necessaria quae a Calvino illius â—â—quacibuâ— dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam c. _____ The same say the Socinians See Volkelius And I think Riveâ— in his controversies with Grotius is of the same opinion with the Remonstrants at least much differing from Dr. Tailor's for that saying of the Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest allowed in some sense by the Doctor he maintains to contradict Quia quod sacramentaliter praesens est saith he non est substantia sua praesens nec contra Animad p. 85. And again Examen p. 45. Si corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitative i. e. corporally or secundum modum corporis non est omnino quia corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est aut non est corpus Indeed I have often wondred seeing that something more than they willingly grant seems necessarily to follow upon it why so many of the reformed writers remain not content with a virtual presence which is maintained by them to be sufficient for salvation but concur so much in asserting a real and substantial I guess not only the punctual and fixed expressions of the Scriptures as the words of Institution in so many relations thereof not only in the Gospels but in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians being so unvariably observed besides the expressions 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and the authority of the Fathers who so often call it tremendum mysterium and the stream of Tradition to have as it were necessitated them to it but also the authority of Calvin not a little to have moved them who was a great Leader to our reforming Fore-fathers Again him I suppose to be induced to it as from the former reasons so from a desire to reconcile several parties of the then early begun Reformation and to moderate and temper the former Lutheran and Zuinglian quarrel Of whom therefore Bishop Forbes observes Quod sua doctrina super hac re as it seems here also of the doctrine of others of this second opinion erat maxime incerta dubia atque lubrica Et dum nunc his nunc illis gratificari studuit haud pauca male sibi cohaerentia scripsit de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 6. sect § XVI Now to come to the second thing it s affirming or denying the real or substantial presence of Christ's body with the signs and that ante usum And this I think to be generally denied by the 2d opinion tho I see not with what reason they can deny a possibility thereof since they grant such a presence with the worthy receiver See Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. s. p. 359 The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament The Bread and the Cup are his Body and Blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and blood ensueth For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly or improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth This he speaks in behalf of the Scripture-expression saying of the elements This is my body and my blood because we receive by these instruments that which they are termed See Dr. Tailor p. 14. By spiritual we mean present to our Spirits only that is saith he so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith or Spiritual susception Where to digress a little I wonder why he and some others so Dr. Hammond saith for our souls to be strengthened c quoted before do not say that Christ's body is substantially present to the bodies of worthy receivers as well as to the souls yet perhaps they deny it not for tho the body of Christ be only spiritually there yet may a spirit be present to a body for our souls spirits are so And we say in the Liturgy The Body of Christ preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life And Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls washed thro his most precious blood c. And the Fathers therefore called the consecrated elements from their vivifical influence on the body according to Jo. 6. symbola resurrectionis See Grot. Annot. ad Cassand p. 21. Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia sed spem resurrectionis habentia Irenaeus Neither see I any reason for Rivet's expression Corpus Christi affiâ—it corpus per animam Nor for that of Dr. Tailor p. 131. if he means that the Soul receives Christ's body more immediately than the Body doth For tho without faith which is an act of the soul Christ's body is not received at least received profiteth not yet where faith is Christ's body is received as well and as immediately by our body as by our soul and nourisheth and vivifieth equally but spiritually both See what Bishop Forbes saith Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 27. s. Verum Christi corpus non tantum animae sed etiam corpori nostrâ— spiritualiter tamen hoc est non corporaliter exhibetur sane alâ—o ac diverso nobis propinquiori modo licet occulto quam per solam fidem Fides qua proprie Christi caro in Eucharistia spiritualiter hoc est incorporaliter manducatur non est ea sola qua Christus creditur mortuus pro peccatis nostris c ea enim fides praesupponitur c. sed ea fides est qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis Hoc est corpus meum Credere enim Christum ibi esse praesentem etiam carne vivificatrice desiderare eam sumere nimirum hoc est spiritualiter recte eam manducare in Eucharistia Sect. 25. Proinde male docetur a multis Protestantibus hanc praesentiam communicationem per fidem effici Fides magis proprie dicitur accipere apprehendere quam praestare Verbum Dei promissio cui fides nostra nititur praesentia reddit quae promittit non nostra fides T is not faith that confers Christ's body tho by the faithful it is only worthily or as they say only received but received equally and immediately both by the soul and body whether this body of Christ be disjoined from as they think or conjoined with the elements yet whilst this second opinion seems to hold no presence at all to or with the signs but to the receiver they only making the signs to be as well as I can understand them after consecration sanctified instruments upon receit of which by those who believe God gives the other the body and blood of his Son as also in Baptism upon receiving the water God gives the Spirit yet I say some other expressions of
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 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
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
