4.14 and 7.38 39. where the Spirit signified in both places by water is declar'd to be the fountain of life eternal And now it is high time to leave of to tire you with a Discourse the more tedious because entangling it self with the Writings of so many others Now to conclude I pray the good Lord To preserve you or any other that reads it from being moved or perswaded by any thing erroneous therein And may he make the shame of any thing that is said amiss here by me tho he knows unwittingly yet I may not say innocently to fall upon me and open your Understanding to see all my Defects that so if this my Endeavour in this History of the Eucharist intended chiefly to make men tho of another perswasion yet more charitable at least to the Doctrine of our Forefathers which they have left can do no good it may do no hurt but that Truth may ever prosper prevail triumph Blessed be his holy Name for ever Amen FINIS Appendix I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the substantial Presence and Adoration of Our B. Saviour in the Eucharist asserted With a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject Publish'd at Oxford from the Exceptions of a Sacramentary Answer Printed at London I. THE former Part of the Answer Combating Transubstantiation is foreign to the Oxford Discourses treating of the Real Presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist Therefore tho liable to material exceptions such are false and perverted quotations long since detected and expos'd Romantick Stories impertinent if true fallacious Arguings and wretched Calumnies industriously contriv'd to deceive and incense the Populace yet It shall be neglected and our Animadversions commence at Part 2. c. 2. where the Minister's Reflections are professedly applied to the Treatises II. Pag. 44. l. 14. All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's invisible Power and Grace c. A Presence of Grace and Power only i. e a real absence of our Lord's body and blood from both the Eucharist and worthy Communicant was indeed profest by the Puritan Party which exclaimed against Archbishop Laud Bishop Mountague and others for maintaining a substantial Presence From whose Clamour and Impeachment these Learned Prelates vindicated themselves not by that easie and complete way of disowning the Doctrine and interpreting their Expressions and Sentiments to intend a presence of Grace and Power only which obvious Reply would have silenc'd if not appeased the Faction but by justifying their Tenet to be what the Church of England held and prescrib'd A presence of Grace only can import no more than a bestowing of Grace or benefits without the thing beneficial or gracious But that the Church of England by her Heads or eminentest Members from Q. Elizabeth's time to the Return of Char. II. own'd this Zuinglianism for her Faith is from no authentick act that I have perus'd yet evident 1. Not evident from the XXVIII Article tho the Answerer affirms so much For that Article neither does nor was intended to contain any thing inconsistent with a substantial Presence tho it condemns Transubstantiation To ratifie this I need alledge against this Minister a Witness no better qualified then Dr. Burnet because produc'd as very credible in this case by this Man in p. 58. who says it was thought to be enough to condemn in this Article Transubstantiation c. 2. Not evident from the Communion-Office as the same Historian relates Hist Ref. Part 2. p. 390. It was proposed to have the Communion-Book so contriv'd that it might not exclude the Belief of the Corporal Presence For the chief Design of the Queen's Council was to Unite the Nation in One Faith and the greater part of the Nation continued to believe such a Presence thereupon the Rubrick is left out And indeed had we not this uncontrolable testimony out of that very Author who would fain have been set up in Churches as the Old Fox's Monuments yet as much might be collected from the Office it self that no-where excludes the substance or limits the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ to Grace and Power which it must do before it can countenance the Answerer's tenet Surely any Person not extreamly prepossest will sooner interpret these Passages The Communion of the Body c. We Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ c. When the Minister delivers the Communion The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. omitted in the Answer Take eat c. We thank God that he doth vouchsafe to feed us with the Food of the most precious Body c. The Bread that we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. I say an unprejudic'd Man will sooner understand these expressions as including a substantial presence than a signifying only the power and grace of Christ's Body and Blood. How could they then take them otherwise who believ'd a corporal presence and till the last years of Edw. VI. scarce ever heard that the words were capable of any other sense 3. Not evident from the Catechism In which the Church of England is so far from teaching her Children a Presence of Grace only that she plainly instructs them to believe a substantial Presence Does she not as it were dissect the Eucharist into its parts acquainting them that it consists of an Outward part or sign Bread and Wine of an Inward part or thing signified the Body and Blood of Christ c. and then demands What are the Benefits or effects of these Parts whereof we are partakers thereby i. e. by the Body and Blood of Christ Now if she design by body and blood of Christ the benefits only of them then her Question runs thus What are the Benefits whereof we are partakers by the Benefits which are the inward Part of the Lord's Supper A Question too ridiculous to be proposed by any person of sobriety much less fit for a Church to put in her institution of Christians If then the Catechism may be explicated literally as one would imagin a Catechism ought the Church of England both believes and teaches a substantial Presence Agreeable hereto is Bishop Ken's Exposition licensed 1685 by Jo. Battely Chaplin to the Archbishop of Canterbury O God incarnate says the Bishop how thou canst give us thy flesh to eat and thy blood to drink how thy flesh is meat indeed c. How thou who art in Heaven art present on the Altar I can by no means explain but I firmly believe it all because thou hast said it and I firmly rely on thy love and on thy Omnipotence to make good thy word tho the manner of doing it I cannot comprehend Here in expressions very fervent and becoming a Christian Pastor he instructs the people of his Diocese to believe that God incarnate gives them his flesh to eat c. Next that tho in Heaven yet the same God incarnate is present on the Altar 3ly
the present Church of England in compliance with the black Rubrick this Minister's only publick evidence such as it is against both a Substantial presence and Adoration must be concluded to deny Adoration from its beginning it did not so and in 1660 it could not be said the Church of England by Law establish'd condemns Adoration no Test no Rubrick was then extant no Penal Laws whereto the establishment as well as original of their Church is to be ascribed constraining any man to subscribe with or without consent a villanous slander upon the whole Church of God upon the Lutherans and themselves too till the Return of King Charles II. and since the contrary hath bin both said printed and practised by the genuine Sons of the Church of England who regarded the Rubric no more than the rest of that communion do the Fasts and other ceremonies injoyn'd them by the same Liturgy Pag. 87 l. 27. Now to this I shall at present only say That the Supposition being absurd does not admit of a rational consideration c. Here he asserts it impossible for Christ's body to exist or to be present except in the circumstances and cloathed with all the ordinary properties of a Body and consequently must disbelieve not only that the bodies of Saints at the Resurrection shall neither marry nor be given in marriage not need nourishment c but be as the Angels impassible c. and so either deny a Heaven or admit a Mahometan Paradise but also question our Lord's resurrection the stone unrolled from the mouth of the Sepulcher and his entrance into the room the door being shut and besides censure St. Paul's Spiritual body as absurd Could our Lord's body rise from the Grave thro a Stone and enter a close Room ad modum corporis If not then this Answerer must either retract this passage as an affront to Faith or Socinian-like reject the Scripture testifying this because absurd to his low and impure conceptions but if it could and did then where are our Minister and his vain Philosophy If he has known some admitting the Supposition That our Lord's Body may be present and not after the ordinary sensible manner of Corporal presence and yet resolving against adoration of it such oppose what this man concedes in the first Supposition unless he grant adoration due to the corporeal manner of Christ's presence and not to Christ himself Pag. 88 l. 13. I presume it was then in the times of Popery for since the Reformation I have shewn before that she always held the contrary viz. That our Lord's presence in the Eucharist is not adorable In the most flourishing Protestant times an adorable presence was believed and profest by Bishop Andrews deputed by the Head of the English Church to declare her sentiment in this matter He is not therefore to be considered as a private Doctor or Bishop but as the mouth of the Church and presumed to know and neither to falsify nor oppose her Doctrine or practice How came this Man to more skill and authority in expounding the Doctrine of the Church of England than that very learned Bishop Did King James II. depute you to expound it What reason do you assign why I must discredit Bishop Andrews and acquiesce in your exposition I cannot foresee how you can prove your self more honest more able more authentick than that extraordinary Bishop was But what does that accurate Plenipotentiary publish Does he fence and seek subterfuges as dreading or blushing to tell his thoughts No his expressions are with assurance and perspicuity He proclaims to the world that the King James I. believed and adored our Lord truly present in the Eucharist and we Church of England-men with Ambrose adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries and with Austin we do not eat the flesh without first adoring it Did Bishop Andrews speak true or did he not If he did then the Answerer speaks what 's false if he did not why may we not reject a Protestant Minister's testimony when such a Bishop's is so tardy What adoration Protestants render to the Divine Majesty in their other Religious offices we are not at leisure to enquire but that in this of the Eucharist the Bishop and King and consequently their Church adored the Flesh of Christ is to any one of modesty and candor undeniable They adored as St. Ambrose and St. Austin adored which was just in the same manner and in the self same degree as the Catholick Church adores at this day Those Fathers gave sovereign worship to the Flesh to the natural flesh of Christ substantially present in the Eucharist and Hypostatically united to his Soul and Divinity Our Dispute then with this Minister is about the adoration of Christ himself if about the adoration of his Flesh unless his Natures and Person be separable Pag. 89. l. 17. But is he sure the Bishop meant so i. e. that Bishop Taylor meant we worship the Body or Flesh of Christ Yes He is sure that Author meant the Flesh of Christ 1. Because the same Bishop Real Pres p. 144. says We worship the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries exhibiting it to our souls 2. Because the Action it self is not adorable the words then must either intend the flesh of Christ or What do they signify What is it the Bishop worships in the venerable usages of the signs Not the signs yet Divine Honor is given given then either to nothing or to the flesh of Christ in the mysteries 3. Because the Bishop is considering St. Ambrose's testimony for adoring the flesh of Christ in the mysteries and waving the usual refuges of the testimony being spurious or a Rhetorical flight c. he acknowledges that his party worships as St. Ambrose did Certainly then they have the same object pay the same service and at the like solemn occasions i. e. sovereign adoration to the flesh of Christ in the mysteries for this St. Ambrose undoubtedly perform'd And what if this Bishop according to his native constancy in another book recede from this was it therefore none of his thought when this was written Can his dictating contrary elsewhere alter the sence of what was said long before Pag. 90. l. 6. Since I have read of a Protestant Minister c. Very faithfully translated The Minister was permitted says the Answerer to exercise the functions of his Ministry as before 'T is false says the Margent He was not to preach any thing against the belief of the true Church nor to celebrate the Supper Thus the Man's Margent confutes his Text and his Translation quarrels with the Original Ibid. l. 17. As for Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalato it is not to be wondred if men that had entertain'd the design of reconciling all Parties were forced to strain sometimes a little further than was fit c. An Answer very solid and very charitable For first is not this a concession that these Protestant Bishops allowed adoration
A COMPENDIOUS DISCOURSE ON THE EUCHARIST WITH TVVO APPENDIXES OXFORD Printed in the Year M. DC.LXXX.IIX The CONTENTS A Brief Account of the Modern Doctrines concerning the Eucharist Four principal modern Opinions concerning the Eucharist 1. Virtual presence § 1. 2. Real presence aliquo modo § 2. 3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation § 3. 4. Real presence with the symbols by Transubstantiation Observations touching these Opinions § 4. 1. Observation That both the third and fourth Opinion hold an Oral reception of Christ's Body by all Communicants § 5. 2. Observation That the fourth Opinion affirms § 6. 1. A Symbol of Christ's Body remaining after consecration viz. all the sensibles of the Bread. n. 1. 2. These Symbols in the Church'es language not unusually to have had the denomination of Bread. n. 2. 3. These Symbols to have several things predicated of them not agreeable to Christ's Body 3. 4. These Symbols to be as signs of Christ's Body sacramentally present so of it as formerly broken on the Cross n. 4. 5. Christ's Body also as sacramentally present to be a 〈…〉 or memorial of the same Body as formerly on the Cross n. 5. 3. Obs That the difference between the third and fourth Opinion is not great § 7. 4. Obs That the third and fourth Opinion affirm not Christ's Bodily presence in the Sacrament after so gross a manner as is objected to them § 8. 5. Obs That no Argument drawn from sense or seeming contradiction can be valid against the third and fourth Opinion § 9. 6. Obs That those of the third Opinion and some also of the second condemn not the fourth as holding a thing impossible or unfeasible § 10. 7. Obs That Communion with the fourth Opinion is unjustly rejected whilst retained with the third § 11 8 Obs That the Doctrine of the second Opinion is very varying dubious and obscure § 12. Where is discussed § 13. 1. Whether they hold any real substantial presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist Several quotations out of them wherein they seem to maintain it Other quotations wherein they seem to retract it § 14 And divers Arguings of theirs against the third and fourth opinion which seem to overthrow it 2. Whether they hold such presence to the Symbols or only to the Communicant § 16. Several quotations wherein they seem to deny such presence to the Symbols Where Whether they hold Christ's Body present to the soul only or also to the body of the worthy receiver Some other sayings wherein they seem to imply such presence to the Symbols And the testimony of Mr. Thorndike expresly declaring for it An Aâ—count of the Doctrine of Antiquity touching Christ's presence in the Eucharist § 17. That the Arguments equally urged out of the Fathers for their not holding Transubstantiation disprove not their holding of a Corporal presence at least after some other manner with the Symbols § 18. As Theodoret. § 19. 1. Gelasius 2. Ambrose 3. St. Austin 4. Other quotations out of Blondel 5. And others 6. Arguments that they hold corporal presence § 20. Because they affirm a change of the Elements into Christs Body n. 1. A miraculous change n. 2. Offering the Body of Christ as a Sacrifice before communicating n. 3. Using Adoration before communicating n. 4. Holding an Oral manducation of Christ's body n. 5. Answers of the Reformed to these Arguments § 21. Concerning the change of the Elements n. 1. Concerning the miraculousness of the change § 22 Concerning its being a Sacrifice § 23. Concerning Adoration § 24. Replies to these § 25. The doctrine of the Fathers concerning it as a Sacrifice § 26. That the sacrifice on the Cross is the only sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away sins n. 1. Yet is the Eucharist a true and real sacrifice n. 2. Testimonies out of Card. Bellarmin C. Trent and Mr. Mede n. 3. 4. Of the Fathers that it is a sacrifice expiatory n. 5. Of Dr. Tailor n. 6. Digr The omission of the daâ—â—y Oblation in the Reformed Churches § 27. The Fathers say that it is an Oblation of the same Body which was crucified § 28. Reply concerning Sacrifice § 29. Reply concerning Adoration § 30. The Roman qualifications concerning Adoration § 31. Suppose Transubstantiation an error yet Adoration lawful if a corporal presence and if no corporal presence yet their Adoration no idolatry § 32. An account of the variance in the doctrine of the Eucharist in later times § 36. In the Eastern Church § 37. In the Western Church § 41. Reflections upon the former narration § 43. 1. Corporal presence then the common opinion 2. All Councils since the 2d of Nice unanimously deciding corporal presence with the symbols § 44. And that not by way of Impanation § 45. Councils excusable in so strictly determining the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament § 48. In what sense they impose it as an Article of faith § 49. Obedience due to such decisions § 51. The objection of a contrary perswasion of conscience considered § 52. Objection of non-certainty considered § 53. The objection of the fruitlesness of supposed corporal presence considered § 54. App. I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Substantial presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament with a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject printed at OXFORD App. II. Animadversions upon the Reply to the Two former Discourses A DISCOVRSE on the EVCHARIST Four principal Opinions concerning the Eucharist COncerning the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist there are Four chief Opinions among Christians The First That it is Present to the Worthy or Faithful Reeciver in all the Efficacy and Benefits thereof either as it suffer'd § 1 or was rais'd again by a communication to us of Christ's Spirit whereby we are vivificated united 1. Virtual Presence and incorporated into him Et nullus hic miraculo dandus locus est cum sciamus qua ratione Christus Caenae suae adsit nimirum Spiritu vivificante spiritualiter efficaciter ut ipsius divinitas possit nos vivificare in nobis habitare oportuit corpus ipsius pro nobis frangi in Cruce c. atque hanc fractionem effusionem fide a nobis apprehendi ut hac fide insiti corpori ipsius caro ipsius sanguis ipsius effecti possimus fieri participes justitiae vitae ipsius atque ita aeternum domicilium divinitatis Spiritus sanctus nos cum Christo conjungens etiam longissime distantia secundum locum copulat multo arctius propius quam in uno loco posita conjunguntur This opinion seems not to put any real or substantial Presence of Christ's very Body and Blood in the Eucharist or worthy Receiver but a real participation of all the benefits thereof by his Spirit communicated to the faithful Receiver of the consecrated
