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
Bosom and Paradise which they distinguish from Heaven Tertullian calls it a place of Divine pleasantness appointed for the Spirits of holy Mon. The Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox in Iustin Martyr expresly tells us That when the Soul goes out of the Body there is a great difference made between the Righteous and the Wicked For they are carried by Angels to such places as are proper for them The Souls of just Men into Paradise where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels and the vision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Saviour Christ as it is written being absent from the body we are present with the Lord. From hence Bellarmine concludes That by Paradise this Author understands Heaven because there we shall have the Vision of Christ and therefore that Paradise must signifie that place where Christ is present Which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of this Author who makes Paradise only a receptacle of separate souls till the Resurrection But though it be not Heaven there is he says a great communication between Heaven and Paradise for they have the frequent visits and conversation of Angels and Archangels whom they see and converse with as they do with one another but when he speaks of Christ he expresly makes a distinction between their sight of and conversation with Angels and Christ for this latter is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Vision as we see things which are absent and at a distance but yet this does so strongly affect them that he thinks that of S. Paul may be applied to it being absent from the Body we are present with the Lord. And certainly this is no Popish Purgatory but as they thought the very next degree of happiness to Heaven it self Thus S. Hilary expresly asserts that the state of Souls departed is a state of happiness and S. Ambrose tells us that while the fulness of time comes the Souls are in expectation of such a Resurrection as they deserve Punishment expects some and Glory others and yet neither bad Souls are in the mean time without punishment nor the good without reaping some fruits of their Vertue But I need not multiply Quotations to prove that which no modest Man who is acquainted with the Doctrine of the Fathers can deny Thirdly Another difference is That this is an unalterable State till the day of Judgment and therefore no Popish Purgatory out of which as the Church of Rome pretends Souls may be redeemed by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the Living and ascend immediately into Heaven This is evident from what I have already said that this State is to last till the Resurrection according to the sense of the ancient Fathers as Tertullian expresly affirms that Heaven is open to none while this Earth lasts but the Kingdom of Heaven shall be opened with the end of the World And S. Chrysostom observes from the Parable of Dives and Lazarus that the Souls of Men after their depature out of these Bodies are carried to a certain place from whence they cannot go out when they will but there expect the terrible day of Judgment Which plainly shows what his belief was that they must continue in that State which they enter upon at Death till the Resurrection And this I think is sufficient to show the difference between a Popish Purgatory and that middle state between Death and Judgment which the ancient Fathers taught Secondly Nor is it sufficient to prove a Popish Purgatory that the Ancient Fathers did believe that all Men must pass through the Fire at the day of Judgment That those who were perfectly good should receive no hurt nor damage by it that those who had any remains of corruption about them should be detained a longer or shorter time in that last Fire till they were purged from their sins and that bad Men should irrecoverably sink down into endless burnings This was a received opinion among the Ancient Fathers that at the day of Judgment all Men should be tried by Fire which is so universally acknowledged that I need not prove it by particular Quotations But yet there is an irreconcileable difference between this opinion and the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory as will appear in these particulars 1. That the Popish Purgatory is now and has been in being at least since the time of our Saviour and that those who deserve the fire of Purgatory fall into it when they go out of these Bodies whereas the Fire which the Fathers speak of is not till the day of Judgment This was the opinion of Lactantius Hilary Ambrose and S. Augustin himself who expresly tells us that this Fire is at the end of the World in fine seculi and therefore not the Popish Purgatory which as they would perswade us is already kindled and has been for many hundred Years Indeed S. Augustin though he owns that fiery trial at the last Judgment as the Fathers before him did yet he has something peculiar in this matter which none of the Fathers before him ever taught and therefore having no Authority of Tradition it must rest wholly upon his own Authority who had no more Authority to invent any new Doctrine in his Age than we have in ours There are three or four places in S. Augustin which do speak of some Purgatory fires which some Men must undergo between Death and Judgment which looks most like the Popish Purgatory of any thing in the Ancient Fathers and I believe was the first occasion of it which may be the reason why this Doctrine has so much prevailed in the Latin Church which was acquainted with S. Austin's Writings when it has been always rejected by the Greeks as is evident from the Council of Florence But there are two things to be said to this First That St. Austin speaks very doubtfully about it That there may be such punishments after this life he says is not incredible and we may examine whether there be any such thing or not and it may either be found or may still continue a secret whether some Christians according to the degree of their love and affection for these perishing enjoyments be not sooner or later saved by a certain Purgatory fire and in another place he says he does not reprove this opinion for it may be it is true now redarguo quia forsitan verum est De C. D. l. 21. c. 25. And elsewhere he says That though such speculations may serve for his own or other Mens instruction yet he does not attribute any Canonical authority to them and therefore he was very far from making it an Article of Faith as the Church of Rome has done Secondly And yet though St. Austin speaks of a Purgatory fire after death and before the day of judgment he seems by his whole discourse never to have thought of such a Purgatory as the Church of Rome has invented The occasion
