He as the Master of the Feast took the Loaf Blessed and brake it and gave it to them and Bid them in like manner henceforward Do this in Remembrance of Him He certainly designed that by this Ceremony which hitherto they had used in memory of their deliverance out of Egypt they should now continue the memory of their Blessed Lord and of that deliverance which he was about to work for them That as by calling the Lamb in that Feast The Body of the Passover they understood that it was the remembrance of God's mercy in commanding the destroying Angel to pass over their Houses when he slew their Enemies the memorial of the Lamb which was killed for this purpose in Egypt so Christ calling the Bread his Body nay his Body broken for them could certainly mean nothing else but that it was the Type the Memorial of his Body which as yet was not but was now just ready to be given for their redemption This is so natural a reflection and in one Part at least of this Holy Sacrament so necessary too that 't is impossible to explain it otherwise This Cup says our Saviour is the New Testament in my Blood That is as * See Exod. xxiv 8. Heb. ix â—0 And this Allusion is applied by S. Peter 1 Ep. i 2. Vid. Hammond Annot. in loc lit a. Moses had before said of the Old Testament in the very same Phrase the seal the ratification of it Now if those words be taken literally then 1st 'T is the Cup that is Transubstantiated not the Wine 2ly It is changed not into Christ's Blood as they pretend but into the New Testament in his Blood which being confessedly absurd and impossible it must in all reason follow That the Apostles understood our Saviour alike in both His Expressions and that by consequence we ought to interpret those words This is my Body which is broken for you of the Bread's being the Type or Figure of his Body as we must that of the Cup That it was the New Testament in his Blood i. e. the sign or seal of the New Testament So naturally do all these Notions direct us to a figurative interpretation of his Words the whole design of this Institution and all the Parts and Ceremonies of it being plainly Typical in Remembrance as Christ himself has told us of Him. But now if we go on more particularly to inquire into the Expression its self This is my Body which is broken for you That will yet more clearly confirm this interpretation It has before been observed That these words of our Saviour in this Holy Sacrament were used by him instead of that other Expression of the Master in the Paschal Feast when in the very same manner he took the very same Bread into his Hands and blessed it and brake it and gave it to those who were at the Table with Him saying This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt And can any thing in the world be more plain than that as never any Jew yet imagined that the Bread which they thus took every year was by that saying of the Master of their Feast changed into the very substance of that Bread which their forefathers had so many Ages before consumed in Egypt in the night of their deliverance but being thus broken and given to them became a Type a Figure a Memorial of it So neither could those to whom our Saviour Christ now spake and who as being Jews had so long been used to this Phrase ever imagine that the pieces of that Loaf which He brake and gave them saying This is my Body which is broken for you Do this in Remembrance of me became thereupon the very Body of that Saviour from whose Hands they received it and who did not sure with one member of his Body give away his whole Body from himself to them but only designed that by this Ceremony they should remember Him and his Body broken for them as by the same they had hitherto remembred the Bread of affliction which their Fathers ate in Egypt I ought not to omit it because it very much confirms the force of this Argument That what I have here said of this Analogy of the Holy Eucharist to the Jewish Passover was not the original remark of any Protestant or indeed of any other Christians differing from the Church of Rome in this point But was objected to them long before the Reformation by the * Vid. apud Author Fortalitii Fidei Lib. 4. Consid 6. Impos 10. Those who have not this Book may find the Quotation at large in the late Edition of Joan. Parisiensis in Praefat. pag. 73 74. Jews themselves to shew that in their literal Interpretation of these Words they had manifestly departed from the intention of our Blessed Saviour and advanced a notion in which 't was impossible for his Apostles or any other acquainted as they were with the Paschal forms ever to have understood him And if †Epistol xxiii ad Bonifac Vol. 2. pag. 29. Oper. Ed. Lugd. 1664. St. Augustine who I suppose will not be thought a Heretick by either party may be allow'd to speak for the Christians he tells us we are to look upon the Phrase This is my Body Just says He as when in ordinary conversation we are wont to say This is Christmas or Good-Friday or Easter-day Not that this is the very day on which Christ was born or suffer'd or rose from the dead but the return or remembrance of that day on which Christ was born or suffer'd or rose again It is wonderful to consider with