substance or matter of them for men make them both Now who affirms any miracle in any thing that is visible in the Eucharist The miracle is in that which is invisible the presence of Christ's Body with the signs But could any justly argue from hence That the Cure of the Man by looking on the Serpentine figure of Brass was not miraculous because St. Austin says the Brass or Figure shapen by Man had nothing miraculous in it but was known and ordinary Having clear'd this passage of Mr. Blondels now to go on I say for those miraculous instances they endeavour to qualifie the matter in saying â— That some of them are only accidental mutations not substantial as the bringing Water out of the Rock by Moses Fire from Heaven by Elijah Iron made to Swim on the Water by Elisha c. See Mr. Blondel p. 165. Ï Or becoming new creatures and members of Christ by Regeneration a comparison in the Fathers which the Reformed make much use of see Blond p. 100. But if you still press upon them the miraculousness of these mutations tho accidental they answer σ That some of those instances argue another or greater change than any party will allow of in the Eucharist and what proves too much proves nothing See Taylor p. 347. 274. 278. Ï„ That the effect produced by the instrumency or upon the receipt of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist is miraculous and no way proportioned to the natural qualities of them as also the efficacy of the water of Baptism and the real mutation which it causeth in the soul is supernatural ν And lastly that some of the same miraculous mutations are applied to Baptism for which chiefly a passage in Ambrose de Sacram. 2. l. 3. c. is quoted and other sacramentals or rituals of the Church which Sacramentals the Fathers also illustrate by the change made in the Eucharist and affirm such change to be in the one as in the other See for this Blond p. 165. 316. 101. c. Tail. p. 276. See Calvin Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 14. s Patres hic quoque i.e. in Baptism mirificam conversionem statuunt cum dicunt ex corruptibili elemento fieri spirituale animae lavacrum See Daille's first Reply to Chaumont p. 30. c. Ï Add to these that it may be said that the second Opinion in affirming the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body to every worthy receiver affirms a most miraculous effect in the Eucharist tho this not having any reference to the signs and therefore seems to concur with these testimonies of the Fathers as professing in the Eucharist a work of God's Omnipotency χ. As to the third that of the Fathers using and offering the Eucharist before communicating as a Sacrifice c. § XXIII I do not remember that Dr. Tailor takes much notice of it Concerning a Sacrifice but Mr. Blondel saith 4. c. 9. prop. that they celebrated or offered it only as a memorial image representation antitype of the Sacrifice upon the Cross and then heaps up many testimonies where the Fathers call it by these and the like names § XXIV To the 4th Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and that before communicating Concerning Adoration which seems to pinch closer than any of the rest I find them to say little or nothing with any close application to the testimonies brought out of the ancients 1. In general they say Christ may be worshipped when we receive the Eucharist or Symbols of his Body for which practice Daille in the Reply to Chaumont quotes and allows of the Church of England but Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven not as in his body there present See Calvin de Christianae pacificationis ratione p. 50. Fateor certe Christum ubicunque simus esse adorandum in coena vero cum se nobis fruendum offerat rite aliter recipi nequit quam si adoretur Sed hoc quaeritur sursumne an deorsum respiciat nostra adoratio Quum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa ab ipso discedit And Instit 4. l. 17. c. 37. s. In coena adoratio ea est legitima quae non in signo residet sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur To the same purpose writes Dr. Taylor p. 343. and quotes St. Austin as speaking of such Adoration So Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry 67. s. Our Church adores Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in which certainly Christ is not Christ's body locally present under the shape of the Elements Thus he But this worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in the end of the Section is explained to be only this That we in that time and place when and where he is eminently represented by the Priest and offered to God for us i.e. rerepresentatively do worship him i. e. as being according to his humane nature only in heaven See 66. s. But I find some expressions in some of them when shaping answers to the Fathers tho I do not well understand them therefore I shall set you down their own words as if they did allow of something more namely of adoring Christ as someway there present present both to the worthy receiver and to the Mysteries or Symbols Of which Dr. Taylor thus-in answer to that saying of Ambrose Adorate scabellum c. Per Scabellum terra intelligitur per terram caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt We worship c. saith the Doctor for we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our soul the flesh and blood of Christ So that we worship it he means the body or the flesh of Christ in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his Body but we give no divine honour to the signs And thus Daille 2d Reply to Chaumont p. 29. in answer to the places of the Fathers I l ' y a une enorme difference entre adorer le Sacrament adorer Jesus Christ au Sacrament ou es mysteres Le second signifie ou Adorer Jesus Christ en communiant a son Sacrement ce
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
