give him satisfaction In the fourth Section he falls on in earnest upon the declaration about adoration as he calls it 〈◊〉 I. §. IV. pag. 4. and from it as it now lyes draws three Observables which are either very dishonestly or else very ignorantly worded They need no other answer then a bare amendment of the expressions which if they were intended to give the sense of the Church of England should have been to this effect 1. Observable That the Clergy do profess and teach that the natural body and blood of Christ are not corporally i. e. locally present in the Eucharist 2. Observable That they have diverse reasons for this assertion one especially wherein Scripture Philosophy and common sense are agreed viz. that a true humane body cannot locally be in two places at once 3. Observable That in consequence hereof they declare that the Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is indeed reall but spirituall and therefore the Elements are not to be ador'd because adoration ought not to be directed to the natural body of Christ but where it is locally present Had our Author had the ingenuity to express himself after this manner he had been no less kind to himself then just to the Church of England for he might have avoided divers errors he commits in the three next Chapters by avoyding the grand impertinence of having written them at all CHAP. III. A Reply to the second chapter of the first Discourse Disc I. §. VII pag. 5. THe design of the second Chapter is to prove by abundance of quotations that Learned Protestants heretofore have held that the same body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is present as in Heaven so here in the Holy Sacrament either to the worthy receiver or the Symbols By learned Protestants I presume he means those of the Church of England for so he should mean since he draws his Observables from a Rubric in their Liturgie Now he would have told us some news had he mentioned but one of these learned Protestants who pretending to give the sense of the Church of England does not hold that the same numerical body which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is locally present in Heaven and virtually present in the Eucharist not to the Symbols but the Faith of the worthy receiver or if by those words as in heaven so here he means locally in both as indeed he must mean if his next Chapter be at all pertinent he would have told us no less news had he brought but one quotation that could be honestly taken in that sense But if he have any third meaning it would have been a favour to explain himself for we pretend not to any talent in divination Now supposing he designs to combat the Church of England I would gladly know to what purpose he alleges Calvin and Beza Disc I. §. VIII IX for let their doctrine be what it will to quote it to us who are not to be concluded by their authority is very trifling and impertinent When the sense of the Church of England was the question one would have expected to heare what the Church-Catechism says What the Homilies What Nowells Catechism Books allow'd and publish'd by the Churches authority and authentick witnesses of her judgment or if private Doctors were the game what Archbishop Cranmer's book of the Sacraments what Bradford Philpot and the rest of Q. Mary's Martyrs what Bishop Jewell in his Apology and the Defence of it what Bishop Vsher in his Sermon before the House of Commons But instead of these we have only the testimonies of some other eminent but private men all miserably mangled and disjoynted some of them Conciliators too whose very design obliges them to a looser kind of expression then a true and adequate standard of the Churches judgment will allow Now should any of our private writers either in heat of disputation or out of zeal to peace or desire to explain a great mystery a little deviate in their expressions we can easily forgive an error that proceeds from so allowable a cause but still the Church is not bound to justify that error But the quotations in the Pamphlet will not put us upon this Apology Not an author he quotes except only Mr. Thorndike of whom we shall say more by and by but speaks the sense of the Church and industriously drives at a point quite contrary to the Pamphlets design which discovers a great flaw either in the Authors judgment or honesty I grant the authors as he has mangled 'em looke as unlike those worthy champions of our Church as the shape that appear'd to Aenaeas did to the true and whole person of Hector But I desire the Reader neither to trust the Pamphlet nor me but his own eys to consult the quotations as they lye intire in the authors themselves and consider 'em with their several contexts For my own part having taken that pains I profess to find such dealing as I do not care to report because I cannot expect to be believ'd 'T is somewhat unaccountable that a man of sense having read the book of Bishop Taylor 's which the Pamphlet quotes should split upon the very Fallacy which that Bishop spends allmost the whole first Chapter in detecting He makes it his business there to shew that Protestants in explaining the Real Presence may lawfully use the same terms that Papists doe But they neither can nor doe use them in the Papists sense and he that will urge the Protestants with those words must take the Protestants meaning along with him This seems to be a very equitable proposal How far the Pamphlet complyes with it I dare leave to the meanest Reader when he has perus'd this short and plain account of our Churches doctrine in this point The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a twofold consideration in the Eucharist 1. As a body dead under which notion we are said to eat it in the Sacrament and to drink the blood as shed as appears by the words of the Institution Take and eat this is my body which is given or broken for you Drink ye all of this for this is my blood which is shed for you in which words * Acts and Monuments pag. 1611. as Mr. Bradford long agoe observ'd what God has joyn'd we are not to put asunder 2. As a glorify'd body in which condition it now sits at the right hand of God and shall there continue till the restitution of all things imparting Grace Influence and all the benefits purchased by the Sacrifice of the dead body to those that in the holy Eucharist most especially are through Faith and by the marvellous operation of the holy Ghost incorporated into Christ and so united to him that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them they are one with Christ and Christ with them they are made members of his body of his flesh and
of his bones and by partaking of the Spirit of him their head receive all the graces and benefits purchased for them by his bitter death and passion Wherefore it is evident that since the body broken and the blood shed neither do nor can now really exist they neither can be really present nor literally eaten or drank nor can we really receive them but only the benefits purchased by them But the body which now exists whereof we partake and to which we are united is the glorify'd body which is therefore verily and indeed received as we shall see anon and by consequence said to be Really present notwithstanding its Local Absence because a real participation and union must needs imply a Real presence though they do not necessarily require a Local one For 't is easy to conceive how a thing that is Locally Absent may yet be Really Receiv'd as he that receives a Disciple is said to receive Christ as the Disciples themselves receiv'd the Holy Ghost as the King in the Gospel receiv'd a Kingdom or as we commonly say a man receives an Estate or Inheritance when he receives the Deeds or Conveiances of it In all which cases the reception is confessedly real tho' the thing it self is not locally or circumscriptively present or literally grasp'd in the arms of the receiver This by the way may serve to shew the vanity as well as falshood of Transubstantiation which was first devis'd to solve the literall eating of the glorify'd body of our Saviour whereas though the body that is glorify'd be numerically the same that was broken yet the body which is eaten as dead and the body which is present as glorify'd are two as different things as can well be imagin'd This may likewise serve to shew that there is no great disagreement among those Protestants whom the Papists too hastily charge with it For they all agree that we spiritually eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood that we neither eat nor drink nor receive the dead body nor the blood shed but only the benefits purchased by them that these benefits are deriv'd to us by virtue of our Union and Communion with the glorify'd body and that our partaking of it and union with it is effected by the mysterious and ineffable operation of the holy Spirit The only difference is that one part from the premisses infer that Christ may be truly said to be Really Present in the Eucharist whereas the other scruple at the use of that expression because the local absence of his body is confessed on both sides notwithstanding they agree in all the points which the other party think requisite to defend it Now tho' it be easy as I said before to conceive how a natural substance may be said to be Really Receiv'd though not Locally Present it is not so easy to conceive it Really Present when at the same time it is Locally Absent Therefore the Church of England has wisely forborn to use the term of Reall Presence in all the Books that are set forth by her authority We neither find it recommended in the Litugy nor the Articles nor the Homilyes nor the Churches nor Nowell's Catechism For although it be once in the Liturgy and once more in the Articles it is mention'd in both places as a phrase of the Papists and rejected for their abuse of it So that if any Church of England-man use it he does more then the Church directs him if any reject it he has the Churches example to warrant him and it would very much contribute to the peace of Christendom if all men would write after so good a Copy Yet it must not be deny'd but the term may be safely us'd amongst Scholars and seems to be grounded upon the language of Scripture it self For when our Saviour promises to be in the midst of them that call upon him and to be with his Church always to the end of the World no doubt he promises to be really present with them though he does not mean that his Naturall Body shall be locally present amongst them So S t. Paul speaks of his own being absent in Body but present in Spirit 1. Cor. V. 3 The Romans us'd to call their Gods Praesentes Deos not as locally present but always ready to assist them and whatever is in readiness when we want it to answer our occasions may be properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be at hand to be present A man does truly repraesentare pecuniam when he gives a good bill for it though he does not pay it down in specie The Holy Ghost is said to abide and dwell in us which words imply a continual presence no doubt Reall though not Physicall and Locall but only by his grace and influence In short whatever we enjoy use and reap the benefit of as truly as if it were prae sensibus is as Really present as if it were