to pass over c. But why is Bishop Forbes's testimony past over so unconcernedly and instead of an Answer to his assertions an obloquy left on his Name involving the whole Family of Reconcilers Did he not in that passage write his thoughts Was his intention only a palliating or recommending of Error and Idolatry not a retrenching the opinions and unjustifiable aggravations of those that affect extremes and thro rage desert truth I always conceited the aim of that wise and moderate Person and of other Accommodators to have bin the undisguising of Doctrines and a representation of them in their proper lineaments and habit but not a betraying of truth to purchase a wicked peace Henceforward therefore if this Minister be regarded whenever we hear a man speak of reconcilement we must double our guards and apprehend treachery But where was the Bishop's conscience and respect to piety if according to this Minister to cement a rotten Union he condiscended not only to relinquish his Faith but also to establish an inexcusable Idolatry for his words assert both a substantial presence on the holy Table and an Adoration of our Lord's body there present The presence he means is such a one of which the more orthodox Protestants do not doubt which the Holy Fathers very often mention and which the Puritans grosly erring rejected but the rigider Protestants reject a substantial not a gracious presence so that the Bishop's sense will admit of no other evasion besides his being of the Pacifick tribe which is it seems with this Minister if not in maledictionibus of no authority Thus this impartial Friend to truth whilst he should weigh the arguments considers the personal qualities of an Author and is carried for or against those as these affect or displease him Pag. 66. l. 1. For Bishop Tailor I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication c. Nor I the Answerer of folly for medling with what he can no better discharge His business is to shew either that Bishop Tailor had written no such passage as was cited out of his works or that his words were perverted from their literal sense by the Discourser for to alledge out of the same or another Book sentences contradictory thereto will expose the Bishop indeed but satisfies not the difficulty for the Discourser no where undertook that Dr. Taylor has not said and unsaid acording to the custom of Protestants and Wits but that he has said what with any candor is incapable of any other meaning than is imposed in the Oxford Treatises Bucer's advice to P. Martyr ut Dogma sacramentarium ambiguis loquendi formulis involveret and Dr. Taylor 's boastings and practices are too notorious to be insisted-on or for us to expect from so inconstant artificial and confident a Writer other than that according as his humor or circumstances engaged he should sometimes deliver himself plainly sometimes in affected and intricate terms and never scruple contradicting himself so he might procure a present relief when reduced by his cause or indiscretions to a strait This Reply to this Minister's Answer to Dr. Taylor 's testimony will serve for what was return'd pag. 49. 50. to Calvin's and Beza's Authorities If other places contradictory can be pickt out of their Writings yet that will not manifest that they in the sentences cited intended not a substantial presence But where does Calvin say solum beneficium non corpus ipsum the proposition contradictory to neque tantum beneficium sed corpus ipsum Is it not of this Proposition that Archbishop Lawd says Nor can that place by any art be shifted or by any violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist The Archbishop was a Puny in evasions and of a feeble spirit for what his acuteness could not contrive and his courage durst not attempt this Minister has discovered and adventured to perform even to shift off and wrest this place by some that say nothing different and by others that say nothing contradictory Pag. 69. l. 24. And now I am afraid his cause will be desperate unless Mr. Thorndike can support it The same course is taken to answer Mr. Thorndike as was followed to dismiss most of the precedent viz. endeavouring to oppose Mr. Thorndike to himself this practice how useful and how frequently used soever it be by the Answerer as wondrous sufficient yet is rejected by him in parallel cases and he takes that liberty he disallows to such as have equal right to it with himself Yet how will this rare controvertist vindicate Mr. Thorndike from approving Idolatry if he deny that learned Man to hold a substantial presence for what can be more express for Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist than his words are I do believe that it adoration was practised and done in the ancient Church I know the consequence to be this that there is no just cause why it should not be done at present c. Whatever notion therefore Mr. Thorndike had of our Lord's presence certainly he maintained the presence of such a Body as was adorable and that the adoration practised in the Catholick Church was not Idolatry Having thus copiously discuss'd this Point Whether the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Real Presence was from Queen Elizabeth 's days till the Restauration of the last King for a substantial or but gracious Presence and having amply demonstrated that a substantial Presence was its faith and that as well its Article Communion-Office and Catechism as its supremest Governors and most dignified and learned Doctors are peremptory and full in the case for which the Discourses contend one chief Design of them is secured and defended and by this Minister's confession several points are gain'd as 1. That of all men living the genuine Sons of the Church of England ought not to press us with such contradictions wherein their own opinion is equally involved pag. 41. l. 18. 2. That it is no less a contradiction for Christ's Natural Body to be in several places at the same time by the Church of England's mode of Substantial Presence than by the Church of Rome's which add's only the Manner of that Substance being present viz. Transubstantiation the repugnancy being in the thing it self not in the manner of it Therefore the Philosophical Maxim of the impossibility of one Body's being in many places at the same time must not by Church of England-men be relied-on nor urged in the Dispute between us pag. 44. l. 4. Besides we obtain 3ly That the genuine Sons of the Church of England ought neither to impeach Catholicks of Idolatry nor in taking the Test profess we are Idolaters since according to their faith our object is right and there where we believe it to reside Should they charge the whole Church with Idolatry for worshiping Jesus Christ substantially present in the Eucharist which they both believe and practise Does not
the same reason compel them to affirm Adoration follows their own Doctrine and therefore ours which forced Bishop Morton to say it followed the Lutheran 4ly Their deference to the certainty of sense must be adjusted with ours and Miracles must not be confined to its sphere 5ly Such language as this Minister uses must be forborn and his blasphemous Ironies receive the same detestation with them as they have with as For instance Pref. p. 6. l. penult That the Council of Lateran gave the Priests power of making their God for Church of England Priests if true Priests have the same power with the Catholick But neither pretend by Sacerdotal consecration to make the substance of Christ's Body but only to invoke the Holy Ghost to effect by its Almighty power that the substance of our Lord 's glorified body which now exists gloriously in Heaven may also exist Sacramentally on the Altar Is this making their God The Lateran Definition de Fide Catholica and the Council of Trent informed this Minister what part by Christ's institution not their gift as this man imposes the Priest has in the consecration if he had not bin willing to forget or mistake it for vile purposes Again p. 75. l. 8. That the Popish Real Presence is a meer figment and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored Such putrid falshoods and conceited nonsense will be very indecent in a genuine Church of England man's mouth not only because of his Defender but of his Faith too For such a one to tell us of adoring the Mass and that He abhors it and accounts our Real presence a figment is both absurd and impious But this is the result of a Gallican vagary and of learning the Doctrine of the Church of England from Hugonotal conversation Tales and Fathers Pag. 72. l. 1. That the alterations which have bin made in our Rubric were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions c. Tho it signify little whether the Alterations in the Article and Liturgy and the Disgrace of the Rubric were or were not from a change of opinions so long as the Doctrine of the Church was changed tho this I grant may well be and the other not according to the gloss of subscribing not with assent but for peace and tho too t is a strange casualty for Divines remarkable for resolution and famous for immutability to flit their sentiments as ordinarily as the Moon does her appearances yet the Proof brought that those Divines did not imitate Cranmer in compliance and submission of judgment to the present Possessor of White-Hall is no more than an heap of this Minister's conjectures stampt with the superscription of a Rational account when-as Dr. Heylin equal to Dr. Burnet in abilities and industry and incomparably more honest than that perfidious Fugitive reports that the changes were made lest in excluding a carnal Presence they the Divines sure might be thought to reject such a Real presence as was defended in the writings of the Ancient Fathers Nor is the design of reconciling Parties inconsistent with a change of opinions A comprehension-affair may be pursued by Real Presence-men as well as Zuinglians As to the Copy of Articles perused by Dr. Burnet and out of him mentioned pag. 58. we say again that it ought to be concluded from that rased Monument rather that the Divines did than did not change their Opinions for he that reverses a subscription voluntarily is likelier to have altered his resolution than to have retain'd it especially when induced to expunge what had bin agreed on by an Authority whereto by the Principle of Lay-Supremacy lately assumed by the Prince and submitted to by themselves their judgments were to conform and whose sentiments in Religion they were to believe and profess For Queen Elizabeth had by a dreadful example just then told the world as after she had like to have done in the Lambeth-Articles-Affair that She would not hear the Church but tho a woman be heard by it in matters of Faith and would neither consult with nor follow but controll and prescribe-to Convocations in causes of meer Religion Had She not refused to hear the voice of the whole Clergy in her first and the last Canonical Convocation In a Convocation acting agreeably not only to the institution of Christianity and rules of the Catholick Church but of all other Convocations that ever were in the Nation unless a few in Hen. 8. and Edw. 6. time in a Convocation acting according to all Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil then in force in this Kingdom and representing the Church of England by Law established How then could its Declaration be illegal as the Reflecter on the Historical Part of the Fifth part of Church-Government p. 82. will needs esteem it What could the Queen under a penalty justly prohibit them the use of that Authority both Christ and the Laws of the Land had setled on them alone If this were not tyranny where shall instances of it be found But that Reverend and Catholick Assembly understood both its own power and duty better than so and despising the temporal terrors that only a Tyrant in that case would threaten and a Persecutor execute discharged it self with constancy as became men entrusted with the souls of the Nation tho deprivation were the reward of their Confession Her new and parasitical Ministers understood then what they must do and that for that very end She had raised them up even to think and act at her appointment In return to the conjectures wherewith the Answerer strives to blanch o're a soul defection from the Catholick faith we will relate how we apprehend Religious affairs were managed At Edward the Sixths coming to the Crown the Doctrine of the Church of England was a substantial Presence the manner of that Presence was Transubstantiation but thro the Ambition and Avarice of Governing Parties some quickly began to contest and forsake this Faith vet by degrees rejecting first the manner and afterwards the Presence being assisted in this Apostasy by a few and opposed by most of the Clergy and Laity hence tho there were Assemblies and deliberations had yet no Canonical determinations pass'd or are extant unless such approbations may be deemed Synodical that were obtained by terrors and deprivations of many the most eminent Bishops and dignified Ecclesiasticks for relucting at what derogated from Christian Truth and Church Authority All was done by the conduct and influence of the evil Spirit and neither Scripture nor Antiquity rightly consulted or observed only herein the diligence and craft of those destroying Reformers must to their eternal infamy be own'd that they distinguished points immediately obstructing their gain and licentiousness from others more indifferent rejecting chiefly such as debarred them from spoiling the Church and gratifying their sensual appetites Thus as superstitious or idolatrous prayer for the Faithful deceased that Chanteries the Mass that the furniture of Altars c might be alienated
came to be reformed thus the Sacrament of Penance solemn Fastings and Celibacy of Priests c that both Clergy and Laity might indulge themselves as their lusts suggested in luxury and impenitence fell to the ground Not truth nor any consideration of Christians either at home or abroad but libertinism and filthy lucre were then the rule of this unjustifiable Reformation wherewith the majority of Christians as well of England as of the whole world could not choose but be and actually were scandalized But how should better come of Cranmer's intermedlings It was that Cranmer who for flattery lust inconstancy ingratitude treason and most damnable Hobbism utterly pernicrous to the being of a Church deserves the invectives and execrations of all Posterity But now under Queen Elizabeth other Circumstances are to be consider'd why some of the Godly innovations under Edward the Sixth were not revived For first She was rather of her Father 's than Somerset's Religion believ'd and practis'd Invocation of Saints approv'd of Images in Churches was no Admirer of Clerical Marriages nor yet very fond of her new Power of Supremacy given her by Protestants that she might requite them with a Church and a Creed much less of that foreign Drug Zuinglianism professing on all occasions her firm adherence to a Real Presence However to fortifie the weakness of her Title that had been Question'd by Catholicks and Condemn'd by Protestants she was perswaded to restore the Schism begun and assume the Supremacy extorted by her Father but for alterations in other points meerly Doctrinal Protestants do confess her somewhat resty resenting her tepid proceedings with warm Contumelies and most virulent reproaches which shews that her pleasure security or interest not their extravagances was the measure whereby Religion was setled and that Conscience did a little tho Policy more influence transactions She qualified the Title but not the Power or Use of Supremacy extending it as far as either her Father or Brother had done She did perhaps desire to unite the Nation but I suppose it was in that Faith she held and the majority of the Nation with her otherwise she was put upon a very odd method of Union it being easier to bring a few to close with what 's setled or least removed from it than to convert a majority from an old established Religion to embrace the contradictory novelties of a few Thus she setled her Religion and whatever like Jeroboam she devised out of her own heart and it continued without any visible alteration by Authority till the Return of Charles II. when Protestants being about to repair what their Brethren had endeavour'd to demolish the Puritans at the Savoy-Conference 1661 amongst other cunning demands whereby both the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England were undermin'd inserted the restoring of the Black Rubrick into favour but were answer'd that It was not in Queen Elizabeth's Liturgy nor confirm'd by Law nor needful However that wealthy Faction's obliging importunities or pretence of mighty satisfaction that it would give to Dissenters overcame if not the Clergy yet a potent Favourite and so with a few emendations too slight as some sufficient as others thought to save the Church's Doctrine this goodly Henoticon stole into the Liturgy Stole into it I say if with the connivance of any yet with the scandal of the best of the Clergy who on all occasions exprest their dislike of it as truly inconsistent with their Faith and without that effect either of gaining other Sectaries to their promiscuous Communion as was pretended or stilling their clamors and disgusts against kneeling at the Communion And this I am perswaded is the most impartial and exactest account that matter of fact yeilds of the English giddiness tossings and variations in matters of Religion Pag. 77. l. 21. Now these Exceptions against founding an Article of Faith on a Philosophical Maxim being most of them founded on the former mistaken Notion of the Real Presence c. That the Discourser's Notion of the Real Presence was the same the Church of England has asserted is evidenc'd the Minister's Replies therefore are unsatisfactory and it was rightly inferr'd from the high Expressions used by the Members of that Communion concerning the Eucharist as that 't is an ineffable Mystery full of Miracles incomprehensible to not to be measured by sense or reason c. that they believed something in it seemingly this word was omitted by the Transcriber opposite to humane reason But whether the word were omitted or no Not to be agreeable to human Reason to captivate the mind to be incomprehensible to men's wit to do violence to the Principles of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy Protestant language concerning this Sacrament and other Mysteries are not far short of opposite and coutradictory to human Reason So that a Revelation clear and evident must be submitted-to according to Calvin and Bishop Taylor tho it agree not with Reason tho it propose something incomprehensible and which does violence to it Neither is it a manifest contradiction that a Natural Body should be in more places than One at the same time but manifestly no contradiction as all that know the Rules of Opposition must confess That the same Body should be in a place and not in that place at the same time is a contradiction But this is a Proposition very wide from the other To be and not to be is not equivalent to that To be here and elsewhere too whereby the failure of what the Answerer writes against the second Observation p. 80. l. 14. is manifest For there may be such things as perfect contradictions known to us and yet all that seems to be so to some upon severer scrutiny may prove not so to them or to sharper Judgments The instance is before us Even to this very Minister that seems a contradiction which is none The utmost force of Nature much more of Omnipotence is not so easily comprehended as confident who commonly are the least experienc'd and adverting men boast The more we enquire into them the more sensible shall we be of the narrowness of our knowledg and shortness of our faculties especially when we reflect how modestly persons of vast experience of very capacious and improv'd intellects such as Bishop Forbes c. have spoken in the same case That we are unable in all oppositions to discern the true distance and whether it amount to a real contradiction or no and therefore God may do what may seem to us impossible as well by his ordinary as absolute Power Whereupon in points abstruse where there appears seeming contradictions on the one hand and a Revelation on the other this consideration attended by a just deference to infinite Power ought to move us to captivate our understandings and neglect the objections from nature and reason being joyful to exert the humility of our Minds and to demonstrate we measure not the immense Majesty of our Creator by our selves his worthless potsherds
