propriety of speech the Wicked receive not in this Holy Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ although they do outwardly press with their teeth the Holy Elements but rather eat and drink the Sacrament of His Body and Blood to their damnation II. Secondly For our Saviours words which are supposed to work this great Change 't is evident from the Liturgies of the Eastern Church that the Greek Fathers did not believe them to be words of Consecration This Arcudius himself is forced to confess of some of the latter Greeks viz. That they take these Words only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Historically See his Book de Concord Lib. 3. Cap. 27. And indeed all the ancient Liturgies of that Church plainly speak it However both He and Goar endeavour to shift it off in which the Prayer of Consecration is after the words of Institution and distinct from it So in Liturg. S. Chrysostom Edition Goar pag. 76. n. 130. 132. are pronounced the Words of Institution Then pag. 77. numb 139. the Deacon bids the Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who thereupon thus consecrates it He first signs it three times with the sign of the Cross and then thus prays 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the Cup afterwards but to be the same in this Holy Eucharist that the Haggadah or History of the Passover was in that ancient Feast That is were read only as an account of the Occasion and design of the Institution of this Blessed Sacrament not to work any Miracles in the Consecration And for the * The same seems to have been the custom of the African Church whose Prayers now used see in Ludolph Histor l. 3. cap. 5. Where is also the Expression mentioned n. 56. Hic Panis est Corpus meum c. African Churches they at this day expound them in this very Sacrament after such a manner as themselves confess to be inconsistent with Transubstantiation viz. This Bread is the Body of Christ III. Let it be considered Thirdly That it was a great debate in the Primitive Church for above a thousand Years Whether Christs Glorified Body had any Blood in it or no Now how those Men could possibly have questioned whether Christ's Glorified Body had any Blood at all in it See this whole matter deduced through the first Ages to St. Augustine whom Consentius consulted about this very matter in a particular Treatise written by Monsieur Allix de Sanguine Christi 8vo Paris 1680. had they then believed the Cup of Eucharist to have been truly and really changed into the Blood of his Glorified Body as is now asserted is what will hardly I believe be ever told us IV. We will add to this Fourthly their manner of opposing the Heathenism of the World. With what confidence could they have rallied them as they did for worshipping gods which their own Hands had made So Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Tertul. Apolog. cap. 12. Arnobius lib. 1. Minutius Felix p. 26. Octav. Julius Firmicus pag. 37. Edit Lugdunens 4to 1652. Hieron lib. 12. in Esai St. Augustinus in Psal 80. in Psal 113. Lactantius Instit lib. 2. cap. 4. Chrysostom Homil 57. in Genes c. That had neither Voice nor Life nor Motion Exposed to Age to Corruption to Dust to Worms to Fire and other Accidents That they adored gods which their Enemies could spoil them of Thieves and Robbers take from them which having no power to defend themselves were forced to be kept under Locks and Bolts to secure them For is not the Eucharistical Bread and Wine in a higher degree than any of their Idols were exposed to the same raillery Had their Wafer if such then was their Host any voice or life or motion Did not their own Hands form its substance and their Mouths speak it into a God Could it defend its self I do not say from publick Enemies or private Robbers but even from the very Vermine the creeping things of the Earth Or should we suppose the Christians to have been so impudent as notwithstanding all this to expose others for the same follies of which themselves were more notoriously guilty yet were there no * And yet that none did the Learned Rigaltius confesses Not. ad Tertul. l. 2. ad Vxor c. 5. Heathens that had wit enough to recriminate The other †See Tertul. Apol. c. 21. Et de carne Christi c. 4.5 Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Arnob l. 2. Orig. contr Cels l. 1. Articles of our Faith they sufficiently traduced That we should worship a Man and He too a Malefactor crucified by Pilate How would they have triumph'd could they have added That they worshipped a bit of Bread too which Coster himself thought a more ridiculous Idolatry than any the Heathens were guilty of Since this Doctrine has been started we have heard of the Reproaches of all sorts of Men Jews Heathens Mahometans against us on this account ‖ See du Perron de l' Euchar l. 3. c. 29. p. 973. Were there no Apostates that could tell them of this secret before Not any Julian that had malice enough to publish their Confusion Certainly had the Ancients been the Men they are now endeavour'd to be represented we had long ere this seen the whole World filled with the Writings that had proclaimed their shame in one of the greatest instances of Impudence and Inconsideration to attacque their Enemies for that very Crime of which themselves were more notoriously guilty V. Nor does their manner of Disputing against the Heretical Christians any less speak their Opinion in this Point See this fully handled in a late treatise called The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared c. 1687. than their way of Opposing the Idolatry of the Heathens It was a great argument amongst them to expose the frenzy of Eutyches who imagined some such kind of Transubstantiation of the humane nature of Christ into the Divine to produce the Example of the Eucharist That as there the Bread and the Wine says P. Gelasius Being perfected by the Holy Spirit pass into the Divine Substance yet so as still to remain in the property of their own Nature or substance of Bread and Wine This Argument is managed by St. Chrysostome Epist ad Caesarium Monachum By Theodoret Dial. 2. pag. 85 Ed G. L. Paris 1642. Tom. 4. Gelasius in Opere contra Eutychen Nestorium He thus states the Eutychian Hereâ—â—e ' Dicunt unam esse naturam i.e. Divinam Against this he thus disputes Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christs divina res est Et tamen non definit substantia vel Natura Panis Vini Satis ergo nobis Evidentur Ostenditur hoc nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur Vt sicut in hanc sc in divinam transeant S. Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae sic c. So here the