in coena retinere defendere si quid nobis cum vere pits doctis fratribus controversiae est non de re ipsa sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat qui soli Deo cognitus est a nobis creditur disceptare c. Hold they not here the presence of Christ's body cum symbolis Lastly Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. sect affirms even of the Sacramentaries and the first opinion that those who read their books shall find that they grant the holy mysteries instrumentally both to make us partakers of that grace of that body and blood which was given for the life of the world and besides also to impart unto us in true and real tho mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Thus much now of the second opinion to which I shall return by and by § III The 3d. opinion goes yet farther than the second and moved by the expressions partly of Scriptures 3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation 't is said that Luther Epist ad Argentinenses acknowledges se valde propensum fuisse in eam sententiam quae in Eucharistia nihil praeter panem agnoscit conatum totis viribus hoc asserere sed non potuisse satisfacere Scripturis quae contra objiciebantur comparing Matt. 26.26 and 1 Cor. 11.24 c with 1 Cor. 11.26 27. eateth this bread partly also of the Fathers who many times also call it bread after consecration affirms a real presence of Christ's body with or under the signs meaning by them the substances of the bread and wine still remaining after consecration Making if we take the moderatest stating thereof for see what Cassander consult art 10 p. 81. quotes Melancthon and some others at some time before the reformed opinion to have held Asserimus cum Christo Domino corpus Christi non modo esse in cum sub pane sed quod panis sit corpus Christi ipsum itaque unum cum ipso praedicatione identica the meaning of hoc est corpus meum to be not hic panis manens adhuc panis ipse etiam est corpus meum but hoc quod continetur sub pane consecrato est corpus meum making the article hoc supponere confuse to use Bellarmin's termes pro eo quod continetur sub pane as the 4th opinion makes it supponere confuse pro eo quod continetur sub speciebus and to shew the understanding of those words Hoc est corpus meum after this manner to be very proper they exemplify in some like ordinary phrases So de dolio vini recte dicimus hoc est vinum speaking only of the thing contained so de marsupio pleno pecuniis recte dicitur hae sunt pecuniae so demonstrando vestes sub quibus est Petrus we say hoc or hic est Petrus Nam abstrahentium non est mendacium Now some hold this conjunction of Christ's body with the elements ante usum in mensa presently after consecration others perhaps the better to avoid pretences of adoration or of reservation of the Sacrament only in the use and act of receiving in ore fidelium Again some to make this presence seem more certain and more conceivable holding an ubiquity of Christ's body not only a presence then and there but always every where by reason of its hypostatical union to the ubiquitary Deity only lest we may say we receive it as well then in all other bread stating that tho it is ubique yet non posse ubique capi sed solum in ea re quam Christus ad hoc instituit § IV The fourth opinion yet transcends this except in the point of ubiquity and affirms the real presence of Christ's body with 4. Real presence with the symbols by Transubstantiation or under the signs meaning by them only the accidents or properties or all that is any way to be perceived by sight or any other sense of the bread and the wine which accidents they affirm still to remain but holding from the most proper sense as to them seems of the solemn words of the Institution Hoc est corpus meum c a Conversion of the substance of them into the body and blood of our Saviour conversio totius substantiae Conc. Trid. sess 13.4 c. Which seems to be so punctually expressed because of those who all held Christ's corporal presence some there were that held the substantial form of bread changed but not the matter others the matter but not the form others again that held no total substantial conversion of the bread at all but an impanation or hypostatical union of Christ with the bread whereby it became his body corpus Christi non carneum but panaceum such as there was with the humane nature in his incarnation saying panem a Christo fieri corpus suum non mutando vel destruendo panem sed assumendo ad personam suam Now this conversion of the substance was thought fit in latter times to be expressed by the word Transubstantiation as a diminutive to conversion For whereas conversion of the bread might be understood either of it with all its properties and accidents or only of the substance thereof and not of the rest therefore to express this distinctively the word Transubstantiation was used Primi authores hujus sententiae finxerunt conversionem physicam simplicem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi quam posteriores Romani Scholastici defendere ut possint manentibus accidentibus panis vini commenti sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Transubstantiationem Casp Peucerus hist pag. 527. Compare with Transubstantiation that expression of the Greeks in their answer to Claudius Cardinal of Guise Credimus panem in Christi corpus c ita mutari ut neque panis neque substantiae ipsius accidentia maneant sed in divinam substantiam transelemententur and Transubstantiation saith the least of the two But here note that tho Councils have defined a conversion of the whole substance yet since such a conversion there may be many several ways see those reckon'd up in Field Append. to 3. lib. 17. cap. the particular manner they have no way determined and the Roman Doctors remain in their opinions divided Fatemur saith Dr. Holden de resol fid 2. l. 4 c. hujusmodi supernaturalis conversionis substantialis modum nos penitus latere c. and Bellar. in his recognit lib. Euchar. after his discoursing of conversion adductive and productive c concludes Quicquid sit de modis loquendi illud tenendum est conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Domini esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem nullis naturalibus conversionibus per omnia similem c. Whilst the third opinion therefore interprets our Saviour's words of the Institution thus Hic panis continet sub se corpus meum or hoc quod continetur sub pane est corpus meum the