This thought so becoming a Creature doubtless instructed Dr. Taylor and others to promise their assents to a plain Revelation notwithstanding any pretended Contradictions from Sense or Reason Not because they fancy'd there could be no such Revelation but because they knew themselves incompetent Judges of possibility and believ'd God can do what man may conceit unfeasible whilst more conceited men what Pride is this will protest he cannot Pag. 83. l. 10. If by Zuinglianism he means c. a meer Commemoration c. Were we inclin'd to judge of this Minister's opinion concerning the Eucharist by his Jewish method of expounding the nature of it in general p. 1. he must pass with us for a Socinian One that believes the Eucharist to be a meer Commemoration Did the Passover contain or confer Grace Was it more than a memorial of the Israelites Deliverance out of Egypt And what Scripture does he produce that tells him clearly that the Eucharist contains or confers Grace or it only without our Lord's substance Nay further to convince him of his imprudence to speak no harsher in so heinous a miscarriage in preferring the Synagogue before the Church for his Guide in explicating a Christian Sacrament p. 5. l. 20. Does he not in plain terms conclude for this worse sort of the Sacramentary Heresie elsewhere disown'd His words are So was this Holy Eucharist establisht upon the Analogy which we have seen to the Paschal Supper whose place it supplies and whose Ceremonies it so exactly retains that it seems only to have heightned the design and chang'd the application to a more excellent Remembrance What is this else but the refinedst Zuinglianism but that very Socinianism which in this 83d page is not allow'd But if this Minister think such a collection from one period too rigorous and captious I may challenge him to shew any other sence can be put on it or on the whole parallel for six or seven pages drawn between the Paschal Lamb and the Lord's Supper We meet with no more than Remembrance Commemoration shewing the Lord's Death and not a syllable of grace or benefit and indeed his parallel without straining would not reach thither A Socinian might have composed and may subscribe that Introduction without any injury to his erroneous sentiments concerning the Eucharist These are the dreadful consequences of immoderate heats against a Doctrine which we confute because we hate Ibid. l. 14. If by Zuinglianism he understands such a Real presence c. nor shall we be ashamed to own it c. Why not seeing what he owns is at best but the Sacramentary Doctrine A Doctrine disown'd by the genuine Sons of that Church wherein he is a Minister and by the Church it self never countenanced till the Puritan Sect prevailed in it A Doctrine novel and therefore without Ground in either Scripture or Fathers A Doctrine said to begin with the curiosities of Erigena Sunt aliae quae vocum novitatibus desectantes unde sibi inanes comparant rumusculos contra fidei Catholicae veritatem dicunt viz. quod Sacramenta Altaris non verum corpus sanguis sint Domini sed tantum memoria veri corporis sanguinis ejus Hinâ—m in L. de Praedest a vagrant Buffoon in the 9th and revived and retracted by Berengarius in the 11th Age. Broacht again by Carolostadius or Oecolampadius as some say or by Zuinglius a Spirit black or white he knew not which suggesting it in a dream as himself says But surely 1 Cor. 10.16 is literally for this creditable Doctrine so far from being so that t is literally against it if Bishop Cosins cited below had the gift of interpreting This Answerer must not think himself able to conclude from that Scripture Our Lord's Body is communicated by Grace but with much more reason I will collect that its Substance is communicated also inasmuch as the communication of a Body is more likely to imply the communication of its Substance with the attendent properties than of these without it Pag. 84. l. 8. I will close this Discourse with a plain and familiar example A Father makes his last Will c. This familiar example does not accord with Bishop Cosin's Doctrine Hist Trans p. 43. where he writes We do not say that in this holy Supper we are partakers of the fruit only of the Death and Passion of Christ but join the ground with the fruits which accrue to us from it asserting with the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread c. yea in that same substance which he assum'd in the Virgin 's Womb and which he carried to Heaven in this only differing from the Papists that they believe this eating and conjunction to be made corporally we not in any natural or corporal manner but yet as truly as if we were naturally or corporally join'd to Christ How different is this Doctrine from what the Minister would inculcate by his Allusion tho indeed that allusion if pursued will convey us directly to a substantial presence for the Will is never perfectly accomplish'd nor obtain'd till the Son have Seisin and corporal possession of the Land bequeathed that is the substance as well as title of it Now the Promise of giving his Body is our Lord's Will or corresponds to the written Instrument but the actual giving of his Body to us as St. Gregory Nyssen Qui sua potestate cuncta disponit non ex proditione sibi impendentem necessitatem non Judaeorum quasi praedonum impetum non iniquam Pilati sententiam expectat ut eorum malitia sit communis hominum salutis principium causa sed consilio suo antevertit arcano sacrificii genere quod ab hominibus cerni non poterat seipsum pro nobis hostiam offert victimam immolat Sacerdos simul existens Agnus Dei ille qui mundi peccatum tollit Quando id praestitit cum corpus suum Discipulis congregatis edendum sanguinem bibendum praebuit tunc aperte declaravit Agni sacrificium jam esse perfectum Nam victimae corpus non est ad edendum idoneum si animatum sit quare cum corpus edendum sanguinem bibendum Discipulis exhibuit jam arcana non aspectabili ratione corpus erat immolatum ut ipsius mysterium peragentis potestati collibuerat anima in illis erat in quibus eadem illa potestas illam deposuit S. Greg. Nyss in prima Orat. de resur Dom. and St. Augustin Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis S. Aug. concione 1. in Ps 33. affirm he did it to his Disciples in the Institution of the Eucharist answers the entring on the Estate The former renders us but Heirs this Inheritors also Pag. 86. l. 15. For the doctrine of the Church of England against Adoration we shall need go no further than the Rubrick c. If
or what was the little further than was fit that they were forced to strain Next here 's another retreat to the Pacifick Humor to evade passages out of these Authors not proposed as terms of agreement or abatements to be yeilded or winkt at in order to an union but as certain truths justly maintain'd by the one side and perversly denied by the other the Quotations are true and they are conclusive but now the end and so the authority of the Authors must come into contempt and their design overthrow their evidence But what Is committing and defending Idolatry as they do if this man be in the right in them but straining a little more than is fit and in us a crime never to be sufficiently aggravated Pag. 91. l. 1. Will he himself allow every thing to be the Doctrine c. The Discourser allows that to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church which she not which any private Doctor without her allowance declares to be so and supposes tho not Bishop Taylor yet Bishop Andrews and King James to be of like authority with the genuine Sons of the Church of England as a Council is with us The reason is because the Head of the English Church hath all that Spiritual Power any Ecclesiastical person or persons ever challenged or exercised in England and may delegate it as the King did to Bishop Andrews in this case If the Minister had told us where St. Thomas Paludanus and Catherine assure him 't is Idolatry to Adore an unconsecrated Host thro mistake we might have understood what species of Idolatry they had esteem'd it since Protestants have lately discover'd a damnable and a saving sort of Idolatry for if of the later kind the danger incurr'd by an invincible mistake is inconsiderable However this we may learn thence That those Doctors did not hold either the substance or accidents of the Host unconsecrated Adorable nor did Adore either of them in an Host consecrated but something else that by Consecration became present in the Eucharist unless we can imagine they had there two objects adorable or made Christ and what remain'd after Consecration but one thing The Minister had dealt more ingenuously too if he had nam'd the several of our Writers that make our Adoration a worse Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty-of because the Person to whom that is imputed is abus'd if all be true the Answer to Dr. More tells us p. 47. viz. That the Doctor mistook Costerus his Ground of confessing at such a rate and moreover foisted in Transubstantiation which is not there Costerus arguing only thus If the true Body of Christ be not in the Eucharist Christ has dealt unworthily with his Church fail'd of his engagements to lead her into all truth and holiness and on the contrary seduc'd her by his own words to a fundamental impiety whereupon he could not be a true Christ and she must have worshipt not only a true object where it is not but an Impostor also and an object absolutely incapable of such Honour because Christ must then be not only a meer Creature but as Mahomet or Satan one of the worst of Creatures Ibid. l. 8. For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I find it thus clearly set down in the Council of Trent c. We understand why he chuses to give our Doctrine out of the Chapter rather than out of the Canon It is not his way to represent our Points with the right side outward but if He will be so equal as to accept of such answers as himself hath often give the mist he raises before his Reader 's Eyes will be quickly dispell'd For if the sixth Canon of the same Session may interpret the fifth Chapter the illusion is escap'd if it may not why has he so often vexed us with Replies of the same nature which he despises His translation too of the Chapter is not accurate and tho I discern no great advantage got by this ill version yet his whole carriage in this controversie is so unhandsom that I fear I ought to complain rather of his sincerity than Learning Is quin exhibeant render'd well ought to give Or Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo D. ut sumatur institutum done rightly into for it is nevertheless to be adored because it was instituted by our Lord Christ that it might be receiv'd This is not the sense of that Clause but rather thus It is not the less to be Adored tho it were instituted by our Lord Christ to be Received This to shew the Minister's Translating Talent Now for his Arguing That according to this Council is to be worshipp'd which Christ instituted to be receiv'd Right He instituted that his Body Sacramentally existing should be received and this the Council says may be worshipped And in which they believe Christ to be present False Not it wherein Christ is present but Christ present in it is that the Council says may be Ador'd But Sir to expostulate with you a while for your treacherous method Why did you pick out the chapter and not the canon to shew our undoubted Doctrine Were you not aware there was such a canon wherein our Faith was contain'd as undoubtedly and more precisely even above the cavil and misunderstanding of either the Malignant or those they seduce Was it because you would have been depriv'd of a convenience to delude your People the complex and ambiguous terms Sacrament or Host as you fondly express our Doctrine there affording you no fallacies The canon does exclude all your pretences that we Adore the symbols or species with Divine worship which you would insinuate by your calling our Adoration an Adoration of the Sacrament or Host Tho these terms as Mr. Thorndike observes suggest to such as make not cavilling their business no other than the adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament Did you not peruse what is written from § 11. to § 17. in the 2d Treatise on purpose to vindicate our Doctrine from Dr. Taylor 's and Dr. Stilling feeet's comments and prevent such tricks as you now play Will no Answers satisfy you no cautions retrench your exorbitances but still such wild and malicious and seigned notions must be repeated by every little smatterer in Theology as if never exposed by us and all this to ingratiate with the vulgar grow famous and obtain pluralities Sine-cures and Dignities for such service against Popery Are you ignorant that a Council may express it self less or more distinctly or obscurely concerning a point without derogating from either its authority or infallibility as serving in the one and failing in the other unless whatever is determined by authority or infallibility must be equally perspicuous is Scripture so and all their chapters as exact as their creeds When you remember the Canon are you remorseless for writing that this Assertion by adoring the Sacrament no more nor other is intended than adoring Christ
in the Sacrament must pass for a private opinion not a Catholick assertion Where does the Discourser seem to grant the Church's expression improper Does he not on the contrary tell you that Soave and all humble Sons of the Church are obliged to take Ecclesiastical language as well as Christian sense from her i. e. that her expressions with her interpretations are proper tho in your mouth attended with your perversions they become a snare How many Ecclesiastical phrases has the Church bin constrain'd to proscribe thro this pravity of seducers that imploy her orthodox terms to maintain or convey their impieties That the Word is of like substance to his Father that our B. Lady is the Mother of Christ are sentences capable of a sound sense and might be used without suspicion or offence till the Arians and Nestorians mis-imploy'd them Thus it is with adoring the Sacrament or Host the Church and Catholick Doctors have rightly used these expressions and we all understand them accordingly but in England where they are wrested to purposes the Church never dream't of we justly except against them and choose to deliver our selves so as shall be most secure from calumny When therefore you contest with us either take our terms in our sense or you beat the air As to Cardinal Palavicini's words they amount to this only that we are not to withold Adoration to a while whereof onely out part is sovereignly adorable till the several parts exist separately for if so we shall never adore our Lord they do not import that in adoring the whole we give sovereign worship to the species or own them to have any motive for or to be the end of such Adoration for we do not allow so much to our Lord's Humanity abstractedly considered much less to his Garments or the Sacramental veils Wherefore if by Sacrament and Host this Answerer would mean what the Church does the res Sacramenti our Lord sacramentally existing we joyn issue with him that t is our undoubted Doctrine That the Sacrament or Host is adorable but if he intends otherwise as we have too much occasion to conclude he does the Council in the very chapter cited by him corrects his corruption of our Doctrine in adding to this purpose for her reason of adoring the Sacrament in the Sacrament That is adored wherein there is an innate motive or excellence why we should worship it and which therefore alone can be the object and end of our worship for at this it aims in adding For we believe the very same God present in the Sacrament of whom at his introducing into the world the Father saith Let all the Angels adore him So that this wise and ever to be received Synod as it were foreseeing that men would arise speaking perverse things prudently acquaints us with its sense of adoring the Sacrament as soon as it had declared that it may be done strait pointing to whom the worship is directed and on whom terminated on him that is in it non on it that signifies and conceals him Pag. 93. l. 28. I have fully shewn this new fancy to be neither the Doctrine of the Church of England nor c. Having granted the first three Protestant concessions he stands at the fourth upon a pretence that he has already refuted the Authorities whereon it is founded which is untrue as is manifest above where this Champion's atchievements are displayed and revers'd and besides to back this fourth Proposition new Authorities are annex'd from Bishop Cosins Archbishop Bramhal and Monsieur Daille to which he is mute retiring from them without the least notice or reflection Pag. 94. l. 32. So that then with this limitation his 5th Proposition that the Lutherans adore I presume may be admitted c. If the Answerer adhere to what he concedes p. 87.93 i.e. in the first Supposition and third Protestant concession in consequence of their opinion they all ought to adore if they do not and Chemnitius agrees as much saying No man denies it adoration but such as with the Sacramentaries deny or doubt of the Presence of Christ in the Supper Pag. 95. l. 12. We are ready to admit it the 6th Concession That the belief of a Real presence is not so criminal as to oblige them to break communion always supposing that the belief of it had not bin pressed c. Then the Protestants have generally mistaken their business in spending their raillery hitherto not on the mischief of imposition but chiefly on the erroneousness of our tenets and enormity of our practices as both very destructive to salvation and Dissenters do well to insist on the heinousness of injoyning as a term of communion what they can discern to be no better than humane inventions If the belief of a Real presence be no such pernicious corruption neither can Adoration that follows upon it how then can the imposition of such inconsiderable things outweigh in guilt a rupture of Catholick communion and a violation of charity together with all the deadly sins of Fanaticisin and enmity springing from division and loosness The points are almost harmless and indifferent our Adversaries confess but if imposed as a necessary Article of communion and the disobedient anathematized then the Church may be defied and the belief and practice become so criminal as to justify a separation suppose of one Minister from all Christians So that when the Faith and customs of the Catholick Church give no colour for a Schism the exercise of her Authority may and she becomes as an heathen or a publican for requiring such to hear her whom our Lord hath declared shall be accounted so for not hearing her and she must either relax her Discipline enlarge or contract the conditions of her Society as every individual shall demand tho they neither think nor live as she prescribes or become schismatical If private Christians must be Arbiters what shall or shall not be terms of Catholick communion why may not some as justly recede from the Church because she does not as others because she does impose terms whereat these have a pique and wherewith those are pleased the Novatian Donatist and Luciferian charge against the Church was That its communion was promiscuous and Latitudinarian The Accusation was false yet they were right in this that there are certain terms of Christian communion which are indispensably to be submitted to by all that will be members of the Catholick Church tho all the terms they accounted such were not so and not themselves but the Church was to distinguish But here the strictness of communion is our sault and comprehension would make either no Sectaries or them mexcusable However from Daille's granting that if the Church of Rome had obliged her children to worship Christ in the Sacrament she had not obliged them to worship a creature we conclude she did not impose Idolatry because t is certain she never obliged them to worship any thing in the Sacrament but
