the pillar stript and in the common Hall arrayed in 's Mock Regalia without an actual distinction of his garments from himself had the same object of his piety Ibid. l. 18. I must tell him that the adoration of those among the Lutherans is infinitely more excusable than theirs the Catholicks And this Good Man he is forced to assert not out of prejudice but by the cogency of some reasons The Reader will admire his assurance if he weighs his arguments As first because we Catholicks violate sense which the Lutherans preserve entire Now to wave both the impertinence and falshood of this leading Reason as intimating that we violate sense and that either the nature or heinousness of Idolatry depends thereon t is enough to quash it to affirm that the Lutherans violate sense as much as we Do they not believe the Body of our Lord present with the Bread Do not our senses tell us as experimentally there is no flesh present as they do that Bread is there He that says there are ten men in a Room where sense informs there are but five must needs treat sense with as much violence as he that says there are but five when ten are seen The violence done to sense therefore if any be done and so the inexcusableness is equal on the Lutheran to that on our side We descend to his next Reason the former part of it viz. that the Lutherans are right in their Object himself has overthrown in 's 89th pag. if he approve what he cites out of Dr. Taylor For the Lutheran object is a non Ens if Jesus Christ be not substantially present and if He be not in ours how can He be in their Eucharist since our Priesthood whereon all grant his being there in some sort depends is more undoubted valid and canonical than theirs they deriving Sacerdotal Orders from a Presbyter's Ordination which all Antiquity and Prelatick Protestants in their seuds with Presbytery and by their present practice in ordaining such Ministers anew damn not only as spurious but as null we from Episcopal legitimately communicated If then the Lutherans be right in their object much more are we Have we not more assurance that our Lord is there and He only is there We run therefore a less risque of missing him than they The other part of his 2d Reason seems to be an Ignoratio Elenchi the common Fallacy imploy'd by Protestants and this Minister especially in this dispute to amuse and deceive his Reader for if I comprehend him he proceeds on this ground that we hold the substance of the Bread to be the material of which the Body of Christ is made whenas we believe nothing like it Our Doctrine is that by Sacerdotal consecration the substance of our Lord's Body which now resides in Heaven and shall enjoy that glorious condition till his second Advent becomes however existent also under the species of Bread and Wine in a Spiritual manner and that the substance of Bread and Wine wholly ceases to he under those species as before consecration it was but further notice our faith takes not of the Breaden substance whether it be annihilated or how it ceases If the Breaden substance be absent then we do not adore that substance for Christ's body which is not his and if it be present we do not adore it unless we can be supposed to adore what we think not of or what we think to be nothing or to believe and adore two substances of one Body and be said to direct our devotion another way at the same time we with the strictest abstraction aim at the substance assumed by the eternal Word in the Virgin 's womb and now and ever personally united to it If we should worship the Eucharist whether there be a Substantial presence or no then we might well pass for bread-Bread-worshippers if our Lord were not substantially present but worshiping not so loosly at random nor without a solid supposition of a substantial presence demonstrates we do direct our piety to our Saviour only never reflecting on what either ceases or remains of the elements so as to make them partners or rivals with him in our Duty The truth of the 5th Catholick Assertion is then evinced our worship is as excusable as the Lutherans and the new auxiliary Reasons drawn up p. 102. l. ult to oppose it afresh are indeed nothing to the purpose and moreover the former of them is false too We can be sufficiently sure of due consecration and anathematizing Dissenters does not alter the excusableness of our worship If our worship be of the same nature with the Lutheran and have as good grounds the imposing of it adds not one jot of guilt to it whatever it do to the imposers The Answerer then ought to have totally assented to the 6th Catholick Assertion for the same sound reason which moved him to grant it true of the Lutherans that their Object is right ours being certainly as true or the same with theirs and if we mistake the substance of Bread they worship nothing for Christ We worship no Host i.e. neither any substance that ever was or is a breaden substance nor yet the symbols but only Christ sacramentally existing who never was nor can be a Wafer nor made of either the substance or accidents of Bread. How then can we possibly mistake what is not Christ for Him unless the Christ born of the ever-blessed Virgin be not Christ Perverse therefore is the parallel of our worship to that of a Manichee's fancying Christ to be made of the Sun's substance this in that Heretick was both groundless and impossible whenas ours is quite another sentiment and founded on motives clear and infallible so far different in the thing as the substance born of our Lady is from that of the Bread or the Sun so far unlike in the ground as the fiction of a single Persian impostor is less credible than express Revelation and the constant Tradition of the Catholick Church Much-what the same Chaff is served up p. 106. to shew more difference between Us and the Lutherans than a Trans and Con amount to So zealous is this Polemic Divine to reduce Christians to an amicable temper that he exceeds the bounds of discretion and reverence not only to his own Party and the Noblest Nations of Christendom but also to his Prince For whilst He and others labour for Peace this man like seditious Love represents them irreconcilable His first reason here is already exposed There is either no or an equal violence done to Sense by Us and the Lutherans His second Reason is as faulty as his first if we are at defiance with any Texts that call the Eucharist Bread are not the Lutherans at as much defiance with those that call it Flesh and our Lord's Body for both it cannot be substantially Flesh and substantially Bread. To his third Reason viz. That the words of Institution afford occasion of inferring a Presence of