very earnest against those who receive unworthily this Holy Sacrament and by consequence ties not Christs natural Body to the Bread and declares it to be after a Spiritual imperceptible and miraculous manner As for the term Corporaliter which he there uses and which Melancthon and some others had used before him that may be well enough understood in the same Sence Celess ii 9 17. as verè or realiter and is often so used both in Scripture and in the Holy Fathers As when St. Paul says of Christ that in Him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead Bodily that is really in opposition to the Shechinah or Presence of God in the Tabernacle And again The Body of Christ that is the substance See Hammend in Coloss 1. Annot. d. the reality opposed to the types and sigures of the Law. And so in the Hebrew Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for Essence as well as Body Arch-Bishop LAWD and applied to Spiritual as well as Corporal things Nor can I see any more reason to understand Arch-Bishop Lawd in any other Sence He asserts the true and real Presence of Christ in this Sacred Feast 1 Tract §. xiv pag. 8. but he do's not say that Christ's natural Body which is now in Heaven is also in this Holy Sacrament or in the worthy receiver nor have we any reason to believe that he understood it so to be * MONTâ—GVE Origeres Eccles. Tom. prior par postor p. 247 249 250. c. Panis in Sanaxi fit corpus Christi Sed et Corpus Christi CREDENIES nunt Ad eundem utrumque moduin mensuram sed non Naturaliter Itaque nee Panis ITA est Corpus Christi Mystice tantum non Pâ—â—sice vid. plur And the same must be said of †Bishop HALL Bishop Hall Bishop Montague and Bishop Bilson MONTAGVE BILSON in whose expressions as they are quoted by our Author I find nothing that proves the Sence he would impose upon them and whose works had I now by me I might possibly be able to give some better account of them Though after all should one of these in his violence against his Adversaries or the others in their pacifick design of reconciling all Parties as to this Point have said more than they ought to do I do not see but that it ought to have been imputed to the circumstances they were in and the designs they pursued rather than be set up for the measure either of their own or our Churches Opinion And now I am mentioning these things Bishop FORBES I ought not pass over one other eminent instance of such a charitable undertaking and which has given occasion to our Author of a Quotation he might otherwise have wanted in that excellent Bishop of St. Andrews Bishop Forbes concerning whose Authority in this matter I shall offer only the censure of one than whom none could have given a more worthy Character of a person who so well deserved it as that good Bishop did I do not deny Author of the Life of Bishop BEDEL in the Preface but his earnest desire of a general Peace and Vnion among all Christians has made him too favourable to many of the Corruptions in the Church of Rome But though a Charity that is not well ballanced may carry one to very in iscreet things yet the principle from whence thdy flow'd in him was so truly good that the Errors to which it carry'd him ought to be either excused or at lest to be very gently censured There remain now but two of all the Divines he has produced to prove his new fancy which he would set up for the Dâ—ctrine of the Church of England and those as little for his purpose as any he has hitherto mentioned Bishop TAYLOR Bishop Taylor and Mr. Thorndyke For Bishop Taylor I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication since it is evident that he has so plainly opposed his Notion and that in the very Book he quotes and which he wrote on purpose to shew our meaning of the Real Presence Polemical discourses p. 182. London 1674. that he could not but have known that he mis-represented him I shall set down the state of the Question as it is in the beginning of that Treatise The Doctrine of the Church of England and generally of the Protestants in this Article is That after the Minister of the Holy Mysteries hath rightly pray'd and blessed or consecrated the Bread and the Wine the Symbols become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ after a Sacramental i.e. in a Spiritual Real manner So that all that worthily communicate do by Faith receive Christ Really Effectually to all the purposes of his Passion It is Bread and it is Christs Body It is Bread in in Substance Christ in the Sacrament and Christ is as really given to all that are truly dispos'd as the Symbols are p. 183. It is here as in the other Sacrament for as there natural Water becomes the laver of Regeneration so here Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ but there and here too the first Substance is changed by Grace but remains the same in nature We say that Christs Body is in the Sacrament really but Spiritually They the Papists say it is there really but Spiritually For so Bellarmin is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this Question Where now is the difference Here By Spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit by Spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only that is so as Christ is not present to any other Sence but that of faith or spiritual susception They say that Christs Body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross but not after the manner of all or any Body But we by the real Spiritual Presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the Hearts of the faithful by Blessing and Grace and this is ALL we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence Such is the Account which that Excellent Bishop here gives not only of his own but as he expresly terms it of the Church of England's and the Generality of the Protestants Belief in this Matter Our Author's dissimulation of it is so much the more inexcusable Treatise 1st p. 20th by how much the more zealous an Advocate he makes him of his Cause when all this that I have transcribed was in the very same Section and almost in the same Page with what he has cited For his little Remark upon the Title of the Bishops Book where he calls it of the Real Presence and Spiritual whence he would infer a difference between the two Terms and find something Real that is not Spiritual in this Sacrament it is evident that the Design of that Distinction was this There be several sorts of Real Presences the Papists the Lutherans the Church of England all
for their Adoration whereby they become Absolved by other Protestants from Idolatry in adoring our Lord as present there I see not why the Grounds of Roman Catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs In Answer to which the Reader may please to remember that I have before said that we do not excuse those Lutherans who do this so much upon this Principle that they have a more plausible Ground or Motive for their Adoration but for this rather that confessing the Substance of the Bread to remain they do not mistake their Object but pay their Adoration indeed to Christ only supposing him to be there where in Truth he is not But 2dly this Author is very much mistaken if he thinks the Lutherans have no better a Foundation for their Real Presence than the Papists See Ibid. Indeed were the difference no greater than between a Con and a Trans it would I confess be hardly worth the while to contend about it But when we come to the Point it self we may observe these four Advantages among many others of the Lutherans side 1. They confess for the outward Elements that they are really what they appear to be Bread and Wine and so they do no Violence to their Senses which as I have said is a great aggravation against the Papists 2. By this means they are at no defiance with all those Texts of Scripture where they are so often called Bread and Wine after Consecration All which the Papist contradicts but the Lutheran does not 3. From the words of Christ This is my Body we all of us confess may be inferr'd that