somewhat may not be spoken there have bin opposed to these two Discourses an Answer printed at London and a Reply at Oxford neither of them taking much notice of the Author's intention but spending their learning chiefly about Transubstantiation I cannot say altogether from but not much to the purpose Both of them also declare their own opinions to be against the Real presence of our Saviour's body and blood in that holy Sacrament and thereby acknowledge themselves members of the modern or present Church of England and consequently minister another argument of the inconstancy and weakness of that Church And so let them do But that they should perswade us that the ancient Church of England and her best writers were of the same judgment cannot be performed it being both against their express writings and the judgment generally of their new Church as of Baily Prin Hen Hickman and as many as have written to justify the Puritans against the Church of England who all accused the Antipuritans as Heylin Laurence Pocklinton and the rest to have bin Popishly affected as also did the pretended Reformers in their Doctrine forsaking Calvin and embracing Zuinglius who upon this ground amongst some others refused to communicate with those of the Church of England tho of late they denied not to admit the Lutherans To these Reformers the new Church of England-men have bin pleased for reasons well enough perceived to joyn themselves Neither is there any thing considerable in the one which is not in the other of these writers The Answerer seems to have more learning the Replier is better at cavilling and mockery and had it not bin to shew this talent he needed not to have troubled the world with a new Book He saith indeed it is in defence of their quarters but for this who is bonae who malae fidei possessor we appeal to the judgment of our pious and munificent Founders who will one day declare whether they designed their bounties for them who hold it not lawful to pray for them who frustrate their chief intention count them Idolaters and members of a false Church It was long deliberated whether it were worth the labour to take any publick notice of these Pamphlets It was said that they were so crudely negligently and uncandidly written that no man of parts learning or true piety could be misled by them That the Discourses notwithstanding these oppositions remain not only unshaken and unviolated but much confirmed and justified when so many persons both at London and Oxford can find no other besides these weak and insignificant exceptions against them tho they take the liberty to say what they please even to the defamation of their own Church That every thing said against anothers writing as there is nothing more easie than to misrepresent change cavil c even against truth it self however called is not an Answer St. Austin complained of his Adversaries the Pagans who writ against his Books de civit Dei l. 5. c. 27. Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse cum qui tacere noluerit Quid est loquacius vanitate quia ideo non potest quod veritas quia si voluerit etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas c. The Vulgar for whose palats these discourses seem cooked who make themselves Judges of the most difficult controversies whereof they are least capable pronounce against him who replieth not speedily and is of his side who is not silent That our Author's writings carry with them such evidence and satisfactoriness by the perfection of their d sposition stile learning arguing c which every ingenious Reader sees by experience that we need not fear to suffer those already printed to pass without a vindication or to publish those which as yet remain with us without alteration But because care is also to be taken for young men for such as are doubting or weak in the faith and especially for such as in sincerity seek after the truth and may be deturned from it either by the craftiness or confidence of its Adversaries and because we would not be altogether wanting to our duty or leave the defence of the Truth to her self we have taken this course to print 1. A short Treatise many years ago written of the great controversy concerning the Eucharist wherein in a manner the whole opposition of the Answer and Reply is prevented and both the truth and diversity of Opinions concerning the presence of our Lord in the Sacrament plainly laid open to such as are desirous to know it 2. Two Appendixes the first against the Answerer proving copiously and manifestly That the Ancient and Learned Divines of the Church of England did acknowledge as their writings every where set forth some real and substantial presence of our Lord such as is ascribed to them by the two Treatises The second chiefly aims at as plain and easy an Explication of the Doctrine of the Church in this great mystery as we can and to remove the prejudices and offences which the Replier with others of the new Zuinglian Church of England pretend against it And tho the Doctrine of the Catholick Church hath bin so often manifestly proved against their exceptions yet do they continually repeat the old Objections insomuch that we have no hopes to do good to them nor to any such as take delight in insolence and scoffery the most obvious and trivial sort of wit the daughter of uncharitableness and mother of libels and all sort of scurrility against those who endeavour themselves to follow and manifest to others the true and undoubted Church of God and way of salvation And they who for this pious endeavour are mocked and scorned ought not to make returns in the same nature than which nothing is more easy to him that takes liberty of saying what he pleaseth but possess themselves in patience considering that their condition were very much to he suspected if they were not thus treated for these are Indices of a righteous cause and tracks of their Predecessors And indeed what less can they expect who according to their duty to the holy Catholick Church their Prince and Nation spend themselves and their time to reduce their countrymen for whose sake as S. Paul for the Jews they are ready to sacrifice their lives and all they have out of the most horrible and fatal sin of Schism to the Unity of the Church out of the dangerous principles of disobedience and sedition to a just and due submission unto their own Prince and out of popular and rebellious Perswasions and suggestions to an establishment of a firm and grounded peace a and unity of the Church and Nation § 1 1. Note that there is a Natural body and there is a Spiritual body Concerning the Real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist the same body under several proprieties and conditions The Natural we call that which enjoys the same qualities wherewith it was created and as the
them or he doth not know it and then why will he undertake to confute them whose Doctrine he doth not understand The same absurd error of local presence of our Lord he every where goes about to confute which the Catholicks disdain as well as the Zuinglians How impertinent to urge out of the Rubricks c. What new kind of answering is this so frequent in the Replier It is very unreasonable yet proper to and frequent with this Replier that he should teach his Adversary what to say It is an easy matter to answer what himself suggests but not so usual to propose what he would confute But to say somewhat to this also the Homilies are not quoted because they are of no authority having bin set on soot even as some of their own Bishops disputing against the Puritans have owned only pro tempore and to serve a turn And what say the Articles of them but that they contain wholsom and pious doctrine necessary for those times But do not they also contain some not pious wholsom or orthodox The authorized Catechism is clear enough for the Catholick Doctrine as is proved Appendix I. but he means Nowel's Puritanical Catechism as also Bradford and Hooper of whom we know nothing but what Fox a man of no authority reports from themselves He also is angry that Cranmer is not consulted a man whose character is truly set out in App. I. as may be shewed in due time For the present let it suffice that we think him of no authority as neither is Burnet But is not the Replier in difficulties when he can find no Patrons but such as these The Church of England hath always held a Real presence so far as a real participation implies one But if there be no real participation of his Body at all as this Replier afterwards every where confesseth but onely of the Benefits of his Sufferings then by his own confession there is no Real presence But this being the main point of the difference upon which this Replier insists let us search a little deeper I say then 1. That in the beginning of the pretended Reformation under Edw. VI. the Doctrine of the Church of England was That our Lord's Body and Blood were really by really I mean essentially substantially present in the Eucharist This is plain by the words of Consecration and delivery of the Sacrament where the very form of the Catholick Church was kept only with the addition of such words as more effectually concluded it The Catholick form is Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam The English was The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life When the Common prayer-book was sent into Scotland this Form was re-introduced and the other addition refused which kindled a mighty flame in Scotland they apprehending it to be Popery as appears by Baily's Ladensium autocatacrisis Now it cannot be imagined that the Liturgy-makers should translate the words of the Mass and yet intend to give them a quite different signification without giving any notice of it to the people That the people who had bin brought up to understand the real body of our Lord by corpus Domini custodiat animam tuam the next day should hearing the same words in English understand only the real benefits of Christ's passion and not understand at all how these benefits could be eaten or given by the Priest or how they were given for rather than to the people as neither how they should preserve the Receiver's body Truly our Author and the Catholicks have too great a kindness for the Church of England than to impose upon her such an abominable prevarication sufficient to drive away all men from her communion But if the words were so to be understood and no alteration intended why should they in the next edition within so few years alter them after another manner and quite different intention But of this by and by 2ly I say that before the death of King Edw. VI. they altered their doctrine from a Real presence of our Lord's body to real effects or benefits of his Passion or somewhat like it if yet they acknowledged any benefits at all for in the first it was preserve thy body and soul c which was a real benefit but in the second is none but Do this in remembrance of Christ's sufferings and feed on him c but what benefit or benediction is received is not expressed for they altered all things in the Liturgy which might any way countenance the benefits of real presence They kept indeed the words of Consecration but gave over the handling the Chalice Patin c so that they left the words without application to any matter that every man might understand them as he pleased Which was also the reason why they omitted the words of delivery substituting Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving This what individuum vagum or perhaps nothing if nothing consecrated as it seems or perhaps something but they know not what as not being resolved of that point but only that it was not the real body of our Saviour This appears also by the Rubrick by the Articles and Declaration all which are set down plainly by our Author ch 1. The 3d Alteration was made by Q. Elizabeth at her coming to the Crown For she being as is noted zealous for the Doctrine of the Real presence and divers of the Clergy then Genevized against it they made another change leaving out many things as the second had done out of the first and some things established in the second particularly the Rubric and the Declaration in the Article but in the words of delivery joyning both forms together So that it was dressed for all palates whether according to the simplicity and sincerity of the Gospel I judge not But those of the Church of England who were less infected with Geneva considering these things broached a new opinion That the Body of our Lord was indeed really in the Eucharist but not with the Symbols but to the Receiver only and hereby indeed they salved the words of the form but whether effectively and according to truth I refer you to the first of these Appendixes In King James's time there seems not to be any considerable alteration save that there was added in the Catechism a few questions concerning the Eucharist entirely conformable to this Doctrine of the Church of England which distinguishing the benefits from the thing received they say that the Body of our Lord is there truly and indeed and translate it vere revera How realiter and revera differ I know not as neither why the Replier should applaud the Church of England for not using the word really which rather seems a confession of her guilt of Schism inasmuch as in those
indeed our Replier's Opinion seems to dislike the word this and thinks it should rather be these Benefits which neither can be eaten nor consecrated nor require any symbols But he saith these Ceremonies were practis'd by divers but he instanceth only in Bishop Jewel Mr. Rastal's testimony he groundlesly denies For we know that in the late times till it was re-commanded by the Rubric few practis'd it or indeed regarded it as a thing of Consequence Which doubtless was the reason of that Command in the Margin it was recall'd into use because disused and the Replier's Reason insufficient P. 6. Gloria in Excelsis Deo and Benedictus qui venit are two Hymns the first plac'd in this part of the Mass as is commonly said by St. Telesphorus the Ninth Bishop of Rome from St. Peter and was the Congratulation of the Angels for the Lord 's coming into the world as the Benedictus was for his Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem both most properly applied to the beginning of this Office as rejoicing for his coming to be present upon the Altar Such universal ancient solemn parts of God's Service were not omitted by chance nor would they have been so had they not contain'd an Argument against the new-devised Absence of the Lord from his people The Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus was not anciently call'd the Trisagium but Hymnus Angelicus Victorialis The Trisagium was Sanctus Deus Sanctus fortis Sanctus immortalis not so much used in the Western as in the Eastern Church which was sung when the Priest approached the Quire v. Menardum To which some add after fortis some after immortalis Qui Crucifixus es pro nobis And they as most of the Asiaticks who apply'd the Hymn to our Saviour meant no harm but they who attributed it to the Trinity as the Constantinopolitans and the West generally condemned it But this only obiter as also that concerning the Receiver's answering Amen which as our Author proves by irrefragable testimonies were it worth the pains to vindicate them not to have been an answer to a Prayer but an acknowledgment of our Lord's Presence there We will add notwithstanding what we find in St. Ambrose's Works l. 4. c. 5. de Sacramentis Non otiose cum accipis dicis Amen Jam in Spiritu confiteris quod accipias corpus Christi Dicit Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis Amen i. e. verum est Quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The omission of these words these Holy Mysteries might be purely accidental And might not be so For they have a signification contrary to the Opinion of the Reformers and all other deniers of the real presence of our Lord nor can they find any mystery in taking eating a Morsel of Bread and a Sup of Wine and remembring our Lord's death and sufferings and then by faith feeding upon him not receiv'd This perhaps is a mystery for I do not understand it P. 7. No fault with the second Form Faulty enough certainly because contrary to the former Book which to prove was the Author's chief intention and consequently from that of the Church of Christ 2. Because either non-sense or to most unintelligible either what is meant by this or by feeding on our Saviour's benefits by Faith. P. 8. These words that these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine may be to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son in the Reformation of the Liturgy were left out because manifestly owning a real change and were not restor'd in Qu. Elizabeth's Liturgy For She probably could not examine all the Alterations by her own self and her Bishops being inclin'd to Zuinglianism did not willingly restore any thing against their own Opinion Afterward Archbishop Laud restor'd it in the Scottish Liturgy For which he was severely censur'd by Baily's Laudensium Autocatacrisis This being as he saith a notable Argument for Transubstantiation at least for the real presence to the Receiver it was Tho it is most certain the Archbishop did not incline to defend Transubstantiation but only the real presence to the Receiver according to the Doctrine of the Church of England mis-understood by that Puritan Pag. 10. Dishonestly or ignorantly worded False They are natural Deductions or rather Propositions almost verbatim taken out of the Declaration whereas those the Replier after his new way of answering would rather have them modell'd into are Nonsense Pag. 11. Calvin and Beza are mentioned because by them were the English Reformers much directed tho our Author doth not ty himself up to speak only of the Church of England-men The Author makes use of Conciliators as being less biassed and therefore better disposed to understand the truth and obliged by their design to a more accurate examination of the Doctrines of both parties and a more strict declaration of them as being assur'd to be opposed by both parties Mr. Thorndike he saith had in this matter opinions of his own agreeable neither to the Catholick nor Church of England The like he saith of our Author p. 1. I am afraid the fault is not in the object but the organ his endeavour to blast so learned a person shews him to have bin rightly quoted by our Author But why should I spend more pains to vindicate the opinions of the Doctors of the English Church which is sufficiently performed in the discourse in the History of the English Reformation from § 148 and by the Discourse here newly printed and the first Appendix to it Pag. 12. The quotations out of Dr. Taylor are most true but if that Doctor was not constant to himself or his own opinion or if by forget fulness he speaks one thing in one place and otherwise â—n another or if he did not throughly understand the difference and therefore vented many undigested and incoherent notions as he seems to most men to have done what is that to us May not we make use of the good wheat because tares are mingled with it Yet I do not remember that he any where sustains as our Replier doth that the Protestants may use the same terms as the Catholicks and yet in a quite different sense But are we come in this great question to may use the terms of the Church in a quite different notion than Antiquity and the Church hath and doth still use them but let them use them as they please only they should give notice of their meaning and tell the world that their words are like Jacob's but their intention like Esau and so plainly confess their heresy and not seek to coyer it with such sorry fig-leaves Pag. 13. Of those to say no worse irreverent expressions of our receiving the dead body and dead blood of our Lord let the Replier and his Capernaits enjoy the honour we content our selves to believe and know that our Lord in this Sacrament is become to us a quickning Spirit How our Lord's body now glorified is received by us as representing his death and sufferings
