Imprimatur Guil. Needham R mo in Christo Patri ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. à sacr Domest Ex Aedib Lambeth Iul. 2. 1686. A BRIEF DISCOURSE OF THE Real Presence OF THE Body and Blood of CHRIST In the Celebration of the HOLY EUCHARIST WHEREIN The Witty Artifices of the Bishop of Meaux and of Monsieur Maimbourg are obviated whereby they would draw in the Protestants to imbrace the Doctrine of Transubstantiation John 6. v. 54 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 17. In sacra sua coena jubet me Christus sub Symbolis panis ac vini corpus ac sanguinem suum sumere manducare ac bibere Nihil dubito quin ipse verè porrigat ego recipiam Tantum absurda rejicio quae aut coelesti illius Majestate indigna aut ab humanae ejus naturae veritate aliena esse apparet LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in S t Paul's Church-Yard 1686. A BRIEF DISCOURSE OF THE Real Presence CHAP. I. 1. The occasion of writing this Treatise 2. The sence of the Church of England touching Transubstantiation 3. Three Passages in her Articles Liturgie and Homilies that seem to imply a Real Presence 4. A yielding at least for the present that the Church of England is for a Real Presence but of that Flesh and Blood of Christ which he discourses of in the sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel though she be for a Real Absence of that which hung on the Cross. 5. That our Saviour himself distinguishes betwixt that Flesh and Blood he bore about with him and that he there so earnestly discourses of 6. That this Divine Food there discoursed of the Flesh and Blood of Christ is most copiously to be fed upon in the Holy Eucharist and that our Communion-Service alludes to the same nor does by such a Real Presence imply any Transubstantiation 1. THE occasion of writing this short Treatise was this I observing the Papers here in England published in behalf of the Church of Rome and for the drawing off People from the Orthodox Faith of the Church of England which holds with the ancient pure Apostolick Church in the Primitive Times before that general Degeneracy of the Church came in to drive at nothing more earnestly than the maintaining their grand Error touching the Eucharist viz. their Doctrine of Transubstantiation Into which they would bring back the Reformed Churches by taking hold of some Intimations or more open Professions of theirs of a Real Presence though they absolutely deny the Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation and thus entangling and ensnaring them in those free professions touching that Mystery of the Eucharist would by hard pulling hale them into that rightfully relinquish'd Errour for which and several others they justly left the Communion of the Church of Rome I thought it my duty so far as my Age and Infirmness of my Body will permit to endeavour to extricate the Reformation and especially our Church of England from these Entanglements with which these witty and cunning Writers would entangle Her in Her Concessions touching that mysterious Theory and to shew there is no clashing betwixt her declaring against Transubstantiation and those Passages which seem to imply a Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ at the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist 2. Concerning which that we may the more clearly judge we will bring into view what She says touching them both And as touching the former Article 28. her words are these Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions And in the latter part of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion-Service She says That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the Truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one This is sufficiently express against Transubstantiation 3. Now those passages that seem to imply a Real Presence in the Eucharist are these In the above-named Article 28. The Body of Christ saith our Church is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith Against which our Adversaries suggest that no Faith can make us actually receive and eat that which is God knows how far distant from us and that therefore we imply that the Body of Christ is really present in the Eucharist Another Passage occurs in our Catechism where it is told us That the inward part of the Sacrament or thing signified is the Body and Bloud of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper Where verily and indeed seems to imply a Real Presence and Participation of the Body and Bloud of Christ. The last place shall be that in the Homily of worthy receiving and reverend esteeming of the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ. The words are these But thus much we must be sure to hold that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain Ceremony no bare Sign no untrue Figure of a thing absent But as the Scripture saith the Table of the Lord the Bread and Cup of the Lord the Memory of Christ the Annunciation of his Death yea the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord in a marvellous Incorporation which by the Operation of the Holy Ghost the very bond of our conjunction with Christ is through Faith wrought in the Souls of the faithful Whereby not only their Souls live to Eternal Life but they surely trust to win their Bodies a Resurrection to Immortality And immediately there is added The true understanding of this Fruition and Union which is betwixt the Body and the Head betwixt the true Believers and Christ the ancient Catholick Fathers both perceiving themselves and commending to their people were not afraid to call this Supper some of them the Salve of Immortality and sovereign Preservative against Death others the Deifick Communion others the sweet Dainties of our Saviour the Pledge of Eternal Health the Defence of Faith the Hope of the Resurrection Others the Food of Immortality the Healthful Grace and the Conservatory to Everlasting Life There are so many high Expressions in these passages that our Adversaries who would by this Hook pluck us back again into the Errour of Transubstantiation will unavoidably imagine and alledge from hence that if we will stand to the Assertions of our own Church we must acknowledge the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of our Saviour