Christ's Body is in this Holy Sacrament But whence do's the Papist infer the destruction of the Substance of the Bread so that what is taken and blessed and given is not Bread but Christ's Body under the appearance of Bread This is an Error which I am sure the Text gives no manner of colour to and therefore our Author cannot with any reason pretend as he do's whether we consult the Text of Holy Scripture or our own Senses that they have as good grounds for their Real Presence as the Lutherans have for theirs To all which let me add 4thly that by Transubstantiation they destroy the very Nature of a Sacrament by leaving no true external Sign or Symbol and which is another unanswerable Argument against them whilst the Lutherans acknowledging the Substance of the Bread to remain do not destroy at all the Nature of this Sacrament but retain the same Sign which our Blessed Lord established and so have no Objection on this side neither to convict them But yet notwithstanding all this Pag. 26 27. Do not some of our Writers confess that the Papists Interpretation is more rational than the Lutherans I Answer What certain Protestants may have said in Zeal for their own Opinions and in particular Hospinian upon the account of his Master Zuinglius I cannot tell But sure I am we are not bound to answer for all that any Protestant Author has said And if these Reasons I have here given for the contrary are valid they ought to be more regarded than the ungrounded Assertions of a Sacramentary Historian Well Pag. 27. but still the Papist do's not ground his Adoration upon Transubstantiation but on Corporal Presence and so they must both be excused or neither This is a fetch to very little purpose For let me ask this Author He confesses he founds his Adoration upon the Corporal Presence Do's he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation exclusive to all others or no If he do's then 't is evident that the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation must with him stand or fall together and so if he adores on the account of the Corporal Presence he do's it upon the account of Transubstantiation If he do's not believe this 't is plain he is no Papist nor submits to the Authority of the Church of Rome which has defined the Corporal Presence to be after this particular manner exclusive to all Others and Anathematized all that dare to deny it Laying aside therefore this Comparison and which in truth will do them but very little kindness Pag. 27. §. xxiv Let us view more particularly what rational Grounds they have to exhibit for this their belief of their Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and of the Adoration of him upon that account I. Ibid. Ground And the first is Divine Revelation For which our Author offers the two usual Instances of the words of Institution and the 6th Chapter of S. John both which therefore I have at large discoursed on above and I believe sufficiently shewn how false a Foundation these are of this belief But yet since our Author reminds us * Pag. 27 28. That against these no Argument taken from our Senses or Reason is valid I will beg leave to remind him of his own Assertion too * See Treatise 1. p. 14. That none can believe a thing true upon what Motive soever that he knows certainly to be false or which is all one certainly to contradict So that if our Reason then makes us certain of such a contradiction P. 21. Treat 1. we may be certain that there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation and when any Revelation tho NEVER SO PLAIN is brought we are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility From which Principle it seems to me to follow that were Hoc est Corpus meum as evident a proof of Transubstantiation as their own Authors confess it is not yet if our Sense and Reason tell us that there are certain Contradictions against the common Principles of Nature and the universal Sentiments of all Mankind no otherwise to be avoided but by taking those words in the sense in which we do we are then BOVND to interpret them so as to avoid these Impossibilities And this I am confident I have at large shewn above to be the Case and thither I refer the Reader II. Ground P. 28. §. xxv Their second Ground is founded upon the Authority of those Councils that have determined this Matter The Declaration as he calls it of the most Supreme and Vniversal Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former Times for the decision of this Controversy long before the birth of Protestantism These are great Words indeed but I wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable * These are his Synods at Rome Vercelles Tours Rome again An. 1059. and again An. 1078. Synods of particular Prelats such as are all those to which he refers us assembled against Berengarius were the most supream and universal Church-Authority For his little Reflection that they were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism I must tell him I doubt he is mistaken The Religion of Protestants like that of Papists is composs'd of two great parts Catholick Christianity common in some
qu'il répondit qu' il la tenoit pour un Monstre Et comme ils luy demanderent comment done il en avoit écrit si amplement si doctement il repliqua qu'il avoit deployé toutes les Adresses de son Esprit poâ— colourer cet abus pour le rendre plausibile qu'il avoit fait comrre ceux qui font tous leurs Efforts pour defendre une manvaise Cause Your Highness says He may believe me if you please But I can assure you with all sincerity and truth that if the late Cardinal du Perron has convinced you of the Truth of Transubstantiation he has convinced you of that of which he could never convince himself nor did he ever believe it For I have been informed by certain Persons of Honour and that are in all respects worthy of belief and who had it from those that were eye witnesses That some friends of that Illustrious and Learned Cardinal who went to see him as he lay languishing upon his Bed and ill of that distemper of which he died desired him to tell them freely what he thought of Transubstantiation To whom he answer'd That 't was a MONSTER And when they farther ask'd him How then he had written so copiously and learnedly about it He replied That he had done the utmost that his Wit and Parts had enabled him to COLOUR OVER THIS ABUSE and RENDER IT PLAUSIBLE But that he had done like those who employ all their force to defend an ILL CAUSE And thus far Monsieur Drelincourt I could to this add some farther circumstances which I have learnt of this matter but what is here said may suffice to shew what the real Opinion of this great Cardinal after all his Voluminous Writings as to this Doctrine was unless some future Obligations shall perhaps engage me to enter on a more particular account of it To these two great instances of another Nation I will beg leave to subjoyn a third of our own Country Father Barnes the Benedictine Catholico-Romano-Pacificus Oxon. 1680. Pag. 90. Assertio Transubstantiationis sâ—u mutationis substantialis panis licet sit Opinio communior non tamen est fides Ecclesiae Et Scripturae Patres docentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficienter expoâ—â— possant de admirandâ— supernaturali mutatione Panis per Praesentiam Corporis Christi ei accedentem sine substantialis Panis desitione Et. P. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illam in Augustissimo Sacramento factam plerique graves antiqui Scriptoresita explicant ut non fiat per desitionem substantiae panis sed per receptionem supernaturalem substantiae Corporis Christi in substantiam Panis V. pl. who in his Pacific Discourse of most of the points in Controversie between us and the Papists expresly declares That the Assertion of Transubstantiation or of the substantial change of the Bread though it be indeed the more common Opinion is yet no part of the Churches Faith And that the Scripture and Fathers when they speak of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be sufficiently Expounded of that admirable and supernatural change of the Bread by the presence of Christ's Body added to it without the departure of the substance of the Bread it self It appears by these words how little this Monk thought Transubstantiation an Article of Faith. But a greater than he and who not only did not esteem it necessary for Others to receive it but clearly shews that he did not believe it himself Illustriss atque Reverend Pâ—de Marea Parisiens Archiep. Dissertationes Posthumae De Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento dissertatio in sne is the Illustrious Monsieur de Marca late Archbishop of Paris and well known to the World for his great Learning and Eminence His Treatise of the Eucharist was publish'd with Authority by one of his near Relations the Abbé Faget at Paris 1668. with some other little Tracts which he had received from the Archbishops own hands In the close of that Treatise he thus delivers his Opinion †Species Pâ—nis est Essentiâ Naturâ distincta à Corpore Christi sibi adjuncto licet ratio Eucharistiae id exigat ut substantia Panis interior conversa suerit in illud Corpus modo quodam qui omnem cogitationem exsuperat Caeterum mutatio illa non officit quin Panis qui videtur id est Accidentia suam Naturam Extantiam Essentiam SIVE SUBSTANTIAM retineat naturae verae Proprietates inter quas est alendi corporis humani facultas Vnde consequitur rectè observatum à Gelasio Sacramenta Corporis Sanguinis Christi divinam rem esse quia Panis Vinum in divinam transeunt substantiam S. spiritu persiciente nempe in Corpus Christi spiritale sed ex alia parte non desinere substantiam naturam Panis Vini sed ea permanere in suae proprietate Naturae Quoniam scil postquam Panis in divinam substantiam transivit NON INTERIIT INTEGRA PANIS NATURA QUAM SUBSTANTIAM QUOQUE VOCAT NEC DESIVIT SED in suae proprietate Naturae permansit ad alendum Corpus idonea quod est praecipuum confecti panis munus Note That in the Paris Edition they have put in those words printed in the Black Letter id est Accidentia and omitted those that I have caused to be set in Capitals But in the Original leaf which I have left in S. Martin's Library to be seen by any that pleases and which was cut out for the sake of this passage it stands as I have said and as it is truly represented in the Holland Edition The species of the Bread is in its Essence and Nature distinct from the Body of Christ adjoyn'd to it although the reason of the Eucharist requires that the inward substance of the Bread should be converted into that Body after a manner that exceeds all Imagination But yet this change hinders not but that the BREAD which is seen still RETAINS its own NATURE BEING and ESSENCE or SUBSTANCE together with the proprieties of its true Nature among which one is the faculty of nourishing our Bodies c. Whence it follows that it was rightly observ'd by Gelasius that the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was a Divine thing because the Bread and Wine being perfected by the Holy Spirit pass into the Divine substance viz. the spiritual Body of Christ but on the other side that the SUBSTANCE and NATURE of the BREAD and WINE do not cease to be but continue still in the propriety of their own Nature And here I suppose any one who reads this passage alone of this Treatise might without the help of * Baluze 2 Lettre à Monsieur le Presid Marca S'il est vray ce que j'ay de la peine à croire que feu Monsigneur ait composé les Traittez que M. Faget a fait imprimer sous son nom dont il se vante dans la Preface
particular Sacrament had been a whole composed of the External Species whatever they are as the Sign and the Body and Blood of Christ as the inward part or thing signified Thus I am sure the Catechism of the Council of Trent instructs us First for the name it tells us Catech. ad Parach part 2. de Sacram. n. iii. v. p. 92. that The Latin Doctors have thought that certain Signs subjected to the Senses which declare and as it were set before the Eyes the Grace which they effect may fitly be called Sacraments And for the nature of them thus it defines a Sacrament from S. Austin It is the sign of a holy thing or more fully as I before said a visible sign of an invisible Grace instituted for our Justification So that neither then Symbols alone nor the invisible part or Grace alone can with any manner of propriety be called a Sacrament but the Sign referr'd to the Grace and as it is the Symbol instituted by Christ for the conferring of it This therefore can with no good reason be called a Catholick Assertion being neither general nor true But however since he seems content to allow it to be an impropriety of Speech and that I confess the * Catec Conc. Trid. part 2. de Euch. §. viii nota p. 144. Catechism of the Council of Trent does lead him into it let us see what use he can make of it †Pag. 15. §. xi And as Protestants much press so Catholicks Roman Catholicks willingly acknowledg a great difference between these two The worshipping of the Sacrament as this word is taken for the Symbols and the worshipping of Christ's Body in the Sacrament There is no doubt a great difference between these two but then they who tell us the Sacrament is to be Adored if they will speak rationally must mean neither the one nor other of these but the Host that is as Card. Pallavicini expounds it The whole of which Christ's Body is a part in the language of the Council of Trent the Sacrament IN WHICH they believe Christ to be present and for that Cause adore it as the Cardinal again argues * See above pag. 91 92. that To make a Whole Adorable it is sufficient that one part be so and therefore since the Body of Christ is adorable the Sacrament for its sake is to be worshipped It is therefore a meer shift to tell us that the Sacrament is to be adored i. e. Christ's Body in the Sacrament Nor will the remark of our Author help us out that tho the Chapter indeed calls it the Sacrament IN WHICH is Christ's Body Pag. 16 §. xiii yet the Canon speaks more precisely and calls it Christ in the Sacrament unless he supposes the Council to have been infallible in the Canons only and not in the Chapters as some have thought that they may be out in their Proofs but cannot be in their Conclusions But however since he so much desires it for my part I shall be content to allow them this too for I should be glad by any means to see them sensible of their Errors But yet so as that it be esteem'd only a private Opinion this not a Catholick Assertion Thirdly Catholicks he means the Papists still P. 21. §. xvii ground their Adoration not upon Transubstantiation