symbols of his Body § 2 The Second Opinion goes beyond this or at least seems so for I must confess I do not well understand it 2. Real Presence aliquo modo and we shall look more into it anon and affirms a real Presence of Christs Body not only in its vertue but in its very substance but in this not after a natural or carnal but spiritual manner not to all 1 but only to the worthy Receivers To them i.e. to their Souls and Spirits by the susception of Faith and not to their Mouth or their Body Again to them but not to the symbols at all or if in some sense to these as Mr. Hooker l. 5. s 67. saith they really exhibit but not contain in them that which with or by them God bestoweth yet not ante usum or before the act of Receiving Neque enim mortis tantum resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit saith Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.24 and these following quotations are found in his Instit l. 4. c. 17. But how these high expressions where he opposes the Zuinglians agree with those diminutive where he opposes the Lutheran and Romanist I know not Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos Spiritus modo participes faciunt praeterita carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dicta forent carnem ejus vere esse cibum c. non habere vitam nisi qui carnem illam manducaverit c. Quoe omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin totus Christus Spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat Then quoting Eph. 5.30 he saith Apostolus sermonem exclamatione finit magnum inquit istud arcanum ver 32. Extremae ergo dementiae fuerit nullam communionem agnoscere cum carne sanguine Domini quam tantam esse declarat Apostolus ut eam admirari quam explicare malit nullum locum relinquo huic cavillo quasi dum fide percipi Christum dico intelligentia duntaxat velim concipi Manducatio non est fides sed ex fide consequitur panem quem frangimus communio est c. neque est quod objiciat quisque figuratam esse locutionem Hoc est Corpus Meum rem significatam vere exhibet Facti participes substantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium communicatione And of the Lutherans he saith Si ita sensum suum explicarent dum panis porrigitur annexam esse exhibitionem corporis quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas non valde pugnarem § 24. In answer to those who objected Se rationi humanae ita addictum esse ut nihilo plus tribuat Dei potentiae in the matter of the Eucharist quam naturae ordo patitur dictat communis sensus he saith Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior vel naturae legibus subjicio Humanae rationi nihilo magis placebit that which he affirms penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit alimentum-In his paucis verbis i. e. of the Doctrine of the Eucharist as he states it qui non sentit multa subesse miracula plusquam stupidus est quando nihil magis incredibile quod res toto coeli terrae spatio dissitas ac rimotas in tanta locorum distantia non tantum conjungi sed uniri ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi See the place in him Porro de modo si quis me interroget fateri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat I cannot but ask here tho I digress seeing this great Doctor of the Reformation in such a good mood what if any should say Christs Body presently after Consecration is with the Symbols after the same inexplicative and miraculous manner as he makes it with the Soul and so together with them is receiv'd from the Priest See what he himself saith favourable to this in that place quoted before Si ita sensum suum c. quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas And § 33. Atque haec est Sacramenti integritas quam violare totus mundus non potest carnem sanguinem Christi non minus vere dar◠indignis quam electis Dei fidelibus simul tamen verum est non secus atque pluvia super duram rupem decidens effluit c. And before Aliud est offerri aliud recipi I ask Are the Bread and Christ's Body offer'd apart Why not together And if they be together when Offer'd why not together before What can he reply from any argument of Sense or Reason against it Will he plead a possibility of Christ's Body being really present to one definite substance in such a place namely the Soul and an impossibility of its presence to another substance the Bread or Wine Or himself thus granting it in general present after an inexplicative or inconceivable manner if any other should name some particular way unexplicative i. e. fully how can he possibly disprove it by any way of Reason since he grants this matter above it now 't is granted by him above it because implying in it something which to Reason seems but which is not contradictory but only by God's Word and plain Revelation As for example If he can shew the Scriptures somewhere to say That Christ's Body is there present but not join'd with the Signs 2 I might add to these of Calvin 2 the Confession of Beza and others when they were desirous to accord the matter with the Lutherans which you will find quoted by Bishop Forbes Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 13. related by Hospin Hist. Sacram. parte altera p. 251. Fatemur in Caena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii Hominis substantiam ipsam inquit veram carnem c. verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo representari exhiberi applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive infidelibus proponantur Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa i.e. verum corpus verus sanguis Domini cum symbolis copulatur dicimus esse symbolicum sive sacramentalem sacramentalem autem modum vocamus non qui sit sigurativus duntaxat sed qui vere certo sub specie rerum visibilium repraesentet quod Deus cum symbolis exhibet offert nempe quod paulo ante diximus verum corpus sanguinem Christi ut appareat nos ipsius corporis sanguinis Christi praesentiam