Physically so nay no doubt when virtue went out of our Saviour's body to heal the woman in the Gospel though the Jews throng'd him and she did but touch his garment yet his body was more really present to her whom the virtue of it heal'd then to them whom the substance of it touch'd So much for the use of the word which when we of the Church of England use we mean thus A thing may be said to be really receiv'd which is so consign'd to us that we can readily imploy it to all those purposes for which it is usefull in itself and we have occasion to use it And a thing thus really receiv'd may be said to be really present two ways viz. either Physically or Morally to which we reduce Sacramentally A Physicall presence now we speak of a natural Body is locall antecedent to the reception and independent upon it the thing is first really present and then really receiv'd and though it were not receiv'd would be still really present A morall presence is only virtuall consequent to the reception and dependent upon it the thing is first really receiv'd and by consequence said to be really present but it is not at all present to them that do not really receive it Thus in the holy Eucharist the Sacrament is Physically the res Sacramenti Morally present the elements Antecedently and Locally the very body Consequentially Virtually but both Really present From hence it is evident that if we rightly understand the Presence it is not material with what adverbs we affirm it We may say it is Really Essentially nay Corporally present that is it is present in as much as it is Really receiv'd to all intents and purposes for which the Res ipsa the Essence the Substance the very Body would be useful to us if it were Physically and Locally present And the difference between us and the Papists is plain They however they express themselves understand a Local presence which we deny and therefore reject their expression We whatever term we use mean only a
Present in the Eucharist that therefore in the Sacrament i. e. in the celebration the worthy Communicant to whose Soul that Body is really present is to adore the person of Christ in heaven where alone his Body is Locally Present This I doubt the Author very well knew and saw it was no way contrary to the Declaration Wherefore he seems to lay no great stress upon this first inference but goes on Or at least 2 ly And here hee would have it bee infidious in the Church to deny that Adoration is due to a Corporal presence Ibid. and not declare though she believes that there is another adorable presence Now I cannot imagin that even this Author has the confidence to say the Church of England has not sufficiently taught that Christ in Heaven is adorable or the ignorance to think that any good Christian is not sufficiently assur'd of that point But as for adoring Christs Body any otherwise then by directing adoration to his person where his body is suppos'd to be Locally present neither the Church of England nor any other Church ever dreamt of it CHAP. VI. A Reply to the fifth Chapter of the first Discourse THe fifth is the kindest Chapter in all this Discourse for the six first Sections require no manner of answer and the last seemes at first sight to shew some little ingenuity which with this Author is a thing so extraordinary that had he not retracted I think we must have given him publick thanks for it He tells us that perhaps some other passages may be collected out of the Authors he has quoted Disc I. pag. 32. §. 55. that may seem to qualify those he has set down and better suit with the expressions of the Declaration For it seems his Conscience flew in his Face because he very well knew that if the Reader consulted the Authors themselves not only the passages he omitted but those he mangled would be found intirely agreeable to the Declaration The only way left to escape discovery was to prevent if he could the search as unnecessary Wherefore he says tnat if the unquoted passages come over to the quoted we are then but where we were and the quoted accommodated to the unquoted will appear to abett but bare Zuinglianism To this I have answered as much as is necessary already and therefore shall not repeat or add to it Disc I. pag. 30 31 32. The former part of the Chapter is spent in creating and annihilating such objections as are worthy the Author's sagacity Three such he has devis'd as no man else could have thought on and is pleas'd to answer them himself for no other man was worthy I will not interrupt his triumph or provoke him to renew the combat by telling him there yet seems to be life in those objections but rather advise him to consider and spare himself and not batter his own notions in this cruel and hostile manner he has another more gentle and easy method he knows how to contradict them by his way of proving them But if he be so bent upon Controversy that he cannot be contented to live in Peace I would rather then quarrel with himself he would look down upon this Reply Not that I pretend in my own strength to cope with so puissant an Adversary but asserting the Doctrine of the Church of England I may safely defy all Opponents CHAP. VII A Reply to the eight first Sections of the Second Discourse THE Title of this second Discourse does but ill agree with the design of it For all the world knows that Papists who should be the Catholics this Author means by a Real and Substantial understand a Corporal Presence and ground their Adoration upon it Whereas the scope of this Discourse is to shew that the Papists in Adoring either do or may prescind from Transubstantiation and ground their Adoration precisely upon the Reality of the Presence and by consequence that Protestants especially of the Church of England who hold Christ Truly Present and Adorable in the Eucharist ought upon their own Principles to joyn in the Popish adoration or at least absolve them that do so from the guilt of Idolatry What the Writers of the Church of England mean when they hold a Real Presence and in what sense they teach us to Adore Christ's Body in the Sacrament I hope I have already explain'd so fully that I need make no repetition so that the first six leaves of this Defence will afford us little new matter being chiefly taken up in repeating some quotations in the first Discourse and aiming at no more then a specimen of Protestant concessions which by what we have said are sufficiently guarded against the Sophistry of his interpretations Wherefore waving for the present a distinct examen of all his Protestant quotations as a thing tedious and no way necessary serving chiefly to divert and amuse the Reader and thereby puzzle the cause I shall make it the business of this Chapter to speak briefly to those other passages that are most observable in the eight first Sections of this Defence Disc II. pag. 1. §. 1 2 3. His two first Suppositions we grant him being convinc'd of the truth of them by much better reasons then he assigns Nor should we have demurr'd to the third if we were not now acquainted with his insidious and shufâ—ing way of talking But if we may explain our selves we grant him that Wherever the Body of our Lord is Locally Present it is supremely Adorable We likewise grant him that the Omnipresent God may be ador'd before or in the Presence of any Creature we on earth cannot worship him but in the presence of some Creature provided allways we direct our Adoration immediately and solely to him not considering the Creatures present nor addressing the outward act much less the inward worship of the Heart to any Creature upon the score of Gods presence For taking Adoration for divine Worship it is certainly Idolatry not only to adore a Creature but even to make it as I may so say the vehicle of that adoration which wee direct to God and terminate upon him alone 'T is true Christs natural Body abstractedly consider'd is a creature but then it is for ever hypostatically united to the Deity so that the whole person of Christ is that very Lord our God whom wee must worship and whom alone wee must serve But no other creature is so united by virtue of God's presence to or in or with that creature and even that body is not so i. e. hypostatically united but as it exists like other human bodies within some determinate local circumscription wherefore no other creature may bee ador'd nor even Christ's Body but as it exists and is united and thereby becomes adorable where it is Locally present I pass by the place in the Corinthians which the Pamphlet most impertinently refers to Disc II. pag 2. § 3. having already taken notice of the
A REPLY TO Two Discourses Lately Printed at OXFORD Concerning THE ADORATION OF Our BLESSED SAVIOR IN The Holy Eucharist Least Satan should get advantage of us for we are not ignorant of his devises 2 COR. II. v. 11. OXFORD Printed at the THEATER Anno 1687. Imprimatur JO. VENN Vice-Can Oxon. May 19. 1687. To the READER WHEN the two late Discourses concerning The Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist were first printed at Oxford and the World expected they should receive an Answer from the same place from whence they had defy'd the Church of England I was vain enough to think it might fall to my lott to Answer them For I fancy'd so trivial a Pamphlet was below the regard of other men who do God and the Church better sevice in another station and presum'd that while they offer'd Sacrifice a mean man might serve to drive away the Flyes Wherefore I committed to paper what I thought I should say supposing that Province were assigned me but having neither order nor inclination to appear in Print I proceeded as my leisure would allow me and was not so assiduous as I should have been to perform a task Besides I indulg'd my curiosity in a strict examen of the Quotations which some of the Books being scarce and most of them of a competent bulk between procuring and reading them cost me twice the time that it did to write my Reply This search I grant was not absolutely necessary to my purpose for a man that knows the Doctrine of our Church will not stick at any of the Quotations save only those out of Mr. Thorndike yet I do not regrett my pains for I gain'd a more just and lively Idea of the Discourser then I had before and a fresh perusall of our own excellent Authors renewing those impressions I had formerly taken from 'em was it self a very great reward So much work cut out for one that was in no great hast being neither very fond of labour nor lying under any obligation must needs proceed as slowly as ever any Church-work did so that no man need wonder if a London Answer was publish'd when there yet remain'd neare a third part of mine to finish Perusing that Reply I threw aside my own papers as superfluous and resolv'd to proceed no farther in so needless a design the rather because it was reported with great confidence that another Answer was at that time ready and transcribing for the press But some that impatiently expected this second answer finding after a fortnights expectation there was no good ground for that report and being possess'd with an opinion that there ought to be an Oxford Answer having likewise seen in what method I proceeded and how far I was advanced importun'd me first to finish my Reply though it were but for their satisfaction and at last extorted my consent to print it upon condition no other Answer should prevent them These are the reasons why it was made public and why so late If any man find leisure to peruse it I must beg him as he reads the Answer to read the Discourses along with it for that 's a piece of justice due to every book that 's answer'd and in confidence it would here take place I have frequently worded my Reply so that it cannot be throughly understood without comparing my words with those in the Pamphlet they reply to CHAP. I. The Introduction IT is somewhat surprising that one who has left the Church of England to go over to that of Rome should attempt to justifie his desertion by pretending both Churches are agreed and if they are so his conduct is the more amazing who quits the Principles of 'em both and goes to settle the point he contends for upon new Notions of his own which by the way is so plain a confession that he thinks the Popish Principles cannot justifie their Practice that I doubt the Gentlemen of that Communion will scarce thank him for his undertaking One would likewise have expected that a man of the Editors reputation the famous Compiler of an * Ars rationis Oxon. è Theatro 1673. Art of Reason should neither have writ nor published any thing wherein the Author did not reason like a man of art or at leastwise talk as coherently as ordinary men use to do by the pure strength of natural reason Yet it pleases the Author of the Pamphlet to display his great search and quickness in such illations as these * Disc I. ch I. §. 