what confidence our new Missionaries produce these words on all occasions and thereby shew us how fond they would be of the Holy Scripture and how willingly they would make it their Guide in Controversie did it but ever so little favour their Cause Can any thing say they be more express This is my Body Is it possible for words to be spoken more clear and positive And indeed were all the Expressions of Holy Scripture to be taken in their literal meaning I will not deny but that those words might as evidently prove Bread to be Christs Body as those other in St. John I am the Bread that came down from Heaven argue a contrary Transubstantiation of Christ's Body into Bread John vi 48 51. or those more usual instances I am the true Vine I am the door of the sheep That Rock was Christ prove a great many Transubstantiations more viz. of our Saviour into a Vine a Door and a Rock But now if for all this plainness and positiveness in these expressions they themselves tell us That it would be ridiculous to conclude from hence that Christ was indeed turned into all these and many other the like things they may please to give us leave to say the same of this before us it being neither less impossible nor less unreasonable to suppose Bread to be changed
otherwise I shall not trouble the Reader with any more of our Divines who lived in the beginning of this Queen's Reign Mr. HOOKER and subscribed the Article before-recited but pass on directly to him whom our Author first mentions Tr. I. cap. 2. §. 10. Pag. 6. the Venerable Mr. Hooker and whose Judgment having been so deservedly esteemed by all sorts of men ought not to be lightly accounted of by us And here I must observe that this Learned Person is drawn in only by a Consequence and that no very clear one neither to favour his Opinion Difference between the Protestant and Socinian Methods in answer to the Protestants Plea for a Socinian pag. 54. The truth is he has dealt with Mr. Hooker just as himself or one of his Friends has been observed to have done on the like occasion with the incomparable Chillingworth has pick'd up a Passage or two that seemed for his purpose but dissembled whole Pages in the same place that were evidently against him For thus Mr. Hooker in the Chapter cited by him interprets the words of Institution If we doubt says he what those admirable words may import let him be our Teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ was himself a School-master Let our Lord's Apostle be his Interpreter content we our selves with his Explication My Body the Communion of my Body My Blood the Communion of my Blood. Is there any thing more expedite clear and easie than that as Christ is termed our Life because through him we obtain Life So the parts of this Sacrament are his Body and Blood because they are Causes instrumental upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth The Real Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament And again p. 310. he thus interprets the same words This Hallow'd Food through the concurrence of Divine Power is in verity and truth unto faithful Receivers instrumentally a Cause of that mystical participation whereby as I make my self wholly theirs so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving Grace as my sacrificed Body can yeild and as their Souls do presently need This is to them and in them my Body And this may suffice in Vindication of Mr. Hooker Those who desire a fuller Account may find several Pages to the same purpose in the Chapter which I have quoted Bishop ANDREWS 1 Tract pag. 7. §. xi n. 1. The next our Author mentions is the Learned Bishop Andrews in that much noted passage as he calls it in the Answer to Bellarmine And indeed we need desire no other Passage to judge of his Opinion in this matter in which 1st He utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the manner of Christs Presence in the Eucharist 2. He professes that a Presence we believe and that no less a True one than the Papists 3. He plainly insinuates that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was much the same as in Baptism the very allusion which the Holy †Habemus Christum praesentem ad Baptismatis Sacramentum habemus eum praesentem ad Altaris Cibum Potum Augustin Stola quae est Ecclesia Christi lavatur in ipsius sanguine vivo i. e. in lavacro regenerationis Origen Statim baptizatus in sanguine agni Vir meruit appellari Hieron Christi sanguine lavaris quando in ejus mortem Baptizaris Leo. P. c. Fathers were wont to make to express his Presence by in this Holy Sacrament which since our Adversaries can neither deny nor yet say is so real as to be Essential or Corporeal they must of necessity allow that there may be a true Presence which is all the Bishop affirms without such a Substantial one as this Author here contends for But to shew that whatever this Bishop understood by the Real presence it could not be that Christs glorified Body is now actually present in this Sacred Mystery will appear demonstratively from this that he declares it is not this Body which we either Represent or partake of there insomuch that he doubts not to say that could there be a Transubstantiation such as the Church