Nature by means of the Eucharist doth make it all to rise Immortal and glorious The same may be seen in Iraen l. 8. contr Haer c. 34. And many others who understand the encrease of the Flesh to be a raising of the Flesh towards a state of Immortality and disposing it towards a happy Resurrection according to that of S. John c. 6. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath life Everlasting and I will raise him up at the last day But if these Interepretations should not happen to please you I shall then recommend you to a late Catholic Author and leave you to himself or his Excellent Treatise The Defence for the Adoration of the Body and Blood of our Lord p. 14. For further satisfaction his words are these ' This External Sign or Symbol they the Catholics affirm to be all That of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any Sense And tho' after Consecration the Substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain yet is Substance here taken in such a sense as that neither the hardness nor softness nor the frangibility nor the savour nor the odour nor the nutritive vertue of the Bread nor nothing visible nor tangible or otherwise perceptible by any sense are involved in it All which at last we shall endeavour to explain The last Head is That the words of Consecration are not to be taken in a literal Sense To prove this our Discourser brings several killing Testimonies as he calls them but I know not whom they hurt except the Caphernaites for all Catholics own both the Authorities and the Doctrine contained in them as absolutely necessary to the true and Orthodox understanding their Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament That is to say That the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not there after a Natural and Corporeal manner as it was upon the Cross that is specifically and according to the outward Form and local Existence but spiritually supernaturally and without Circumscription that is external Commensuration of or Co-extension with Place And if Pascasius meant otherwise of the Sacrament than what is here exprest then Rabanus Maurus did well to oppose him with all his might as another Anonymus did if not the same Rabanus in a Tract extant in Codice Gemblacens Cosnobij cum Heregeri Opusculo But that this good Arch-Bishop did so understand him is plain for these two Reasons First because he hath always been acknowledged an Orthodox Bishop among all Catholics and next because his own words have with good reason confirm'd Catholics in this their Opinion of him and they are these Who says he would ever believe that Bread could be turn'd into Flesh or Wine into Blood except our Saviour himself had said it who Created Bread and Wine and made all things out of Nothing but it is easier to make one thing out of another than all things out of Nothing L. 7. de Sacris ordin ad Theatmanum c. 10. Now after all these Authorities from the Fathers and a Hundred more which might be produc't to shew that they believ'd the Real Presence together with the agreable concurrent sense of them all running through their whole Works besides their constant practice of Adoration and Belief of an unbloody Sacrifice and many Learned Protestants confessing that they did so believe After all this I suppose I need not enquire of our Discourser when this Doctrine of the Real Presence came into the World for I am convinc't that it was in the very days of the Apostles themselves or to use the words of Sebastianus Francus and Hospinian two Eminent Protestants jam tum primo illo tempore viventibus adhuc Apostolis c. But because our Discourser hath made use of the name of the good Arch-Bishop of Mentz to countenance and support his false Chronology it is Just that I take off this scandalous imputation from Rabanus Maurus Now altho his own words before recited are more than sufficient to clear this Excellent Person yet at present I shall only make use of our Discourser's own computation to destroy the probability of his unreasonable Supposition which he calls a plain Testimony He tells us P. 21. That in the Second Council of Nice Anno Dom. 787. The Sacrament was declar'd to be properly the Body and Blood of Christ and that thence this Opinion got footing among the Greeks And that in the year 818. Pascasius first broacht this Doctrine in the Latin Church insinuating that until that time this Doctrine was not receiv'd among the Latins and that thereupon Rabanus Maurus in the year 847 wrote against this Pascasius for introducing this new Error Thus far the Story is very well laid but here are these hard difficulties to be digested before we can give it that credit which he expects First it is certain that Peter Arch-Presbyter of the Roman Church and Peter the Monk were present in the said Council in behalf of Pope Adrian That the said Pope wrote Letters to the Emperour Constantius and also to Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople which were received by the said Council And lastly that the Popes Supremacy was confirmed in this very Council in these words Quod Ecclesia Romana sit Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Act 2. Now from this Council to Rabanus Maurus there was an Interval of 60 years from the Council to Pascasius of one and Thirty years and can we believe that this Doctrine of the Real Presence which was declared in this Council in the presence of the Popes Legats and confirm'd by the Pope himself should be one and Thirty years a getting over from Nice into the Latin Church Or that