changed for Bread cannot be the Body of Christ if it be not Bread. Let him choose which he will either This signifies this Bread or it does not If it does then the Bread cannot be substantially changed for the Bread is the Body of Christ and therefore is Bread still is Bread and the Body of Christ too if it does not then how does he prove that the words of Consecration in a literal sense transubstantiate the Bread into the Body of Christ For This does not signifie the Bread and therefore This is my Body cannot signifie that the substance of Bread is transubstantiated into Christ's Body I wonder our Author is not ashamed at this time of day to talk at this rate after somany excellent Books as have been written upon this Argument to save my self any farther trouble I shall direct my Reader to the late Dialogues about the Trinity and Transubstantiation and the Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host where he will find abundant satisfaction also to the two next Points which follow V. Our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist is merely gracious and influential and if more only to the faithful In answer to this I shewed him what we meant by Christ's Presence in the Eucharist that he is so present that his Body and Blood with all the benefits of his Death and Passion are exhibited to worthy Receivers as much as he could have been had we eat his natural Flesh and drank his Blood which is somewhat more than the mere influences of his Grace but he saies I assert our Lords Eucharistical Presence not to be substantial that is I suppose that the natural substance of his Body is not there and therefore that he is not corporally present and this indeed I do assert Therefore says he unless intirely absent our Lord must be present in the Eucharist by grace and influence only what is there besides substance and efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body and Blood no colour of Scripture is produced for this Zuinglian proposition If he will allow no medium between Christ's Corporal and Substantial Presence and his Grace and Influence since it is demonstrable that he is not corporally present we must in this sense allow that he is present only by his Grace and Influence as that is opposed to a corporal presence And all Men must allow this who deny Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation But what is there besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body and Blood I answer there can be nothing naturally belonging to any Body besides its substance and natural vertues and powers which he calls its Efficacy but by Institution there may and we take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be an Institution and therefore not to have a natural but instituted Vertue and Efficacy For the very notion of an Institution is that all the Vertues and Efficacy of it is not owing to Nature but to the Will and Appointment of God. Whatever is a natural power is no Institution no Sacrament for the effect there is wholly owing to Nature not to God's appointment which acts by a Power and Influence superior to Nature Which I think is little less than a demonstration that the natural Body and Blood of Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist for whatever Efficacy and Vertue we attribute to eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ it is either a natural effect of this eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ or it is not If it be then it is no Sacrament which works not by the powers of Nature but of Institution If it be not what need is there of Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament when a Sacramental Body of Christ consecrated Bread and Wine to represent and exhibit his broken Body and his Bloodshed for us by vertue of an Institution may be as effectual to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament as his natural Body could be which can have no Sacramental Efficacy but by vertue of an Institution The benefits we expect from this Sacramental feeding on Christ's Body is an interest in the merits of his Death and Passion viz. the forgiveness of our sins the communications of his Grace and Spirit and a right to immortal life Now I would desire to know whether these are the natural effects of a corporal eating Christ's natural Body He purchased all this for us indeed by his Death and Passion but is pardon of sin which is God's free and gracious act incorporated with Christ's natural Body and will a corporal eating of his Body communicate it to us Do the communications of Grace and Spiritual life flow from the Body or from the Spirit of Christ Is it the contact of his Body that makes our bodies immortal or the inhabitation of his Spirit in us What is that Efficacy then which he attributes to Christ's natural Body and supposes to be inherent in it A natural efficacy such as can belong to human bodies signifies nothing to the purposes of a Sacrament and there can be no other efficacy inherent in Christ's natural Body unless he will say that pardon of Sin and Spiritual Grace and a power of making other bodies immortal are the inherent and essential properties of Christ's Body But suppose it were so how can the mere presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament which we neither see nor touch nor eat communicate all these divine vertues to us For if it be by Natural Communication it must be by contact for Bodies have no other way of working upon each other and yet they will not allow that we touch the Body of Christ no more than that we see it or that we break it between our Teeth or chew it or digest it in our Stomachs that is they will not allow that we naturally eat it and then how can it naturally communicate its vertues to us So that though the Natural Body of Christ were present in the Sacrament those divine Graces we expect from it must be the effects of a Sacramental Institution not of Nature and therefore the Natural presence of Christ's Body is of no use in the Sacrament for God may as well annex all the benefits of his Death and Passion to the Sacramental signs of his Body and Blood as to his Natural Body and the Power and Efficacy of the Institution will be the same either way And when the natural presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist is so absolutely impossible such a contradiction to the sense and reason of Man kind and of no use to the purposes of a Sacrament but what may as well be otherwise supplied and the Sacramental eating of Christ's Body in efficacious signs is so easie and intelligible and by the power of an Institution equally effectual and so agreeable to the Nature of all other Institutions and Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament what