sententiam a Christi verbis recedere i. e. I conceive as they take the Third Opinion to affirm ipsum panem esse corpus Domini for this seems much more unreasonable than Hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus Domini sive litera spectetur sive sensus affirmat R. Hospin hist Sacr. parte altera p. 7. c. Calviniani communiter See Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 20. where speaking of some of the Lutherans affirming proprie loquendo panem esse corpus Christi he argues that consequently they must say panem esse Christum because totus Christus offertur in coena and then concludes intolerabilis autem Blasphemia est sine figura Praedicari de elemento corruptibili quod sit corpus Again s 30. inveighing against Lutherans Ubiquity he saith Papistarum tolerabilior vel saltem magis verecunda est doctrina And see Judicious Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. s 67. how indifferently he behaves himself between the two Tenents of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation censuring them both only as Opinions unnecessary and superfluous and p. 361. saying of the later the Transubstantialists that they justly shun some Labyrinths of the former the Consubstantialists but yet that the way which they take to the same Inn is somewhat more short but no whit more certain See likewise Spalat Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. n. 6. Fateor neque Transubstantiationem neque Ubiquitatem haeresin ullam directe continere c. § XI 7. Yet even those Reformed who cry out of the Fourth Opinion as Heretical Obs 7 Diabolical Blasphemous c. for such also there are Seventhly Observe That for the most part those of the Second Opinion hold the Third notwithstanding the near alliance it appears to have with the Fourth no ways Heretical or tho erroneous destructive of any fundamental or prinpal Article of Faith unless by some Consequences renounced by those who hold the Third Opinion and therefore giving no just cause of any separation of Communion from any such Credere quod caro Christi ubique est quod in pane est oraliter manducetur idque etiam ab impiis stipula palea est Par. in 1 Cor. 3. See many quotations in Bishop Forb Euch. l. 1. c. 4. See likewise Daille's Charity in the place quoted before in the end of the Fourth Observation p. 16. notwithstanding those dangerous Consequences of the Third Opinion of destroying Christ's Humanity by Ubiquity and of Adoration by presence with the Elements See Bishop Hall's Davenant's Morton's Discourses De Pace Ecclesiastica How far can men bend when they have a good mind to it See particularly Bish Hall p. 73. Res apud utrosque eadem c. At last he brings in the Decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton in which the Lutherans are receiv'd to their Communion as agreeing with them in omnibus verae Religionis principiis Articulisque fundamentalibus See Disc conc Rub. of Eng. §. 12. How well therefore the same men can refuse Communion with those of the Fourth Opinion supposing the falsity thereof or asperse it with the name of Heresie c. I see not and perhaps the more moderate do not refuse nor quarrel with it for this But the thing they blame is Adoration or the imposing their Transubstantiation on others as an Article of Faith of which anon to which purpose Daille in his Answer to the Remarks made by Chaumont on his Apology p. 20. hath these words after vindicating Beza and Calvin from holding any real Presence of Christ's Body in the Signs Mais bienque nous ne croyons pas c. Altho we believe no such Presence in the Signs yet we esteem not that Belief so criminal as that it obligeth us to break off Communion with those who hold it as it appears by our tolerating it in the Lutherans So that had the Church of Rome no other Error than this we voluntarily accord her to have given us no sufficient cause of Separation from her What is that Faith of Rome then which I alledg'd as a sufficient cause of Separation then he names this l' Adoration de l'Ostie Thus he § XII Having thus made a Cursory over the Four Opinions about the Eucharist give me leave now to reflect a little upon and search more strictly into the Second Opinion which I think is the Tenent of many of the Church of England Concerning which I do not well understand How it must not either fall into many of the difficulties and seeming contradictions of the Third and Fourth Opinions or slide back into the sense of the First the most intelligible and perspicuous indeed but thought by the rest too much diminutive of this tremendum Mysterium this ineffable Mystery § XIII Concerning the Second Opinion Now let us consider this Second Opinion first concerning its affirming or denying the real or substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Celebration of the Eucharist Next concerning its affirming or denying such Presence in or with the Signs As to the former the phrase of real Presence if we mean by it only presence in something real may be used by those who deny substantial presence For if Christ be present to us in the Eucharist in the benefits of his Passion in his Grace in his Spirit he is present to us in something real tho not in the reality of his Person But they going beyond all these even the last of them also the presence by his Spirit see before p. 2. neque enim mortis tantum c neque enim mihi satisfaciunt c. affirm a real and substantial presence for indeed what can real presence of a substance such as body and blood is be but substantial presence even of that body which suffered upon the Cross for us which presence they clearly contradistinguish to presence by effect influence virtue grace or an uniting of our bodies with Christ's body by the same Spirit abiding in both by which way things furthest distant if we call this presence may be said to be present to one another as long as there is any thing between them that immediately toucheth or informeth both so the head may be said to be present to the foot the Saints in heaven to those on earth the West to the East-Indies so the substantial presence of Christ's body and blood may be affirmed as well as here when ever there is any communication of his Spirit as in Baptism and as properly as the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless here so the Water that is then poured on us may be said to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ these manners of Presence therefore they count not enough to satisfy the Scripures and Tradition Therefore they speak of Eucharistical-presence as a great mystery Eph. 5. wrought by God's omnipotence after a manner ineffable or incomprehensible to man's reason Lastly as far in substantial
the same expression offrent pour le salut du corps de l'ame la vray image de Christ. And the Conc. Franckfort p 407. Qu'elle est faite invisiblement par l'esprit de Dieu consacree par le Prestre invoquant dieu portee par les mains Angeliques sule haut Autel de dieu the words in the Mass que par elle les peches sont remis qu' elle ne peut ni accroistre ni diminuer as Images are c. For these things Calvin Instit 4. l. 17. c. 11. s. after he had as much as might be mitigated the sence of Antiquity confesseth veteres quoque illos alio hanc memoriam detorsisse quam institutioni Domini conveniebat quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae immolationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferebat excusari non posse quin aliquid in actionis modo peccaverint Imitati sunt enim propius Judaticum Sacrificandi morem quam aut ordinaverat Christus aut Evangelii ratio ferebat And indeed it is somewhat strange that the Fathers are made in the matter still not to differ from the Reformed but in their language in their ceremonies confessed to concur with the Catholicks This using by the Ancients of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice before communicating I find not Dr. Tailor to take any notice of which yet methinks makes much for their conceiving a real presence with the signs concerning which is our present discourse 4. From their Adoration and also Invocation of the body of Christ on the Altar 4. Using adoration before communicating or with the Symbols I say not adoration of Christ's body or Christ as in Heaven in the act of communicating which is all owned by those of the first and second opinions tho I think only practised by the Church of England but adoration of Christ's body as present with the Symbols before communicating And such to have bin the practice of Antiquity I think will appear from many passages in the Fathers See Clem. Apost Const l. 2. c. 61. Diaconi absoluta oratione alli oblationi Eucharistiae sint intenti ministrantes corpori Domini cum timore alii c. And afterwards accipiant Dominicum corpus preciosum sanguinem gradatim cum pudore ac timore tanquam ad Regis Corpus accedentes Nazianz. Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae speaking of his sick Sister in the Night-time going to Church and praying before the Altar to be cured he saith Ad Altare cum fide procumbit eumque qui super illud colitur magno cum clamore obtestans c. After these I pray you read over again those quotations about Adoration of St. Austin and St. Ambrose Obs 2. Chrys Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Hoc corpus etiam jacens in praesepi reveriti sunt Magi cum multo metu ac tremore adorarunt Imitemar ergo vel barbaros nos coelorum cives c. Tu autem non in praesepi vides sed in Altari non foeminam eum tenentem sed sacerdotem vides astantem spiritum cum magna copia perabunde proposita supervolantem c. greater excitations of Reverence nos ergo ipsos excitemus formidemus longe majorem quam illi barbari ostendamus reverentiam c. Non enim Angelos nec Archang elos neque Coelos sed ipsum eorum ostendo Dominum Vidisti quemadmodum quod est omnium praestantissimum maxime honorandum vides interra neque solum vides sed etiam tangis sed etiam commedis c. Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antiochen Si pura sunt vestimenta adora communica In Ephes Hom. 3. he calls it sacrificium quod illi stupent venerantur Angeli So Hom. 83. in Mat. Angeli videntes horrescunt neque libere audent intueri propter emicantem inde splendorem Se the former Quotation p. 98. The places are frequent in Chrysostom where he speaks of the presence and adoration and trembling of Angels at these Sacred Mysteries This for Adoration but see him also for Invocation Hom. 41. in 1 Cor. Non sunt enim haec temere excogitata he speaks of Praying and Offering the Eucharist for the Dead neque frustra corum qui decesserunt in divinis mysteriis meminimus Et pro ipsis accedimus rogantes agnum propositum qui mundi peccatum tulit sed ut inde eis aliqua sit consolatio c. And see Hom. 21. in Acta Apostol where he makes this special presence of our Lord a time of more acceptable audience Domino praesenti dum mors illa pâ—rsâ—â—itur horrendum Sacrificium Et ineffabilia Sacramenta Nam quasi sedente Roge quicunque voluerit perficit ut autem surrexit quicunque dicit frustra dicit Ita nunc quamdiu proposita fuerint mysteria c. See the place and afterward sicut quando Regum trophaea statuuntur dimittuntur qui sunt in vinculis per illud tempus ubi autem transierit hoc tempus qui nihil assequutus est nihil obtinet ita sane hic A place I think much worth the noting why at the time chiefly of the celebration of the Mysteries all manner of Invocations were made See a kind of Invocation Dionys Areop or the Author Eccl. Hierarch c. 3. par 3 O divinissimum sacrosanctum Sacramentum dignanter aperis obducta tibi operimenta significantium signorum perspicue nobis fac appareas c. And see for Adoration what Mr. Blondel quotes of the same Chapter for his calling them symbols Blond p. 88. le president de choses sacrees sétient debout devant les tressaintes symboles tout le Clerge se leve devant les tressaints symboles comme devant Christ See Theodoret in the place quoted before p. 74. You may find it likewise in Blondel p. 59. Signa mystica intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt i. e. by Consecration creduntur adorantur ut quae illa sint quae creduntur See that place of St. Hierom. in his Preface to Theophilus Alexand. upon the Translation of his Epistle quoted Blond p. 56. where speaking of the Utensils of the Altar the Chalices c. he saith que ne peuvent estre dits n' avoir point de sainteté mais que par la societe du corps du sang du Seigneur ils doivent estre venerez de mesme necessite que le corps le sang Lastly See that Constantinopolitan Council under Constantine Copronymus quoted by Blondel for Orthodox in the matter of the Eucharist yet held they Worship due to the Eucharist which they call'd the only true Image of Christ because this by Divine Consecration is Deificatum and made Divinum Corpus tho they affirm'd any Worship given to any Artificial Image of our Saviour or to any Human Form to be Idolatry I will set you down the words somewhat higher than where Blondel begins them In talem igitur blasphemiam impietatem cadentes
which are made by Men and these vel aliquantulum mansura sicut potuit Serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in Eremo vel peracto ministerio transitura sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur Then adds he sed quia haec omnibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt as the brazen Serpent and the Bread used in the Sacrament are things made by Man honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt he goes on itaque illa quae per Angelos fiunt quo ignotiora eo mirabiliora sunt nobis c. All he saith then is That the Bread or brazen Serpent have no wonder in the substance or matter of them for men make them both Now who affirms any miracle in any thing that is visible in the Eucharist The miracle is in that which is invisible the presence of Christ's Body with the signs But could any justly argue from hence That the Cure of the Man by looking on the Serpentine figure of Brass was not miraculous because St. Austin says the Brass or Figure shapen by Man had nothing miraculous in it but was known and ordinary Having clear'd this passage of Mr. Blondels now to go on I say for those miraculous instances they endeavour to qualifie the matter in saying â— That some of them are only accidental mutations not substantial as the bringing Water out of the Rock by Moses Fire from Heaven by Elijah Iron made to Swim on the Water by Elisha c. See Mr. Blondel p. 165. Ï Or becoming new creatures and members of Christ by Regeneration a comparison in the Fathers which the Reformed make much use of see Blond p. 100. But if you still press upon them the miraculousness of these mutations tho accidental they answer σ That some of those instances argue another or greater change than any party will allow of in the Eucharist and what proves too much proves nothing See Taylor p. 347. 274. 278. Ï„ That the effect produced by the instrumency or upon the receipt of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist is miraculous and no way proportioned to the natural qualities of them as also the efficacy of the water of Baptism and the real mutation which it causeth in the soul is supernatural ν And lastly that some of the same miraculous mutations are applied to Baptism for which chiefly a passage in Ambrose de Sacram. 2. l. 3. c. is quoted and other sacramentals or rituals of the Church which Sacramentals the Fathers also illustrate by the change made in the Eucharist and affirm such change to be in the one as in the other See for this Blond p. 165. 316. 101. c. Tail. p. 276. See Calvin Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 14. s Patres hic quoque i.e. in Baptism mirificam conversionem statuunt cum dicunt ex corruptibili elemento fieri spirituale animae lavacrum See Daille's first Reply to Chaumont p. 30. c. Ï Add to these that it may be said that the second Opinion in affirming the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body to every worthy receiver affirms a most miraculous effect in the Eucharist tho this not having any reference to the signs and therefore seems to concur with these testimonies of the Fathers as professing in the Eucharist a work of God's Omnipotency χ. As to the third that of the Fathers using and offering the Eucharist before communicating as a Sacrifice c. § XXIII I do not remember that Dr. Tailor takes much notice of it Concerning a Sacrifice but Mr. Blondel saith 4. c. 9. prop. that they celebrated or offered it only as a memorial image representation antitype of the Sacrifice upon the Cross and then heaps up many testimonies where the Fathers call it by these and the like names § XXIV To the 4th Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and that before communicating Concerning Adoration which seems to pinch closer than any of the rest I find them to say little or nothing with any close application to the testimonies brought out of the ancients 1. In general they say Christ may be worshipped when we receive the Eucharist or Symbols of his Body for which practice Daille in the Reply to Chaumont quotes and allows of the Church of England but Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven not as in his body there present See Calvin de Christianae pacificationis ratione p. 50. Fateor certe Christum ubicunque simus esse adorandum in coena vero cum se nobis fruendum offerat rite aliter recipi nequit quam si adoretur Sed hoc quaeritur sursumne an deorsum respiciat nostra adoratio Quum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa ab ipso discedit And Instit 4. l. 17. c. 37. s. In coena adoratio ea est legitima quae non in signo residet sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur To the same purpose writes Dr. Taylor p. 343. and quotes St. Austin as speaking of such Adoration So Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry 67. s. Our Church adores Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in which certainly Christ is not Christ's body locally present under the shape of the Elements Thus he But this worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in the end of the Section is explained to be only this That we in that time and place when and where he is eminently represented by the Priest and offered to God for us i.e. rerepresentatively do worship him i. e. as being according to his humane nature only in heaven See 66. s. But I find some expressions in some of them when shaping answers to the Fathers tho I do not well understand them therefore I shall set you down their own words as if they did allow of something more namely of adoring Christ as someway there present present both to the worthy receiver and to the Mysteries or Symbols Of which Dr. Taylor thus-in answer to that saying of Ambrose Adorate scabellum c. Per Scabellum terra intelligitur per terram caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt We worship c. saith the Doctor for we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our soul the flesh and blood of Christ So that we worship it he means the body or the flesh of Christ in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his Body but we give no divine honour to the signs And thus Daille 2d Reply to Chaumont p. 29. in answer to the places of the Fathers I l ' y a une enorme difference entre adorer le Sacrament adorer Jesus Christ au Sacrament ou es mysteres Le second signifie ou Adorer Jesus Christ en communiant a son Sacrement ce
que nous faisons volontiers piusque nous le croions Dieu ou Adorer Jesus Christ qui est present au Sacrement ascavoir par foi dans le coeur des communians en mystere dans les signes come la chose signifiée est presente en celle qui la signifie Les Peres ne disent ne font que le second ceux de Rome commandent pratiquent le premier And thus Rivet Annot. Animadv p. 92. in answer to the same Father Propriam adorationem deberi vero Christi corpori quod nobis est nunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sola mente percipiendum nemo pius negabit So in Bishop Andrews Resp ad Bellarm. Apolog. 8. c. I find in Answer to the Fathers sayings urged by the Cardinal this Recipe Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit rem sc Sacramenti at non Sacramentum terrenam sc partem ut Irenaeus visibilem ut Augustinus Nos vero in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio non id sed eum qui super altare colitur Nazianzen's saying Nec carnem manducamus quin adoremus prius cum Augustino Et Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus But here I am left in the dark whether Christ may be adored as corporally present with the Symbols the res visibilis and that before communicating See what he saith concerning this Presence in what is quoted out of his first cap. before Lastly I will set down what AP. Spalato and Bishop Forbes say who speak plainly and I suppose in this are allowed by the Church of England since they seem here to maintain only her opinion of the real presence of Christ's very body not to the signs but to the worthy receiver only tho of Bishop Forbes his opinion see more hereafter Thus therefore they see Forb de Eucharist 2. l. 2. c. 8. 9. s. Quod ad adorationem hujus Sacramenti attinet quum qui digne sumit S. Symbola vere realiter corpus sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter modo tamen spirituali miraculoso imperceptibili omnis digne communicans is the worthy communicant to worship but not the unworthy because Christ's body is there present to the one but not to the other adorare potest debet corpus Christi quod recipit non quod lateat corporaliter in pane aut sub pane aut sub speciebus accidentibus panis sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communicationi realiter praesens ut inquit Archiep. Spalat Repub. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. Again An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus Protestantes saniores non dubitant in sumptione enim Eucharistiae ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalat adorandus est Christus vera Latria siquidem corpus ejus vivum gloriosum miraculo quodam inexplicabili digne sumenti praesens adest haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non Comestioni non signis sed ipsi Corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito debetur perficitur Here these seem to allow an Adoration of Christ as present in the Sumption of the Sacrament but not of him before as present with the Symbols 2. Of those of the third Opinion who hold Christ's Body present with the Symbols yet some deny Adoration of this Body so present lawful upon such grounds as are also urged in subsidiis by Calvin and his Followers namely because Corpus non jubet se adorari in Eucharistia See Calv. Inst l. 4. c. 17. s 35 36. An res erat nullius momenti Deum hac forma adorare ut nihil nobis praescriberetur Cum de vero cultu ageretur tanta levitate fuerat tentandum de quo nullum usque verbum legebatur Qui sacramenti adorationem excogitarunt eam a seipsis somniarunt citra scripturam ubi nulla illius mentio ostendi potest So Rivet Exam. Animad Grot. Christus nullibi jussit ut eum in sacramento adoraremus nec legimus Apostolos cum eis exhibitum fuit accubitum mutasse in adgeniculationem So others in Eucharistiam Christum esse non ut adoretur sed ut manducetur Others non esse idem corpus Christi Christum But yet some of them grant Adoration not of the Sacrament but of Christ present with it lawful in usu Coenae or at such time as they grant him to be present with the symboles And some of the Calvinists object against the Lutherans That the lawfulness of Adoration is a necessary Consequent upon their Tenent of Christ's presence with the symbols see de Pace Eccl. sent Mort p. 10. And note here that whereas the Lutherans generally are said to renounce Adoration 't is meant not of the renouncing of the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament which some allow but of the Worship of the Sacrament 3. All generally acknowledg That the consecrated Symbols are to be used with Reverence and Respect as Holy things Therefore Rivet saith of the Fathers and of some Lutherans Annot. Animadv p. 92. Voluerunt quod de Theodoreto sentiendum ad sacra signa percipienda cum reverentia esse accedendum propter Dei potentiam 4. Lastly They all contend That the Symbols may not be Worship'd for Christ or as being Christ or with the Worship due to Christ And if they be That it is Idolatry i. e. Worshiping a Creature for the Creator Which Worship of the Symbols for Christ they object to the Church of Rome And this is all that I can find said by them concerning the ancient practise of Adoration The fourth thing we Consider'd § XXV Now as I said these their Answers to the former points seem to me at least the most part of them very unsatisfactory and if you please to review them as I have plac'd the Letters to avoid Repetition I shall as briefly as I can propose to you my Reasons For these Replies To that then which is said in their Answer to the first Argument from the Letter α to β it may be Reply'd That taking some other instance by which is signified only a representation or similitude as this Proposition when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10. The Rock is Christ If any one to explain only this similitude or representation should make such expressions as the Fathers use concerning This is my Body as Christ was made of the Rock or The Rock was chang'd into Christ c. they would be judg'd very improper and absurd That that Party will not admit of such interpretations of the Fathers meaning so seeming contrary to this expression in other places quoted by them against the Romanists Reply to their Answer to the first Argument out of the Fathers as namely in that of S. Austin quoted hereafter Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. Where it being answer'd that non