so Learned a Man as Rabanus and so esteem'd by our Discourser should be ignorant sixty years after this Council was held That this Doctrine had been there declared And so grosly mistake Pascasius for the first broacher of it Truly for my part altho' Rabanus had not explain'd himself concerning his Faith according to those expressions before related yet would I not easily have believ'd that he could have been so ignorant of the Transaction of this Council or would have accus'd Pascasius of introducing so gross an Error into the Latin Church when he knew that he writ no otherwise than as had been Thirty years before determin'd in a General Council It is plain therefore that Rabanus quarrell'd with some Expressions of Pascasius as importing the Erroneous sense before mention'd Our Discourser being confident that he hath found out the date of Transubstantiation falls a little foul upon Mr. Arnauld because he cannot believe that such a Doctrine should have been impos'd upon the Christian World and yet so universally receiv'd except there had been some extraordinary if not an universal Opposition and indeed our Discourser of all mankind ought to have believ'd so too for if every man should have had as ill an Opinion of it as himself its establishment had been impossible But that he
a true and real tho' Mystical Manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Next we offer the Testimony of Bishop Ridley quoted by Arch-Bishop Laud set down in Fox p. 1598. You says he the Transubstantialists and I agree in this That in the Sacrament is the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father c. only we differ in Modo in the way and manner of being there Dr. Taylor who hath written one of the last on this Subject is very clear and particular concerning this Real Presence Sect. 1. N. 11. p. 18. It is enquired says he whether when we say we believe Christs Body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that Body that Flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was Crucified Dead and Buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one Body of Christ Natural and Glorified But he that faith that Body is Glorified which was Crucified says it is the same Body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth for there is no other Body no other Blood of Christ But tho' it is the same we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary that was Crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament As Bertram as St. Heirom as Clemens Alexand. expresly affirm The meaning is easie They intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense c. That Body which was Crucified is not that Body that is eaten in the Sacrament is true if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being But that Body which was Crucified the same Body we do eat is also true if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several Manners of being and Operating Some also may turn all this into a meer figurative sense excluding the Corpus Domini or Real Presence of Christs Natural Body in the Sacrament and it may be they may think that this Doctor himself from some other of his expressions may have given them just reason so to do I shall then only observe these two things First that concerning this Real Presence a Catholic could not have written more justly nor more plainly than the Doctor hath done in what hath been above recited And Secondly That if after all this the Doctor should mean no more than a Spiritual efficacy or virtue excluding the Corpus Domini or Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body tho' indeed after a Spiritual manner as we confess then doth the Doctors Opinion seem as contradictory to it self and as incomprehensible to me as the great Mystery of Transubstantiation it self or as if he had written in Characters totally unintelligible But let us now hear Bishop Forbes de Eucharist L. 2. c. 2. Sect. 9. The sober Protestants doubt not but that Christ is to be ador'd in the Sacrament for in the taking of the Eucharist Christ is to be ador'd with Divine Worship because his Living and Glorious Body is present by an unexpressible Miracle to the Worthy Receiver and this Adoration is not due or performed to the Bread or Wine or the taking or eating but to the very Body of Christ immediately exhibited to us in the taking of the Eucharist And again L. 3. c. 1. Sect. 10. The holy Fathers often tell us That the very Body of Christ is Offer'd and Sacrificed in the Eucharist as appears by almost innumerable passages but not that all the properties of a Sacrifice are properly and really observ'd but it is done by a Commemoration and Representation of that which being once offer'd in that only Sacrifice of the Cross Christ our High Priest did thereby consummate all other Sacrifices and by pious Supplications by which the Ministers of the Church for the sake of the perpetual Oblation of that one Sacrifice assisting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father and present after an unexpressible manner on the holy Table most humbly pray God the Father that he would please to grant that the Vertue and Grace of this perpetual Victim may become profitable and efficacious to his Church for helping all the necessities both of the body and Soul The Archbishop of Spalato says much the same thing in his Rep. Eccles L. 7. c. 11. Only he will not admit the Body of Christ to be corporally in the Bread or under the Bread but to be taken with the Bread Sumitur cum Pane Christi Corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy L. 3. c. 3. Says thus That which I have already said is enough to Evidence the Mystical and Spiritual Presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the Same before any Man can suppose that Spiritual Presence of them to his Soul which the eating and drinking Christs Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth And ibid. c. 2. where it follows He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Unless a man discern the Lords Body where it is not of necessity it must there be where it is discerned to be And l. 3. c. 5. Having maintained that the Elements are really changed from ordinary Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament and that in vertue of the Consecration not by the Faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this Truth namely that the Elements so consecrated are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them c. And then p. 46. he further collecteth thus And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is also both propitiatory and impetratory You may consult Archbishop Laud Bishop Montague Bishop Bilson and many other Learned Protestants too long to be here recited for further satisfaction in this Matter Now worthy Fathers what would you advise me to do in this Case would you have me follow the Judgments of these Learned and Pious Men who wrote not only their private Opinions but some of them in the Name of the King and whole Church of England Or would you have me believe our Discourser and some others of our late Sacramentary Pamphleters If the first then Transubstantiation will not appear so absurd ridiculous senseless and foolish a Doctrine as he
best assistance of my impertial Reason and Understanding and shall follow him according to his own Method He supposes five Grounds or Reasons for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence according to a literal Sense which he pretends to confute The first is from the Authority of Scripture and among other things as little to the purpose he tells us p. 7. That he doth not believe any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been This Bread signifies my Body c. And do this for a memorial of me Where you may observe worthy Fathers that he excludes also the Real Presence in a litteral sense as shall be shewn hereafter He goes on But sure it would never have entred into any Mans mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and gave away himself from himself with his own hands Now altho I dare not pretend to interpret all Scripture a lawful sufficient Interpreter being the thing I look for yet since he hath put the Case I presume to say thus much That if a sensible Turk or Pagan who had never heard of the great Mysteries of Christianity should seriously read the New Testament possibly he would not have understood these words This is my Body in a literal sense neither do I think he would ever have establisht the Doctrine of the Hypostatical Union The Consubstantiality of the Son The Trinity Predestination and Free-will with many other Mysteries of Christian Religion especially if he were govern'd only by his humane Reason as our Discourser seems to be and yet all this while he might have had a great esteem of the moral part and have believed Christ a Person divinely inspired For my part I fear I should never have overcome these Difficulties upon my own strength and yet I believe the Trinity as firmly as I believe there is a God Whether the Discourser doth so or not I cannot say But supposing a Man already well grounded in the Christian Religion and having heard that the Doctrine of the Real Presence had been believed in a literal sense by the greatest part of most Learned and Pious Christians through all Ages And that the Scriptures containing this Doctrine were writ several years after the death of our Saviour in which time the Sacrament had been celebrated by them and by consequence if the Apostles had not understood this Mystery according to a literal Sense they had time and reason plainly to have expounded it otherwise and have given us warning of this difficulty as was done to the Carnal Caphernaites and not all three punctually agreed in the same Expressions without any caution of a dangerous Figure in them In such Case I say the Doctrine of the Real Presence to such a Person having laid aside all prejudices is as clear in Scripture as most of those other great Mysteries are and that for these Reasons First because I cannot imagine why our Blessed Saviour should ever have made use of these Terms This is my Body besides many other such like Expressions except he really intended a literal Interpretation for what necessary relation hath a Body and Blood to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more than to the Sacrament of Baptism Why a Consecration in that Sacrament yet none either in Baptism or others Might not Christ with reverence be it spoken have said much more plainly and yet sufficiently to the same purpose Take this Bread and Cup of Blessing in remembrance of that Passion of mine which is now at hand and as often as ye take it worthily it shall conveigh to your Souls invisible Grace and many other Benefits Would not this have fully answered the End of Zuinglius and our Discourser's Doctrine concerning this Sacrament But why doth the God of Mercy and Truth command us to eat his Body and drink his Blood assuring us that except we eat his Flesh we have no life in us if he did not really intend we should do so But except he be really and