Fathers that whatsoever they speak of the Eucharist they affirm also the same of the other Sacrament Baptism c. quoting out of St. Austin that we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptism we are made Members of Christ c. therefore whatever may be answer'd to the Fathers of which more anon yet his opinion is that Christ's Body is no more really present in the Lord's Supper than in Baptism c. 2. I find B. Forbes tho holding neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation yet much censuring out of Spalat and others these two diminutive comparisons of the Lord's Supper de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 26 27. Falso etiam asseritur haud aliter nos Corpus Christi in Eucharistia comedere quam Patres veteris Testamenti c. and s 27. Perperam etiam asseritur res easdem esse Christum in Baptismo induere ipsius carnem ac sanguinem in Caena sumere c. 3. I will add to these of Dr. Taylors an expression of Dr. Hammond's Pract. Cat. where he speaks of the Eucharist God bestows the Body and Blood of Christ upon us not by sending it down locally for our Bodies to feed on but really for our Souls to be strengthened by it As when the Sun is communicated to us the whole Bulk and Body of the Sun is not removed out of its Sphere but the Rays and Beams of it and with them the Light and Instuences are really and verily bestow'd and darted out upon us Thus he As therefore not the Body of the Sun but only the Beams thereof can be said to be really and locally here below so I conceive the Doctor means that not the very Body of Christ but the vertue and efficacy thereof only are really here present to the worthy receiver If so you may see how Mr. Hooker differs from him in the same simile in the quotation set down above p. 50. where he saith not only by effect and operation as the influence of the heavens is in plants beasts men c which they quicken c. 4. Lastly I do not see how this their opinion of substantial Presence consists with many of those objections made by them against the third and fourth opinion as that in particular of the impossibility of the same body to be in many places at once which objection opposeth not the modus but any presence substantial whatsoever But if on the other side in good earnest a real substantial Presence be affirmed by them tho in wisely not expressing any particular manner as others do they both avoid the arguments which perhaps might be made against it and have advantage to make some against others yet I see not but that from their affirming in general such a Presence they must incur many of the same difficulties with the third and fourth opinion If they say substantially present but they mean not to the elements but to the receiver and that to his soul not to his body yet if they affirm it as much or as far present to the soul as the other doth to the signs as Mr. Hooker saith they differ only about the subject not the presence do not the same objections absurdities c concerning Christ's Body being both substantially in Heaven and in the place where the Communion is celebrated with which they afflict the others for making it present with the signs return upon themselves for making it present with the receivers For if it be possible that the body of Christ now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven can notwithstanding this be present in our soul or in our heart so may it under or with the bread unless we say that we affirm not that real presence to the soul which they do to the bread But then our writers must not say that we differ only about the manner or the subject of his Presence but the Presence it self also 5. If they say substantially present but they mean spiritually not naturally or not corporally so saith the Romanist i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities always accompanying where no supernatural effect the nature or essence of a Body but if they will extend spiritually so far as that it shall imply Christ's body to be there substantially or really yet not quoad naturam or essentiam suam or not quoad corpus this is by a distinction to destroy their thesis 6. Again if they say substantially there present but not locally so saith the Lutheran and Romanist i. e. circumscriptive or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have but if they will extend locally so far as that they understand Christ's body to be there by no manner of ubi at all see Dr. Tailor p. 218. not so much as ubi definitive so that we may truly say t is hic so as not ubique or alibi where no communion what is this but to affirm t is there so as that it is not there 7. If they say substantially present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven besides that thus Christ's body is no more present in the Eucharist than in any other ordinance or sacrament wherein the Spirit is conferr'd such presence is properly of the Spirit not of the body unless that which being finite is only in heaven as they affirm may not rightly be said to be really and substantially absent from what is on earth Now if these seeming-impossibilities and contradictions we acknowledge and fly to the incomprehensibility and inexplicableness of the mystery all that I reply is that we must indulge the same priviledge to others allowing that a thousand contradictions of theirs may be as soon true as only one of ours 8. But if at last we plainly interpret our real and substantial presence by Christ's being present in corporal absence to the worthy receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof we slide back into the first opinion differing only from them in expression and then what need we speak any more of omnipotency for such presence or make any thing miraculous in the Sacrament what incomprehensibleness in this when as Bellarmin expresseth it all that we say is That per fidem apprehendentem Christum in coelo manducantem sacramentum or signum corporis sui participamus omnia bona Christi What mean then those gradations of reception not only of bare signs nor of the signs and the benefits applied by faith but also of the very body and blood of Christ In tanta locorum distantia penetrat ad nos Christi caro saith Calvin ut nobis sit in cibum Instit 4. l. 17. c. 10. s. § XV Therefore the Remonstrants discerning the difficulties as are above named into which the affirming of real Presence cast some of the Reformed Apol. pro confessione sua p. 256. said the Zuinglian opinion was simplicissima ad idololatriam omnemevitandam in hac materia inprimis