of what he says to this purpose is that noted place 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14 15. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Iesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold silver precious stones wood hay stubble Every Mans works shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall try every Mans work of what sort it is if any Mans work abide which he built thereupon he shall receive a reward If any Mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved but so as by fire Some there were who from this place concluded that those who held the foundation who believed in Christ and continued in the unity of the Church how wicked soever their lives were should at last be saved by fire This St. Austin vehemently opposed though it is very like the Doctrine or Practice of the Church of Rome which sends all good Catholick sinners how wicked soever their lives have been to Purgatory especially if they have had time to confess and receive Absolution They absolve all that confess and no Man who is absolved at the hour of death can go to Hell but how wicked soever he is he shall at last be saved by the fire of Purgatory In opposition to this St. Austin expounds wood and hay and stubble which some build upon the foundation not of such sins as the Scripture tells us will shut us out of the Kingdom of Heaven such as St. Paul mentions 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. Neither Fornicators nor Idolaters nor Adulterers c. shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but of such a great passion for the present enjoyments of this World though lawful and innocent in themselves that we cannot lose them without great trouble and anxiety of mind for when such Men must suffer the loss of all these things for Christ if they hold the foundation if they prefer Christ before all other things they will suffer the loss of all things for him but then that fondness they have for this World will make the loss of these things very afflicting doler urit such sorrow burns their Souls and is a kind of Purgatory fire to them in this World which those good Men escape who sit loose from all present things and therefore are not so much affected with the loss of them but those who love this World too passionately if notwithstanding they can bear the loss of all for Christ shall be saved but so as by fire shall smart for their loving this World too well in those burning and Purgatory flames which an inordinate love and grief will kindle in their Souls This is what St. Austin understands by being saved by fire in this World that sorrow with which those are burnt when they lose these things who loved them too much while they had them but this Purgatory is in this life and St. Austin questions whether there may not be something like this aliquid tale in the next World that is that after death Men who loved this World too well may be greatly afflicted for the loss of it which is all the Purgatory fire before the day of judgment that St. Austin ever thought of and he was the first that ever thought of this and yet this is nothing at all to a Popish Purgatory as every body will grant So that though St. Austin was doubtful whether there may not be some Purgatory punishments after death for those who were too fond of this life that is whether their leaving this World and going into such a different state where they can enjoy nothing they were fond on here will not greatly afflict and burn and torment their minds either a longer or shorter time according to the degree of their love to this World yet neither St. Austin nor any of the Fathers thought that there was any material Purgatory fire such as the Popish Purgatory is till the end of the World. Secondly Another difference between that fire which the Fathers mention and the Popish Purgatory fire respects the persons who are to be tried in it For the Fathers taught that at the day of judgment all Men excepting Christ himself must pass through the fire not St. Peter nor St. Paul nay not the blessed Virgin herself excepted This is expresly asserted by Lactantius Hilary Ambrose and many others We must all be tried by Fire whoever desires to return into Paradise ideo unusignem illum sentire non potuit qui est justitia Dei Christus quia peccatum non fecit Christ only who is the righteousness of God and never committed any sin escapes that fire but they believed that all Mankind besides must pass through it that perfect good Men shall pass unhurt and untouched that those who are imperfectly good must be purged by fire and shall suffer by the flames of it a longer or shorter time as their purgation requires and that bad Men shall sink for ever into those bottomless Lakes of Fire and Brimstone But the Popish Purgatory is neither for very good nor very bad Men. Bad Men immediately go to Hell and perfect Saints ascend directly into Heaven without passing the fire of Purgatory which therefore cannot be that fire the Fathers speak of which the most perfect Saints must pass thorough into Heaven Thirdly Another difference is That the Popish Purgatory Fire is not for purgation but the Fire at the Day of Judgment according to the ancient Fathers is I observed before that the Popish Purgatory is not to make Men better for the Souls in Purgatory are perfect in all Graces and can neither merit nor sin All that they have to do in Purgatory is to make satisfaction for that temporal punishment which is due to their sins their sins are already pardoned and their Souls are purged they perfectly love God and are beloved by him and yet unless they be relieved by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living they may lie several Ages in Purgatory bearing the punishment of their sins when they are both pardoned and cleansed from sin which may seem a little odd to those Men who remember that Christ has born the punishment of our sins and who know no other end of punishments but either to reform the sinner or to take vengeance on their sins which there is no room for when the sin is pardoned But now though the ancient Fathers do deny that there is any purgation of sin between Death and Judgment but that every Soul continues in the same state wherein Death found it till the Day of Judgment yet they make the Fire at the Day of Judgment to be truly Purgatory to purge us from all the remains of Corruption just as Gold is purged and refined in the Fire and therefore they tell us that perfect Souls shall pass through the Fire unhurt but if there be any Lead mingled with our