as if Transubstantiation defeated Adoration is so too but on a Real Presence with the Symbols which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans together with them By which Assertion if he means only to make this Discovery That Christ's Real Presence together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine is in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration as if he were there only with the Species of the Bread the Substance being changed into his Body I have no more to say to it But if he would hereby make us believe that 't is all one whether Christ be adored as supposed here by the Lutherans in this Holy Eucharist and as imagined there by the Papists I must then deny his Assertion and desire him to keep home to his own manner of Real Presence and which I shall presently convince him will leave them in a much worse condition than their Neighbours whom he would draw into the same Snare with them And therefore whereas he concludes Fourthly P. 22. §. xviii That supposing Transubstantiation to be an Error yet if the Tenent of Corporal or Real Presence as held by the Lutherans or others be true Catholicks he would say Papists plead their Adoration is no way frustrated but still warrantable I must tell him that the Adoration of those among the Lutherans who worship Christ in this Sacrament upon the account of his Real Presence in or with the Bread tho it be an Error yet is infinitely more excusable than theirs who suppose the Bread to be turned into Christ's Body and because it may not be thought that I speak this out of any prejudice against them I will here offer my Reasons for it 1st They that adore Christ as really present together with the Bread do no violence to their Senses They confess that what they see and taste and feel and smell is really Bread and Wine Whilst the Papist in denying the Bread and Wine to remain or that what he sees and feels and smells and tastes is what all the World perceives and knows it is contradicts his Senses and in them the Law of Nature that Means which God has given us to direct and lead us into the search of Truth and by Consequence errs against infinitely greater Means of Conviction and so is more inexcusable than the Other 2dly They who worship Christ as supposing Him to be together with the Bread in this Holy Eucharist are erroneous indeed in this that they take Christ's Body to be where really it is not but yet their Object is undoubtedly right and in that they are not mistaken But now for the Papist he adores 't is confess'd what he thinks to be Christ's Body and would not otherwise adore it But yet still 't is the Host that he adores the Substance that is under those Species which he sees and which if it be not Christ but meer Substance of Bread the Case is vastly alter'd between the Lutheran and Him. The former adores Christ only as in a place where he is not the latter not only do's this but moreover adores a Substance for Christ which is not his Body and Blood but a meer Creature of Bread and Wine Monsieur Daille therefore might rightly enough say of a Lutheran that his Adoration is mistaken P. 23. §. xix not in this that it addresseth it self to an Object not adorable but only that by Error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not and so becomes only vain and unprofitable And yet our Author has no manner of Reason from thence to pretend that a Papist who terminates his Adoration
all Metaphor only just two or three words for their purpose Literal But that which raises our wonder to the highest pitch is that the very fifty first Verse its self on which they found their Argument is two thirds of it Figure and only otherwise in one Clause to serve their Hypothesis I am says our Saviour the living Bread which came down from Heaven This is Figurative If any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever That is they say by a Spiritual Eating by Faith And the Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World. This only must be understood of a proper manducation of a real eating of his Flesh in this Holy Sacrament It must be confessed that this is an Arbitrary way of explaining indeed and becomes the Character of a Church whose dictates are to be received not examined and may therefore pass well enough amongst those with whom the supposed Infallibility of their Guides is thought a sufficient dispensation for their own private Consideration But for us who can see no reason for this sudden change of our Saviours Discourse nay think that the connexion of that last Clause with the foregoing is an evident sign that they all keep the same Character and are therefore not a little scandalized at so Capernaitical a Comment as indeed Who can bear it V. 60. They will please to excuse us if we take our Saviours Interpretation to be at least of as good an Authority as 't is much more reasonable than theirs V. 62. Do's this says he Offend you Do's my saying that ye must eat my flesh and drink my Blood scandalize you Mistake not my design I mean not any carnal eating of me that indeed might justly move your Horrour It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life He that desires a fuller account of this Chapter may please to recur to the late excellent †A Paraphrase with Notes and a Preface upon the Sixth Chapter of Saint John Lond. 1686. Paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it and which will be abundantly sufficient to shew the reasonableness of that Interpretation which we give of it I shall only add to close all that one Remark which * De Doctrin Christian Lib. 3. Cap. 16. Saint Augustine has left us concerning it and so much the rather in that it is one of the rules which he lays down for the right Interpreting of Holy Scripture and illustrates with this particular Example If says he the saying be Preceptive either forbidding a wicked action or commanding to do that which is good it is no Figurative saying But if it seems to command any Villany or Wickedness or forbid what is profitable and good it is Figurative This saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you seems to command a Villanous or Wicked Thing It is therefore a FIGVRE enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay it up in dear and profitable Remembrance that his Flesh was crucifi'd and wounded for our sakes And now having thus clearly I perswade my self shewn the Weakness of those Grounds on which this Doctrine of the substantial Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament is establish'd I shall but very little insist on any other Arguments against it Only in a Word to demonstrate that all manner of Proofs fail them in this great Error I will in the close here subjoin two or three short Considerations more to shew this Doctrine opposite not only to Holy Scripture as we have seen but also 1. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church 2. To the Right Reason and 3. To the Common Senses of all Mankind I. That this Doctrine is opposite to the best and purest Tradition of the Church Now to shew this I shall not heap together a multitude of Quotations out of those Fathers through whose hands this Tradition must have past He that desires such an Account may find it fully done by one of the Roman Communion in a little * A Treatise of Transubstantiation by one of the Church of Rome c. Printed for Rich. Chiswell 1687. Treatise just now publish'd in our own Language I will rather take a method that seems to me less liable to any just Exception and that is to lay down some general Remarks of undoubted Truth and whose consequence will be as evident as their certainty is undeniable And I. For the Expressions of the Holy Fathers It is not deny'd Such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Note there is hardly any of these Words which they have applied to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist but they have attributed the same to the Water in Baptism but that in their popular Discourses they have spared no words except that of Transubstantiation which not one of them ever used to set off so great a Mystery And I believe that were the Sermons and Devotional Treatises of our own Divines alone since the Reformation searcht into one might find Expressions among them as much over-strain'd * See Treatise first of the Adoration c Printed lately at Oxford Which would make the World believe that we hold I know not what imaginary Real Presence on this account just as truly as the Fathers did Transubstantiation And doubtless these would be as strong an Argument to prove Transubstantiation now the Doctrine of the Church of England as those to argue it to have been the Opinion of those Primitive Ages But now let us consult these men in their more exact composures when they come to teach not to declaim and we shall find they will then tell us That these Elements are for their * It is not necessary to transcribe the Particulars here that have been so often and fully alledged Most of these Expressions may be found in the Treatise of Transubstantiation lately published The rest may be seen in Blondel Eclaircissements Familiers de la Controverse de l' Eucharistie Cap. iv vii viii Claude Rep. au 2. Traittè de la Perpetuitè i. Part. Cap. iv v. Forbesius Instructiones Historico-Theolog lib. xi cap. ix x xi xii xiii xv Larrogue Histoire de l' Eucharistie liv 2. cap. ii substance what they were before Bread and Wine That they retain the true properties of their nature to nourish and feed the Body that they are things inanimate and void of sense That with reference to the Holy Sacrament they are Images Figures Signes Symbols Memorials Types and Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ That in their Vse and Benefit they are indeed the very Body and Blood of Christ to every saithful Receiver but in a Spiritual and Heavenly manner as we confess That in
Humane Nature of Christ still remains though assumed by and conjoyned to the Divine Which words as their Editor has done well to set a Cautè upon in the Margent to signifie their danger so this is clear from them that Gelasius and so the other Writers that have made use of the same Argument as St. Chrysostome Theodoret c. must have thought the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist no more to have been really changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ than they did believe his Humane Nature to have been truly turned into the Divine For that otherwise the parallel would have stood them in no stead nay would have afforded a defence of that Heresie which they undertook to oppose by it VI. Yet more Had the Primitive Christians believed this great Change how comes it to pass that we find none of those Marks nor Signs of it that the World has since abounded with * See the contrary proved that the Fathers did not believe this by Blondel de l'Euch c. 8. Claude Rep. au 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite part 1. c. 4. No talk of Accidents existing without Subjects of the Senses being liable to be deceived in judging of their proper Objects in short no Philosophy corrupted to maintain this Paradox No Adorations Processions Vows paid to it as to Christ himself It is but a very little time since the †Under Greg. ix Ann. 1240. vid. Nauclerum ad Ann. cit Bell came in play to give the People notice that they should fall down and Worship this new God. The ‖ Instituted by Vrban iv Ann. 1264. Feast in honour of it is an Invention of Yesterday the Adoring of it in the Streets no ⸪ Indeed in all Probability a hundred years later older Had not those first Christians respect sufficient for our Blessed Saviour Or did they perhaps do all this Let them shew it us if they can But till then we must beg leave to conclude That since we find not the least Footsteps of any of these necessary Appendages of this Doctrine among the Primitive Christians it is not to be imagined that we should find the Opinion neither VII But this is not all We do not only not find any such Proofs as these of this Doctrine but we find other Instances directly contrary to this belief In some Churches they ‖ So in that of Jerusalem See Hesych in Levitic l. 2. c. 8. burnt what remained of the Consecrated Elements * So in that of Constantinople Evag. Hist l. 4. c. 35. In others they gave it to little Children to Eat †Vid. apud Autor Vit. Basilii c. 8. in Vit. Pat. l. 1. This Custom was condemned in a Council at Carthage Anno 419. Vid. Codic Eccl. Afric Justel c. 18. In some they buried it with their Dead In all they permitted the Communicants to carry home some Remnants of them they sent it abroad by Sea by Land from one Church and Village to another without any Provision of Bell or Taper Canopy or Incense or any other mark of Adoration they sometimes made ⸪ Vid. St. August Oper. imp contr Julian lib. 3. c. 164. Poultices of the Bread they mix'd the ⸫ See an instance of this in Baronius Ann. 648. Sect. 15. The 8th General Council did the same In Act. Syn. Wine with their Ink all which we can never imagine such holy Men would have presumed to do had they indeed believed them to be the very Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord. VIII Lastly Since the prevalence of this Doctrine in the Church what Opposition has it met with What Schisms has it caused What infinite Debates have there risen about it I shall not need to speak of the Troubles of Berenger in the Eleventh Of the Waldenses Albigenses and others in the Twelfth Century Of Wickliff Hus c. who continued the Opposition and finally of the great Reformation in the beginning of the last Age by all which this Heresy has been opposed ever since it came to any Knowledg in the Church Now is it possible to be believed that so many Centuries should pass so many Heresies should arise and a Doctrine so full of Contradictions remain uncontested in the Church for almost a Thousand years That Berenger should be one of the first that should begin to Credit his Senses to Consult his Reason or even to Defend his Creed These are Improbabilities that will need very convincing Arguments indeed to remove them But for the little late French trick of proving this Doctrine necessary to have been received in the Primitive Church This is the Foundation of the Authors of the Treatises De la Perpetuite Answered by Mons Claude because it is so in the Present and if you will believe them 't is impossible a Change should have been made I suppose we need only turn the terms of the Argument to shew the Weakness of the Proof viz. That from all these and many other Observations that might be offer'd of the like kind 't is Evident that this Doctrine at the beginning was not