2. pag. 2. Gloria in excelsis is put in the Post communion Ergo The Church that put it there disowns the Real Presence * Disc I. ch III. § 20. pag. 13. Nihil magis incredibile Ergo Not this more incredible that Idem corpus potest esse in diversis locis simul * Ibid. This thing is above our reason Ergo 'T is contrary to it with other such deep discoveries to shew us that his talent in Logic is as singular as his judgement in Religion But I have no commission to question any man for making bold with himself or exposing his own understanding to what degree he thinks fit and should therefore have taken no notice of this Pamphlet had it been any where printed but at Oxford I should not have thought my self obliged to censure the extravagant singularities of a private fancy such especially as are not likely to do any mischief to the Public and such I esteem the notions of this Pamphlet which is too perplex'd for a common Readers understanding and too sophistical to impose upon the more intelligent But considering the false and scandalous reports that are of late so industriously spread about the Nation as if Oxford Converts came in by whole shoals and all the University were just ready to declare I have reason to believe this Pamphlet was designedly printed at Oxford to countenance those reports For no doubt the Popish Presses were at the Editors service and to use them instead of setting up a new one hand been less trouble and better husbandry But the secret is these Papers are to pass with unwary people for a specimen of the Universities judgment much such a one indeed as the Tile was which Hierocles's Scholar brought to market for a sample of the House he had to sell Now there are diverse agravations of this foul play which make it yet more insupportable As why is this question now reviv'd which the members of our Church have of late so carefully declin'd out of pure respect to those ears which if it be possible they are not willing to offend Or why are we of the University attacqu'd in our own quarters and so defy'd to our teeth that we can neither in honor nor honesty decline an answer tho we are well aware with what designe the scene of the Controversie is laid in Oxford Or how can we brook this usage from our companion our own familiar friend whom we trusted
with whom we have taken sweet councel together and walked in the house of God as friends * Ps LV. 14 15. These are such cutting circumstances as no armor of patience is sufficient proof against For these Reasons and not for any worth in the Book I have ventur'd to answer it and comply'd with the severe task the Author sets me to make brick and find straw too For the Pamphlet duly consider'd will not furnish sufficient matter for a Treatise Strip it of its garniture and it comes to no more then this That the Author supposes the Church of England to hold such a Real Presence of Christ's natural body in the Eucharist as he thinks a sufficient ground to adore the Elements To which we need only reply That as the Church ever held a real so she ever deny'd a corporal i. e. a local presence and for that reason forbid the adoration of the Symbols For to say no more at present the same arguments that will justifie our adoring them upon the score of any but a local presence of Christs natural body will excuse not only the Popish but even the grossest Heathen Idolatry This I take to be a full and sufficient answer to what our Author has spun into two Discourses However that I may leave no room for cavil I shall take a distinct view of the whole Pamphlet and reply particularly to the Chapters and Sections of each Discourse as they lie in order CHAP. II. A Reply to the first Chapter of the first Discourse THIS Chapter is taken up chiefly in recounting some little Alterations that have been made at several times in our Rubricks and Articles from which the Pamphlet would infer that our Church has waver'd in her Doctrine Now to my apprehension this Design let it be executed how it will is very impertinently undertaken For admit that the Church had waver'd as she has not what 's that to his purpose of proving that a Real tho' not Corporal presence is ground enough to adore the Elements in the Eucharist Again admit it were pertinent to prove that the Church had waver'd in her Doctrine how impertinent is it to allege no proof save out of the Rubricks and Articles which contain only terms of her Communion omitting the Homilies and Catechisms set forth by her Authority as a solemn declaration of her Doctrine We grant that the Church having always held a Real Presence so far as a Real Participation imply's one but always deny'd it if by Real we mean Corporal and Local has not always thought it requisite to make the declaration and subscription of this Doctrine a term of her Communion and if the Author has any thing to object to her upon this score it may possibly be to the purpose and then we are ready to answer it Allways provided he forbear that shrewd way of arguing which he gives us a tast of in the second paragraph of his second section for to such kind of sequels as he makes there we shall not think fit to reply but leave 'em to be seen through and despis'd by the Freshmen But a man that is not mov'd by those arguments may perhaps be put in mind by the premisses to enquire why these Alterations were made I answer that 't is easy to assign good reasons * The reasons here assign'd are it may be not the true ones why the changes were made but may serve to make a sober man acquiesce in these alterations nay prefer them now they are made and the Lawfulness not the Prudence of the Churches constitutions is the main point to be consider'd by the members of her communion 'T is no matter what Politick reasons might induce the Government to make these changes as long as in making them it did not deviate from the rule of Scripture But the Reader that is so dispos'd may gratify his curiosity as to this point too by consulting Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation vol. 2 pag. 170.190.392.394.405 Foxes and Firebrands par 2. pag 10.11 12 13. Discourse of the holy Eucharist newly printed at London pag 72 73. c. but for want of the authentick Records we can but guess at the true Perhaps they might be as follows 1. It has ever been the practice of all conformable Church of England-men to handle both the Patin and the Chalice when they Consecrate And indeed the very nature of the action implyes the use of that ceremony so that there seems to be no need of a Rubrick to enjoyn it In K. Edward's first book there was a marginal note to direct the more ignorant and unpractic'd * In the present Liturgy there are divers such marginal notes which are not injunctions to perform but directions when to perform some ceremonies which the Rubrick elswhere enjoyns or the nature of the action supposes As for instance in the office of Baptism Here says the margin the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Childs forehead the Rubrick for this ceremony went before And in the office of the Eucharist Here the Priest is to take the Patin into his hands c. that he should break the Bread and take the Cup into his hands is suppos'd in the precedent Rubrick which only directs his standing that he may do it readily and decently for the very nature of the act of Consecration implyes it But when this note of direction when to take the Patin c. was omitted the practice of takeing it did not cease For Rastall himself takes notice that Jewell usâ—d to take the Bread into his hands and we may better learn the mind of our Church from his Practice then the Pamphlets surmises if there were any thousands as Rastall supposes though I beg his pardon for some of his thousands and without a better reason then his supposal won't suppose one thousand omitted it they were of those half-conformists whom the Church has always complainâ—d of as the most disingenuous and dangerous of all her enemies And for their sake in the review of sixty one it was necessary to restore these directions which were not so necessary when the mangling of the service was less common when to use it which was afterwards omitted when the usage was in all appearance sufficiently secur'd by common practice But when false brethren took advantage from the omission to perform the ceremony awkwardly and lamely the directions were restor'd in the edition of sixty one 2. The Gloria in excelsis is a hymn and therefore most properly put in the Postcommunion because most conformably to our Saviour's own practice who when supper was done * Matt. XXVI 13 Mark XIV 26. sung a hymn with his Disciples 3. The Trisagium as it now lies after Holy thrice repeated in honor of the three Persons of the Trinity concludes very properly and pertinently with Glory be to the O Lord acknowledging the Unity This the Benedictus qui venit does not but is rather lyable to the same