the true sense of things reveal'd being setled they argue and reason thereupon as much as they please according to rules natural to the Understanding and perfected by the Art of Logick The Rules and Artifice of Reasoning I say they use and approve but such principles as are observ'd out of Nature and her operations they subordinate to Faith. So that in strict and proper speaking they do not oppose Faith to Reason but only to Philosophy For if the intellect be rasa Tabula it can argue from nothing tho Arguing and Reasoning be its chiefest work to which it is naturally directed but what it receives from without either by the Senses and information of others or by Revelation except which is very rare that God by himself or a good Angel immediately illuminates the Understanding as in foretelling things future or absent or by means of some representation receiv'd by the Imagination Now tho the expression notification and apprehension of things reveal'd is indeed convey'd to us in words comprehended by sense yet the thing signified is not discover'd by the ordinary notions of sensual knowledg but by the Word and Spirit of God revealing it which doth not only represent more objects to the understanding but also enlightens the faculty and enableth it to discern spiritual things as much clearer than Nature teacheth as a man can better discern by the light of the mid-day Sun than by the glimmering of the Moon or in a clear air than in the thickest mist The outward sensible Word is of men and according to humane speech but the internal Word is known to us only by Jesus Christ who by these ordinary sounds the Holy Spirit concurring with them conveyeth to us the great and otherwise incomprehensible mysteries of our salvation which are therefore trampled on and despised by the worldly wise who reduce all our knowledge to and measure it by sense and reason So then it is not reason which the Catholicks oppose but the principles of reasoning taken from Aristotle experience humane testimonies vain Philosophy and the like To all which we prefer those propositions of that most Sacred Religion first discovered by our Lord Jesus Christ in his personal conversation here on earth and after his departure continued and propagated in and to his Church by his holy Apostles and their Successors to the end of the world Nor can it be said that these propositions or principles of Philosophy are more rational than those de fide any more than the principles of one Science are more rational than those of another As for contradiction of faith upon the account of sense which in effect amounts to the denial of faith it hath bin so often and clearly answered particularly in the preceding short Discourse that it seems needless to repeat it In short sense teacheth us not that this is v. g. bread or a stone for this is an action of assent or judgment whether in the imagination or intellect it mattereth not which affirms or denies most frequently as it is accustomed without consideration and erreth not except where it too hastily assents against a truer Proposition i.e. such a Proposition whose truth is dcelared by or from a more certain Principle As ordinary understandings conceive the Diameter of the Sun to be no more than of 3. foot their sense so informing them or that this is bread which seemeth such Yet are both these errors controlled the one by Demonstration the other by the infallible Word of God in his Church § 4 Those of the present Church of England agreeing with the pretended Reformed and contradicting their own Predecessors accuse the Catholick Church of Idolatry upon three accounts 1. For worshiping God before an Image 2. Using towards God the mediation and intercession of the B. Virgin Angels and Saints And 3. For adoring our B. Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament We here speak of the last 1. Adoration consists partly in internal partly external actions The external are for the most part the same in all Religions Christian or Heathen and are the effects and demonstrations of the internal the sentiments and affections of the Soul either naturally or out of custom thus expressing themselves Onely true Religion hath reserved Sacrifice as appropriated only to the most High God and to no creature whatsoever But the Heathen do not observe this We shall not speak of it here 2. All actions of Adoration must be either to God or a creature and the internal actions or intention are those which determin the external to the one or the other Nor doth nor can any one know by the external actions whether God or the creature be worshiped but by some external and declared interpretation of the intention Therefore no man ought to judge of another man's adoration without such interpretation and he that doth so sinneth 3. Whoever gives the worship due to God unto a creature or whoever in his devotions gives or attributes that to a creature which belongs to God onely is guilty of Idolatry as taken in a large sense The worship due to God consists in acts of faith believing whatever he hath