substantially present in the Sacrament we can neither eat his Body nor drink his Blood for to take the Figure for the Substance is idle in any Command which positively orders the Substance if the Substance possibly can be had and in this Case it is impious because he that commanded the Substance is able to give it us and if he did not design to give it us we have reason to believe he would not have commanded it in such express terms Especially since there was no necessity no nor conveniency of using those words according to our Discourser's Interpretation For if by his Body he meant the Figure only of his Body what good doth that Figure do us Or how doth it satisfie the Command or why should Bread be the Figure of his Body Since Figures of this Figure that is to say the Paschal Lamb and Manna descending from Heaven were much more noble and proper Representing than the thing Represented and yet neither was Manna nor the Lamb called his Body as the Bread is in the Sacrament The Expression therefore of Justin Martyr saying This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge p. 7. Is nothing at all to the purpose nor could the Paschal Lamb be taken really and truly for God their Saviour or their expected Messian because there was no such thing mention'd or â—â—â—â—ted in the Institution of the Passover On the contrary it was instituted in the plainest Manner and most intelligible and so free from all figurative Expressions that there are no less than 12 Verses in explaining every Circumstance of the Action They shall take to them every Man a Lamb c. Exod. c. 12. And can we believe that the Passover which was indeed a Figure of the Sacrament should be exprest and understood in an unquestionable literal Sense and that the Sacrament which was the Substance of the Figure should be instituted in such a prodigious wonderful Figure according to our Discourser's acceptation as to involve the greatest part of the Christian World not only in most pernicious Mistakes but also in the most detestable Sin of Idolatry Sure the imagination of it must be totally inconsistent with the Veracity Mercy Goodness and the main design of our blessed Saviour To institute a Figure literally and the Substance figuratively is a strange Method and not easily suppos'd in the God of Truth and Wisdom Nay more our Saviour who establisht a Law and a Church to interpret it who suffer'd the Indignities of humane Life and Death of the Cross on purpose to save Sinners He to whom the past and future was always present and who knew what would happen to his Spouse the Church after his Death had left so great a
hath styled it which I hope to prove hereafter If the second then to use the Argument and Words of our Discourser p. 30. Christanity would become a most uncertain and endless thing for if we may thus change our Faith in such high and fundamental Doctrines as these are I know not what security we have that we shall not in time change our Faith in other necessaries and at length lose it all But to pin up the Basket as we say I shall conclude with the Testimonies of Calvin and Beza men to whom the Church of England is obliged for a great part of her Reformation Calvin upon 1 Cor. 11.24 Take eat this is my Body says thus Nor doth Christ only offer to us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection but that Body it self in which he suffered and rose again And again Instit l. 4. c. 17. Being made partakers of his Substance we perceive also the vertue of it in the Communication of all good things I know no other Substance he had spiritual or corporal but that which was born of the Blessed Virgin And of the Lutherans he says If they so explain their meaning that whilst the Bread is delivered there is annext to it the exhibition of his Body because the Truth is inseparable from its Sign I should not much oppose them And to strengthen this Assertion of Calvin I shall add the Confession of Beza and others of the same Sect related by Hospinian Hist Sacram. parte altera p. 251. We confess that in the Cup of our Lord not only all the Benefits of Christ but the very substance of the Son of man I say that very Flesh and that very Blood which he poured out for us not only significatively symbolically typically or figuratively as a remembrance of one absent but truly and certainly represented exhibited and offer'd not as naked Symbols but as having from God himself promising and offering the very thing it self truly and certainly joyned to them Now the manner by which the thing it self i.e. the very Body and the very Blood of our Lord is joyned with the Symbols we say it is Symbolical or Sacramental But we call it a Sacramental manner not that it is only Figurative but that it truly and certainly represents under the Species of visible Things that which God exhibits and offers with the Symbols that is as I said before the very Body and Blood of Christ And then he tells us That he differs with others concerning the manner of the Presence only but for the very Thing and Presence it self he retains and defends it And now Reverend Fathers I must acquaint you that whilst I was transcribing this very last Paragraph I was inform'd that there was an Answer lately publisht to Two Discourses printed at Oxford which contained in them the Testimonies of these Learned Protestants before mentioned I stopt my Pen bought the Book and read it over with great care I shall not at present speak any thing more of it in particular than what relates to this very Subject but in general give me leave to