misconstruction for which the * Pandectae Canonum c. publish'd at Oxford by Dr. Beverege Council in Trullo Can. 81. condemn'd the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that hymn 4. The omission of these words in these holy mysteries might be purely accidental and pass undiscover'd because as they signifie no more then in this celebration of the Eucharist they have no material influence upon the sense But if we understand as perhaps a perverse man may that these mysteries signifie the same with these elements that is cause enough to omit them because they would assert an opinion which is contrary to sound Doctrine and the declar'd judgment of the Church Disc I. §. 3. n. 1. pag 3. What is farther observable in the two first Sections is repeated and back'd in the third and might be safely pass'd over as containing nothing material but what we again meet with there For concerning the Form prescrib'd in delivering the consecrated Elements he tell 's us that in K. Edwards first book the Form was The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. in his second Take and eat this in remembrance c. in Qu. Elizabeths both these put together as they still continue in the English Liturgy But withal he tells us the first of these Forms descends to us from Antiquity and he finds no fault with the second which is entirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution So that we are yet to seek where the harme lies of using either Form single or both of them together and yet farther to seek to what purpose this observation is made since 't is manifest that neither Form single nor both of them together either owns a Corporal or denyes a Real Presence He addds that the Scotch Rubrick keeping the first Form requires the Communicant to answer to it Amen which without a Rubrick ever was and is still the Practice of the Church of England for what more natural then to answer Amen to a prayer and so were divers other things as for instance standing up at the Gospel and saying Glory be to thee O Lord which the Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy having good reason to approve thought fit to injoyn by a Rubrick that the Puritans might have no pretence for Nonconformity But to return to the Communicants answering Amen the Pamphlet truly observes it to be according to custome of Antiquity but I doubt the proofs it quotes are not very judiciously chosen The place in Eusebius belongs plainly to another thing The words are Hist VII 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Which evidently shews that That Amen was answer'd to the Doxology before the distribution of the Elements as not only Justin Martyr could have taught him but even Valesius himself in his Notes upon that passage of Eusebius I leave the examen of the other two Quotations to them that have leisure and the Books by them 't is probable they may prove as pertinent as this For I find it a common practice in this man 's other Works to quote those passages at length which he thinks will bear the stress of an Argument and barely refer to such places as contain only a hint which perhaps an unwary Reader may go near to swallow This Amen was spoken says the Pamphlet as the Communicants confession that what he receiv'd was Corpus Domini But I shall rather learn the meaning of it from Justin Martyr * Just Mart. Edit Steph Apol. 2. pag. 162. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who observes that Amen in Hebrew signifies so be it wherefore according to His notion the Communicant answering Amen only joyns with the Priest in praying that the Body and Blood of Christ may preserve his Body and Soul to everlasting life The Pamphlet farther observes that in K. Edwards first book there was this passage in the prayer of Consecration And with thy holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ which was afterwards left out of the English Liturgy and restor'd in the Scotch This omission by the way is something injudiciously observ'd because it shews us that the Clergy of Q. Elizabeth had no such thoughts of the Real Presence as the Pamphlet would suggest they had But I refer him for answer to his own quotation out of Laudensium Autocatacrisis From these words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation wherefore the English Reformers scrap'd them out of their Books tho' his Gloss upon Restoring them in the Scocth Liturgie is a manifest cavil for no man of sence can interpret them as they lie there in favor of Transubstantiation see Arch-Bishop Cranmers answer to Gardiner p. 70. p. 289. * The Archbishop the most competent Judge in this case thus interprets this passage p 79. of his answer to Gardiner And therefore in the Book of the Holy Communion we do not pray absolutely that the Bread and Wine may be made the Body and Blood of Christ but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthily receive the same that we may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood and that therewith in Spirit and Truth we may be Spiritually nourished And again p. 289. We do not pray c but that they may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ that is to say that we may so eat them and drink them that we may be partakers of his Body Crucified and his Blood shed for our redemption Wherefore this was the sense of our Reformers that compil'd the Communion-office and thus they understood it that restored it in the Scotch Liturgy and so must any man understand it that is not too partially addicted to Popery I must beg the Readers pardon if out of a desire to leave nothing unreply'd to I have particularly spoken to these inconsiderable observations which the Author himself does but skirmish with But we are now come to the Rubrick before which he intends to sit down viz. that for explaining why we Kneel at the Sacrament This he tells us in K. Edward's book deny'd a Real and Essential but now denyes only a Corporal Presence To which I answer that K. Edward's Rubrick by Real and Essential means as the Papists then us'd to do a Real and Bodily Presence as is plain by the Articles set forth about the same time and quoted by the Pamphlet it self pag. 2. He observes farther that both this Rubrick and the explanatory Paragraph in the 28 th Article were expung'd in the first of Q. Elizabeth To which we have already answer'd that this at the utmost implyes but a change in the terms of our Communion and if he think fit to challenge the Church upon that score we are ready to
Spiritual and Virtual Presence and explain the term we make use of to that effect Thus the Protestants in K. Henry the Eighth's time that sufferd upon the six Articles deny'd the Real Presence i. e. the Popish sense of it but meant the same thing with us who think we may lawfully use that term On the other side that excellent Person and glorious Martyr Mr. Bradford * Acts and Monuments p. 1608. I do believe says he that Christ is Corporally present at and in the due Administration of the Sacrament But he adds this explication By this word Corporally I mean that Christ is present Corporally unto Faith It is likewise evident that when we say Christ is Present or Adorable in the Sacrament we do not mean in the Elements but in the Celebration We affirm his naturall Body to be Locally in Heaven and not here and that we who are here and not in Heaven ought to Worship it as Locally present in Heaven while we celebrate the Holy Sacrament upon Earth Lastly it is evident that this Doctrine is sufficiently remov'd from what the Pamphlet calls Zuinglianism how truly I will not now inquire 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 receiv'd and we actually put in possession of it though Locally absent from us So that while we Spiritually eat Christ's Flesh and drink his Blood we through Faith in a mysterious and ineffable manner dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and Christ with us and by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet Real participation we receive the Benefits consequent to it even the remission of our Sins and all other benefits of Christs Passion This in short is our meaning and to this effect all true Church-of-England-men declare it Whether we express our selves in proper and accurate terms is another question wherein if the Editor think fit to ingage we are ready to answer him In the mean time we desire him and the rest of his Communion not to catch up our words and bait them in their own sense which is too like the dealing of the Old Romans with the Primitive Christians It remains that we say a word or two concerning Mr. Thorndike's Testimony and so dismiss this Chapter The reader may please to take notice that the whole design of this Pamphlet is to furbish and rig out a notion of Mr. Thorndike's in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England The notion is neither the Church of Englands nor as I believe any other Churches nor does he so much as pretend that any other man much less any Church ever taught it He only thinks it is * consistent with the analogy of Faith not trenching as he says upon any ground of Christianity and seems to propose it as a peaceable expedient for complying outwardly with the Popish adoration of the Euchâ—â—â—â—â— a practice which when he wrote his 〈…〉 thought adviseable if it could be warranted for he was then upon a project of Uniting all Christians in one Communion and wrote his Epilogue on purpose to serve that design not pretending to give the true sense of any party but so to blanch the opinions of them all that the difference of their Judgment might not hinder their Uniting Wherefore he professes to expect * Preface to the Epilogue p. 45 c. the Lot of Reconcilers to be contradicted by all parties and owns that he sayes those things which he should have dissembled had the Church of England continu'd But it seemes he thought as some others did when the King was Murther'd that the Church of England was utterly and irrecoverably dissolv'd and that it was necessary to hold Communion with some Church and if it were honestly practicable with the Church of Rome rather then another 'T is probable the Editor was of the same mind for I remember to have heard this very plea made in his defence by a friend of his about some Eighteen years since But whatever Mr. Thorndike's opinion was when he wrote his Epilogue 't is certain when the King return'd he was a member of that Convocation that revis'd the Liturgy that he constantly attended there and had a hand more then ordinary in the Edition of sixty one That he declar'd his unfeign'd assent and consent to all things in the Liturgy as it was then alter'd that he conform'd to it all the rest of his Life and at last dy'd in Communion with the Church that impos'd the use of it So then we have here quoted out of the Epilogue a private opinion of a private man and what 's that to the Church especially since for ought then appear'd he was singular in it while he held it when occasion offer'd he forsook it professing his unfeign'd assent to that Rubrick which the Pamphlet would confront with his Authority CHAP. IV. A Reply to the third Chapter of the first Discourse Disc 1. §. 19 p. 13. The Author's purpose in the third Chapter is to combat this assertion in the Rubric that it is against the truth of a natural body to be i. e. as he explains it that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once Here is a kind of inauspicious stumble at the very entrance For 't is one thing to say as the Rubric does that a true natural body cannot be and another as he does that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once For should we suppose as he would have us that God should make one of our bodys be in two places at once when God had done this it would truly be in those places but before he did it he must change the nature of the body and make it cease to be a true natural body This is but a slip but in the next Paragraph 't is neck or nothing Ibid §. 20. n. 1. He finds there that Protestants confess Christs presence in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery they own indeed our Vnion and Communion with him to be so but supposing that the Reall Presence is easily explain'd But admit the Reall Presence be ineffable what then Ibid. He conceives it is so because of something in it opposite and contradictory to reason Now any Protestant Child could have told him tho' perhaps he will take it more kindly from the Catholic * Part 2. Cap. 6. pag. 41. Representer that the mysteryes of Faith are above reason not contrary to it A little farther nihil magis incredibile says Calvin therefore says the Author not this more incredible that Idem Corpus c. Away you Wagg what thrice in one Paragraph § 20. n. 3. Dr. Disc 1. § 20. n. 3 p â—4 Taylor is Quoted saying that if Transubstantiation were plainly reveal'd he would burn all his arguments against it and believe it without more adoe And so say I too