or doth reveal and by that regularing the understanding of hope trusting in Him alone both for the things of this and the other world by this regulating the will and of charity loving God above all things and all other things for His sake by this regulating the affections 4. Almighty God may be worshiped in all places and at all times but it is required to worship him when we come into his presence and where are performed actions more solemn and appropriated unto him 5. The person of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be worshiped with the worship due to God alone because he is God blessed for ever and the rather because he is a person only as the humane nature is assumed into the person of the Son of God. Neither is he to be worshiped as here or there but there is an obligation to worship him in the Eucharist because he hath both by himself and his Church declared him to be there present And tho he were not there present yet is the Adoration being by the intention directed to Him alone and not to any creature present or absent an act of devotion and acceptable to him And they who call this Idolatry commit a very great sin depriving our Lord of his honour condemning his whole Church of Idolatry and consequently acknowledging that he had no Church upon earth making themselves judges of their brethren and imputing to them a sin which they utterly abhor yet which cannot be known but by their own confession But say they The Church in the Council of Trent hath declared that we ought to worship the holy Sacrament Sacramentum To which tho so often answered we say that this word Sacramentum hath three significations 1. It is taken for the thing signified only res Sacramenti the body and blood or person of our Lord and
this is to be worshiped with Divine worship 2. For the signs species or visible accidents to which no other worship is due besides that reverence which belongs to the instruments of holy worship 3. For both the sign and thing signified together and thus understood the Sacrament is not properly said to be worshiped tho improperly it may because part of it the res Sacramenti is to be worshiped and that which belongs to the principal part is ordinarily attributed to the whole as a man understands thinks argues c tho these be only the actions of the Soul. The like distinction serves also for the word Hoast Hostia which these writers seem to lay as a stumbling-block before the ignorant For it is sometimes used for the outward signs species or whatever is visible before consecration and is not to be worshiped sometimes for the Lord himself as in Eph. 5.2 who alone in proper speaking is to be worshiped But having occasion by God's blessing in convenient time to speak more copiously upon this subject we shall here add no more § 5 Thus have we briefly set down what we conceive necessary to explicate the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this great mystery sufficiently also we hope to instruct them who intend their salvation who are not desirous a lye should be the truth nor prefer their own uncertain conjectures against God's Church Whom also we seriously admonish to beware of those teachers who debase and lower the great grace and mercy of God communicated to us by our Lord who is made unto us wisdom as well as justice and sanctification by debasing it to their own fancies which they call reason as did all the ancient Hereticks and Mahomet himself that great false Prophet To take away all mystery out of Christian Religion is to vilify it and to abolish the virtue of faith and advancement of the understanding and thereby also of piety and devotion For it is no wonder that those sublime and holy passions or operations experienced by devout persons are by such people ridiculed to say no worse For if the Heroical acts of Faith are denied and despised it must needs follow that those great favours bestowed by God upon his best servants must neither be enjoyed nor credited But omitting these matters let us proceed to examin some such few particulars in the Replier's Discourse as seem to contain something considerable For it would be too much abusing the Reader 's time and patience to discover or reprehend all the errors of that Pamphlet wherein I know not if there be any one period that is not obnoxious § 6 To omit the first Chap. containing nothing of consequence we will take notice of the second which seems to be to purpose Our Author 's chief design was to shew the Alterations of the Church of England after her departure from the Church Catholick both in Doctrine and Practice taking this one Article as an instance in both In this chapter the Replier takes notice of these alterations and tho he would gladly deny them yet is it a thing so manifest that he rather thinks fitting to diminish them and notwithstanding the alterations to affirm that the Church of England never changed Little alterations he calls them and yet saith they are the terms of her communion Nothing certainly is little in the Church'es forms especially in our most venerable and solemn worship and the very chiefest and most important service of God even the only holy sacrifice of our Religion and admitting us to and feeding us at his own Table not little that Article upon which they chiefly justify their departure from the Church and by which they continually keep their subjects in disobedience unto and alienation from Her not little which contains the terms of the Church'es communion so that he who assents not to these however differing in their several seasons i.e. he that did not believe the Real presence at the first setting forth the Common Prayer-book and he that did believe it at the second was holden as excommunicate Not little to the disobedience whereof such severe Penalties were imposed both by Acts of Parliament and Canons of 1603. Again