of Rome supposes it would not serve our turn nor answer the design of this Sacrament 'T is in his Sermon on 1 Cor. See Sermon vii on the Resurect pag. 454. Serm. Lâ—nd 1641. v. 7 8. We will mark saith he something more That Epulemur doth here refer to Immolatus To Christ not every way consider'd but As when he was Offer'd Christs Body that now is true But not Christs Body as now it is but as then it was when it was offer'd rent and slain and sacrificed for us Not as now he is glorified for so he is not he cannot be Immolatus For as he is he is immortal and impassible But as then he was when he suffer'd death that is passible and mortal Then in his passible State he did institute this of outs to be a memorial of his Passible and Passion both And we are in this Action not only carry'd up to Christ sursum Corda so that Christ it seems is not brought down to us but we are also carry'd back to Christ as he was at the very instant and in the very Act of his offering So and no otherwise doth this Text teach So and no otherwise do we Represent him By the incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit not He alone but He as at the very act of his offering is made present to us and we incorporate into his death and invested in the Benefits of it If an Host could be turned into him now glorified as he is it would not serve Christ offer'd is it Thither must we look to the Serpent lift up thither we must repair even ad Cadaver We must Hoc facere do that is then done So and no otherwise is this Epulare to be conceived And so I think none will say they do or can turn him Whatsoever Real presence then this Bishop believed it must be of his crucified Body and as in the State of his death and that I think cannot be otherwise present than in one of those two ways mentioned above by Arch-Bishop Cranmer and both of which we willingly acknowledge either Figuratively in the Elements or Spiritually in the Souls of those who worthily receive them And from this Account of Bishop Andrews Opinion we may conclude what it was that Casaubon and King James understood by the Real Presence ASAVBON KING JAMES A. Bishop of Spalato who insist upon that Bishops words to express their own Notion and meaning of it Nor can we make any other judgment of the Arch Bishop of Spalato See the 1. Tra. who in the next § xi note 2. pag. 7. * Vol. 3. de Rep. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 11. pag. 200. 201. to that cited by our Adversary is
to the Spirit i. e. the Godhead of Christ become both one Sacramentally by being both one with the Spirit or Godhead of Christ to the conveying of God's Spirit to a Christian And thus have I consider'd the several Divines produced for this new Conceit concerning the Real Presence and shewn the greatest part of his Authors to be evidently against it some not to have spoken so clearly that we can determine any thing concerning them but not one that favours what they were alledged for viz. to shew that they believed Christ's Natural Body to be both in Heaven and in the Sacrament only after another manner than the Papists It were an easie matter to shew how constant our Church has been to the Doctrine of the true real spiritual Presence which it still asserts and which it derived from its first Reformers whose words have been before set down by a cloud of other Witnesses as may be seen by the short Specimen I have put together in the * Reformatio legum Eccles ex Authorit Henr. 8. Edw. 6. Lond. 1641. Tit. de Sacram. cap. 4. pag. 29. Morton de Euch. part 2. Class 4. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 224. Lat. 1640. 4 to Fr. White against Fisher pag. 407. Lond. 1624. Fol. A. B Vster's Answer to a Challenge c of the Real Presence p. 44 45. Lond. 1625. Id. Serm before the House of Commons pag 16 1â— c Dr. Hownand Pract. Catech. part ult Answer to this Question the Importance of these wâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 the Bâ—dâ— and 〈◊〉 of Christ are verily and indeed taken and receivâ—â— p. 132. 〈◊〉 Lond Fol. 1634. Dr. Jachson's Works Tom. 3. pag. 300 302. Lond. 1673 Dr. Jo. Wâ—â—â—â—â—'s Way to the True Church Lond. 1624. §. 51. N. 1â— pag. 2â—9 Cosens Hist Transubst p. 3 4 12 c. Edit London 1675 8vo Margent But I have insisted too long already on this matter and shall therefore pass on to the Third thing I proposed to consider viz. Thirdly That the Alterations which have been made in our Rubrick were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions as is vainly and fasly suggested To give a rational Account of this Affair we must carefully consider the Circumstances of the Times the Tempers and Dispositions of the Persons that lived in them and what the Designs of the Governing Parties were with reference to them and then we shall presently see both a great deal of Wisdom and Piety in the making of these Alterations allowing the Opinions of those who did it to have continued as we have seen in all of them the same When first this Rubrick was put into King Edward's Liturgy the Church of England was but just rising up out of the Errors and Superstitions with which it had been over-run by the prevalency of Popery upon it It had the happiness to