of them to invoke the Divine Omnipotence when they run their heads against a contradiction But they that pretend to make God when they please may by the same reason make him do what they please This I hope is a sufficient guard against the untoward application of any Protestant writings wherewith the Pamphlet either does or can abuse the common Reader in this matter Disc I. pag. 22. Ibid. §. 19. p. 13. In the end of the thirtieth Section he palms upon us a passage out of S. Austin which is very surprizing He professes to forbear quoting the Fathers because the Protestants have done it for him though we may take leave to suppose another Reason but here when he thought he could delude the Reader with S. Austin's authority he is willing to make his best of him It seems that excellent Father in his * Tom. 6. p. 515. Seqq. Edit nov Paris Cura pro mortuis having prov'd that Martyrs cannot interesse rebus viventium without a Miracle immediately adds that Quemadmodum the modus whereby this Miracle is wrought is beyond his capacity too sublime too abstruse for him he had rather inquire of them that know Vtrum ipsi per seipsos adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis or whether they reliev'd their votaries by the Ministry of Angels or whether it be both these wayes Which shews as the Pamphlet tells us this Father believ'd no impossibility of a Martyrs being uno tempore in diversis locis Would not any man imagin now who knows what point the Author drives at that he would have S. Austin say a a Martyr's Body might be in two places at once and would he not wonder that S. Austin should be quoted for this purpose who is * Epist 57. ad Dardanum carnis forma atque substantia cui profecto immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulit Cavendum enim est ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis ut veritatem corporis auferamus Una enim pâ—rsona Deus Homo est Utrumque est unus Christus Jesus Ubique per id quod Deus est in Coelo autem per id quod Homo Idem Tract 31. in Joan. Homo enim secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non erit Et Tract 30 in Joan. Corpus enim Domini in uno loco esse oportet so Ivo Gratiam Lombard Aquinas quote it not potest as 't is Printed veritas ubique diffusa est elsewhere so express and peremptory that the Naturall Body of Christ himself cannot be in two places at once But the Author is wary for he knew very well that by ipsi per seipsos S. Austin meant as he explains himself ipsorum animae in figura corporis sui But did not S. Austin then believe that a Spirit might be in two places at once Perhaps not but was therefore at a loss because he knew not how to believe it and this put him upon search of other solutions I will not now inquire whether a Spirit may be sayd to be in two places at once as the Souls of the Martyrs were by some perhaps suppos'd to have been though the affirmative may be explain'd without holding a contradiction but rather observe how S. Austin concludes this point viz. If the man whom he consulted should tell him out of Scripture This thing is above your reach and therefore forbear your enquiry he would thankfully receive this answer and and acquiesce So upon the whole matter S. Austin delivers himself like a true Church-of-England-man Here 's a point started which is past my understanding the difficulties and wayes of solution are these I cannot determine and therefore do not care to dispute I submit to Scripture and content my self with the Certainty of the thing without inquiring into the modus I wish other Writers would follow this example and then perhaps we might keep our Religion without parting with our common sense The thirty first Section containing only old matter has been spoken to before Disc I. pag. 23. I only add that if the Author allow Dr Heylin's reason why does he give a different one of his own if not why does he quote it In the thirty second Section he repeats the old blunder about Real and Corporal Ibid. and adds two or three to keep it company He cannot discern he says why it should not be a contradiction for a Body to be Locally in one place and Really Receiv'd in another He should read Mr. Walker's Logic which will tell him that two contradictories have the same Subject and Predicate He says it is insidious in the Rubrick not to say that the Body Locally Absent is Really Receiv'd and may tempt a man to doubt whether the Church thinks it to be so Now I fancy not because the Catechism is very express He is troubled we refuse other mens contradictions and expect our own should pass currently But we have told him that we neither hold nor meddle that we know of with any contradiction in explaining our own Doctrine and he has not yet vouchsafed to make it appear we doe From hence to the end of the Chapter he is as busy as if he were playing with * Book of Education part 1. chap. 11. pag. 145. printed 1677. Thesauro's Bees Five wayes he has found out of explaining Really and Essentially and no man Living that I know of either sayes or meanes any one of them as they are there deliver'd Disc I. §. 33. He sayes he does this to express his disquisition more fully The three first explications are three such unaccountable Whimsyes as need no other disquisition but whether the words are capable of a rational meaning For example Ibid. If by Really and Essentially be meant such a Presence of Christs body to our souls as the Papists hold there is to the Elements i. e. by abolishing the substance of the Soul and substituting Christ's body in the room of it c. and so for the two next The fourth speaks imperfectly §. 36. pag. 25. Ibid. but seems to say something of truth viz. that the body becomes Really present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven To this he objects that then Christ would be no more present in the Eucharist then in any other Sacrament wherein the Spirit is confer'd In which I see no inconvenience nor do I believe the Fathers did when they said Christ is present in the Eucharist as he is in Baptism He objects farther that such presence is properly of the Spirit Ibid. which I hope for his credit is onely a mistake of the Press and that the written copy had it by the Spirit The fifth explication is likewise imperfect if he apply it to the Church of England which does not hold a bare reception of the benefits but
a Real participation of the body by consequence of the effects and benefits But the great and killing objection against all explications he dislikes is their not advancing us beyond Zuinglianism Whether the opinion which he brands by that name be truly ascribed to Zuinglius and really so great a bugbear as this Author seems to apprehend I need not now stay to inquire 't is sufficient to my purpose that the Church of England does advance beyond it Yet the words of the Judicious and Venerable Mr. Hooker are very well worth our observation It seemeth saith he lib. 5. Sect. 67. pag. 308. much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramentaries so many invective Discourses are made all running upon two points that the Eucharist is not a bare Sign and Figure only and that the efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all we Receive in this Sacrament For no man having read their Books and Writings which are thus traduced can be ignorant that both these Assertions they plainly confess to be most true they do not so interpret the words of Christ as if the Name of his Body did import but the Figure of his Body and to be were only to Signifie his Blood They grant that these Holy mysteries Receiv'd in a due manner do instrumentally both make us Partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in True and Reall though Mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and intire as hath been shew'd These words may receive farther light from Bishop Cosins's History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. Sect. 13.17 18. Now they that acknowledge thus much hold a Real Participation and Vnion which is all that is requisite to affirming a Real Presence And if they deny a Real Presence they only reject a Term which may well enough be us'd but perhaps be better let alone The truth is what the Pamphlet attributes to Zuinglius was as Bucer reports the tenent of the Anabaptists and as Mr Thorndike says of some Puritans in the beginning of the late Rebellion And by them 't is most probable this notion was imparted to a friend of ours who at that time was observ'd to be their great associate and favourer Disc I. §. 37 p. 25. What the Remonstrants and Socinians say does no way concern us much good may they do the Author they who set up for so great masters of reason will but ill resent it that a man of his head should pretend to them Ibid. §. 38. Who W.H. is and who his Answerer I know not having never seen either of their Books And being so well acquainted with this Author's sincerity I cannot depend upon his Credit I meet with nothing quoted but what 't is easy to give an account of but to do it as it should be one ought to have the Books by him for I vehemently suspect this Answerer has far'd no better then his Brethren CHAP. V. A Reply to the Fourth Chapter of the first Discourse TO the third Observable lay'd down in the first Chapter which now comes to be consider'd the Author has three things to say 1. That if Christ's Natural Body were Corporally Present in the Eucharist Disc I p. 27. §. 39. it ought to be then ador'd which we grant him and had he design'd to dispute for the Papists he ought to have insisted that it is Corporally Present 2. Ibid §. 40. That if we reject a Corporal Presence yet if any other Presence be reveal'd which is as Real and Essential as if it were Corporal adoration will be no less due to it thus then so Present That is if he mean to oppose us and not barely fight with his own shadow that since the Church of England holds the natural body of Christ to be Corporally and Locally absent yet as Truly and Really Present as if it were Locally Present she is as much bound to adore the Elements for the sake of the Real Presence which she owns as she would be if she likewise own'd that Corporal and Local Presence which she deny's I say to adore the Elements for otherwise there is no dispute whether Christ's body abstracting from the hypostatical Union be more then a creature which is not adorable with Divine worship For all understanding men are agreed it is not Or whether Christs person i. e. his body hypostatically united to his Deity wheresoever or howsoever present is to be ador'd both in and out of the Sacrament viz. in the performance of all religious offices still addressing our adoration to him in heaven where his body is Locally Present for this is allow'd by all true Christians whatsoever This his second position we are to debate when he speaks to it in the mean time we deny it 3 He undertakes to shew that the Church of England i. e. five writers of her Communion Disc I. pag. 28. §. 