if so little why would they for them change those of the Ancient Church except it were for an extreme itch of separating from God's Church the formality and essence of Schism Ib. This design is impertinent No it was the very primary intention of the Author as is plain enough But admit the Church of England hath wavered in her Doctrines as our Author proves irrefragably it follows that she disclaims the authoritative conduct of her subjects by whose doctrines except they submit to so many changes they can never be secure and they who do change cannot keep the unity of the faith which themselves alter but are more like to children unconstant uncertain hurried about with every new blast of doctrine as a powerful person of a different perswasion or interest pleaseth to command This is not the end for which our Good Lord ordained the Clergy his Successors In the beginning of King Edward VI. Reign at the framing of a new Common prayer-book was asserted the Real presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist as hath already and by God's assistance shall be more shew'd by and by In his latter end this doctrine was changed to Zuinglianism In Q. Elizabeths time both were joyned in the form of the Liturgy but the declaration against Real presence was omitted which in the Rubric in 1661 was lick'd up again Likewise also the Catechism was changed In King Edward's time the Eucharist was expressed in Zuinglius's notions which in Q. Elizabth's time were omitted and in King James's time those for a Real presence inserted The Articles also were new modell'd the first that I can find were towards the later end of King Edward against the Real presence Q. Elizabeth altered them again leaving out those things seeming to her scandalous and against the Real presence And indeed the Articles were not framed to declare the true doctrine of Religion according to the word of God interpreted by the Catholick Church but for avoiding diversities of opinions amongst themselves establishing some sort of consent and healing the increasing ulcers amongst the teachers of the newly changed Religion Again why doth she punish Dissenters since her self dissents frequently from her self and consequently hath taught that which is false So who can have confidence that in believing her faith or obedience to her commands he endangereth not his salvation Even at this day the Replier and his party teach contrary to the former learned men of their own Church and by their own practice confirm this accusation against their Church Adore the Elements Either the Replier knows that all Catholicks declare which none but God and themselves can disprove that they detest the adoration of any creature and of the Elements in the Eucharist and then he voluntarily calumniates
this in relation to some real effect which it signifies to be produced by it So we may say This bread is my body i. e. a figure sign representative thereof but not only so But this bread is my body i. e. by or with or upon the receit of this bread by his mouth to the worthy communicant in his soul is exhibited or given at the same time my true and real body or in Dr. Tailor's words p. 266. After consecration and blessing i.e. of the bread c it is really Christ's body which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lord's supper Thus he The words are ambiguous but I guess by the rest of his book that he means by it is not the bread is for he holds Christ's real body not present to the bread or symbols but only to the spirit of the worthy receiver of the sanctified bread see p. 65. but that which the souls of the faithful receive whilst with their mouths they receive the hallowed bread is Christ's real body Which sense of the proposition this bread is my body doth not seem to conform so strictly to the words as either of the former do because the body in this 3d. sense hath not so near a relation to the bread as in the other This last interpretation is granted by all the other as Hooker observes for all grant a presence of Christ's real body to the soul but more also is affirmed by them as the other expressions of the Fathers will clearly evince who make whether by Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation or some other way some miraculous effect upon consecration of the elements whereby Christ's body becomes really and substantially present together with the substance or at least with the properties of the bread with which miraculous effect either of the former interpretations well consists but not the third since they utterly deny either any substantial or any other way miraculous change about the symbols 7. So for the quotations made by Blondel cap. 12. and by Dr. Tailor p. 104. of many Schoolmen and Doctors of the Church of Rome even since the decision of Councils confessing Transubstantiation not clearly provable from Scripture or reason amongst which see the concession of Bellarmin himself in his Answer to a Lutheran urging these Schoolmen as on his side de Euch. 3. l. 23. c. Tho all these affirm the same Transubstantiation clear from Fathers and Tradition yet for this also if you will I will suppose it not clear from an unanimous consent of Antiquity i. e. in such a manner that none of them held rather Consubstantiation Perhaps the quotations in Dr. Tailor p. 285. may have something in them to this purpose but for want of books I cannot examin in what sense they are spoken excepting that of P. Lombard Of whom t is not amiss to give you some account because as Dr. Tailor truly saith it was his design to collect the sentences of the Fathers in certain heads or articles He therefore after many sentences of the Fathers recited to that purpose concludeth the 10. dist immediately precedent to the words quoted by the Dr. thus Ex his aliisque pluribus constat verum corpus Christi sanguinem in altari