the Offering that are very expressive to this purpose Which addition is taken notice of and censur'd in the Book call'd Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 101. as directly saith it in a literal sense carrying to a Jewish Oblation Likewise whereas the Rubrick of the former Common-Prayer-Book ordereth only that such Alms be put in the Poor Man's-Box this new one enjoineth that the Deacon shall reverently bring the said Bason with the Oblations therein and deliver it to the Presbyter who shall humbly present it before the Lord and set it Upon the Holy Table See Cassand Consult art 24. p. 194. who ranks the several Offices in the Canon thus Symbolorum consecrandorum oblatio oblatorum consecratio mortis Domini commemoratio gratiarum actio pro communi omnium salute supplicatio which last St. Ambrose and St. Austin were of opinion was a prescribed Form left by St. Paul to all Churches in the Celebration of this Sacrament according to what is said in 1 Tim. 2.1 Sacramentorum distributio participatio And p. 202. Primum populi oblationes Deo commendantur Der nomen invocatur symbola oblata verbis Domini consecrantur mors Domini commendatur vivorum mortuorum memoria agitur pro tota Ecclesia totius orbis incolumitate Deo preces offeruntur This is the Order he saith of the present Roman Service Again p. 207 of the same Service he saith Primum sacrificii doni nomine intelligitur sacrificium populi quod consistit in pane vino deinde est sacrificium corporis Christi c. And see Bishop Forbes l. 3. c. 1. s 9. Panis Eucharisticus Deo consecratur quia de profano seu non sacro sacer fit Deo specialiter dedicatur ut constat ex rebus factis verbis dictis circa ipsum ideo negari non potest quin Deo specialiter offeratur fit igitur ibi quodammodo sacrificium panis c. This Offering up of the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament is also expresly appointed in the new English Liturgy where after the Oblation made of the Alms the Rubrick saith and the Presbyter shall then i. e. together with the Alms Offer up c. the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table c. Thus the Bread may be said to be Offer'd as a Sacrifice of Alms and Praise and Thanksgiving for God's good Creatures c. or as some portion of it is then Dedicated Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. In omnibus Liturgiis seu Graecis seu Latinis quantumvis antiquis pars actionis est oblatio rerum consecrandarum This being as I conceive for the intentions but now mention'd But Fourthly To go a little further since it must be granted from what is said above That the Fathers in some part or other of this Service make an Oblation of the real Body of our Lord and since again its manifest that the same expressions are used in the Oblations made before as in those after the words of Institution pronounc'd and the Offering mention'd in these there is tending to all the same ends and purposes whether Propitiatory Impetratory or Eucharistical as you may see by comparing the Prayers before Suscipe Sancte Pater c. and Te igitur Clementissime Pater c. with the Prayer after the words of Institution unde memores Domine c. From these two things therefore I think it follows That all these Prayers and Service before as well as after refer to the same Sacrifice and Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord It being most improbable that the same or the like expressions would be used of that which they conceiv'd only Bread and afterward of that which they conceiv'd to be Christ's real Body if the former was us'd as a distinct Oblation without relation to the later The action therefore of this Oblation is only preparatory in the precedent Prayers according to that expression in one of them Benedic hoc sacrificium tuo sancto nomine praeparatum consummate in that following unde memores c. offerimus c. Offertur panis non ut sacrificium perfectum sed ut inchoatum perficiendum saith Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. Therefore the chief purpose of the Prayers before seems to be Consecratory and Benedictive of the Symbols rather than Oblatory tho in them the Oblation is mention'd So they begin with Petition Suscipe hanc hostiam c. quam offero i. e. quam oblaturus sum pro c. or cujus oblationem praepare according to which is that following offerimus deprecantes c. after which is said Veni sanctificator benedic hoc sacrificium praeparatum c. and Te igitur clementissime Pater rogamus uti accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec sancta sacrificia illibata Sancta illibala i. e. post benedictionem and after this quam oblationem tu Deus benedictam facere digneris c. But after the Institution follows a consummated Oblation And indeed in some Liturgies we find no Oblation at all made I mean in this kind pro peccatis pro Ecclesia c. till after the words of Institution and Consecration compleated see Const Apost l. 8. c. 17 18. See Chrysost Liturg offerimus tibi c. pro requiescentibus in fide c. super oblatis sanctificatis pretiosis donis Dominum rogemus ut benignus Deus noster dimittat nobis divinam gratiam c. after the Consecration finish'd And there being no controuersie amongst them about the matter of the Sacrament we cannot doubt the intentions in all the Liturgies are the same Then therefore follows a consummated Oblation in a more singular manner unde memores Domine nos servi offerimus Majestati tuae de tuis donis hostiam puram c. and the prayers following are for God's acceptation of their Oblation not for benediction not benedicta facere but accepta habere jube perferri per manus c. And then lastly follow other prayers with reference to the worthy communicating of his Body For note that as some petitions first for benediction and then for acceptation there are with respect to the Eucharist as an oblation which oblation is joyned also with those prayers so other prayers there are with respect to it as a sacrament and the communication to us of Christs Body to be performed afterwards And to this may aptly be applied that Prayer made in some Liturgies after the words of Institution Fiat nobis corpus Christi tui i. e. to us communicating thereof to all the spiritual effects and benefits thereof 5. But fifthly one thing ordinarily taken for granted That our Saviour's words of Institution are I do not say the chiefest part of but the whole and only consecration so that this is neither begun by any Prayers before these nor continued by any after them is a thing very disputable Whether in the opinion of the