eorum quae a nobis quotidie committuntur peccatorum applicaretur And so ch 2. Cujus oblationis cruentae fructus per hanc uberrime percipiuntur See Estius sent 4. d. 12. s. 12 13. Dum patres sacrificium crucis unicum singulare sacrificium Christianorune esse dicunt intelligunt quod propria virtute Deum placat quale non est sacrificium missae utpote habens vim suam omnem ex sacrificio in cruce peracto Nam incruenta seu mystica oblatione corporis sanguinis Christi ex doctrina Ecclesiae non hoc agitur ut per eam paretur precium quo redimantur peccata sed ut applicetur pretium unico illo crucis sacrificio comparatum nobis ad remissionem peccatorum ad caetera salutaria dona consequenda Quare sicut unicum illud sacrificium crucis non tollit vim baptismi altorum sacramentorum quibus renovamur sanctificamur a peccatis purgamur imo siâ—ut non derogat efficaciae illius oblationis orationis qua adhuc Christus in coeâ—is continuo semetipsum pro nobis sistit offert patri continuo pro nobis interpellat ita nec tollit incruentam oblationem sacrificii missae aut quicquid derogat ejus virtuti See the like said in Bellarm de Missa l. primo c. 25. Fatemur sacrificium crucis vim sempiternam habere ad sanctificandum c. atque inde non esse opus alio sacrificio crucis aut ejusdem sacrificii crucis repetitione Negamus autem inde sequi non posse sine crucis Christi injuria multiplicari sacrificia repraesentantia sacrificium crucis ejus fructum nobis applicantia Nam si ita esset Efficeremus omnia sacrificia testamenti veteris fuisse peracta in injuriam crucis Christi In hoc est totus error adversariorum quod sibi falso persuaserint nos tribuere missae vim remittendi peccata sine ullo ordine ad sacrificium crucis Or quod Missa vim habeat expiandi peccata sine crucis sacrificio sed sacrificium missae applicat fructum sacrificii crucis See Dr. Holden de Resol Fid. l. 2. c. 4. Propitiatorium quidem est hoc sacrificium sed non eo modo quo sacrificium crucis puta in redemptionem generis humani sacrificium enim crucis adeo sufficiens est abundans ut nec altero nec hujus iteratione nobis ullatenus opus sit in ratione redemptionis Quapropter vi solius missae sacrifien nihil meretur nobis Christus sed per illud nobis applicantur sicut per sacramenta fructus meritorum Christi per immolationem suam sanguineam acquisiti Haud igitur docet nos divina catholica fides sanctum hoc sacrificium missae ut distinctum si tamen absolute distinctum a sacrificio cru is de se peccata remittere gratiam augere justificationem afferre c. An autem sit hoc sacrificium absolutum an relativum solummodo nempe commemorativum representativum significativum est Theologicarum litigationum materia See Cassand Consult de Sac. Corp. Sang. Chr. de iteratione per totum Some places of which you may find quoted by Bishop Forb l. 3. c. 1. s 21. and many of the like out of other Authors set down in that Chapter to which I refer you for them Non igitur hic novum est sacrificium nam eadem hic est hostia quae in cruce oblata fuit i. e. the Body and Blood of Christ commemoratio in mysterio sacrificii illius in cruce peracti continuati in coelis sacerdotii sacrificii Christi in imagine representatio quo sacrificio non efficitur nova propitiatio remissio peccatorum sed ea quae semel sufficienter in cruce facta est nobis quoque efficax esse postulatur Christ making such an Offering unto the same purposes of his Body here on the Altar by his Substitutes as is by Himself now in Heaven made of the same Body It being victima perennis perpetua quae semel oblata consumi non potest So de iterat in sacra hac actione pro vivis mortuis c. offerri dicitur quando non solum pro iis oblata commemoratur verum etiam solenni prece pro iis omnibus efficax salutaris esse postulatur And after sacrificium non modo Eucharisticum sed etiam propitiatorium dici posset non quidem ut efficiens propitiationem quod sacrificio crucis proprium est sed ut eam jam factam impetrans quomodo Oratio propitiatoria dici potest See Fr. a Sanctae Clara on the XXXI Article of the Church of England sacrificium Missae non est propitiatorium primo quia hoc competit sacrificio in cruce licet bene per se quasi secundo per applicationem sacrificii cruenti per commemorationem ejus adeo ut ratio propitiationis originaliter sacrificio in cruce competat illinc seu illius virtute huic Ut etiam recte notavit Canus in locis l. 12. c. 12. ubi dicit Satis esse ut vere proprie sit sacrificium quod mors ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur ac si Christus nunc moreretur ubi rationem propitiationis applicationi mortis Christi tribuit Et ad eundem sensum citat Gregorium in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc mysterio moritur mors igitur incruenta in altari virtutem suam derivat a morte cruâ—nta in cruce in hoc sensu hoe sacrificium est imago exemplar alterius in cruce unde omnis salus radicaliter emanavit Nulla prorsus hic erit difficultas cum doctioribus Protestantibus c. Thus he where also he saith that in the later words of the Article sufficiently vehement sâ—sobrie intelligantur nihil agitur contra sacrificia missae in se sed contra vulgarem vel vulgatam opinionem de ipsis scilicet quod sacerdotes in sacrificiis offerient Christum pro vivis defunctis in remissionem paenae culpae adeo i. e. in such a manner ut virtute hujus sacrificii ab iis oblati independenter a crucis sacrificio mererentur populo remissionem c. But this vulgata opinio as no Church maintains so neither can it without a high breach of Christian charity on any Church be charg'd See Champney de Vocat Minist against Mason cap. 17. pag. 704 c. of whom only delivering the common Doctrine of the Roman Church Dr. Fern acknowledgeth That he makes wide difference between the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and that of the Cross and indeed comes to that which we allow in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament see his Exam. of Champney p. 324. but yet p. 346. he grants the Fathers to have Offer'd the Sacrifice of the Altar as they call'd it which was the representation of Christ's Sacrifice for the Dead for an Impetration of all that Mercy Redemption and Glory for them
That the manner of this Presence whether in or with the elements is inexplicable Lastly that the love and omnipotence of the same God are relied on to make good that Presence whereof the manner is incomprehensible Now if God incarnate were present on the Altar at the same time he is in Heaven by grace and influence only his flesh would be neither present on the Altar nor given us to eat No more mystery nor incomprehensibilitty could be discerned in his Eucharistical than in his Baptismal presence neither would there be such need of extraordinary love and omnipotence to perform his promised presence in this more than in any other Religious ceremony wherein all grant his presence to be only gracious Nay the whole paragraph were no better than a devout and solemn delusion Nor am I prevailed-on to alter my thoughts concerning this Bishop's present faith would he do himself his Order and Christianity that right as to profess it frankly and clearly by any retractation or correction published in the Edition of his Book 1â—86 That amounting to no more than a denyal of Transubstantiation not of a substantial Presence whereby I am perfectly confirmed that by inexplicable incomprehensible manner was intended the manner of the Flesh's being present not whether it were present or no and that it was this he could neither explain nor comprehend To proceed further in evincing affirmatively that the sense of the aforesaid Article Office and Catechism was a substantial presence the supremest and most authentic Interpreters that have appeared since the creation of the present Church of England may be produced 1. We begin with Queen Elizabeth the Parent of modern Prelatick Protestancy This Lady profess'd the Catholick Religion in her Sister's Reign and when she obtein'd the Crown was with difficulty perswaded to alterations in Religion as was long ago told the world from other intelligence and lately from Jewel's c Letters perused by Dr. Burnet in his Ramble In particular She own'd the Real presence to the Count of Feria and others and commended a Preacher for asserting it on Goodfriday 1565. A Real presence I say She patronized and such a one as was own'd by the ancient Fathers and had bin believed in the Church of England since the conversion of that Nation believed without either check or interruption till towards the setting of Edward the 6. when Zuinglianism seems to have bin introduced Now if She profess'd a substantial presence and if She that authorized the Liturgy and Articles did not do it till after she had fluxt them of whatever was malignant to a substantial presence to accommodate them to the majority of the Nation that with her self were so perswaded sure She intended they should be interpreted as her Self and the Most both thought and profess'd Can the genuine sense of the words be both a Substantial presence and a presence of Grace only Could a Nation in a moment believe by the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ spoke at the delivery of the Sacrament to them was meant on the one day that his Body was verily and indeed and in substance if this be more given to them and the next day understand by the same words that the Body of our Lord was not verily and indeed nor in substance but only in figure and benefit exhibited especially when they heard the imposer of such passages declare for the former sense saw her delete what opposed it and retain the self same language the Catholick Church their true Mother used in all times to convey her faith to their Minds Whereupon considering these things together with the miniated copy of Articles c seen by Dr. Burnet considering I say that the chief Pastoress had authority according to the Doctrine of Lay-Supremacy to impose and according to Dr. Burnet's deleted copy did impose her Judgment to be assented to and subscribed by the whole Clergy c. we may truly conclude not only as some have done that the chief Pastors of the Church but that the whole Church Head and Body Queen Clergy and People did then disapprove of or dissemble about the Definition made in King Edward's time and that they were for Real presence 2. Her Successor King James I. either understood the Article and Liturgy in the same sense according to the attestations of Bishop Andrews and Casaubon or where has the Church of England publish'd that she holds a substantial presence as those Learned Persons say she often has either no where if not here or with contradiction to what is here if elsewhere because the proper sense of the Article and Liturgy can't be both a substantial and but only a gracious presence But that Part of the Catechism which concerns the Sacraments and which was composed by Dr. Overal in this King's Reign determins the dispute as to this Prince's faith for tho the Catechism as almost any sentence may be wrested yet it cannot be rendred without absurdity and passing for a meer cheat in favour of any other than a substantial presence And Bishop Cosin's doctrine is some argument that Dr. Overal his Patron and Master did mean no other 3. As to King Charles the First if we may gather his judgment from either Books published by his command or Sermons preach'd before him He adhered to that Faith in this point which all his Christian Ancestors had profess'd Out of such Books and Sermons we present the Reader with two Instances so full to our design that if they can be eluded so may a Demonstration The former is in Archbishop Lawd's Conference with Father Fisher a Book highly esteemed by that Excellent tho calamitous King. And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Blood no Blood but unless Grace be a Body and Benefit be Blood Dr. St. and the Answerer can make a Body no Body c. c. The other is in Dr. Laurence's Sermon before the King Charles I. p. 17 18. As I like not those that say He is bodily there so I like not those that say His Body is not there because Christ saith it is there and St. Paul saith t is there and the Church of England saith t is there and the Church of God ever said t is there and that truly and substantially and essentially c. For the Opinion of the Sons and Successors to this Prince concerning a substantial presence c t is out of question I presume What then we add is That either all these Heads and the Church of England believed the same or she has a miserable Faith wherein no Head since Queen Elizabeth produced Her durst either live or die It were a diffidence in this Proof or an affront to an intelligent Reader to offer him a Protestant nubes Testium as a further confirmation in this matter for then we must recount to
him almost all their Fathers from their Primitive times throughout a Century at least that this Religion has endured even the celebrated names of Bishop Pomel Bishop Bilson Bishop Andrews Bishop Overal Archbishop Lawd Bishop Buckeridge Bishop Hall Bishop Forbes Bishop Field Bishop Montague Archbishop Bramhal Bishop Cosins Bishop Gunning c. Dr. Cowel Dr. Pocklinton Dr. Heylin Mr. Sutton c. omitting many now alive or dead since 1660. several of which have bin already alledged in the Treatises we defend and have received either no answers or such as be insufficient as the following Examination of them will manifest Pag. 61. l. 1. Here I must observe that this Learned Person Mr. Hooker is drawn in only by a consequence and that no very clear one c. Mr. Hooker says that besides partaking of the grace of that Body and Blood c the holy mysteries impart unto us even in true and real tho mystical manner the very Person of our Lord whole perfect and entire His Body and Blood are in that very subject whereunto they give life not only by effect or operation even as the influence of the Heavens is in plants c but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union c. Now the Inference the Oxford Discourses make is That Mr. Hooker believed by Real Presence more than a presence of Grace only even a substantial presence for a presence of Christ's person whole perfect and entire with either the worthy receiver or the elements too cannot possibly be resolved into grace only because where the Person of Christ is there his Natures are substantially present they since the incarnation being inseparable from it Is it not easy then to deduce what the Discourser did from the passage cited Can any other be drawn from that judicious Man's words This Answerer says the real Presence imports no more than a real presence of Power and Grace Mr. Hooker says the contrary and tells us what that more is which it imports the Person of Christ and that all the question is Whether the subject wherein Christ resides be the Receiver only or the consecrated Elements also To reconcile Mr. Hooker and the Answerer it will be necessary then for us to understand by Mr. Hooker's more than Grace Grace only and by the Person of Christ a Person without any Nature or Substance Humane or Divine But how does our Answerer scape this pinch truly with due respect to Mr. Hooker and some tolerable satisfaction to the Objection for he prudently collects other passages whereof some say as much as the quotation and none of them are contradictory thereto nor affirm the Real presence to signify no more than a presence of Grace Nothing but this will clear the difficulty and so much as this demonstrates the most judicious Protestant so weak as to contradict himself Pag. 62. l. 8. He Bishop Andrews utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the Manner of Christ's Presence c. Bishop Andrews does not decline defining that our Lord's Body is substantially present but the manner how this substance is present he waves defining Again unless that Bishop believ'd a substantial presence he believ'd one by so much less true than ours as the substance or person of a thing is nearer to it or a more proper predicate of it than its qualities and effects are Thirdly unless this Prelate makes the Eucharistical Presence no more real than the Baptismal which neither he nor any Father ever did the Allusion to Baptism is short of the Minister's purpose Lastly The Bishop's saying Christ's Body as Glorified is not present in the Eucharist does not in the least oppose a substantial presence Who that believes a substantial Presence thinks Christ to be in the Eucharist as in his glory This however they all say That the very same substance which is Glorified which was Born and Crucified is present in that Sacrament and that its Eucharistical manner of existence is different from what it either had or hath elsewhere If then Bishop Andrews testimony stand good for a substantial presence Casaubon's and King James's I. and consequently the Church of England's are assur'd on the same side and we may renew and augment that King's wonder That not only a Stranger to but a Minister of the same Church should be so inadvertant as not to remember or so presumptuous if he do as to deny what his Own Church of England has so often and so evidently asserted Pag. 64. l. 4. Nor can we make any other judgment of the Arch-Bishop of Spalato c. The Answer to Spalato's testimony is grosly extravagant If this Bishop be earnest against unworthy Receivers of the Sacrament Is then our Lord substantially absent according to him One would think that has perus'd St. Paul's words 1 Cor. 11.29 and heard of Mr. Thorndyke's Comment on them that from the Bishop's earnestness against unworthy receiving he should rather believe a substantial presence reprehending the impiety the more zealously because he discerned our Lord's Body to be where it is not where it is not If this Bishop own a spiritual imperceptible and miraculous presence does he thereby disown a substantial presence Sir These stupid Consequences will not pass now adays at least not amongst Adversaries whatever they do with your Party Ibid. l. 26. But he does not say that Christ's natural Body c. Here Archbishop Laud's testimony is rejected by a flat denial of what that great Man hath if not in terminis in effect said for to quote with approbation is as much as to say Does he not cite Calvin that Christ does not offer us only the Benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the Body it self in which he suffered and rose Is not Bishop Ridly also produc'd by him saying That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits at the right hand of God the Father c. Ibid. l. 30. The same must be said of Bishop Hall c. The quotations out of Bishop Hall Bishop Mountague and Bishop Bilson are plain for a substantial presence and if undiscern'd by the Answerer to be so surely not his faculties but prejudices and the Post he has undertaken to defend are blamable If any such matter as a substantial presence were observable in Bishop Andrews's words Why not in these Authors Why not in Bishop Hall's and Bishop Mountague's expressions whereof the one uses the same and the other terms equivalent Res apud utrosque cadem with Calvinists and Lutherans The thing is yeilded-to on either side On the Catholick and Church of England side But the Lutheran and Catholick side yeilds to no other thing than a substantial Presence The thing the object is not the same with them and us if Calvinists and the Church of England by the Body of Christ mean Grace only Pag. 65. l. 13. I ought not