tell you that me thoughts this Answerer might very well have spar'd his Apology at last p. 125. for not having insisted more largely upon some points since I have not seen Twenty two Sheets written with so much magisterial Confidence and in my judgment with so little Substance even among all the Pamphlets that have come out on both sides from the Death of the late King to this present day but I leave the further examination to the Conclusion of this Discourse First we thank him for his plainness in delivering his opinion concerning the Real Presence which is the subject Matter in Debate and by which he tells us is meant no more than invisible Power and Grace in exclusion of the Real Presence of Christs Natural Body even after a spiritual manner Whether the Church of England will thank him for it I know not I am sure I was otherwise instructed and believed otherwise whilst in your Communion But let us hear what he says to these Testimonies He endeavours to elude their most plain indubitable sense and grammatical construction even according to the common Reason and Understanding of all Mankind these several ways First he tell us that Becanus says the Calvinists deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly really and substantially present in the Eucharist Not I hope according to that sense which our Answerer would make Calvin and others give of those and such like expressions But sure our Answerer might have collected among his other Protestant Relics an account of a rigider sort of Calvinists who reform'd even upon Calvin himself and yet retain'd the name of Calvinists But what doth Calvin himself say as this Answerer recites out of Hospinian Why that Christ is our Food because by the incomprehensible Vertue of the holy Spirit he inspires his Life into us that he may communicate it to us no less than the Vital Juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree c. No less than so then sure it is as substantial a Communication of Christ's Natural Body after a spiritual manner as the Oxford Discourser in that place pretends to for if Calvin and this Answerer do not believe that the Vital Juice of a Tree is a Substance tho' whilst a Juice more spiritual and that the very Substance of the Tree is substantially nourished and increased thereby I fear they will both prove as bad Philosophers as Divines But before I proceed any further I must inform or mind our Answerer that tho' Catholics believe Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament yet they deny it to be there bodily i.e. Modo Corporeo and tho' his Flesh be there yet not Fleshly nor yet doth his Natural Body leave the highest Heavens These premised because we shall have occasion to make these distinctions I come to next to Beza His words as recited by the Answerer are these We do not say that in the Eucharist there is only a Commemoration of the Death of our Lord Jesus Christ nor do we say that in it we are made partakers only of the Fruits of his Death and Passion but we joyn the Ground with the Fruits affirming with St. Paul that the Bread which by God's appointment we break is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us the Cup which we drink the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us and that in the very same Substance which he received in the Womb of the Virgin and which he carried up with him into the Heavens And afterwards For this honor we allow to God that tho' the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven and not elsewhere and we on Earth and not elsewhere yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood after a spiritual manner i.e. modo spirituali and by the means of Faith P. 50. I am afraid Fathers this Answerer plays
might find a fit parallel for Mr. Arnauld he takes a long Journey to Vienna the rather I suppose that he might pay his respects to the King of France and his Army as he return'd home again for he tells us That by the like Demonstration as Mr. Arnauld's one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have employed it against him Now our Discourser without crossing the Seas might have given as proper an instance even from his own Doors for who could easily imagine that the Real Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body in the holy Sacrament should have been believ'd and profest by the Church of England in the days of King James the First and yet that in the Reign of King James the Second the figurative Doctrine in exclusion of the Real Presence should be so firmly and peaceably establisht among us as that not so much as one single Church of England Man at least that I have heard of tho highly dignified by honourable and profitable Employments in and by the said Church of England should write one word in Vindication of their ancient Church Nor one small Pamphlet to oppose the Innovation of these usurping Sacramentories But these things worthy Fathers concern you more than me and lest you should quite forget that there ever had been any such Doctrine profest by your Church of England I shall humbly take the liberty by and by to refresh your memories Much more might be said to shew from what loose Conjectures our Discourser would prove the Innovation of the Doctrine of the Real Presence and that it entred not into the Latin Church before the Eighth Century But since I design nothing of Answer more than to satisfie you worthy Fathers and my self that I have not rushly rejected the Authority of so Learned a Person as our Discourser seems to be without good reason and due