should incline Men to expound those words of our Saviour This is my Body of his Natural Body contrary to all the Sacramental forms of speech used in Scripture did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions To return then a more direct Answer to our Author's question what there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body I answer by Nature there is nothing else but by Institution there is for there is the Sacrament of the Lord's Body which is neither the natural Substance nor the natural Efficacy of his Body but a Sacramental Communion in the merits and Efficacy of his Death and Passion which is a spiritual eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. And since he wants Scripture for this I will give him a very piain Text 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ. Thus S. Paul explains what our Saviour said This is my Body and This is my Blood by this is the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood That is that those who by Faith partake of the Sacramental Bread and Wine do communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a different thing from the mere influences of his Grace for it is our interest and Communion in his Sacrifice which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine Influences and Communications We must be mystically and spiritually united to Christ to have Communion in the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and then we receive the fresh supplies of Grace from him which are the purchase of his Death and the effect of our Union to him and this Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ we receive in the Lord's Supper which is instituted by Christ for that very purpose and therefore it is called the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ because it is the Sacrament of our Union to him whereby we communicate in his Body and Blood and if this be Zuinglianism I see no help for it but we must be contented to be Zuinglians VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry I answered There was no such proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry To adore our Saviour is no Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. Instead of answering this he tells us This blasphemous Tenet is taught by our Church and which is a little worse is practised by theirs For the majority of our pretended Bishops did Vote for the Test and do all of them take it and I hope will keep it too That it is a Canon of our General Council the Parliament and therefore it is very good Law and that is all we desire for our Religion from Parliaments and thank God that we have it and since they are a General Council may they insist upon their Infallibility But what is the matter with the Test Why it declares our Adoration of the Eucharist which is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ to be Idolatry Is the Eucharist then nothing but Jesus Christ does the Council of Trent say so Is this the Doctrine of any of their Schoolmen Canonists or Divines Nay will this Author venture to say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ himself Which is speck and span New Popery if this be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome No! he does not dares not say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ but he says that the Adoration of the Eucharist is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ. But what palpable nonsence is this For if the Eucharist be something which is not Jesus Christ then the Adoration of the Eucharist must be the Adoration of something which is not Jesus Christ. And yet though we should suppose the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true yet the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent though it be present in the Sacrament is not the Sacrament For there can be no Sacrament of the Eucharist without the species of Bread and Wine and yet the Council of Trent decrees that the worship of Latria which is due to the true God be given to this most Holy Sacrament And that we might know what they meant by the Sacrament they tell us it is that which is instituted by Christ to be received or eaten which certainly is the species of Bread and Wine For they being sensible how absurd it is to worship what we eat to prevent this they tell us that it is nevertheless to be adored because it is instituted to be received or eaten The reason indeed they give for it is because Christ is present in this Sacrament but though the presence of Christ be the reason of this Adoration yet the whole Sacrament is the object which is not merely the natural Body and Blood of Christ but the species of Bread and Wine under which is contained the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore to adore the Sacrament is not to adore nothing but Iesus Christ for the Sacrament is somewhat more But then if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false they have no other object of their worship but Bread and Wine and thus the Church of England believes and thus our General Council the Parliament which made the Test believed and thus all Men who dare trust their own Senses and Reason believe and if it be blasphemy to teach that the worship of Bread and Wine is Idolatry some of the mâ—st Learned Divines of the Church of Rome have been guilty of this Blasphemy and I should be glad to hear what our Authors opinion is of it VII All Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive in both kinds For this I urged the express words of institution which do as expresly command us to drink of the Cup as to eat of the Bread so that if there be any command in Scripture to receive the Bread there is the same command to receive the Cup nay indeed as if our Saviour had purposely intended to prevent this Sacrilegious taking away of the Cup from the People whereas in delivering the Bread he only says Take Eat when he blessed and delivered the Cup he expresly commanded Drink ye all of it And I further argued from the nature of the Eucharist which as it was instituted in both kinds so it is not a compleat Sacrament without it and yet our Author rubs his forehead and confidently tells his Readers Nor for this point can a Scripture command be discovered in the Answer Though the thirtieth Article affirms that