conc tho speaking somewhat more diminutively of the Eucharist than the other yet seems to say more than any Protestant will allow as is shewed before 2ly That it was an Assembly of Bishops called together by that Emperour that caused the Patriarch of Constantinople to be scourged assented to by no Patriarch which thing is objected against it by the Conc. Nice Act. 6. tom 1. in these words Quomodo autem magna universalis in quam neque omnes consenserunt reliquarum Ecclesiarum praefecti non admiserunt sed anathemate eam devoverunt Non habuit cooperarium ut haec quae nunc celebratur Romanum Papam neque illius Sacerdotes neque per Vicarios neque per provinciales literas quemadmodum fieri in Synodis debet Quinetiam neque concordantes habuit Orientis Patriarchas Alexandrinum inquam Antiochenum urbis sanctae suminos Pontifices neque cum illis etiam inystas sacerdotes Thus Conc. Nice But the same things are affirmed by the historians of those times as also that this Copronymus was opposed for demolishing images in Churches by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch whom he shamefully abused and his Father Leo Isaurus excommunicated for the same cause by Gregory the 3d Bishop of Rome Besides this to lessen the esteem which may be had of it by the reformed I might name the 15. and 17. Canons thereof Whereof the 15th runs thus Si quis non confitetur sanctam semper Virginem Mariam quavis visibili invisibili creatura superiorem cum sincera fide ejus intercessiones tanquam quae libertatem apud eum qui ex se genitus est Deum habeat non postulaverit Anathema And the 17th Canon not unlike Si quis sanctorum c. intercessiones non petierit utpote qui libertatem apud Deum habeant secundum Ecclesiasticam Traditionem pro mundo intervenire Anathema Which Canon tho 't is noted by the Second Nicene Council Act. 6. Tom. 6. post hanc editionem suam c. to have been left out in some later Copies of the Acts of this Council those times growing on after this Synod from opposing of Images to destroying of Reliques and denying of Saints Intercessions a thing not disallow'd by the Reform'd and of calling them also by the name of Saints See the Authors quoted by Mr. Mede Apostasie of later times p. 131 135 c. tho the Council is clear'd from any such Decrees both by Mr. Mede p. 137 and by the whole Body of their Acts examined by the Second Nicene Council their severe Antagonists Yet it is clear that it was one of the ultimate Definitions of that Council since it is found not in the first framing only as Mr. Mede would have it p. 135. but in that first Edition of their Acts which was subscribed by all the Council as appears in the Conclusion of Act. 6. Tom. 6. of the Second Conc. Nic. and which accordingly the Nicene Council undertook to refute as not the first Draughts but the Ratified Acts of that Synod 3. That the Council which revers'd its Doctrine of the Eucharist was General and Confirm'd by all the Patriarchs 4. And lastly That the Council of Francfort also tho it might in something mistake the meaning of the Council of Constantinople for which I will not contend with Mr. Blondel for so perhaps did they of Nice too misunderstand it yet perusing the Doctrine of Nice Censures not it at all a far greater if an error but almost in the same phrase with it Blameth the other of Constantinople saying The mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord was not now to be call'd Imago but Veritas not Umbra but Corpus Which word and other expressions that they imported not less than those of Nice may be shrewdly presum'd from Mr Blondel's Concession c. 18. p. 415. That within a few years after this Council follow'd a Change in the Eucharist-Doctrine in the West a change i. e. to this Tenent of Corporal presence Now all those things well weigh'd let any one judg between the Constantinopolitan Council and those two that follow'd who are more likely to be the Innovators or whose Determination a good Subject of the Church not so able in such high Mysteries to guide himself ought rather to adhere and submit to § XL Now to go on This opinion of Damascen and the Council of Nice The state of the Greek Church since these Councils hath been owned and embraced ever since even to this day by the Greek Church without any opposition to it and that not only as being theirs but the Tenent also of all the Greek Fathers before this Councll which also are frequently by them quoted for it See this confess'd by Mr. Blondel c. 16. p. 399 400. Le Concile de Nice 2. a imposê une tacite loy aux Grecs posterieurs Their adherence ever since to the Doctrine of Nic. Conc. 2 qui ont jusques a nos jours reverê ses decrets de parler a sa mode de renoucer so he is pleased to say but they pretend the contrary en imitant ses fautes au style de la plus venerable antiquité And then he reckons up their Writers since both ancienter and more modern concurring in this opinion naming amongst the ancienter Theophylact and Euthymius See Sandys West Relig. p. 233 234. who confesseth the Greeks to agree with the Romanists in Transubstantiation Sacrifice and the whole Body of the Mass See Dr. Potter Char. Mist sect 7. p. 225. where he saith In the opinion of Transubstantiation the later Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists and justifieth what he saith by many quotations in the Margent See Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s 2. who himself opposing Transubstantiation yet after many Authorities given concludes that Section Certum est recentiores Graecos a Transubstantiationis opinione non fuisse neque etiamnum esse omnino alienos hosce autem omnes Christianae pietatis cultores haereseos aut erroris exitialis damnare magnae profecto audaciae temeritatis esset So l. 2. c. 2. s 14. Graeci Venetiis viventes reliqui omnes Graeci etiam adorant Christum in Eucharistia quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere damnare To give you some of the Graecian expressions since this Council See Theophylact who liv'd in the Ninth Age in Mat. 26. Non enim dixit Hoc est Figura sed hoc est Corpus ineffabili enim operatione transformatur etiamsi nobis videatur panis And in 1 Cor. 11. expounding those words non dijudicans Corpus Domini he saith Si certiores essemus quisnam quantus sit ille qui nobis in conspectu adjacet i. e. in Altari nulla ferme rei alterius ope indigeremus c. So speaks Oecumenius on the same place Euthymius in Mat. 26. Quemadmodum supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit si ita loqui liceat ita haec ineffabiliter transmutat