esse imo integrum Christum ibi sub utraque specie substantiam panis in corpus i. e. some way or other vinique substantiam in sanguinem converti The like is said before 9. dist li. B. A malis sub Sacramento sci sub specie visibili caro Christi de Virgine sumpta sanguis pro nobis fusus sumitur After this follow the words quoted by Dr. Tailor wherein he doubts of the manner of the conversion of the bread whereof he names three several ways One ibi substantiam panis vini remanere ibidem corpus Christi esse hac ratione dici illam substantiam i.e. panis fieri istam i.e. corporis quia ubi est haec est illa This opinion he rejects saying sed quod non sit ibi substantia nisi corpus sanguis Christi ex praedictis subditis aperte ostenditur Yet note that he writ before Conc. Lateran A second way he names is sic substantiam converti in substantiam ut haec i. e. panis essentialiter fiat illa i. e. corporis Christi i. e. that that which was the substance of the bread is afterward not annihilated but becoming the substance of Christ's body of this he discourseth B. C. and answers an objection against it The 3d. way he mentions litera D. is panem sic transire in corpus Christi ut ubi erat panis nunc est corpus Christi substantia panis vini redigitur in nihilum and of these two last he saith definire non sufficio and see him notwithstanding this definire non sufficio numbred by Blondel among the first Transubstantiators p. 212. and see what Calvin saith of him Inst. 4. l. 17. c. 13. s. Judge then whether the second opinion had any reason to make use of such a quotation and if I may advise you trust not me nor others in our citations but if you can consult the authors and see the context Yet in general I answer All this makes nothing for the first or second opinion or against our present proposition because what those Roman Doctors say is spoken of Transubstantiation only in comparison to the third opinion which they supposed might contest with it for Scripture-evidence not to the first or second by the third I mean the remaining after consecration with Christ's true body not only the properties but the substance of the bread whilst mean while they affirm against the first and second opinion the true substance of Christ's body some way or other with the elements from Scripture it self to be most clear and evident Therefore Mr. Blondel's saying in the title of that chapter that they confessed the expositions of Protestants compatible with the words of the Gospel and St. Paul is true indeed but it is only of some Protestants namely the Lutherans of another perswasion than he or Dr. Tailor See Dr. Tailor p. 104. where he confesseth these Authors to be for Consubstantiation only and the being of Christ's natural body tho they deny the body to be in the Eucharist modo naturali as Dr. Tailor cannot but know together with natural bread Yet indeed they cannot be said to be for consubstantiation neither since transubstantiation is their tenent also whilst they profess themselves to acquiesce in the Church'es determination but this not from conviction of Scripture or reason but evidence of tradition § XX Having premised thus much to shew that any arguments from Antiquity Arguments that they held corporal presence with the symbols tho supposed to against Transubstantiation yet if they put Consubstantiation or some other manner of Substantial Presence of Christ's Body with the consecrated elements prejudice not at all our present proposal set down p.
See therefore those passages in the one Blond p. 38. Ainsi l'image d'icelui i.e. the Eucharist est sainte come estant deifée per certaine sanctification de grace and ainsi son bon plaisir a este que par l'entremise du sacrificateur qui fait l'offrand en transportant ce qui est commune a ce qui est saint le pain de l' Eucharistie come image non mensongere de sa chair naturelle sainctifiée par l'anvenement du Saint Esprit devinst corps divin And in the other Blond p. 411. Car le mystere du sang du corps du Seignieur ne doit pas maintenant estre dit image mais verite c. and p. 412. Christ n'a pas dit ceste est l'image de mon corps mais cecy est mon corps c. whether they do not argue such a change of the elements as the Reformed will not assent to and the presence of Christ's body whatever it is in the Eucharist to be with the Symbols 3. Offering the body of Christ as a Sacrifice before communicating 3. From their offering to God the Eucharist as a Sacrifice before their communicating it as a Sacrament with giving such attributes and imputing such operations unto it as seem plainly to evince that whatever presence of Christ's body there is and real the second opinion saith it is in receiving the Sacrament to the worthy communicant the same the Ancients conceiv'd to be to the signs when offered to God as a Sacrifice neither supposing Christ's body not accompanying the symbols do such attributes seem agreeable to Symbols See those Epithets in the ordinary Canon of the Mass allow'd by Blondel to have nothing in it qui ne s' accorde a l' Escriture au sens a la raison au tes-moignage de l'antiquité p. 453. In S. Ambr. de Sacr. 4. l. 4. c. c. In Cyril Hieros catech mystag Hostia pura sancta illibata immaculata panis sanctus vitae aeternae calix salutis perpetuae c. called by Chrysostom Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. and others Sacrificium terribile plenum horroris tremenda mysteria The author Eccl. Hierarch 3. c. 3. p. Pontifex quod hostiam salutarem quae supra ipsum est litet se excusat exclamans Tu dixisti Hoc facite c. S. Aust Conf. 9. l. 12. c. Cum tibi offerretur pro ea matre sacrificium pretii nostri juxta sepulchrum posito cadavere Idem de Spiritu litera 11. c. Dei cultus in hoc maxime constitutus est ut anima non sit ei ingrata Unde in ipso verissimo in singulari sacrificio Domino Deo nostro agere gratias admonemur c. This is in those words where the Priest saith Let us give thanks to our Lord God and the people answer It is meet and right so to do De civ Dei. 10. l. 20. c. Cujus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae Sacrificium Contra Faust. 