41 42 43 44 45. whereof one is Mr Thorndike as he delivers himself in his Epilogue have heretofore believ'd and affirm'd such a Presence to which they thought adoration due To adore a presence is an odd kind of expression for 't is to adore an extrinsic denomination To adore Christ present in the mysteries is a phrase we better understand though that too be lyable to misconstruction If the author dare to speak plain the point that pinches and the true thing to be prov'd is that Christ according to the quotations is so Really Present in the Eucharist that the Elements ought to be Divinely worshiped upon that account And if this be so as I think I have plainly shewn I leave the Reader to consider with what confidence the Author quotes either Bishop Andrews for his purpose who expressly in the very quotation declares himself against him saying Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus or Bishop Taylor saying likewise We give no divine honour to the Signs or Bishop Forbes saying Haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni debetur or the Arch-Bishop of Spalato since this passage in Bishop Forbes is a quotation out of the Arch-Bishop I can only say that to me these passages seem to argue that the Author is very Singular in something besides his Religion Disc I. pag 29. §. 47. Having given us this taste of his other good qualities he concludes with a spice of his Logic and infers 1. That notwithstanding what he has said the Church in her Declaration seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's body as any way Present in the Eucharist contrary to the forecited Doctrine and K. James's and Bishop Andrews's Religion I will not take advantage of his ambiguous expressions but tell him that the King 's the Bishop's and the Churches meaning is very plain viz. that since Christs Natural Body is not to be ador'd but where it is Corporally Locally Present it is not so
Author's practice in such cases Nor shall I much insist upon that passage that Christ's humanity abstractively considered is adorable with a Worship not exceeding that due to a Creature Ibid. for wee are not now talking of Inferior Adoration but supreme Divine Worship Wee know that adorare is by some taken for manum ori admovere to kiss the hand or any thing els in token of respect which as some Papists would perswade us is all they do to their Images But 't is certainly foppery if it be no worse to do so to any thing but an intelligent being Besides wee know it was a * Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ceremony of the heathen Idolatry and Job is of opinion Ibid. that if he had us'd it to the sun in which our author newly instanc'd it had been an iniquity to be punish'd by the Judg for he should have deny'd the God that is above Job XXXI 26.27.28 In the fifth Section he tells us that Protestants Disc II. pag. 2. § 5. n. 1. of the Church of England especially grant the body and blood of Christ to be Really Present in the Eucharist not in Vertue only but in Substance and that this body and blood of our Lord which is not sever'd from his person is then to bee worshipped with Supreme Adoration This we likewise grant him as we have already explain'd it according to the mind of those Protestants and so pass over the quotations which take up the two next sections together with abundance of advantage that an adversary might take for we are now in pursuit of an argument that is in some danger to be lost in this mist of quotations These are all the Concessions wherein the Church of England is concern'd and therefore we might pass over the two next which I cannot imagin to what purpose he mentions Disc II. pag 10. § 7. For though the Lutherans grant as some not all of 'em do that during the action of the Eucharist Christs body is to be ador'd as by Consubstantiation present to the Consecrated Symbols I see not what advantage this concession gives to his cause or how it is any way prejudiciall to ours For the Lutherans hold a Local Presence wherefore some of them think they may adore and if we could believe their Presence we should not contest their Adoration Ibid p. 11. To as little purpose does he press us with Monsieur Daille's concessions For if he grant more then the Church of England does she is not bound to defend him tho' in this case I think he does not and so we may safely joyn with him in his concessions For the reason why we cannot Communicate with the Church of Rome is not barely because she holds an Error but because she proposes it under an Anathema and grounds an Idolatrous practice upon it and requires our consent to both these things as a term of Her Communion This the Lutherans do not and therefore tho' their opinion be Erroneous their Communion need not be unlawful Now to see with what judgment the Defender makes use of this concession He 's to prove that Protestants by their own rules ought to joyn in the Popish adoration and his argument is that Mons Daillè says we cannot communicate with the Papists as long as they impose their adoration tho' otherwise we might if they only believ'd erroneously and kept their error to themselves Ibid. p. 12. Once more this Judicious Author appeals to M. Daillè who believing as the Church of England does that to Worship any Host is Idolatry yet grants if the case were otherwise and if a Consecrated Host were truly adorable it were possible to adore one that is not Consecrated without committing formal Idolatry Likewise He and Dr. Stillingfleet grant that when Christ was upon Earth where his person was confessedly adorable a man that by inculpable mistake had ador'd another person for him might have likewise been absolv'd from the guilt of formal Idolatry And both these concessions are as certainly true as certanly alleg'd to no purpose But perhaps the Author means the reason only not the instances to be pertinent and would infer no more but that Papists by our own concessions may be no Idolaters though they Worship a Creature because they may do this by an inculpable mistake This I grant may be something not to his but to the Papists purpose if he prove them inculpably mistaken but that We should suppose them so I cannot see why he should pretend For he knows that we think Transubstantiation to be more then a mistake a flat and manifest defyance of Sense and Reason Scripture and Tradition and in that respect more culpable then the grossest Heathen mistake for they to mention no other disparity wanted the Light of Scripture which the Papists have and shut their eyes against and this in our opinion makes a vast difference between the Popish and Heathen Idolatry CHAP. VIII A Reply to the six next Sections of the second Discourse beginning at §. 9. SO much for the Protestant Concessions The Defender in the six next Sections pretends to lay down Catholic Assertions which I doubt will be no more allow'd by the Church of Rome then his Protestant Concessions are by the Church of England First he tells us tha◠Catholics affirm there is in the Eucharist after consecration a Sign distinct and having a divers existence from the thing signify'd Disc II. pag. 13. §. 9. Whence he concludes that Dr. Stillingfleet does them wrong when he says they grant the Signs to be hypostatically united to the Thing signify'd A Sign there must be says his own quotation out of Bellarmin or there can be no Sacrament Wherefore we presume they hold a Sign But then the Sign as they explain it is neither the Sign instituted by Christ which doubless a Sacramental sign ought to be nor indeed any other Sign but a Sign that signifies nothing Then for the separate Existence of it some Papists do not hold that neither as the Author could not but see in that very place of Dr Taylor which he refers to in this Section which makes it somewhat strange that so liberal a quoter should here be so unseasonably sparing as not to afford us one testimony that expressly owns this separate Existence But all Papists that will talk consistently must deny it not only because an accident cannot exist without inherence but because they hold the Species united to the Body to make one intire object of Adoration which cannot be without a Hypostatical Union Wherefore Bellarmin and Valentia though they do not use the term Hypostatically yet find themselves obliged to say the thing and explain the Vnion of the Species to the Body in the same manner as they do the Hypostatical Vnion Valentia indeed is so much a Jesuit as having sayd the thing to deny the word but Bellarmin is more considering And this is all that excellent Person says
to allow a great Sin we would not only suffer but advise him to talk improperly and singularly that so his language might the better correspond with his notions CHAP. IX A Reply to the nine next Sections of the second Discourse beginning at §. 15. HItherto the Author has been ranging in the fifteenth Section he seems to make a set Disc 2. pag. 19. He deny's that the Protestants give a true state of the question and his instance is in Dr. Stillingfleet whom his evill Genius ever prompts him to attacque notwithstanding his briskest attempts so constantly scandalously miscarry To him he joyns Bishop Andrews and Bishop Taylor whose words if they be pertinently apply'd here are so disingenuously quoted in other parts of this Pamphlet that I doubt the Author's dealing will amount to a very improper expression But if Protestants state the question wrong let us heare how this Author himself states it He reduces the whole controversy to these two questions 1. Ibid. p. 20. Whither the Body and Blood of Christ prescinding from whatever symbol is or may be there is adorable as being present in the Sacrament with the symbols 2 ly Whither the adoration of Christ's Body and so of Christ as present if it should not be so will amount to Idolatry allways supposing as he adds in the 17 th Section that we continue to adore the self same object as the Papists now do in the self same place pag 21. with all the same circumstances wherewith their adoration is now perform'd To this I answer that I cannot take it upon this Author's word that Popes and Councils with the most and best of the Romish writers have so abandon'd all common sense and ingenuity as to say and practice what they have done if they really meant no more then he pretends For this were an improper expression with a witness an insincerity that an honest Heathen would tremble at Nor if one or two School-men were really of his mind should he that in the Guide is so great a stickler for majorities here propose the opinion of a few forlorn members for the standing Judgment of the whole Church The true sons of the Church of Rome are more ingenuous and own that they believe the species together with the Body to make one intire object to which they pay one intire act of adoration For the truth of this together with a full state and decision of this question I refer the Reader to a * Printed at London 1685. for Brab Ailmer and lately reprinted late excellent Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host For it is not my present business to dispute with Honest minded Papists whose errors I heartily lament and beseech God to open their eyes but with this shuffling writer who being indeed of no Church would fain pin himself now upon the Church of Rome This says he is affirm'd by Catholics more then this need not be so and again Disc 2. pag 20. l. 7. Ibid l. 2 Disc 2. pag. 16. The Roman Church owns or imposes no more So likewise § 13. The definition of this Council in the sixth canon more then which is not requir'd to be profess'd by any Son of the Roman Church is this Si quis dixerit c. That is as is declar'd more at large in the fifth discourse of the Guide the stress of all lyes upon si quis dixerit si quis negaverit §. 