consideration this which is already said is I suppose sufficient for that purpose I come now to what he calls the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation that is The infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith First there is a great difference between making an Article of Faith and declaring and Article of Faith I know no power upon Earth that can do the first but certainly the second is within the Jurisdiction of the lawful Church Governours or otherwise General Councils would be very insignificant Assemblies Now if Transubstantiation should prove to be no more than the true Faith concerning the blessed Sacrament declar'd or explain'd then our Discourser hath no reason to quarrel with Church Authority or fear any Inconveniences should happen from the Exercise of such a Power First I have sufficiently shewn at least in my Opinion that the Doctrine of the Real Presence that is of the Natural Body of Christ substantially truly and literally existing in the Sacrament tho' not after a Corporal and Natural manner to have been the constant Doctrine of the Catholic Church from the Apostles to the great Council of Lateran when in the presence of the Ambassadors of the Greek and Roman Emperours as also of the Kings of Jerusalem England France Spain and Cyprus this word Transubstantiation was agreed upon by neer Thirteen Hundred Fathers to be a proper Explicative Term of the Apostolical Doctrine and belief of the Real Presence or change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of this enough hath been said But because our Discourser is pleas'd to call the Doctrine of the Real Presence barbarous and impious p. 35. I have thought fit to add to the rest the Testimonies of Bishop Andrews and the Learned Casaubon in the name of King James the First and the Church of England and some others of the most Learned Fathers and Professors of the true English Church I will begin with Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. The Cardinal says he cannot be ignorant except wilfully that Christ said This is my Body but not after this manner This is my Body We agree in the object and differ only in the manner Concerning the Hoc est or this is We firmly believe that it is Concerning the after this manner i.e. by the Bread Transubstantiated into the Body of the manner how it is done as by or in or with or under or through there is not a word concerning it We believe the true Presence no less than your selves but we dare not confidently define any thing concerning the manner of this Presence nor are we over curious to enquire into it c. Again ib. c. 8. p. 194. Speaking of the Conjunction of Christs Body with the Symbols he says There is that Conjunction between the visible Sacrament and the Invisible Thing of the Sacrament as between the Divinity and Humanity of Christ where except you would savour of Eutychianism the Humanity is not transubstantiated into the Divinity And a little further The King hath establisht it that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and to be truly there ador'd And we with Ambrose adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries Some possibly may be ingenious enough to interpret all this to signifie a meer figurative Presence as they have done many clear passages of the Fathers but they must interpret for themselves not for me But let us hear what Is Casaubon writes to Cardinal Perron by the Kings Command concerning the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist who saying that the Contest was not about the Truth but only the Manner of the thing returns this reply p. 50. His Majesty wonders since your Eminence confesseth that you do not so solicitously require that Transubstantiation should be believed as that we should not doubt concerning the Truth of the Real Presence That the Church of England should not long since have satisfied you in that particular which hath so often profest to believe it in her public Writings And then for Explication of the Doctrine of the Church of England recites the fore-mention'd words of Bishop Andrews Quod Cardinalem non latet Come we next to Mr. Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. Sect. 67. p. 357. Wherefore should the World continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no Controversie saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very Consecrated Elements themselves Again p. 360. All three Opinions do thus far accordin one That these holy Mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in
and was Invisible I hope the two first Reasons will be taken off by consent And first it is understood I think by all Mat. 17. that the Body of Christ when he was transfigur'd did exist after a Supernatural manner and was freed for the time being from the clog and earthly limitations of common humane Bodies Secondly It is plain that after his Resurrection Jesus made his Body become Invisible The Text tells us That he appear'd in several Forms After that he appear'd in another Form unto two of them Mark 16. v. 12. Which I suppose is somewhat above Nature Also the third time when Jesus shewed himself to his Disciples at the Sea of Tiberias he had changed again his Form for they knew him not John c. 21. Nor was he known the first time by Mary Magdalen but was mistaken by her for the Gardiner But in Luke 24. It is clearly exprest That Jesus appear'd to his Disciples after the manner of a Spirit for it is said in v. 36. And as they thus spake Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and