his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit as I have noted in my Analytical account of the fore-part of the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel See my Scholia at the end of my Enchiridium Ethicum 3. And it is marvellously applicable to our purpose what Philo says on that Passage of Deuteronomy Chap. 32. v. 5. He made him to suck honey out of the Rock and Oyl out of the flinty Rock in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he says the Rock signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The solid steady and infrangible Wisdom of God implying the Immutableness and Unalterableness of the Natures Properties and Respects of the Ideas of things in the Divine Intellect The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be changed or violated for any superstitious purposes whatsoever as I have intimated before Wherefore as S t Paul calls Christ who is the Eternal Logos a Rock so does Philo by saying that Rock Moses mentions in his Song is the steady solid and infrangible Wisdom of God Which therefore is that Essential Wisdom the same that the Divine Logos or second Hypostasis of the Trinity And not many lines after in the same Treatise the Lawgiver says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls this Rock Manna the Divine Logos that was before all beings and without whom nothing was made that was made as S t Iohn testifies And in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Israel which he would have signifie one that sees God He says he lifting up his Eyes to Heaven sees and thence receives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Manna the Divine Logos the Heavenly incorruptible food of the Soul devoted to Holy Speculation Which Passages I could not forbear to produce they having so great an Affinity with that which our Saviour professes of himself that he is this Bread from Heaven the true Manna and incorruptible Food of the Soul whereby she is nourished to Eternal Life Iohn 6. Out of all which may be more easily understood how the Fathers did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and drink the same Spiritual Drink which cannot well be conceived but of such a Divine Body and Bloud of Christ as is universal not restrained to his particular humane Nature but belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit which goeth along with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of Christ and consequently is rightly called his Body Which being the necessary Principles of Regeneration for ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus constamus and there being no Salvation without Regeneration and no Regeneration continued and advanced without congenerous Food we must necessarily conclude with S t Paul that The Fathers all ate the same Spiritual Meat and drank all the same Spiritual Drink Water Honey Oyl out of the same Rock Christ the Eternal Word or Logos And certainly that Body and Blood of Christ out of which the Fathers were Regenerate and by which they were fed cannot be the very Body and Bloud of Christ which hung on the Cross and whose Bloud was there let out by the Lance of the Souldier that pierced his side and therefore there was a Body and Bloud of Christ before he was incarnate for the Regenerate Souls of the antient People of the Iews to feed upon belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the Life and that Spirit of which it is said That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit Which things are more fully treated of in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Philosophical Hypothesis touching the great Mystery of Regeneration 4. Wherefore there is all the Reason in the World if not plain Necessity to admit what we cited out of Gratian that famous Canonist of the Church of Rome That we are to understand that there is a two-fold Flesh and Bloud of Christ either that Spiritual and Divine Flesh of which he himself says My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Bloud is Drink indeed and Unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Bloud ye shall not have Everlasting Life Or that Flesh which was crucified and that Bloud that was let out of his side by the Lance of the Souldier which we shall now endeavour briefly to demonstrate out of that Discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of S t Iohn 5. First then That the Flesh of Christ that hung once on the Cross and into which the Bread of the Romanists is supposed to be Transubstantiated in the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper is not the Flesh here meant is plain from what is said thereof in this sixth Chapter of S t Iohn v. 54. Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Bloud hath Eternal Life But every one that eateth the Bread transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that once hung upon the Cross in the Roman Communion has not Eternal Life in him Nay if that Souldier that pierced our Saviour's side and let out his Bloud with his Lance had drunk also thereof and cut some piece of his flesh from his Body and eaten it is any one so fond as to think that he thereby would have been made Partaker of Eternal Life But if Christ meant that Body or Flesh of his and not some other that is rightly also called his Flesh or Body it would follow that that Souldier by doing that savage and inhumane act would have obtained Everlasting Life Wherefore it is plain from hence that there is another Body or Flesh of Christ and another Blood distinct from that Blood that was shed on the Cross and from that Body that hung there which our Saviour aims at in his Discourse 6. Secondly It is plain that our Saviour's Discourse in that Chapter he passing from that temporal Food which he had lately procured for the multitude to a Spiritual and Eternal has for its Object or Subject not the Manner or Way of receiving his Body and Blood as if it were meant of that very Flesh and Blood on the Cross but that it was to be received in a Spiritual Manner which Interpreters several of them drive at but the Object of his Discourse is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is himself in reference to this Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the Eternal Word and in this sense he says He is the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life to the World v. 33. And v. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am the Bread of Life and speaking of the Manna he presently adds Your Fathers ate Manna and yet died viz. the natural Death the natural Manna being no Preservative against the natural Death And v. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For in him is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 1. or Life