186. p. 133. So that if a man be but a little complaisant in his practice and keep a good tongue in his head let him be what he will in his heart he may still be one of this Author 's Catholics though I doubt none of the Church of Rome's For though the greatest sins are with him but improper expressions yet all honest men of the Roman or any other communion will call his dealing by a proper expression which I do not now care to name Wherefore the Controversy between us and this Author for the Church of Rome is no way concern'd in his dreams is briefly this Whether prescinding from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence and allowing only a Real Presence as the writers of the Church of England do it is Idolatry to pay the self same adoration with the self same ceremonies to the self same object in the self same place and manner that the Papists now pay it to the Consecrated Elements To this I answer Affirmatively and hope I have already * Chap. 7. par 2. of this Reply given a good and sufficient reason why I do so It remains that I examin what the Author has to say for the Negative First he saies those Protestants who absolve the Lutherans from Idolatry Disc 2. §. 19. may as he has stated the matter as well absolve his Catholics To which I am not concern'd to answer tho' t is false and easily confutable because his own state excludes the consideration both of a Popish and Lutheran Presence as farr as either of them differ from the Church of England's Real Presence Come we therefore 2 ly to the twenty first section where he supposes both Papists and Lutherans in an error both mistaking Christ the true object of supreme Adoration to be in a place where he is not Ibid. p. 25. He should add and the Papists upon that mistake adoring an object that is not at all Adorable Now this he says cannot be term'd any such Idolatry as is the Worship of an object not at all Adorable Such or not such is not properly the question but whether it be Idolatry Wherefore I pass by his impertinent trifling with his Angel and his Serpent for the argument he should answer is this The Israelites and Manichees who directed the outward act of adoration to a Creature were accounted Idolaters by God and the Primitive Church notwithstanding their own supposing or the Author 's supposing for them and we by the same reason say that whoever pays the adoration aforesaid to the Consecrated Elements let him suppose what he will will for all his supposition commit an improper expression which God and the Church will account Idolatry His third assertion must be taken in pieces Disc 2. pag. 26. §. 22. He says Whatever Fault or Idolatry it may be in a Manichee to Worship the Sun or an Israelite the Calf yet c. where I wonder he talks so mincingly whatever fault and may be when St. Paul 1 Cor. X. 7 is peremtory that the Worshipers of the Calf were Idolaters Ibid. He says his Catholics freely grant that a good intention grounded upon culpable ignorance can excuse none from Idolatry We accept this Concession and desire to know if Popish ignorance be not Culpable how 't is possible any Ignorance should 3. He says that Mons Ibid. Daillé and he supposes other Protestants with him allow that a Ground or Motive of adoration which is Reasonable though not absolutely certain but actually
Ibid. will be but so humble as to make the companion of his studies he 'll find that no art can make Transubstantiation look so old but that the persent Roman Doctrine will appear too young by above twelve hundred years Disc 2. pag. 29. §. 27. Instead of securing his next deceitfull ground and giving us something we may rest our foot upon He sends his humble Christian to a Discourse and a Digression in the Guide to Mons Blondell's Eclaircissement and the endless Controversy between Claud and Arnaud which when he has consulted he will find he has been upon an Aprill errand But to save him that labour if we can let us first see what will become of us if we grant this ground viz. the Universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time Now to this ground likewise the Arch-Bishop has effectually reply'd in divers places p. 11. p. 380. and especially from p. 405. to the end of the Book The summ is that the true Church Doctrine are to be judg'd by their agreement to Scripture Antiquity not always to be measur'd by the majority of visible Professors For that may be often overrun with dangerous error as de facto it was among the Jews even by our Authors own confession in his book of the benefits of our Saviour cap. 9. Wherefore the general Example is not always a rational ground of Practice and a reasonable man will consider the reason of the practice he complies with and bring a Doctrine * Isa VIII 20 to the Law and to the Testimnyo before he yields up his assent to it This we presume * Rom. XI 4 1 King XIX 18 the seven thousand did which were the true though secret Church of God when all the rest of the visible Jewish Church had bow'd the knee to Baal and kissed him Thus the rest of that * Luke XII 32 little flock which God hath ever had and will have to the end of the world not swimming with our Author's stream though never so impetuous Disc 2. §. 27. p. 31. but weighing all things in the ballance of the Sanctuary For if prevalence and prescription were a rational and sufficient ground of practice and the visible majority of the Church should fall into a Damnable error which thing certainly may be because it has been the Church might lawfully persist in that Damnable error nor would it be oblig'd to eject the most scandalous corruption that had once got peaceable possession This we think a sufficient and give it as the shortest answer to this ground consider'd with the utmost advantage whereof it is capable viz. supposing * See Dr. Feild's Appendix to his third Book of the Church wherein he proves that the Latin Church was and continu'd a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the maintainers of Romish Errors were only a Faction in the same at the time of Luther's appearing what is falsly challeng'd the universal doctrine and practice of the later Church till Luther But otherwise we could both tell him and prove beyond all possibility of a fair Reply that the controversy lasted above three hudred years before Transubstantiation could be lick'd into any shape and that at last it was setled in an age of which the Papists themselves give so scandalous a Character that no History can tell us of a majority more unlikely to sway a knowing or a virtuous man We could shew him that the Universality he talks of must exclude the Abissines the Armenians the Maronites and abundance of other Christians nay the much more valueable part of the Latin Church it self For though the Pope when he was strong enough to exercise the Plenitude of his Power made his Enemies and their Writeings as invisible as fire and smoke could yet still there remain the undoubted Monuments of a long visible Succession all declaring against Transubstantiation for a collection of whose Testimonies the world has lately been oblig'd to a member of the Roman Communion His last ground is the same with the foremost of his firsts viz. the Concessions of Protestants Disc 2. § 28. p. 31. For he 's at it once more that the Genuine Sons of the Church of England hold our Saviour to be Really Present and Adorable in the Sacrament Which has been so often sayd I hope so fully answer'd before that I shall take no farther notice of it now I shall only tell him as the Archbishop often tells Gardiner upon the like occasion that he seems to be in great distress when he flyes for refuge to those Authors whom at other times he abhors as Heretics but his application to them is in vain for they are far from meaning any such thing as he pretends Ibid. p. 32. In the close of this Paragraph he looks back upon all these Pleas of Catholics and invites us to see if they will not make up at least a reasonable Ground or motive of their Adoration Now I must profess that I see nothing like it as he has order'd the matter For though I believe a man of art out of these five grounds might have made a plausible though not a rational plea to my apprehension this Author has left the Papists in a much worse case then he found them For 1. he offers nothing to excuse them from Idolatry but the Concessions of one or two Protestants which 't is evident come not home to his purpose because they whom the Protestants excuse are suppos'd inculpably mistaken and not at all mistaken in the object of their Adoration 2. He ingages the Papists upon a very difficult or rather an impossible precision both because it is contrary to what they have been taught and because they are all bound under a severe Anathema to believe Transubstantiation so that a Papist can never explain this term Reall Presence to himself but by this other of Corporal Presence effected by Transubstantiation 3. Having invited the Papists to wave that Corporal Presence for which they think they have a great many arguments he proposes Adoration founded on another notion for which he has not offer'd them so much as one argument So that in short he proposes what no body is like to practice upon the sole strength of a Doctrine for which he has nothing to say In the next place he complains that these five Rational grounds are not strictly examin'd by the Protestants Disc 2. §. 29 p. 32. But we think otherwise and must leave the indifferent Reader to Judg between us We think they were effectually answer'd by the Arch-Bishop above an hundred years agoe and by divers other writers since especially the Author of a late Incomparable Discourse against Transubstantiation which all the Posse of the Church of Rome will never be able to answer any otherwise then they did the Arch-Bishop Wherefore the Defender must allow us to retain our old opinion of those Protestants