20. l. 18. c. Christiani jam peracti Sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione participatione corporis Christi Where is affirm'd an oblation of the same body of which there is participation See the expressions of the Fathers in the same manner of the very body of Christ offered in the Eucharist as received quoted in the Controvertists See Bell. de Missa 1. l. 15. c. sect S. Andreas Ambr. Christus offertur in terris cum corpus ejus offertur And in 1. c Lucae Cum sacrificamus Christus adest Christus immolatur Chrysost 24. Hom. in 1. ad Cor. Pro victimarum pecorum caede seipsum offerendum praecepit In Ep. Heb. 17. Hom. In multis locis offertur non plures Christi sed unus ubique Christus hic illic plenus existens unum corpus non multa corpora Conc. Nic. which Protestants pretend all obedience to 14. can Pervenit ad S. Concilium quod in locis quibusdam Presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo tradidit ut hi qui offerendi Sacrificii non habent potestatem his qui offerunt corpus Christi porrigant And in the Acts of that Council there is a notable passage also part of which Calvin hath urged as making for his cause Inst. 4. l. 1â— c. 36. s. Huic malo i.e. prosternere sese homines coram pane ut Christum illic adorent proculdubio voluit obviare Nicaena Synodus cum vetuit nos humiliter attentos esse ad proposita Symbola Thus much only he But I will give you the place more full as I find it quoted in others Ita etiam hic in divina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem calicem sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruente a Sacerdotibus immolatum pretiosum ipsius corpus sanguinem vere nos sumentes credere haec esse nostrae resurrectionis Symbola c. Observe situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei. See likewise their expressions as of the body of Christ as received as a Sacrament so offered as a Sacrifice for salvation and remission of sins for the living and for the dead in Bell. de Miss 2. l. 2. c. sect Secundo Justin in dial cum Tryphone dicit Sacrificium vaccae quod offerrebatur pro elephantiacis fuisse figuram Eucharistiae quae offertur pro expiatione peccatorum Hieron in comment in Tit. 1. c. Si Laicis imperatur ut propter orationem abstineant se ab uxorum coitu quid de Episcopo sentiendum est qui quotidie prosuis populique peccatis illibatas Deo oblaturus est victimas Aug. Civ Dei 20. l. 25. c. saith Sacrificium pro peccato offerri in Ecclesia usque ad diem Judicii sed non ulterius Chrys in Act. Hom. 21. Non frustra oblationes pâ—o defunctis fiunt c. Non simpliciter i.e. to no purpose Minister clamat pro his qui defuncti sunt in Christo pro his qui illorum memoriam faciunt Quid dicis In manibus est hostia omnia proposita sunt bene ordinata adsunt Angeli adsunt Archangeli adest filius Dei cum tanto borrore astant omnes astant illi i e. ministri clamantes as before offerimus pro his qui defuncti c omnibus silentibus putas simpliciter haec fieri i. e. pro defunctis Igitur alia simpliciter quae pro Ecclesia quae pro Sacerdotibus offeruntur quae pro ubertate ac multitudine absit I have written this at large that you may see the custom of St. Chrysostom's times concerning the oblation of this Sacrifice the Prayers c attending it not to be varying from those we find in the Missals or Liturgies either the pretended-ancient or modern And see Bloudel p. 378. the Conc. Constant using
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
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
to pass over c. But why is Bishop Forbes's testimony past over so unconcernedly and instead of an Answer to his assertions an obloquy left on his Name involving the whole Family of Reconcilers Did he not in that passage write his thoughts Was his intention only a palliating or recommending of Error and Idolatry not a retrenching the opinions and unjustifiable aggravations of those that affect extremes and thro rage desert truth I always conceited the aim of that wise and moderate Person and of other Accommodators to have bin the undisguising of Doctrines and a representation of them in their proper lineaments and habit but not a betraying of truth to purchase a wicked peace Henceforward therefore if this Minister be regarded whenever we hear a man speak of reconcilement we must double our guards and apprehend treachery But where was the Bishop's conscience and respect to piety if according to this Minister to cement a rotten Union he condiscended not only to relinquish his Faith but also to establish an inexcusable Idolatry for his words assert both a substantial presence on the holy Table and an Adoration of our Lord's body there present The presence he means is such a one of which the more orthodox Protestants do not doubt which the Holy Fathers very often mention and which the Puritans grosly erring rejected but the rigider Protestants reject a substantial not a gracious presence so that the Bishop's sense will admit of no other evasion besides his being of the Pacifick tribe which is it seems with this Minister if not in maledictionibus of no authority Thus this impartial Friend to truth whilst he should weigh the arguments considers the personal qualities of an Author and is carried for or against those as these affect or displease him Pag. 66. l. 1. For Bishop Tailor I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication c. Nor I the Answerer of folly for medling with what he can no better discharge His business is to shew either that Bishop Tailor had written no such passage as was cited out of his works or that his words were