came to be reformed thus the Sacrament of Penance solemn Fastings and Celibacy of Priests c that both Clergy and Laity might indulge themselves as their lusts suggested in luxury and impenitence fell to the ground Not truth nor any consideration of Christians either at home or abroad but libertinism and filthy lucre were then the rule of this unjustifiable Reformation wherewith the majority of Christians as well of England as of the whole world could not choose but be and actually were scandalized But how should better come of Cranmer's intermedlings It was that Cranmer who for flattery lust inconstancy ingratitude treason and most damnable Hobbism utterly pernicrous to the being of a Church deserves the invectives and execrations of all Posterity But now under Queen Elizabeth other Circumstances are to be consider'd why some of the Godly innovations under Edward the Sixth were not revived For first She was rather of her Father 's than Somerset's Religion believ'd and practis'd Invocation of Saints approv'd of Images in Churches was no Admirer of Clerical Marriages nor yet very fond of her new Power of Supremacy given her by Protestants that she might requite them with a Church and a Creed much less of that foreign Drug Zuinglianism professing on all occasions her firm adherence to a Real Presence However to fortifie the weakness of her Title that had been Question'd by Catholicks and Condemn'd by Protestants she was perswaded to restore the Schism begun and assume the Supremacy extorted by her Father but for alterations in other points meerly Doctrinal Protestants do confess her somewhat resty resenting her tepid proceedings with warm Contumelies and most virulent reproaches which shews that her pleasure security or interest not their extravagances was the measure whereby Religion was setled and that Conscience did a little tho Policy more influence transactions She qualified the Title but not the Power or Use of Supremacy extending it as far as either her Father or Brother had done She did perhaps desire to unite the Nation but I suppose it was in that Faith she held and the majority of the Nation with her otherwise she was put upon a very odd method of Union it being easier to bring a few to close with what 's setled or least removed from it than to convert a majority from an old established Religion to embrace the contradictory novelties of a few Thus she setled her Religion and whatever like Jeroboam she devised out of her own heart and it continued without any visible alteration by Authority till the Return of Charles II. when Protestants being about to repair what their Brethren had endeavour'd to demolish the Puritans at the Savoy-Conference 1661 amongst other cunning demands whereby both the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England were undermin'd inserted the restoring of the Black Rubrick into favour but were answer'd that It was not in Queen Elizabeth's Liturgy nor confirm'd by Law nor needful However that wealthy Faction's obliging importunities or pretence of mighty satisfaction that it would give to Dissenters overcame if not the Clergy yet a potent Favourite and so with a few emendations too slight as some sufficient as others thought to save the Church's Doctrine this goodly Henoticon stole into the Liturgy Stole into it I say if with the connivance of any yet with the scandal of the best of the Clergy who on all occasions exprest their dislike of it as truly inconsistent with their Faith and without that effect either of gaining other Sectaries to their promiscuous Communion as was pretended or stilling their clamors and disgusts against kneeling at the Communion And this I am perswaded is the most impartial and exactest account that matter of fact yeilds of the English giddiness tossings and variations in matters of Religion Pag. 77. l. 21. Now these Exceptions against founding an Article of Faith on a Philosophical Maxim being most of them founded on the former mistaken Notion of the Real Presence c. That the Discourser's Notion of the Real Presence was the same the Church of England has asserted is evidenc'd the Minister's Replies therefore are unsatisfactory and it was rightly inferr'd from the high Expressions used by the Members of that Communion concerning the Eucharist as that 't is an ineffable Mystery full of Miracles incomprehensible to not to be measured by sense or reason c. that they believed something in it seemingly this word was omitted by the Transcriber opposite to humane reason But whether the word were omitted or no Not to be agreeable to human Reason to captivate the mind to be incomprehensible to men's wit to do violence to the Principles of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy Protestant language concerning this Sacrament and other Mysteries are not far short of opposite and coutradictory to human Reason So that a Revelation clear and evident must be submitted-to according to Calvin and Bishop Taylor tho it agree not with Reason tho it propose something incomprehensible and which does violence to it Neither is it a manifest contradiction that a Natural Body should be in more places than One at the same time but manifestly no contradiction as all that know the Rules of Opposition must confess That the same Body should be in a place and not in that place at the same time is a contradiction But this is a Proposition very wide from the other To be and not to be is not equivalent to that To be here and elsewhere too whereby the failure of what the Answerer writes against the second Observation p. 80. l. 14. is manifest For there may be such things as perfect contradictions known to us and yet all that seems to be so to some upon severer scrutiny may prove not so to them or to sharper Judgments The instance is before us Even to this very Minister that seems a contradiction which is none The utmost force of Nature much more of Omnipotence is not so easily comprehended as confident who commonly are the least experienc'd and adverting men boast The more we enquire into them the more sensible shall we be of the narrowness of our knowledg and shortness of our faculties especially when we reflect how modestly persons of vast experience of very capacious and improv'd intellects such as Bishop Forbes c. have spoken in the same case That we are unable in all oppositions to discern the true distance and whether it amount to a real contradiction or no and therefore God may do what may seem to us impossible as well by his ordinary as absolute Power Whereupon in points abstruse where there appears seeming contradictions on the one hand and a Revelation on the other this consideration attended by a just deference to infinite Power ought to move us to captivate our understandings and neglect the objections from nature and reason being joyful to exert the humility of our Minds and to demonstrate we measure not the immense Majesty of our Creator by our selves his worthless potsherds
