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
Communion That no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or to any Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood For 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 Blood 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 then being sufficiently cleared let us see what this Author has to observe against it 1. He supposes that we will grant Treatise 1. Ch. 4. §. 39. p. 27. that if there were a Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Body in this Holy Sacrament then Kneeling and Adoration would be here also due upon such an Account He means that were Christ himself here in his Body actually present He ought to be adored and this he need not doubt of our readiness to grant 2. Tho the Corporeal Presence of Christ's Body Ib. §. xl i.e. of its being there ad modum Corporis or clothed with the ordinary Properties of a Body be deny'd as it is not only by the English Divines but by the Lutheran and Roman Yet let there be any other manner of Presence known from Divine Revelation of the very same Body and Blood and this as Real and Essential as if Corporeal and then I do not see but that Adoration will be no less due to it thus than so Present Now to this I shall at present only say That the Supposition being absurd do's not admit of a rational Consideration Those who deny a bodily Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and ask whether Adoration may not be paid to his Body which is confess'd not to be bodily present there supposing it to be there some other way ought to have no other satisfaction than this that they suppose an Impossibility a thing which cannot be and therefore concerning which no reasonable Answer can be given Some I know have been more free and allowing for the unreasonableness of the Supposal have resolved contrary to our Author But I think it very needless to dispute of the Affections of a Chimera and wrangle about Notions that have neither Use nor Existence 3. Treatise 1. p. 28. §. xli He observes lastly That the Church of England hath believed and affirmed such a Presence he means of Christ's Body in the Eucharist to which they thought Adoration due I presume it was then in the Times of Popery for since the Reformation I have shewn before that she has always held the contrary But our Author will prove it and that since the Reformation Ibid. For he says he has in his time met with no less than five of our Writers and those of no mean Account neither that have been of this Opinion This indeed is a very notable way of proving the Doctrine of our Church But what now if I should bring him fifteen Others that have deny'd it then I hope the Doctrine of the Church of England may be as fair for the contrary But we will examine his Evidence First Treatise 1. §. xlii p. 28. Bishop Andrews he says declares that tho we adore not the Sacrament yet we adore Christ in and with the Sacrament besides and without the Sacrament and assures the World that K. James looked upon Christ to be truly present and truly to be adored in it How this Bishop thought Christ truly present in the Sacrament we have seen before and may from thence easily conclude how he supposed he might be adored there viz. As in all other Holy Offices in which we confess Him by his Divine Power to be present with us but especially in this Sacred Mystery And thus we all adore him both in and with and without the Sacrament we confess him to be truly present and therefore truly to be adored by us But now for Christ's Natural Body of which and not of Christ himself our Dispute is if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before shew'd let it be remembred that according to this Bishop it must not be his Glorified Body See above his Body as it now is but his Body Crucified his Body as offer'd for us and in the State of his Death so He expresly affirms and this I believe our Author himself will confess in his sense to be impossible His next Witness is Bishop Taylor We worship Treatise 1. §. xliii p. 28. He means says this Author the Body or the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist But is he sure the Bishop meant so If he be I am sure the Bishop thought we all of us committed Idolatry in so doing For being consulted as we have seen above whether without all danger of Idolatry we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host See Polemical Discourses 5. Letter at the end p. according to his Humane Nature in that Host He expresly declares We may not render Divine Worship to Him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idotry And indeed this our Author knew very well was his Opinion who himself in his next Treatise cites the xiiith Section of his Real Presence Treatise 2. p .9 §. vi n. 2. which was written on purpose to prove the unlawfulness of worshipping Christ's Body in this Sacrament But dissimulation of other Mens Opinions in matter of Religion is perhaps as lawful on some Occasions as if it were their own And why may not an Author prevaricate the Doctrine of his Adversary in defence of the Catholick Faith since I have read of a * The Story was publish'd in the Memoirs of Monsieur D'eageant printed with permission at Grenoble 1668. pag. 246 I will set it down in his own words Il'y avoit deja quelque tems que D'eageant avoit gagné l'un des Ministres de la Province de Languedoc qui etoit des plus employez aux Affaires meneés de ceux de la R. P. R. en l'Estime particuliere de Monsieur de Lesdiguiers Il avoit meme secrettement moyenne sa Conversion obtenu un Bref de Rome portant qu' en core qu' il eut etè receu au giron de l'Eglise il luy etoit permis de continuer son Ministere durant 3 Ans pourveu qu'en ses preches il ne dit rien de contraire à la creance de la vraye Eglise qu' il ne celebrât ponit la cene Le Bref fût obtenu afinque le Ministre pût estre continué dans les Emplois qu'il avoit decouvrir les