believed in the Church and let them from thence see if they can conclude that neither is it believed now Thus contrary is this Doctrine to the Best and Purest Tradition of the Church Nor is it less Secondly II. To Right Reason too It were endless to heap together all the Contradictions that might be offer'd to prove this That there should be Length and nothing Long See Mr. Chillingworth against Knot c. iv n. 46. Breadth and nothing Broad Thickness and nothing Thick Whiteness and nothing White Roundness and nothing Round Weight and nothing Heavy Sweetness and nothing Sweet Moisture and nothing Moist Fluidness and nothing Flowing many Actions and no Agent many Passions and no Patient i.e. That there should be a Long Broad Thick White Round Heavy Sweet Moist Flowing Active Passive NOTHING That Bread should be turned into the Substance of Christ and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ neither the Matter nor the Form nor the Accidents of the Bread be made either the Matter or the Form or the Accidents of Christ that Bread should be turned into Nothing and at the same Time with the same Action turned into Christ and yet Christ should not be Nothing that the same Thing at the same Time should have its just Dimensions and just Distance of its Parts one from another and at the same time not have it but all its Parts together in one and the self-same Point That the same Thing at the same time should be wholly Above its self and wholly Below its self Within its self and Without its self on the Right-hand and on the Left-hand and Round-about its self That the same thing at the same time should move to and from its self and yet lie still or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space
Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist I shall therefore produce only a Witness or two of this King's Reign and so pass on to those that follow And 1st A. B. A.B. CRANMER Cranmer in his Answer to Gardiner Bishop of Winchester objecting to him That he deny'd the Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist replies That it was a thing he never said nor thought My book in divers places saith clean contrary Answer to Gardiâ—er Bishop of Winchester Fol. London 1551. That Christ is with us spiritually present is eaten and drunken of us and dwelleth within us although Corporally he be departed out of this World and gone into Heaven pag. 5. Pag. 5. As he giveth Bread to be eaten with our Mouths so giveth he his very Body to be eaten with our Faith. And therefore I say that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with Faith not with Mouth pag. 9. Pag. 9. As the washing outwardly in Water is not a vain Token but teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly in them that duly receive the same so likewise is not the Bread a vain Token but sheweth and preacheth to the godly Receiver what God worketh in him by his Almighty Power secretly and invisibly And therefore as the Bread is outwardly eaten indeed in the Lord's Supper so is the very Body of Christ inwardly by Faith eaten indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do which eating nourisheth them unto Everlasting Life And in his Treatise of the Holy Sacrament Assertio verae Catholicae Doctrinae de Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis J. â—hristi Servaâ—â—ris nostri Liâ—â—ae 8 vo 1601. Lib. 3. where he sets himself particularly to state this very Question How Christ is present in this Holy Sacrament He declares Cap. 2. That whereas the Papists suppose Christ to be under the Species of Bread and Wine we believe him to be in those who worthily receive these Holy Elements They think him to be received by the Mouth and to enter with the Bread and Wine We assert that he is received only by the Soul and enters there by Faith. That Christ is present only sacramentally and spiritually in this sacred Mystery p. 116. That since his Ascension into Heaven he is there and not on Earth p. 118. and that he cannot be in both together 128. In short he gives us this Rule for interpreting the Expressions of the Fathers where it is said That we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ That we receive in the Holy Sacrament the very body that hung on the Cross c. cap. 14. p. 180. These says he and other Expressions of the like kind which speak Christ to be upon Earth and to be received of Christians by eating or drinking are either to be understood of his Divine Nature which is every where or else must be taken figuratively or spiritually For he is figuratively only in the Bread and Wine and spiritually in those that receive this Bread and Wine worthily But truly and as to his Body and Flesh he is in Heaven only from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead Thus did this Learned and Holy Martyr understand our Doctrine of the Real Presence Bp. RIDLEY and the same was the Idea which his Companion both in Doctrine and Suffering Bishop Ridley has left us of it In his Discourse of the Lord's Supper pag. 33. he tells us Ridlei de Caenâ Dominicâ Assertio Genevae apud Jo. Crispinum 1556. That the Substance of the Bread continues as the Matter of this Sacrament but so that by reason of its change as to Vse Office and Dignity it is turned Sacramentally into the Body of Christ as in Baptism the Water is turned into the Laver of Regeneration That the Humane Nature of Christ is in Heaven and cannot in any manner lye hid under the form of Bread p. 34. Then he enquires whether therefore we take away the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament p. 35. And utterly denies that this is either said or thought by him The Substance of the true Body and Blood of Christ says he is always in Heaven nor shall it depart thence before the end of the World. Now this Substance of his Body and Blood being conjoyned to his Divine Nature has not only Life in it self but can and is wont to bestow it upon all those who partake of it and believe in his Name Nor is it any hindrance to this that Christ still remains in Heaven and that we are upon Earth For by Grace that is Life as S. John interprets it c. 6 and the Properties of it as far as may be profitable to us in this our Pilgrimage here below he is with us to the end of the World. As the Sun who though he never leaves his Orb yet by his Life Heat and Influence is present to us pag. 36 37. Hitherto then there can be no doubt but that both the Church and the Divines knew no other Real Presence than what has been before acknowledged to be still our Doctrine We must now go on to the times of tryal the days of Q. Elizabeth and her Successors I. Tract §. IV. pag. 4. when our Author supposes that Men of different Judgments had the Power Now for proof of this besides the Expressions of particular Men which we shall presently consider we have Two General Presumptions offer'd to us One That Dr. Heyliâ—â— and others have observed he says of this Queen that she was a zealous propugner of the Real Presence which may be very true and yet but little to the purpose if she propugned it in the same sense that her Brother King Edward the 6th and the Church of England had done before and not in the new Notion imposed upon her by this Author but without any manner of proof to warrant his suggestion The other That upon the Re-view made by her Divines of the Common-Prayer and Articles I. Treatise pag. 2. §. I. and again p. 22. §. XXXI they struck out of the One the Rubrick against the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Passage before mention'd being of the same temper as the Declaration in the Liturgy out of the xxixth Article and which has accordingly been omitted ever since And here I cannot but again take notice of the disingenuousness of this Author in dissembling the true Account that has so largely been given by our late accurate Compiler of the History of our Reformation of this whole matter only for the advancing so pitiful an Insinuation of what I dare appeal to his own Conscience whether he did not know to be otherwise I will beg leave to transcribe the whole Passage and shall then leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge whether a man so well acquainted with Books and so interested in this