serves the turn 3. Because from a thing prov'd useless sometimes or to some persons from some incapability of the subject c. it follows not that it is so altogether and to others As it follows not that such a Diet not nourishing or also hurting a languishing stomach therefore doth not profit to a sound To illustrate it a little in our present subject By Baptism or also by Faith and Repentance before Baptism or the fervent desire of Baptism when it cannot be had we are regenerated and united to Christ and made members of his body yet will any therefore say that in Baptism we enjoy as much a communion of the body and blood of Christ as in the Eucharist Or that the Eucharist is inutile Therefore hath Christ given us also the symbols of his body in vain Therefore do we possess no more of his grace and goodness by believing and receiving also the Sacrament of his body and blood than only by believing on him But the if receiving him spiritualiter by Faith and sacramentaliter be better than spiritualiter only why may not sacramentaliter and coporaliter be also better than sacramentaliter only Who can demonstrate it That the faithful receive no more benefit from the Divine good pleasure by faith and the body of our Lord substantially present than he should by faith and the body only typically present since all depends on God's good pleasure Why may it not be his will to confer the complement of our union with him and the perfection of grace and charity in us and the last seal of our immortality and incorruptibility in us not by the receipt of the symbols of his body but by his very body united and join'd to our souls and bodies and yet not these to all that receive it neither because it acts not physically or irresistibly but to the worthy Calvin as he is very inconstant in his expressions concerning this Sacrament seems to hint something to this purpose Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 9. s 11. Quae omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin Christus totus spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat that we may be membra corporis ejus ex ossibus ejus carne ejus magnum istud arcanum Eph. 5. and s 11. Quo i. e. exhibitione sanguinis corporis ejus primum in unum corpus cum ipso coalescimus deinde participes substantiae ejus facti in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentimus See B. Forbes l. 1. c. 1 s 26 27. much to this purpose Prisci fideles ante Christi incarnationem carnem Christi spiritualiter edebant in manna rebus aliis figuratam sufficienter pro statu Oeconomiae illius ad salutem 1 Cor. 10. Sed nihilominus per communicationem carnis Christi in Eucharistia multo altius solidius nos Christianos incorporari Christo quam priscos fideles qui spiritualiter tantum seu per solam fidem carnem Christi manducabant credidit semper Ecclesia Catholica nos cum edimus eundem Christum fide quidem utili sed fide rei praesentis quae actu ipso non sola spe nobis cum pane exhibetur modo tamen ineffabili c. câ—rtum est per manducationem mysticam corporis Domini nos multo efficacius plenius sublimius augustius strictius arctius corpori sanguini Christi uniri quam perilla i. e. verbum fidem baptismum c. Quam ob causam Hoc sacramentum dicitur per excellentiam communio quia scil hunc modum per manducationem mysticam Christus instituit longe efficacissimum perficiendae unionis conjunctionis quam arctissimae inter sese membra sua c. I conclude therefore that very transcendent may the effect of this corporal presence of our Saviour be beyond a spiritual and symbolical only as the effect of a spiritual and also symbolical in the. Sacrament is granted to be more than of a spiritual only tho the virtue thereof by God's good pleasure be obstructed and denyed to the unworthy even as his blood shed on the Cross and given for all yet is not effectual or beneficial to many To the 6th Chapter of St. John's Gospel Supposing for the present § LV what Dr. Taylor and others contend for That our Saviour speaks only of a spiritual feeding on him by faith and not of the sacramental at all Yet as the Doctor will grant that this Chapter contains in it nothing prejudicial to our attaining some benefit by receiving the sacrament and the symbols of Christ's body therein tho it is most true of these symbols that they of themselves profit nothing as to confer on us an eternal life without the participation also of the spirit of Christ communicated only to believers So I return that it contains nothing in it prejudicial to our obtaining some benefit from the sacramental receiving of our Saviour's very flesh Tho it is most true also of this very flesh that receiv'd alone without the spirit as it is by all the unworthy communicants it doth help nothing at all to make a man live for ever The whole passage in Joh. 6. seems to be thus When our Saviour had told the Capernaites upon occasion of their boasting how Moses gave them Manna to eat that much beyond those Manna-eaters that were dead he whosoever should eat the flesh of the Son of man should live for ever they conceiv'd his meaning to be that whoso could get a piece of his flesh and eat it should by virtue thereof for ever be preserv'd in life And this seem'd to them so unreasonable and so barbarous a thing either that he should any way feed them with his flesh or that they that fed with it should by the strength and force thereof live for ever that they forsook him and his doctrine Upon which he instructs them further in this mystery as it seems to me to this effect 1. That they should not eat his flesh at all in such a manner as they imagin'd i. e. in its natural condition but that he should ascend up to Heaven where he was before and so that his flesh with him see ver 62. upon which ascent the Spirit should come upon all true believers which Spirit should give them this life see Joh. 7.38 39. 2. That his flesh if eaten then or whenever it should be eaten in such manner as he should communicate it to them could give them no life alone or by its own virtue but only by his Spirit which is the fountain of life eternal join'd with and accompanying his flesh and that not to all receiving his flesh but to the believer of his words which words therefore in the close of ver 63 when believ'd in he calls spirit and life i. e. conferring the Spirit from which is receiv'd that life See ver 63. wherein that you may the better understand the usual expression of this Evangelist see Joh.