Answerer and others insisting so eagerly and obstinately on the Authority of Sense grows if it be not an Artifice perhaps from their taking the Maxim Nothing is in the Intellect which was not before in the Senses absolutely as if the only Conveyer of Notices to the Mind were the Senses or no thought had its birth there without an external promter whenas to omit the ill consequences c. of the later there are other means of acquainting the Intellect without the concurrence of the Senses as by Good and Bad Spirits c. Now these either convey always the same Notices as the Senses or they do not if they do then the Mind must ever judg with the Senses which is against experience If they do not how comes the Intellect to determine against the Notices of Sense e. g. in the Magnitude of the Sun Surely it neglects the information of Sense either upon some other more powerful motive and overruling remonstrance than Sense has given or arbitrarily but whether way soever it goes the Maxim is rejected and the Mind 't is clear does not find it self obliged to determine in all cases as Sense deposes Sense then is no Judg but only a conveyer of Intelligence to the Judg according to which Intelligence we confess that Judg is to censure and resolve except when better Intelligence from Reason or Revelation be interposed and arrest such a Judgment Now Sense informs a Catholick Mind that hath so much Learning as to read which Protestants think few have they are so ignorantly educated that the words of Institution are in that Book the Church tells him are the Gospels and neither Reason nor Revelation countervening this Notice a Papist judges with certainty according to the deposition of the Senses but when a Papist desires to proceed further and would understand not only that there are such words but also what is that very meaning not which may be put upon them wherein his sense and reason may assist him but which the Holy Ghost intended and the Church holds then he relies not on his senses or reason only because he knows the sentiments of Men to be very different as amongst themselves so from the Church's and Holy Spirit 's and if he might rely on his own so might others and consequently collect opposite truths from their discordant conceptions Wherefore he resorts to that hand which reacht out to him the words of Institution as Gods word to give him also their true meaning which he receives and professes without demur or fear And thus Papists arrive at all saving-truth thus they attain Unanimity and learn not only to think but speak the same thing whilst the minds and language of all Sectaries who pretend to follow sense and reason only in their Interpretation of Scripture are at wars and Babilonish For private Spirits are many and are Dissenters but the Church the Holy Spirit is but One and at Unity with it self And thus I suppose not our but the Minister's culpable ignorance is apparent Ibid. l 28. But let us quit this Reflection c. Content If he would not hasten to new untruths Where is it confess'd that we have neither command nor example in Holy Scripture for Adoring our Lord in the Eucharist If there he any command for Adoring our Lord at all there is for Adoring him in the Eucharist For once Adorable and he is always and every-where Adorable in what condition or circumstances soever and special injunctions or instances are not of necessity to warrant or oblige us to Adore St. Austin knew there was a command or he would not have said in Psal 98. Peccemus non Adorando Again tho we confess that Defects may possibly happen yet who grants them to be infinite or difficultly avoidable Is it not rather difficult considering the Caution of the Church that any defects should chance which are destructive to the Eucharist Can we not have a moral certainty the Priest has the Orders to which he pretends Do not our Senses inform us as to both the matter and Form of the Sacrament and the serious application of the one to the other As to the intention 't is true it is deem'd necessary will the Minister profess that none is needful to the performance of a Religious Action but what degree or sort of intention is a Question in the Schools some Divines requiring more some less Of the later kind if he please the Reader may view what Contenson writes of it Theolog. Mentis Cordis l. 11. p. 1. Diss 2. Append. § 2. c. It is undoubtlingly to be asserted says this Modern Divine that an Intention of seriously performing the External Rites amongst Christians counted Religious suffices for the validity of a Sacrament and that being observed no retention nor perverseness of the Minister's Intention doth void a Sacrament This Position he confirms by many Authorities and concludes them with that of the Council of Trent Sess 14. Cap. 6. Can. 9. where that Holy Synod declares the Sacrament not to be performed if a Priest act in Jest c. inferring thereupon that the Council understood by an Intention of doing what the Church does not as this Minister of doing what the Church intends but a doing with external seriousness what the Church prescribes Which inference he inforces by Cardinal Palavicini's Reflection on that Passage of the Council par 2. l. 12. c. 10. From these last words any one reading them may conjecture that the Opinion of Catherine and other Divines thinking a Will in the Minister to act seriously suffices for and that only Jesting which the Receiver of the Sacrament may discover does obstruct the accomplishment of a Sacrament was not expunged According to this Doctrine then the Consecration of the Eucharist does not depend on the Priest's believing Transubstantiation or secretly intending to Consecrate c. but only on an external intention to do seriously what the Church injoins which is very discernable to the Attendants by the Priest's exterior actions and deportment How many therefore of the Answerer's Dangers and Defects are blown away And if Adoration may at any time be paid to our Lord in the Eucharist it may ordinarily be so without any scruple by Catholicks Appendix II. ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Reply to the two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Holy Eucharist SOME time ago were printed in OXFORD Two Discourses the one concerning the Alterations in the Church-Service of the Church of England the second concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The Design whereof was to shew the incertitude and inconstancy of the Church of England in her Doctrine and Practices Whence it will follow That none can trust or rely upon her Authority nor safely either believe or practise according to her directions Of both these the Author took these two Articles as a manifest and sufficient instance But because there is nothing so true against which
the nourished it makes us partakers of his Life which being immortal and glorious renders ours such also And 3. Other Food being either inanimate or having a Life inferior unto and differing from ours this Body of his is become superior more Divine than ours and is a quickning Spirit And therefore we should receive his Body and Blood after the manner of natural bodies which the Capernaites and our sensual Doctors can apprehend it would profit us nothing as to the great effects promised by our Receiving in the Eucharist And these effects are true and real not notional or imaginary or by Faith only apprehended yea much more than the Manna Faith being an assent in the understanding is quite different from enjoyment in the will and affections And Faith i. e. a believing either that our Lord was the true Messias or Messenger from the Father for else he could not be the true Bread which came down from Heaven or that this which is given us is the real Body of our Saviour for else it would be only common Bread precedes the Receiving yet is not any part of it much less the enjoyment of any of the effects of it Again If eating by Faith whatever it signifies be all that is meant in the Eucharist how comes it to be preferr'd before the Manna which was a continual Miracle and daily exercise of their Faith And why would our Lord suffer so many of his Followers to go away from him when he might in so few words have inform'd them of the Truth without a Metaphor Why should he use such sublime and spiritual expressions repeating it to be his body and blood that it came down from Heaven that he would give it for the life of the world c. and not once explain the meaning of those to them obscure phrases And if the Church Catholick and even the Church of England till the last of King Edward VI. had not conceiv'd some great Mystery why would she keep the words so obscure and really as they suppose improper of the Institution so precisely even till the Church of England made the breach and by the Expressions different from the whole Church profess'd her self not to be a Member of it But of this sufficient is said before and in the Reformation of the Church of England from § 148. Wherefore the Catholicks speaking of the real presence of our Lord mean◠the very essence substance the very thing it self is there present taken and eaten by us and not only the benefits of his Passion believ'd by us And in the Church's sense we use in this Discourse the words really really present c. and yet not naturally locally or any other manner of its being according to the qualities of a natural body § 2 And note secondly That these Writers and others pretending to be of the Church of England by their spiritual by Faith mystical eating which they sometimes also call Sacramental intend a sense contrary and opposite to eating the natural body of our Lord spiritualiz'd and that is all the eating they acknowledg The Catholick Church also useth the same word spiritual in opposition to real or sacramental meaning thereby the reception of some spiritual grace or encrease of it As the Fathers in the Wilderness did eat the same meat Manna and the Rock-water spiritually in as much as these were Types of spiritual things under the Gospel by receiving whereof they also obtain'd the graces of Gods Spirit And this spiritual reception of Grace is not only in the Eucharist but in all the other Sacraments in all actions of Devotion and Piety and all manner of well-using Grace once given But this is not all the Sacramental receiving tho contain'd in it So that there are two manners of receiving Grace and our Saviour 1. Spiritual only which our Replier says is all 2. Spiritual and real or Sacramental because proper to the Eucharist The real without the spiritual profiteth nothing yea it is also damnable For except a man come to the Eucharist well prepar'd i. e. by Mortifications Devotions Acts of Religion i. e. in a state of Grace he eats and drinks condemnation to himself The spiritual receiving without the real profiteth indeed but neither so much nor in such manner as when they are join'd both together For spiritual receiving is of more Grace upon well-using the former is only in general and in the inner man therefore difficultly discern'd and more subject are we to be deceiv'd in it But real receiving as all other Sacraments is instituted to help the weakness and imperfect discernment of our spiritual and internal condition by the visible signs of invisible Grace therein bestow'd The spiritual eating gives us a right and title to Grace but the other is the very instrument of conveying it Also in that Grace is given according to the measure of the Receiver's disposition and that Grace also which is of the same nature with those dispositions But in the Sacraments are given new and peculiar Graces as in Baptism the forgiveness of all sins already committed and admission into the Church of Christ and all the rights and benefits thereof So in the holy Eucharist there is conferr'd also forgiveness of sins and a nearer incorporating us into our Lord himself more intimately and consequently a more certain hope and confidence of eternal life by receiving himself into us who is now become a quickning Spirit unto us working by his body receiv'd the seed of immortality all things necessary or useful to our happy progress thither Be pleased therefore to consider Whether they who acknowledg no other than a spiritual receiving do not either quite evacuate the power and efficacy or at least diminish much and weaken the force of this divine Sacrament And also that whoever they are who endeavour to subject or reduce Religion to the Rule of Reason do not in effect deny and despise the wisdom of God declar'd in the mystery of our holy Religion § 3 Note Thirdly That Catholicks trouble not themselves to reconcile Religion to Philosophy Their endeavour is to understand the true sense of what God hath revealed and to this purpose they make use of all the helps which others do but principally depend upon what the Church Catholick and her Doctors from time to time have receiv'd and declar'd i. e. how they to whom our Lord committed his Mysteries have from the beginning believ'd and deliver'd that charge deliver'd unto them how the practice hath interpreted the Law and how the Holy Spirit by his Instruments the Clergy of the Catholick Church hath continued it down to their time Nor do they regard what either private interpretation or what Philosophy or Principles fram'd by men's understandings out of their experience or frame of Languages suggest They leave these to them who affect to diminish the unfathomable knowledg communicated to us by God in his Revelations to Arians Socinians Latitudinarians and other Doctors of Sensuality But
the true sense of things reveal'd being setled they argue and reason thereupon as much as they please according to rules natural to the Understanding and perfected by the Art of Logick The Rules and Artifice of Reasoning I say they use and approve but such principles as are observ'd out of Nature and her operations they subordinate to Faith. So that in strict and proper speaking they do not oppose Faith to Reason but only to Philosophy For if the intellect be rasa Tabula it can argue from nothing tho Arguing and Reasoning be its chiefest work to which it is naturally directed but what it receives from without either by the Senses and information of others or by Revelation except which is very rare that God by himself or a good Angel immediately illuminates the Understanding as in foretelling things future or absent or by means of some representation receiv'd by the Imagination Now tho the expression notification and apprehension of things reveal'd is indeed convey'd to us in words comprehended by sense yet the thing signified is not discover'd by the ordinary notions of sensual knowledg but by the Word and Spirit of God revealing it which doth not only represent more objects to the understanding but also enlightens the faculty and enableth it to discern spiritual things as much clearer than Nature teacheth as a man can better discern by the light of the mid-day Sun than by the glimmering of the Moon or in a clear air than in the thickest mist The outward sensible Word is of men and according to humane speech but the internal Word is known to us only by Jesus Christ who by these ordinary sounds the Holy Spirit concurring with them conveyeth to us the great and otherwise incomprehensible mysteries of our salvation which are therefore trampled on and despised by the worldly wise who reduce all our knowledge to and measure it by sense and reason So then it is not reason which the Catholicks oppose but the principles of reasoning taken from Aristotle experience humane testimonies vain Philosophy and the like To all which we prefer those propositions of that most Sacred Religion first discovered by our Lord Jesus Christ in his personal conversation here on earth and after his departure continued and propagated in and to his Church by his holy Apostles and their Successors to the end of the world Nor can it be said that these propositions or principles of Philosophy are more rational than those de fide any more than the principles of one Science are more rational than those of another As for contradiction of faith upon the account of sense which in effect amounts to the denial of faith it hath bin so often and clearly answered particularly in the preceding short Discourse that it seems needless to repeat it In short sense teacheth us not that this is v. g. bread or a stone for this is an action of assent or judgment whether in the imagination or intellect it mattereth not which affirms or denies most frequently as it is accustomed without consideration and erreth not except where it too hastily assents against a truer Proposition i.e. such a Proposition whose truth is dcelared by or from a more certain Principle As ordinary understandings conceive the Diameter of the Sun to be no more than of 3. foot their sense so informing them or that this is bread which seemeth such Yet are both these errors controlled the one by Demonstration the other by the infallible Word of God in his Church § 4 Those of the present Church of England agreeing with the pretended Reformed and contradicting their own Predecessors accuse the Catholick Church of Idolatry upon three accounts 1. For worshiping God before an Image 2. Using towards God the mediation and intercession of the B. Virgin Angels and Saints And 3. For adoring our B. Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament We here speak of the last 1. Adoration consists partly in internal partly external actions The external are for the most part the same in all Religions Christian or Heathen and are the effects and demonstrations of the internal the sentiments and affections of the Soul either naturally or out of custom thus expressing themselves Onely true Religion hath reserved Sacrifice as appropriated only to the most High God and to no creature whatsoever But the Heathen do not observe this We shall not speak of it here 2. All actions of Adoration must be either to God or a creature and the internal actions or intention are those which determin the external to the one or the other Nor doth nor can any one know by the external actions whether God or the creature be worshiped but by some external and declared interpretation of the intention Therefore no man ought to judge of another man's adoration without such interpretation and he that doth so sinneth 3. Whoever gives the worship due to God unto a creature or whoever in his devotions gives or attributes that to a creature which belongs to God onely is guilty of Idolatry as taken in a large sense The worship due to God consists in acts of faith believing whatever he hath or doth reveal and by that regularing the understanding of hope trusting in Him alone both for the things of this and the other world by this regulating the will and of charity loving God above all things and all other things for His sake by this regulating the affections 4. Almighty God may be worshiped in all places and at all times but it is required to worship him when we come into his presence and where are performed actions more solemn and appropriated unto him 5. The person of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be worshiped with the worship due to God alone because he is God blessed for ever and the rather because he is a person only as the humane nature is assumed into the person of the Son of God. Neither is he to be worshiped as here or there but there is an obligation to worship him in the Eucharist because he hath both by himself and his Church declared him to be there present And tho he were not there present yet is the Adoration being by the intention directed to Him alone and not to any creature present or absent an act of devotion and acceptable to him And they who call this Idolatry commit a very great sin depriving our Lord of his honour condemning his whole Church of Idolatry and consequently acknowledging that he had no Church upon earth making themselves judges of their brethren and imputing to them a sin which they utterly abhor yet which cannot be known but by their own confession But say they The Church in the Council of Trent hath declared that we ought to worship the holy Sacrament Sacramentum To which tho so often answered we say that this word Sacramentum hath three significations 1. It is taken for the thing signified only res Sacramenti the body and blood or person of our Lord and