for the office of a Mediator considered as a Mediator consists wholly in Intercession whence his authority and interest to intercede arises is of another consideration and therefore S. Iohn distinguishes between Christ's being an Advocate for us and a Propitiation for our sins 1 John 2. 1 2. if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous And he is the Propitiation for our sins Christ is our only Redeemer who has bought us with his own Blood but to be our Redeemer and to be our Mediator and Advocate are two things by the Constitution and Appointment of God both these are united in one person that he who is our only Redemer is our only Advocate also but yet to redeem with his Blood and to intercede with his Father for us differ as the death of the Sacrifice doth from the intercession of the Priest. To Redeem and make Atonement for our sins by shedding his Blood upon the Cross is not his Intercession for us and to intercede for us in Heaven is not to redeem us by shedding his Blood though he intercedes in vertue of his Blood. So that though Christ be our Redeemer yet considered as our Mediator and Advocate his mediation consists wholly in his Intercession for us And therefore to say that there is one Mediator and one Intercessor is the very same thing Suppose then the Apostle had said there is one God and one Intercessor between God and Men the man Christ Iesus would this have proved that there are no Mediators of Intercession but only Christ Or would they still say that there is an Intercessor of Redemption and Intercessors of Intercession and yet that there is but one Intercessor But besides this this very distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and a Mediator of pure Intercession that is such a Mediator as mediates in vertue of his Blood and Sacrifice and a Mediator who intercedes only by prayers and personal interest and Merits is contrary to the Analogy both of the Old and New Testament For as there is no Remission or Expiation so there is no mediation without Blood. For to mediate and intercede is not merely to pray for another but it signifies a Ministerial authority to apply the vertues and merits of a Sacrifice Thus it was under the Law of Moses The High Priest was the Mediator or as the Apostle speaks every High Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5 1. Thus he mediates by offering Gifts and Sacrifices by making Atonement and Expiation of sin And no Man has authority to do this but by God's Appointment No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron v. 4. Since there is no remission of sins without shedding Blood without the Atonement and Expiation of Sacrifice there can be no mediation but in vertue of the Sacrifice and therefore there can be no Mediator but he who offers the Sacrifice which confines mediation to the Sacerdotal Office. And therefore if we have but one High Priest there can be but one Mediator also between God and Man. But that we may rightly apprehend this matter and be able to distinguish betwen the prayers of good Men for themselves and for each other and the intercessions of a Mediator we must distinctly consider the vertue of the Sacrifice the prayers of the people and the Intercession of the Priest all which must concur to an effectual Prayer to obtain our requests and desires of God. Thus it was in the Mosaical Law. The Sacrifice was slain instead of the sinner and to bear the punishment of sin and without shedding of blood there was no remission Prayers could not expiate sin without a Sacrifice and therefore even in the time of the Patriarchs an Altar which is for Sacrifice was the place of their Devotions Thus Noah as soon as he came out of the Ark built an Altar and offered Sacrifice to God. Thus we frequently read how Abraham in his Travels whereever he made any stay built an Altar unto the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord that is he offered Sacrifices and Prayers to God. The like we read of Isaac and Iacob So that an Altar was the place of their solemn Devotions that is they offered up their prayers to God in vertue of a Sacrifice For sinners must not go directly to God without the Atonement and Expiation of a Sacrifice Hence under the Law while the Priest offered the Sacrifice the people offered up their prayers to God to ascend together with the Sacrifice and therefore those who lived in places remote from Ierusalem which was the only place of Sacrifices or those who could not attend the daily Sacrifices in the Temple yet were to observe the time of offering their Sacrifices for the time of their Prayers Whence it is that the time of offering the Sacrifice is called also the hour of Prayer Thus the people were to offer a Sacrifice for sin and to offer up their prayers in vertue of the Sacrifice but then neither their prayers nor their Sacrifice were acceptable to God unless they were offered by the Priest who sprinkled the blood of the Sacrifice upon the Altar to make Atonement and offered Incense as an emblem of their prayers To which the Psalmist alludes Let my prayer be set before thee as Incense and the lifting up of my hands as the evening Sacrifice And therefore the Evangelist observes that the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of Incense that their prayers might ascend as Incense Thus we expresly read in the Book of the Revelations of An Angel who stood at the Altar having a golden Censer and there was given unto him much incense that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar which was before the Throne and the smoke of the Incense which came with the prayers of the Saints ascended before God out of the Angels hand Which expresly applys these legal Types to the state of the Gospel that great Sacrifice and great High Priest who presents our prayers to God. The death of Christ upon the Cross was the Sacrifice for all our sins in vertue of this Sacrifice we pray to God but Christ our great High Priest is now ascended into Heaven to present himself before his Father to offer his own blood and in vertue of that to offer our prayers to him This is the work of a Mediator and High Priest not so much to pray for us as to offer up our prayers to God in the vertue and efficacy of his own Sacrifice and with the authority of a heavenly Mediator and High Priest. Now this plainly shows the difference between the prayers of good Men for themselves and one another and the Intercession of a Mediator Good men are humble supplicants