places at once till the Papists can demonstrate the possibility thereof by Testimony of Holy Scripture or the ancient Tradition of the Primitive Church or by apparent Reason We need not suppose that they said this doubting whether it implied a Contradiction but because the certainty of the Contradiction secured them against the possibility of any such Proof * This is evident in B. Taylor who thought that God could not do this because it implied a Contradiction Real Presence §. xi n. 1. p. 230. and Ibid. n. 27. He saith 't is utterly impossible So also Dr. White professes that according to the Order which God has fixed by his Word and Will this cannot be done Confer pag. 446 447. and before pag. 181. to this Objection That tho in Nature it be impossible for one and the same Body to be in many places at once yet because God is Omnipotent he is able to effect it We answer says he It implieth a Contradiction that God should destroy the nature of a thing the nature of the same thing remaining safe See 〈◊〉 p. 180 181. White 's Works Lond. 1624. And now I know but one Objection more that is or can be offered against what I have said and which having answered I shall close this Point For if this be all the Church of England understands when it speakes of a Real Presence viz. A Real Sacramental Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Signs and a real Spiritual Presence in the inward Communion of them to the Soul of every worthy Receiver will not this precipitate us into downright ‖ See 1. Treatise pag. 23. §. xxxii p. 24. §. xxxii p. 25. §. xxxvi xxxvii c. Zuinglianism and render us after all our pretences as very Sacramentaries as they Indeed I am not able directly to say whether it will or no because I find the Opinion of Zuinglius very variously represented as to this matter But yet First If by Zuinglianism he means that which is more properly * Smalcius de Coen Dom. p. 347. Id Disp 9. de Hypocr p. 289. Volkelius lib. iv cap. 12. p. 304 319 c. Socinus in Paraenesi c. iv Sclichtingius disp de Coeu Dom. p. 701. Socinianism viz. a meer Commemoration of Christ's Death and a Thanksgiving to God for it 't is evident it does not forasmuch as we positively confess that in this Holy Sacrament there is a Real and Spiritual Grace communicated to us even all the benefits of that Death and Passion which we there set forth And this or somewhat very like it I find sometimes to have been maintained by †Zuingl See de Provid Dei cap. 6 c. Zuinglius But now Secondly If by Zuinglianism he understands such a Real Prefence as denies only the Coexistence of Christ's Natural Body now in Heaven at the same time in this Holy Sacrament but denies nothing of that Real and Spiritual * And this our Author seems to insinuate See the places above cited And indeed others have alledged this as the true Opinion of Zuinglius See Calvin Tract de Coen Dom. Defens Sacram. Admonit ad Westphal Passim alibi Vid. insuper libr. de Orthod Consens c. 7 And especially Hospin p. 42 55 177 c. Hist Sacr. paâ—â— 2. Communion of it we have be fore mentioned this is indeed our Doctrine nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any ill Names he is able to put upon it But yet I wonder why he should call this Zuinglianism since if the common name of Catholick or Christian Doctrine be not sufficient he might have found out a more ancient Abettor of this Real Presence than Zuinglius and the truth is one of the most dangerous Opposers both of their Head and their Faith that ever was I mean St. Paul who has not only clearly express'd himself against them as to this Point of the Eucharist 1 Cor. x. 16. but in most of their other Errors left such pernicious Sayings to the World as all their Authority and Infallibility let me add nor all their Anathema's neither will not be able to overcome I shall close up this Discourse of the Real Presence acknowledged by us in this Holy Sacrament with a plain familiar Example and which may serve at once both to illustrate and confirm the Propriety of it A Father makes his last Will and by it bequeaths his Estate and all the Profits of it to his Child Vid. Cosens Hist Transubstantionis cap. v. §. 5. p. 57. He delivers it into the Hands of his Son and bids him take there his House and Lands which by this his last Will he delivers to him The Son in this case receives nothing but a Roll of Parchment with a Seal tied to it from his Father but yet by virtue of this Parchment he is intituled to his Estate performing the Conditions of his Will and to all the Benefits and Advantages of it And in that Deed he truly and effectually received the very House and Lands that were thereby conveyed to him Our Saviour Christ in like manner being now about to leave the World gives this Holy Sacrament as his final Bequest to us in it he conveys to us a right to his Body and Blood and to all the Spiritual Blessings and Graces that proceed from them So that as often as we receive this Holy Eucharist as we ought to do we receive indeed nothing but a little Bread and Wine into our Hands but by the Blessing and Promise of Christ we by that Bread and Wine as really and truly become Partakers of Christ's Body and Blood as the Son by the Will of his Father was made Inheritor of his Estate Nor is it any more necessary for this that Christ's Body should come down from Heaven or the outward Elements which we receive be substantially turned into it than it is necessary in that other case that the very Houses and Lands should be given into the Hands of the Son to make a real delivery or conveyance of them or the Will of the Father be truly and properly changed into the very Nature and Substance of them PART II. CHAPTER III. Of the Adoration of the Host as prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome WE are now arrived at the last Part of this Discourse in which I must thus far change the Method I pursued in the Other Subject as to consider First What the Doctrine of the Church of England as to this Point is and what our Adversaries Exceptions against it are Secondly What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and whether what this Author has said in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this Matter For the former of these The Doctrine of the Church of England we shall need go no farther than the Rubrick we have before-mention'd wherein it is expresly declared with reference to this Holy Sacrament Rubr. at the end of the