Fathers to have held a substantial presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols Answers of the Reformed to these Arguments 1. Concerning the change of the Elements into Christs Body something is said both by Mr. Blondel and Dr. Taylor and others but what seems to me no ways satisfactory To the first second and third they say but I would wish you to peruse their own Books lest their Answers may receive some wrong by my relation or something in them more considerable be omitted by me they say then that where the Fathers say 1. That the Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ 2. That of the Bread by Consecration it made the Body of Christ 3. That after Consecration it ceaseth to be Bread. 4. Or That it is not only Bread. 5. That the Nature and Substance of Bread by Consecration is chang'd into Christs Body c. they mean α only 1. Is a sign or Sacrament of Christ's Body or his Body in Sacrament or as Dr. Taylor p. 266 the Bread is verily the Body of Christ truly his Flesh and the Wine truly his Blood How by a change of condition of sanctification and usage 2. That of Bread is made the Sacrament of his Body 3. That it ceaseth to be Bread i. e. common Bread. 4. That it is not only Bread by reason of the Grace of Consecration added to its nature 5. That the nature of it is chang'd from simple Bread to pain benit or Sacramental Bread and that it acquires a new essence i.e. the essence of a Sacrament See such solutions in Blondel p. 64. c. in his Margin and p. 222 224. So in his Explication of the Canon of the Mass p. 452. See likewise p. 470. where it petitions ut oblatio fiat nobis corpus sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi he expoundeth Corps c. en Sacrement Again where it ut quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus c. he interprets prendrons le Sacrament du sacro-sainct corps de ton fils qui est ce mesme sacro-sainct corps en representation signification where note also that he holds not any substantial presence of Christ's Body to the worthy Receiver in which thing those of the second Opinion I think will not consent to him Lastly they say That by change of the Elements the Fathers mean no more than an accidental Sacramental conversion a change of condition of sanctification and usage and efficacy as a Table by consecration is chang'd into an Altar a House into a Church a Man into a Priest as the Water of the River into the Laver of Regeneration See this in Dr. Taylor p. 270. and the like in Blondel p. 472. Bref par tout ce pain est apellê sainct de mesme que le calice la table la palatine sont apeller saincts Ascavoir entant qu'ils servent a une usage sainct c. without any presence of Christs Body either to them or instead of them See Blond p. 156 157 174 c. Taylor p. 266. Now tho as it appears I think above the expressions of the Fathers for such a change of the symbols as that after Consecration the substance of Christs Body is there with them are so full as 't is hard to say such a thing more plainly than they do Yet that they are not in such a sense to be understood they urge many things B First That we must not interpret them so as to make them contradict themselves or one another See Blond p. 158 232. Then they shew that the same Fathers that use these high expressions yet cease not to call the Elements even after Consecration images figures types similitudes signs sacraments of the Body c. representations memorials exemplars symbols Corpustypicum symbolicum mysticum See many more Blond c. 4. prop. 8. and Taylor p. 313. p. 290. where that expression of Tertullian is much stood upon adv Marcion l. 4. c. 40. Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere pascha ut suum indignum enim fuit ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma as Marcion contended Christs Body was figuram capere non posset and say that they are Christs Body not proprie but aliquo modo c. γ Now idem non est simile the sign can't be the very thing signified by the sign nor the type figure the prototype or the truth See Tayl. p. 318. Blond 207.210 δ Especially these places of S. Austin are much insisted on by them 23. Ep. ad Bonifacium Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita Sacramentum fidei i. e. Baptism fides est Sicut de ipso Baptismo Apostolus Consepulti inquit sumus Christo per Baptismum in mortem non ait sepulturam significamus sed prorsus ait consepalti sumus Sacramentum ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupatur So in Psal 33. Concio 2. Ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret Hoc est corpus meum ζ. In Psal 98. upon those words in St. John Verba quae locutus sum vobis spiritus est vita Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc corpus quod videtis manducatisri estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi De doctrina Christiana 3. l. 16. c. Si praeceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata si autem slagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit carnem filii hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Flagitium vel facinus videtur jubere figura est ergo praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata sit η To these they add some other places of St. Austin wherein he saith the unworthy Communicants receive the Sacrament of Christ's body but not his Body which argues the body at least not present with the Symbols Such that tract 26. in Johan Qui non
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