Learned Discourse of the Sacrament quotes out of S t Ambrose who says he speaking of that Body which is received in the Eucharist calls it the spiritual Body of Christ the Body of a Divine Spirit and he does confidently affirm of all the Antients who have either purposely interpreted or occasionally quoted the Words of Christ in the sixth of S t Iohn touching the eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood that they all understand him to speak of a Spiritual Flesh and Blood distinct not only from the Substance of the Holy Elements but also from that natural Body of Christ which he took of the Substance of the Holy Virgin pag. 233. So little Novelty is there in this distinction of the Body and Blood of Christ into natural and Spiritual or Divine CHAP. VII 1. An Apology for being thus operose and copious in inculcating the present point from the usefulness thereof 2. The first usefulness in that it defeats Monsieur de Meaux his Stratagem to reduce us to Transubstantiation as if no Real Presence without it 3. The second usefulness for the rectifying the Notion of Consubstantiation 4. The third for more fully understanding the Mystery of the Eucharist with Applications of it to several Passages in our Communion-Service 5. The fourth for a very easie and natural Interpretation of certain Passages in our Church-Catechism 6. The priviledge of the faithful Receiver and of what great noment the Celebration of the Eucharist is 7. The last usefulness in solidly reconciling the Rubrick at the end of the Communion-Service with that noted Passage in our Church-Catechism 1. THE Reader may haply think I have been over operose and copious in inculcating this Distinction of Gratian's touching the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist But the great usefulness thereof I hope may apologize for this my extraordinary diligence and industry For the Notion being both true and unexceptionable and not at all clashing so far as I can discern with either the Holy Scripture or right Reason and solid Philosophy to say nothing of the Suffrage of the Primitive Fathers but rather very agreeable and consentaneous to them all and also having as I said its weighty usefulness it was a point I thought that was worth my so seriously insisting upon and as I have hitherto endeavoured faithfully to set out the Truth thereof I shall now though more briefly intimate its Usefulness 2. And the first Usefulness is this Whereas that Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Meaux tugs so hard to pull back again the Reformed Churches to the Communion of the Church of Rome by this Concession or rather Profession of theirs that there is a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ at the Celebration of the Eucharist to be received by the faithful and that therefore they must return to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as if there were no other Mode of a Real Presence to be conceived but it the force of this Inference is plainly taken away by this Distinction that Gratian one of their own Church hath luckily hit upon or rather taken out of some antient Father and is more fully made out in this Discourse that there is a Spiritual and Divine Body of Christ distinct from that particular Body of his that hung on the Cross which the faithful partake of in the Lord's Supper Whence it is plain there is no need of Transubstantiation which is incumbred with such abundance of Impossibilities and Contradictions 3. Secondly This Notion of ours is hugely serviceable for the rectifying of the Doctrine of Consubstantiation in the Lutheran Church who are for an Ubiquity of the particular Body of Christ that hung on the Cross which assuredly is a grand Mistake But I believe in the Authors thereof there was a kind of Parturiency and more confused Divination of that Truth which we have so much insisted upon and their Mistake consists only in this that they attributed to the particular Body of Christ which belongs to his restrained and circumscribed humane Nature that which truly and only belongs to his Divine Body as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Life or Spirit of the Logos to which Spirit of his this Body belongs and therefore is rightly called his Body as appertaining to his Spirit For this Body this Divine and Spiritual Flesh as Gratian calls it is every where present though not to be received as the Food of the Inward man but only by the Faithful and Regenerate so that according to this Notion there may be a Consubstantiation rightly interpreted that is a Compresentiation or rather Compresentiality of both the Real Bread and Wine and the Real Body and Blood of Christ at once so that they both may be really and indeed received by all true Believers And Lutheranism in this point thus candidly interpreted will prove a sound and unexceptionable Doctrine And I charitably believe the first Authors of it if they had fully understood their own meaning meant no more than so And I wish I had as much reason to believe that the Pontificians meant no more by their Transubstantiation but a firm and fast hold of the Real Presence I hope the most ingenuous of them at this time of the day mean no more than so viz. That they are as well assured of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ to be received in the Celebration of the Eucharist as if the very Bread was turned into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a miraculous Transubstantiation 4. Thirdly It is from this Notion or Distinction of the antient Fathers as I hinted above of the Body and Blood of Christ into Natural and Spiritual or Divine that we have ever been well appointed to give a more full and distinct account of the nature of the Solemnity of the Eucharist as it is celebrated in our Church it plainly comprizing these two things The first the Commemoration of the Death of Christ of the breaking his Body or Flesh viz. the wounding thereof with Nails and Spears The other The partaking of the Divine Body and Blood of Christ by which our Inward Man is nourished to Eternal Life which our eating the Bread and drinking the Wine are Symbols of Both which in our Communion-Service are plainly pointed at The first fully in the Exhortation to Communicants where it is said And above all things you must give most humble and hearty thanks to God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost for the Redemption of the World by the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ both God and Man who did humble himself even to the Death upon the Cross for us miseable sinners And to the end we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ thus dying for us and the innumerable benefits which by his precious Blood-shedding he hath obtained to us he has instituted and ordained Holy