be reformed not as most others were by private persons and in many places contrary to the desires of the Civil Power but by a Unanimous Concurrence of the Highest Authority both Civil and Ecclesiastical of Church and State. Hence it came to pass that Convocations being assembled Deliberations had of the greatest and wisest Persons for the proceeding in it nothing was done out of a Spirit of Peevisnness or Opposition the Holy Scriptures and Antiquity were carefully consulted and all things examined according to the exactest measures that could be taken from them and a diligent distinction made of what was Popery and what true and Catholick Christianity that so the One only might be rejected the other duly retained Now by this means it was that the Ancient Government of the Church became preserved amongst us a just and wise Liturgy collected out of the Publick Rituals Whatever Ceremonies were requisite for Order or Decency were retain'd and among the rest that of receiving the Communion kneeling for One which has accordingly ever since been the manner establish'd amongst us But that no Occasion of Scandal might hereby be given whether to our Neighbour-Churches abroad or to any particular Members of our own at home That those who were yet weak in the Faith might not either continue or fall back into Error and by our retaining the same Ceremony in the Communion that they had been used to in the Mass fancy that they were to adore the Bread as they did before For all these great Ends this Caution was inserted that the true Intent of this Ceremony was only for Decency and Order not that any Adoration was thereby intended or ought to be done unto any Real or Essential Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood which were not there but in Heaven it being against the Truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at One time in more places than One. And this is sufficiently intimated in the words of the Rubrick to have been the first Cause and Design of it Thus it continued the remainder of King Edward's time But now Queen Elizabeth being come to the Crown there were other Circumstances to be consider'd Those of the Reformed Religion abroad were sufficiently satisfied both by this publick Declaration which had stood so many years in the Liturgy of our Church and by the Conversation and Acquaintance of our Divines forced by the dispersion in the foregoing Reign to seek forrefuge among their Brethren in other Countries of our Orthodox Faith as to this Point Our own Members at home had heard too much of this matter in the publick Writings and Disputations and in the constant Sufferings of their Martyrs not to know that the Popish Real Presence was a meer Figment an Idolum as Bishop Taylor justly stiles it and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored There was then no longer need of this Rubrick upon any of those Accounts for which it was first establish'd and there was a very just reason now to lay it aside That great Queen desired if possible to compose the Minds of her Subjects and make up those Divisions which the differences of Religion and the late unhappy Consequences of them had occasion'd For this she made it her business to render the publick Acts of the Church of England as agreeable to all Parties as Truth would permit The Clause of the Real Presence inserted in the Articles of her first Convocation and subscribed by all the Members of it to shew that their belief was still the same it had ever been as to this matter was nevertheless as we have seen struck out for this end their next Session The Title of Head of the Church which her Father had first taken her Brother continued and was from both derived to her so qualified and explained as might prevent any Occasion of quarrelling at it by the most captious persons That Petition in the Litany inserted by King Henry viii From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable Enormities Good Lord c. struck out And in conformity to what was done in the Articles as to this Point this Rubrick
Charity P. 33. §. xxx than any necessity of Argument if our Writers do sometimes either not at all or but faintly charge them with Idolatry And the Testimonies he produces argue rather the candor of our Affections towards them even such as to hope almost against Hope for their sakes than give any security to them in their Errors And because I would willingly if possible convince them of it I will very briefly subjoin a Reason or two 2dly Why even upon their own Principles I am not satisfied that they have such a rational Ground for this Adoration as may be sufficient to excuse them For 1st It is granted by this Author P. 26. §. xxii That a meerly good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance cannot excuse them from Idolatry So that if their ignorance then be really culpable their good Intention will not be sufficient to excuse them Now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded is their mistaken interpretation of those words This is my Body and whether that be a rational or culpable Mistake we shall best be able to judg by two or three Observations 1. It is confess'd by the greatest Men of their Church that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do so that had not the Authority of their Church interposed they might have been equally verified in our Interpretation And this must be allow'd unless we shall say that all places of Holy Scripture must be understood in a literal sense whatever the Consequence be of so doing 2. Our Author himself confesses that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain Contradiction then it cannot be right but we are bound to seek out some other Exposition to avoid a certain Contradiction 3. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of Sense and in that of the Truth of the Christian Religion which was confirmed by Miracles known only by the evidence of Sense and by Consequence of this particular Point that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God or can be rely'd upon as coming from him Now from these Principles I thus argue If that sense of these words This is my Body upon which they ground their Adoration do's necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them But that it do's so and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it I thus shew He that believes these words in the sense of Transubstantiation must believe the same natural Body at the same time to be in ten-thousand several places upon Earth and yet still to be but one Body and that all the while in Heaven He must believe that the same natural Body is at the same time extended in all its Parts and yet continuing still the same Body without any change to be unextended and have no distinct Parts nor be capable of being divided into any He must believe the same Body at the same time to move and to lie still to be the Object of our Senses and yet not to be perceptible by any With infinite others of the like kind * See above Ch. 2. of Transubstantiation Pag. 32 33. as I have more fully shewn before But now all these are gross Contradictions contrary to the Nature of a Body and to the common Principles of Reason in all Mankind and no Man can without culpable Ignorance pretend not to know them to be so And therefore notwithstanding any such supposed Divine Revelation as may be pretended from those words This is my Body they cannot by our Author 's own Rule without culpable Ignorance not know that they are mistaken in this Matter Again No Papist can have any reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of Holy Scripture This is my Body That these words are in Scripture he can know only by his Senses If his Senses therefore are not to be trusted he is not sure there are any such words in Scripture If they are to be trusted he is then sure that the Interpretation which he puts upon them must be false Since then it is confess'd that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense and that both upon the account of the Contradictions that such an Exposition involves to the common Principles of Reason and to the certain Evidence of the Senses of all Mankind it is necessary to take them in some other meaning it remains that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot pretend not to know that this could never have been the intention of our Blessed Saviour in those words and that such Ignorance will not excuse them our Author himself has freely confess'd But 2dly let us quit this Reflection and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation Yet still it is confess'd by them 1. That there is no Command nor Example in holy Scripture for adoring Christ in the Eucharist 2. That infinite Defects may happen to hinder him from being there and then what they worship is only a piece of Bread. 3. That they can never be sure that some of these Defects have not happened and by consequence that what they suppose to be Christ's Body is indeed any more than a meer Wafer From whence I argue He that without any Command or Warrant of God pays a Divine Adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature can never be sure that he do's not commit Idolatry But whosoever worships the Host worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit Idolatry Now concerning the former of these how dangerous it is for any one to give Divine Worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer Creature be it considered what jealousy God has at all times express'd of his Honour as to this Matter how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his Supreme Prerogative in such Cases How therefore he that will come to him must be very well assured that it is God to whom he approaches and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it ought not to worship with a doubting Mind because he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault but the doing of which may for ought he knows be a very great Sin. And for the second Whether every Roman Catholick who adores the Host has not even upon his own Principles very great cause to doubt whether he adores Christ's Body or only a bit of Bread will appear from those infinite Defects which they themselves allow as sufficient to hinder a Consecration and which make it great odds were their Doctrine otherwise never so true whether yet one Host in twenty it may be in five hundred be