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
Natural Philosophers treat of it such are dimensions figure weight impenetrability circumscription by place motion sensibility and the like But the same body quit of those conditions and now spiritualized is under far different proprieties even those which belong to Angels and Spirits to whom they become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pares or aequales as becoming one Church and oeconomy with them Those we may best conceive by the histories in the Scripture of the apparitions of Angels or if you please by our own Souls which tho penetrating every atome of the Body and communicating to it all its powers yet is but one in the whole and yet in every part is it wholly whether the body be bigger or lesser mutilated or entire neither parted diminished or doubled nor yet many but the same soul wholly in every part For it is not in the body as in a place except we as this Replier seems bring in Cartesianism and confine the soul to the glandula pinealis or if as is most consonant to his principles to some one atome of it contrary to the doctrine of all Christian Philosophers and the virtue and efficacy of it only communicated to the other parts of the body So a Spiritual body however this be hard to conceive by imagination in this state accustomed to sensation and materiality hath no certain dimensions figure weight sensibility or alteration nor circumscription by place but as it self pleaseth to discover it self So besides the examples of the Angels our Lord appeared and disappeared continued and vanished passed thro gross bodies and the like as himself pleased Now from circumscription by place or an ambient body ariseth naturally an impossibility to be in several places at once Naturally I say because by the power of God even this quality as well as the rest may be separated from the natural body as it was by his all-powerful wisdom freely given unto it It seems to me little less than blasphemy to say That the Allmighty power which at first created a natural body with such properties cannot also suspend the actions of those Properties or conserve the subject without them it being the same as saying that He cannot work a Miracle all Miracles being a superseding his own rules which he established against all other Natural but not against his own Divine Power And why not suspend locality a relative property belonging to the Body as a Member of the Universe as well as weight or motion which seem more absolute and intrinsecal to the nature of the body Why cannot he contravene to one Rule as well as to another especially when there is no contradiction As there is none in this case of our Lord's presence in the Eucharist as both our Author and all Catholicks affirm notwithstanding the Repliers shuffling to fasten such an Opinion upon him To be here and not here may be a contradiction but to be here and there is none But what more contradiction is it than that five Loaves carried by a little Boy should feed five thousand men and much more remain than was at first a Miracle preparatory to this of the Blessed Sacrament And without penetration of Bodies which granted introduceth the possibility of a Body's being in several places how can a Camel pass thro the Eye of a Needle which yet is possible with God as is what our Lord saith of himself when upon Earth that he was also in Heaven Jo. 1.18.3.13.7.34 But as a Spirit is not at all confin'd to place so nothing hinders why it may not coexist with Bodies in distinct places by which alone we know its being in several locations tho indeed it is in no location at all in proper speaking contrary to what our Replier affixeth to Catholicks as Elisha's Spirit went along with his Servant and St. Paul's joy'd in beholding the orderly carriage of the Colossians and the Evil Spirits also a whole Legion possessing one one Spirit inhabiting almost every atom of his Body and the blessed tutelar Angels continually behold the face of God in Heaven as well as attend their charge upon Earth Whereby it seems exempt from the conditions of Bodies So then Catholicks say That the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not now under the properties of a natural body nor is it necessary that it should be locally any-where nor heavy nor subject to motion passibility or the like And when Catholicks say that our Lord 's natural body or that he is corporally present they mean That his body even that natural body receiv'd of the B. Virgin for he hath no other is really truly and indeâ—d present and given to us in the Eucharist but not so corporally i. e. with those properties of or as a natural body for corporally and locally are not the same as our Replier everywhere stumbles but as spiritual and being now glorified yet therefore not as dead an irreverent expression to say no worse of the Replier but yet as given and having suffer'd for us even in the same manner as himself our blessed High-Priest continually Offereth it up to the Father for us Again Note That the bestowing and receiving of the benefits of our Lord's Passion is giving somewhat real but that real is not his body and blood nor in proper speaking are those the benefits of his body and blood for then they could not be receiv'd without the body and blood whereas now they are according to our Replier accidents without a subject and effects without a cause but of his passion and sufferings And therefore our Saviour declares the use and benefit of his body and blood by eating and drinking which are not compatible to the benefits of his passion by any metaphor or similitude whatsoever And therefore the Second Edition of the English Common-Prayer-Book leaves out these words The body and blood c. and only says Take and eat this Bit of Bread and Sup of Wine in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thanksgiving And the first Edition of the Catechism saith Fidem esse os animae quo cibum hunc plane divinum salutis juxta immortalitatis plenum Spiritus Sancti gratia communicatum recipimus Faith is improperly said to receive except in the sense of those Protestants who take it for application of Christ's personal righteousness to us but what resembles eating and drinking in or by Faith or what actions of Faith correspond to them I cannot imagine But our Saviour represents his body unto us under the notion of meat and its effects particularly the Manna whereunto he compares it Such are 1. To conserve nourish advance restore in us what by worldly conversation and the like is decay'd and weak'ned and to strengthen us in our Spiritual life and estate as the Food it self was Spiritual 2. By uniting us to the Food Flesh of his Flesh Bone of his Bone contrary to the Manna and natural meat which receive life from