perverted from their literal sense by the Discourser for to alledge out of the same or another Book sentences contradictory thereto will expose the Bishop indeed but satisfies not the difficulty for the Discourser no where undertook that Dr. Taylor has not said and unsaid acording to the custom of Protestants and Wits but that he has said what with any candor is incapable of any other meaning than is imposed in the Oxford Treatises Bucer's advice to P. Martyr ut Dogma sacramentarium ambiguis loquendi formulis involveret and Dr. Taylor 's boastings and practices are too notorious to be insisted-on or for us to expect from so inconstant artificial and confident a Writer other than that according as his humor or circumstances engaged he should sometimes deliver himself plainly sometimes in affected and intricate terms and never scruple contradicting himself so he might procure a present relief when reduced by his cause or indiscretions to a strait This Reply to this Minister's Answer to Dr. Taylor 's testimony will serve for what was return'd pag. 49. 50. to Calvin's and Beza's Authorities If other places contradictory can be pickt out of their Writings yet that will not manifest that they in the sentences cited intended not a substantial presence But where does Calvin say solum beneficium non corpus ipsum the proposition contradictory to neque tantum beneficium sed corpus ipsum Is it not of this Proposition that Archbishop Lawd says Nor can that place by any art be shifted or by any violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist The Archbishop was a Puny in evasions and of a feeble spirit for what his acuteness could not contrive and his courage durst not attempt this Minister has discovered and adventured to perform even to shift off and wrest this place by some that say nothing different and by others that say nothing contradictory Pag. 69. l. 24. And now I am afraid his cause will be desperate unless Mr. Thorndike can support it The same course is taken to answer Mr. Thorndike as was followed to dismiss most of the precedent viz. endeavouring to oppose Mr. Thorndike to himself this practice how useful and how frequently used soever it be by the Answerer as wondrous sufficient yet is rejected by him in parallel cases and he takes that liberty he disallows to such as have equal right to it with himself Yet how will this rare controvertist vindicate Mr. Thorndike from approving Idolatry if he deny that learned Man to hold a substantial presence for what can be more express for Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist than his words are I do believe that it adoration was practised and done in the ancient Church I know the consequence to be this that there is no just cause why it should not be done at present c. Whatever notion therefore Mr. Thorndike had of our Lord's presence certainly he maintained the presence of such a Body as was adorable and that the adoration practised in the Catholick Church was not Idolatry Having thus copiously discuss'd this Point Whether the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Real Presence was from Queen Elizabeth 's days till the Restauration of the last King for a substantial or but gracious Presence and having amply demonstrated that a substantial Presence was its faith and that as well its Article Communion-Office and Catechism as its supremest Governors and most dignified and learned Doctors are peremptory and full in the case for which the Discourses contend one chief Design of them is secured and defended and by this Minister's confession several points are gain'd as 1. That of all men living the genuine Sons of the Church of England ought not to press us with such contradictions wherein their own opinion is equally involved pag. 41. l. 18. 2. That it is no less a contradiction for Christ's Natural Body to be in several places at the same time by the Church of England's mode of Substantial Presence than by the Church of Rome's which add's only the Manner of that Substance being present viz. Transubstantiation the repugnancy being in the thing it self not in the manner of it Therefore the Philosophical Maxim of the impossibility of one Body's being in many places at the same time must not by Church of England-men be relied-on nor urged in the Dispute between us pag. 44. l. 4. Besides we obtain 3ly That the genuine Sons of the Church of England ought neither to impeach Catholicks of Idolatry nor in taking the Test profess we are Idolaters since according to their faith our object is right and there where we believe it to reside Should they charge the whole Church with Idolatry for worshiping Jesus Christ substantially present in the Eucharist which they both believe and practise Does not
in the Sacrament must pass for a private opinion not a Catholick assertion Where does the Discourser seem to grant the Church's expression improper Does he not on the contrary tell you that Soave and all humble Sons of the Church are obliged to take Ecclesiastical language as well as Christian sense from her i. e. that her expressions with her interpretations are proper tho in your mouth attended with your perversions they become a snare How many Ecclesiastical phrases has the Church bin constrain'd to proscribe thro this pravity of seducers that imploy her orthodox terms to maintain or convey their impieties That the Word is of like substance to his Father that our B. Lady is the Mother of Christ are sentences capable of a sound sense and might be used without suspicion or offence till the Arians and Nestorians mis-imploy'd them Thus it is with adoring the Sacrament or Host the Church and Catholick Doctors have rightly used these expressions and we all understand them accordingly but in England where they are wrested to purposes the Church never dream't of we justly except against them