said unto them peace be unto you But they were terrified and affrighted and supposed that they seen a spirit Now altho' the Circumstances in this Text sufficiently denote that our Saviour came not to his Disciples progressively after the manner of humane Bodies but that eodem instante he appear'd in the midst of them which was the cause of their fear for they were told before that our Lord was risen Yet the preceding v. 31. of the same Chapter leads so manifestly to this Interpretation that there is no colour left to doubt for it is there written That after our Lord had been ignorantly entertain'd by the two Disciples at Emmaus at last Their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight This agrees also with the account which we have from St. John c. 20. v. 19. Where it is said The same day at Evening when the Dores were shut came Jesus and stood in the midst of them The same Circumstance is also repeated in v. 26. In vain do ye therefore so often Object to us Worthy Fathers the necessity of believing our Senses in all things and upon all Occasions since you see how the Apostles themselves were deceived by them even concerning the real visible corporal Presence of Christ upon Earth As for St. Thomas and the Confirmation from the Evidence of his Senses our Saviour reproacht his want of Faith and suffer'd him to put his doubting hand into his Sacred Wounds not so much to shew him that he was meer Man as to convince them that he was God and Man God from his infinite Power in being able to make his Natural Body exist after the manner of a Spirit which they had seen before and were terrified at it And Man in that nevertheless he had the shape and Substance of that very Body in which he suffer'd Nor must we think that these Supernatural changes were done by chance or without the blessed design of the Divine Wisdome for the Disciples who hitherto had doubted concerning the great Article of the Resurrection of the Flesh were not only hereby convinced of this necessary truth but were also taught after what manner their Bodies should be raised from the dead Or as S. Paul says 1 Cor. c. 15. What Bodies they do become S. Paul gives them their Answer v. 36. Thou fool that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die Then telling us of the several differences between Bodies some more and some less glorified he proceeds v. 42. So also is the Resurrection of the Dead It is sown in Corruption it is raised in Incorruption It is sown in Dishonor it is raised in Glory It is sown in Weakness it is raised in Power It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body And this our Saviour had before experimentally taught them by the differing and Spiritual manner of the Existence of his own Body confirming also has Divinity by that Power which he exercised upon it according to that of S. Matthew c. 28. v. 18. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth If then our common Sinful Bodies shall have this Glory Power and Spirituality when they are raised from the Dead and probably be subject then to the Soul as the Soul is now to the Body who will dare to prescribe Laws to the holy and spotless Body of our Lord united to his Divinity However it be the vindication of the Real Presence seems to concern your selves worthy Fathers or at least many other Protestants no less than Catholics and if that be admitted methinks Transubstantiation should not be so rudely refused Entrance For give me leave to ask you from what Authority you pretend to tell us That Christ is really Present in the Sacrament except you mean as in all other pious Duties If you deny this real Presence you stand separate from the whole Christian World Lutherans as well as Catholics which is no very good Argument that you are in the right If you confess it solve these difficulties your selves for it concerns you no less than us But if again you do not confess it then tell me I say what ground you have from Scripture to name those words except as a consequence from these This is my Body and upon the Supposition that at least the Substance of the Bread is become after Consecration the very Body of our Lord You tell us again That we do verily truly and indeed receive the very Body of Christ That born of the Virgin Mary which suffer'd for us and rose from the Dead Let me enquire again what Authority you have to use those words if you do not literally intend the thing Spiritual Graces proceed not from his Humanity but from his Divinity Faith is one of these Spiritual Graces and the immediate Gift of God and signifies only this at least in this place That Christ was the Son of God that he became Man that he died for us and rose again from the dead What hath this to do with eating his Body and drinking his Blood A Commemoration only of his Death it cannot mean nor could the Apostles so understand it except you can shew me some such like Metaphor used to express the memorial of a Man after his death But if neither before our Saviours Passion nor since amongst Jews Heathens or Christians such an Expression was ever used why must we believe that Christ spake or the Apostles understood different from all the expressions of mankind since the Creation of Adam When the Master of the House in Celebrating the Paschal Supper said This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt true Bread was really deliver'd and the Memorial was proper When Moses said Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you It was very Blood which Moses sprinkled on the People Exod. 24. v. 8.