whom he censures so freely in the remaining part of this paragraph Ibid. p. 33. We shall still think that Mons Daillé had reason and made a true resolution of Popery into Passion and Interest that Bishop Taylor has prov'd as well as said that the Papists pretences to the Fathers are but few and trifling that what the Defender quotes out of Liberty of prophecying is a very good argument against the literall sense and that the Bishop while he pleaded for the Papists did prudently to omit Catholic tradition which he knew was not on theyr side We shall still profess with Dr. Stillingfleet that the grossest Idolatry in the world has as fair a plea as the Popish and conclude that this Trifler finding fault with him has not ex but inexcuseably mistaken the Doctor 's argument as will appear by comparing his words with what the Dr. says Rom Idolatry cap. 2. § 7. pag. 132.133 Lastly we agree that if Transubstantiation were warranted by Catholic tradition Adoration were sufficiently grounded and cannot but smile as Crassus did upon a like occasion to see how gingerly the Defender nibbles at this concession He seems to say that Tradition is for Transubstantiation Ibid. yet he waves that and pleads only for a Corporal Presence which for any thing he says here may be taken in a Lutheran sense though to talk with him in his own language if Trans be true Consubstantiation must needs be fals And what 's all this to his purpose who pretends to abstract from both and ground his Adoration precisely upon a Real Presence And now 't is my turn to address to the indifferent Reader and if he have either read Mr. Thorndike's Epilogue or but carefully consider'd this Author's quotations out of it to ask his opinion about these two or three questions 1. Whether this Author has in all this whole Pamphlet expressly own'd himself a Roman-Catholic or rather skulk'd under the general name of Catholic taken in the same latitude Mr. Thorndike takes it in his Epilogue 2 Whether all his shuffling be not only to advance Mr Thorndike's new and singular notion of a presence of Christ's body in or with or under the Elements § 28. p. 32. distinct from the Church of Englands Real and the Papists and Lutherans Corporal Presence In short not a Virtual nor Spiritual but a Corporal Presence effected neither by con nor Transubstantiation but after some other unknown manner distinct from both § 17. p. 21. 3 Whether a new and upstart doctrine which was probably never thought of before Mr Thorndike's time ought to pass for a doctrine of the Primitive Church 4 Whether the man that plays these tricks be an honest Papist And whether the humble Christian that swallows them must not have a very humble understanding CHAP. XI A Reply to the five last Sections of the second Discourse Disc 2. pag. 33. OUr Author § 30. imputes it to the strength of his Grounds not to excess of Charity or the singular fancies of some few learned men that of late the Protestants do either not at all or but very faintly charge the Papists with Idolatry This confident assertion he very well knows is false as the Reader will find it by by if it were true it will not serve him to shelter his peculiar notions under the Patronage of the Church of England Wherefore I must return him a quotation out of * Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to Roman Idolatry last paragraph the same Preface which himself quotes viz. That our Church is not now to be form'd according to the singular fancies of some few tho' learned men much less to be modell'd by the Copricio's of superstitious Fanatics who prefer some odd opinions and wayes of their own before the receiv'd Doctrine of the Church they live in Such as these we rather pity their weakness then regard their censures and are sorry when our Adversaries make such properties of them as by their means to beget in some a disaffection to our Church But to come to those Protestants Disc 2. §. 30. p. 33 34. who our Author tells us neither out of singularity nor charity but pure conviction are of late so kind to Popery The first he quotes is Mr. Thorndike in his Epil wherein he is not only a Conciliator and so oblig'd by his very design to strain his charity but his terms of Reconciliation are by his own confession peculiar notions of his own which he seems to have propos'd as not thinking that other Reconcilers had sufficiently clear'd the Papists from Idolatry For it must be confessed that this Pious and Learned Man was zealous to his last hour to acquit the Church of Rome from Idolatry partly out of the natural sweetness of his temper which made him unwilling to lay so grievous a sin to the charge of any Church but chiefly upon a mistaken principle that all Idolatry unchurches So that the charge of it would in his opinion light heavy upon the Papists and at the rebound equally hurt the Church of England which derives her Succession and Ordination from the Church of Rome This mistaken opinion the Defender greedily lays hold on and ask's with great briskness What Church or Sect of religion can be apostate at all Ibid. p. 34. if not a Church committing and commanding Idolatry I must desire him to reconcile this pert question with another as pert in the book of the Benefits of our Saviour chap. 9. § 14. And now says he what can hinder God's goodness or decay the Church since 't is plain that sin cannot even the sin of Idolatry as is proved at large in the two foregoing Sections For when he does this he will return the common answer to that objection wherein he now sides with Mr Thorndike Ibid. The next is Bishop Forbes in his Considerationes modestae pacificae whose design and character is so well known and so obvious to any man that has but ever look'd upon his book that I think the Reader will need no farther information how excessive his charity was in this matter Ibid. p. 35. Thirdly Arch-Bishop Bramhall concludes that very Section which our author quotes with these words Tho' the Church of Rome do give divine worship to a Creature or at least a party among them yet I am so charitable as to hope they intend it to the Creator It may be the Defender will reply now that he does not say excessively charitable Ibid. Fourthly 't is notorious that Bishop Taylor wrote his Liberty of prophecying to serve the interest of the Church of England which at that time was to obtain a general toleration Wherefore it concern'd him in that book to be more then a Conciliator and represent Popery with the utmost favour it would bear Yet he could not even in that book so dissemble his Zeal against Popery but that in the very Paragraph our Author quotes he accuses the Papists confidence and
grounds of believing Christ's Corporal Presence viz as effected by Transubstantiation be Solid and true to which we answer Negatively 2. Whether the Church of Rome as a term of communion in this point exact any more then the acknowledgment of a Real Presense to which we answer that to our apprehension she does For she requires us under an Anathema to believe Transubstantiation which whoever does must define a Real Presence to be a Corporal Presence effected by Transubstantiation So that the prescinding expedient this Author offers would have us prescind from the definition of the object i. e. to consider a thing prescinding from the thing that we consider which the Papists have more wit then to propose to us 2 that if she did not Disc 2. §. 17. p. 21. it would not serve the turn For she requires us even by this Author's confession to bow down before the Elements which if Christ's Body be not Locally Present in the Eucharist we have prov'd to be Idolatry be the bow never so prescinding For to worship the true God by an Host is in effect all one as to worship him by an image which is as truly though not so gross Idolatry as to worship an image instead of him And now as the Defender says Hitherto of this Controversy wherein if I have chiefly consider'd my Adversarye's management 't is because a Scholar should be answer'd but a Jugler need only be detected CHAP. XII The Close Having taken so distinct a view of both the Discourses I know not whether I must beg the Reader 's pardon for considering so much of 'em or demand the Author's thanks for sparing what I have pass'd over The Controversy it self would have lain in a little room but the Author 's handling it gives an adversary so large a field of matter as would easily furnish a very voluminous Reply My aim in this was to make it as short as was possible without omitting any thing material and I 'm confident I have not I 'm sure I have not willingly omitted or dissembled the force of any one line that seem'd to make against the Church of England The Quotations in the Pamphlet are many and generally tedious none of 'em sincere and most of 'em twice or thrice repetaed To have-publish'd 'em intire would have taken up more paper then this answer does nor would a recitall have suffic'd without some reflexion after all the Reader is no more bound to trust me then him but for full satisfaction must recurr to the Authors themselves Wherefore I concluded it the shorter better way to give the sense of our Church and those Authors in plain easy terms so that the common Reader might be his own interpreter and without any farther assistance make a right construction of what the Pamphlet would pervert Some perhaps may fancy my Reflexions are sometimes too severe upon so little seeming provocation and at other times too light for so serious a subject as I treat of I confess I could not always dissemble my just abhorrence of the Author's insincerity which I take to be the Sin in the world that an honest man can least pardon Had the Author been a true sincere Papist as well my inclination as my duty would have made me treat him with respect for simple error is an object of compassion to be dealt with in the spirit of meekness but Hypocrisy is the common aversion of God and Man and ought to be abhor'd and stigmatiz'd As for lighter Answers I think I have never given them but when they were requisite in reply to Comical objections for nothing can be more ridiculous then a solemn confutation of a Jest The Author indeed seems to talk with great gravity all the way but his matter for the most part is of a quite contrary Character and in such a case the Grimace does but add to the Comedy and make it the more necessary to return an answer in kind What I have said has been the shorter because my Adversary has been twice answer'd already both professedly by the Author of the late Reply printed at London and occasionally by those other worthy men that have consider'd the several parts of the Guide in Controversy For there is not an argument nor a quotation nor scarce a sentence in either of these Discourses but is almost verbatim in that Guide aforesaid which contains the whole stock of the Fraternity the summ and substance of all they have to say if they write as many books as Tostatus 'T was but t'other day that a great part of these Discourses was again printed in the Book of Church-Govenment and for ought I find we must expect the same stuff word for word in every book they are to publish But at this rate instead of being answerd they deserve to be indicted for extortion For the buyer of their book pays unconscionable use upon use besides the nauseousness of the tautology Wherefore for my own part I now take my final leave of them and resolve not so much as to inquire what other books the Editor's press is big with And perhaps when other Readers are aware of his proceedings the edition of his books will not need to be stinted to twenty thousand of a sort in a year FINIS