and choose to deliver our selves so as shall be most secure from calumny When therefore you contest with us either take our terms in our sense or you beat the air As to Cardinal Palavicini's words they amount to this only that we are not to withold Adoration to a while whereof onely out part is sovereignly adorable till the several parts exist separately for if so we shall never adore our Lord they do not import that in adoring the whole we give sovereign worship to the species or own them to have any motive for or to be the end of such Adoration for we do not allow so much to our Lord's Humanity abstractedly considered much less to his Garments or the Sacramental veils Wherefore if by Sacrament and Host this Answerer would mean what the Church does the res Sacramenti our Lord sacramentally existing we joyn issue with him that t is our undoubted Doctrine That the Sacrament or Host is adorable but if he intends otherwise as we have too much occasion to conclude he does the Council in the very chapter cited by him corrects his corruption of our Doctrine in adding to this purpose for her reason of adoring the Sacrament in the Sacrament That is adored wherein there is an innate motive or excellence why we should worship it and which therefore alone can be the object and end of our worship for at this it aims in adding For we believe the very same God present in the Sacrament of whom at his introducing into the world the Father saith Let all the Angels adore him So that this wise and ever to be received Synod as it were foreseeing that men would arise speaking perverse things prudently acquaints us with its sense of adoring the Sacrament as soon as it had declared that it may be done strait pointing to whom the worship is directed and on whom terminated on him that is in it non on it that signifies and conceals him Pag. 93. l. 28. I have fully shewn this new fancy to be neither the Doctrine of the Church of England nor c. Having granted the first three Protestant concessions he stands at the fourth upon a pretence that he has already refuted the Authorities whereon it is founded which is untrue as is manifest above where this Champion's atchievements are displayed and revers'd and besides to back this fourth Proposition new Authorities are annex'd from Bishop Cosins Archbishop Bramhal and Monsieur Daille to which he is mute retiring from them without the least notice or reflection Pag. 94. l. 32. So that then with this limitation his 5th Proposition that the Lutherans adore I presume may be admitted c. If the Answerer adhere to what he concedes p. 87.93 i.e. in the first Supposition and third Protestant concession in consequence of their opinion they all ought to adore if they do not and Chemnitius agrees as much saying No man denies it adoration but such as with the Sacramentaries deny or doubt of the Presence of Christ in the Supper Pag. 95. l. 12. We are ready to admit it the 6th Concession That the belief of a Real presence is not so criminal as to oblige them to break communion always supposing that the belief of it had not bin pressed c. Then the Protestants have generally mistaken their business in spending their raillery hitherto not on the mischief of imposition but chiefly on the erroneousness of our tenets and enormity of our practices as both very destructive to salvation and Dissenters do well to insist on the heinousness of injoyning as a term of communion what they can discern to be no better than humane inventions If the belief of a Real presence be no such pernicious corruption neither can Adoration that follows upon it how then can the imposition of such inconsiderable things outweigh in guilt a rupture of Catholick communion and a violation of charity together with all the deadly sins of Fanaticisin and enmity springing from division and loosness The points are almost harmless and indifferent our Adversaries confess but if imposed as a necessary Article of communion and the disobedient anathematized then the Church may be defied and the belief and practice become so criminal as to justify a separation suppose of one Minister from all Christians So that when the Faith and customs of the Catholick Church give no colour for a Schism the exercise of her Authority may and she becomes as an heathen or a publican for requiring such to hear her whom our Lord hath declared shall be accounted so for not hearing her and she must either relax her Discipline enlarge or contract the conditions of her Society as every individual shall demand tho they neither think nor live as she prescribes or become schismatical If private Christians must be Arbiters what shall or shall not be terms of Catholick communion why may not some as justly recede from the Church because she does not as others because she does impose terms whereat these have a pique and wherewith those are pleased the Novatian Donatist and Luciferian charge against the Church was That its communion was promiscuous and Latitudinarian The Accusation was false yet they were right in this that there are certain terms of Christian communion which are indispensably to be submitted to by all that will be members of the Catholick Church tho all the terms they accounted such were not so and not themselves but the Church was to distinguish But here the strictness of communion is our sault and comprehension would make either no Sectaries or them mexcusable However from Daille's granting that if the Church of Rome had obliged her children to worship Christ in the Sacrament she had not obliged them to worship a creature we conclude she did not impose Idolatry because t is certain she never obliged them to worship any thing in the Sacrament but
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
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
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