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
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
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
es Lutheriens Quell est donc la cause de nostre separation d'auec elle l'adoration de l' hostie c. 3. He holds that Adoration follows necessarily the tenent of the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist Quant au droit qu' on le peut qu' on le doit adorer attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable Which shews Adoration to be rightly grounded on Christ's corporal presence be it after what manner soever that of the Romanist or that of the Lutheran for le corps de Christ est suiet adorable Apol. 9. c. 4. He resolveth Apol. 10. c. the Jews worshipping before the Ark or footstool Psal 99.5 and Psal 132.7 into worshiping God as especially present there upon the Ark symbolum praesentiae Dei as Rivet calls it or between the Cherubims ver 1. And if we compare adorate scabellum there as the Vulgar read it with adorarunt vitulum Exod. 32.8 to worship the true God of Israel in the Calf is judged idolatry to worship the same God before the Ark or between the Cherubims none 5. So he grants Apol 11. c. That when our Saviour was on â—arth a Disciple's giving divine honour upon mistake to another person much resembling him would be no idolatry so supposing the consecrated Host truly adorable should one see one exposed on the Altar that hapned not to be consecrated and worshiped neither would such a person be guilty of idolatry So he pronounceth him blameless that should give the honour and service due to his true Prince to a subject whom being very like he took for his Prince See concerning Adoration p. 11. The same thing I conceive it is in apparitions Had S John Rev. 22.28 taken the Angel for God appearing as some think he did but the Angel quickly rectified his mistake and so given him divine honours such as Abraham and many other Saints in the Old Testament gave to the Lord appearing this had bin far from an act of idolatry in him So had Mary Magdalen as she took our Saviour for a Gardiner worshiped a Gardiner like apparrelled c for our Saviour it had bin no idolatry But saith Daille should any worship the Sun for Jesus Christ as S. Austin mentions some that did or the Virgin Mary for a Goddess as the Collyridians are said to have done these will be guilty of high Idolatry I add further Should any worship not only an image but which Dr. Hammond hath observed in his Treatise of Idolatry sect 47. any glorified Saint or Angel by giving any of God's attributes to them as the knowledge of the secrets of mens hearts and of all other passages in this lower world and the ability likewise of working miraculous effects as they please and both these not from God's communicated but their own original power and should address his prayers to them as fancied such by him this man will certainly be an idolater Now the reason Daille gives in the same 11. chapter Apol. why in this worshiping the creature for God or Christ some are idolaters some not by Idolaters I mean sinful and formal idolaters as some call them for note that it is no otherwise in idolatry than in other sins there may be a material act or real adultery without fault suppose another man's wife conveyed into the husbands bed instead of his own as Leah was once into Jacobs so the real killing of his neighbour without any guilt suppose by the miscarrying of some instrument a man is using in his vocation and here an ignorance of such a fact without any faulty error in the judgment or obliquity of the intention excuseth the sin Daille's reason therefore for distinguishing guilty idolatry from that which materially may also be called so is not the good intention to worship only him who is truly God or Christ or the opinion and belief they have that the subject they worship is truly such for this as he in that Chapter and other Writers copiously express is common to the worst of Idolaters but the error or ignorance of the judgment from which flows this mistaking practise as that is only affected and culpable or innocent and excusable Of which thus he in that Chapter J ' avoue que l'ignorance excuse la i. e. in this very matter of Idolatry ou elle est involuntaire quand le suiet que nous mesconoissons est tellenent cachê c. mais la ou l'ignorance d'un objet procede non de l'obscurite difficulté de la chose mais de la malice ou de la negligence de l' homme alors tant s'en faut qu'elle excuse c. So he saith those that worshipp'd the Sun for Christ were unexcusable because l'ignorance de tous ces gens estoit visiblement affectes voluntaire née de leur vice seulement non de l'obscuritê des choses qu' ils ignoroient Therefore also afterward upon this reason as he excuseth him that should have worshipp'd one resembling our Saviour or an unconsecrated Host c. because non sa passion ou sa non chalance avoit cause cette mesprise c. So he blameth the Romanist mistaking and worshipping the Sacrament for Christ because l'erreur vient tout enliere de leur passion non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux 6. Mr. Daille grants which I have touch'd before That as we may not reject the Communion of any for every erroneous Tenent when it offends against no principal or fundamental point of Religion see Apol. c. 7. so we may not reject it for Errors tho destructive of a Principle see Apol. c. 9. if it do this not immediately and directly but by some consequences thereof which consequences also are renounc'd and the Principle still maintain'd by those who hold the error Tho if you desire my opinion of this First I see not how any can hold a Principle and yet hold a contrary Tenent that directly and immediately opposeth it for no man is so sottish as to hold two things directly contradictory the one to the other See what he saith for this when press'd by Chaumont in his second Reply p. 81. So then when any one 's Tenent opposeth the Principle which also he holds by some consequence it must be and not be point blank Secondly I see not but that if one holding the Principle hold also another Tenent which by a consequence clear and manifest to others tho not to him ruineth the Principle such an one is to be rejected c. as if he denied the Principle And thirdly The judgment of the clearness of such consequences private men must leave to the Church and her Councils Esse two men as interessed and prepossessed ordinarily pretend contradictories both to be clear For example If the Lutheran Tenent of the ubiquity of Christ's humanity or the Greek Tenent of the Holy Ghost not proceeding from the Son should seem to a General Council the one by a
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