Mysteries as pledges of his Love and for a continual remembrance of his Death And in the Prayer of Consecration the Celebration of the Eucharist is again said to be a continued or perpetuated Commemoration of Christ's precious Death till his coming again But now for our receiving the Spiritual and Divine Body and Blood of Christ such passages as these seem to intimate it In the Exhortation to the Communicants it is there said if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this Holy Sacrament then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood then we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and Christ with us This passage plainly points to our Saviour's Discourse Iohn 5. v. 56. where he says He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And he thus dwelling in us he enlivens us we becoming one with Christ in a manner as the Soul and Body makes one as it followeth in the next verse As the living father has sent me and I live by the father so he that eateth me shall live by me and so we become one with Christ and Christ with us we living by Christ as he by his Father that is to say as Christ lives by his Father so we live by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us Rom. 8. 11. which Spirit or Life of Christ always implies the Divine Body As he that is joined unto the Lord in this Body is one Spirit 1 Cor. 6. 17. Now this Exhortation so plainly alluding to this passage of our Saviour's Discourse which speaks not of his particular natural Flesh but of that which is his Spiritual or Divine Flesh it is plain that the genuine sense of the Exhortation in this place is that we really though spiritually that is by a fervent and devotional Faith eat or receive the real Body and Blood of Christ viz. that Divine and Spiritual Body and Blood of his above-mentioned And this passage of our Saviour's Discourse is again alluded to in the Prayer immediately before the Prayer of Consecration in these words Grant us therefore 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 through his most precious Blood and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us John 6. 56. And these two places so plainly alluding to our Saviour's Discourse in the sixth of S t Iohn it is very easie and natural to conceive that what occurs in the Thanksgiving after our receiving the Sacrament does sound to the same purpose Almighty and everlasting God we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries with the Spiritual Food of the most Precious Body and Blood of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ The words even of themselves do very naturally point at a real though spiritual partaking or receiving into us the Body and Blood of Christ namely of that Flesh and Blood which our Saviour discourses of Iohn 6. And therefore we may be much more assured that they do so if we take notice the sense is so back'd and strengthned by the other two Passages which do plainly relate to the Body or Flesh and Blood Christ discourses of in the sixth of S t Iohn's Gospel I will only add one Consideration more and that is from the Title of our Communion-Service Can there be any more likely reason why the Lord's Supper is called THE HOLY COMMUNION than that it refers to that of S t Paul 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 Because there is one Bread we being many are one Body For we are all partakers of that one Bread Which is that Bread from Heaven which our Saviour discourses of in the sixth of S t Iohn But the Words I have chiefly my Eye upon are those The Cup being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the Blood and the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the Body of Christ and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all likely hood having the same sense that it had 2 Pet. 1. 4. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where we are said to be called to the Participation of the Divine Nature Communion here in S t Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians must naturally imply our real receiving or partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the celebrating of this Holy Communion and that by thus partaking of that one Divine Body and Blood of his signified by the eating and drinking the Bread and Wine we though many become one Body not in a Political Sense only but if I may so speak Divinely natural we being made all Members of that one Universal Divine Body of Christ as he is the Eternal Logos and so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1. 4. Wherefore That Passage in S t Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians does marvelous-fully set out the Nature of that part of the Lord's Supper that is distinguished from the Commemoration of his Death and gives the most genuine Reason of its being called the Holy Communion it implying the real Communication of that one Divine Body of Christ to the faithful and their real Union thereby with Christ and with one another which is a full and perfect Holy Communion indeed 5. Fourthly This Notion of the Fathers touching the Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ affords us a very easie and natural Interpretation of that Passage in our Church-Catechism touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper where to the Question What is the inward part or thing signified It is answered The Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper In the Answer to a former Question Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained it is answered For a continual Remembrance of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ and the Benefits received thereby One eminent benefit whereof is the Remission of our sins through the Bloud of Christ shed on the Cross for without blood there is no Remission the other is the feeding of the Regenerate Soul or Inward man by the Real but Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ which contains in it our through Sanctification which is also a fruit or benefit of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ forasmuch as we had not been capable of Regeneration and of growth and degrees of Sanctification by the feeding on and really receiving the Spiritual and Divine Body of Christ without our Reconciliation by his Blood shed on the Cross which our Church here calls the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ. Now as in this Answer there is contained