consecrated 1. With reference to the Holy Elements to be consecrated If the Bread be not all or at least the greater part of Wheat-flower See all this in the beginning of the Missal de defectibus circa Missam if it be not mix'd with pure Water if the Bread be corrupted or the Wine sour if the Grapes of which the Wine was made were not ripe if any thing be mingled with the Wine but Water or if there be so much Water mix'd with it that that becomes the prevailing Ingredient in all these Cases and many others which I omit there is no Consecration And of all this he who adores either the Bread or Wine can have no security But 2. Be the Elements right yet if the Priest being either ignorant or in haste or unmindful of what he is about should by mistake or otherwise err in pronouncing of the words of Consecration whether by Addition or by Diminution or by any other Alteration there is no Consecration The Bread and Wine continue what they were and of this too he that worships them can never be certain 3. Let the words be never so rightly pronounced yet if the Priest had no intention to consecrate if he be a secret Atheist or Jew or Moor If he be a careless negligent Man it may be do's not believe he has any Power to make such a Change as I have shewn that several of their greatest Men in this very Age have doubted of it If he consecrate a number of Wafers for a Communion and in his telling Mistakes intending to consecrate but twenty and there are one and twenty before him in all these Cases for want of a due intention in the Priest there it no Consecration but that which is adored is only a little Bread and Wine 4. Let the Priest have a good Intention See above in the Preface yet if he be no Priest if he were not rightly Baptized or Ordained if he were a Simoniac or Irregular or a Bastard c. Or if there were no defect in his Ordination yet if there was any in his who ordained him or in the Bishops that ordained that Bishop that ordained him and so back to the very Time of the Apostles if in the whole Succession of Priests to this day there has been but any one Invalidity whether by Error or Wilfulness or for want of a due Intention or by Ignorance or by any other means then he that consecrates is no true Priest and by consequence has no Power to consecrate and so all is spoiled and whosoever worships in any of his Masses adores only a piece of Bread instead of our Saviour's Body When therefore so many Defects may interpose upon their own Principles to hinder this Conversion that 't is exceeding probable nay 't is really great odds that not one Host in twenty is consecrated it must certainly be very hazardous to worship that for God which upon their own Principles they can never be sure is so nay which 't is twenty to one is not God but a meer inanimate Creature of Bread and Wine 'T is this has forced their most Learned Men to confess * See Bellarm. de Justif c. 8. that they can never be sure of a Consecration Pag. 23. and our Author himself to declare That they do not worship the Substance that is under the Accidents of Bread and Wine WHATEVER IT BE but VPON SVPPOSITION that it is CHRIST'S BODY Adr. VI. quodlibet Sect. 10. Suppos 2. Which is what Pope Adrian 6th following herein the Authority of the Council of Constance prescribed that they ought always to adore the Host with such a reserve See Gerson Tract de Exam doctr consid 6. The Council of Constance says he excuses those who in their simplicity adore an unconsecrated Host because this condition is tacitly implied if it be rightly consecrated And therefore he advises let them so adore the Host I ADORE THEE IF THOV ART CHRIST But now if as the Apostle tells us in another case Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin and He that doubts is damned if he eats I shall leave it to any sober Christian to say what security there can be in such a Worship which is neither advised encouraged or commanded in Holy Scripture and which they themselves confess they can never be certain is addressed to a right Object and therefore are forced to such Shifts and Reserves as were they once admitted might make any other Creature in the World as warrantably adorable as their Host How much better were it for them to adore their Blessed Saviour in Heaven where his glorified Body most certainly is Where there can therefore be no danger to lift up our Hearts unto him Were his Sacred Body indeed substantially present in this Blessed Sacrament yet still it would be in a manner to us imperceptible in the state of his Death and by consequence of his Humiliation and we might therefore have some cause to doubt whether since we have received no Command concerning it it were our Saviour's Pleasure that his Body should be adored by us in that State So that there could be no Sin in the not doing of it But now amidst so many Doubts not only upon Ours but even upon their own Principles that they dare not themselves worship at a venture that which yet they do worship tho I shall leave them to their own Master to stand or fall at the Great Day yet I must needs profess I think there is very much hazard in it A great Sincerity and great Ignorance may excuse a poor untaught and therefore blindly obedient Multitude but for their Guides who lead them into Error for those to whom God has given Capacities and Opportunities as to those now among us he has done of being better informed I can only say Lord lay not this Sin to their Charge And this may suffice to have been said to the third Thing proposed of their Rational Grounds for this Worship Pag. 37. §. xxxiii For what our Author finally adds That to adore that which the Adorer believes not to be our Lord but Bread would be unlawful to be done by any so long as the Person continues so perswaded But then if we suppose the Church justly requiring such Adoration upon such a true Presence of our Lord neither will the same Person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his Conscience and in his not adoring I Answer It will then be time enough to consider this when either the Church to which we owe an Obedience shall require it of us or they be able to prove that in such a Case the Church would not sin in Commanding and not we in refusing to obey her But blessed be God there is no great danger of either of these Our Church is too well perswaded of the unlawfulness of such a Worship ever to require it of us And for that Church which has so uncharitably