this is to be worshiped with Divine worship 2. For the signs species or visible accidents to which no other worship is due besides that reverence which belongs to the instruments of holy worship 3. For both the sign and thing signified together and thus understood the Sacrament is not properly said to be worshiped tho improperly it may because part of it the res Sacramenti is to be worshiped and that which belongs to the principal part is ordinarily attributed to the whole as a man understands thinks argues c tho these be only the actions of the Soul. The like distinction serves also for the word Hoast Hostia which these writers seem to lay as a stumbling-block before the ignorant For it is sometimes used for the outward signs species or whatever is visible before consecration and is not to be worshiped sometimes for the Lord himself as in Eph. 5.2 who alone in proper speaking is to be worshiped But having occasion by God's blessing in convenient time to speak more copiously upon this subject we shall here add no more § 5 Thus have we briefly set down what we conceive necessary to explicate the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this great mystery sufficiently also we hope to instruct them who intend their salvation who are not desirous a lye should be the truth nor prefer their own uncertain conjectures against God's Church Whom also we seriously admonish to beware of those teachers who debase and lower the great grace and mercy of God communicated to us by our Lord who is made unto us wisdom as well as justice and sanctification by debasing it to their own fancies which they call reason as did all the ancient Hereticks and Mahomet himself that great false Prophet To take away all mystery out of Christian Religion is to vilify it and to abolish the virtue of faith and advancement of the understanding and thereby also of piety and devotion For it is no wonder that those sublime and holy passions or operations experienced by devout persons are by such people ridiculed to say no worse For if the Heroical acts of Faith are denied and despised it must needs follow that those great favours bestowed by God upon his best servants must neither be enjoyed nor credited But omitting these matters let us proceed to examin some such few particulars in the Replier's Discourse as seem to contain something considerable For it would be too much abusing the Reader 's time and patience to discover or reprehend all the errors of that Pamphlet wherein I know not if there be any one period that is not obnoxious § 6 To omit the first Chap. containing nothing of consequence we will take notice of the second which seems to be to purpose Our Author 's chief design was to shew the Alterations of the Church of England after her departure from the Church Catholick both in Doctrine and Practice taking this one Article as an instance in both In this chapter the Replier takes notice of these alterations and tho he would gladly deny them yet is it a thing so manifest that he rather thinks fitting to diminish them and notwithstanding the alterations to affirm that the Church of England never changed Little alterations he calls them and yet saith they are the terms of her communion Nothing certainly is little in the Church'es forms especially in our most venerable and solemn worship and the very chiefest and most important service of God even the only holy sacrifice of our Religion and admitting us to and feeding us at his own Table not little that Article upon which they chiefly justify their departure from the Church and by which they continually keep their subjects in disobedience unto and alienation from Her not little which contains the terms of the Church'es communion so that he who assents not to these however differing in their several seasons i.e. he that did not believe the Real presence at the first setting forth the Common Prayer-book and he that did believe it at the second was holden as excommunicate Not little to the disobedience whereof such severe Penalties were imposed both by Acts of Parliament and Canons of 1603. Again if so little why would they for them change those of the Ancient Church except it were for an extreme itch of separating from God's Church the formality and essence of Schism Ib. This design is impertinent No it was the very primary intention of the Author as is plain enough But admit the Church of England hath wavered in her Doctrines as our Author proves irrefragably it follows that she disclaims the authoritative conduct of her subjects by whose doctrines except they submit to so many changes they can never be secure and they who do change cannot keep the unity of the faith which themselves alter but are more like to children unconstant uncertain hurried about with every new blast of doctrine as a powerful person of a different perswasion or interest pleaseth to command This is not the end for which our Good Lord ordained the Clergy his Successors In the beginning of King Edward VI. Reign at the framing of a new Common prayer-book was asserted the Real presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist as hath already and by God's assistance shall be more shew'd by and by In his latter end this doctrine was changed to Zuinglianism In Q. Elizabeths time both were joyned in the form of the Liturgy but the declaration against Real presence was omitted which in the Rubric in 1661 was lick'd up again Likewise also the Catechism was changed In King Edward's time the Eucharist was expressed in Zuinglius's notions which in Q. Elizabth's time were omitted and in King James's time those for a Real presence inserted The Articles also were new modell'd the first that I can find were towards the later end of King Edward against the Real presence Q. Elizabeth altered them again leaving out those things seeming to her scandalous and against the Real presence And indeed the Articles were not framed to declare the true doctrine of Religion according to the word of God interpreted by the Catholick Church but for avoiding diversities of opinions amongst themselves establishing some sort of consent and healing the increasing ulcers amongst the teachers of the newly changed Religion Again why doth she punish Dissenters since her self dissents frequently from her self and consequently hath taught that which is false So who can have confidence that in believing her faith or obedience to her commands he endangereth not his salvation Even at this day the Replier and his party teach contrary to the former learned men of their own Church and by their own practice confirm this accusation against their Church Adore the Elements Either the Replier knows that all Catholicks declare which none but God and themselves can disprove that they detest the adoration of any creature and of the Elements in the Eucharist and then he voluntarily calumniates
doctrines wherein she agrees with the Catholick Church she chooseth to abstain from her terms The 4th Alteration was in King Charles I time in the Book of Common Prayer sent down into Scotland wherein most things were reduced to the first edition of King Edward VI. but was most barbarously defamed by the Presbyterians there for Popery But Arch-Bishop Lawd did not intend any Popery but vainly imagined to settle a Church neer to but not conformable with the Catholick Religion which was impossible it being not a plant planted by our Lord but of his own policy and therefore was to be rooted up or a branch torn from the Vine of the Catholick Church and therefore dead and unfruitful The last Alteration was at the Return of King Charles II. wherein was a contrary course endeavoured a complying with the Presbyterians a business somewhat plausible but not according to Religion Then was brought in the Rubrick against the Real presence And tho as I have heard the Clergy at that time made great opposition yet when by an Higher Power it was established they all submitted to and embraced it The Church hath always held a Real presence so far as a real Participation implies one It is most certain that if the Body of our Lord be really received it is also really present But the Replier owns not a real participation of the Body of our Saviour but a figurative one of the benefits of his Passion and those not really but by faith only which is only of things revealed and things not enjoyed besides the reception is oral only and not of the benefits or effects but of the bread and wine after which follows a feeding by faith which is properly spoken neither of the symbols nor the benefits That the Church of England never acknowledged any other presence is false as hath bin shewed both in the precedent Discourse and Appendix and if these testimonies be not sufficient he shall have as many more as he pleaseth But see his Instances p. 14. how a real reception may be of a thing really absent He that receives a Disciple receiveth Christ But this is not a really true but a figurative expression signifying that he who receives a Disciple shall be esteemed and rewarded as if he received Christ himself The Disciples received the Holy Ghost really if as some Doctors think the Holy Ghost descended upon them if only the graces of the Spirit as is more ordinarily said it was only a figurative speech and no real reception A man receives an inheritance when he receives the writings livery and seisin c. but here is nothing really received but the writings or some other thing whereby the inheritance is conceived to be given not properly but by common custom and vulgar manner of speaking grounded upon positive laws or mutual compact A Prince receiveth a Kingdom really if he be present in and to it but if any other way he receives it not really It is no news that the word receive is sometimes used figuratively and in divers manners but the word really is not figurative nor being applied to receive suffers it to be taken figuratively And so the Church hath always understood it i. e. both that receiving and the received were true and real and not figurative only and it is hard to conceive that our Lord in the last and most solemn mystery of his whole life should make use of so dilute and improper an expression Pag. 5. It is easie to assign good reasons for the Alterations Be it easie neither himself nor any else that I have seen have given such good reasons He refers us to Dr. Burnet Foxes and Firebrands c. dirty Pools which himself also had fished already and found nothing 'T is said first That it was not thought fit to cast off Superstition all at once Superstition then that ancient Form was which notwithstanding had remained so many hundred years already and the whole Church for all that time was guilty of Superstition But the new Form establish'd by a few partial or also ignorant persons was void of Superstition But if they chang'd the former because of Superstition what made them so often change the other Heresie But how came it to pass that they tolerated Superstition so long Must ill be done that good may come of it But why would Q. Eliz. introduce Superstition again when once ejected Again 't is said That the Alterations were lawful because not against Scripture and in that the Subjects ought to acquiesce not regarding the prudence of the Changes for which the true reasons are only guessed but political ones may be seen in Burnet c. It seems the Reformers guided themselves not by Religion but Policy an evil ingredient in Church-matters But neither indeed were they either political expedient or lawful For certainly it was not good policy 1. To introduce such a division into the Nation which at the beginning raised Commotions and Civil Wars in several parts of the Kingdom 2. To introduce Antimonarchical Principles and such Opinions as manifestly oppose the Kingly Government By unhinging their Consciences and diminishing the Power of the Clergy which as long as it was incorporated into the rest of the great Body of the Church did and would always have been able to maintain the Power of the King and setting up the Power of the People making them Judges of matters of Religion thereby exempting them from the Government of the Clergy by whom they might be and were kept in Obedience to God and their Soveraign Noâ— were the Alterations lawful because not made by the lawful Ecclesiastical Magistrates or agreeable to the rest of God's Church but an erecting an Altar against an Altar a Sacramentary Zuinglian Table against the Altar of God in his Holy Church and consequently made a breach upon the Unity of the Church and exposed those who consent to them to the great wrath of Almighty God and hazard of their own Salvation Another Argument of the Change of the Doctrine was the Omission of divers Ceremonies very significant of if not necessary unto the perfection of this Sacrament As first The omission of taking the Bread or Patten into the Hand of the Consecrator being in it self an application of the words of Consecration to the matter proposed To this the Replier saith That the Nature of the Action implies the Ceremony of the Handling the Patten and Chalice Therefore more the shame of them who made it not necessary but left it indifferent Then 1. The omitting of them denies a Consecration I say If that Ceremony was omitted or not enjoin'd 't is very probable that neither was Consecration intended or believ'd which secondly to be the intention of the Framers of the second Liturgy is very likely because they omitted the words The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ as also because they chang'd the Form into Take and eat this individuum vagum something or nothing Consecrated or not-Consecrated Tho
is sufficiently declared in the precedent Discourse Let it suffice here that we receive it by the hands of his Priests united to him in this office as Himself offereth it to the Father the only true and acceptable sacrifice in the heavenly Temple and whereof we invited to God's own Table are partakers as of the Sacrifice of peace and reconciliation The same body which was immolated whilst upon earth remains tho now glorified till the end of the world when they that pierced or deny or disbelieve his words shall with shame and everlasting remorse look upon him Pag. 14. There is as great a difference especially concerning the real presence of our Lord as the Catholicks charge them with all Those truly called Protestants assert Consubstantiation The Zuinglians or Sacramentaries to whom our Replier joyns himself no real presence of our Lord's Body at all but of the benefits only of his Passion The Church of England and her Doctors say that the body and blood of our Lord are really and not only by the benefits and effects received by us These things are plainly said in the former Discourse What is the meaning of our union and communion with Christ's glorified body and how this is or can be performed or imagined according to our Repliers and the Zuinglian Scheme I confess I cannot understand how according to the Catholick doctrine is explained before Tho I know also the Zuinglians do pretend to such benefits and all others tho they do not expresly own a real presence Pag. 16. So much for the use of the word Really He hath blundred a long time upon the notion of Really how it signifies how used how it may be used by the learned c. as if the word used so many years by the Church should stand or fall to his may-bees and sorry conjectures at length he saith a thing may be really present two ways Physically and Morally Where ranks he a Divine presence a Spirtual presence besides many other sorts of presence A physical presence is a local presence Not if we speak of a spiritual body not if we speak of a miraculous presence effected by the power of Almighty God. A Moral presence is called Sacramental This is a confession of his own novel and therefore of a suspicious interpretation The Church used sacramental for real as opposed to receiving by faith as is said before But what is it to be morally present if not that a moral entity as grace holiness c are present The benefits of our Lord's Passion are present to and enjoyed by us but what is this to the real true presence of his Body But neither are these benefits given us in the Sacrament but only are apprehended of us by faith In summe this Replier seems to flutter as if he were fast limed partly by the constant doctrine of the Church and a desire to seem no Zuinglian Wherefore he heapeth up such a parcel of insignificant words and distinctions that it is lost time to examin them There is a real presence of a body which is always local This is false as is shewed before There is also a spiritual and virtual presence Distinct from real and moral Spiritual we acknowledge as before but this is real and not virtual only and what is virtual if not the effects of our Lord's Passion What are all these to the real presence of our Lord's body the only question Pag. 17. At last he sits down with this conclusion that if rightly understood it is not material what Adverbs we use we may say it is really essentially corporally present I had thought it had bin the custom and necessary to express the Church'es doctrine in her own words and not to have used the known words of the Church in an arbitrary signification This is facere quidlibet ex quolibet or a most horrible equivocation mental reservation or material elocution with which at another time he will raise much dust not remembring his own doctrine that we may put what signification we please upon usual words a salvo which at once takes away all veracity and the use of language I am weary of this confusion as well as himself and therefore he sums up all thus The Papists always acknowledge a local presence The contrary whereof is true For the Papists never acknowledge a local presence of the body of our Lord in the Eucharist And we Protestants whatever term we use mean only a spiritual and virtual presence and explain the term whatever it be we make use of to that effect Is not this making the real presence of our Lord only figurative and Zuinglianisme Answ No. Pag 18. For we do not hold that we barely receive the effects and benefits of Christ's body but we hold it really present in as much as it is really received and we put in actual possession of it Well then the Body of our Lord is really present and received Answ No. Whatever we say we mean only a virtual presence Which is indeed only a figurative presence and is owned by the Zuinglians and Figurativists and which the Replier seeking to avoid really condemns as the Church hath done in those two or three who in the course of so many centuries set abroach such or the like opinion Let the Replier also take notice that Zuinglius doth not deny eating by faith or in a mysterious and ineffable manner by which mist of words the Replier in vain thinks to pass for orthodox Pag. 20. Stumble No it is the Replier's cavil The Rubric saith not as he pretends a true natural body cannot be c but it is against the truth of a natural body to be c which is not very good sense we not knowing what a false natural body is except the meaning of it be that this Proposition A natural body can be in several places is not true which is the very same which our Author saith Ineffable mystery The Replier dare not deny that the Divines of the Church of England as well as those of the Catholick Church acknowledge the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist to be a mystery but saith they acknowledge our union with Christ to be a mystery which is not opposite to the other tho indeed it is too mysterious to know how this Union follows from his Doctrine Opposite and contradâ—ctory To perswade the Reader that our Author alloweth contradictions to he true he leaves out the word seemingly as also § 21. which seemeth to us to include a contradiction Take notice therefore that no Catholick affirms That God can make two contradictories to be true and that there is no contradiction in their doctrine of the Eucharist But they believe it to be plainly revealed by our Saviour's own words and St. Paul's v. foregoing Discourse p. 18. Pag. 21. The doctrine of the Trinity doth as much violence to Philosophy as Transubstantiation But Transubstantiation is a contradiction Pag. 25. Bishop Andrews's famous saying which the